EPA denies California waiver on tailpipe emissions.
EPA denies California waiver on tailpipe emissions.
“U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson today denied California’s long-standing request for a waiver from federal law to be able to implement its own landmark regulations to slash greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.” At issue were “tailpipe standards California adopted in 2004 that would force automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016.” The EPA said it did not find that separate California standards are needed to “meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.” Grist has more on the decision.
UPDATE: Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) issued the following statement: “EPA’s decision ignores the law, science, and commonsense. This is a policy dictated by politics and ideology, not facts. The Committee will be investigating how and why this decision was made.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
37 Responses to “EPA denies California waiver on tailpipe emissions.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I thought republicans were states rights advocates. Guess not.
December 19th, 2007 at 7:21 pmCorporate privilege trumps states rights.
December 19th, 2007 at 7:24 pmF@cking disgraceful
THis country is f@cked
What the F3ck is wrong with the country when the mutha f@cking EPA.... STOPS A CURB ON EMISSIONS... ?
Jesus H christ. .. why dont the repeal the botle bill recycling in states that have it and repeal the catalytic converter law...
A**HOLES !
THEY SHOULD CALL IT THE SElL OUT TO INDUSTRY POLLUTERS LOBBY INSTEAD OF THE EPA
December 19th, 2007 at 7:25 pmIt's the ENVIRONMENTAL Protection Agency, Stupid.
December 19th, 2007 at 7:33 pm“EPA’s decision ignores the law, science, and commonsense. This is a policy dictated by politics and ideology, not facts.
Just like everything else republicans do.
December 19th, 2007 at 7:39 pmExploiters Protection Agency
December 19th, 2007 at 7:41 pmSo much for State's rights. I thought that the GOP was all about State's rights. So what's up with all of a sudden the Federal Government is the supreme being?
December 19th, 2007 at 7:43 pmMight as well turn the lights off at the EPA; there ain't nobody home.
December 19th, 2007 at 7:49 pmWill be interesting to see what Ahhnuld has to say about it. He's fairly progressive when it comes to the environment.
December 19th, 2007 at 7:50 pmWhat happened to the "States' Rights" the R's used to advocate so vociferously?
Always a double standard. Always a false choice to make, Always a mobile goalpost at the end of a tilted field...
today's GOP - 100% incoherent, 100% of the time.
December 19th, 2007 at 7:54 pmEverything is political to this administration. EVERYTHING.
December 19th, 2007 at 8:28 pmDon't get your panties in a bunch. The new CAFE legislation that the President just signed goes a long way towards what CA was trying to achieve, so it's not like everything stays the same.
Bottom line, US and foreign automakers can't possibly be prepared to respond to the requirements of 50 different states. Given that even a large state like CA only represents 10% of the total US market, auto companies simply can't prepare their product development plans while various states try to fiddle with federal regulations.
Keep your powder dry for something more substantive, and cheer for your Dems to find a solution to help all states develop "clean" and/or renewable sources of electricity next year.
December 19th, 2007 at 8:34 pmThat was me giving you an attaboy, Jason, 'cause you're right.
December 19th, 2007 at 8:39 pmYour Bush crime family hard at work at destroying planet Earth, North America and the US of A. Or at least speeding up said destruction...
December 19th, 2007 at 8:40 pm#12, Nevar,
Thanks, I don't recall that I've ever gotten a recommendation on this or any other blog. I did have a real good run on myDD for a short bit, at least getting some people to laugh, but still, no kudos.
December 19th, 2007 at 8:46 pmThat was me giving you an attaboy, Jason, ’cause you’re right.
Comment by Nevar — December 19, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
Except for the part about the CAFE standards, which were gutted again. Or the fact that California already has stricter standards and auto manufacturers have managed to meet them. Sorry, my feathered friend, but you're wrong on this one.
For one thing, it wasn't "California" but instead California and other states (including blessed Oregon) looking for the EPA exemption. Just because the federal government has been bought and paid for by big corporations doesn't mean that individual states shouldn't have the right to be more progressive -- on any number of issues. If auto manufacturers don't want to meet those standards, fine, they don't have to sell cars in those states. Isn't that how the free market is supposed to work?
December 19th, 2007 at 8:50 pmYeah, well don't let it go to your head.
December 19th, 2007 at 8:50 pmYou are simply experiencing a moment of lucidity.
Try to remember how you got to it, and try again.
With practice, seeing clearly and rationally will become true nature.
Dang, wrong again.....
December 19th, 2007 at 8:52 pmre Jason,
December 19th, 2007 at 8:55 pmYou're assuming there wasn't a secret signing statement that makes compliance voluntary and awards additional tax cuts to hummer drivers or oil executives...
I guess living in a blessed state, as opposed to an enchanted state, can have literary effects. ;)
December 19th, 2007 at 8:57 pmWhat about a potato state...? ;)
December 19th, 2007 at 9:00 pmWould that be considered a vegetative state?
(Nahhhhh........ ;)
December 19th, 2007 at 9:03 pmHeh.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:05 pm*BLEEP* THIS GAWDDAMNED WORTHLESS, REPUG DOMINATED, CORPORATE WHORE, SORRY EXCUSE FOR AN ADMINISTRATION!!!!!!!
I have had it with a country of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:10 pmJust another day in the shrubs.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:58 pmI demand to know why Nevar is bashing New Mexico.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:09 pmSo Hendler sez, "Don't get yer panities in a bunch"...
Funny, that's the first thing he thinks to say... project much, Jason?
(Just asking...)
****
Bottom line, US and foreign automakers can’t possibly be prepared to respond to the requirements of 50 different states.
****
Gee, Jason, they were only given NINE years to reach the targets. And, mebbe, just mebbe, if CA's regulations had been allowed to go forward, the other states might have followed, so the poor auto makers would only have to match one set of requirements after all.
****
Given that even a large state like CA only represents 10% of the total US market...
****
Riiight... nice evasive, meaningless answer, seeing as that 10% of the auto market is concentrated in FAR LESS than 10% of the country, and the point of the regs was to make life better for the people living here, and not put a cruel and unusual burden on the poor auto makers. Sniff... snifff...
****
auto companies simply can’t prepare their product development plans while various states try to fiddle with federal regulations.
****
Meanwhile, the Japanese auto makers continue to kick the American auto makers' big, fat dumb*asses because they were willing to plan ahead and work on hybrids and bite the bullet on development costs.
"Reported sales of hybrids in the US in November rose 82% year-on-year to reach 33,233 total units, representing 2.8% of all light-duty vehicles sold during the month.
Total light-duty vehicle sales in the US dropped 1.6%."
An 82% increase in hybrids while total sales dropped slightly shows a very encouraging trend.
An 82% increase....
Whilst US makers are doing this (putting hybrids out), the Japanese still lead the parade.
We're No 2! We're No 2! We're No 2!
December 19th, 2007 at 10:26 pmOh good. Another hearing. Let’s all watch Stephen Johnson get his ass reamed. Got popcorn?
December 19th, 2007 at 10:31 pm...was just reading about this actually :/
42 USC 7543(b)(1) grants a waiver to states creating their own vehicle emission standards prior 3/30/1966...of which only CA was. Other states can adopt theirs as the only other option [42 USC 7507].
CA's standards must be "...in the aggregate, at least as protective of the public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards". Waiver can be denied if either: (b)(1)(A) determination of the State is arbitrary and capricious; (B) such State does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or"; inconsistent with 42 USC 7521(a)...basically the spirit of the federal emissions regulation.
Challenge of this will likely be successful b/c this is nearly identical to MA v EPA [549 US 1438 (2007)]. Both use "shall" to require an EPA action. There, the EPA declared it wouldn't regulate CO2 emissions b/c it hadn't identified a causal connection to climate change. Promsingly, the court required a compelling reason why EPA wouldn't keep investigating. They couldn't, and lost.
Here's a taste of that:
§202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, which requires that the EPA“shall by regulation prescribe . . . standards applicable to the emis-sion of any air pollutant from any class . . . of new motor vehicles . . . which in [the EPA Administrator’s] judgment cause[s], or contrib-ute[s] to, air pollution . . . reasonably . . . anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,â€
So the EPA will claim this time that it's confident there's no causal relationship b/w car emissions and climate change. Or possibly that climate change isn't a "compelling and extraordinary condition".
I'm sure CA can show at least a single current condition to meet that threshold...such as species and coastline loss that can't be traditionally defended against.
Oh, but i'm sure there's a 'war on christmas' that needs my attention ;/
December 19th, 2007 at 11:06 pmWe’re No 2! We’re No 2! We’re No 2!
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — December 19, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
OT but considering where your healthcare ranking is, #2 in auto sales sounds pretty good.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:07 pmJason you can always blame US healthcare costs for the US auto industry's problems.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:23 pm"Don’t get your panties in a bunch. The new CAFE legislation that the President just signed goes a long way towards what CA was trying to achieve, so it’s not like everything stays the same."
Are you really that gullible or are you just evil? The Bushies have done this twice to Wisconsin so far. One, mercury levels in the water. Wisconsin wanted to restrict it further than the pro-pollution Republican feds but it wasn't allowed. Two, they overrode Wisconsin's excellent health program (Badgercare) for the working poor. I have not seen the feds "trying to achieve" anything close to these two programs. Grow up and read something.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:18 amI really adore Henry Waxman and regret that I was redistricted out of his district. Not quite gerrymandering because I am still in a district with a Democrat Congressman, but few people can match Henry Waxman for integrity, gumption, etc.
December 20th, 2007 at 7:32 amAnd millions of Americans will continue to vote against their best interests, manipulated through hot-button-issue management plus a large dollop of opposition-voter-suppression.
December 20th, 2007 at 7:40 amI thought republicans were states rights advocates. Guess not.
Comment by StratRat
No, the Republicans gave up any allusions to that false premise when they went to the Supreme Court in 2000 to stop the state of Florida from counting their votes.
December 20th, 2007 at 10:15 amRegardless of the EPA Decision, we as consumers need to be proactive by striving to meet or surpass California's tail pipe standards for 2009.
What car models currently meet or surpass the new California standards?
December 20th, 2007 at 4:46 pmRepublicans started to stop being state rights advocates about the time of the Civil War, and the Republic was officially destroyed by a Democrat in 1913 with the Fed being created , creation of the Income tax and changes to how our Senators were elected; instead of being elected by the state legislature the critters were allowed to vote, and then they gave, gulp, she-critters the right to vote for the cute ones ( just joking, joking, joking).
If California passes a tough law, manufacturers have a right not to sell product there or they wil sell it at a higher price. If Californians suffer as a result, the law changes. Thats what you call a free market. What happens though, is because California is such a big market, they meet their requirements, and the whole country benefits since in many cases it is not
prudent to try separate product by each state, so they make the product to the toughest states requirements (actually, for the smaller states, thye usually ignore them).
Frankly, just divide up the country into 10 regions and let FEMA run them, and do away with the states, thats probably the plan anyways. Congress is irrelevant, so let them stay home w/o wasting our money, then we won't need any lobbyists to bribe them and companies can earn more profit. Just elect the President every 4 years to be a decider on what country to invade next and give all of government functions to the big companies, which is essentially what we are doing anyways, isn't it.
December 21st, 2007 at 2:40 am