EPA: CA Can Set Its Own Automotive CO2 Standards

by Robert Farago

Published: June 30th, 2009

epa ca can set its own automotive co2 standards

The LA Times reports that The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has granted California the right to set its own, independent CO2 standards for car and truck emissions. The controversial waiver comes with a proviso: they can’t toughen the tailpipe regs—de facto mpg requirements—until 2017. Which is no big deal, ’cause the feds have adopted California’s standards until that date. “It preserves California’s role as a leader on clean air policy,” EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in an interview. “It feels good to know that we are able to move past — address — this issue, responding to the president’s call.” Move past, address now, kick it down the road, satisfy the President’s pre-election pledge, whatever. Meanwhile and in any case, the non-waiver waiver is something of a relief for automakers . . .

Lest we forget, Uncle Sam’s new MPG rules are so full of holes they make Swiss cheese look like a block of cement. Does this grand compromise represent their hopes for a new administration willing to lay the dirty on CA . . . later? Politics has go nothing to do with it. EPA’s Jackson says that today’s decision stemmed from a careful reading of the Clean Air Act and EPA history. “This decision was based entirely on the law,” she said, “and not at all on politics.”

Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments

Join the conversation

4 of 37 comments

Johnthacker on Jul 07, 2009
Honestly, at this stage, if you’re worried about CARB, you’re part of the problem, not part of the solution - especially as the solution is essentially pain free. "Essentially pain free?" What a contentless statement; I don't know whether you're talking about net pain or gross. How about simply saying that the benefits are worth the costs, which I agree? I realize that the bulk of the American people like to pretend that there are no tradeoffs, and that they want, e.g., environmental benefits and lower pollution without paying more, and that they vote for politicians who promise such, but it's ridiculous. It's also why we're getting as stupid of a Cap-and-Trade bill as we are. Not that it's unusual worldwide, either, to get bills that sound good but have little in the detail. If they didn’t have ~$50 billion dollars in fed taxes stolen every year, they’d be much better off. That's part of the price of having a high cost of living, which in large part is California's fault for zoning and land-use regulation that drive up home prices, and favoring redistribution on a federal scale. It's inevitable that federal redistribution is going to harm California; if as a rich state (exaggerated by cost of living, as $50k goes a lot less in San Francisco than Alabama) they really care about that, perhaps they should stop electing federal officerholders who favor redistribution to the poor. It's also, more complicatedly, part of the price for the exact way the SAFETEA-LU highway fund formula works. California, Texas, Arizona, and the Southeast pay more in gas taxes than they get back. The Northeast and the big empty states win out by that measure. (Those in the Northeast complain that they get less spending per capita, but they also drive less and hence pay less.)

Like Reply
Johnthacker on Jul 07, 2009
These states would generally run an annual surplus of around 100 billon dollars. Have fun the rest of you’s dealing with your 200 billon dollar deficit. I'm pretty certain that this wouldn't happen. The richer of the separating states would fund the poorer. There would still be donor states and recipient states among each group. Anyone familiar with Canada and the complaints over equalization knows that as well. In addition, judging from the way both California federal representatives vote in Congress, and the way California runs its own state government, a smaller country made up by Californians in a larger percentage would also run a deficit. California would possibly be sending less of that money to poorer states, but I would expect the new federal entity to run a deficit due to political pressures.

Like Reply
Johnthacker on Jul 07, 2009
As above, you don’t think it might be because those states had the most to lose in the event of an economic collapse? Partially, but Texas has a large economy and is not suffering the same way as the housing bubble states (CA, AZ, FL, NV, to name a few) did. Sure, the fact that the states that led the housing bubble are suffering the most from a crisis caused by its collapse is pretty important, but I find it hard to believe that the housing bubble was all worthwhile investments.

Like Reply
U mad scientist on Jul 07, 2009
That’s part of the price of having a high cost of living, which in large part is California’s fault for zoning and land-use regulation that drive up home prices, and favoring redistribution on a federal scale. No. California has a lot of profitable and high end industries, so its citizens make more, thus higher income taxes. "Favoring redistribution" is written right into the constitution, where even podunk poor states get 2 senators. - It’s inevitable that federal redistribution is going to harm California; if as a rich state (exaggerated by cost of living, as $50k goes a lot less in San Francisco than Alabama) they really care about that, perhaps they should stop electing federal officerholders who favor redistribution to the poor. What they need is to leave a union where welfare recipients bitch and whine about the hand feeding them. - The richer of the separating states would fund the poorer. There would still be donor states and recipient states among each group. This doesn't change the absolute net $ amounts. Even if they spend it all, they get something for that money instead of generally getting screwed by morons.

Like Reply