SACRAMENTO, California, June 29, 2008 (ENS) – A federal judge has denied the latest attempt by automobile manufacturers to invalidate the California law that regulates greenhouse gas emissions from cars.

Often called the California Clean Car Law, or the Pavley law because it was introduced by then Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, the measure was enacted on July 22, 2002 by California Governor Gray Davis.

The law directed the California Air Resources Board to develop and adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of global warming emissions from passenger cars and light trucks sold in California.

Regulations were developed during 2004 through a series of public workshops and hearings, and were adopted unanimously by the California Air Resources Board on September 24, 2004.

Regulations will apply only to 2009 and later model year vehicles and will require about a 30 percent reduction of global warming emissions by 2016.

California has unique authority under the Clean Air Act to establish standards for passenger vehicles. While no other state has this authority, other states do have the option to adopt California’s standards in place of federal standards, and to date 17 other states have adopted the Clean Car Law standards.

But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency must grant to California a waiver of less stringent federal standards, which to date the agency has declined to do.

Los Angeles traffic – jammed again.
(Photo credit unknown)

Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep and other California dealerships, joined by the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, AIAM, filed suit against the California Air Resources Board to overturn the law. AIAM represents 730 auto dealers in California with a total financial investment of $2.8 billion.

They argued that the EPA would never grant a waiver to California, and if it ever does, manufacturers would need more lead time to develop the technology needed to meet its requirements.

The manufacturers argued that they are caught on the horns of a dilemma – whether to invest in carbon dioxide reducing technology or risk being out of compliance with standards that may or may not be granted a waiver of federal preemption sometime in the future.

On June 23, Judge Anthony Ishii ruled that the automakers and dealers were not entitled to overturn this law.

In his decision Judge Ishii wrote, “..so far as this court can discern, the choice to proceed as though California would never be granted waiver of federal preemption is fundamentally just a business decision that, like any other, may have negative consequences if wrongly made. It is not up to the courts to deflect the burden of such business decisions.”

Three environmental groups filed a brief in support of the California Air Resources Board.

Attorney Matt Pawa, who represented Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and Environmental Defense in the case, said, “In short, the car companies argued that they will need a lot of lead time if and when California receives its EPA waiver in order to come into compliance with the new emissions rules and thus California should be enjoined from enforcing its law for a period of time even after EPA grants a waiver.”

“The court has basically said to the companies that it was your decision to assume that the Pavley law would never come into effect either by an EPA waiver denial or a victory in the lawsuit and if your risk did not pay off, that is your risk,” Pawa said.

AIAM President and chief executive Michael Stanton explained why the organization supports the EPA decision to deny California’s request for a waiver.

“This is not a question of whether to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks. AIAM and its members have always supported this goal and believe that the auto industry must do its part to address the critically important national and international issue of climate change. Rather, it is focused on only one issue – who should set those standards,” Stanton said on February 29, the day the EPA denied California’s waiver request.

“AIAM believes, like EPA, that it is the federal government that should set those standards,” he said.

The presumptive presidential candidates for both political parties, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona and Democratic Senator Barack Obama of Illinois are on record as saying they support California’s waiver request.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SACRAMENTO, California, June 29, 2008 (ENS) – By the year 2020, California utilities will produce a third of their energy from renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal, under a draft plan to address climate change released Thursday by the California Air Resources Board.

Overall, the Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan aims to reduce California’s greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent over the next 12 years. to accomplish this goal, the plan utilizes both new and existing measures and is designed with strong elements of monitoring and enforcement.

“With the release of this draft scoping plan, California is once again blazing a trail to lead other states and the nation to address climate change,” said Mary Nichols, chairman of the Air Resources Board. “Our economy and our society face no greater threat than global warming.”

Development of the Scoping Plan is a central requirement of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 that requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

Central to the draft plan is a cap-and-trade program covering 85 percent of the state’s emissions of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas.

This program will be developed in conjunction with the Western Climate Initiative [www.westernclimateinitiative.org] to create a regional carbon market among seven states and three Canadian provinces.

The draft plan calls for full implementation of the California Clean Car law to provide less polluting and more efficient cars and trucks to consumers who will save on operating costs through reduced fuel use.

Under the federal Clean Air Act, this state law requires a waiver of less stringent federal standards by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which to date has refused to grant the waiver. Nor has Congress passed any legislation that would allow California to implement the fuel economy provisions of the Clean Car law.

The draft plan also calls for development and implementation of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard [gov.ca.gov], which Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger established by Executive Order in January 2007. It requires that carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in the state be reduced by at least 10 percent by 2020.

Geothermal power is generated at
The Geysers, which covers 30
square miles in the Mayacamas
Mountains north of San Francisco,
the largest complex of geothermal
power plants in the world.
(Photo courtesy Calpine)

“This draft plan is the roadmap to move us quickly to a cleaner, more sustainable future, energy independence and a healthier environment,” Nichols said. “This plan fulfills the governor’s determination to act now, and it is based on the conviction that Californians will rise to the challenge and develop creative solutions to improve our environment and grow our economy.”

The draft plan encourages improvements to the ways Californians grow and build communities to make more livable, walkable cities, and shorten commutes.

It requres full deployment of the Governor’s Million Solar Roofs initiative, development of high-speed rail transport and a range of regulations to reduce emissions from trucks and from ships docked in California ports.

The draft plan also proposes to expand and strengthen existing energy efficiency programs and building and appliance standards that have saved Californians more than $50 billion over the past 30 years in reduced costs for energy.

It also calls on Californians to make changes to their personal behavior to reduce their carbon footprint through carpooling and simple actions such as adjusting thermostats to use less energy for heating and cooling and water-related energy efficiency measures.

Workshops are planned throughout the state to present the details of the plan to the general public and to allow California Air Resources Board, CARB, staff to hear public comments before writing a final draft.

The Environmental Defense Fund has already expressed its approval of the plan.

Derek Walker, director of the California Climate Initiative at Environmental Defense Fund, said, “The draft scoping plan presents a wide array of tools at California’s disposal to meet the law’s goals. The plan includes a robust, innovative combination of market-based mechanisms and traditional regulatory policies.”

“Between now and the Board’s final approval in November,” said Walker, “we look forward to working with CARB and other stakeholders to expand the recommendations to capture vital, cost-effective emissions reductions from all sectors of California’s economy.”

Once the final draft is prepared, it will go to the California Air Resources Board for consideration in November.

After adoption of the plan, all measures in the plan will be thoroughly vetted and analyzed, with full public input, over the next two years as they move through the regulatory process.

Preliminary economic modeling of the plan indicates that the overall savings from improved efficiency and the development of alternatives to petroleum will on the whole outweigh the costs. The draft plan recommends targeted fees to fund the state’s long-term commitment to AB 32 administration.

To view the Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan, click here [www.arb.ca.gov].

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, January 24, 2008 (ENS) – U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who chairs the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, introduced legislation today that would direct the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to grant California a waiver under the Clean Air Act to cut global warming pollution from motor vehicles.

A host of other Democratic senators stepped up to co-sponsor the measure, including presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois.

The basis for Administrator Stephen Johnson’s December 19, 2007 decision to deny California a waiver of less stringent federal standards announced in a hastily convened 6:30 pm press conference is now the focus of growing scrutiny.

Senator Boxer said, “Administrator [Stephen] Johnson’s decision to deny the waiver was not supported by the facts, by the law, by the science, or by precedent. I will use every available tool to ensure that California and the nation are able to reduce the pollution that causes global warming. One of those tools is legislation that essentially overturns Mr. Johnson’s actions.”

Senator Diane Feinstein of California said, “It’s become clear that Administrator Johnson’s denial of California’s waiver was based on politics, not science. Even the EPA’s own experts have said that there was a compelling need for action. So, today, Senator Boxer and I have introduced legislation to take this decision out of the hands of the EPA – and allow California to move ahead with curbing tailpipe emissions.”

Senator Lieberman said, “The vision and leadership of California, Connecticut, and the other states that have moved to curb global warming pollution from cars should be rewarded by the grant of authority to implement the states’ programs. In the wake of the Bush administration’s failure to follow federal law and deliver the needed authority, we in Congress must step in with legislation that gives the states the go-ahead to fight climate change.”

Senator Clinton said, “It is outrageous that the Bush Administration chose to block the efforts of New York, California and many other states that want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. Chairman Boxer’s continued oversight on this issue is critically important, and I am proud to join with her in introducing legislation to overturn EPA’s wrongheaded decision and allow states to move forward on global warming.”

Senator Obama said, “Effectively tackling global warming demands bold and innovative solutions, and given the failure of this Administration to act, California should be allowed to pioneer. I commend Chairman Boxer for her leadership on this bill and on working to eliminate the damaging consequences of climate change around the world.”

EPA Administrator
Stephen Johnson
(Photo courtesy U.S.
Government)

Johnson himself, testifying before the committee today, reiterated all the arguments he as given before as justification for his decision to block California’s legislation, which would require a 23 percent cut in heat-trapping emissions from new cars by 2012 and a 30 percent cut in heat-trapping emissions from new cars by 2016.

“I believe that it is preferable, as a matter of policy, to have uniform national standards to address fuel economy issues across the entire fleet of domestic and foreign manufactured vehicles sold in the United States. I just think this is common sense,” he said.

Johnson said he expects his decision to be challenged in court once it has been published in the Federal Register.

Scientists, lawyers and other specialists working within the EPA are expressing dismay about Johnson’s lack of “credibility” in explaining his decision to reject a request by California to regulate greenhouse gases from automobiles, according to a joint letter from labor unions released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, PEER.

The joint letter is signed by presidents of locals from four unions – the American Federation of Government Employees, the Engineers and Scientists of California, the National Association of Government Employees, and the National Treasury Employees Union. These unions represent thousands of EPA scientists, engineers and other technical specialists.

This morning, Johnson was grilled by members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. His sworn testimony and answers only seemed to fuel doubts about the merits of his decision, said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch.

In today’s hearing, Johnson revealed, for the first time, that he was motivated to act abruptly due to reports of inaccurate “leaks” from his staff. Meanwhile, Johnson is defying Congressional requests for full release of documents detailing the recommendations from his technical and legal staff.

“By his performance today, Stephen Johnson forfeited whatever shred of credibility he once enjoyed,” said Ruch.

Ruch observes that Johnson’s decision was represented as the product of months of legal and scientific deliberation yet Johnson cited the energy bill signed just that morning as the principal basis for his veto of state action.

“There will be a growing chorus from Congress, his own employees and the public for Johnson to step down,” Ruch said.

The ranking Republican member of the committee, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, will not join that chorus.

Inhofe supports denial of the waiver, he said today. “When we focus on the substance of the debate, it seems clear to me that the waiver petition should be denied, and I encourage Administrator Johnson to formally make a final decision to do so.”

“In every instance when California was granted a waiver in the past, it was to address “compelling and extraordinary conditions” in the State. And that is the standard, as clearly spelled out in 209(b) of the Clean air Act,” said Inhofe. “Tell me how California differs from other States when it comes to global warming? Carbon is a global issue, not a local one. In that regard, California is ordinary, not extraordinary.”

“In fact, I think it is certainly relevant that California cannot show harm from global warming over the last two decades because temperatures there have been declining, not increasing, as this chart shows,” said Inhofe, a long-standing climate change skeptic.

California also will not bear the burden of implementing the Clean Car law, that would be born by other states, said Inhofe. “My own state of Oklahoma has 27,000 auto related jobs. Of course, that is dwarfed by states like Michigan. In comparison, in addition to Michigan, states represented on this Committee such as Missouri, Ohio and Tennessee have two to six times as many.”

But not all Republican senators agree with Inhofe. Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine, support legislation to reverse the waiver decision.

Senator Snowe said, “I am deeply disappointed that the sdministration failed to follow the statute outlined in the Clean Air Act that allows California to adopt distinct environmental laws. This is a setback for Maine and as well as our national environmental stewardship.”

“Although I am confident that the court system will ultimately overturn this decision, I am troubled that this administration has unnecessarily delayed enactment of a strong curtailment of greenhouse gas emissions,” Snowe said. “This legislation will allow the states to move forward with enacting strong reductions in green house gas emissions filling the void of federal action.”

Senator Collins said, “Climate change is one of the most daunting challenges we face and we must develop reasonable solutions to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. If states, like my home state of Maine, establish reasonable standards to help address this serious problem, the federal government should not stand in the way.”

View This Story On Eco-mmunity Map.