"[P]eople acting in a group can accomplish things which no individual acting alone could even hope to bring about." - FDR

News & Analysis | REG•WATCH Blog | Press Room

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

More on the California Waiver Controversy

Earlier, Reg•Watch blogged about the concerted lobbying efforts of senior administration officials intent on killing an effort by the state of California to enact its own greenhouse gas reduction program. There are so many issues at stake here it's mind-boggling:

• Environmental Simply put, Waxman's investigation shows how the Department of Transportation, EPA, and White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) tried to kill a program which would effect a major reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. That's probably not in their respective mission statements.
• Industry influence As Reg•Watch mentioned earlier, the Department of Transportation was aided and abetted by the Auto Alliance in targeting certain congressmen. The Auto Alliance — comprised of Ford, GM, Toyota and others — has a big interest in making sure California and other states can't require tougher vehicle emissions standards.
• Federalism California's appeal for a waiver has always been a federalism issue. The Clean Air Act reserves the federal government's rights to regulate vehicle emissions, but also permits EPA to grant waivers for state programs. By delaying California's plan and rendering state regulators impotent, the administration is unfairly and unilaterally shifting power away from the states and to the federal government. The Bush administration ought to be more faithful to the principles of federalism upon which our nation was founded.
• Legal The Anti-Lobbying Act prohibits government personnel from lobbying Congress on proposed legislation. While administration officials may not have said "vote no" so explicitly, they did convey their opposition to the California waiver, and Congress is considering legislation that would force EPA to make a decision on the waiver. Moreover, Congress has the ultimate authority in initiating and overseeing agency regulatory activity through statute, so any opinion on a regulatory decision could be construed as lobbying. The Department of Justice does not apply the Anti-Lobbying Act to direct communications between agency personnel and legislators (only to "grassroots" lobbying) so don't hold your breath on legal action unless someone takes this to the courts.
• Resources and priorities Regardless of the legal question, this controversy raises significant concern over agency priorities and the use of resources. Couldn't Secretary Peters' and Chairman Connaughton's time be of better use elsewhere? More importantly, as Rep. Waxman says in his letter, "It is not an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars to organize a lobbying campaign to politicize this vital regulatory decision."