Murkowski and Automakers Rumble Over EPA Regs

Photo by Gloson, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gloson/3891639688/">via Flickr</a>.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


An effort by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases would bring about the “collapse” of a delicate deal reached last year between automakers, states, and the federal government to reduce vehicle emissions, automakers said on Wednesday.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which includes General Motors, Ford Motors, Chrysler Daimler, BMW, Volkswagen, and Toyota, sent a letter to congressional leaders from both parties asking them to reject Murkowski’s attempt to nullify the EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases are a threat to public health.

The EPA, the Department of Transportation, and the White House last year worked out a deal to unify the tougher state auto standards—first adopted by California—and federal standards into one program. But that deal is contingent upon the EPA’s determination that gases are a health threat that should be regulated under the Clean Air Act—the finding that Murkowski wants to block. The EPA and the DOT have argued that her move would handcuff their ability to issue new rules for cars, which are due out by the end of this month.

That deal saved auto makers from the “alarming possibility of having to comply with multiple sets of inconsistent fuel economy standards” wrote Alliance President Dave McCurdy in the letter. If her resolution is successful, he wrote, “the historic agreement creating the One National Program for regulating vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions would collapse.”

Murkowski’s office fired off a press release yesterday claiming that the automakers were just bowing to pressure from the Obama administration, and blaming the administration for the patchwork of regulations that might have existed without a new federal standard. “It was the current administration’s decision to grant a California waiver request, thereby allowing individual states to regulate fuel economy, which has made the threat of a patchwork of regulations real,” said Murkowski. “The administration created this problem, but it also has the authority to fix it.” She also argued that the EPA doesn’t need to be involved in the new rules—the DOT should be an adequate authority for writing fuel economy standards. “Statutory authority to improve fuel economy has existed for 35 years at the Transportation Department, and it still exists today,” she said.

Murkowski’s fiery response indicates that she’s opening a new front on her war on the EPA. When she first tried to thwart the EPA’s regulations last September, she went after the agency’s authority to write rules for stationary sources like power plants and left car regulations alone. Murkowski argued at that time that since the specific case prompting the EPA regulations, Massachusetts v. EPA, dealt with vehicle emissions, the agency should proceed with those. But her missive yesterday challenged the EPA’s authority to restrict any greenhouse gas emissions at all.

Meanwhile, her latest legislative effort to block the EPA —a so-called resolution of disapproval that would throw out the agency’s finding that greenhouse gases threaten human health—is sweeping. If passed, it would forever bar the EPA from regulating emissions under the Clean Air Act, as the Supreme Court directed it to do in 2007. Murkowski says she’s putting that measure on hold while Congress considers an alternative option from West Virginia Democrat Jay Rockefeller, who has introduced legislation that would delay EPA regulations for two years. But she’s made it clear that she’s keeping her bill waiting in the wings. Her spokesman, Robert Dillon, said in an email last week that she “will wait and see how Sen. Rockefeller progresses on his proposal” but “fully intends to seek an up or down vote on the issue.”

Murkowski’s threat is not an idle one. She has 40 cosponsors for the bill, including three Democrats—Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana—plus verbal support from others. A bipartisan trio of representatives introduced the same measure in the House in late February, though that one isn’t expected to gain as much traction.

The auto rules are the most immediate concern if Murkowski’s EPA block is successful. In addition to the Auto Alliance, the United Auto Workers last week issued a letter condemning the measure as a “misguided” move that would “unravel the historic agreement on one national standard.”(Disclosure: members of the Mother Jones staff belong to the UAW).

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate