The Bush administration rejected an attempt by California and several other states to combat global warming by placing a cap on greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. Stephen Johnson, head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), announced the decision Dec. 19, 2007. Environmental advocates and members of Congress have sharply criticized the decision, and several states have already filed suit in federal court hoping to overturn it.

In 2002, California Gov. Gray Davis (D) signed the California Clean Cars law. The legislation called for state regulators to impose strict emissions standards for new vehicles beginning with model year 2009.

In December 2005, California petitioned EPA to let the state enforce the Clean Cars law through regulation. Under the Clean Air Act, the federal government holds the express right to regulate emissions but may grant waivers to California. If EPA grants a waiver to California, other states may adopt California's regulations. "A total of 18 states, representing 45 percent of the nation's auto market, have either adopted" or pledged to adopt California's program, according to The Washington Post. EPA has never before denied a waiver request under the Clean Air Act.

In defending his decision, Johnson said a recently passed energy bill supplants the need for the states' programs. Bush signed into law Dec. 19, 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (H.R. 6). Among other things, the law will raise the national fuel economy standard to 35 miles per gallon by 2020.

California's Clean Cars law does not mandate a change in fuel economy. Instead, the program caps vehicle emissions and provides automakers with latitude in choosing a strategy to meet the emissions limit, including improved fuel economy. Since both the newly passed law and the states' programs would effect a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, Johnson contends the states' standards would be unnecessary.

However, a study by the California Air Resources Board finds the states' emission reduction programs would be significantly more beneficial than the federal fuel economy standard. The study finds the states' programs would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 74 percent more than the federal fuel economy mandate for cars in California and be similarly beneficial for other states adopting the program.

Johnson also claims a single national standard is preferable to a "confusing patchwork of state rules." Johnson's rhetoric parrots that of auto industry spokespersons who have consistently called for a "50-state" or "nationwide" standard.

However, Frank O'Donnell, head of the nonprofit clean air advocacy group Clean Air Watch, believes this argument is misleading: "Under the Clean Air Act, there are only two possible standards for motor vehicles: federal standards, and potentially tougher California standards, which by law other states are permitted to adopt." O'Donnell adds, "That's hardly the makings of a quilt."

California and 15 of the states that intend to adopt California's standards filed suit on Jan. 2 against EPA. The states, joined by several environmental groups, filed the suit in San Francisco in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Governors and attorneys general from some of the states have been vocal in criticizing Johnson for denying California's request without a scientific basis for doing so. The Washington Post reported the claims of anonymous sources inside EPA who said scientific, technical, and legal advisors at the agency recommended Johnson grant California's request, arguing that EPA would lose a lawsuit, if filed.

A report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) supports the notion that EPA is on shaky legal footing in denying California's request for a waiver. CRS analyzed the four criteria California must meet in order to receive a Clean Air Act waiver ("whether the state has determined that its standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards; whether this determination was arbitrary and capricious; whether the state needs such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; and whether the standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are consistent with Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.") California's proposed regulations meet all four criteria, CRS found.

Two congressional committees are investigating EPA's decision. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee — headed by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), respectively — have requested all documents associated with the decision. Boxer's committee has scheduled a field briefing for Jan. 10, to be held in Los Angeles while Congress remains out of Washington. Johnson declined an invitation to attend the briefing.

EPA's general counsel has instructed staff to turn over all relevant documents and communications, including those to or from White House officials, according to the Associated Press. A recent investigation by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee found senior officials from the White House as well as the Secretary of Transportation were involved in a campaign to lobby governors and federal lawmakers to oppose California's request for a waiver. Administration officials coordinated that campaign with auto industry lobbyists, the report also found.

Despite congressional oversight and the prospect of a court battle EPA will likely lose, the administration may still wind up achieving its intended goal of delaying government regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Legislation granting the states the authority to regulate would likely be vetoed by Bush and have difficulty garnering the necessary two-thirds majority in both chambers. As for the court case, the CRS report states, "It is unlikely that EPA could be forced to grant a waiver through judicial means before the swearing in of a new Administration in 2009."