« Torotrak and Xtrac Partner on F1 Energy Recovery System; Applicable for Road Vehicles | Main | Hundreds of Antarctic Peninsula Glaciers Accelerating as Climate Warms; UN Issues Global Ice and Snow Report »
Federal Legislation Would Change Clean Air Act to Bar States from Setting Greenhouse Gas Standards for Vehicles
5 June 2007
Legislation under discussion in the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce would, if eventually enacted, amend the language of the Federal Clean Air Act to block states from establishing standards to limit the emission of greenhouse gases from automobiles.
The discussion draft of legislation submitted by Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality Chair Rick Boucher (D-VA) would prohibit the head of the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing the waiver required for a state to impose auto pollution standards if the new requirements are “designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
The issuance of a federal waiver is a well-established process with decades of legal precedent in California’s setting of its own, more stringent emissions regulations. The issuance of the waiver is also the next step in California’s quest—now 18-months old—to proceed with implementing its greenhouse gas limits on new light-duty vehicles beginning in 2009. Eleven other states have adopted the California regulations. (Earlier post.)
Specifically, the new legislation under discussion would amend Section 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7543) to read (new language is in boldface):
...No such waiver shall be granted if the Administrator finds that-
the determination of the State is arbitrary and capricious,
such State does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions,
such State standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) of this part, or
such State standards are designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
A hearing by the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality on the discussion draft is scheduled for Thursday, and will be webcast. The legislation will also be considered for inclusion in energy legislation scheduled for markup during June by both the Subcommittee and the full Committee, according to Boucher.
The draft is meant to stimulate discussion on several critical issues affecting US energy security: the production of alternative fuels and the infrastructure required to deliver them; the impact of motor vehicle use on energy consumption and supply; and the need to recognize the interdependent relationship between fuels and vehicles by treating them as a system.
—Representative Boucher
Among the other proposals included in the Discussion Draft are:
Implementing an Alternative Fuels Standard (AFS) that would begin in 2013 and mandate the use of 35 billion gallons of alternative fuel by 2025. In addition to corn-based and cellulosic ethanol, the bill would encourage and support the development of coal-to-liquids synthetic fuels as well as natural gas and electricity.
The bill establishes compliance value multipliers for each alternative fuel to determine the extent to which each fuel satisfies the volume obligation. Corn ethanol, for example, has a compliance value of 1.0, while gas-to-liquids and coal-to-liquids fuels have values of 1.5. In the early years (2013-2015), cellulosic ethanol has a compliance value of 2.5. This drops to 1.0 in the longer term. Electricity and gaseous hydrogen have values of 2.5 from 2013 though 2020, then dropping to 1.0. Butanol makes it on the list as well, with a value of 1.3 for the entire period.
Establishing a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). The LCFS is based on the volumes of the AFS. Twelve billions gallons of the alternative fuel required by that standard are to have a carbon intensity equal to 80% of the carbon intensity of gasoline. Of the remainder of the alternative fuel required by that standard for a given year, 50% will have a carbon intensity equal to 50% of the carbon intensity of gasoline; and 50% will have a carbon intensity equal to 25% of the carbon intensity of gasoline.
Developing programs to assist retailers in the installation or conversion of fuels infrastructure to alternative fuels use.
Mandating an increase in fuel economy to 36 mpg US by model year 2021 for passenger cars and 30 mpg US after model year 2024 for light-duty trucks. In addition to expressing standards in terms of miles per gallon, the bill would also require the expressions of standards in average grams per mile of carbon dioxide emissions. Automakers would have to increase the production of dual-fueled vehicles (e.g., flex-fuel vehicles) from 45% of new vehicles in 2012 to 85% in 2020.
Resources:
Discussion Drafts Released June 1, 2007: Title I -- Fuels
June 1, 2007 memorandum to Members from Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality Chairman Rick Boucher
June 5, 2007 in Climate Change, Coal-to-Liquids (CTL), Emissions, Fuel Efficiency, Policy | Permalink | Comments (46) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/19077656
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Federal Legislation Would Change Clean Air Act to Bar States from Setting Greenhouse Gas Standards for Vehicles:
Comments
Yipee. Gotta love our One Party system.
Posted by: freddy | Jun 5, 2007 2:42:31 PM
Accd to Opensecrets, Rep. Boucher's number one contributor over the years has been... Electric Utilities. What a surprise.
Posted by: freddy | Jun 5, 2007 2:45:11 PM
Ok now my brain circuits are shorting! This is criminal. Who ever sponsors this bill is Public Enemy No.1
Posted by: marcus | Jun 5, 2007 2:51:21 PM
They need to let the states do what they want on this one. It is a way of limiting huge, heavy, polluting and gas guzzling SUVs on their roads and they have every right to do this. It is their state and those are their roads.
Posted by: sjc | Jun 5, 2007 3:00:19 PM
Hey, no problem feds. We'll see you in court.
Posted by: Jack Hughes | Jun 5, 2007 3:02:04 PM
This appears to be an instance of the usual turf war between federal and state legislators. It is true that greenhouse gases are a global rather than a local/regional environmental problem, so the responsibility for addressing it should lie at the federal level. Only the state department can negotiate directly with foreign governments.
The problem is that the entire federal body politic has been abdicating this responsibility for many years now. Congressional representatives are simply too beholden to campaign contributions from industry, e.g. the energy and auto sectors.
Besides, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the Clean Air Act basically entitles individual states to restrict the emissions of harmful compounds not covered by EPA regulations. That is why there is now a waiver process. Rep. Boucher's amendment is attempt to close the barn door after the horse has bolted and, may be ruled unconstitutional even if it passes. Of course, there would be a lengthy delay...
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Jun 5, 2007 3:02:58 PM
Lemmee see if I've got this right...if any state wants to raise standards above the minimum to show that even more can be done...that's um, wait, I know this one, um, "bad" for the country because, um, ah...oh dang, I thought I knew this one.
Posted by: C Harget | Jun 5, 2007 3:05:44 PM
And take away the States' right to straighten out the feds B.S.?! Hell no! Write your politician to stop this!
Posted by: Gerald Shields | Jun 5, 2007 3:16:07 PM
Rick Boucher (VA), Chairman
Democrats:
G. K. Butterfield, NC, Vice Chair
Charlie Melancon, LA
John Barrow, GA
Henry A. Waxman, CA
Edward J. Markey, MA
Albert R. Wynn, MD
Mike Doyle, PA
Jane Harman, CA
Tom Allen, ME
Charles A. Gonzalez, TX
Jay Inslee, WA
Tammy Baldwin, WI
Mike Ross, AR
Darlene Hooley, OR
Anthony D. Weiner, NY
Jim Matheson, UT
John D. Dingell (Ex Officio)
Republicans:
J. Dennis Hastert, IL, Ranking Member
Ralph M. Hall, TX
Fred Upton, MI
Ed Whitfield, KY
John Shimkus, IL
John B. Shadegg, AZ
Charles W. "Chip" Pickering, MS
Steve Buyer, IN
Mary Bono, CA
Greg Walden, OR
Mike Rogers, MI
Sue Myrick, NC
John Sullivan, OK
Michael C. Burgess, TX
Joe Barton, TX (Ex Officio)
Posted by: C Harget | Jun 5, 2007 3:17:23 PM
Let me see if I have this right, the states are willing to do something about a problem that the federal government has sat on it's thumbs about, and now these "representatives" are going to try and get in the way of the people that are doing something? With authority comes responsibility. If you can't live up to your responsibilities (i.e. earn your pay) then you've abdicated your authority.
Posted by: Neil | Jun 5, 2007 3:43:26 PM
I don't get this. How could CA, MA, NY etc senators agree to this?
Posted by: marcus | Jun 5, 2007 3:56:03 PM
Oh my Gosh!.. You mean to tell me all those whacko conspiracy theroists are actually right???
Posted by: Wayne | Jun 5, 2007 4:28:21 PM
Thing is, according to the Clean Air Act, there can only be two sets of standards:
California (if the EPA grants a waiver).
Federal.
States can either use the Fed OR the California standards. This is supposed to avoid 50 state setting 50 different standards and fracturing the market into 50 different pieces. That much makes sense.
Rafael is probably correct about the turf battle aspect. This Congress is still working on Federal-level GHG legislation and they likely don't want to be upstaged by California.
Posted by: Cervus | Jun 5, 2007 4:36:55 PM
I don't think its a matter of being upstaged. I think its a matter of trying to water down something that could have worked. As Rafael also points out "Congressional representatives are simply too beholden to campaign contributions from industry, e.g. the energy and auto sectors." and I agree completely.
Posted by: marcus | Jun 5, 2007 4:59:53 PM
I don't even understand why section 209 belongs in this document. It seems to restrict the states right to pass their own laws even if those laws never contradict federal regulations.
This is one document badly in need of a re-write.
I'm not sure if this is political grandstanding or what. After the popularity of California standards around the world I can't see a law passing that would stop them being very popular.
Posted by: greg woulf | Jun 5, 2007 5:16:23 PM
Ah, come on guys; you know the auto & energy sectors don't ever get together on these things & they would never try to persuade our sweet, innocent Congressional Representatives with financial incentives, promising careers, board positions, great jobs or anything like that... why that is illegal or something, isn't it?
And since when did the Feds want to control anything at state level anyway or when did they ever try to side up with the auto & energy sectors? This is all just foolishness. Don't worry about 209 guys, it will only empower the states to pass more of their own state-laws & be able to sue the feds at leisure & always win!
Ooops!... I see where Paul says I need to back to the sand-box... OK see ya'll later!
Posted by: Wayne | Jun 5, 2007 5:25:29 PM
Agree with Cervus,
This makes sense in order to keep a unity throughout the U.S. and also more equal for the automakers.
Posted by: J | Jun 5, 2007 5:27:37 PM
See opensecrets.org to learn his top 4 financial contributors:
#1 guess who? Electric Utilities! Surprise!
#2 lawyers
#3 TV
#4 mining
Well I'm so relived to know that he represents these 4 important groups, that are going to solve climate burning.
Loves the corps more than the grandkids.
Posted by: Gunnar | Jun 5, 2007 5:48:27 PM
Absolutely incredible. Not only are they not doing anything, but they're making sure that nobody else can either. (At least here in the US.)
Posted by: John | Jun 5, 2007 5:50:33 PM
Too bad there isn't a clause about congressmen and committees that are "arbitrary and capricious." Ok... I know, pandering to the special interests that pay for one's lifestyle isn't really arbitrary.
Posted by: rhapsodyinglue | Jun 5, 2007 6:27:14 PM
Someone else posted the second one about the "sandbox" using my initials. That should be grounds for PERMANENT BANNING.
Posted by: SJC | Jun 5, 2007 6:29:33 PM
Too bad there isn't a clause about congressmen and committees that are "arbitrary and capricious." Ok... I know, pandering to the special interests that pay for one's lifestyle isn't really arbitrary.It does seem bad! But remember they're not doing anything immoral like getting a BJ. That would be impeachable.
Posted by: DS | Jun 5, 2007 7:01:25 PM
There is a positive aspect to all this: it opens debate on the issue. However I think the AAM is behind this bill as a way to kill the California GHG regulations without court action becoming necessary.
Follows the reply I received when I wrote Toyota's CEO and complained about them working against reducing GHGs:
"Thank you for contacting Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A, Inc.
Toyota, as part of the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers (AAM), is supporting a lawsuit challenging California's right to establish a new regulation that seeks to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions through changes in motor-vehicle fuel economy.
We do not take this action lightly, knowing that environmentalists, who have praised Toyota's advanced technology vehicles for their low emissions, may target us for public criticism. However, the regulation is so extreme, ineffective and costly that we have no recourse but to fight it. The increased fuel economy requirements are drastic even for Toyota, which has one of the best environmental records in the industry.
For consumers, this could lead to higher prices and fewer vehicle choices. The cost to consumers, according to AAM, would average an added $3,000 per vehicle.
Global warming is a genuine concern for our society, and we vow to be part of the solution. The California rule has an admirable goal, but takes the wrong approach. Any solution must take at least a national approach or it will threaten economic growth while having little effect on the problem.
Rest assured, we will continue to work with others, including California and federal regulators, government representatives, academic leaders, the industry and environmentalists, to seek innovative solutions to the problem of global warming. And we will continue developing pioneer technology that will lead the way to future environmental advancements.
You may wish to click on the hyperlink in this sentence for information regarding Toyota and the Environment.
We appreciate your interest in environmental technologies used by Toyota.
We are committed to manufacturing vehicles with the most sophisticated and advanced technology that will help ensure high quality vehicles that has made Toyota a leader in the automotive industry. In the same respect, we are also developing technologies that will allow for more efficient and environmentally conscious powertrains...."
So, now you know!
Posted by: Lad | Jun 5, 2007 7:46:45 PM
I'd be interested to hear someone who knows the ins-and-outs of Congress speculate how this plays out from here. Boucher has revealed his own views, but I gather this is his first time being head of a major subcommittee, and given the composition I don't see many of the Democrats of the subcommittee signing on to this version. Does he plan to report this out to the full committee using mostly Republican votes? And if so, what are its chances in the full committee and the full House, given the tight control over rules exercised by the leadership, which is certainly not going to accept a step backwards on climate. (The CTL and California sections alone would probably kill this bill, despite the widespread support for ethanol.) And any final bill will have to go into Conference Committee with the Senate. That's a lot of hoops.
Does anyone else see this as an initial bargaining position from one Democratic member who is just opposed to serious action on climate?
Posted by: Anders | Jun 5, 2007 7:48:33 PM
I should have explained in my post above. Those are the subcommittee members...write them emails expressing your belief that the US environment has been greatly helped by having minimum Federal clean air standards, and allowing all states that want to follow California's lead to adopt higher standards. This two-standards system is easy for automakers because the higher California standard will always represent a large enough car market to make the higher mandated equipment profitable. Of course, if the subcommittee would support raising the CAFE standards to 40 MPG by 2012, that would have a similarly beneficial effect.
Posted by: C Harget | Jun 5, 2007 7:51:54 PM
US have highly integrated energy market (fuels, electricity, etc.) and common market of vehicles. California (and other states adopting California standards) was granted right to regulate motor vehicle emissions directly affecting local air quality – smog forming and PM emissions. Emission of GHG are not local problem, it is not even strictly national problem. It is clearly understandable that Congress will be reluctant to delegate to individual states tremendous power to regulate practically every aspect of national economy, balkanizing the whole US energy market. I posted it before, and repeat it now: Congress will be reluctant to delegate regulation of GHG emissions even to federal agency – EPA, DOE, or whatever. Too much power to one agency and too less power to legislators. There is other way to regulate GHG emissions, if desirable: lobby for national legislation through California&Coalition Senators and Representatives.
As I said before, it is extremely hard to prohibit, severe restrict, or impose strict regulation on something in US. You know, there is such small thing as personal freedom. But it is easy to any level of government to promote something, as long as it is done on their account. Tax credits to hybrid vehicles, alternative fuels, renewable energy – list is very wide. If Californians want to do something to “save the planet” – fine! Reduce state taxes on fuel efficient vehicles, alternative fuels, build more commuter rail and subway, allow LNG terminals and subsidize NG vehicles and fueling infrastructure. But on their own account, not by money of Detroit or Huston. I would imagine the scream from California if some states impose standards for less violent movies or more reliable PC software…
BTW, legislation proposed is not legislation passed. Freakishly enough, another Democrat (Chairman of House Natural Resource Committee, Rep. Nick Rahall from W. Virginia) proposed legislation practically prohibiting construction of new wind power installations and practically demolishing existing ones (wind turbines harm birds). It is so stupid, I can’t believe if it is true:
http://www.libsearthwatch.com/?p=452
Posted by: Andrey | Jun 5, 2007 9:37:57 PM
wow this is nuts.
Posted by: lensovet | Jun 6, 2007 1:17:15 AM
This is an awful piece of legislation. It seems like the entire Federal government is completely beholden to lobbyists of one sort or another.
A year or so ago, someone I know (a Republican, actually) suggested that one way to create a disincentive to driving fuel inefficient vehicles is to lower the speed limit for the big SUVs (technically thy are trucks, and my recollection is that was the legal distinction he was thinking of). Unfortunately that would be a rather imprecise tool and wouldn't be as effective as other measures to lower GHG.
Posted by: eric | Jun 6, 2007 4:51:12 AM
We are one of the leading manufacturers of engine parts, in particular diesel fuel injection system accessories for replacement, such as Head Rotor,Elements,Nozzle Injector,Nozzle, Plunger & Barrel, and Delivery Valve,diesel engine parts,VE pump parts and so on. please visit our website for more detail: www.dieselpartsworld.com.
Also Our products have excellent replacement performance in many kinds of reputable brand like BOSCH, ZEXEL, DENSO, IVECO, ISUZU, MATSUBISHI, CAT, KATO, KOMATSU, CUMMINS and so on. Our production exported to over 20 countries because of excellent quality, good after-sales service and more competitive priceIf you feel interested in any items related to this field, please write us for more detail and price. Look forward to working with you.
Best regard!
1W5829_Nozzle Head Rotor_3CYL_VE 4CYL_Cam_Disk Head Rotor_4CYL_VE 4W7015_Nozzle 4W7016_Nozzle 4W7017_Nozzle 4W7018_Nozzle Head Rotor_5CYL_VE 6CYL_Cam_Disk 7W7038_Nozzle 8N7005_Nozzle 9L6969_Nozzle 20494_Nozzle 20669_Nozzle 22808_Nozzle 26632_Nozzle 26964_Nozzle 27333_Nozzle 27336_Nozzle 28481_Nozzle 29279_Nozzle 32262_Nozzle 33408_Nozzle A-D.Valve AD-Element A_Element CAT_Element CR-Other-Nozzle DLLA...NP_Nozzle DLLA...P_Nozzle DLLA...S_Nozzle DLLA..PN_Nozzle DLLA.S.(S)N_Nozzle DN(P)(S)D(N)_Nozzle Drive_Shaft DSLA...P(S)_Nozzle HD8821_H&R HD90101A_H&R Long_Magnet_Valve Lucas_H&R Magnet_Valve M-Element MW-Element Nozzle_Tester_Pj-60 Nozzle_Tester_Pj-60A Other-D.Valve P8500-Element PD-3_Elenment P_D.Valve P-Element PN-Element PS7100-Element Pump_Control_Cover Regulataing_Valve Roller-Ring Same_Capacity Same_Pressure Speed_Control Speed_Shaft Supply_Pump Tester_Bench VE_PUMP-B.BOSCH VE_PUMP-D.DENSO VE_PUMP-Z.ZEXEL
8n7005,alfa romeo,ambac,international,auto diesel parts,barrel,bedford,
bedford 500,bnc 1500,bosch,bryce,cam disk,case cummins 4bt,cummins 6bt-5.9,cummins cup,cummins engine parts,cummins injectors,cummins system,D.Valve,delivery ve,delphi,denso,diesel bosch,diesel engine parts,diesel feed pump,diesel fuel injection,diesel fuel injection system,diesel injection,diesel,diesel injector,diesel kiki,diesel lucas,diesel nozzle,diesel plunger,diesel pump,diesel pecialists,dnosd297,doowon,Drive Shaft,dsla150p520,elements,feed pump,fiat,allison,ford,nissan,fuel injection,garrett,Governor,Governor tridge,head roto,holset,iceco-8140,injection parts,injection pump,injector ,interchangeable,interstate mcbee,isuzu 4jb1,isuzu 4jb1t,iveco 40-10 iveco 9-12,iveco,renault,iveco-8060,john,land rover 2.25,leyland 680 lucas,lucas,m35a2,m60,Magnet Valve,mico,mitsuboishi 4d55,model 100,motorpal,nissan cd17,nissan td27,nissan td42,nozzle,nozzle holder omap,other no,pencil nozzle,perkins 3 cyl,perkins 4 cyl,perkins 6 cyl perkins 6354,perkins t6354,plunger,plunger barrel,ps7100,ps8500,pump valve,renault,repair kit,Roller ring,samsung,spaco,spring plunger,stanadyne,toyota ihz,Triplex coupling,turbocharge,ve pump parts vehicle model,volvo penta,anmar,zexel,dieselpower
Posted by: gary | Jun 6, 2007 5:27:05 AM
California is a large market due to the sheer number of residents. California has some of the most restrictive clean air legislation in the country. Automobiles sold in California have in the past needed to have special provisions / versions. Is it really surprising that the Automobile manufacturers would dislike that?
The people of California have spoken with their votes. They elected officials with the expectation that they would protect their environment. For hundreds of years this country has had both federal laws and state laws. So long as the state laws do not interfere with the federal laws there *should* be no problem.
The clean air standards that California has meet or exceed those mandated on a Federal level. Why then should they even need to apply for a waver? Does that mean that federal legislature mandates we EMIT a quota of greenhouse gas? Heck if they can mandate this on a state level what's to stop them from mandating something on a personal level.
California has the RIGHT to choose to do more than the minimum required. This is called the "Clean Air Act" ... lets not loose the spirit of the law. I have no compassion for any company who says ... aww but gee this looks difficult. So stop selling cars in California! If you want to sell them there then deal with it .. good greif ... sometimes it feels like dealing with 5 year olds.
Posted by: Tom | Jun 6, 2007 5:43:43 AM
Everyone assumes this is intended to benefit the auto industry. Boucher is from southwest Virginia -- coal country. Yes, congress is beholden to contributors, but also beholden to their electorate, and Boucher has always looked out for his.
If the Feds were actually doing anything about GHG emissions, then this would be a non-issue and we would all see that there is a need for standard regulation in the country. Unfortunately all those good "States Rights" Republicans will be sure to restrict States Rights in the name of, uh, in the name of -- oh I am sure they will think of something.
Posted by: JMartin | Jun 6, 2007 7:21:57 AM
It is one thing to take care of your state and another the country. Doing what is right for the country used to be called Statesmanship. A seemingly contradictory term, but something we lack these days.
When they build bridges to nowhere to benefit the state but harm the nation, that is wrong. States should be able to decide what vehicle are registered in their state. If they want to increase the registration fees for large SUVs or make them drive 55 mph, that should be the choice of that state.
Posted by: SJC | Jun 6, 2007 8:27:13 AM
What I want to know is who exactly is responsible for adding that line regarding greenhouse gas emissions to the legislation. I think that should be on their permanent public record.
Anyone know how to figure out who is the responsible party for sponsoring that addition?
Posted by: Tom | Jun 6, 2007 8:41:22 AM
Rafael,
Unconstitutional?
You are frequently correct but you really missed on this one. California and other state used the clean air act (the act) to try to get EPA to allow them to regulate GHG. EPA responded that the act gave no authority to regulate GHG. The supreme court (capriciously) legislated from the bench - stating the act did allow - even required - GHG regulation.
(Based on the parsing of the act by the majority , their grammar teachers must have rolled over in their graves.)
Balance of powers - Congress has the opportunity to help the court understand their true intent by clarifying the act.
Had the court ruled that a constitutional issue was at the root, then a law could be overturned subsequently as unconstitutional. In this case the ruling was based not on the constitution but rather on the clean air act.
But even had the issue been a constitutional one, a constitutional amendment would overrule any court ruling. (Of course, that would require action by state legislatures as well as action by congress.)
Regardless - it seems unlikely that this proposal will be passed in a Democrat-controlled congress despite the fact that a Democrat committee chair proposed it. (He will get some brownie points from his supporters & coal-mining constituents for the effort.)
Posted by: Harvey | Jun 6, 2007 9:16:46 AM
It's time for a little cigar puffing, testosterone fueled, gubernator action. Hopefully Arnie will show those girlie men in Washington a thing or two.
Posted by: rhapsodyinglue | Jun 6, 2007 11:45:25 AM
Yeh, Arnold can sign a bill and force the emitters to act now, or suffer. Let the Feds sue him. That will tie things up in court for 20 or so years, and meanwhile the poluters will be on the sidelines while those embracing change will be advancing technology and making profits.
It seems to me that the shift away from GHG emissions presents all kinds of economic opportunities the country should embrace. Big oil will adjust. That is what the profit motive is all about.
Posted by: JMartin | Jun 6, 2007 1:40:57 PM
you do kind of wonder if these people are even living on the
same planet as the rest of us !
Posted by: andrichrose | Jun 6, 2007 2:18:00 PM
What happened to the constitution? Any powers not given to the federal government automatically belong to the states. Where in the constitution were the feds given this power? The bastards are writing their own constitution again.
Posted by: rockytop | Jun 6, 2007 5:19:14 PM
I think the Commerce Clause that allows the Feds to regulate interstate trade (ya can't keep your acid rain in your own state, can ya?) does allow the EPA to regulate emissions. That is precisely why GHG are approporiate and mandatory for the EPA to regulate. How are drouts, killing coral reefs, floods, rising oceans, and potentially erasing major cities (Miami, New Orleans, Amsterdam, lots of South East Asia, etc.) any less damaging to the environment than acid rain?
That said, California's air quality laws predate Federal Laws and have the grandfathered right to exist. California has substantial reasons for wanting to set its own stadards higher, and yes, this would probably cause a really big turf war if some line-item tried to rescind that.
The point most of us are making here, I think, is that such a line-item should not even make it out of the subcommittee, whose members I listed above. Write them!
Posted by: C Harget | Jun 6, 2007 11:58:13 PM
The present administration has an odd sense of what the state's responsibilities and rights are.
Hurricane Katrina was a Gulf Coast problem affecting Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. It was not a large hurricane hitting the continental U.S. It was up to the states to handle it. But when it comes to deciding other issues, the states have no rights.
Posted by: GreenCarGuy | Jun 7, 2007 8:14:57 AM
I really don't know how these things work. Henry Waxman is on that list and is a Californian democrat closest to where I live (although he is not my representative).
Now check out this:
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1119
What gives?
Posted by: marcus | Jun 7, 2007 9:10:55 PM
Good news. This item made the Washington Post editorial page. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/07/AR2007060701952.html
They point out That Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a Californian likely to fight this measure. Still, your nearest rep needs all the support they can get on this. Write whoever is close.
Posted by: C Harget | Jun 7, 2007 10:33:37 PM
I'm glad its made it to the press. I've contacted both Barbara Boxer and my local rep.
Posted by: marcus | Jun 8, 2007 5:18:44 PM
Somehow this needs to hit the headlines around the country perhaps the NYT or CNN. The question is if only 10 other states want to copy California, then how likely is it that senators from the other 39 states are going to help oppose this bill?
Posted by: marcus | Jun 8, 2007 6:22:49 PM
Could someone tell the guy from dieselpartsworld.com to stop using this site to sell his autoparts. Get a life and some class. We are trying to discuss some major issues on energy and this guy is trying to push sales tactics on this site. Get lost dude.
Posted by: James | Aug 2, 2007 8:20:14 PM
I have been unable to reach Hisense at any of their given contacts on their website. I have a TL3220 flat panel LCD TV. Twice the remote has disconnected itself from my TV. I also had to replace the TV within a month, as the screen went bad, and luckily the dealer had another TV. The original dealer, Rex Electronics, replaced the remote once. Apparently, if a certain button is pushed by accident (I think it is the“ SET” button), the remote will no longer work. Hisense would not help me, and no one seems to...
Posted by: flat lcd panel television tvs | May 31, 2008 7:51:19 AM
