I have good news and bad news. First, the good news. President Obama has ordered the EPA to revisit the denial of the California waiver. Basically, this means that states will now be allowed to set their own standards for automobile tailpipe emissions. States like California and New York, which wanted to enact higher standards than the federal regulations, have been handicapped by the Bush administration for years. With this announcement, that is set to change.
Now the bad news. Some Republicans are throwing a fit, whining about the nature of Federalism and providing misleading information about the cost to automakers. Over at Room for Debate, Jerry Taylor, a Senior Fellow at Cato, almost blew a gasket on Monday, eventually concluding:
States have the right to act. But their reach should end where another state's nose begins
Is he seriously arguing that it is the proper role of the Federal government to block a popular state policy which would decrease oil imports and improve air quality? Is that how the EPA should be spending its time? Is he also really comparing requiring more efficient vehicles to a punch in the face?
Taylor huffs and puffs:
Why does California get to dictate the nature of the auto fleet for the rest of us?
How dare California insist on improvements to vehicle efficiency? The nerve! Those with a sense of history will remember that California's requirement that all vehicles sold in the state have catalytic converters eventually brought about the requirement in all 50 states. This improvement has saved countless lives and has drastically reduced emissions of toxic nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide.
Taylor continues, clearly grasping for straws at this point:
The idea behind federalism is that we should look suspiciously at state action that imposes costs on people in other states -- and California state fuel efficiency standards will most certainly do that by dictating to some degree the mix of cars manufactured for sale outside of California (whether the benefits of those fuel efficiency standards exceed the costs is a separate question).
This is not how I understand federalism. It would be quite dangerous to hold all states hostage to the lowest common denominator on issues of environmental protection. Indeed, this quote from Supreme Court Justice Brandeis seems more appropriate for understanding the context of California's efforts to require more efficient vehicles:
It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.
Industry has been preparing for this for a while, by pushing misleading information into the public sphere about the costs of increasing fuel efficiency. GM's VP of Productive Development, Bob Lutz, has a long history of making a fool of himself. He continued at this month's Detroit Auto Show, by pre-emptively arguing against California's tailpipe emissions standards:
"If Obama accepts the California waiver, that works out to 43 miles per gallon," says Lutz. "We can do it, with a lot of technology, but that costs money--$4,000 to $5,000 extra, on average, per vehicle."
I tend to agree with Jesse Berney's assessment, that those who are serious about enacting worthwhile policy should completely disregard and ignore Republicans. If they are with you on a particular issue, fine. But bending over backwards for the sake of bipartisanship is worse than just politically foolish, it is downright irresponsible.
Sadly, President Obama has placed a Republican with a lackluster record at the helm of the Transportation Department. The DOT will need to make some serious changes to how business was done during the Bush years for the waiver decision to have the impact it should.
To this end, Rep. Markey, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment has just sent a letter to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, specifically addressing the ridiculous claims made by automakers about the cost of efficiency improvements, as well as the Bush DOT's troubling habit of not independently verifying such claims.
As you know, to develop cost-effective fuel economy standards, NHTSA compares the costs of implementing fuel efficient technologies to the benefits reaped from them. My office has been informed, however, that NHTSA relies too heavily on automakers' claims of these costs without independently validating them. For example, I have been informed that in determining the cost of a particular technology, NHTSA merely averages together the lowest estimate (generally provided by independent auto industry experts/consultants) with the highest estimate (generally provided by individual automakers) without attempting to validate the estimates. Any automaker could thus easily "game" the system by submitting inflated cost estimates.
Chairman Markey is absolutely right, and I applaud him for having the foresight to send this public letter at this time. I just hope Secretary LaHood is perfectly clear on who his boss is. As efforts to improve our energy policy ramp up in the coming weeks and months, it is essential that both Congress and the administration take industry talking points with a heavy dose of salt. Whether it is big oil, big coal, big natural gas or big auto - the forces behind our unsustainable hydrocarbon economy are willing to do or say absolutely anything to maintain the status quo. If we are going to bring about the changes to energy policy we deserve, we would be wise to recognize that some stakeholders are willing to engage in debate on good faith, while others, unfortunately, are not.