We're still reading through Stephen Johnson's
expanded new legal doctrine fine legal argument, but we've got an evolving picture of the document's clear and deliberate rejection of deference to California (and states in general) with regard to warming impacts. Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch has some thoughts meanwhile on the connection with the auto industry's position and the previous EPA position rejected in Mass v. EPA, while Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) focuses his strong response partly on the document's trampling of federalism:
“To say that California doesn’t have a ‘compelling reason’ to regulate global warming ignores the Supreme Court, it ignores the climate crisis we all face, and it ignores the rights of states to decide how pro-active they want to be on pollution control. In fact, as we have learned from internal EPA documents that have been recently released, this decision overrides the legal views of the professional staff,” continued Chairman Markey.
“This country has benefited time and again from allowing the states to go beyond minimum federal standards. The administration’s insistence on denying this waiver says that no matter what the president said when he signed our new, strong CAFE standards into law last year, he’s still stuck in first gear. This denial substitutes politics for science, fails to protect the public health, and is a sad retreat on the progress that Congress is making on combating global warming.”
UPDATE, 2 PM: Additional reaction from Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), emphasizing that Johnson's position will not withstand legal scrutiny and/or the next President's decision-making.