Juliet Eilperin's got a really crackerjack story on the California waiver in the WaPo. It's devastating to Johnson. It also confirms a lot of stuff that I, a mere blogger, could only speculate about irresponsibly.
First of all, the EPA staff was foursquare against this decision:
EPA's lawyers and policy staff had reached the same conclusion [that the decision is "legally and technically unjustified and indefensible"], said several agency officials familiar with the process. In a PowerPoint presentation prepared for the administrator, aides wrote that if Johnson denied the waiver and California sued, "EPA likely to lose suit."
If he allowed California to proceed and automakers sued, the staff wrote, "EPA is almost certain to win."
The technical and legal staffs cautioned Johnson against blocking California's tailpipe standards, the sources said, and recommended that he either grant the waiver or authorize it for a three-year period before reassessing it.
"Nobody told the administration they support [a denial], and it has the most significant legal challenges associated with it," said one source, in an interview several hours before Johnson's announcement, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the official is not authorized to speak for the agency. "The most appropriate action is to approve the waiver."
Also, Johnson did in fact pull his figure for Cali's targets out of his rear:
Johnson said that California standards would produce a mileage average of 33.8 mpg by 2016, while the new federal energy law would require an average fleet fuel economy of 35 mpg by 2020. But California officials said EPA had miscalculated, estimating that its emissions standard would achieve an average of at least 36 mpg by 2016.
This is a first:
California, which is allowed under the Clean Air Act to set its own air pollution policies as long as it obtains an exemption from the federal government, had never been denied a waiver in the law's 37-year history.
Johnson's explanation for this historic first? Well, climate change is global -- greenhouse gases harm everyone, not just California exclusively. Thus, California cannot to anything to protect itself beyond what the feds allow. In other words, Johnson scarcely bothered to come up with an excuse at all.
Finally, getting Bill Reilly as a source was smart:
William K. Reilly, who served as EPA administrator under President George H.W. Bush and approved nine California waivers during that time, questioned why the administration challenged the state's historical role as an innovator in air pollution policy.
"What I want to know from the [administration] is: What possible grounds would there possibly be to deny California this waiver?" asked Reilly, who co-chairs the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy, a group of energy experts. "There's every reason to defer to California in making these decisions."
Poor Stephen Johnson. When he signed up for the job he was just another dutiful staff scientist at EPA. The Bush administration leeched away his credibility and integrity, as it does to all who submit to it. Can you remember an administration with a longer trail of discredited functionaries in its wake?
Comments
View as Flat
stevenearlsalmony Posted 8:43 pm
19 Dec 2007
Perhaps someone can explain...........
.............how a great democracy becomes perverted by a confederacy of dunces?
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 11:41 pm
19 Dec 2007
Legal question
Johnson makes the point that this is a federal jurisdictional issue because greenhouse gases are a global pollutant. This makes logical sense, but I'm not sure it makes legal sense. There is a rather lengthy precedent for the feds not getting involved in state electricity policy - from setting prices on wholesale rates to setting grid interconnection standards - on the argument that the federalist system allows federal oversight only where interstate commerce is involved, and the transaction between a utility and a local generator is an single state transaction. Many have argued (unsuccessfully) that the interconnected nature of our grid, lack of electron-level knowledge about the locations of state boundaries and the trans-state impacts of generation choices (including, but not limited to AGW) mandate federal oversight, but these arguments have consistently lost to the states-rights crowd.
My experience is that this federal-level punt on electricity policy has been massively costly, and explains why there is such a huge gap in energy efficiency between the states, in spite of broad agreement about what needs to be done. (And why the most prehistoric states are those in the southeast, where states-rights arguments carry particular resonance.) But if those arguments are valid and precedential, they would presumably apply equally to the transaction between a guy and his auto-dealer, no? Perhaps a lawyer out there in the Grist-i-verse can chime in?
Permalink