Hill Heat: The case for the California waiver, including an update from the Environmental Protection AgencyScience Policy Legislation Actiontag:www.hillheat.com,2005:TypoTypo2013-10-06T02:07:06-04:00Brad Johnsonurn:uuid:ab17bd15-79f9-4f58-b82f-907f0a7bc7892007-07-26T10:00:00-04:002013-10-06T02:07:06-04:00The case for the California waiver, including an update from the Environmental Protection Agency_Witness_
<ul>
<li>Stephen Johnson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency</li>
</ul>
<p>10:53 <strong>Inhofe</strong> is attacking a <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDRhZWFjYTc5ODcxMWZmOTYyMzY5ZmIwMmQ5MDg5M2M=">statement</a> made by the president of the American Council on Renewable Energy. This is so typical of these hate-filled people. I was called a traitor by one of the extreme left. See if it’s appropriate to be a part of this organization. “It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. I will launch a campaign against you. Go ahead guy, take me on.” The waiver request strikes me as a backdoor effort, though I need some education on this, to usurp the Congress’s role in setting <span class="caps">CAFE</span> standards. If a handful of states are able to come up with standards different from the United States, what will happen to <span class="caps">CAFE</span> standards?</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> There are two sections of the Clean Air Act: Section 209, for California waiver petitions. There are three conditions if any are triggered to deny the petition. Section 202 deals with mobile sources.</p>
<p><strong>Inhofe</strong> It’s very elaborate what the law requires you to do. I think you have done your job. How can California assess the <span class="caps">CAFE</span> standards to be so radically different from the Department of Transportation’s estimation? <span class="caps">CARB</span> requires about 44 MPGs and 27 MPGs for trucks. Don’t you think the federal regulators know more about it than <span class="caps">CARB</span>? How can <span class="caps">CARB</span>’s mistaken feasibility assessment be corrected?</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> There is a case before the 9th Circuit. In the meantime we are continue to review and evaluate voluminous and unprecedented comments on the waiver.</p>
<p>11:01 <strong>Lautenberg</strong> I think you’re wrong on this issue. It amounts to footdragging.</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> I don’t believe it is legal for me to lobby any member of Congress. I think it is good for members of Congress to talk with each other. The responsibility to make a decision lies solely with me.</p>
<p><strong>Lautenberg</strong> We’re talking about a forever delay here. Eighteen months while the air is pollution, despite Sen. Inhofe’s disbelief climate change is happening. He called it a hoax. We have hoax floods and hoax droughts and hoax hurricanes and hoax tornadoes. Mr. Johnson, the one thing I don’t want to see happen is the demise of our automobile industry. But it ought not be juxtaposed with the threat of climate change. This footdragging is unacceptable. Is it true that the request for the waiver has been in for eighteen months?</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> The waiver request came in December 2005. In February of 2007 we informed California that we were going to await the Supreme Court decision.</p>
<p><strong>Lautenberg</strong> Those details are irrelevant to the urgency of climate change.</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> I agree that there is an urgency to deal with the voluminous comments. Climate change is a very serious issue and we have a responsibility to deal with this in a timely and deliberate fashion. There are still thousands of comments. We just received 800 pages from California. It takes time for our staff to do a thorough review.</p>
<p><strong>Lautenberg</strong> Why don’t we see the urgency to do something about climate change? Can you imagine that California is trying to delay this?</p>
<p><strong>Boxer</strong> California is going to sue to get action.</p>
<p>11:12 <strong>Lautenberg</strong> If this was a fire, action would be taken. We are facing lots of dangerous situations. Any delays put our society at risk. I urge you to try and expedite this waiver request.</p>
<p>11:14 <strong>Carper</strong> I want you to fully respond to my request.</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> Thank you for your leadership. I want to apologize for any miscommunication.</p>
<p>11:24 <strong>Boxer</strong> These thirteen states want to do it yesterday.</p>
<p>11:30 <strong>Boxer</strong> The <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s job is to protect the public health and welfare. Is the Bush administration opposed to granting the waiver?</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> We’re going through a very deliberate process.</p>
<p><strong>Boxer</strong> Is the administration opposed to granting this waiver?</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> The administration recognizes the responsibility to make an independent decision.</p>
<p><strong>Boxer</strong> The <span class="caps">DOT</span> was calling members of Congress attacking the waiver. Is it appropriate for the administration to lobby Congress against the waiver?</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> I respectfully defer to the Department of Transportation.</p>
<p><strong>Boxer</strong> You are responsible for the health and welfare of the people of this country. You sit here and can’t condemn that this administration has been lobbying Congress against this waiver.</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> I’m not responsible for the <span class="caps">DOT</span>. I defer to the <span class="caps">DOT</span>.</p>
<p><strong>Boxer</strong> If you defer you say that you think it’s okay.</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> I defer to the <span class="caps">DOT</span>.</p>
<p><strong>Boxer</strong> Since we know members of <span class="caps">DOT</span> were actively lobbying members of Congress, were you aware this was going on?</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> I told the secretary of the <span class="caps">DOT I</span> was inclined not to grant an extension.</p>
<p><strong>Boxer</strong> That’s not my question.</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> I described my awareness in my conversation with the secretary of the <span class="caps">DOT</span>.</p>
<p><strong>Boxer</strong> Did you try to stop the <span class="caps">DOT</span> from soliciting opposition?</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> My responsibility is not to the <span class="caps">DOT</span>.</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> I’m good, but I’m not that good to oversee every email in the <span class="caps">DOT</span>. I did not see a script;</p>
<p><strong>Boxer</strong> You did not know they were lobbying Congress.</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> I only talked with her about talking with her constituency.</p>
<p><strong>Boxer</strong> Who’s her constituency? She’s not an elected official.</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> There are members of Congress and governors who are particularly interested in transportation issues.</p>
<p><strong>Boxer</strong> Your constituency is the American people. I believe this administration has already decided not to grant this waiver. My belief is there’s going to be hiding behind this executive order. Now you’re using the comments, most of which are form letters in favor of the waiver, as an excuse. You’ve said nothing to condemn what the <span class="caps">DOT</span> did. Your job is to protect my constituents and the rest of the country. I couldn’t be more disappointed. We’re going to keep the pressure on. Thank you very much and we stand adjourned.</p>_Witness_
<ul>
<li>Stephen Johnson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency</li>
</ul>
<p>10:53 <strong>Inhofe</strong> is attacking a <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDRhZWFjYTc5ODcxMWZmOTYyMzY5ZmIwMmQ5MDg5M2M=">statement</a> made by the president of the American Council on Renewable Energy. This is so typical of these hate-filled people. I was called a traitor by one of the extreme left. See if it’s appropriate to be a part of this organization. “It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. I will launch a campaign against you. Go ahead guy, take me on.” The waiver request strikes me as a backdoor effort, though I need some education on this, to usurp the Congress’s role in setting <span class="caps">CAFE</span> standards. If a handful of states are able to come up with standards different from the United States, what will happen to <span class="caps">CAFE</span> standards?</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> There are two sections of the Clean Air Act: Section 209, for California waiver petitions. There are three conditions if any are triggered to deny the petition. Section 202 deals with mobile sources.</p>
<p><strong>Inhofe</strong> It’s very elaborate what the law requires you to do. I think you have done your job. How can California assess the <span class="caps">CAFE</span> standards to be so radically different from the Department of Transportation’s estimation? <span class="caps">CARB</span> requires about 44 MPGs and 27 MPGs for trucks. Don’t you think the federal regulators know more about it than <span class="caps">CARB</span>? How can <span class="caps">CARB</span>’s mistaken feasibility assessment be corrected?</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> There is a case before the 9th Circuit. In the meantime we are continue to review and evaluate voluminous and unprecedented comments on the waiver.</p>
<p>11:01 <strong>Lautenberg</strong> I think you’re wrong on this issue. It amounts to footdragging.</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> I don’t believe it is legal for me to lobby any member of Congress. I think it is good for members of Congress to talk with each other. The responsibility to make a decision lies solely with me.</p>
<p><strong>Lautenberg</strong> We’re talking about a forever delay here. Eighteen months while the air is pollution, despite Sen. Inhofe’s disbelief climate change is happening. He called it a hoax. We have hoax floods and hoax droughts and hoax hurricanes and hoax tornadoes. Mr. Johnson, the one thing I don’t want to see happen is the demise of our automobile industry. But it ought not be juxtaposed with the threat of climate change. This footdragging is unacceptable. Is it true that the request for the waiver has been in for eighteen months?</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> The waiver request came in December 2005. In February of 2007 we informed California that we were going to await the Supreme Court decision.</p>
<p><strong>Lautenberg</strong> Those details are irrelevant to the urgency of climate change.</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> I agree that there is an urgency to deal with the voluminous comments. Climate change is a very serious issue and we have a responsibility to deal with this in a timely and deliberate fashion. There are still thousands of comments. We just received 800 pages from California. It takes time for our staff to do a thorough review.</p>
<p><strong>Lautenberg</strong> Why don’t we see the urgency to do something about climate change? Can you imagine that California is trying to delay this?</p>
<p><strong>Boxer</strong> California is going to sue to get action.</p>
<p>11:12 <strong>Lautenberg</strong> If this was a fire, action would be taken. We are facing lots of dangerous situations. Any delays put our society at risk. I urge you to try and expedite this waiver request.</p>
<p>11:14 <strong>Carper</strong> I want you to fully respond to my request.</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> Thank you for your leadership. I want to apologize for any miscommunication.</p>
<p>11:24 <strong>Boxer</strong> These thirteen states want to do it yesterday.</p>
<p>11:30 <strong>Boxer</strong> The <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s job is to protect the public health and welfare. Is the Bush administration opposed to granting the waiver?</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> We’re going through a very deliberate process.</p>
<p><strong>Boxer</strong> Is the administration opposed to granting this waiver?</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> The administration recognizes the responsibility to make an independent decision.</p>
<p><strong>Boxer</strong> The <span class="caps">DOT</span> was calling members of Congress attacking the waiver. Is it appropriate for the administration to lobby Congress against the waiver?</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> I respectfully defer to the Department of Transportation.</p>
<p><strong>Boxer</strong> You are responsible for the health and welfare of the people of this country. You sit here and can’t condemn that this administration has been lobbying Congress against this waiver.</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> I’m not responsible for the <span class="caps">DOT</span>. I defer to the <span class="caps">DOT</span>.</p>
<p><strong>Boxer</strong> If you defer you say that you think it’s okay.</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> I defer to the <span class="caps">DOT</span>.</p>
<p><strong>Boxer</strong> Since we know members of <span class="caps">DOT</span> were actively lobbying members of Congress, were you aware this was going on?</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> I told the secretary of the <span class="caps">DOT I</span> was inclined not to grant an extension.</p>
<p><strong>Boxer</strong> That’s not my question.</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> I described my awareness in my conversation with the secretary of the <span class="caps">DOT</span>.</p>
<p><strong>Boxer</strong> Did you try to stop the <span class="caps">DOT</span> from soliciting opposition?</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> My responsibility is not to the <span class="caps">DOT</span>.</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> I’m good, but I’m not that good to oversee every email in the <span class="caps">DOT</span>. I did not see a script;</p>
<p><strong>Boxer</strong> You did not know they were lobbying Congress.</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> I only talked with her about talking with her constituency.</p>
<p><strong>Boxer</strong> Who’s her constituency? She’s not an elected official.</p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong> There are members of Congress and governors who are particularly interested in transportation issues.</p>
<p><strong>Boxer</strong> Your constituency is the American people. I believe this administration has already decided not to grant this waiver. My belief is there’s going to be hiding behind this executive order. Now you’re using the comments, most of which are form letters in favor of the waiver, as an excuse. You’ve said nothing to condemn what the <span class="caps">DOT</span> did. Your job is to protect my constituents and the rest of the country. I couldn’t be more disappointed. We’re going to keep the pressure on. Thank you very much and we stand adjourned.</p>