Congress scrutinizes EPA decision to deny states' rights over regulating emissions
Any celebration over having passed a new national energy bill with requirements to raise Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards to 35 mpg by 2020 was instantly tempered when the EPA denied the right of California and 16 other states to set their own emissions standards. California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger immediately vowed to fight back and sue the EPA over its decision.It does seem a little odd that after opposing any kind of raise in CAFE standards, the auto industry suddenly got in line and unanimously offered its support for the version of the bill that was passed, especially after the EPA made its decision that seems to favor the interests of the auto industry over protecting the environment.
The situation seems odd enough that Congress has decided to get involved. The House Oversight Committee yesterday requested any and all internal and external communication from the EPA involving the decision it made to deny states the right to set their own emissions standards. The decision itself came down to EPA administrator Stephen Johnson, who some report ignored the unanimous recommendation of his own advisors in turning down California's request.
Read our own analysis after the jump.
[Source: The Detroit News]
Truthfully, we actually agree with the EPA's decision to unify the nation's emissions standards, though we don't think the EPA should've been the agency thrown under the bus. If states were allowed to set their own emissions standards, imagine how difficult it would be for automakers to potentially produce 50 versions of the same car to sell. Even if only a few distinct standards arose, the cost would still be astronomical. That money could be better spent keeping people employed and developing cleaner technologies. Secondly, it's one thing for states to exercise their own power, but the California Air Resources Board, as much good as it's done for the state, should not have the power to dictate the environmental policy of a nation. Unfortunately, we understand that many believe the new national emissions standards aren't strong enough, not nearly as strong as what California wants to adopt (a 30-percent reduction in vehicle tailpipe emissions by 2016). But it is what it is: a major step forward. If it came at the expense of states' rights, in this instance we're OK with that.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Avinash machado 11:33AM (12/21/2007)
Was it not Arnie who popularized the Hummer among civilian buyers way back when he was in Hollywood?
Reply
Andy 11:38AM (12/21/2007)
He now has a H2H. Hydrogen Hummer.
http://www.forbes.com/vehicles/2005/01/04/cx_dl_0104vow.html
CEMan 11:40AM (12/21/2007)
No Need to imagine anything. California has had it's own standard for years. And the makers have met it. Nothing new here. Although, I must say, I am for one national standrd myself. A bigger issue is that this administration doe snot ant to control CO2 in anyway shape or form. No matter what the law is.
Think Progress is reporting that Darth Cheney had multiple meetings with Auto Execs prior to the Administration signing the Energy Bill.
But there is no Quid-Pro-Quo.
Reply
howard 2:26AM (12/22/2007)
Sounds to me like Stephen Johnson is another George W. Bush puppet not wanting to listen to his advisors or people who know what their talking about! He's going to be the "DECIDER" and that's that!
RB 10:30PM (12/22/2007)
Congratulations on your editorial. It is spot on.
The differing state standards have kept promising technologies out of the market for too long now. Diesel standards need to be rationalized so as to take advantage of currently available technologies which will reduce oil consumption rather than dreaming of some perfect version that is not available. The EU is very aware of both the need for clean air and fuel economy and has balance the two in a fair way, while encouraging progress in the future. We should simply use their existing standards and reap the benefits of getting in excess of 40 MPG in the mean time.
Reply
Travis 11:45AM (12/21/2007)
Sorry, there's not even "a few distinct standards", there's 2. The CAFE standards will affect more than half of the cars being sold in the US today. If automakers are really pouring millions and millions of dollars down the drain trying to design for 2 different standards, just go for the more stringent one and stop whining.
Reply
Devin 11:57AM (12/21/2007)
The point is, giving California the power to set their own standards allows any other state to do the same. That means you could have tougher standards implemented in a different state every six months, every year, every two years etc. The auto industry would have to redesign its cars each time a tougher standard is introduced in a state in order to meet that standard. The price would be VERY high and detrimental to the auto industry which could in turn be detrimental to interstate commerce which in turn gives the government the power to tell the states they can't make their own standards (provided the states don't have huge amounts of evidence showing that their standard is absolutely necessary)
Solo Racer 3:05PM (12/21/2007)
Devin, your argument is a straw man. California has been setting standards for nearly 40 years. When other states wanted something stricter/more effective/more to their liking/political advantage, they went with what CARB already had developed.
h8rain 11:55AM (12/21/2007)
I support the EPA for once in this. One standard will hopefully allow more cars that we would normally not see on shores to be developed for that *ONE* standard. The fact that a single state can in a sense override the federal government never seemed right to me.
I am hoping this will allow for the Smart ForTwo diesel to be brought over to the US. High MPG without convoluted hybrid systems. :) (yes diesel output more CO2, but if you think that is such a big problem *cough*hippie*cough*, then plant some more trees that live on CO2.
Reply
goat 5:08PM (12/23/2007)
Diesel engines typically emit 30% *less* CO2 than an equivalent gasoline engine.
The issue with modern diesels is NOx, which is really a strawman, given the current balance of NOx to VOCs.
Celltribe 6:42PM (1/12/2008)
You and devin along with the rest of you fools who didnt bother to research what you are talking about should shut the hell up with our "ONE"standard crap. And as far as individual states shouldn't be able to "trump" the federal govt as you say, it has always been the right of individual states to set their own standards not the federal governments'. It's called a waiver and it has historically been given ALWAYS. Now along comes the corporate baby Bush government propped up by the big three and of course their oil barons with a weak as hell standard and all of a SUDDEN California is a dissenter? Wake up fools they have been making three to four different versions of the same car for decades. Two for the US one for Canada and the last for export to other markets. this is nothing new just that they don't want to roll out the 80 mile a gallon lincolns when it's just as eas to keep making the crap you morons buy now. PS they were making 35 milr per gallon V8 cars in the 70's after the oil crisis why cant they make 60 mile per gallon V8's now? The can but they won't. And like spoiled rich kids they whine and you sheeple come running to their defense. I hope you don't have children you want to leave your filthy world too.....
Jason 12:06PM (12/21/2007)
This opinion demonstrates an unfortunate and complete lack of understanding of the Clean Air Act. California is the ONLY state that is legally allowed to set stricter emissions standards than the Federal government (after obtaining a waiver). Other states have the option of conforming to either the central governments rules, or those of California. Thus it would be impossible to have so many distinct rules as to make the cost of adhering to them prohibitive.
Second, the CARB's proposed rules would be the first that actually set genuine emissions limits, as opposed to this nebulous notion of 'fleet average' mileage. So, in some sense, if California had been given the waiver, there would really only be ONE 'emissions' standard that would apply.
Third, California together with the 17 states that have indicated they would like to adopt these stricter standards, would consist of more than half of the population of the U.S. So, it's almost laughable to consider the new CAFE rules the 'national' standard.
Finally, as you had already noted, the administrator of the EPA may have single-handedly been responsible for the denial of the waiver, without regard to the fact that there was little legal justification for such action. In the end, this may well be overturned in court (as was the opinion of legal experts at the EPA).
So, this has nothing to do with 'unifying the nation's emission's standards.' Let's just call a spade a spade, and place this whole affair on the appropriate shelf, under "Obstructionist Policy of the Bush Administration." Maybe then we can get back to more important things, like making better cars.
Reply
YouFaceTheTick 12:22PM (12/21/2007)
spot on post Jason. The people pushing this notion of differing state standards are creating a straw man argument.
The courts will overturn this as there's a clear precedence set that California's CARB can set standards. They existed before the EPA and unlike any other state had taken action on emissions (catalytic converter anyone?) long before the feds or anyone else gave a damn.
Devin 1:09PM (12/21/2007)
and you think California having that "privilege" is fair?
It's not, which gives any other state credibility to petition for the ability to set their own standards or abolish California's standards.
Cornholio 1:11PM (12/21/2007)
Well said. California's efforts for better emissions standards, along with the other states that adopted them, effectively demonstrate the will of the people.
That the Bush administration continues to stonewall progress in this arena is, unfortunately, not surprising. Oh for some real leadership....
Rob 2:49PM (12/21/2007)
Yeah the Bush admin really sucks and hates the environment! Liberal loonies keep pushing this EPA/CARB crap on us. The fact that they make this their number one issue when it comes to global warming shows how full of BS they are. They only give a hoot about this because it is easy to convince the uneducated to join their side. They talk about polluting trucks and SUVs, the price of gas and the Bush administrations connection to big oil as the cause of global warming. Then they talk about republican resistance against new regulations as proof they hate the environment. This is the political BS that shows me how incompetent everyone in the government is. If we reduce CO2 emissions from our cars (in the US) by 50% we only reduce global CO2 emissions by 3%! Thats fine and great as a minor step but the environmentalists would have you believe this would all but reverse global warming. They tout strong action now as the only way to stop and possibly reverse global warming. Well if they were really serious this would not be their #1 battle. From this I gather that the sole reason they fight so hard for this is for ballot day gains. Its far easier to make oil an election topic than green energy for our homes, which would have have a far greater impact on CO2 emissions. You say the republicans aren't serious about global warming? While neither are the democrats and we should all be pissed about this. This energy bill is just smoke and mirrors to fool people into believing they are taking action. The only action our government is taking is inaction, and its happening regardless who you vote for.
Solo Racer 3:33PM (12/21/2007)
Devin and others,
This decision doesn't prevent CARB from doing what it has been doing for several decades. It's about CO2 and only CO2. As for diesels, every automaker that has talked about bringing a clean diesel to the U.S. has said it will be a 50-state legal engine.
As for whether California has the right set its own standards, yes it does. CARB existed before the EPA, so its rights were grandfathered. I have several friend who grew up in SoCal in the 60s. Smog was a HUGE problem. Even when Reagan was governor in the early '70s, he didn't see it as an issue. But, that was when Republicans believed in states' rights. I pretty sure that belief will come back if the Democrats win the White House next year.
Solo Racer 3:39PM (12/21/2007)
This should read: Even when Reagan was governor in the early '70s, he didn't see *CARB vs. EPA* as an issue. But, that was when Republicans believed in states' rights. I pretty sure that belief will come back if the Democrats win the White House next year.
And Rob,
Have you ever done any thinking for yourself or do you just swallow Rush and his ilk spew forth? This administration's record on the environment would have been an embarrassment even to Reagan.
Rob 12:06PM (12/22/2007)
OK solo racer, you keep thinking that strict EPA or CARB regulations will save the environment. I am a realist. I see both parties actions to help the environment as an ebarrassment. While republicans ignore the envrionmental issues altogether, democrats talk about strong, swift action needed to curb global warming then bring this to us as the triumph of the century. Chances are there will be more cars on the road in 2020 than today so while each car will pollute less, total from all cars would increase. I mean this wont even cut 1% off our emmissions. So much for strong and swift. When green, renewable energy for our homes is the major issure I'll take notice. The focus falls on automobiles because it's far easier to make an issue out of oil. I have NEVER heard a single Rush livin in Limbo show. You are using a typical smear tactic. I'm obviously a bible thumpin conservative. You can tell because I want green energy and see the new EPA regulations as a grossly inadequate step to stop global warming. Doubling our electricity production from clean, renewable sources will have a much greater effect than a fleet average of 35mpg. You need to think for yourself solo racer. Go to college. Get a degree in something worthwhile, not the cake walk Political Science BA students with low IQs go for.
Sean Morris 12:33PM (12/21/2007)
Get rid of the ARB. Californias double standards are not needed. Whats needed is one single standard that automakers must meet.
Making two standards just raises costs for the automakers , and realistically , the requirements are just fractions of percentages different.
California feels the need to be at the fore front of "emissions" , when they really don't want cleaner air. If you want to look something up , like an illegal tax that California had on vehicles that came into California, look at the smog impact fee. $300 charge that they had for years. They didn't want your car to try and meet California standards, they wanted you to pay $300.
Same thing for any of these other standards. Regulating C02 ? Next they will be telling people they can only take a breath every 30 seconds,to reduce their C02 emissions.
Get real , hug a tree, and leave the auto industry alone.
Reply