EPA head takes our advice, skips meeting with Sen. Boxer
Recently, I told you that California Senator Barbara Boxer invited EPA head Stephen Johnson to a field meeting today, January 10th. I joked then "If I were Steve, I would try to catch the flu before January 10 or settle on some other reason not to go." Well, Stephen must read AutoblogGreen because he did not show up today. Barbara did leave a chair empty just in case. Barbara also put out an empty box labeled "EPA Documents" because Stephen did not send the documents she asked for either.What do you think readers? Was it Sen. Boxer's fault for not RSVP'ing when Stephen might have caught the flu? Or maybe Stephen was picking up another award today like he is in the picture on the right from the auto industry? All joking aside, do you think this was a failure of our checks and balances system or do you feel the field meeting would have been all-for-show anyway?
Related:
- Video: EPA head ignored entire staff in denying CA waiver says Sen. Boxer
- VP Cheney met with automakers before EPA denied CA waiver
- Pelosi to EPA head on CA waiver denial: "I vigorously disagree with your rationale," "strongly support the inquiry"
- President Bush explains why EPA denied California's waiver to regulate tailpipe emissions
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Mort 6:46PM (1/10/2008)
Boxer is one of 533 other maggots in congreffs. She isn't going to make anything better. She is totally pwned. Congreffs is as worthless as teats on a bull.
Reply
Mort 6:46PM (1/10/2008)
Boxer is one of 533 other maggots in congreffs. She isn't going to make anything better. She is totally pwned. Congreffs is as worthless as teats on a bull.
Reply
susan.kraemer 7:25PM (1/10/2008)
Boxer is the best Senator on climate change, and is the chair of the Environment Committee. If we had 10 more Democrats in the Senate she could have passed a terrific energy bill.
She has berated, begged, badgered, entreated, yelled at and generally dissed Johnson in numerous hearings on the Hill, though, so he probably felt she can't do this back home during recess too!
But January 2009, I hope we can show him the door!
Even more important than who is president, is getting a majority in the Senate.
Reply
ganapatidave 9:32PM (1/11/2008)
Yes, come January 2009 when we have a filabuster proof majority of democrats in the senate we will be able to make some real progress in developing alternative energy and providing incentives for creating jobs in green technologies.
Reply
Lad 1:50AM (1/11/2008)
This could be a laughing matter were the future of the world not at stake.
The head of the EPA works at the pleasure of the President and carries out the policies of the President. This President has a deal with the automobile manufactures, so has directed the EPA to stonewall California, regardless of what the EPA staff has recommended. Nothing will change until we get a new President who hasn't sold his soul to the Big Business/Lobbyist devils.
Reply
Owain Ozymandias Buck 8:50AM (1/11/2008)
The manufacturers can be brought around to whatever emission standards we agree on. The key thing is a common standard we ca agree on. This will make it easier for the mfgs. and get us a good standard at the same time.
I don't believe I've ever heard of a Californian stand up for states' rights before.
Reply
Tim 9:11AM (1/11/2008)
susan.kraemer- You are blinded by the party line, comrade. Boxer is making global warming worse with all that useless hot air. She's a top-down big government socialist who believes in federal control until she doesn’t believe in federal control. Sound familiar? You are so blinded by your hatred that you can’t step back and look at the bid picture. They are ALL traitors because they ignore their oaths to obey and defend the Constitution by giving aid and comfort to an invading army of illegal aliens who are threatening to bring down our economy and bankrupt our very way of life. You don't understand that you’re helping too.
Reply
regguy 10:13AM (1/11/2008)
Perhaps this will help clarify the "waiver mystery" for those not privy to the workings of our system:
- In the past, EPA has granted waivers to California for stricter emissions regulations necessary because of CALIFORNIA'S UNIQUE GEOGRAPHY AND VEHICLE CONCENTRATIONS...not because California has an inherent right and/or inclination to pass stricter regs.
- Global warming from man-created green house gases (GHG) whether real or not, is not from a unique geographic issue facing California. Global does not mean California.
- The EPA Administrator was obligated to deny the California GHG waiver IF he believed that a Federal (50 State) regulation would be as/more effective than a California GHG reg. IMPORTANT: This is a consequence of the Supreme Court decision that EPA is REQUIRED by law to determine if GHG regs. are necessary. This decision triggered the President's Executive Order to EPA/NHTSA/DOE to craft a proposal for determination and regulation of GHG.
- The EPA staffers who believe the California waiver should have been granted are saying: "We the EPA and the US Congress are not able to complete an appropriate GHG reg. that reduces the US global contribution, so California's reg. should be adopted. Further, we EPA staffers are unnecessary...just let California do our jobs."
- The EPA Administrator must now show that the new Energy bill passed in Dec., or that bill plus an added regulation from EPA/NHTSA/DOE (they have been working on one) is better OVERALL for reduction of GHG than the California reg.
In summary:
The Supreme Court decision interpreted the law to specify that an agency in the Executive Branch under the President, the EPA (not any State), is responsible for GHG regulations. The President, by Supreme Court interpretation of laws passed by Congress, is responsible for determination of GHG regulations.
It is legal and appropriate that the Executive Branch decide the California waiver on the merits of California's unique situation, the same as for earlier rulings.
Reply
Steve 10:50AM (1/11/2008)
"The EPA Administrator was obligated to deny the California GHG waiver IF he believed that a Federal (50 State) regulation would be as/more effective than a California GHG reg."
By extension then, he's also obligated to grant the waiver if California's program would be more effective, right?
And since California's program is, indeed, more ambitious than the lagging federal regulations are, doesn't that mean that he is ignoring his legal obligations?
Reply
Whopper 1:56PM (1/11/2008)
"By extension then, he's also obligated to grant the waiver if California's program would be more effective, right?
And since California's program is, indeed, more ambitious than the lagging federal regulations are, doesn't that mean that he is ignoring his legal obligations?"
The effectiveness of a regulation is not only related to it's level of ambition but also to the ability of those responsible to comply. Within the regulatory community there is a complete lack of business and technical experience from which they can draw conclusions.
Reply
regguy 3:48PM (1/11/2008)
Steve,
You are correct in suggesting that he is obligated to decide in an honest and diligent manner like any person in such a responsible position. The fact that California GHG regs. are more stringent FOR THAT VEHICLE SUBSET does not automatically make them better for the country. For example, a 50 State regulation that affects more vehicle miles traveled and/or allows for a greater NET benefits would justify the waiver. This is what will be battled in the courts in the coming months.
It is true that more than just California adopted the rules, but a 50 State rule affecting every new vehicle on a miles-traveled basis could be more effective than even a 12 State rule.
Remember that the just-passed Energy bill has overall targets for auto. fuel economy but the details of the attribute-based regulations are not even begun to be compiled.
Why did the EPA deny the waiver now and not wait for the details of a new reg? Likely because they didn't want their people tied up in courts answering "what's taking so long to at least respond?"
Reply
Dad 6:22PM (1/11/2008)
"do you feel the field meeting would have been all-for-show anyway?"
Boxer? It was all show and no go. As usual.
Reply