PA Gov. Rendell, 13 Other Governors Decry EPA's Waiver Denial in Joint Letter to Administrator

Letter Issued as Governor Testifies Before U.S. Senate Committee Investigating EPA's Actions

HARRISBURG, Pa., Jan. 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Pennsylvania today joined California and 12 other states in criticizing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson for his actions last month in denying a measure that would protect the public and environmental health above a federal government program.

Governor Edward G. Rendell, as well as the chief executives of other states who have either adopted, or planned to adopt, a California regulation that would impose stricter greenhouse gas emission standards on automobiles, sent a letter to Johnson criticizing his agency's denial of the waiver needed by California to implement the program.

Pennsylvania has adopted the stricter California emission rules, but cannot realize greenhouse gas reductions from the rules unless California is permitted to enforce that portion of its clean vehicle program.

The letter was delivered the same day Governor Rendell testified before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on why implementing the California rule is so important to Pennsylvania.

The Rendell administration is committed to creating a first-rate public education system, protecting our most vulnerable citizens and continuing economic investment to support our communities and businesses. To find out more about Governor Rendell's initiatives and to sign up for his weekly newsletter, visit www.governor.state.pa.us

EDITOR'S NOTE: The text of the letter follows:

The Honorable Stephen L. Johnson

Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC 20460

Dear Mr. Administrator:

We are writing to express our disappointment in your recent decision to block states' rights to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.

Your decision to deny California its waiver ignores federal law and the reality of climate change. It also ignores the clear intent of Congress in the Clean Air Act to enable California to adopt regulations to control emissions from new motor vehicles that are at least as stringent as those of the federal government, and to allow other states to follow.

The authority of states to address greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles has been clearly and unequivocally supported by recent judicial decisions. In April, the United States Supreme Court ruled in an historic opinion that greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles are pollutants to be regulated under the Clean Air Act. In September, a federal court decision in Vermont confirmed that states have the authority to adopt California's motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards. In December, a federal court in California issued a ruling that confirms California's authority to set motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards.

We find your reasons for denying California's request for a waiver of federal preemption unsound.

New Federal Fuel Economy Standards are No Excuse for Denying Waiver

You said the federal Energy Bill is the answer to combating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. The U.S. EPA acted inappropriately in basing its waiver decision on a comparison of California's emissions standards to possible co-benefits of the recently enacted federal Energy Bill, especially with no support for that comparison.

While more stringent CAFE standards are well and good, the most effective strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles is the comprehensive standard that has been adopted by 13 states and is being considered by another seven. California's standard regulates four greenhouse gases directly. The federal government, as required by the new Energy Bill, will improve fuel economy standards. Fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards are not the same. Although both are laudable, they achieve distinctly different goals.

California's Standard is One of Only Two Possible Standards

You denounced a confusing patchwork of state rules in your denial statement. There is no patchwork. Rather, there continues to be the two-car system that Congress intended - California cars and federal cars. Currently there is only one greenhouse gas emissions standard - a California standard.

The federal government has not established a greenhouse gas emissions standard for vehicles. If they do, manufacturers will continue to produce, at most, two vehicle types - one certified for sale in California and the states that have adopted California's standard, and one federally certified for the remainder of the states. That is why we need to adopt the most effective solution - California's - which is the only greenhouse gas standard in effect.

California's Standards are Almost Twice as Effective

You said federal CAFE standards are much more effective than California's standard. Although this is not a proper basis for your decision, according to an analysis by the California Air Resources Board, if all 19 states follow California, the greenhouse gas emissions reduction benefits above and beyond the possible co-benefits under the Energy Bill are expected to be 315 million metric tons by the year 2020, an 85% increase in emission reduction benefits.

This Global Problem Requires the Most Effective Solution

You said this waiver request is distinct from prior waiver requests because, unlike traditional pollutants, greenhouse gas emissions are a global problem. We agree that this is a global problem, but the consequences are a local problem. Higher temperatures will cause a number of troubling local conditions, including worsening smog and soot pollution in cities that already suffer from some of the worst air quality in the nation. That is why we need to adopt the most effective solution, which is ours.

Climate Change Compels Us to Act Now

You said that the circumstances for granting the waiver are not compelling. Each day, scientists better understand the impacts of climate change, and those impacts are certain to be environmentally and economically damaging. All states face negative impacts to their economies, natural resources and shorelines. California is particularly vulnerable because of its reliance on snow pack as the most significant source of water storage, its 1,200 miles of coastline, its agricultural industry that leads the U.S. in production of fruits and vegetables, and its already-challenging air quality issues. This is more than sufficient to warrant California's claim of "compelling and extraordinary conditions" and to exercise its right to lead a state-based effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, and for other states to follow.

In conclusion, the U.S. EPA action to prevent California, and thereby 19 other states, from implementing its motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions reduction regulations is without merit. The federal government, with this unprecedented action, is ignoring the rights of states, as well as the will of more than one hundred million people across the U.S. We stand by our commitment to bring cleaner cars to our states.

Sincerely,

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, California

Governor Edward G. Rendell, Pennsylvania

Governor Janet Napolitano, Arizona

Governor M. Jodi Rell, Connecticut

Governor John Baldacci, Maine

Governor Martin O'Malley, Maryland

Governor Deval Patrick, Massachusetts

Governor Bill Richardson, New Mexico

Governor Eliot Spitzer, New York

Governor Theodore R. Kulongoski, Oregon

Governor Donald L. Carcieri, Rhode Island

Governor James H. Douglas, Vermont

Governor Christine O. Gregoire, Washington

Governor Jon S. Corzine, New Jersey

CONTACT:

Chuck Ardo, 717-783-1116

Neil Weaver (DEP), +1-717-787-1323