[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2555 Introduced in Senate (IS)]







110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2555

To permit California and other States to effectively control greenhouse 
       gas emissions from motor vehicles, and for other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 24, 2008

Mrs. Boxer (for herself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Lautenberg, 
 Mr. Cardin, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
  Kerry, Mr. Obama, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. 
  Mikulski, Ms. Collins, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Menendez) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
To permit California and other States to effectively control greenhouse 
       gas emissions from motor vehicles, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Reducing Global Warming Pollution 
from Vehicles Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
            (1) the State of California has regulated motor vehicle air 
        emissions more stringently than the Federal Government for more 
        than 40 years;
            (2) in recognition of the pioneering role of the State in 
        protecting public health and welfare from motor vehicle 
        emissions, Congress enacted section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act 
        (42 U.S.C. 7543(b)) that allows the Administrator of the 
        Environmental Protection Agency (referred to in this Act as the 
        ``Administrator'') to waive Federal preemption of motor vehicle 
        standards established by the State;
            (3) on December 21, 2005, the State requested a waiver of 
        preemption under that Act for the regulation of the State to 
        control greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles;
            (4) the regulation of the State requires a reduction in the 
        emissions of greenhouse gases from cars and light trucks sold 
        in the State;
            (5) once a waiver is granted to the State of California for 
        that regulation, other States may adopt the vehicle emission 
        standards established by the State of California;
            (6) as of the date of introduction of this Act--
                    (A) 14 other States have adopted or are adopting 
                the California standards, including Arizona, 
                Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
                New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, 
                Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington;
                    (B) at least 4 additional States are moving toward 
                adopting the California standards, including Colorado, 
                Delaware, Illinois, and Utah; and
                    (C) taken together, those 19 States represent more 
                than half of the population of the United States;
            (7) the comments submitted to the Administrator 
        overwhelmingly supported the request of the State of California 
        for a waiver;
            (8) according to legal papers filed by the California 
        Attorney General, of the approximately 98,000 comments in the 
        docket of the Environmental Protection Agency, docket, more 
        than 99.9 percent supported the petition of the State;
            (9) notwithstanding that support, on December 19, 2007, 
        Administrator Stephen Johnson took the extraordinary step of 
        denying the request of the State, dated December 21, 2005, for 
        the waiver;
            (10) the flat denial by the Administrator of the waiver 
        request was unprecedented;
            (11) according to the Congressional Research Service, the 
        State of California has requested waivers of preemption under 
        section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7543(b)) for 
        vehicle emission standards more than 50 times since that 
        provision was enacted, and the Administrator has never outright 
        denied such a request, but instead always granted the requests, 
        in whole or in part;
            (12) the denial of the Administrator of the waiver 
        reportedly overrode the overwhelming evidence presented by the 
        technical and legal staff of the Environmental Protection 
        Agency;
            (13) the Administrator sought to justify the denial of the 
        waiver by arguing that the waiver would create a ``confusing 
        patchwork'' of State regulations;
            (14) in fact, no such patchwork would result from the 
        granting of the waiver because, under the Clean Air Act (42 
        U.S.C. 6401 et seq.), if the waiver were granted, there would 
        continue to be 2 standards for vehicles, as there have been for 
        30 years--a weaker Federal standard, and a more stringent 
        California standard adopted by many States across the United 
        States;
            (15) the benefits of permitting the State of California to 
        establish more stringent vehicle standards, which are 
        subsequently adopted by other States, are well documented;
            (16) the National Academy of Sciences found in 2006 that in 
        ``forcing technology development, California has been a 
        laboratory for emissions-control innovations. ... The original 
        reasons for which Congress authorized California to have a 
        separate set of standards remain valid. ... California should 
        continue its pioneering role in setting mobile-source emissions 
        standards. The role will aid the State's efforts to achieve air 
        quality goals and will allow it to continue to be a proving 
        ground for new emissions-control technologies that benefit 
        California and the rest of the Nation.'';
            (17) the Administrator also sought to justify the denial of 
        the waiver by arguing that the national fuel economy standards 
        for vehicles enacted by the Energy Independence and Security 
        Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) would be ``more effective'' at 
        reducing emissions than the California standards;
            (18) however, an analysis by the California Air Resources 
        Board shows that the California standards, once fully adopted, 
        would result, by 2020, in approximately twice as large a 
        cumulative reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in California 
        as, and more than an 80 percent greater reduction in carbon 
        dioxide emissions nationally than, would be achieved under the 
        Federal program;
            (19) the argument of the Administrator that national fuel 
        economy standards eliminate the need for vehicle greenhouse gas 
        emission controls also runs counter to the analysis of the 
        Supreme Court in the landmark April 2007 decision of 
        Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (127 S. Ct. 
        1438), in which the Supreme Court--
                    (A) rejected the argument of the Administrator that 
                the authority of the Department of Transportation to 
                regulate vehicle fuel efficiency undercuts the 
                authority of the Administrator to regulate greenhouse 
                gases from vehicles; and
                    (B) noted that the fact ``that DOT [the Department 
                of Transportation] sets mileage standards in no way 
                licenses EPA [the Environmental Protection Agency] to 
                shirk its environmental responsibilities. EPA has been 
                charged with protecting the public's `health' and 
                `welfare,' ... a statutory obligation wholly 
                independent of DOT's mandate to promote energy 
                efficiency ... The two obligations may overlap, but 
                there is no reason to think the two agencies cannot 
                both administer their obligations and yet avoid 
                inconsistency.''; and
            (20) it is the sense of Congress that the denial by the 
        Administrator of the request by the State of California for the 
        waiver is not supported by science, precedent, or applicable 
        law.
    (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
            (1) to permit the State of California and other States to 
        immediately proceed under the regulation of the State of 
        California to control greenhouse gas emissions from motor 
        vehicles, rather than forcing the States to litigate for what 
        could be several years to vindicate their rights, while climate 
        change continues to threaten public health and the environment; 
        and
            (2) to provide certainty to automakers, the States, and the 
        public about future regulatory requirements for greenhouse gas 
        emissions from motor vehicles.

SEC. 3. WAIVER OF PREEMPTION FOR CALIFORNIA GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION 
              REGULATION FOR VEHICLES.

    Section 209 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7543) is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
    ``(f) Waiver.--Notwithstanding subsection (b) or any other 
provision of law, the application for a waiver of preemption dated 
December 21, 2005, submitted to the Administrator pursuant to 
subsection (b) by the State of California for the regulation of that 
State to control greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles shall be 
considered to be approved.''.
                                 <all>