The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been California's nemesis in the state's battle for clean air over the past six years. But the tug of war over California's right to impose stricter air emissions standards for its residents may soon be settled by Lisa Jackson, the new head of the EPA.
Last month during her confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Jackson said if confirmed, she would "very, very aggressively" and "very soon . . .review [California's EPA] waiver decision" about enforcement of state's Clean Air Act.
The waiver decision referenced by Jackson was California's petition to the EPA to allow the state to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as part of its Clean Air Act. Previous attempts to waive EPA air quality standards for higher standards were rejected in the highly politicized decisions of former EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson. A subsequent investigation by the House Oversight Committee revealed that the Bush Administration had exerted its influence over Johnson, in effect overturning his initial decision to grant the waiver.
California enacted its Clean Air Act in 1988, two years before the federal government, which allows California to set stricter rules about vehicle pollution than the federal government, such as in the area of gas emissions. Though CA can make changes to its Clean Air Act regulations; the EPA must approve all changes or waivers to the Act before they can become California law.
The state wants to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions (gases that trap heat in the atmosphere), such as carbon dioxide, that are produced by cars and light trucks by thirty percent by the year 2016.
But Auto groups, such as the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, have also flexed their muscles to delay or block the emissions regulations from taking effect, as the changes would force them to meet higher fuel efficiency requirements.
Dave McCurdy, AAM chief executive, described the California gas emissions initiative as "a patchwork quilt of inconsistent and competing fuel economy programs," that would lead to "confusion, inefficiency, and uncertainty for automakers and consumers."
Though the EPA under the federal Clean Air Act is "responsible for protecting and improving the nation's air quality and the stratospheric ozone layer" it does not currently impose greenhouse gas emission standards or regulations - a regulatory gap that has triggered outrage and lawsuits from state and local governments wishing to impose greenhouse gas standards. Instead, the EPA manages (not regulates) greenhouse gas emissions through voluntary emissions reduction programs.
California's battle with the EPA began in 2002, when it passed a law requiring automakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within seven years. In 2005, the state requested a waiver from the EPA to implement its vehicle gas emissions standards, which the EPA promptly ignored for over three years.
Eventually, in December 2007, the EPA denied California's waiver request. President Bush backed the EPA's decision - heavily influence by The White House - publicly.
"Is it more effective to let each state make a decision as to how to proceed in curbing greenhouse gases or is it more effective to have a national strategy?" Bush asked rhetorically during a press conference.
Today, the Obama Administration and the EPA appear poised to finally grant California's greenhouse gas regulation waiver request. Meanwhile, Congress is busy working to impose federal regulations.
Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee released plans yesterday to craft global warming legislation via a cap-and-trade system. The scheme would, in the words of California Senator Barbara Boxer, reduce greenhouse gas
emissions "to levels guided by science to avoid dangerous climate
change."
EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson applauded the move.
"We are
very pleased to see Congress moving quickly on legislation to curb
greenhouse gas emissions," Jackson said. "We will be working closely
with the Hill in the weeks and months ahead to address this tremendous
challenge and opportunity."
Related Stories: