Boxer: EPA chief disregarded staff on Calif. auto emission request

Boxer: EPA chief disregarded staff on Calif. auto emission request The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was warned by his staff that the agency would likely lose a court battle with California if he rejected the state's 2005 request to set tougher-than-federal automotive greenhouse gas emission standards, U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer said Wednesday.
   The discourse between EPA staff and agency head Stephen Johnson was revealed in internal EPA documents made public Wednesday by Boxer, a California Democrat who sits as the majority chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
   'It is clear that EPA’s own experts told Administrator Johnson that California’s case for the waiver is solid. His decision was not supported by the facts, by the law, by the science, or by precedent,” Boxer said. “You have to raise the question: Who is Mr. Johnson listening to?”
   Boxer, whose committee is conducting a Senate investigation into Johnson's December decision to deny California's request, also accused the Bush administration of holding back information on Johnson's decision and said she is hoping to 'closely question' Johnson at a committee hearing today regarding his decision.
   Under the federal Clean Air Act, California can set stricter-than-federal emission standards as long as the state obtains a federal waiver from the EPA. Issued on Dec. 19, Johnson's denial was the first after more than 50 EPA-approved California waivers over the past 40 years.
   In 2002, California approved a law aimed at eliminating 30 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and trucks in the state by 2016. The state tried to enact the standards set forth in the law, but a court ruled that while California does have the right to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, the state required an EPA waiver before doing so. The state first asked for the waiver from the EPA regarding the law in 2005.
   The federal energy bill, passed by Congress earlier this year and enacted by the White House hours before Johnson announced his denial of California's request, seeks to cut greenhouse gas emissions by raising national fuel economy standards.
   In issuing the denial, Johnson argued that the new energy bill pre-empts the California law by setting tougher national standards than sought in the state law. The EPA denial also argued that because greenhouse gas emissions “harm the environment in California and elsewhere regardless of where the emissions occur,” California does not face an “exclusive or unique” challenge requiring special emission regulations.
   Johnson has stated that the new energy bill would mandate automakers to achieve an average 35 miles per gallon fuel efficiency for automobiles, SUVs and small trucks by 2020. He said that this is more stringent than the California law that he claims would only achieve a 33.8 mpg standard.
   California Air Resources Board chair Mary Nichols has disputed Johnson's claims, saying California's law would take effect much sooner than the federal standards and raise the average fuel efficiency of vehicles in the state to nearly 37 mpg.
   The enactment of similar greenhouse gas laws in 16 other states can only take effect once California's law takes effect.
   Following Johnson's denial, California and most of the other impacted states filed suit against the EPA to reverse the agency's decision.
   A Washington Post article last month quoted EPA staff as saying they had recommended to Johnson that he should approve California's request. The documents released by Boxer, including handwritten notes by Johnson, reveal that EPA staff told Johnson that approval of California's request 'would be generally consistent with federal greenhouse gas rules.' The documents also list staff predictions in the case Johnson denied or approved the California request. If the agency approved the state's request, staff members predicted that the EPA would be sued by auto manufacturers but were 'almost certain to win such a suit.' If the agency denied the request from California, staff warned Johnson that California would almost certainly sue over the denial and that the EPA was 'likely to lose (the) suit.'
   In a revision made to the documents after Johnson reviewed them, the point about losing a lawsuit to California over an EPA denial was changed to read 'EPA's litigation risks are significantly higher than if a waiver is granted.'
   Boxer pointed out that the contents of the documents detailing the staff recommendations had been heavily redacted in the version sent to her committee by the EPA last Friday. The EPA has claimed executive privilege in redacting the documents, but allowed Boxer's staff to review the original documents under EPA staff supervision. Boxer aides discovered the original EPA staff recommendations while reviewing the internal EPA documents.