He'd rather be sued by California than by the auto industries?

WASHINGTON — Environmental Protection Agency head Stephen Johnson was told by staffers that California had a compelling case for the federal Clean Air Act waiver that he later denied and that the agency was likely to lose in court if sued, Sen. Barbara Boxer said Wednesday.

EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar didn't dispute Boxer's conclusions, based on a Senate committee investigation.

"Her staff has been shown all the information unfiltered," Shradar said. "What this shows is that the administrator was provided a wide range of opinions upon which to make his decision. He feels he made the right decision."

Johnson's denial of the waiver stopped California from moving ahead with its tough laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. Sixteen other states were prepared to follow California's lead had the waiver been issued.

Boxer, D-Calif., heads the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which is investigating the EPA's rejection of the waiver. Under the Clean Air Act, California is the only state that can obtain a waiver allowing it to have tougher emission standards than those imposed by the federal government. But once the waiver is granted, other states can adopt similar rules.

[snip]

Investigators were permitted to look at the full documents and take notes from them, however. At a news conference Wednesday, Boxer released excerpts from the notes showing that EPA staffers apparently believed that California had a solid case for the waiver.

The notes quoted Johnson's briefing memo as saying that the agency was likely to be sued regardless of what decision it reached. The memo said that the EPA was "almost certain to win" if a lawsuit was brought by the auto industry because the waiver had been granted and that the EPA was "likely to lose" a suit brought by California if the waiver was denied.

So... ignoring the added pollution to a state fighting a losing battle with a burgeoning driving population, it was easier to side with the auto manufacturers? Really? Nothing to do with supporting corporations over common sense? Nothing to do with Republican indifference to human suffering? How would letting auto makers make more gas guzzling polluting cars help anyone in the end? They'd rather sue the EPA than go back to the designs they had during the 70s when some cars had 30 to 40 mpg ratings?

The next car I buy will be a fuel efficient one. That means car buyers like me will go to Japanese or other foreign cars. Which hurts the US auto industry. Which apparently they are unable to understand.

Just an hilarious side story: We get several paper deliveries up and down our street, The Los Angeles Times and the local Daily Bulletin, a few New York Times. Usually these papers are thrown out of the windows of old cars in the early morning onto our driveways.

But some nut is driving ... a Hummer ... to deliver papers. A HUMMER.

Words fail me...

Bush demands that California pollute more

The Bush administration's decision to deny California permission to regulate and reduce global warming emissions from cars and trucks is an indefensible act of executive arrogance that can only be explained as the product of ideological blindness and as a political payoff to the automobile industry.

The decision, announced Wednesday by Stephen Johnson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, overrode the advice of his legal and technical staffs, misconstrued the law and defied both Congress and the federal courts. It also stuck a thumb in the eyes of 17 other state governors who have grown impatient with the federal government's failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and wanted to move aggressively on their own.

The Clean Air Act of 1970 gave California authority to set its own clean air standards if it first received a federal waiver. The law also said that other states could then adopt California's standards. In 2004, California asked permission to move ahead with a law requiring automakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and light trucks by 30 percent by 2016. That would require improvements in fuel economy far beyond those called for in the energy bill signed this week.

Over the years, California has made 50 waiver requests to regulate smog-forming pollutants and other gases and has never been denied. This was the first request involving emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which the Bush administration has steadfastly refused to regulate.

Hmmm. Bush doesn't really seem sincere about global warming and alternate energy sources, does he? How strange....

Take this washing machine

And shov...... stand in the way of progress....

California has filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Energy for failing to allow the state to make its household washing machines more water-efficient.

In 2004, California approved rules imposing water efficiency standards for household washing machines that are higher than federal standards. The proposed new standard required washing machines sold after 2007 to use no more than 8.5 gallons of water per cubic foot of washing machine capacity. And by 2010, this figure would have to be reduced by a further 30%.

Overall, the new rules were expected to save 303 billion litres of water a year by 2019, but they could only come into effect if approved by the federal Department of Energy. However, the DOE refused to grant California a waiver from less stringent federal standards in 2004.

"For a state that faces perpetual water issues, every drop counts," says Jackalyne Pfannenstiel, chair of the California Energy Commission. "Less water use in California clothes washers will eventually save enough to supply a city the size of San Diego every year."

DOE spokesperson Julie Ruggiero says California did not meet requirements for the granting of a waiver. A waiver request has to be "economically feasible and technologically justified," she says.

Too high, too fast

"We are committed to increasing efficiency on a variety of fronts, but you have to meet the law in order to change the law," says Ruggiero. "In California, if we were to raise the standard that high, that quickly, it could have a negative impact on the producer and the consumer."

The more water-efficient machines will cost about $130 more, but according to the energy commission, savings on water and energy will save the average consumer about $242. The suit, which was filed on 20 April, also claims the state would save electricity and natural gas, and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

"California has had to sue the DOE five times over the last several years to get them on board with energy efficiency. The courts have sided with California five times," says Claudia Chandler, spokesperson for the California Energy Commission. "So, we'll see them in court."

Cleaner air

The announcement of the washing machines suit comes a day after California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger threatened to sue the federal Environmental Protection Agency if it does not act soon on the state's request to impose stricter-than-federal automobile emissions standards.

California requested in 2005 to get a federal Clean Air Act waiver that would allow it to regulate auto emissions more aggressively.

Five of the 11 states that also seek stricter auto emission standards – Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Maryland, Oregon and Rhode Island – sent letters to the EPA in support of California's threat.

The EPA has now agreed to consider California's request to limit tailpipe emissions and hold a hearing on 22 May in Washington.

Gee, that's mighty big of them. Since when did they worry about the little guy not being able to afford stuff? .... OOhhhh. The PRODUCER and the consumer. That's the Bush administration I know.