Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California to sue EPA if it fails to act quickly on air standards
ap on San Diego Union - Tribune ^ | 4/25/07 | Samantha Young - ap

Posted on 04/25/2007 8:33:24 PM PDT by NormsRevenge

SACRAMENTO – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday said his administration will sue the Environmental Protection Agency if it fails to act more quickly on California's request to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles.

Schwarzenegger said he called EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson on Wednesday and told him his agency was moving too slowly on California's 2005 request for a waiver to the federal Clean Air Act. The waiver, if granted by the EPA, would allow California to more aggressively regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants.

“If we don't see quick action from the government, we will sue the U.S. EPA,” Schwarzenegger said during a luncheon speech in Beverly Hills, addressing the Milken Institute's annual global conference.

The administration's letter announcing the intent to sue, a procedural step that is required six months before a lawsuit would be filed, was sent to the EPA on Wednesday, Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said.

In the letter, Schwarzenegger demands that the EPA act on California's waiver request within 180 days.

“Failure to take action by the end of October would mean that more than 22 months have passed with no decision,” Schwarzenegger wrote. “This is clearly an unreasonable delay.”

The EPA had delayed acting on California's request because the agency maintained it did not have the authority to regulate the gases that contribute to global warming. However, the state's request was revived earlier this month when the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the EPA does have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, a position that had long been rejected by the Bush administration.

On Tuesday, Johnson told senators that he had begun the formal process to act on California's request. That involves a public hearing May 22 in Washington and a public comment period that ends June 15.

But Johnson refused to set a timetable specifying when the agency would issue a decision on California's request.

“We will move expeditiously, but we are going to be moving responsibly,” Johnson told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Responding Wednesday to Schwarzenegger's letter, EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood said the agency was moving forward with California's request. She said a final decision will be made at the end of the comment period.

The 5-4 Supreme Court decision did not require the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. But it does say the agency must show that carbon dioxide emissions are not a danger to public health if it chooses not regulate them under the Clean Air Act.

The committee's chairwoman, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said she expected the EPA to make a decision by the middle of the summer and would call agency officials back before her panel after the comment period had closed.

California's waiver is needed for the state to implement a 2002 state law that would require automakers to reduce emissions by 25 percent from cars and light trucks and 18 percent from sport utility vehicles starting with the 2009 model year.

The waiver also carries implications for at least 10 other states that have adopted California's standard. Federal law allows states to choose between the federal and the California rules.

The auto regulations are a major part of California's strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The state is the world's 12th largest producer of the emissions blamed for warming the earth and contributing to global climate change.

A separate 2006 state law requires emissions to be reduced 25 percent by 2020. That law requires California to reduce emissions by an estimated 174 million metric tons.

The auto regulations would account for about 17 percent of the state's target, according to the California Air Resources Board. If the EPA rejects the auto-emission waiver, California regulators would have to rethink how the state could meet its goals.

Schwarzenegger met with Johnson earlier this month to press him on the waiver request but left Washington without a commitment. The governor last year sent two letters to President Bush seeking action.

“It looks like the EPA is trying to drown the waiver process,” said Karen Douglas, who directs climate change issues in California for Environmental Defense, a national environmental group. “They've offered to hold hearings, but what we really want to see from EPA is fast action dealing with global warming pollution.”

In addition to the waiver, the 2002 auto regulations are the subject of lawsuits in California and Vermont. Automakers have sued the states, saying the emission standards are akin to fuel economy standards, which can be set only by the federal government.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: airstandards; california; carb; epa; fails; quickly; schwarzenegger

1 posted on 04/25/2007 8:33:28 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

On the Net:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger:
http://www.gov.ca.gov

California Air Resources Board:
http://www.arb.ca.gov

Environmental Protection Agency:
http://www.epa.gov


2 posted on 04/25/2007 8:34:28 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... In FReeP We Trust ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Ahnald, this guy is as RINO as it gets. Why doesn`t he just give it up and come out of his lib closet?


3 posted on 04/25/2007 8:35:29 PM PDT by Screamname (The only reason time exists is so everything doesn`t happen all at once - Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Screamname

He dropped out of the belly of a Trojan Horse a long time ago and has been wreaking havoc ever since. Post-Partisan, muh butt..


4 posted on 04/25/2007 8:37:01 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... In FReeP We Trust ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Liberals are THAT stupid. Pushing for more regulation which will only raise the cost of car ownership in California while not doing a single thing to reduce global warming. I'm glad I've moved to a state where I don't have to do stupid smog checks every other year.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

5 posted on 04/25/2007 8:39:31 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Let me check...Hmmmmm, yep...The atmosphere is still composed of 0.0383% CO2 which you can literally read as zero point zero. Oh wait, liberals say it`s gone up to 0.0390% which is their main proof for global warming. Yes, I understand, we`ve gone from zero point zero to zero point zero. Run for your lives!


6 posted on 04/25/2007 8:45:00 PM PDT by Screamname (The only reason time exists is so everything doesn`t happen all at once - Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Let California do whatever it wants.
Who cares?


7 posted on 04/25/2007 8:45:07 PM PDT by greasepaint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
They all deserve each other. CARB is full of morons, the EPA is full of bureaucrats and Arnold is the biggest RINO on either coast. In 1995 or I testified to CARB that the levels of MTBE they were proposing in gasoline would poison the water and damage kids. I specifically asked them if there had been any tests run at the levels they wanted - of course the answer was no and they went ahead on junk science. Now the water in many areas of Kalifornia cannot be used for anything thanks to these morons.
8 posted on 04/25/2007 8:46:09 PM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (NSDQ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
No smog checks in Pocatello, ID. The tune ups and smog II certifications for my Porsche 914 cost me more than I originally paid for the car. I've owned it since 1989 and I've only put 16,000 miles on it since it was purchased. I really get tired of dumbass politicians emptying my pockets for such a totally worthless effort.
9 posted on 04/25/2007 8:47:10 PM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
Those smog II checks happened while I lived in San Diego. I've had the car in Idaho since 2001.
10 posted on 04/25/2007 8:48:14 PM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Arnold is such a disappointment but it looks like he is preaching to the choir here.

From the Milken Institute website:

By creating ways to spread the benefits of human, financial and social capital to as many people as possible – the democratization of capital – we hope to contribute to prosperity and freedom in all corners of the globe.

Sounds like Kyoto and carbon credits to me.
11 posted on 04/25/2007 8:49:45 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Most of us out here who voted for Arnold didn’t expect much conservatism from him. But I promise you we didn’t expect him to govern from the loony left either. Maria must certainly be running his show.
12 posted on 04/25/2007 9:20:40 PM PDT by originalbuckeye (I want a hero....I'm holding out for a hero (politically))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Instead of suing Cali and Vermont, the auto manufacturers would do better to offer only the cars which comply with the air standards of those states. If that happens to be 3 cylinder rattle-traps then that should be what is offered.

Since the market for the compliant vehicles would be mainly in those two states, the manufacturers could support higher prices on those models than they ask now since there would probably be waiting lists for the scarce compliant vehicles. Only when the dumba$$ electorate in those states is forced to pay for their green desires will they start to consider the cost of their advocacy.

13 posted on 04/25/2007 9:25:20 PM PDT by Nomorjer Kinov (If the opposite of "pro" is "con" , what is the opposite of progress?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson