State can't set car emissions standards, EPA says

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ruled yesterday that California cannot protect its own environment by setting its own car emissions mandates. The news angered environmentalists and California lawmakers but pleased the auto industry.

The EPA's reasoning? Because we have the recently signed energy bill, California doesn't need separate regulations, says EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. Bush agrees.

But in his announcement, Johnson was less than accurate about California's plan. The most egregious untruth: Johnson said that California's plan was less strict than the energy bill's provision requiring a 35 mpg average for new cars and light trucks by 2020. In contrast, "California officials say the state law would result in a 36-mpg average four years earlier" AND "regulate a broader spectrum of greenhouse gases, including refrigerants from vehicle air conditioners."

David Roberts of Grist breaks down that and other less-than-accurate "reasons" behind the EPA's decision. And the Washington Post reports that Johnson's decision was contrary to "the unanimous recommendation of the agency's legal and technical staffs."

The silver lining: Rep. Henry Waxman, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman, says he has already opened an investigation into whether EPA's director "overruled the unanimous recommendations of EPA's legal and technical staffs in rejecting California's petition," and has asked the EPA to "preserve and produce all documents relating to the decision."  In addition, the Sierra Club's David Bookbinder says the fight is now going to court.

In other car news: the EU too is also trying to limit car emissions. Europe is way ahead of us in terms of mpg standards, but what really stood out to me in this AP article -- reprinted in the L.A. Times -- is that newspapers might consider at least converting the numbers to those their readers can understand. Did you know that California seeks to limit emissions to "128 grams per kilometer" by 2016?

Photo courtesy of Getty Images

Comments

[Anthony]

This story absolutely disgusts me. The EPA is responsible for protecting and maintaining the environment, not political agendas. I think this quote from today's LA Times says it all (and something we all knew):

"Some staff members believe Johnson made his decision after auto executives met with Vice President Dick Cheney and after a Chrysler executive delivered a letter to the White House outlining why neither California nor the EPA should be allowed to regulate greenhouse gases, among other reasons. The Detroit News reported Wednesday that chief executives of Ford and Chrysler met with Cheney last month."