Staffers Warn About Credibility of the Agency
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) called the EPA "an agency in crisis" today, and released memos written by EPA staff to Stephen Johnson last year. Agency staff warned EPA head Johnson not to deny California's request for an EPA waiver allowing the state to set its own mileage standards1. One memo warned that Johnson and the agency would lose credibility: "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", the memo from a deputy director said. Johnson denied the waiver.
Johnson stated last December that California's standard wouldn't be as effective as the federal US Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. He said that under the California rule greenhouse gases (GHGs) would drop by 33.8%, while the federally set standards would reduce GHGs by 35%.
However California pointed out in their prompt lawsuit against the agency that the EPA's calculations were wrong. The state's program will reduce green house gases (GHGs) 113% more than the new Federal CAFE standards.
State standards would reduce green house gas emissions by 30 million tons in 2020 (PDF accessed 2/26/08). If calculations included twelve states that recently adopted California's standards emissions would drop a total of "74 million metric tons per year in 2020" (PDF)-- 75% more than the Federal law.
It makes sense that the EPA's calculations were incorrect, after all, why would the auto industry be so vehemently opposed to California's proposal and so exuberant about the federal standard if the California proposal was more lenient?
At the time of the denial, the press noted that EPA lawyers had warned Johnson about his decision. Now the details of the internal memos reveal the extent to which EPA staff advised against denying the waiver.
Christopher Grundler, the deputy director of the EPA's Transportation and Air Quality division and chief executive of the agency's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan, wrote that there was "no legal or technical justification for denying [the waiver]." He said, "If you are asked to deny this waiver [by the White House], I fear the credibility of the agency that we both love will be irreparably damaged."
Another staffer recounted presenting evidence to Johnson on California's "historically demonstrated compelling and extraordinary conditions" that would allow the waiver -- including climate change, limited water resources, wildfires, expansive coastal exposure, large population, and an important agriculture sector.
"Special Interest Governing At It's Worst"
In the past, the EPA routinely granted California waivers, 50 waivers and 40 waiver amendments in the last 40 years. Given the EPA's previous actions, many people saw the denial as unprecedented, unfounded -- worthy of many adjectives. State Attorney General Jerry1 Brown called the EPA's action "shocking in its incoherence". California's governor Arnold Schwarzenegger called it "unconscionable". New York state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo called the EPA's stance "shameful", and New Jersey's speedster-governor Mark Corzine called the decision "horrendous", and based on "crazy reasoning". Vermont and fourteen other states joined the lawsuit.
Boxer said today that the EPA's denial "is about special interest governing at its worst... It is just a nightmare."2
California requested the waiver back in 2005. For two years it tried to get EPA's approval while the administration stalled, until California finally sued to get the decision. After Johnson's denial, California sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in January for its refusal to grant California permission to set its emissions for new cars and trucks.
Sixteen states have joined California's efforts to require automakers to make vehicles that get 44 miles per gallon by 2020.
--------------------------------------------
1Under the Clean Air Act, California can set its legislation as long as the EPA provides a waiver. California is the only state allowed to set stricter standards, under the Federal Clean Air Act, and once California has set standards other states can adopt them.
2We won't quibble about when its at its best.
