EPA Chief Lists Reasons for California Waiver Denial
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson, who has been under fire from environmentalists, politicians and even some agency staffers for his decision last year to deny California's greenhouse emissions standards for cars, issued his formal reasoning for the rejection Friday (Feb. 29).
In short, there's nothing so special about the state's problems relating to global warming that means California ought to be able to go it alone in regulating such emissions, according to Johnson. California had sought permission under a section of the Clean Air Act that gives California, and by extension other states, authority to set its own pollution standards for motor vehicles. In a 47-page filing headed for the Federal Register, Johnson (pictured; EPA photograph) wrote his decision was based on his finding that California does not need the standards to meet "compelling and extraordinary conditions":
"While I recognize that global climate change is a serious challenge, I have concluded that section 209(b) [of the Clean Air Act] was intended to allow California to promulgate state standards applicable to emissions from new motor vehicles to address pollution problems that are local or regional. I do not believe section 209(b)(1)(B) was intended to allow California to promulgate state standards for emissions from new motor vehicles designed to address global climate change problems; nor, in the alternative, do I believe that the effects of climate change in California are compelling and extraordinary compared to the effects in the rest of the country. Based on this finding, pursuant to section 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (Act), CARB’s waiver request for its GHG standards for new motor vehicles must be denied."
California, joined by numerous other states that also want to impose stricter greenhouse gas standards on vehicles, as well as environmentalists who back them, has already sued the EPA to overturn the decision. Johnson's filing brought a sharp rejoinder from one of those states, New York, which also wants to adopt California's standards. New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo issued a statement ripping the administrator's rationale as full of "twisted logic in its outrageous attempt to deny states the right to fight global warming pollution."
The Natural Resources Defense Council, a supporter of California's efforts, issued a statement from David Doniger, the environmental group's lead attorney in the litigation, claiming that Johnson was both legally and factually wrong. Doniger noted that a previous EPA administrator, William Ruckelshaus, found that California need not have a unique plight in order to qualify for a waiver. Nevertheless, Doniger said the state would experience special problems from climate change:
“No other state can claim the same wide range of severe impacts that California will suffer – indeed, already is suffering – more illnesses from heat-enhanced smog levels, dramatic reductions in state’s water supply, more horrendous wildfires, sea level rise, and agricultural losses. The combination and severity of these impacts makes California’s conditions “compelling and extraordinary.”
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers has endorsed Johnson's decision, saying it protects a national approach to the issue.
In a sense, the battle is being fought over familiar ground. In 2005, the California Air Resources Board, in justifying the regulations, suggested the state had special reason for concern:
"Climate is a central factor in California life. It is at least partially responsible for the State’s rapid population growth in the past 50 years, and largely responsible for the success of industries such as agriculture and tourism. The observed and future effects of climate change on California have been widely studied from a variety of perspectives. The signs of a global warming trend continue to become more evident and much of the scientific debate is now focused on expected rates at which future changes will occur."
