by Ken Bensinger and Jim Tankersley
President Barack Obama will direct the EPA today to reconsider a Bush-era decision that stopped California and more than a dozen other states from setting their own stricter limits on auto emissions, according to sources familiar with the decision.
Should the agency allow a waiver from federal rules, states could require automakers to increase the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks far above current limits. It also would fulfill a long-held goal of environmentalists, as well as one of Obama's campaign promises.
A waiver would be another dramatic rebuke of Bush administration policies, as well as a swift statement that the new president intends to put his own stamp on environmental issues.
"This should prompt cheers from California to Maine," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, who praised Obama as "a man of his word" for the decision.
Tim Carmichael, senior policy director at the Coalition for Clean Air, hailed the decision as a vital step for the administration and the world in the fight against global warming. Passenger vehicles are estimated to emit 25% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.
"I think Obama got a clear message that this is a priority not only for California state protection but also for planetary protection," Carmichael said.
A waiver would be a bitter defeat for the auto industry, which for years had hotly contested the implementation of the California rules and had applauded a Bush administration decision in December 2007 to deny a state waiver for California.
See the report on the EPA waiver for state emissions standards in Tribune newspapers and here in the Swamp:
A spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said Sunday that the industry group did not have a comment on the matter. Mike Moran, a spokesman for Ford Motor Co., said the company would not release a statement until Obama made a formal announcement.
At least 17 other states have adopted or are currently considering California's rules, and a waiver also would allow them to regulate tailpipe emissions. Altogether, those states, which include New York and Florida, represent about 40% of the population, according to auto industry estimates.
That has provoked considerable anxiety in the auto industry. Carmakers fear that they will be forced to spend billions of dollars to comply with the California emissions rules, which are distinct from -- and more rigorous than -- federal fuel standards passed in 2007. The federal standards would raise the national fleet average to 35 miles a gallon by 2020.
Bush's waiver denial provoked California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to sue the federal government. Separately, the U.S. Congress launched an investigation on the decision-making process at the Environmental Protection Agency, which must grant California the waiver before the state may regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Last week, Schwarzenegger sent a letter to President Obama asking that the agency reconsider the matter. "Your administration has a unique opportunity to ... move America toward global leadership on addressing climate change," the letter said.
Also last week, Mary Nichols, chair of California's Air Resources Board, asked the EPA to open a "reconsideration process," according to a letter she sent to Lisa Jackson, that agency's new administrator.
In December, Nichols indicated that the state board had been in close contact with Obama's transition team to help plan a way to pass the waiver and adopt specific rules on rolling out the regulation.
Earlier this month, Jackson pledged to reconsider the request -- and hinted she supported granting it -- during a Senate hearing into her nomination.
After Obama turns the matter over to the EPA, the agency is expected to take several months to reach a final decision on whether to reverse the Bush decision.
News of Obama's expected statement won quick praise from U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who said it was "more than welcome news." As chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, she said, she plans to work with the EPA to move a waiver through quickly.
"An immediate EPA review of the waiver decision shows respect for California" and the other states, Boxer said, while they wait for the "green light to address global warming pollution from motor vehicles."
In 2002, California passed a law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for vehicles, but couldn't enforce it as a series of lawsuits filed by the auto industry held it up. Last year, several rulings were handed down by judges that would allow the rule's adoption, but an EPA waiver was still required.
The California rules don't strictly limit mileage. But by setting caps on carbon emissions, they would effectively require vehicles to reach as much as 42 m.p.g. by 2020, according to some estimates. Currently, only two mass-produced vehicles, the Toyota Prius and the hybrid Honda Civic, average at least 42 m.p.g.
To reach that level on a fleetwide basis, automakers would likely have to invest in costly new technologies such as hybrid drive trains. Industry estimates put the per-vehicle cost of compliance as high as $5,000.
The Bush administration had been charged with developing final rules for the new federal mileage requirements, but elected to pass that task on to Obama, citing the auto industry's deep economic woes. Those rules must be published by April, and it is expected that the administration will make an announcement on them as soon as today.
In taking up the tailpipe emissions issue less than a week in office, Obama is sending a signal about the importance his administration places on environmental matters, environmentalists said.
There had been some expectation among them that Obama would instruct the EPA to grant the California waiver immediately, using the existing regulations. But by sending the matter back to Jackson, Obama also is sending a message that he is aware of the auto industry's difficulties and willing to develop rules that would accommodate some of its immediate concerns.
Last month, the Bush administration agreed to give General Motors Corp. and Chrysler $17.4 billion in emergency loans. The two automakers, which suffered the worst sales declines in a quarter-century last year, have until the end of March to submit sustainable business plans to Washington.
In addition to technological concerns, automakers worry that having the California rules in place would create regulatory chaos, with two separate rules on the books. They have argued that if government is going to regulate carbon emissions, as is the case in Europe, there should be one national rule.
That's a position echoed by environmentalists, who believe that California's regulations would open the door for serious discussion for a new countrywide standard.
"It's not going to happen overnight," said Spencer Quong, a senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "This is a huge notice that the administration is going to deliver on its promise to clean up the environment and fight global warming."
Comments
It's a necessary move for adequately curbing greenhouse gases, but the administration needs to understand the potential for negative effects on the auto industry? What happens if 20 other states follow California's lead and impose incredibly strict standards? What happens to the Big Three?
Good move, but it has consequences.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
Posted by: matt | January 26, 2009 8:11 AM
Good news. Now if he backs away from corn-based ethanol, I'll really be impressed.
Posted by: MJ | January 26, 2009 8:12 AM
i'm very interest with your information,
i've a lot of article about global warming
come on join with us to fight GLOBAL WARMING
we can exchange link for it..
my last posting tell about "Philadelphia’s Climate in the Early Days"
http://hernadi-key.blogspot.com/2009/01/philadelphias-climate-in-early-days.html
Posted by: hernadi-key | January 26, 2009 8:27 AM
This is a Joke. Anthropogenic generated CO2 equates to .28% of total CO2 emissions. That's a world wide figure which includes such developing countries as India, China, i.e. countries that pollute to such a far greater extent than the US it's staggering. So this is an attempt to reduce world anthropogenic CO2 emissions to ...what? .279? At what cost. A standard cost-benefit analysis would show that the benefit (small reduction in CO2 in the US) is not worth the billions to implement and enforce such regulation.
Posted by: JJ | January 26, 2009 10:39 AM
JJ, your post is a joke. You've been listening to pug radio too much. I am sure you do not understand the figures you cited, so let me help you: The .28% you cite is anthropolgical CO2 of all the CO2 that has ever been created in the 4B years of the earths life.
When you figure that the .28% we have created has come from just the last 200 years, then it is a substantial spike, and thus becomes very substantial. Also, much of the CO2 cited in the total numbers is now locked in rocks, or otherwise not able to be used in the percentage numbers.
All of this I cite is accurate, unless you believe the earth is only 5,000 years old, in which case you would be right to say that the .28% is insignificant in the history of the earth. For the rest of the sane world, your science is flawed. http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2006/12/denialist-hopes-dashed.html
Posted by: Xcellentform | January 26, 2009 12:14 PM
A random "Smog Check" inspection & repair audit, ethanol cap and elimination of dual fuel CAFE credit can cut CA car impact over 50% in 2009. Over 2000 tons per day HC, NOx & CO2. Improved performance of AB32.
* * * Clean Air Performance Professionals
Posted by: Charlie Peters | January 26, 2009 12:51 PM
Since the Swamp scribblers can't find (or more accurately, don't wish to find) anyone opposed to Obama's boondoggle, I did a 30 second google search and came up with the other point of view:
"Detroit, Mich. — California already has the ability to set stricter auto-emissions standards without asking for a waiver from federal clean-air rules. It’s called the gas tax.
Yet, even in extreme-green California, gas tax hikes are deeply unpopular with the public. Ira Ruskin, a leading advocate in Sacramento (along with the Governator) for the federal waiver, admits that “a gas tax is not feasible,” even though gas prices have proven to be the most effective way to effect the purchase of fuel-efficient cars. “I have to work in the Legislature, and I have to do what is viable," he says.
So chicken-heart California pols have demanded that automakers bear the burden.
With the White House in the pocket of the Green lobby and Californians dominating key energy positions in Congress, the late Bush administration’s decision not to grant the waiver is likely to be overturned. Though Obama’s EPA only announced to review the request this morning, the action is widely viewed as a formality on the way to reversing what California regulator (and Obama ally) Mary Nichols calls “one of the worst decisions of the Bush Administration.”
Indeed, Obama all but telegraphed his administration’s decision by saying that California has tried to address global warming with tougher emissions standards but “Washington stood in their way.”
The president has long attacked Detroit for fighting the waiver as part of a head-in-the-sand resistance to building the fuel-sipping cars consumers want. But the three largest Japanese companies have also opposed California’s rules because they are simply unworkable.
Incredibly, this action comes at the same time Washington is providing taxpayer loans ($17 billion and counting) to keep Detroit automakers alive. Granting California’s waiver will only make the automakers less profitable as they will be forced to sell cars according to government rules rather than consumer need.
Detroit automakers estimate that meeting California’s edict would cost them $30.5 billion alone. With Detroit now on the federal dole, this expense will likely form the basis of further federal subsidies. For even though GM can only return to profitability (and repay its federal loans) by selling high-volume, gas-fueled vehicles like the Chevy Malibu and Chevy Tahoe, it will have to make more money-losing, electric plug-ins like the Chevy Volt (anticipated EPA rating of 100 mpg when it comes to market in 2010) to meet Golden State rules.
In Europe, meanwhile, tax-goosed $6-a-gallon gas has driven the average mpg of cars sold to 40 mpg. That’s about where California pols say mpg should be in 2020—but with someone else paying the price." (NRO)
Posted by: "Dissent is Patriotic" | January 26, 2009 2:34 PM
I hope car manufacturers simply put an embargo on states who pass these ridiculous laws. No cars for sale in California except used beaters would teach them a lesson they would not soon forget.
Posted by: John Birch | January 26, 2009 4:29 PM
Dissent; I can't believe I am typing this, but I actually agree with you! I've been saying this for year though, that a high gas tax has worked well for EU and would work well here too. If it were phased in over 5 years or so, it would have the added benefit of allowing people to get rid of their old cars and buy new efficient ones, thus creeating a new demand for buying cars to help out the manufacturers too.
What I can't figure out, is how does a pug like you believe more taxes is the answer? How does a pug endorse market manipulation like this? I could go on, but I'm glad you see the light on this subject.
Americans have turned into a bunch of snot nosed whiney children that do not want to take their medicine. They all want, want, want the good things, and they keep putting off the medicine. I guess it will take the dissolvment of this country for those to figure out that you can not just keep taking cookies from the cookie jar. I no longer believe that our offspring have any realistic chance of paying the debt off.
Posted by: Xcellentform | January 26, 2009 4:33 PM
Lost in all this discussion is perspective. Remember, Detroit's been on the dole for more than 80 years. If we paid the real price for gas, it would cost $10+/gallon at the pump.
The reality: those in power fight to maintain status quo. If we had a level playing field internal combustion engines would be found only in museums. Remember, the Model T gets better gas mileage than the average SUV.
Droping the subsidies to pollute and waste will unleash creativity and innovation— and create millions of new jobs. On a level playing field, fossil fuels can no longer compete.
Note: The stone age didn't end b/c we ran out of stones and the fossil fuel age won't end b/c we run out of coal, oil and gas. There is a better way and this crisis is our opportunity to embrace it.
Posted by: Tim Magner | January 26, 2009 5:12 PM
"I've been saying this for year though, that a high gas tax has worked well for EU and would work well here too."
It should be noted that by "worked well" Xcellentform means it pushed gas prices in Europe over $6 a gallon and that was before the volatility in the oil market of last year. This is the change xcellentform can believe in. He also ignores the fact that Europe's high-speed rail system is about 21 times as sophisticated as Amtrak.
Obama is well on his way to matching Jimmy Carter's disastrous energy policies.
A recent Pew Research Poll showed that "global warming" ranked dead last on issues that voters were concerned about. The people's opinion obviously doesn't matter to Obama, though.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=42474
Posted by: Jeff | January 26, 2009 5:19 PM
Will Obama give the states the rights to build nuclear power plants?
How about setting rules on illegal aliens?
Posted by: danc | January 26, 2009 7:15 PM
Yes, we must stop global warming! Course, Earth's temps have only fallen in recent years, the Arctic ice cap is back to levels in the 1970s, much of the Northern Hemisphere has been setting records for cold temps this winter and much of the Southern Hemisphere is experiencing a cold summer. But we don't want facts to get in the way of the Kool-Aid drinkers' global warming hysteria, now do we?
Posted by: John D | January 26, 2009 7:19 PM
We're conservatives... we believe in states' rights!!
Oops... not this time, not when it will be good for the environment.
We don't believe in bailing out the automakers and their unions..... oops... maybe this time.
Posted by: Hypocrisy is patriotic | January 26, 2009 9:27 PM
John D.---You really should pay attention. These are from just the past few days. Remember, the adults are in charge now.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2009-01-26-penguins-antarctica_N.htm
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/01/22/antarctica-cooling.html
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-01-26-climate-change-irreversible_N.htm
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/fromcomments/277087.php
Posted by: dt☢ | January 26, 2009 9:42 PM
Here's an idea:
Every state's DMV will issue a small bumper sticker with the next registration to be affixed to the right rear bumper.
If the EPA highway est. is:
1. Under 20mpg it will read '55'
2. Between 20 and 25mpg it will read '65'
3. Plus 25mpg it will read '+65'
Catch my drift?
These numbers will tell the police your maximum allowed highway speed.
So, if you have a '55' sticker that's your max. speed, even in 75mph Montana or Idaho. If you have a +65, you are good to go faster where legal. No, you cannot exceed a posted speed limit regardless of your sticker.
Posted by: C.Morris✈ | January 27, 2009 8:13 AM
Jeffy, thanks for proving my points. I also like your lifeline of "ask the audience" with your link. Americans have become stupid sheep. Point in example: When this financial bomb was starting to blowup....3 years ago, no one cared and they kept buying their big homes. Yeah, the ones that are now forclosed.
There is nothing wrong with $6/gal gas, so long as it is phased in and people/ companies can adjust over time. That $6/gal gas in EU has caused a very large fiscal income that has kept their national debts down....it has caused the rail industry to evolve into some of the best in the world....it has caused less driving, thus less polution & less GDP on logistics.....It has caused smaller car designs, thus making less congestion on the roads and parking lots.....it has caused faster transportation, due to less congestion on the roads and the use of more rail traffic for material transportation....It has caused a much higher fuel efficient fleet of vehicles...I could go on and on, but I'm sure you could just point to another popular opinion poll and treat it like it is a fact. People are sheep and they need to be lead by a good shepherd.
Posted by: Xcellentform | January 27, 2009 10:57 AM
Jeffy, thanks for proving my points. I also like your lifeline of "ask the audience" with your link. Americans have become stupid sheep. Point in example: When this financial bomb was starting to blowup....3 years ago, no one cared and they kept buying their big homes. Yeah, the ones that are now foreclosed.
There is nothing wrong with $6/gal gas, so long as it is phased in and people/ companies can adjust over time. That $6/gal gas in EU has caused a very large fiscal income that has kept their national debts down....it has caused the rail industry to evolve into some of the best in the world....it has caused less driving, thus less pollution & less GDP on logistics.....It has caused smaller car designs, thus making less congestion on the roads and parking lots.....it has caused faster transportation, due to less congestion on the roads and the use of more rail traffic for material transportation....It has caused a much higher fuel efficient fleet of vehicles...I could go on and on, but I'm sure you could just point to another popular opinion poll and treat it like it is a fact. People are sheep and they need to be lead by a good shepherd.
Posted by: Xcellentform | January 27, 2009 10:59 AM
http://video.ap.org/?f=CAEXA&PID=2FeFjlqlc2T_LveKjZcyiU4hxNPmTjfZ
Posted by: Charlie Peters | December 29, 2009 10:38 AM
"(Dr.) Jeffrey Williams. Looking at the very distant future, can we make it clearer how much air
pollution is costing people? I can envision cars with a meter on the dash that shows the health
care cost of the tailpipe emissions. The owner can then get repairs to reduce emissions (rather
than hit a cut point). We’re not using all the information we could (from OBD II for example) to
fix the pollution costs of the vehicle. How many miles has the car has driven with check engine
light? There should be a fine for driving with the check engine light on."
http://www.aqmd.gov/TAO/ConferencesWorkshops/SmogCheckForum/SmogCheckSummary.pdf
Is it time for CHANGE?
Clean Air Performance Professionals
Charlie Peters
(510) 537-1796
cappcharlie@earthlink.net
Posted by: Charlie Peters | December 29, 2009 10:39 AM