E.P.A. Chief Defiant in Senate Hearings

Environmental Protection Agency Chief defended his refusal to support the State of California’s waver to regulate automobile emissions.

From the NY Times Article:

Defending his refusal to let California set limits on the greenhouse gas emissions of automobiles, the head of the Environmental Protection Agencyclimate change posed no “compelling and extraordinary” risk to the state. insisted before a Senate committee Thursday that

Describing such change as “not unique to” and “not exclusive to California,” the agency’s administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, called it “a global problem requiring a global solution or, at least at a minimum, a national solution.”

That is what has bothered me with regard to the Bush Administration’s activities regarding climate change. In many ways, it pays only lip service to global warming, but does nothing very progressive. But moreso, it seems to trounce on very traditional Republican policy in the process.

California Sues the EPA

The State of California is moving forward with its lawsuit against the US Environmental Protection Agency.  The case stems from a denial from the EPA to allow California to regulate its own green house gas emission using its own policy.  The EPA’s stance is that the measures taken in the latest energy bill (driven by CAFE standards increases) is more effective than California’s proposed regulation (AB1493).  The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is refuting the technical claims made by the EPA – which were not supported by any technical documentation – with its own analysis that shows otherwise.

From the study:

California standards regulate GHG emissions; federal CAFE standards are aimed at reducing the nation’s fuel consumption. This study makes the necessary calculations to allow the two programs to be evaluated so that the reductions in GHG gases under the California rules can be compared to those expected from implementation of the CAFE portion of the 2007 Energy Bill. The results show that the Administrator’s claim that the federal CAFE program is better than California’s program at reducing GHG emissions from motor vehicles is wrong, both in California and in those states that adopt the California standards (See Table ES-1).

The study gives a very detailed analysis of green house gas emissions based on actual usage (this is data that the state collects very meticulously from ever driver on a bi-annual basis).  So it’s difficult to argue with CARB’s assertions on a technical basis (you’d have to attack the fundamental assumptions to discredit it).

The chart above is very telling in that it shows the real importance of making severe changes now.  Each growth curve is predicated on a particular % improvement year over year.  Making big changes in the near term, then, will drive even larger end results in the future.

The real news is  EPA clearly has done no real analysis on this subject.  It’s not clear, then, why they were so flippant with California’s request.  States’ rights on environmental issues are usually well respected.  And CAFE standards are no real way to regulate GHGs.  This all seems very intellectually lazy on the part of the EPA which is very strange behavior.  The EPA’s reputation has historically been one of rigor and diligence with compliance (although that’s been different in this current administration).  But it’s strange that they would have had such a backhanded response to California’s desire to enact more stringent policies.

Energy Bill still has some life

[Update] Recent vote fails.  Senate not giving up though.

[Update] Senate Republicans seem to be pushing back on the proposed bill due to increases in taxes to the oil industry. ( Read CNN Article)

Senate leaders have been working hard to pass an energy bill that includes higher CAFE standards for cars.

From the Detroit News article:

Even with the changes hammered out in recent days, prospects for the bill remain uncertain. Democrats need 60 votes to end debate and approve the bill, which would require a fleetwide industry average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The House passed the 1,055-page energy bill last week, 235-181. The White House reiterated a veto threat if the tax provisions remain.

Issues in debate:

• Higher CAFE standards with fleet mileage of 35 MPG
• Removal of 15% Renewable Portfolio Standard for electricity production
• Continuation of renewable energy incentives (to the tue of $21.8 Billion)
• Reduction of oil company tax breaks of $1 Billion
• Tax credits for hybrid car purchases

There’s still a lot of changes that could be made before the final version. So we will see what happens today as it may go to vote.