Texas oil looks to influence California law

California environmental laws are some of the toughest in the nation, and are often copied by other states, much to the consternation of energy and automobile companies.

Former LA Times reporter Robert Salladay reports that two Texas oil firms appear to be funneling money into California for an initiative that would undo the state's landmark greenhouse gas legislation, known as AB 32.

From California Watch:

Two Texas oil companies have been evasive about whether they are backing a California ballot initiative that would suspend the state's landmark global warming law, signed with fanfare by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006.

But it wouldn't be surprising if Tesoro Corp. and Valero Energy Corp. were behind the initiative to delay AB 32.

The Texas companies – which operate refineries in Benicia and Wilmington, Martinez and Los Angeles, and hundreds of gas stations throughout California – have been well-known players in the fight to weaken global warming legislation at the federal level, and they are major donors to state politicians working for the same goals.

Read the rest of the story here.

Clearing the air

Are the EPA and the auto industry sharing a press office? Consider the language used today by EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson in denying California and 16* other states the right to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobile tailpipes: “The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules."

Here's what David McCurdy, CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers had to say back in November: "It is the view of the Alliance that enhancing energy security and improving fuel economy are priorities to all Americans, but a patchwork quilt of regulations at the state level is not the answer."

Here's what McCurdy told a House energy subcommittee in June: "The United States needs a consistent policy that avoid the marketplace chaos that would surely arise from a patchwork quilt of conflicting state fuel economy/carbon dioxide mandates."

Here's what Stephen Douglas, environmental affairs director for the Alliance, said in May: "[A] patchwork of state-level fuel economy regulations as is now proposed by California is not just unnecessary but actually counter-productive."

That's some patchwork.

*I last counted 15 states, but the NYT says 16. I defer to the people who are still reporting the issue.

States' rights (unless they're wrong)

The US EPA has rejected California's request for a waiver to enforce a law set to take effect in 2009 that would require substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emission from cars and trucks sold in the state. This decision leaves the law in limbo for now - 15 other states have or are expected to adopt the same regulations.

Two federal courts have ruled that the the states are within their right to enforce such a law, provided the EPA granted the waiver, and the US Supreme Court has ruled that carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas targeted by the law, is a type of pollution that must be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

Rest assured, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown will look for a chance to sue.

It will be interesting to see how the presidential hopefuls react to the news, especially the Republicans, who have used the states' rights argument when explaining their opposition to abortion (as in, the individual states should decide whether abortion is legal).