Newspaper clippings are offered to provide information and encourage conversation.
********************
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/w...20epa-web.html

E.P.A. Denies California Emission’s Waiver
By MICHELINE MAYNARD
Published: December 19, 2007

DETROIT — The Bush administration said Wednesday night that it would deny California's bid to set stricter vehicle emissions standards than federal law required as part of the state's efforts to fight climate change.

Stephen L. Johnson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said he planned to deny the state's application for a waiver from federal law that the state had sought more than two years ago.

"The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution — not a confusing patchwork of state rules," Mr. Johnson told reporters on a conference call. "I believe this is a better approach than if individual states were to act alone."

The E.P.A's decision was a victory for the American auto companies, and came just hours after President Bush signed legislation that will raise fuel economy standards by 40 percent to 35 miles a gallon in 2020.

Had the E.P.A. agreed to the waiver, California and other states would have enacted rules requiring the auto companies to achieve a 30 percent reduction of emissions by cars, trucks and sport utility vehicles by 2016. The rules were set to begin taking effect with 2009 model year vehicles, some of which go on sale as soon as next month.

Twelve states — Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington — have adopted the California emissions standards, and the governors of Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Utah have said they planned to do so.

The primary way for emissions to be reduced in automobiles is by improving fuel economy. Automakers must now achieve 27.5 m.p.g. for cars, and 22.2 m.p.g. for light trucks, including S.U.V.s and pickups.

California has long had separate standards governing automobile emissions, which carmakers say has made it more expensive to sell vehicles there.

The California regulations would have forced the car companies either to sell two separate fleets of vehicles — one for states with the higher standard, one that met the federal standard — or more likely, to achieve the higher standard across all vehicles.

State officials from California and the other states, including New York, had threatened to sue the E.P.A. in order to get a decision on the waiver, accusing it of dragging its heels. California first approved the regulations in 2003. Two years later, it submitted a request to the E.P.A. to put the standards into effect.

The agency initially argued that it did not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. But earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the agency could do so.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and the attorney general, Edmund G. Brown Jr., said Wednesday that they were prepared to "sue at the earlier possible moment" to try to force the E.P.A. to allow the state to set emissions standards.

Even if that happens, the states probably would not be able to implement the standards as soon as they had liked. Any legal action might not be settled in time for the regulations to begin taking effect in 2009, as California had hoped.

In recent months, the Bush administration has lost several major court cases over emissions and other environmental standards.

"This decision is like pulling over the fire trucks on their way to the blaze," said Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense, which supported the waiver. "For 40 years, E.P.A. administrators have recognized the important role that California plays in innovating new standards to fight pollution."

Automobile companies praised the agency for rejecting the California request. "We commend E.P.A. for protecting a national, 50-state program," said David McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

He went on, "Enhancing energy security and improving fuel economy are priorities to all automakers, but a patchwork quilt of inconsistent and competing fuel economy programs at the state level would only have created confusion, inefficiency, and uncertainty for automakers and consumers."

Mr. McCurdy said the new energy bill would result in a 30 percent reduction in automobile emissions by the time the law is fully in place.

In recent weeks, the chief executives of the Detroit auto companies had traveled to Washington to lobby for less-stringent regulations than the new law ultimately contained. The General Motors chief executive Rick Wagoner, Chrysler's chief executive Robert L. Nardelli and Ford's chief Alan R. Mulally met with Congressional representatives and Bush administration officials, including Vice President Richard Cheney, to discuss the legislation.

Industry analysts and environmental groups said the E.P.A.'s decision had the appearance of a reward to the industry, in return for dropping its opposition to the energy legislation. Indeed, the auto industry leaders all issued statements supporting the new energy law, which gives them more time to improve fuel economy than the California regulations would have done.

"By blocking the California standards, the administration has stuck a thumb in the eye of 18 governors from both red and blue states who have led the way on global warming by adopting these landmark rules," said David Doniger, climate center policy director for the National Resources Defense Council.

In a separate statement, James Lentz, the president of Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., added that it was "important that the U.S. E.P.A. has further clarified that the federal government is best suited to regulate fuel economy standards for the benefit of the entire nation."

But lawmakers and leaders from the states seeking to set their own regulations appeared uniformly outraged. Along with the vow by California leaders to sue, Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, said she was "prepared to take all measures to overturn this harmful decision"

--

NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use," without permission of the copyright owner. For more information go to: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml