Details on the EPA chief overruling his staff on California tailpipe emissions 11

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   WarmingLaw Posted 8:37 am
   25 Jan 2008

   Johnson's rationaleThe sad thing is, the issue isn't even just whether Johnson overruled his staff (and I completely agree with the assessment here of how ridiculous he sounds)--it's that he's increasingly assuming a legal position that IT DOESN'T MATTER IF HE OVERRULED THEM. That's semantics, and his wily and dismissive tone yesterday demonstrated such a posture. In his view of Section 209 of the Clean Air Act, which was being applied here, the buck stops with him to make a reasonable interpretation, and since this is what he deems the right interpretation (even though its really bogus), that should cover him legally.
   Its an extreme and dangerous view, but that's what is looming behind all this, beyond the reality that Johnson ignored clear and convincing proof otherwise in the process.

   Permalink

2. 

   birdboy Posted 8:39 am
   25 Jan 2008

   protecting the right to polluteI don't get it- why does the law require states to show "compelling and extraordinary conditions" before they can enact laws which are more strict than the federal laws? If the goal of the EPA is to protect the environment, then any law which is more protective should not only be allowed, but encouraged!
   Perhaps they should re-name the Environmental Protection Agency, to avoid confusion- call them the Corporate Interest Protection Agency.
   
   a liberal in redsville

   Permalink

3. 

   JohnMashey Posted 11:04 am
   25 Jan 2008

   Some history for birdboy
   
   It is a reasonable wish on the part of businesses to avoid randomly different rules amongst the states.
   When Nixon (from California, sorry) created the EPA had already been regulating emissions, on the behalf of Los Angeles and other areas.  CA was granted a magic exemption that let it set stricter rules, but I suspect part of the price was some of the wording you're talking about.  CA has petitioned the EPA many times and they have always been approved until lately.
   If CA gets stricter rules, other states can either stick with the Federal rules, or copy CA's, i.e., there can be only 2 sets, not 50.
   
   
   This, of course, is why there are so many battles involving CA.  IF you do not want stricter rules, you MUST keep CA from setting them, first, because CA is a big enough market not to be ignored, and second, because other states can copy CA without having to ask anyone.
   I heard Bill Lockyer (CA Treasurer, previous AG) today.  He joked that his main job had been suing the Federal government, and that he'd piled up cases to keep Jerry Brown (current AG) busy for years.  
   
   -John Mashey

   Permalink

4. 

   GreenMom Posted 2:11 pm
   25 Jan 2008

   Important clarificationSection 209 of the Clean Air Act restricts states from setting standards for motor vehicle emissions; that's what California needs the waiver for.
   There is NO federal restriction on states' setting stricter air pollution standards on other emission sources (i.e. industry).  States are free to regulate industry as strictly as they want.
   Utilities, chemical plants, etc. are often regulated more strictly by states than by the federal government.
   On the other hand, more than half the states have passed their own state-level legislation preventing their own state regulators from writing rules more stringent than EPA's.  But in those cases, states have hamstrung themselves without help from the EPA.
   Just setting the record straight.  It doesn't make Stephen Johnson's behavior any less deplorable.

   Permalink

5. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 2:17 pm
   25 Jan 2008

   Worst case......there's also no law that restricts states from taxin' high-energy use vehicles (that I know of, sorry if there is).  Even if California fails to get a waiver through the lawsuit, they could always just levy a tax on SUVs and trucks, one so large that it's practically force most people to buy smaller vehicles, and thus reduce air pollution.
   Though I imagine such a tax would likely face huge legal challenges of its own.

   Permalink

6. 

   GreenMom Posted 2:26 pm
   25 Jan 2008

   Good point, Taser...
   
   I vaguely recall that years ago the California legislature passed a feebate program that would have rewarded fuel efficient cars while charging a fee on cars that are much less fuel efficient.  But the governor at the time vetoed it (I don't remember which governor -- I don't live there.  I'm pretty sure it was a Republican, though -- before Gray Davis).
   Anyway that, I believe, would have been perfectly legal.

   Permalink

7. 

   NSaggie Posted 4:23 pm
   25 Jan 2008

   FeebatesHere in Canada, our government instituted a program last year. The maximum rebate is $2000 for a car using less than 6.5 litres/100km and less than 8.3 litres/100km for vans/SUV, and the maximum levy is $4000 for passenger vehicles over 16 litres/100km.
   And now we have Transport Canada joining the 21st century with new fuel efficiency standards. Not likely because of a turn around from our Government's stance, but to closely match the standards your Congress recently passed, for ease of  trading no doubt. Laughably, they're calling them "Made-in-Canada" standards, but I expect they will match the Congressional CAFE standards.
   I suppose I could be optimistic and hope for California style standards, but that would require California winning their case before our Government acts, and our Government opting for a better option. I won't hold my breath.

   Permalink

8. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 4:41 pm
   25 Jan 2008

   Canadaian provinces......don't some of the individual Canadian provinces/territories have their own stricter emissions standrads?  Or was it that some provinces actually have GHG caps?

   Permalink

9. 

   DarthPetrol Posted 3:02 am
   26 Jan 2008

   Johnson did the right thingHad the EPA granted a waiver, such a move would have opened a regulatory can of worms.
   The waiver might have compelled EPA to declare CO2 a pollutant subject to PSD (prevention of significant deterioration) rules.  Those rules require states to regulate source of more than 250 tons per year. Fine you say - we should be controlling CO2.   Two hundred fifty tons is a lot of REAL pollutants like SO2, NOX, and particulates.  One would require a large power plant or industrial plant to trigger PSD.
   But the authors of the Clean Air Act NEVER imagined CO2 would be considered a pollutant (despite what the 5 Supremes said), otherwise they would have raised the PSD threshold.  At 250 tons of CO2 even a restaurant or small hotel now qualifies as a PSD polluter.  Controls would require BACT (Best Available Control Technology). Except that there is not standards for CO2 control. There is no way to control it except NOT to burn fuels.  The state would be inundated with thousands of CAA applications and throw tens of thousands of stationary point sources into regulation that previously weren't subject to these draconian measures.  
   I agree with others, if CA wanted higher fuel standards they could have used their state licensing laws instead of appealing to the EPA.
   The law of unintended consequences rules again. Thank you A dminstrator Johnson from saving us from the idiot judges and politicians who don't know what they are doing.

   Permalink

10. 

    GreenMom Posted 4:57 am
    26 Jan 2008

    Not quite right, DarthAs soon as EPA regulates CO2 in some way under the Clean Air Act, then PSD rules will apply.  I'm not sure whether granting a waiver to California counts as EPA regulating CO2.
    But that's kind of a technicality -- regardless, I think you're overstating the likely effects of PSD.
    PSD only applies to new stuff, or big additions to specific kinds of sources.  In theory EPA could be inundated, but in reality those kind of "draconian" consequences you fear never come to pass.  There's always ways around that kind of extreme regulatory consequence -- lobbyists love to fear-monger about those possibilities, but they never come to pass.
    It reminds of me of back when Congress was debating cap-and-trade for acid rain in 1990, and the utilities swore it bring American industry down.  

    Permalink

11. 

    Lisa P Posted 7:01 pm
    05 Dec 2008

    Dont be Desperate!It is right to act fast in this kind of trouble. But acting desperately may lead to a wrong action. Most of desperate times call for desperate measures.  Your desperate times may call for payday loans.  If only it were that simple for California. California's state budget is desperately in need of desperate measures.  They are already several billion dollars in deficit, and forecasters are looking at the possibility of a $30 billion deficit by next summer. What has happened to the California budget?  Southern California wildfires with thousands of homes destroyed, the downturn in the national economy, the collapse of their housing market which means a loss of revenue from property taxes, loss of industrial output, slowed job market--is that enough? Governor Schwarzenegger is telling his lawmakers that they better get something done about this quickly. Do you need to do something quickly about your financial situation? Click to read more on http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/installment-loans ... Loans.

    Permalink