Catching up on Climate Change: US Fuel Economy Standards

Two very historic things happened today in US environmental politics.

1) President Bush signed into law the new energy bill that Congress recently passed. This bill

a) Raises fuel efficiency standards for cars (the first time this has occurred in over 20 years),
b) Requires refiners to replace 36 billion gallons of gasoline with biofuel by 2022 (No more than 15 billion of which can be corn-based ethanol -- I'll spare the rant about why corn ethanol is not such a great idea), and
c) Sets requirements for energy efficient lighting and appliances.

The most important change however is the first one; flying in the face of auto-industry opposition this marks a major change from what the administration has previously allowed. Unfortunately, filibuster threats from Senate Republicans and a veto threat from the president caused lawmakers to eliminate provisions mandating 15% renewable energy standards. Much of this renewable energy would have been paid for by reducing $20 billion in tax cuts for big oil companies.

2) The EPA rejected California's application for a waiver to preempt federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

What exactly does this mean? Well lets recap a little recent history. Earlier this year, the historic Massachusetts vs. EPA supreme court case clarified that the EPA has the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Following this, Vermont lawmakers enacted a state law mandating 30% emissions cuts from cars. At a VT court case following in September, a federal judge upheld the state law to regulate, ruling against automaker challenges. The same decision was made recently in a California court case where the federal judge followed VT's precedent.

The only remaining step in this regulatory dance was for the EPA to grant California a waiver. This waiver would preempt the state from federal standards, allowing it to set its own, stricter emissions standards. Last week the waiver was thought to be a shoe-in since waivers of this type have historically always been granted. But it didn't happen. The EPA rejected CA's request, advocating instead for a unified national emissions standards -- after all that is what today's energy bill does.

Here's a quote from the head of the EPA pulled from the NYT article:
"The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution — not a confusing patchwork of state rules," Mr. Johnson told reporters on a conference call. "I believe this is a better approach than if individual states were to act alone."

This rejection is certainly a disappointment for the environmental community. However, from the industry's perspective, Mr. Johnson's reasoning makes sense -- patchwork regulations are a nightmare for business and national scheme provides more stability for manufacturers. But one might also argue that time is of the essence and bogging down states from their individual efforts to reduce emissions in favor of slower-moving national framework is counterproductive.

UPDATE: Legal experts have called Johnson's rejection of the waiver legally unjustifiable. Waivers for the Clean Air Act like this have never been denied throughout the act's 37 year history.