Dingell's Patchwork Efforts at Preemption, Again

David Roberts of Grist and Stephen Power of the Wall Street Journal both report today on the auto industry's latest lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill-- ostensibly designed at thwarting Senator Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) efforts to reverse EPA's interference with state efforts to limit vehicle emissions, but clearly aimed at trying to use economy-wide global warming legislation being developed by longtime ally Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) that might permanently preempt the states. Roberts also got a hold of the powerpoint presentation that industry lobbyists have been using, and beats us to the punch in noting its resurrection of the "frequently debunked but zombie-like 'patchwork' argument."

Dingell, who previewed his gambit with his cryptical reaction to the one-year anniversary of Mass. v. EPA last week (he's mad that the administration has focused on dragging its feet, rather than working with him) and a white paper released in Feburary, is likely to advance it further at a hearing of his Energy and Commerce Committee on Thursday. That proceeding is cagily titled "Strengths and Weakenesses of Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Using Existing Clean Air Act Authorities."

Rough translation as things stand (we're obviously open to see how strong of a bill Dingell is proposing before we make any firm judgments), courtesy of Dingell's speech today at the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) annual conference: the hearing is likely to spotlight Dingell's efforts to "remedy" the Court's language saying that EPA has Clean Air Act authority over vehicle emissions. In his EIA speech, Dingell avoids the "patchwork" line and again blasts the administration for simply refusing to act, but otherwise reads out of the same playbook and again makes clear his preference for preempting present and future state action through "balanced" cap-and-trade legislation:

On motor vehicles, EPA and State authority under the Clean Air Act, combined with NHTSA’s implementation of CAFE, could create competing and possibly conflicting regulations of motor vehicles that in the end may not provide environmental benefit beyond what could be achieved with a single program. [Editor's note: this contrasts with the Supreme Court's assertion that the two agencies could work together and its implication that EPA rulings could then end up holding sway, which have been cited by two federal judges ruling against the auto industry's preemption claims. We do acknowledge, though, that Dingell at least recognizes that current law is against him on this point, and that the only route to his desired outcome would indeed be new legislation.]

To embark on the creation of a program of this kind without full awareness of the economic consequences could create a disastrous economic and political mess from which this country would not easily recover.

Comments

[Kit Stolz]

Exceedingly helpful. Thanks for the post.