 |
In the Politics of the Bush EPA, the Environment — and all of us — are Losers |
 |
You may recall back in December when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denied the state of California its petition to institute plans to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. This ruling, by EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, was made over the objections of the EPA’s own professional and legal staff. It was a curious and disappointing decision at the time — and Senator Barbara Boxer, in her capacity as the Chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, demanded that all documents concerning the decision be turned over to her staff. This past week the Committee released many of the documents and they tell a tale of politics and willful ignorance over the needs and desires of the people of California, as well as the other 17 states that want to implement their own, tougher greenhouse gas emissions programs.
The EPA documents tell an interesting story — that Johnson was obviously pressured by someone in the White House to deny California’s request for a waiver to the Clean Air Act so that the state could implement their program — that this pressure primarily came due to outside lobbying from the auto manufacturers — and that the internal EPA staff tried hard to justify a waiver, but could not even under the strong pressure pressed upon them. When the waiver was denied on December 19 of last year, it was done under the guise of three main reasons: That there shouldn’t be a”confusing patchwork” of state rules for attacking the greenhouse gas problem; That California didn’t show that its problems were unique enough to have its own plan; and, California’s proposal was weaker when it came to automobile mileage standards than the new federal CAFE standards.
All these rationales have been shown to be false.
In the 37 year history of the Clean Air Act, California had never been denied a waiver before. In fact, California had usually been considered an innovator when it came to its environmental programs such that the federal government viewed it as a laboratory for new environmental programs.
The EPA documents show that the legal staff there had three tests to determine whether a waiver request should be denied:
- Was California “Arbitrary and Capricious” in determining that its standards were at least as stringent as federal standards? California’s detailed documentation as to how they developed their plan alone should have made this point moot, though the irony here is that this factor was obviously initially created to prevent the weakening of Clean Air standards by states, while the Bush EPA is obviously done to opposing the stronger California standards.
- Does California need its own state standards to meet compelling or extraordinary conditions? Considering the overall output of Greenhouse gases in California compared to other states, the reasons for its own standards should be obvious. The EPA’s own PowerPoint presentation discussing the matter states that since the Clean Air Act was passed, California has been considered to have its own unique circumstances that are compelling and extraordinary when concerning environmental issues, which is why it has never been denied a waiver.
- Has California provided the necessary lead time so that the appropriate technology can be developed and that state certification requirements are in line with federal requirements? The presentation in itself states that California has provided evidence that the technology already exists. And the presentation concludes that “it will be hard to argue that feasible CA [Greenhouse Gas] standards are inconsistent with [the EPA waiver regulations].”
It is easy to see that if these are the criteria, then the waiver must be granted. Yet, despite a staff that explains that there is no basis for not granting a waiver (the documents consistently show that the burden of proof is on those who wish to deny a waiver), the EPA Administrator does not allow the California program to go through.
To try to justify the denial, as it was understood that this would be a very unpopular decision, the incredibly lame claim was made that the California standards were actually weaker than federal ones. This, as you would guess, does not stand up to scrutiny. The EPA Administrator claimed that the mileage standards were lower than the new federal CAFE standards, with CA’s being 33.8 mpg by 2016, while the federal goal is 35 mpg for a car fleet by 2020. California officials demonstrated, however, that the EPA miscalculated (on purpose? we do not know) and that the real CA standard was 36 mpg by 2016. The California system would also attack tailpipe emissions rather than gas consumption as the federal law does, with experts noting that the state’s tailpipe method is more comprehensive.
So with the weight of evidence on the side of granting the waiver, and the EPA’s lawyers determining that the Agency would lose any legal challenge to its ruling, why did the Johnson go ahead and deny the waiver? In the Talking Points section of one of the released memos from EPA staff to Johnson, we get something of an answer: “From what I have read and the people I have talked to, it is obvious to me there is no legal or technical justification for denying this. The law is very specific about what you are allowed to consider, and even if you adopt the alternative interpretations that have been suggested by the automakers, you still wind up in the same place.”
The pressure on the EPA by the automakers and the political animals in the White House must have been tremendous, but that is no excuse for Johnson. He had an out to grant a three-year waiver and basically punt to the next Administration, but he chose the full denial. While we are well aware of the politicization of so many of the decisions by the scientific agencies in the Bush Administration, there are still people in those agencies that resent it. As the Talking Points in that memo ends:
This is a choice only you can make but I ask you to think about the history and the future of the agency in making it. If you are asked to deny this waiver, I fear the credibility of the agency that we both love will be irreparably damaged.
In January, California filed a legal challenge to the EPA denial in court. Understanding that the legal process will take a while, Senator Boxer has introduced her own bill to allow the state to implement their program. The bill, S. 2555 already has 22 cosponsors and Boxer is seeking more. And it is important to remember that the denial of the California waiver is preventing 17 other states from also implementing their own anti-Greenhouse gas programs.
I will keep watching the status of this issue but would like to see in comments thoughts that others have.
Thanks for the update, I had wondered where that issue was going to go.
To me, this is unfortunate, but also fairly unsurprising. Bush seems to be focused on two main things as his term draws to a close, covering his ass and making it as hard as possible for the next administration to change anything. This example falls in the latter camp.
What is the law? Can this be changed by the next administration if the denial stands?