U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

61–979 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 110–1108 

EXAMINING THE CASE FOR THE CALIFORNIA 

WAIVER: AN UPDATE FROM EPA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 26, 2007 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gpo.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming1

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANDREW WHEELER, Minority Staff Director 

1Note: During the 110th Congress, Senator Craig Thomas, of Wyoming, 

passed away on June 4, 2007. Senator John Barrasso, of Wyoming, joined 

the committee on July 10, 2007. 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JULY 26, 2007 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ....................... 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma ................... 3 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ......... 5 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................. 6 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland .............. 7 

WITNESSES 

Nelson, Hon. Bill, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida .................................. 13 

Johnson, Hon. Stephen L., Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency ................................................................................................................... 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 20 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 24 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Reports: 

NERA/Sierra/AIR, Effectiveness of the California Light Duty Vehicle Regulations as Compared to Federal Regulations, June 15, 2007................. 49–169 

Ronald F. Kirby, Director of Transportation Planning, National Capital 

Regional Transportation Planning Board, Metropolitan Washington 

Council of Governments, June 27, 2007, CO2 Emissions from Cars, 

Trucks & Buses in the Metropolitan Washington Region...................... 170–188 

Chart, Annual Temperature California ................................................................. 10 

Article, University Wire, July 23, 2007, Calif. Health Services Releases Study 

of 2006 Heat Wave Fatalities, by Geoff Johnson, The California Aggie; 

Source: UC-Davis ................................................................................................. 11 

Letters from: 

Charlie Crist, Governor of Florida, July 25, 2007 ......................................... 15 

Jenny S.K. Rockwell, June 11, 2007, Sacramento, CA .................................. 28 

Sarah Schoenbach, NRDC, June 6, 2007, Santa Monica, CA ....................... 29 

(1) 

EXAMINING THE CASE FOR THE CALIFORNIA 

WAIVER: AN UPDATE FROM EPA 

THURSDAY, JULY 26, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of 

the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Cardin, Carper, Inhofe and Lautenberg. 

Also present, Senator Nelson of Florida. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. The committee will come to order. Welcome, everybody who is here today. 

Today, we will hear about the EPA’s crucial upcoming decision 

regarding whether to grant California a waiver that will free California and 12 other States to take important steps to reduce global 

warming pollution from vehicles. California submitted its waiver 

request over 20 months ago, but EPA dragged its feet and refused 

to act on it until the Supreme Court of the United States decided 

that the Clean Air Act authorizes greenhouse gas regulation. 

On April 2 of this year, the Supreme Court handed down its decision. In Massachusetts v. EPA the Court ruled that greenhouse 

gases are clearly air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and it rejected EPA’s excuses for not regulating vehicle greenhouse gas 

emissions under the Clean Air Act. 

Later in April, I called upon Mr. Johnson to testify about he 

would respond to the Supreme Court’s decision. I urged him to 

move quickly on California’s waiver request for its greenhouse gas 

standards so that California could begin to reduce global warming 

pollution from passenger vehicles and all those other States that 

are working with California. 

I also encouraged Mr. Johnson to take other actions under the 

Clean Air Act to help make up for precious lost time in responding 

to the challenge of global warming. We all know the longer we 

wait, the harder it gets. Unfortunately, Mr. Johnson repeatedly 

said that these issues are ‘‘complex’’ and need much further study. 

So I invited him back for a progress report so we can be assured 

that he is in fact moving, ‘‘expeditiously’’ as he promised us he 

would in April. 

But in the meantime, there have been several developments that 

cast doubt on this Administration’s seriousness about getting on 
2 

with the crucial business of combating global warming. First, Administrator Johnson has announced that he will not make a decision on California’s request until December of this year. It is inexcusable that the Agency plans to wait until December, a total of 2 

years, 2 years to decide this waiver request. 

In 30 years, EPA has granted over 50 waiver requests and has 

never denied California the ability to put an emissions standard in 

place. Deciding this latest waiver request should not take so long. 

That is why I have joined with Senator Nelson and several of our 

colleagues—that is Bill Nelson, including on this committee Senators Lautenberg, Cardin, Sanders and Whitehouse, to introduce 

legislation to require EPA to make its decision by September 30. 

I am also very troubled that top officials at the Department of 

Transportation, with the help of the auto industry, lobbied Members of Congress and Governors to oppose California’s waiver request. Even the Secretary of Transportation was part of this unprecedented use of taxpayer dollars to tilt the scales of another 

Agency’s decisionmaking process, even before public comments 

were considered. 

It appears that at least some parts of the Administration have 

already decided against granting the waiver, raising the question 

of whether California’s request will get a fair and just objective 

hearing on its merits. 

The President has directed EPA and other Federal agencies to 

implement through regulation a plan on greenhouse gas emissions. 

A close look at President Bush’s initial plans to reduce gas consumption by 20 percent in the next 10 years could actually allow 

heavy use of greenhouse gas-spewing fuels to substitute for gasoline, undermining efforts to reduce our global warming pollution. 

I am concerned that weak proposals under this Executive order 

will be released later this year and will be used as a poor excuse 

for denying the California waiver. I am proud of my State and the 

other 12 States for the leadership they have shown in addressing 

the pressing problem of global warming. As a result of that leadership, 13 States stand poised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

from over 30 percent of the vehicles sold in this country. Those 

States are Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 

Vermont and Washington. 

This Administration’s longstanding policy against taking regulatory action to reduce global warming pollution should not be allowed to stand in the way of the leadership of these States. Because of California’s tradition of leadership in controlling vehicle 

emissions, we believe this waiver should be granted. 

EPA and this Administration should respect that role and allow 

California and these States to once again lead the country in reducing vehicle pollution, in this case, pollution that threatens the planet itself. That way we can take important steps to protecting the 

future of our children and our grandchildren from the serious 

threats posed by global warming. 

I look forward to hearing from Administrator Johnson. I hope he 

has some better news for us this time. 

I am also so pleased that our good friend and colleague from 

Florida, Senator Nelson, is here to tell us about S. 1785, the bill 
3 

we introduced to set a deadline for EPA’s decision on the California 

waiver. He will also tell us about his State’s recent announcement 

about an exciting program to reduce greenhouse gases in Florida. 

He pointed out to me this morning, but I had already seen it, that 

we have a letter from Florida Governor Crist in support of our bill 

to require EPA to make a decision on the waiver by September 30. 

If ever there was a bipartisan issue, Senators, this is the issue. 

This is the letter we received from a Republican Governor we all 

know. My Republican Governor is with us. So why don’t we just 

join hands across the aisle finally here in the Senate and get things 

done. It is very, very important. 

So we will have our opening statements and then we will turn 

to Senator Nelson. 

Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Frankly, I am disturbed that we are having this hearing today. 

It was just 2 months ago that we had a hearing on this, and shortly before that Administrator Johnson told Members of the committee that EPA would conduct a thorough process to make a decision in an expeditious and timely manner. The EPA has met this 

commitment so far and there is no indication that it will not continue to do so. 

In making a decision of this magnitude, it would be improper for 

the EPA not to involve the public and formally solicit notice and 

comment. It has done so. The EPA intended to close the public 

comment period on June 15 and they closed it on June 15. 

The EPA has received more than 30,000 comments. While some 

of these are what I call, and what I think everyone would agree 

at this table, ‘‘postcard’’ comments that provide us no information 

of any value other than knowing how effective special interests are 

in their fundraising efforts. Many are very technical and very substantive. 

EPA needs to read them, assess them, compare them. It needs 

to investigate the issues raised by California thoroughly, analyze 

each and every document California relies upon, review supporting 

comments that may add new information California did not include, examine each argument raised in opposition to granting the 

waiver, determine the most relevant arguments and points that 

need to be taken into account in making the final decision, and determine the ramifications of a decision. And then and only then, 

EPA needs to make a decision. 

Now, it has been just over a month since the comment period 

closed, 1 month. With what the EPA must go through, I would be 

highly disturbed if the EPA said that is planned to make a decision 

before the end of the year. Rushing this process is unacceptable. In 

fact, it would be arbitrary and capricious in law and in fact. 

Mr. Administrator, I expect you to fully deliberate this important 

issue so that all the facts and considerations are taken into account. 

I am having trouble understanding the need for this waiver. One 

of the prerequisites for granting this waiver is that it is needed in 
4 

California to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions. Among 

the problems California listed that would occur from global warming are the higher temperatures will bring increases in heat waves, 

droughts, forest fires, flooding and smog and harm to the State’s 

water supplies and agriculture productivity. 

There is one small problem with that, and that is California is 

not experiencing global warming. The State is experiencing global 

cooling. In fact, the temperatures in California are lower today 

than the average temperatures since the beginning of the 20th century. The chart here speaks for itself. The California temperatures 

over the last two decades, as you can see, temperatures have 

trended downward at 0.12 °F. If this were to continue through the 

remainder of this century, California’s temperatures would decline 

by more than 1 °F. 

Exactly where is the harm that is compelling and extraordinary? 

California’s actual temperatures may inconveniently vary from the 

models, but if the models show California should have warmed and 

in fact it has been cooling, shouldn’t we view these estimates of future warming with somewhat of a jaundiced eye? 

A bill has been introduced that would force you, Mr. Administrator, to approve or disapprove the waiver request within 30 days. 

I assume supporters hope EPA will rubberstamp all future requests on the basis that EPA has not denied a waiver before. Two 

major reasons for this are the California standard has always been 

confined to addressing local problems and has been more protective 

than Federal standards. But this is not a local issue. It is a global 

one. California has shown no harm. As this chart I have shown you 

demonstrates—this same chart, chart one, if anything, California is 

experiencing a cooling and not warming. 

Also, unlike past waivers, it appears this time California’s waiver 

request would not result in more protective standards. I ask that 

this report by NERA, and I have copy of it right here, the economic 

consulting company, be placed in the record. It concludes California’s light duty vehicle regulations are less protective than Federal 

regulations. 

Now, if that is the case, Mr. Administrator, you cannot grant this 

waiver. If serious economic modeling finds that this is the case, you 

had better have a far more detailed economic modeling with far different conclusions before you grant a waiver. In fact, I believe that 

if the legislation were to pass, you would be compelled to deny the 

waiver. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Madame Chairman, I am disturbed that we are having this hearing today. Just 

two months ago, we had a hearing on this. And shortly before that, Administrator 

Johnson told Members of the committee that EPA would conduct a thorough process 

to make a decision in an expeditious and timely manner. EPA has met this commitment so far and there is no indication that it will not continue to do so. 

In making a decision of this magnitude, it would be improper for EPA not to involve the public and formally solicit notice and comment. It has done so. EPA intended to close the public comment period on June 15th. It did so. 

EPA has received more than 30,000 comments. While some of these are what I 

call ‘‘postcard comments’’ that provide us no information of any value other than 
5 

knowing how effective special interests are in their fundraising efforts, many are 

very technical and very substantive. EPA needs to read them, assess them, and 

compare them. It needs to: investigate the issues raised by California thoroughly; 

analyze each and every document California relies upon; review supporting comments that may add new information California did not include; examine each argument raised in opposition to granting the waiver; determine the most relevant arguments and points that need to be taken into account in making the final decision; 

determine the ramifications of its decision; and then—and only then—EPA needs to 

make a decision. 

It has been just over a month since the comment period closed. One month, Madame Chairman! With what the EPA must go through, I would be highly disturbed 

if EPA said that it planned to make a decision before the end of the year. Rushing 

this process is unacceptable. In fact, it would be arbitrary and capricious—in law 

and in fact. Mr. Administrator, I expect you to fully deliberate this important issue 

so that all the facts and considerations are taken into account. 

I’m having trouble understanding the need for this waiver. One of the prerequisites for granting this waiver is that it is needed in California to meet ‘‘compelling and extraordinary conditions.’’ 

Among the problems California listed that would occur from global warming are 

that higher temperatures will bring increases in heat waves, droughts, forest fires, 

flooding and smog, and harm to the State’s water supplies and agricultural productivity. 

There is one small problem with all of that—California is not experiencing global 

warming; the State is experiencing global cooling. In fact, temperatures in California are lower today than average temperatures since the beginning of the 20th 

Century. 

I want to draw your attention to this chart of California’s temperatures over the 

last two decades. As you can see, temperatures have trended downward at 0.12 °F. 

If this were to continue through the remainder of this Century, California’s temperatures would decline by more than 1 °F. 

Exactly where is the harm that is compelling and extraordinary? California’s actual temperatures may inconveniently vary from the models, but if the models show 

California should have warmed, and in fact it has been cooling, shouldn’t we view 

these estimates of future warming with somewhat of a jaundiced eye. 

A bill has been introduced that would force you, Mr. Administrator, to approve 

or disapprove a waiver request within 30 days. I assume supporters hope EPA will 

rubber-stamp all future requests on the basis that EPA has not denied a waiver before. Two major reasons for this are that California’s standard has always been confined to addressing local problems and has been more protective than federal standards. 

But this is not a local issue, it is a global one and California has shown no harm. 

As this chart I’ve showed you demonstrates, if anything California is experiencing 

cooling, not warming. 

Also, unlike past waivers, it appears this time California’s waiver request would 

not result in more protective standards. I ask that this report by NERA economic 

consulting be placed in the record. It concludes California’s light duty vehicle regulations are less protective than federal regulations. If that is the case, Mr. Administrator, you cannot grant this waiver. And if serious economic modeling finds this 

is the case, you had better have far more detailed economic modeling with far different conclusions before you were to grant a waiver. 

In fact, I believe that if the legislation were to pass, you would be compelled to 

deny the waiver. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding 

another hearing on EPA’s failure to act to protect the environment. 

Three months ago, Mr. Johnson, Administrator Johnson, told this 

committee that, ‘‘the Administration has been taking steps to tackle climate change.’’ He also told us that he couldn’t comment on the 

process for granting California a waiver to implement the standard 
6 

which calls for new cars to emit 30 percent fewer greenhouse gases 

by 2016. 

The waiver is critical as cars, trucks and buses account for onethird of all the greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. 

Those emissions are directly responsible for global warming. 

Regarding the waiver process, Administrator Johnson told this 

committee, ‘‘I must be mindful that the appropriate process is followed, which requires that I not prejudge any determinations.’’ Unfortunately, pre-judging seems to be happening. It is exactly what 

others in the Bush administration are doing. 

Last month, the Department of Transportation contacted congressional offices urging them to weigh in against granting California the Pailey waiver. In the face of Mr. Johnson’s promise of 

an unbiased process, such an action by another executive agency is 

alarming. This Pailey waiver is important to California, to my 

State and to other States who want to follow the standard to conserve our environment and protect our health. 

One estimate predicts that if all the States waiting to adopt the 

Pailey standard were today given a waiver to adopt it, they could 

reduce emissions by at least 64 million metric tons of carbon dioxide by 2020. Now, those kinds of numbers don’t usually register, 

but when we talk about it, that is the equivalent of approximately 

12 million cars off the road. 

California, New Jersey and 11 other States have been forced to 

wait for the EPA to grant this waiver to begin cutting emissions 

from their vehicles. The EPA has granted these kinds of waivers 

more than 40 times in the past, and here it has taken more than 

18 months to consider this one. The environment cannot wait any 

longer. The people in the country don’t want to wait any longer. 

Every day that EPA prevents States like California, New Jersey 

and the others from reducing emissions is a day that costs future 

generations clean air and a healthy environment. 

The EPA needs to act and act now. We have a continuing debate 

here about whether or not reality is in front of us, but we need a 

reminder that the year 2006 was 2.2 °F higher on average than 

any State before this. That is an ominous sign. 

I look forward to Administrator Johnson’s testimony and how he 

intends to expedite the Pailey process for the sake of the environment that his Agency is supposed to protect. 

Madam Chairman, thank you. It is well that we are having this 

hearing right now. We are going to move the process along, we 

hope. Administrator Johnson, we will be asking you some questions. You might have expected that. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

Senator, I am going to just say I look forward to Administrator 

Johnson’s testimony, but first I look forward to the testimony of 

Senator Bill Nelson of Florida. We thank him for joining us. I hope 

he is ready for the rigorous questions we are going to throw his 

way as we prepare to grill him on this day. 
7 

Putting that aside though for just a moment, like my colleagues 

I look forward to hearing from the Administrator what he has to 

say in response to the request from the Governor of California on 

behalf of the people of California. 

I also look forward to hearing what you have to say in response 

to the Supreme Court decision authorizing EPA to go to work on 

CO2 emissions with respect to mobile sources. 

Finally, I look forward to any comments—and this is what we 

call ‘‘telegraphing’’ our pitch in Delaware—but I look forward to 

your latest thoughts on responding more fully to the letter I sent 

you on May 10 suggesting three specific steps that EPA could take 

to inform your decisionmaking as you contemplate the best methods for reducing greenhouse gases. 

The first suggestion was to encourage EPA to develop a mandatory inventory and registry of major greenhouse gas sources in the 

United States. The second point that we made is just the thought 

that I felt was imperative, and I still feel it is imperative for EPA 

to do more to help us to deploy clean coal technology by developing 

health and safety standards for geological sequestration. 

The third point was to encourage EPA to develop standards and 

practices on how best to estimate, how best to measure, and how 

best to verify emission offsets for biological and agricultural sector 

sequestration. 

On those three points, we have gotten a response, but to be honest with you, not the kind of response that I would have hoped for. 

I look forward to any further comments that you have to share 

with us today. 

Thank you. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Madam Chairman, if I may apologize. I 

was reminded by my friend from Delaware that Senator Nelson 

was there. We are assured that his testimony is going to be agreeable. That is the only reason is so focused on Mr. Johnson. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. I don’t think there is much of a shock with that. 

I think we do agree with that. 

Senator Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Madam Chair, I also thank you for convening 

this hearing. 

I thank Senator Nelson for being here. It is a pleasure to have 

him testify before our committee. I am a strong supporter of your 

legislation that would set a deadline for the EPA acting on this 

waiver. I regret that that legislation is needed. We had a hearing 

here last May when the Administrator was present and sort of 

questioned as to how much additional time is needed before acting 

on the waiver. At that time, we suggested 60 days that we thought 

was reasonable, which means that the waiver would have been 

acted on by July 1, but it wasn’t. I am disappointed by that. 

The people of the State of California have been waiting since December 21, 2005 when they first moved forward with this application. So it has been a long time. It is time for the EPA to act on 

this. I have a special interest because the State of Maryland, like 
8 

other States, joined California and is seeking this ability to act responsibly as it relates to emissions. 

So we are very much interested in getting this issue moving 

along. A new study just completed by the National Capital Region 

Transportation Planning Board demonstrates vividly the value of 

the California waiver. The report shows that the waiver could cut 

projected levels of carbon dioxide by more than four tons in the region by 2020, and nearly six tons by 2030. I ask, Madam Chairman, that the full presentation from the Transportation Planning 

Board be included as part of the hearing record today. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced information can be found on page 170.] 

Senator CARDIN. This one action, simply granting the request 

that will allow States to tackle the problem that the EPA and this 

Administration seem so willing to ignore, can result in tons of pollution reductions. EPA’s failure to act will result in tons of additional greenhouse gases polluting the region. That is unacceptable 

to me and to the people of the Washington Metropolitan Area, and 

certainly should be unacceptable to EPA. 

In my State, mobile sources are the leading causes of smog and 

one of the leading causes of greenhouse gas emissions. We have 

some of the worst smog in the Nation during the Code Red days. 

More than 70 percent of the pollution comes from cars and light 

trucks. Cars that will meet the new greenhouse gas standards will 

also help to clear our air of nitrogen oxides, so we can get very substantial double benefits. 

I firmly believe that the Congress must act to provide the clear, 

comprehensive legislative framework which mandates caps to address global warming. But until we do so, the States must be free 

to act to begin addressing this compelling problem. We have lost 

precious time while the Bush administration tried to evade its responsibility to the American people to regulate greenhouse gases. 

The various voluntary initiatives that the Administration has pursued are no substitute for the full rigor of the Clean Air Act and 

its mandatory provisions. 

I urge the EPA and the Bush administration to grant California’s 

waiver with all deliberate speed. 

Again, I thank the Chairman for this hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF MARYLAND

Madame Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing today. I will keep my 

opening statement brief. 

Three months ago we held a hearing on the Supreme Court rulings on two Clean 

Air Act issues, including the California Waiver. Two months ago we held a hearing 

which focused directly on the California Waiver and EPA plans. And today we meet 

again. Although I believe that some Senators may be growing weary with this topic, 

we can only imagine the frustration that the State of California must be feeling. 

California made its request for a Clean Air Act waiver on December 21, 2005. So 

while we have been revisiting this issue for several months, the State of California 

has been struggling with this issue for more than a year. In fact, it has now been 

more than 19 months in which the request has been pending with EPA. 

EPA took an extraordinary amount of time to formally start the regulatory process. That process is now underway. Public Hearings have held; public comments 

have been received; and the record is now closed. All that needs to happen now is 

for EPA to finalize the record and issue the waiver. 
9 

Although I will want to seek additional details from EPA Administrator Johnson, 

the fundamental question is simple: When will EPA grant California’s waiver request? In May I told Administrator Johnson that a reasonable timetable would be 

60 days from the date of that hearing. More than 60 days have passed, and not only 

has EPA not made a decision, Administrator Johnson has announced that the Agency will not render a decision until the end of the calendar year. 

That is simply unacceptable. 

Maryland, like a number of other States, has already adopted legislation that 

would enable it to join with California in regulating greenhouse gas emissions from 

cars and trucks. 

A new study just completed by the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board demonstrates vividly the value of the California waiver. The report 

shows that the waiver could cut projected levels of carbon dioxide by more than four 

tons in the region by 2020 and nearly six tons by 2030. 

I ask that the full presentation from the Transportation Planning Board be included as part of the hearing record today because these numbers are really quite 

remarkable. This one action—simply granting the request that will allow States to 

tackle the problems that the EPA and this Administration seem so willing to ignore—can result in tons of pollution reductions. 

EPA’s failure to act will result in tons of additional greenhouse gases polluting 

the region. That’s unacceptable to me and to the people of the Washington metropolitan area and it certainly should be unacceptable to EPA 

In my State mobile sources are the leading cause of smog and one of the leading 

causes of greenhouse gas emissions. We have some of the worst smog in the Nation, 

and during ‘Code Red’ days, more than 70 percent of the pollution comes from cars 

and light trucks. 

Cars that will meet the new greenhouse gas standards will also help to clear our 

air of nitrogen. We get a very substantial double benefit. 

I firmly believe that the Congress must act to provide a clear, comprehensive legislative framework with mandatory caps to address global warming. But until we 

do so, the States must be free to act to begin addressing this compelling problem. 

We have lost precious time while the Bush Administration tried to evade its responsibility to the American people to regulate greenhouse gases. The various voluntary initiatives that the Administration has pursued are no substitute for the full 

rigor of the Clean Air Act and its mandatory provisions. I urge the EPA and the 

Bush Administration to grant California’s waiver with all deliberate speed. 

Neither California nor Maryland can afford to wait any longer. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Before I call on Senator Nelson, I am going to place in the record, 

unless there is objection, a chart of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showing that since 1950, California has 

warmed on average 0.31 °F per decade. It is a little bit too hard 

to see this. The green line has just gone steadily up, and of course 

there are years when it goes down. We all know that, but overall 

the trend is very clear. So I wanted to put that in the record. 

In addition to that, I want to place in the record an article that 

just came out July 23: ‘‘California Health Services Releases Study 

of 2006 Heat Wave Fatalities.’’ The California Department of 

Health Services released a study of deaths related to the 2006 heat 

wave covering 140 deaths listed as heat-related by county coroners. 

I will place those in the record at this time. 

[The referenced documents follows:] 
10 
11 
12 
13 

Senator BOXER. Senator Nelson, we are very glad that you are 

here. I will give you 10 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Madam Chairman, I won’t take the 10 minutes. 

Senator Inhofe, Senator Carper, Senator Lautenberg, Senator 

Cardin, you all are my personal friends and it is a privilege for me 

to be here. I want to specifically respond to Senator Inhofe, who is 

my personal friend. 

As you all were discussing this matter, it occurred to me, one of 

my predecessors, Senator Lawton Chiles, retired from the Senate 

and one of his stated reasons was that there was just too much 

gridlock in Washington; that it was hard to get anything done. I 

happened to reflect on that as you all were opining your different 

positions. 

Senator Inhofe, it is true that California petitioned for a waiver 

in December 2005. That is over a year and a half ago. The reason 

that Florida comes to the table and why I have jumped into this 

with all four fours is that our Governor, a Republican, Charlie 

Crist, has recently joined with Governor Schwarzenegger in being 

one of those States that is applying to EPA for a waiver so that 

Florida can have higher emissions standards than in their own 

good judgment, the State’s judgment about what is best for the 

State. Read States’ rights, that they in their judgment could have 

a standard that was higher than the standards required in the national. 

I have submitted for the record and would ask, Madam Chairman, that the letter from Governor Crist be a part of the record, 

of which he endorses this concept. When I called Charlie to tell him 

what I was about to do, he said, how did you think this up? I said, 

well I read the statute, and what the statute says when it was 

passed I think in circa 1990, that California has the first waiver 

and then other States will follow after the decision is made on California. 

So if Florida wants to control its own destiny, there has to be the 

decision with regard to California. So I followed what is a common 

sense approach to this. Since the matter has been pending before 

the EPA for over a year and a half, the legislation simply says that 

no later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this subsection, but in no case later than September 30, 2007, the Administrator shall issue to the Governor of each applicable State a decision on each request for a waiver of preemption under section B, 

and so forth. 

It doesn’t say what his decision should be. That is the province 

of the executive branch. It says that that frustration that led Senator Chiles to finally retire, that we bring, to use the language of 

pilots, we bring in for a landing a decision. 

Now, why is this important to my State and to 12 other States 

in addition to California? Florida has more coastline than any other 

State except Alaska. Florida’s coastline is considerably more than 

California, and most people think of California as having the largest coastline. 
14 

We are in the subtropical region and indeed, what happens up 

there that causes a greenhouse effect is going to have the first consequences on the shores of a State like my beloved Florida, of 

which my family came to Florida 177 years ago. I don’t want to see 

the effects of those additional greenhouse emissions have those 

kind of effects. 

And so Madam Chairman, that is why I am here, and that is 

why I read the statute, and that is why I, as a Democrat, this isn’t 

a bipartisan matter with my Republican Governor. This is a nonpartisan issue. 

The States that have applied for the waiver, Senator Inhofe, 44 

percent of the entire Nation’s population are in those States. This 

is those States wanting to take control of their own destiny. 

So Madam Chairman, I told you I didn’t need to take 10 minutes. 

I just wanted to lay out why I come to the table with this legislation. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator Nelson. 

Any Members wish to ask a question to Senator Nelson at this 

time? If not, we thank you very, very much, and we will call Administrator Johnson to the table. 

While he is coming forward, I ask unanimous consent to enter 

Senator Whitehouse’s statement into the record, as well as Governor Crist’s letter. 

[The referenced document follows. Senator Whitehouse’s statement was not received at time of print.] 
15 
16 
17 

Senator BOXER. I think it is interesting, before Senator Nelson 

leaves, to say that his closing line is ‘‘Florida anxiously awaits.’’ 

This is the sense of urgency I hear in your voice, and it is certainly 

indicated in his letter. So we will put those in the record as well. 

Administrator, welcome. You can take up to 10 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Good 

morning, Chairman Boxer and members of the committee. 

I appreciate this opportunity to update you on the status of 

EPA’s response to the California petition for its greenhouse gas 

motor vehicle emission standards. As you know, on June 15, EPA 

completed the public comment process required by the Clean Air 

Act. Although we received requests to extend the deadline, in an 

effort to move forward quickly and responsibly, we decided to close 

the comment period and begin our review. 

During the comment process, we were committed to be as open 

and inclusive as possible. So in addition to our normal practice of 

offering a public hearing in Washington, DC, we also held a hearing in Sacramento, CA. We received over 60,000 comments, including thousands of pages of technical and scientific documentation. 

This is an unprecedented number of comments on a California 

waiver request. Given the complexity of the issues, we have devoted the necessary resources to expeditiously review the extensive 

comments and respond to the requests. 

Currently, the Agency is performing a rigorous analysis in order 

to properly consider the legal and technical issues that we must address in making a decision under the Clean Air Act waiver criteria. 

Recognizing the importance of a timely decision, I recently wrote 

to Governor Schwarzenegger committing to make a final determination on the request by the end of this year. We will continue 

to inform the committee of our progress in this matter. 

I would also like to briefly address other recent developments in 

the Bush administration’s aggressive and practical strategy to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while advancing our Nation’s energy security. As part of an unparalleled financial, international 

and domestic commitment to addressing this global challenge, earlier this year the Administration sent Congress legislative proposals to achieve the President’s Twenty in Ten plan. The President’s Twenty in Ten plan would require the use of 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuel by 2017. It would also reform and modernize CAFE standards, increasing fuel efficiency for 

cars up to 4 percent per year beginning 2010, and up to 4 percent 

for light trucks beginning in 2012. 

While the President continues to believe that effective legislation 

is the best approach to implementing his plan, on May 14 he directed EPA and our Federal partners to move ahead and take the 

first regulatory steps to address greenhouse gas emissions from 

cars. We are working across agencies to develop a proposed regulation by the end of this year, with a final rule out by the end of 

2008, as directed by the President. 

This is an aggressive pace for developing any rule, let alone a 

rule of this magnitude. 
18 

Before I conclude, I would like to take this opportunity to note 

that this past Tuesday, EPA released its economic and technical 

analysis of S. 280, the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship 

and Innovation Act of 2007. I would be happy for my technical staff 

to continue to answer your questions regarding this analysis. 

Once again, thank you for the chance to testify this morning. Before I take questions, I would ask that my full written statement 

be submitted for the record. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

Good morning, Chairman Boxer and members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. I appreciate the opportunity to come before this Committee again to update you on the status of EPA’s response to California’s request 

for a waiver of preemption for its greenhouse gas motor vehicle emission standards. 

I also will address other recent developments regarding the Administration’s efforts 

to address the long term challenge of global climate change. 

I. THE CALIFORNIA WAIVER REQUEST

First, I want to clarify that EPA is following two separate tracks for the consideration of greenhouse gas regulations for motor vehicles. As I have previously indicated in Congressional testimony, EPA is working with its interagency partners to 

develop a proposed rule for the federal regulation of emissions of greenhouse gases 

from new motor vehicles. After considering public input through a notice and comment process, it is our intention to issue a final rule by the end of 2008. Separately, 

EPA is considering California’s waiver request for its motor vehicle greenhouse gas 

regulation, under the statutory waiver authority provided in section 209 of the 

Clean Air Act. 

With respect to the California waiver request, we have completed the public comment process required by the Clean Air Act. In addition to our normal practice of 

offering a public hearing in Washington, DC, which was held on May 22nd, at the 

request of the state, we held an additional hearing in Sacramento, California, on 

May 30th. We heard from over 80 individuals representing a broad scope of interests including States and local governments, public health and environmental organizations, academia, industry and citizens. 

In our Notice announcing the public comment process we stated that the written 

comment period would close on June 15, 2007. We received requests to extend the 

deadline but did not do so. We received well over 60,000 comments. This is an unprecedented number of comments on a California waiver request. Parties commented on the three statutory waiver criteria as well as the additional three questions we raised in our April notice. 

We are now examining the full range of technical and legal issues raised by the 

comments. Given the complexity of the issues presented in the California waiver request, EPA is devoting the necessary resources in order to expeditiously review the 

extensive comments we have received, and respond to the waiver request. The Agency is performing a rigorous analysis in order to properly consider the legal and technical issues that we must address in making a decision under the Clean Air Act 

waiver criteria. In recent written correspondence with California’s Governor 

Schwarzenegger, I have committed to issuing a decision on the waiver by the end 

of this year. We will continue to inform the Committee of our progress in this matter. 

II. THE ‘‘TWENTY IN TEN’’ RULEMAKING PROCESS

Earlier this year, the Administration sent Congress legislative proposals to 

achieve the ‘‘Twenty in Ten’’ plan. The plan would increase the supply of renewable 

and other alternative fuels by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require the 

equivalent of 35 billion gallons of renewable and other alternative fuels in 2017, 

nearly five times the 2012 Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) mandate established 

by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. In 2017, this will displace 15 percent of projected 

annual gasoline use. This plan would replace the RFS in the year 2010, while retaining the flexible credit, banking, and trading mechanisms contained in the RFS. 
19 

It would provide an accelerated schedule for alternative fuel requirements in the 

years 2010 to 2017. 

The plan also would reform and modernize Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

(CAFE) standards for cars, and further increase the CAFE standards for light 

trucks. Fuel efficiency standards for cars would be increased substantially beginning 

in 2010, and for light trucks beginning in 2012. In 2017, we aim to reduce projected 

annual gasoline use by up to 8.5 billion gallons, a further 5 percent reduction that, 

in combination with increasing the supply of renewable and other alternative fuels, 

will bring the total reduction in projected annual gasoline use to 20 percent. 

While the President continues to believe that effective legislation is the best approach to implementing his ‘‘Twenty in Ten’’ plan, he has directed EPA and our federal partners to work toward these goals now by developing regulations based on 

the framework of ‘‘Twenty in Ten’’. The President has directed us to complete this 

regulatory process by the end of 2008. This is a very aggressive timeframe, but one 

that I am confident that my staff, working with our federal partners, can achieve. 

EPA meets regularly with the Departments of Transportation, Energy, and Agriculture to ensure coordination of our work efforts. In addition, we are holding more 

than a dozen meetings with major stakeholder groups to ensure that they are involved in the process from the very beginning. We also have begun the analytical 

work necessary to establish standards that carefully consider science, available technologies, lead time, and vehicle safety while evaluating benefits and costs. As part 

of this process, we are working to identify the appropriate analytical resources that 

exist across the federal government to help EPA and other Departments and Agencies in their efforts to develop a rulemaking based on sound data and thorough technical analysis. 

Any regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles under Clean 

Air Act section 202(a) requires that EPA make a determination that emissions of 

greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles, primarily carbon dioxide emissions, 

cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health or welfare. Section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act contains a similar 

standard with respect to motor vehicle fuels. We are therefore reviewing the most 

recent and robust scientific evidence from the climate change research community, 

including EPA’s own Global Change Research Program. 

A substantial amount of work remains to determine the scope of our assessment. 

For example, EPA may need to consider a range of science and impact issues, such 

as the accumulation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere; the observed trends in average global warming, projected sea level rise, and precipitation 

patterns; the attribution of these and other observed changes to emissions of carbon 

dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities; the impact of US greenhouse gas emissions on global CO2 concentrations; the vulnerability of the natural 

environment, human health, and society to climate change; and the future projected 

effects within the U.S. under various projected rates of climate change over the 

course of this century. As directed by Executive Order 13432, EPA will coordinate 

with, and seek input from, climate change experts in other government agencies as 

well as the public. 

When approaching the issue of greenhouse gas emissions estimates from the 

transportation sector, it should be recognized that 95 percent of such emissions consist of carbon dioxide, with the remaining 5 percent of emissions consisting of nitrous oxide and methane exhaust emissions and hydrofluorocarbons from air conditioners. In addressing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, one 

must recognize that on-board technology to control carbon dioxide emissions from 

vehicles does not currently exist, however carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles 

can be reduced by increasing their fuel economy. In addition, using a Department 

of Energy model, EPA analysis conducted as part of the Renewable Fuel Standard 

shows that fuels such as cellulosic ethanol have the potential to offset lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions by over 90 percent when compared with gasoline derived 

from crude oil. Biodiesel can result in the displacement of nearly 68 percent of 

lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions relative to diesel made from petroleum. Increasing the use of such fuels in the transportation sector has the potential to make substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Increasing the fuel economy of a 

vehicle can also decrease greenhouse gas emissions. 

III. A NEW INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK ON ENERGY SECURITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

On May 31st, the President called upon the world’s major economies to work together to develop a long term global goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The 

President’s plan recognizes that a new climate framework must be developed in a 

way that enhances energy security and promotes economic growth and includes both 
20 

major developed and developing economies. This fall, the United States will convene 

the first of a series of meetings for the world’s largest economies and energy consumers to advance and contribute to a new global agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The participants in 

the framework will work together to develop a global emissions reduction goal, 

underpinned by national strategies and sectoral approaches that will set a practical, 

but flexible, path forward. The effort will build on the Asia Pacific Partnership on 

Clean Development and Climate and other partnerships to develop and implement 

clean energy technologies. We were pleased that the major elements of the President’s proposal were favorably received and incorporated into the leaders’ statement 

at the recent meetings of the G8+5 in Germany a short time ago. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Ms. Chairman, today I have outlined EPA’s consideration of California’s request 

for a waiver of preemption for its greenhouse gas motor vehicle emission standards, 

our ‘‘Twenty in Ten’’ legislative proposals, as well as recent developments regarding 

the Administration’s efforts to address the important issue of global climate change. 

I look forward to working with you and other Members of the Committee on these 

challenging issues, and would be pleased to answer any questions that you might 

have. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

RESPONSES BY STEPHEN L. JOHNSON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. You said that you will make a decision on the California waiver by 

the end of this year. The comment period closed on June 15th. How did you arrive 

at the December date? How much time are you allotting for interagency review of 

your decision on the waiver? 

Response. In addition to holding two public hearings on California’s waiver request (on May 22, 2007 and May 30, 2007), EPA also afforded the public the opportunity to submit written comment until June 15, 2007. The Agency also received significant comments belatedly, including supplemental comments from CARB on July 

24, 2007, and from the automobile manufacturers on October 9, 2007; EPA in its 

discretion has decided to consider all belated comments in its decision-making process. In all, the Agency received nearly 100,000 comments during the public comment 

process. While many of the ‘‘postcard comments’’ reflect common views, other comments received address a wide variety of issues including those raised in questions 

4 through 7 below, and the Agency must reach a reasoned, comprehensive decision. 

My commitment to reach a waiver decision by the end of 2007 provides the Agency with a sufficient amount of time to review an unprecedented number and scope 

of legal and technical comments—i.e., the time needed to engage in good government—balanced with California’s desire for expeditious action. I will work to ensure 

that any interagency review will not unreasonably delay the decision of EPA. 

Question 2. The President has asked EPA to help write regulations to implement 

his ‘‘20-in-10’’ plan to reduce projected gasoline consumption. In your written testimony, you stated that the schedule for the ‘‘20-in-10’’ rulemaking is ‘‘very aggressive.’’ Is this effort in any way slowing down EPA’s work on California’s waiver request? Can you assure me that the ‘‘20-in-10’’ rulemaking is not getting in the way 

of a decision on California’s request? 

Response. The Agency is working expeditiously to issue a decision on the waiver 

request by the end of 2007. Our work on a greenhouse gas rulemaking for vehicles 

and fuels using 20-in-10 as a starting point is not slowing down EPA’s work on California’s waiver request. While the Agency’s timelines on these issues—a decision on 

the California waiver by the end of this year, and a proposed rule for vehicles also 

to be issued this year—are quite aggressive, there is overlap in staff and information between the two efforts, and EPA has committed the necessary resources to 

complete both of these efforts in an expeditious manner. 

Question 3. Last month Department of Transportation officials actively solicited 

members of Congress and governors to oppose California’s waiver request. We now 

know that DOT’s lobbying campaign was orchestrated at the very top of the agency, 

including by DOT Secretary Mary Peters. In the midst of that campaign, you contacted Secretary Peters to discuss the California waiver. When DOT officials learned 

that you wanted to talk with Secretary Peters about the waiver, they made sure 

she was updated on calls that had been made to members of Congress and governors. You spoke with the Secretary later that day. The following day, more calls 

were made. 
21 

(a) During your conversation with Secretary Peters, did the issue of contacting 

congressional offices to oppose the California waiver come up? I asked you a similar 

question at the July 26 hearing, but you did not provide a direct answer. Please 

answer this question ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’. If you fail to answer ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no,’’ I will infer 

that the issue did come up, since you have no difficulty answering ‘‘no’’ if that is 

the answer to the question. 

(b) If the issue did come up, did you say anything to Secretary Peters about the 

propriety of DOT soliciting members of Congress to oppose the California waiver request? Did you try to stop it? I asked you similar questions at the July 26 hearing, 

but you would only say that you deferred to DOT. Your failure to provide a direct 

answer to these questions strongly suggests that you knew about and acquiesced in 

DOT’s campaign against the California waiver. Please answer these questions at 

this time, or I will have to conclude that you were aware of DOT’s campaign and 

did nothing to stop it. 

(c) In light of DOT’s actions, how can we have any confidence that you will be 

allowed to decide the waiver request based on a fair and impartial assessment of 

the merits of the request? 

(d) Do you believe it was appropriate for DOT to solicit members of Congress and 

Governors to oppose California’s waiver request, particularly when the public was 

still commenting on the request and EPA’s expert staff had yet to complete their 

review and analysis of it? I asked you a similar question at the hearing, but you 

again deferred to DOT. Please answer the question of whether you believe DOT’s 

actions were appropriate. I you fail to answer the question, I will infer that you are 

not opposed to DOT’s efforts to enlist members of Congress and Governors to oppose 

California’s request. That, in turn, will indicate to me that you are no longer an objective decision-maker, at least for purposes of this request. 

(e) Please submit any documents in the agency’s possession relating to DOT’s solicitation of members of Congress or Governors with respect to California’s waiver 

request. Documents include draft or final memoranda or briefing papers, emails, 

notes or any other written communications. 

Response. First, let me assure you that we are working diligently on responding 

to California’s waiver request. I hold the responsibility for making a decision on 

California’s waiver request, which rests with me as Administrator of the EPA, very 

seriously. I can assure you that I am undertaking a fair and impartial assessment 

of the request. Given the complexity of the issues presented in the California waiver 

request, EPA is devoting the necessary resources in order to expeditiously review 

the extensive comments we have received, and respond to the waiver request by the 

end of this year. The Agency is performing a rigorous analysis in order to properly 

consider the legal and technical issues that we must address in making a decision 

under the Clean Air Act waiver criteria. 

As part of our regular and routine conversations, I contacted Secretary Peters to 

give her an update on the status of several actions before the agency. One of the 

items I wanted to notify her of was that the comment period on the California waiver request was closing and that while I had received requests for extension, I was 

inclined to deny these requests. While I am committed to an open and inclusive 

comment process, at the time of that conversation I was inclined to deny and, in 

fact, later did decline the requests for extension of the comment period. I do not recall any specific discussion regarding contacting Congressional offices, including particularly whether to solicit opinions on the California waiver. I do recall asking Secretary Peters whether she was aware of anyone else seeking an extension of the 

comment period. A day later I instructed my staff to deny the requests for an extension. 

I also am enclosing copies of documents relating to DOT’s communications with 

Congress or Governors with respect to the California waiver. As you know, general 

communications between our two branches are not prohibited. Without weighing in 

on the appropriateness of specific communications undertaken by the Department 

of Transportation, I can assure you that EPA is undertaking a deliberate and rigorous analysis of the waiver request, and that I, as Administrator of EPA, will be 

issuing a fair, impartial and independent decision. [See pp. 189–193.] 

Question 4. Is anyone in the Administration suggesting that EPA could deny the 

California waiver request because the Administration is developing its own, national 

rule to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles? Isn’t it correct that you could 

not deny California’s waiver request on that basis? 

Response. Various comments have been received that raise this issue. I can assure 

you that EPA is carefully assessing all comments, including those that comment on 

the relationship between the waiver request and the regulatory effort on GHG emissions from vehicles. Until EPA makes a final decision on the waiver request, it 
22 

would be inappropriate for EPA to indicate its position on any issue that has been 

raised, regardless of whether the issue points to a grant or denial of the waiver. 

Question 5. At the committee’s May 22, 2007 hearing, ‘‘Examining the Case for 

the California Waiver,’’ Professor Jonathan Adler of the Case Western University 

Law School suggested that California’s standards may not be needed ‘‘to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.’’ I find that suggestion astounding. California 

is expected to experience rising sea levels, reduced water supplies, increased smog 

and a host of other serious problems as a result of global warming. Don’t these impacts fall within the meaning of ‘‘compelling’’ and ‘‘extraordinary’’? 

Response. As with the issue noted in Question 4, various public comments have 

been received that raise this issue, and EPA is carefully assessing all comments 

(both oral and written). Until EPA makes a final decision on the waiver request, 

it would be inappropriate for EPA to indicate its position on an issue raised in the 

public comments, regardless of whether those comments are in favor of or opposed 

to granting the waiver. 

Question 6. Professor Adler and others have also suggested that since California’s 

standards cannot, by themselves, make a big dent on global greenhouse gas levels, 

the standards are not ‘‘needed’’ to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions. 

But, as the Supreme Court said in Massachusetts v. EPA, we often ‘‘chisel away’’ 

at public policy problems bit by bit. Other California vehicle emission standards 

have been only a part of larger packages of environmental controls designed to improve air quality. 

Has EPA ever before decided a California waiver request based on whether the 

standards under consideration would make a big enough difference to the problem 

being addressed? Won’t California greenhouse gas standards, if implemented by 

California and the other 12 states that have already adopted the standards, result 

in lower greenhouse gas concentrations than would have occurred if those standards 

had not been implemented? And won’t those lower concentrations result in incrementally less global warming? 

Response. EPA has denied, in whole or in part, very few waiver requests from 

California. EPA’s decision on the waiver will be based on the statutory criteria set 

forth in Section 209 of the Clean Air Act. And again, as with the issues raised in 

Questions 4 and 5, various public comments have been received that raise this 

issue, and EPA is carefully assessing all comments (both oral and written). Until 

EPA makes a final decision on the waiver request, it would be inappropriate to take 

a position on an issue raised in the public comments, regardless of whether those 

comments are in favor of or opposed to granting the waiver. 

Question 7. I understand that you must consider whether automakers have 

enough time to meet California’s standards. Isn’t it true that the amount of available ‘‘lead time’’ is measured from the date California adopted its standards, not 

from the date you decide the waiver request? Since California adopted its greenhouse gas standards in 2005, haven’t automakers had 4 years of leadtime to meet 

the first, less stringent set of standards? 

Response. As with the issues raised in Questions 4, 5, and 6, various public comments have been received that raise this issue, and EPA is carefully assessing such 

comments. Until EPA makes a final decision on the waiver request, it would be inappropriate to take a position on an issue raised in the public comments, regardless 

of whether those comments are in favor of or opposed to granting the waiver. 

Question 8. At the committee’s April hearing on EPA’s response to the Supreme 

Court case, Massachusetts v. EPA, you testified that you wanted to consider all of 

the options for EPA action on greenhouse gas emissions before deciding on a response. I asked you to give us a progress report on that effort when I called you 

back to testify about EPA’s progress on the California waiver request. Please describe the work your agency has done to identify and assess options for regulation 

under the Clean Air Act, and submit any information and analyses that EPA staff 

have developed or produced for that purpose. 

Response. No response. 

Question 8a. I understand that EPA has several regulatory and permitting decisions before it that might lead to the regulation of greenhouse gases under the 

Clean Air Act. Please provide us with a list of those actions. 

Response. In the following pending ‘‘actions,’’ stakeholders have requested that 

EPA issue CAA regulations for greenhouse gases: 

1. Petition from the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) seeking regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles under section 

202 of the Clean Air Act: EPA’s denial of this petition ultimately led to the Supreme 

Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. The D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded 
23 

EPA’s denial on September 14, 2007. It is in response to the Massachusetts decision, 

as well as the direction of the President, that the Agency is developing proposed regulations to address greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles and fuels 

under sections 202 and 211 of the Clean Air Act. The proposal is expected by end 

of 2007, and a final rule expected by Fall 2008. 

2. Revisions to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Petroleum Refineries: On April 30, 2007, EPA signed proposed revisions to the refinery NSPS. 

Based on that proposal, commenters argued that we must regulate CO2 and methane from these facilities as part of the proposed NSPS revisions. A consent decree 

deadline requires us to finalize the revisions by April 30, 2008. 

3. Revisions to the NSPS for utility boilers: EPA declined to set a standard for 

CO2 in revisions that were finalized in 2006, and that decision was challenged before the D.C. Circuit. The court remanded the issue back to the agency on September 24, 2007, and the Agency is analyzing the relevant issues in detail. 

4. Petitions from the California Attorney General and several environmental 

groups seeking regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from ocean-going vessels and 

fuels under sections 213 and 211 of the Clean Air Act. The petitions were dated October 3, 2007. 

Question 8b. You and other federal agencies have been tasked by the President 

to undertake a rulemaking to implement the goals of the President’s ‘‘20-in-10’’ plan 

in accordance with Executive Order 13432. Does that rulemaking represent EPA’s 

response to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Massachusetts v. EPA case overruling EPA’s position that it cannot and will not regulate greenhouse gas emissions 

from motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare? And what action is the agency 

planning to take if such an endangerment finding is made? 

Response. EPA is initiating a Clean Air Act rulemaking that will use the President’s 20-in-10 plan as a starting point. In that rulemaking, EPA intends to respond 

to the petition from the International Center for Technology Assessment, which has 

now been remanded to the agency by the D.C. Circuit, following the Supreme Court 

decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. As noted above, a proposed rule is expected to 

be issued by the end of this year. 

Question 8c. In your testimony, you elaborated on the scope and complexity of the 

scientific information you need to consider in making an endangerment finding 

under sections 202 or 211 of the Clean Air Act. You and the Bush Administration 

are on record as accepting the findings of the IPCC reports that have been released 

this year on the science and effects of climate change and on opportunities for mitigating it. In light of the IPCC reports, don’t you have sufficient information and 

analyses on which to base an endangerment finding for purposes of sections 202 and 

211 of the Clean Air Act, particularly since the legal threshold for the finding is 

‘‘reasonable anticipation’’ of endangerment? Don’t the IPCC reports provide a basis 

for such an endangerment finding that is at least as extensive and carefully reviewed by scientific experts as that relied upon by EPA for other endangerment 

findings under the Clean Air Act? 

Response. EPA is in the process of evaluating the most up-to-date information for 

purposes of determining whether the air pollution caused by greenhouse gases may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. As part of that evaluation, we are reviewing the most recent Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC 

and available reports that have recently been published under the U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program (CCSP), as well as reports by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. As with the endangerment findings we have 

made since 1990, we plan to render our final decision on endangerment only after 

an opportunity for notice and comment. Thus, the issue of endangerment will be 

presented for notice and comment at the same time that we propose to regulate 

greenhouse gases from motor vehicles and fuels. 

Question 8d. To achieve the President’s ‘‘20-in-10’’ goals, I understand that EPA 

and other federal agencies are developing regulations for both vehicles and fuels. 

With respect to vehicles, what approach is being taken—changes in corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

(EPCA) or establishment of emission standards under the Clean Air Act? It would 

appear that the choice of regulatory approach would have significant implications 

for how standards are set and how much vehicle greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, since the two statutes are different in their standard-setting tests. Please explain the approach being taken and how that approach differs, if at all, from EPA’s 

typical analytical approach to setting vehicle emission standards under the Clean 

Air Act. 
24 

Response. EPA expects to propose vehicle emissions standards under Section 202 

of the Clean Air Act, as well as fuel regulations under section 211. With respect to 

vehicle emissions standards, EPA is exploring joint rulemaking authorities with 

DOT, given the overlap of fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed 

regulations are being developed in coordination with DOT, DOE and USDA, as directed by the President in his Executive order and announcements on May 14, 2007. 

The agencies are using the President’s ‘‘Twenty in Ten’’ plan as a starting point. 

Question 8e. The President’s ‘‘20-in-10’’ plan provides for coal-to-liquid fuel to play 

a role in reducing gasoline consumption. As you know, the production and use of 

coal-to-liquid fuel can result in far higher greenhouse gas emissions than the production and use of gasoline. How are EPA and the other agencies that are developing the ‘‘20-in-10’’ regulations reconciling this fact with the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which Executive order 13432 recognizes as an important purpose of the rulemaking? 

Response. EPA expects to propose fuel regulations under section 211 of the Clean 

Air Act using the President’s 20-in-10 plan as a starting point. As part of our analyses, we are evaluating different renewable and alternative fuels, including cornbased ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, coal-to-liquids, and various other renewable and alternative fuels. We are examining the greenhouse gas emission impacts 

from all of these fuels and we intend to address this and other issues in the proposed rule which is currently under development. 

RESPONSES BY STEPHEN L. JOHNSON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR CARDIN

Question 1. As you know, up to one-third of the excess nitrogen that is polluting 

the Chesapeake Bay comes from air pollution sources, including cars and trucks. 

The clean cars regulations that we are discussing this morning will have beneficial 

effects on the Chesapeake Bay, and not just by reducing climate effects. Have you 

looked at the benefits in terms of air quality and water quality that will result from 

the clean cars legislation that California, New York, Maryland and other states 

have adopted? 

Response. As you are aware, my staff is in the process of reviewing all information submitted during the public comment process on California’s pending request 

for a waiver for California’s new motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards. 

Much of this information pertains to the greenhouse gas emission standards’ effect 

on climate conditions, as well as general air and water quality and supply in California. Review of this information by its nature focuses on California conditions, as 

guided by the criteria set forth in the Clean Air Act. 

Question 2. When you appeared before this committee in May, I told you that the 

reasonable timeline that I would be judging you by is a decision from EPA 30 days 

after the close of the public comment period. I stand by that timeline. The clock has 

run out. You have stated that you will not be ready to render a decision on the 

waiver request until the end of the year. As I indicated in my opening remarks, 

that’s not acceptable, and I’m convinced that you can do better. 

a. Would you please tell me how many EPA staff is currently working on the 

waiver request? 

b. How many people work for EPA in the Air Program and the Office of General 

Counsel? A rough estimate is acceptable. 

c. Can some of those staff people be devoted to the California waiver review in 

order to accelerate your timeline? 

d. Does EPA employ contractors to help process comments for the Record? Is the 

Agency doing so in this instance? Can additional contract personnel be added to accelerate your timeline? 

Response. The California GHG waiver request is being reviewed by a team of EPA 

staff primarily from the Office of Air and Radiation and the Office of General Counsel. This team includes attorneys, engineers and scientists who are analyzing the 

complex legal and technical issues encompassed in the waiver request. EPA has approximately 1271 employees in the Office of Air and Radiation and approximately 

350 employees in the Office of General Counsel; the necessary and appropriate staff 

and resources have been devoted to this important project. The Agency’s team for 

the waiver request is working as expeditiously as possible to review and evaluate 

all the information and comments submitted to permit the Administrator to make 

an informed decision. Additionally, because of the unusually high number of comments received (just under 100,000 at current count), EPA has employed a contractor to complete a summary of the comments, but given that the expertise for 
25 

analyzing the comments lies with Agency personnel, EPA has not employed contractors for additional tasks. 

Question 3a. I would like to turn to the recent analysis conducted by the National 

Capital Region Transportation Planning Board for the Metropolitan Washington 

Council of Governments. As I noted in my opening statement, the report details the 

expected growth in greenhouse gas emissions and the positive benefits that would 

result from the adoption of the California Car rule in this area. Are you familiar 

with the study, called ‘‘CO2 Emissions from Cars, Trucks, & Buses in the Metropolitan Washington Region’’? 

Response. Assuming you are referring to a presentation delivered by Ron Kirby, 

Director of Transportation Planning for the National Capital Region Transportation 

Planning Board, then yes, I am familiar with that study. 

Question 3b. Are you surprised to learn that the Transportation Planning Board 

estimates that the California Car rule would result in a 4 million ton reduction in 

CO2 emissions by 2020? 

Response. A number of different views regarding California’s greenhouse gas regulations have been expressed, both through the public comment process on California’s waiver request as well as through the media and elsewhere. I am fully aware 

that some have attempted to quantify the CO2 emission reductions to be accomplished by the California regulations; accordingly, I am not surprised by the estimates of the Transportation Planning Board. 

Question 3c. Does a 4 million ton reduction in this area seem substantial to you? 

Can you identify any other action that EPA is taking in the metropolitan Washington area that will result in this level of reductions? 

Response. Climate change is a global concern; therefore, reductions in emissions 

of greenhouse gases (GHG), such as CO2, are equally beneficial regardless of where 

they take place. EPA has a number of voluntary programs that are aimed at reducing GHG emissions across the country, such as the Energy Star, Climate Leaders 

and SmartWay Transport Programs. In 2006, EPA’s climate protection programs 

prevented 70 million metric tons of carbon equivalent greenhouse gas emissions in 

the U.S., including the Washington, DC metro area. 

In addition, under an Executive order signed by the President in May 2007, EPA 

is working with other Federal agencies to implement through mandatory regulations 

significant reductions in greenhouse gases from motor vehicles and fuels. The Agency will use the President’s 20-in-10 plan as a starting point to improve energy security and reduce GHG emissions. A proposal will be published later this year for public review and comment. Once completed, these regulations would apply across the 

nation. 

Question 3d. The Washington metropolitan area is designated as a non-attainment area for the 8-Hour Ozone standard, isn’t that correct? And the Washington 

non-attainment area includes the District of Columbia as well as other counties in 

both Maryland and Virginia, doesn’t it? Administrator Johnson, do you live in the 

Washington non-attainment area? Wouldn’t you like to see a 4 million ton reduction 

in greenhouse gas emissions here by 2020? 

Response. The answer to your first question is: yes, the Metropolitan DC area is 

classified as moderate nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS), and will need significant ozone precursor reductions to 

attain that standard. The nonattainment area includes DC and surrounding counties in MD and VA. EPA has taken many steps at the Federal level to reduce major 

sources of ozone precursors. For example, the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) provides a Federal framework requiring 28 eastern states and the District to reduce 

emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)—an ozone precursor. 

EPA anticipates that states will achieve these goals primarily by reducing emissions 

from the power generation sector. EPA estimates that in 2009, CAIR will reduce 

NOx emissions by 1.7 million tons or 53 percent from 2003 levels. In 2015, CAIR 

will reduce power plant NOx emissions by 2 million tons, achieving a regional emissions level of 1.3 million tons, a 61 percent reduction from 2003 levels. 

Additionally, EPA’s clean diesel rules will reduce air pollution from diesel engines 

by more than 90 percent once fully implemented, resulting in the annual reduction 

of 2.6 million tons of NOx and 110,000 tons of particulate matter. 

Your last question, in which you mention a 4 million ton reduction, refers to 

greenhouse gases (GHG). As described in response to Question 3c above, EPA has 

a number of efforts underway to address emissions of GHG’s now and into the future. 

Question 4. The National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board concludes their report by saying, in part, ‘‘To achieve CO2 reductions we need to reduce 
26 

CO2 emissions per vehicle mile . . .’’ Given the preponderance of mobile sources of 

emissions in this region, do you believe that it is possible to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions in this area without requiring emission reductions from cars and light 

trucks? 

Response. Achieving reductions in CO2 emissions per vehicle mile from cars and 

light trucks is certainly a way to reduce emissions of CO2 emissions. EPA is considering regulations that would reduce CO2 emissions from vehicles in the CAA rulemaking discussed above. In his presentation to the TPB, Mr. Kirby indicated that 

another means to reduce greenhouse gases is to reduce vehicle miles of travel 

(versus reducing emissions of greenhouse gas per mile of through vehicle-based controls). Travel demand (e.g., telecommuting, mass transit) and land use planning 

strategies were cited in his presentation as means to achieve reductions in VMT 

that would directly reduce greenhouse gases. According to the TPB presentation you 

cite, current Washington metropolitan area VMT reduction strategies (excluding the 

CA LEV greenhouse gas program) are expected to yield a 1 to 2 percent reduction 

in greenhouse gases by 2030. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Administrator Johnson, reading between the lines of your testimony harkens me back to what I said in mine, which is that we 

are fearful that instead of granting this waiver, and California has 

never had a waiver turned down, that you may well be thinking 

that the Executive Order of the President is going to substitute for 

this. 

I want to point out to you that the Executive order really has no 

action required. It is just get together and talk, No. 1. Also, the 

fuels program of the President, it is commendable in the sense that 

we want to get off foreign oil. However, it leaves the door wide 

open to very dirty fuels, fuels that would release more greenhouse 

gas emissions than petroleum does today. Coal-to-liquid is certainly 

not out of the picture if you look at the President’s Order. 

So what you said here really alarms me. I want to send a message out to the Governors who are planning on suing you to go 

ahead and move forward. You have said nothing that makes me 

feel comfortable that you are moving in the right direction. I didn’t 

hear one thing. 

Now, you have received lots of information. You didn’t really talk 

about whether you think it is well done. You didn’t address the fact 

that you sat on your hands until the Supreme Court finally said 

the obvious. You know, when history is written, I think they will 

look back at this tenure of yours as a missed opportunity. That is 

putting it in the nicest way that I can, because it could prove disastrous, but I am hoping with the change we are sensing on this committee across party aisles, and the people out there, and the business community that is so far ahead of you, that we can make up 

for your inaction. 

Now, you said there were extensive comments, and you said 

there were over 60,000. Is that correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct. 

Senator BOXER. OK. How many of these were mass mailings? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I believe, what my staff has informed me, literally 

thousands, but also the staff point out to me that there are literally 

thousands of pages of scientific and technical analysis. 

Senator BOXER. I am talking about the comments. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is what I am talking about. 

Senator BOXER. You said there were 60,000 comments. How 

many of those were mass mailings? 
27 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t know the number off the top of my head 

because we are still characterizing and analyzing the comments. 

Senator BOXER. We have this from EPA. The staff got this from 

the docket, by reading the docket. So we were able to get it. 

So let me tell my colleagues that 29,094 were a letter with this 

very complicated message: ‘‘Dear EPA Administrator Johnson, As 

you know, cars and SUVs are a massive source of global warming 

pollution. To protect future generations, States must be allowed to 

fight global warming. I urge you to give the States the green light 

to put cleaner cars on the road. Grant the Clean Air Act waiver to 

California and all the other States that are requesting them. Sincerely.’’ There were 29,000 of those, very complicated message, very 

difficult. 

Then you have another letter here. It is longer, but not that long. 

It is one page: 24,000 of those; 24,172. I would ask unanimous consent to place this letter into the record. It is one, two, three, four 

paragraphs long. The main one says, ‘‘I am counting on you to protect us from the real threats posed by global warming, and again 

urge you to immediately grant California the waiver it needs to 

move forward with this very important step to limit global warming pollution.’’ 

[The referenced information follows:] 
28 
29 
30 

Senator BOXER. So right there, 54,000 comments. So let’s not 

give an impression that there were 60,000 handwritten letters that 

your staff had to go through, when in fact two letters, mass mailings, made up for 54,000 of the 60,000. I think that is an important 

point. 

Now, what did you hear from others in the Administration about 

this waiver? How many people contacted you from across the Administration to talk to you about this waiver? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I have routine conversations with my cabinet colleagues on a wide range of issues. 

Senator BOXER. I am not asking about that. I am asking about 

this, about the California waiver. This is a big deal. The Supreme 

Court called you out and forced you to take action on the waiver. 

How many people in the Administration, executive and others, 

talked to you about this waiver? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Again, I routinely have conversations with my cabinet colleagues. 

Senator BOXER. So how many of them brought this up? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t have any recollection of any particular 

number, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Do you have any recollection of anybody talking 

to you about this? 

Mr. JOHNSON. As I said, I have raised the issue with a number 

of my cabinet colleagues, in giving them an update as to the status 

of the petition. 

Senator BOXER. Did anyone in the White House contact you on 

this? Or the Vice President’s office or OMB? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Not to my recollection. 

Senator BOXER. So you never discussed the California waiver 

with anyone from the White House? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, I didn’t say that. I said in my recollection, I 

don’t recall anybody contacting me. 

Senator BOXER. Did you contact them? 

Mr. JOHNSON. As part of good government, I tell them what is 

the status of major actions that are before the Agency to give them 

an update. That is what I do on petitions, on regulations, and—— 

Senator BOXER. Did you discuss this waiver with members of the 

Administration in the White House, the Vice President’s office, or 

the OMB? Did you discuss this? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I have routine discussions. 

Senator BOXER. Well, first you said you had no recollection. Now 

you say you contacted them, and now what are you saying? 

Mr. JOHNSON. You asked me had they contacted me first. 

Senator BOXER. No, no, no. I said did you have—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. I said I had no recollection, and then you asked 

me had I contacted, and I said yes, I have routine conversations. 

Senator BOXER. And I asked you, did you speak with anyone, 

whether they contacted you, you contacted them, it was a miraculous bumping in the hall. Did you discuss the California waiver 

with someone from the President’s office, the Vice President’s office, OMB? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I routinely have conversations with members of 

the White House. 
31 

Senator BOXER. The answer is yes, then. What did they say? 

What was their reaction? How did they feel about the waiver? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t recall their reaction because I was giving 

them an update of the status of this action and a lot of other actions before the Agency. 

Senator BOXER. OK. They didn’t respond? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. They understand that the responsibility for 

addressing and making a decision on the waiver rests with me as 

Administrator and the Clean Air Act. 

Senator BOXER. So they never gave you an opinion? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t recall whether they did or didn’t. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Did the DOT ever contact you and ask you 

to extend the waiver, to extend the deadline for making this decision? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I contacted the Secretary of the Department of 

Transportation as part of routine conversations that I have. I contacted her before the public comment period ended. 

Senator BOXER. What would she have to do with this? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, the reason why I contacted her was that I 

was under the impression that people were going to be asking the 

Agency for an extension of public comments. We had two letters in 

asking us for an extension. My inclination was to deny that request, and I contacted her before the close of the public comment 

period to say that I was inclined to deny the request for an extension of the public comments; that my staff had checked and was 

not aware of any other letters coming in from Members of Congress; was she aware of any letters or requests, but that I was inclined. 

Not hearing any, the next day I directed my staff to deny, and 

then a day later letters went to the two people requesting an extension, denying them the request for an extension. So we didn’t extend the comment period. 

Senator BOXER. So just to wrap this up, and then I will turn to 

Senator Inhofe. So just to wrap this up, no one ever contacted you. 

You contacted them, meaning the White House, the Vice President’s office, the OMB, the DOT. You contacted them just to give 

them an update on this issue, but no one ever contacted you and 

you don’t recall anybody in the White House giving you their opinion on the waiver. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t recall anyone contacting me. I do recall 

making contacts to others because as I said, I have routine conversations with—— 

Senator BOXER. You keep repeating this. I am just trying to see, 

and tell me if I am saying this in a fair way and a just way. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. 

Senator BOXER. All right. Nobody ever contacted you from the 

White House, the Vice President’s office, the OMB, or the DOT? 

You contacted them just to update them and you don’t recall anything they said to you about the waiver? 

Mr. JOHNSON. To the best of my recollection, again, I have a lot 

of conversations with members of the White House, a lot of conversations. I said I do recall me making contact because—— 
32 

Senator BOXER. I just said that. So did I say it in a fair way? 

I will repeat it the last time and then I will stop, because I would 

like a yes or no. 

Is this a fair analysis of what you have told us? That no one ever 

contacted you to give an opinion on the waiver, or to tell you to 

slow it up or anything; no one from the President’s, Vice President’s, OMB; no one from the DOT. But you did contact them just 

to fill them in on what was happening, and the waiver was one of 

the issues, but you don’t recall anything that they said. You just 

briefed them, but they never made any opinion. Yes or no? 

Mr. JOHNSON. If you would add ‘‘to the best of my recollection,’’ 

then I would say ‘‘yes.’’ 

Senator BOXER. Well, could you try to today go through some of 

your notes of these conversations, because if your recollection is not 

right, I need to know that because this is clear. The Supreme Court 

has said this is your duty and your job and it shouldn’t be politicized. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, Madam Chairman, I am not sure I can 

use a whole 11 minutes, but I will try. 

Senator BOXER. You can have as much time as you want. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, I know. I know that. 

Well, how many issues do you deal with, Mr. Administrator? You 

are a hands-on guy, unlike most Administrators, you came up 

through the ranks. You know your issues. About how many different issues do you have to deal with? I know I have a lot of them 

with you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, I appreciate that, and I am very proud 

of my 26 years of Federal service with EPA. I literally deal with 

thousands of issues across the Agency. 

Senator INHOFE. Do you intentionally refuse to deal with the Administration and let them know that we have significant things 

going on in this very important Agency? Don’t you deal with them 

on every significant issue? I would think you would. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, it is my belief and certainly my practice 

over the past 26 years to keep my superiors informed of major 

issues before the Agency. I have done that and will continue to do 

that as long as I am Administrator. 

Senator INHOFE. I have to say this, that you certainly have advised me many times more than I want to be advised. So you are 

always responsive, and I do appreciate that. I would be disappointed if you didn’t have these contacts. 

I would only make the one comment that the Chairman talked 

about several times, the transportation sector. It was very interesting. I want to remind the record here that the United Nations 

came out in their report and said, Senator Carper, that livestock 

emissions exceeded the entire transportation sector. That is kind of 

interesting. 

One of the witnesses, Mr. Administrator, at our last full committee hearing wrote an article based on his testimony and received a threat shown on this chart. Put the chart up. I am going 

to read this and I want everyone to listen: ‘‘It is my intention to 

destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial 

against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your pro-
33 

fessional integrity. I will call you a liar and a charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you 

out as a man who has been bought by corporate America. Go 

ahead, guy, take me on,’’ signed by Michael Eckhart, the President 

of the American Council on Renewable Energy. 

Let me just mention something here, an observation. I certainly 

hope the Chairwoman would read this. I will read it again after 

she is through talking, since I have 11 minutes. 

This is what my observation is, and this has nothing to do with 

a question to you. Every time the new scientists come up, the ones 

who are on the other side of this issue, and say, wait a minute, it 

looks like now like anthropogenic gases—methane and CO2—are 

not the primary causes of climate change. Every time this happens, 

since the science isn’t there and the facts are not there and the 

truth isn’t there, we have all these people who have a stake in this 

thing. 

I remember so well when Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel— 

and I love her, I watch her program because I find it to be very 

interesting—if it shows that the trend of science is refuting the fact 

that anthropogenic gases are a primary cause of climate change, 

she is out of business. Her whole weekly program is gone. Her career is gone. 

In this case, here is a guy that is threatening what he is going 

to do. Now, the reason—and I am going to read it again when the 

Chairman is available—but I have found—and put the other chart 

up, will you?—that the EPA is a part of the American Council on 

Renewable Energy. Are you aware of that, Mr. Administrator? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I am, that we are a part of the American 

Council on Renewable Energy. 

Senator INHOFE. Does this bother you? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Certainly, the—— 

Senator INHOFE. This guy is the president. So I assume if you 

are a member of this, then you support the American Council on 

Renewable Energy. Is that correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. As I said, we are a member and we support renewable energy. I was not aware of this quote or this action. 

Senator INHOFE. What kind of response do you have, being the 

Administrator of the EPA and finding out that you support this organization, where the man is making a statement like this? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, statements like this are of concern to me. 

Certainly, as head of the EPA, we are involved with many organizations, and I certainly am a believer in cooperation and collaboration across all sectors. This is an area that I would look into for 

the record. 

Senator INHOFE. That is what I want you to do. I don’t expect 

you—look at the number of organizations the EPA is a part of. 

Many of them are very good organizations and there probably are 

people on the board, if the American Council on Renewable Energy 

has a board of directors, who would be very offended by what their 

president is saying. 

But my point is, this is so typical of these hate-filled people who 

threaten and use vile language. I was called a traitor by one of the 

extreme left. This happens when you lose your case, and this is the 

best evidence of it. 
34 

So I would like to have you look into this and make an evaluation. Talk it over with your people and see if it is appropriate for 

you to be a part of an organization that is headed up by a person 

who makes this statement. OK? 

Madam Chairman, since you were busy while I read this statement, I am going to read it again so that you can have it. 

Senator BOXER. I heard it, and I talked to your staff about it. 

Senator INHOFE. I know, but you didn’t hear it because you were 

talking. I am not criticizing that you were talking. I talk to my 

staff all the time, too, then I want to get things repeated. 

Senator BOXER. You can read it any time you want, but I know 

what he said, but go ahead. 

Senator INHOFE. He said, ‘‘It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate 

change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar, a charlatan to the Harvard community 

of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who 

has been bought by corporate America. Go ahead, guy, take me on.’’ 

Now, Mr. Administrator, the waiver request strikes me as a 

backdoor effort, and I really need to have some education on this 

because I am fairly new to this issue, even though I have been to 

the hearings when we have discussed it. As I said in my opening 

statement, you have been acting very expeditiously on this issue. 

But the waiver request kind of looks to me like a backdoor attempt to usurp the Congress’s role as setting CAFE standards, because if a handful of States are able to come up with standards 

that are different from the rest of the United States, what is going 

to be the response in terms of CAFE standards? Or better yet, 

should we not be talking to the automobile industry as to whether 

or not they can make vehicles with different standards, different 

emission standards? Does it look to you like this could be a backdoor way of usurping Congress’s role in setting the standards? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Senator, there are two sections of the Clean 

Air Act—section 209, which is specific for California waiver petitions, and in section 209, there are three criteria, any one of which 

if those criteria are triggered, then the Agency is to not grant the 

waiver. But it is part of the law, part of the Clean Air Act specific 

to California. And then as also part of the law, that other States 

can follow along after California. Of course, under section 202 of 

the Clean Air Act, that deals with mobile source emissions in general. 

Senator INHOFE. But it says they can, but it doesn’t say they 

must. OK. That explains it a little bit. 

In my opening statement, I went over the very elaborate system 

that you have in doing what the law requires you to do. I know 

that there are many of my very good friends who have at times 

criticized the EPA for not taking long enough, not being deliberative enough. What comes to my mind is the Clear Skies legislation. 

It was stalled and stalled and stalled, and the excuse was that you 

have not been deliberate enough. You weren’t there at that time. 

Well, you might have been. But anyway, I think you have done 

your job. 

Last, and I am going to make sure I get this in, I have to have 

this question in there, the question I would have is, how can Cali-
35 

fornia assess a maximum feasible fuel economy levels to be so radically different than those made over many years by the Department of Transportation in the CAFE program? The Department of 

Transportation uses detailed data from automobile manufacturers, 

while California Air Resources Board, which I will refer to as 

CARB in this question, used a study by the Northeast States Center for Clean Air Future as a basis for its regulation. 

CARB requires about 44 mpgs for cars and 27 mpgs for heavy 

trucks by 2016. The California car fuel economy requirement is 60 

percent higher than the CAFE standards. No. 1, don’t you think 

that Federal regulators at the Department of Transportation, after 

years of working on fuel economy and with mountains of industry 

confidential data, know more about it than CARB and the nonprofit group that CARB worked with, No. 1? And No. 2, how can 

CARB’s mistaken feasibility assessment be corrected? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, I understand that the issue of CAFE or 

the EPCA, which stands for the Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, that DOT and NHTSA are under, is currently in litigation. 

This issue is in a case before the Ninth Circuit. So once the Ninth 

Circuit makes its decision, in the meantime we are continuing to 

review and evaluate the voluminous detailed comments, unprecedented number of comments, on the California petition. 

Senator INHOFE. I think it is a reasonable question to ask. I 

thank you very much for your very good answers. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Lautenberg, you have 10 minutes. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I think that would cut me short, Madam, 

by about 10 minutes, but that is all right. 

Senator BOXER. Well actually, I took 11 and he took 11. I am giving you 10. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. But you could have 11 if you want. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. It is not important, but the discreditation 

that our distinguished friend and colleague gives to comments 

made by others just consumes more time than it should. 

Mr. Johnson, I want to say this to begin with. First of all, you 

are a person with substantial credentials. You have been in public 

service for a long time. I know that you come with knowledge. That 

doesn’t mean that we can agree and it doesn’t mean that you are 

not at fault in some instances. 

But in terms of the name-calling and things like that, I don’t 

think it does us any good, and I am sorry Senator Inhofe isn’t here 

because we all get people saying nasty things about us no matter 

how good we are in public life. It happens. You have to believe that 

you are right, and very frankly, unfortunately I believe that you 

are really wrong on this issue. I think that instead of being excessively fair, that this amounts in my view to foot-dragging. 

You heard from the Chairman when she asked about intervention from other places—the Administration and other departments—is it with some degree of shock that we look at backup material and look at the kind of campaign that the Department of 

Transportation put on. Now, do you think it is appropriate that, 

one, executive-level agencies lobby Members of Congress on another agency’s regulations? Do you think that is acceptable? 
36 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Senator, I do not believe that it is legal for 

myself to lobby Members of Congress, so that is my own belief and 

I believe what the regulations dictate. I certainly, again, believe 

that it is also good government for Members of Congress to communicate with one another. I think it is good government for members 

of the Administration, certainly cabinet members, to talk with one 

another. Certainly I think that it is responsible management for 

me to keep other members of the Administration apprised of the 

status of important decisions. 

Excuse me, sir. I also believe that it is important that it be recognized that in certainly the statutes and the Clean Air Act, the responsibility solely lies with me as Administrator to make a decision. I hold that responsibility in great seriousness. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I know that you do, but we are talking 

about a forever delay here, 18 months when the atmosphere is 

being poisoned. Despite Senator Inhofe’s disbelief, as I hear it, that 

climate change, global warming is really taking place. He called it 

openly and regularly a hoax. So now we have ‘‘hoax’’ storms and 

‘‘hoax’’ droughts and ‘‘hoax’’ hurricanes and ‘‘hoax’’ tornadoes. 

Those hoaxes really pain people in lots of ways. It places us in 

a position where we are ignoring the threat to our environment 

and the health and well being of my grandchildren and grandchildren across this country. It is pitiful that this has become a 

matter that is being shaped behind closed doors in many ways. 

We have message here, I have, and this is common knowledge, 

I think. It is in the Federal record. But from Michael Harrington, 

NHTSA, and also from Simon Gross. 

This is from DOT—I am sorry, NHTSA. They say that to the 

Members, Senators with the really big facilities, we need to call 

those small distribution centers or anything. The bill should reach 

out to the Governor’s offices in Tennessee, South Carolina and Missouri, Delaware, Kentucky, Indiana and Texas, about what is taking place in terms of the warning that this legislation is about to 

take place. It reads, and this is in the Senate Federal Register, 

April 30, 2007. I am not sure if you are aware, but EPA is currently considering a petition from the State of California to set its 

own CO2 standards. 

If California were to receive this waiver, this could lead to patchwork of regulations on vehicle emissions which would have significant impacts on the light truck and car industry. EPA is currently 

receiving comments and the docket is open until June 15. However, 

tomorrow the EPA Administrator will decide whether or not to extend the deadline. 

We are engaging you to see if your boss would be—and this is 

sent to the congressional staff—submitting comments or reaching 

out to your Governor’s office for them to submit comments to the 

docket. This could greatly impact auto facilities within your District. 

So it is not really focused on whether or not we are taking care 

of the environment. Mr. Johnson, the one thing I don’t want to see 

happen, and I am sure no one here wants to see happen, is the demise of our automobile industry. But it ought not to be juxtaposed 

compared to the damage, the jeopardy that faces our people by this 

constant climate change that we are facing. 
37 

There are other agencies. I don’t know whether you have seen 

the report that was done for the Defense Department. It was done 

a few years ago, in October 2003. It talks about the substantial evidence to indicate that significant global warming will occur during 

the 21st century. There are all kinds of memos that talk about 

what the impacts of global warming may be. One of them is from 

a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at the 

U.N. This report by the 2,500 scientists who are members of this 

panel, most of the observed increase in globally average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the increased—and ‘‘likely due’’ is described as 90 percent—of the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. 

All of this just says to us, at least it says to me and I assume 

some of my colleagues, that this foot-dragging is unacceptable by 

any measure, Mr. Johnson. I think that it would be not only good 

faith by you as a credible leader of the EPA to try to find ways to 

accommodate this waiver request, instead of delaying it and delaying it and delaying it. 

Now, is it true that the request was in 18 months, for the waiver? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, I would respectfully disagree with footdragging. The request for waiver came in December 21, 2005. 

There was a series of communications in May 2006, October 2006, 

a couple of communications in December 2006. Then in February 

2007, we informed California of—by that time, the Supreme Court 

had made a decision that they were taking cert and that they 

would be considering it. We notified California that we were going 

to wait the decision of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decision was made on—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Johnson, I don’t mean to be rude to 

you, honestly. But those details are secondary to whether or not 

you think there is a matter of urgency to get this waiver agreed 

to. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Senator, I agree that there is an urgency to 

consider the voluminous comments that we received. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So that is your primary urgency? You are 

saying that the mechanics are the most important thing. Is there 

an issue that is bigger for the moment than the mechanics? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Global climate change is a serious issue. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. How serious? 

Mr. JOHNSON. A very serious issue and we have a responsibility 

under the Clean Air Act to process the waiver request in I believe 

a timely and deliberate fashion. Senator, the Government, and certainly the USEPA, has never considered regulating carbon dioxide. 

So this is the first time. Putting aside all of the write-in campaign 

which we have to consider, but putting aside just that—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, we hard that actually that write-in 

campaign was—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. There are still thousands of substantive comments. In fact, just 2 days ago we received another 800 to 1,000 

pages of technical comments by the State of California. It takes 

time for our staff to do a thorough review. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, I am going to give you another 3 minutes. It is fine. I want to give you another 3 minutes. 
38 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. 

I just want to try to get to an understanding of this. Why we 

don’t see the urgency to do something about climate change, and 

let it be determined at some point you cutoff the debate. At some 

point, you close down the commentary. So the fact that you have 

another 800 pages, has anybody in your office looked through those 

800 pages? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We have staff that are reviewing comments from 

the State of California and we are looking at them now, evaluating 

them now. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Can you imagine, Madam Chairman, that 

California is asking for a delay in any way of this? 

Senator BOXER. California is going to sue to get action. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Right. 

Senator BOXER. The other States are standing behind California. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I submit that there is so much time passing by, and once again I use the term ‘‘foot-dragging.’’ I mean it, 

and I gave you my views of the respect that you earn as a professional, and I know you have a tough assignment. However, when 

we look at what is happening in our future, what is happening in 

our past, what is happening, as I mentioned earlier, the year 2006 

being the hottest year on record, up 2.2 °F. 

Going through, if this was a fire, action would be taken. We are 

facing lots of dangerous situations in our world, but the Administration thinks that in order to quell the danger, he ought to put 

more troops in Iraq, and that puts them at risk. 

Any delays here put our society at risk. I use my grandchildren 

kind of euphemistically here, because if I take care of my grandchildren, I take care of everybody’s grandchildren. That is a mission of mine as a United States Senator. I urge you to try and expedite this request for waiver and get on with it. You have the 

right to close down the comment period. At some point you are 

going to have to say no, we are not taking any more. We have 

enough data. We have a court decision to support your responsibility. 

Frankly, if you see any antagonism here it is not against you 

personally, but it is against what you are doing by permitting this 

delay to continue. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Administrator Johnson, I earlier in my opening 

statement said I was going to telegraph my pitch. Senator Boxer 

just said California is going to sue in order to get expedited action. 

I am not prepared to sue in order to get clearly a fuller response, 

a more robust response to my letter of May 10, but I can appreciate 

her disappointment with what she and certainly folks in California 

and many on this committee believe is just not the kind of expeditious response that we would like to see to the request from the 

Governor of California. 

Others have spoken to the need to hasten your response to California. I won’t belabor that. I suspect this is not much fun to sit 

here and to be on the receiving end of these kinds of exchanges. 

So I would just urge you and your colleagues to, given all that you 
39 

have to review, to still expedite your consideration of California’s 

request. 

Before you fully respond to their request, I want to hear a fuller 

response to mine. I am not the Governor of California, but I used 

to be the Governor of Delaware. I have asked EPA in this letter 

that I mentioned earlier to really take three specific steps, which 

we believe, which I believe will better inform EPA as you contemplate the best methods for reducing greenhouse gases. 

One of those dealt with developing a mandatory inventory and 

registry of major greenhouse gas sources in the United States. The 

second dealt with helping us to deploy new clean coal technology. 

And the third was to help us develop standards and practices on 

how best to measure and verify emission offsets for biological and 

agriculture carbon sequestration. 

I have gotten a response, but it was a disappointing response. I 

said that to you before privately and I will say it to you again. We 

are looking for a real response. We are looking for real engagement. We have just not gotten it. I don’t think that is asking too 

much. These are three things which we think could not just help 

EPA, not just help us, but help our country. 

I would urge you to take seriously what I am saying. I am not 

one who pounds on tables, but I am very persistent. I will continue 

to be persistent on this one. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, again thank you for your leadership, and 

those issues which you highlighted in your letter are very important. Again, I want to apologize for any miscommunication, and 

then I want to make sure that we are fully responsive to your letter because all three of the issues are very important, both in dealing with inventory versus registry and what does that mean. I 

know that a number of States are moving forward with that, and 

certainly there is conversation at the national level with that regard. 

Of course, carbon sequestration and storage, both in promoting 

the development of that, but also the important aspect of making 

sure that we, if you will, inject that carbon in a safe and environmentally responsible way is very important to us. Of course, we 

have recently issued some guidance, which is the precursor to regulation, on that issue, and we look forward to working with you on 

that. 

Of course, as we discuss various methods of crediting or banking 

and the importance and opportunity for sequestration such as in 

agriculture, that is another area that is very important to us. We 

will have a more fulsome response. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Madam Chair, I don’t know if you caught it, but when the Administrator was speaking to us during his testimony, he talked 

about the Twenty in Ten plan. The second paragraph really caught 

my eye, because it relates closely to legislation you and I supported 

that was passed in the Senate about a month ago with respect to 

increasing fuel efficiency performance by cars, trucks and vans in 

this country. 

What we have passed, Mr. Administrator, as you may know, we 

passed legislation in the Senate by a fairly broad margin that calls 

on folks, companies selling cars, trucks and vans in this country 
40 

over the next dozen or so years to be able to achieve significantly 

greater fuel efficiency. We have not said that all cars or all trucks 

have to have the same result, but if you have, say, 10 companies 

selling cars and trucks and vans in this Nation, over the next 

dozen or so years, those who are selling small cars they have to 

meet the same standards set by NHTSA, worked out with the car 

companies. 

If you are a small car company in this country under our bill, 

your small cars are going to have to meet the same fuel efficiency 

requirements of which these companies are being produced by. 

Similarly, if a company is producing mid-size cars, they have to 

come up and meet the same fuel efficiency requirements. For fullsize cars, it is different, but for all the companies, they have to 

meet the same different fuel efficiency standards. 

For companies that are building light trucks and SUVs, they 

have to meet the same standard regardless of who is doing it. We 

came up with that approach in part at the behest of the domestic 

auto industry. They said don’t allow companies that are currently 

building a lot of fuel efficient cars to be able to go out and build 

highly fuel inefficient light trucks and SUVs, minivans. So what we 

did is we developed an attribute-based system. We called for 

NHTSA, which is a unit of the Department of Transportation as 

you know, to work with the car companies to figure out what attribute we should consider; what makes a small car a small car or 

a large SUV a large SUV. Is it weight? Is it footprint, you know, 

the wheel base? Figure out what the attributes are and use those 

standards. 

We called for an overall fleet average of about 35 miles per gallon by 2020. It doesn’t mean every car company is going to have 

35 miles per gallon in their fleet, but overall for the whole fleet it 

will be 35 miles per gallon. 

We had in our legislation a requirement that said beyond 2020, 

fuel efficiency has to increase by 4 percent per year. The car companies pushed back very hard against that. We changed that in the 

end to say that beyond 2020, fuel efficiency has to go up by whatever NHTSA, working with the companies, determines is maximum 

feasible technology, maximum feasible technology. 

So what I read here in your testimony, it says fuel efficiency 

standards for cars will be increased substantially beginning in 

2010, and for light trucks beginning in 2012. In 2017, we aim to 

reduce projected annual gasoline use by so much. What are you 

calling for in terms of reductions, annual reductions? Is it 4 percent? I thought I heard 4 percent in your testimony. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, Senator. There are really two tracks. One is 

the legislative track, which is the Twenty in Ten, which we are 

suggesting up to 4 percent per year. That is the legislative track. 

As also mentioned in my testimony, we are developing regulations 

to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act from new 

automobiles. The two areas that can achieve that, one is through 

the type of fuel put into the engine; and then the second is the engine efficiency, or if you will, the CAFE standard. 

So in a parallel process, we are developing regulations, and of 

course important considerations such as technical feasibility and 
41 

the time to implementation become key factors in drafting a regulation under section 202 of the Clean Air Act. 

Senator CARPER. I don’t know if you are aware of the Administration’s response to what we have passed in the Senate, but if you 

are, would you share that with us? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would be happy to. 

Senator CARPER. Now? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would be happy to for the record. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Madam Chair, I might be wrong, but as I look at those numbers, 

4 percent per year between now and 2020, we would have a fuel 

standard for the fleet, we would have a fleet average that would 

probably be 35 miles per gallon or so. If what I am hearing is that 

the Administration pretty much agrees with us on the goal, that 

is good news. That is good news, and we are still getting a fair 

amount of push-back from our friends in the auto industry, especially the domestic side. 

But I think they can make this goal, especially if we will help 

them, if we will help them with investments in basic R&D like new 

battery technology for these flex-fuel plug-in hybrids. We will help 

them by using the Government’s purchasing power to commercialize new technologies as they come to market, and help make 

them successful, of if we use our taxing powers to incentivize folks 

to buy more energy efficient cars, whether it is plug-in hybrids or 

low-emission diesels, that we can play a role in helping the industry meet that goal. 

Any closing comment on this point? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would just say I again look forward to working 

with you on the legislative piece. As I mentioned, we will have a 

proposed regulation addressing fuel efficiency and the type of fuel 

by the end of this year. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Good. Thanks very much. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam? 

Senator BOXER. Yes, if I just might. I think, Senator Carper, 

your questioning was very good. I would urge you to, and I know 

you realize this, these 13 States want to do it yesterday. They are 

ready to go. And that is why the Governors are planning to sue. 

I want to point out how bipartisan all of this is. At the time that 

the 13 States got together, six of the Governors were Republicans. 

Now we have five of them, because one of them was replaced by 

a Democrat. But it is an amazing thing how bipartisan this issue 

is when you get away from here. You know? 

Senator Cardin, we do need to move, because we are coming up 

with a vote fairly soon. 

Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Administrator Johnson, it is nice to have you back before our 

committee. I welcome you. 

I want to sort of just question you on the impact that today’s 

hearing has on the Chesapeake Bay on water quality, because I 

think most people look at the air quality issue and don’t realize the 

direct impact it has on the quality of our waters and bays and our 

streams. It is estimated that one-third of the nitrogen problem in 

the Chesapeake Bay comes from air pollution. The No. 1 source of 
42 

the air pollution are the clean car issues that we are talking about 

today. 

So my question to you is, have you looked at the benefit of the 

standards on air regulations that California wants the waiver for, 

what impact that would have on the quality of waters such as the 

Chesapeake Bay? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Senator, under the California petition, we 

need to evaluate the California situation, and then other States, as 

you know, including Maryland, if they chose to follow the California standard, then could, if we indeed granted the waiver. 

With respect to the Chesapeake Bay, we have actually been investing, and I know that there is some study continuing to go on 

that EPA is participating in on the effect of global climate change 

on the Chesapeake Bay specifically. I am not aware of the current 

status of that specific research and development, but I am aware 

that it is going on. 

Senator, if I could, and Madam Chair, if I could, with respect I 

would like to clarify one thing that I said, and I may have 

misspoke when answering a question about the legal issues pertaining to executive branch communications to the Hill. As you 

know, such communications generally are not prohibited, and of 

course our respective branches can communicate. So I just wanted 

to make that clear for the record. 

Senator CARDIN. I don’t want to leave quite the issue yet on the 

bay, because I think one of the reasons why our legislature and 

Governor wanted to come under a similar waiver as California is 

the impact that air pollution is having on the bay. We have gone 

to extraordinary lengths, with the help of the Federal Government, 

with EPA’s involvement, with private sector involvement and 

multi-State efforts to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. We have made 

progress, but not enough progress. I think recent reports show that 

there is still a huge challenge ahead of us. 

We look at the waiver as one important step forward in dealing 

with the Chesapeake Bay. I would just urge you to be prepared. Of 

course, we all are hoping that we are going to get action on the 

California waiver. I would really hope that we would have had it 

by now. In my opening statement I made that point. But when you 

do rule on that, we want to make sure that, assuming it is affirmative, that a State like Maryland can move forward aggressively because of the multiple impact it has on our environment. 

I would just urge you to be up to speed on the impact that the 

air quality is having on waters around our country, including the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

Let me also, if I might, move to the issue that I mentioned in 

my opening statement, and that is the recent analysis conducted by 

the National Capital Regional Transportation Planning Board for 

the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. As I noted, 

the report details the expected growth in greenhouse gas emissions 

and the positive benefits that would result from the adoption of the 

California car rule in this area. 

Are you familiar with this study, called ‘‘CO2 Emissions for Cars, 

Trucks and Buses in the Metropolitan Washington Area’’? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Generally, I am, but I have not personally read 

the study. 
43 

Senator CARDIN. Were you surprised to learn that the Transportation Planning Board estimates that the California car rule would 

result in a four ton reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, that is precisely part of our evaluation of the 

three criteria under section 209 is to evaluate the three criteria 

which one of them is compelling in extraordinary circumstances, 

and is it consistent with section 202 of the Act, and is it in the aggregate as protective of public health and welfare as the Federal 

standards. 

So as part of that evaluation, we will be looking at literally those 

thousands of pages of technical analysis that have been submitted 

to the Agency. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I encourage you to do that, obviously as 

quickly as possible, because a four ton reduction is a substantial 

amount and the area already is a nonattainment area for the 8- 

hour ozone standard. So this would have a major impact in trying 

to meet attainment, wouldn’t it? 

Mr. JOHNSON. It is true from our scientific analysis that greenhouse gas emissions can have an effect, and in fact increase ozone. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks, Senator. 

Administrator Johnson, under the Clean Air Act, what is EPA’s 

mission? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Under the Clean Air Act, that is ultimately to protect public health and the environment. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. As a matter of fact, in the opinion of the 

court, they stated that EPA has been charged with protecting the 

public’s health and welfare. That is your role. That is your job. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. So keeping that in mind, which I am sure you 

do, I want you to answer these questions. Your role is to protect 

the public health and welfare. 

Is the Bush administration opposed to granting California’s waiver? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We have made no decision on the California waiver and we are going through a very deliberate process to evaluate 

all the comments. I will be making a decision by the end of the 

year. 

Senator BOXER. So the Administration—I am talking about the 

Administration—is the Bush administration, you say EPA hasn’t 

made a decision yet as to whether to grant it or not. Is the Administration opposed to granting this waiver? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The Administration recognizes that under the 

Clean Air Act it is the responsibility of the Administrator, and it 

is my responsibility to make an independent decision. 

Senator BOXER. So the Administration is not opposed to it. 

Is the Department of Transportation part of the Administration? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator BOXER. OK. So let me read you, we got this out of an 

e-mail that was given to employees at the DOT. They were to call 

Members of Congress, and this is what they were to say: ‘‘I am not 

sure if you are aware, but EPA is currently considering a petition 

from the State of California to set its own CO2 standards. If Cali-
44 

fornia were to receive this waiver, this could lead to a patchwork 

of regulations on vehicle emissions which would have significant 

impacts on the light truck and car industry. 

The EPA is currently receiving comments and the docket is open 

until June 15. However, tomorrow the Administrator will decide 

whether or not to extend the deadline. We are gauging to see if 

your boss would be interested in submitting comments or reaching 

out to your Governors office for them to submit comments to the 

docket, since this could greatly impact the auto facilities within 

your District.’’ 

Then it says, and remember what you said, DOT is part of the 

Administration and the Administration knows this is all in your 

shop, this is what it says in this e-mail: ‘‘If asked our position’’— 

that is DOT—‘‘we say we are in opposition of the waiver.’’ 

So I am putting this in the record. I am stunned that you would 

sit here through all this time and act as if you weren’t aware of 

this. Do you believe that it was appropriate for DOT to lobby Congress to oppose the waiver and to have in the script to say that 

they opposed the waiver? Do you think that this was appropriate? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, I have to defer to the Department of 

Transportation on what e-mails they may or may not have—— 

Senator BOXER. I am not asking you that. I am asking you. I 

read to you an e-mail, and I am asking you if it is appropriate for 

this Administration to lobby Members of Congress against the 

waiver, because it says ‘‘if asked our position, we say we are in opposition of the waiver.’’ 

Do you think that is appropriate? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, it is my responsibility for the Environmental Protection Agency and I respectfully defer to the Department of Transportation. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, let me say this. I read you what your 

charge is. Your charge is not to sit here and say ‘‘I can’t answer,’’ 

when a member of the cabinet and the whole department is lobbying against this waiver. You are responsible for the health and 

welfare of the people of this country. You yourself said that is your 

charge. You sit here and can’t condemn the fact that this Administration has been lobbying Members of Congress against this waiver, which 13 Governors want, not to mention the millions of people 

want. Is that your answer? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, I am not responsible for the Department 

of Transportation and e-mails or conversations. 

Senator BOXER. I didn’t say you were. I asked your opinion. Do 

you have no opinion? 

Mr. JOHNSON. My responsibility is for the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Senator BOXER. So you have no opinion. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I defer to the Department of Transportation. 

Senator BOXER. So that means you think it is OK, whatever they 

do? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I defer to the Department of Transportation. 

Senator BOXER. If you defer to them, then you think it is OK. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I defer to the Department of Transportation. 

Senator BOXER. I say that you are, with that statement, neglecting your responsibility to protect the health and welfare of the peo-
45 

ple. I find it absolutely stunning. I find it putting politics ahead of 

what your job is supposed to be. 

Now, since we already know that DOT officials actively solicited 

Members of Congress and Governors to oppose California’s waiver, 

did you know they were doing it before they started it? Were you 

aware of it? Did they ever discuss it with you? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, I have already described—— 

Senator BOXER. I am asking you again. Yes or no? Were you 

aware that this was going on, that calls were being made to Members of Congress? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I asked the Secretary of the Department of Transportation to check with her constituency to see if anyone was going 

to be requesting an extension, which I stated that I was inclined 

to deny, and then a day later I instructed my staff to deny the request. 

Senator BOXER. That is not what I asked you. I asked you a simple question. Were you aware that the Department of Transportation, members there were instructed with a script, were calling 

Members of Congress and telling them that the DOT is opposed to 

the waiver. 

Mr. JOHNSON. My awareness was the conversation that I had 

with the Secretary of the Department of Transportation. Other email traffic and others, I was not aware of. 

Senator BOXER. So you did not discuss with her that this was 

happening, that these calls were being made to Members of Congress? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I already described what my conversation was. 

Senator BOXER. Did you discuss with her or did she discuss with 

you calls that were being made to Members of Congress to get 

them to weigh in against granting the California waiver? 

Mr. JOHNSON. In my interest and my requests for the Secretary 

was to find out whether anyone was going to be submitting a request to extend the public comment, which I stated to her and to 

you again, that I was inclined to deny, which I ultimately did deny. 

Senator BOXER. I am not talking about extension of the waiver. 

I am talking about opposition to the waiver. Did you try to stop 

DOT from soliciting opposition to California’s request and the 12 

other States? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Again, I don’t have any responsibility for the Department of Transportation. My responsibility is for EPA and evaluating the petition under the Clean Air Act. 

Senator BOXER. If you were talking down the street and you saw 

something that was happening that was bad, would you walk over 

and try to stop it? Or would you say, you know, it is none of my 

business? Because that is the kind of answer you are giving me. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Senator, I am good, but I am not that good 

to be able to oversee every e-mail that goes on in the Department 

of Transportation. So again, I have to defer to the Department of 

Transportation as to what they may or may not have said. 

Senator BOXER. This isn’t an e-mail. This is a script, and you 

said, as I understand it, you knew nothing about it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I did not see a script, no. 

Senator BOXER. OK. And you didn’t know that they were contacting Members of Congress? 
46 

Mr. JOHNSON. I said, again, that I asked the Secretary of the Department of Transportation to check with her constituency to see 

if Members were going to ask us for an extension. 

Senator BOXER. Who is her constituency? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I just asked her. 

Senator BOXER. She is not elected. Who is her constituency? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I asked my staff to check with our constituency to 

see if there was any—— 

Senator BOXER. What? You just said you asked her to check with 

her constituency. Who is her constituency? She is not an elected official. Who is her constituency? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think you are trying to parse terms. 

Senator BOXER. I am asking you a question, sir. You used the 

term. You said you wanted to ask her to check with her constituency, and I am asking you, as a human being, one to another, who 

is her constituency? 

Mr. JOHNSON. There are Members of Congress and Governors 

who particularly are interested in transportation issues. 

Senator BOXER. So Members of Congress and Governors are her 

constituency. Excuse me. Her constituency are the people of the 

United States of America. That is her constituency. But now you 

are saying you asked her to check with them. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I did ask her—— 

Senator BOXER. So this leads me to believe that perhaps that is 

why she did this. She checked with them all right. She told them 

to come out against the waiver. Now, did you talk to anyone in the 

White House about this particular matter, getting people to gin up 

calls against the waiver? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Again, I did not direct anyone to gin up any phone 

calls against or for the waiver. My communication with the Secretary of the Department of Transportation and others was to inform them that I was disinclined to extend the public comment period, and again, a day later I directed my staff to deny that request, and in fact we closed the public comment period as was indicated, which was about a week later. 

Senator BOXER. I believe this Administration has already decided 

they don’t want to grant this waiver, and the only way you can disprove that is to grant it, because everything that I have seen leads 

me to that conclusion. You would have to be born yesterday not to 

see it. 

You have the Administration lobbying against the waiver, and 

you can’t comment or call them out on it. You are part of this. You 

are part of this, because you will not speak out against this. 

You know, in tough times, you have to take a stand. That is 

wrong, on its face. You talk about her constituency as being Members of Congress, Governors. That is not her constituency. She 

works for the people. And that is who your constituency is, and 

that is what you are supposed to do, work for the people. When you 

work for the people, you don’t just sit there and say nothing when 

faced with a script where people were lobbying against this waiver, 

which you claim, you know, you are going to be very fair about, 

after saying you have 60,000 different messages and we have proven that 54,000 of them were mass mailings. 
47 

Now, my own belief is there is going to be a hiding behind this 

Executive order. I just read it again. I would urge everyone to read 

this Executive order: Cooperation among agencies and protecting 

the environment with respect to greenhouse gas emissions from 

motor vehicles, non-road vehicles, and non-road engines. That is 

not a substitute for a waiver. Even if you were to produce a regulation on cars, that is not a substitute for granting a waiver to the 

most populous State in the Union and 12 other States who are so 

far out in front of this EPA it would make your head spin. It is 

tragic, all this wasted time. 

So what we have here is California puts in a request for this 

waiver. Is it a year and a half ago? A year and a half ago. First, 

EPA hides behind a false premise that under the Clean Air Act, 

EPA couldn’t address carbon emissions and greenhouse gas emissions. All you had to do is read the Act. That was really a terrible 

decision, wasted time on purpose, helping only special interests, 

not the people; EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, not the environmental pollution agency. 

So then you stalled while the courts opined. Then the courts 

opined and they are clear. They are clear, and they chastise you 

and this EPA. Now you are hiding behind 60,000 comments, most 

of which are form letters for delaying. By the way, those are form 

letters in favor of granting the waiver, the vast majority, overwhelmingly in favor of it, but that is probably not your constituency, the people. 

I am afraid you are going to next hide behind an Executive order 

that has no teeth in it, really, if you read it. It is really weak, with 

lots of loopholes. You do nothing about the DOT. You say nothing 

here to condemn what went on, which to me is tacit approval. 

I go back to what your charge is, and your charge is protecting 

the health and the welfare of my constituents, and everyone in this 

country. That is your job. Your job isn’t to bow down to the special 

interests or Karl Rove or anybody else. I couldn’t be more disappointed in what I have heard today. You know, we had to postpone this. I thought well maybe Mr. Johnson will have a little more 

time to think about this. I heard your opening statement, with not 

one word of encouragement. We have outrage out there by Republicans and Democrats alike, and this Administration gets more isolated day after day after day, whether it is on the war or whether 

it is on domestic policy. This is just one more area. 

The people expect their Government to protect them. The fact is, 

it is our children and our most vulnerable populations that hurt, 

and now we have a crisis with global warming. I respect Senator 

Inhofe, but the fact of the matter is the world has gone way past 

where he is. We know we have to deal with this. We have States 

that are taking the lead and you are standing in their way. You 

are standing in their way. You are blocking their way and they are 

mad. Wait until that lawsuit comes out. Wait until you hear from 

them. 

I would just urge you to think about what happened here today, 

to read what your charge is, to go back into history and see the 

great moments in time for our Government. It is when we stood 

and we fought for the people. Those were the great moments in his-
48 

tory, not when we blocked the way to progress, not when we 

blocked the way to protect public health and the environment. 

So it is not a happy day for me, and I am sure it is not a happy 

day for you. But we will keep the pressure on. We are going to keep 

the pressure on. And we hope what you heard today will lead you 

to grant this waiver and get this behind us and let our States do 

what they want to do on behalf of the people. 

Thank you very much, and we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow.] 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 

Æ