EPA chief faces growing pressure over car emissions

The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Stephen L. Johnson, is facing mounting criticism from all sides for his decision to deny California and at least 15 other states the right to set stricter-than-federal emission rules for cars and trucks. At a public hearing in Washington on 24 January, organized by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, he was attacked by policymakers for his stand-alone decision in December to block California's emission limits requiring a 30% greenhouse gas cut from all cars by 2016.

Senator Barbara Boxer, chairman of the investigating Senate Committee, suggested Johnson's denial was driven by the interests of the White House and the U.S. car industry pushing for a delay of the issue: "You're going against your own agency's mission and you're fulfilling the mission of some special interests." Moreover, she demanded that states should be allowed to choose fuel economy standards in line with the California rules (40.5 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2016) or federal ones (35 mpg by 2020).

--image1--Johnson, however, defended his decision, saying that federal fuel economy rules would be preferable to a patchwork of state rules, and that his decision was not directed by anyone. His agency has already been sued by 16 U.S. states, with the governors of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Vermont testifying at yesterday’s Senate committee hearing. On Wednesday, 14 governors had sent a letter to Johnson calling his decision "unprecedented" and "without merit".

California’s emissions law would translate to an overall fuel economy of more than 43 mpg, using not only minimum fuel economy standards but also other measures, namely more efficient car air-conditioning.

EPA internal conflicts grow

At yesterday's hearing evidence was presented that Johnson had deliberately ignored the recommendation of his staff to grant California the waiver. Showing excerpts from a presentation EPA officials had given to Johnson last October, Boxer proved that EPA staff had acknowledged California’s "compelling and extraordinary conditions" and its high vulnerability to climate change that would make it necessary to enforce stricter greenhouse gas rules than at the federal level. However, Johnson still rejects this argument, claiming that the state is not suffering from any extraordinary problems caused by global warming. Moreover, he also ignored the prediction of his staff that the EPA was likely to lose the suit if California and other states would challenge the waiver denial.

Johnson has now also come under fire from inside his agency. A letter sent to him by four work unions representing EPA workers, stated that his decision has troubled many civil servants at the agency, and had cast "a broad and dark shadow" over any future EPA ruling: "We write to express our deep dismay and concern over the damage to EPA's reputation following your December 19 decision," the letter reads.

Next steps

On 24 January, Senator Boxer introduced a bill that would force the EPA to grant California the waiver. If enforced soon, the legislation will accelerate the enforcement of California's law supported by 19 states that all together represent more than 152 million Americans – the majority of the U.S. population.