EPA Staff Enlisted Former EPA Chief to Lobby Current Leader on Tailpipe Waiver

by Julia Rosen [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

Sen. Barbara Boxer's digging into documents on the decision by the EPA not to issue a waiver to California so we can regulate tailpipe emissions is bearing some serious fruit.  The EPA staff went to great lengths to try and persuade the Bush lacky Steven L. Johnson not to overrule them and precedent and deny California the right to reduce greenhouse gases in our state.  LAT:

Some officials at the Environmental Protection Agency were so worried their boss would deny California permission to implement its own global-warming law that they worked with a former EPA chief to try to persuade the current administrator to grant the state's request.

That unusual effort was revealed by documents released Tuesday by congressional investigators probing whether EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson was swayed by political pressure when he decided not to allow California to enact vehicle emission standards stricter than the federal government's.

They actually even supplied him with talking points to lobby Johnson with. (flip it)

One of the newly released documents features "talking points" prepared by an agency staff member for former EPA Administrator William K. Reilly to help him build the case for granting California's request. In the October 2007 memo, the staffer said there was "no legal or technical justification" for the EPA to deny the request. If the agency refused California permission to implement its tailpipe law, the document said, "the credibility of the agency . . . will be irreparably damaged."

Johnson acted as the Bush Administration's lapdog.  He dragged out the process as long as possible and then overruled his own staff to deny California the waiver.  Both his legal and scientific advisors urged him to grant our waiver.  The denial was first time the EPA has ever denied a state a waiver under the Clean Air Act.

Unfortunately, we have little recourse until there is a Democrat in the White House.  Court cases to the best of my knowledge are proceeding, but that is a long term process, given the likelihood of appeals.