Earlier, Reg•Watch blogged about the concerted lobbying efforts of senior administration officials intent on killing an effort by the state of California to enact its own greenhouse gas reduction program. There are so many issues at stake here it's mind-boggling:

• Environmental Simply put, Waxman's investigation shows how the Department of Transportation, EPA, and White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) tried to kill a program which would effect a major reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. That's probably not in their respective mission statements.
• Industry influence As Reg•Watch mentioned earlier, the Department of Transportation was aided and abetted by the Auto Alliance in targeting certain congressmen. The Auto Alliance — comprised of Ford, GM, Toyota and others — has a big interest in making sure California and other states can't require tougher vehicle emissions standards.
• Federalism California's appeal for a waiver has always been a federalism issue. The Clean Air Act reserves the federal government's rights to regulate vehicle emissions, but also permits EPA to grant waivers for state programs. By delaying California's plan and rendering state regulators impotent, the administration is unfairly and unilaterally shifting power away from the states and to the federal government. The Bush administration ought to be more faithful to the principles of federalism upon which our nation was founded.
• Legal The Anti-Lobbying Act prohibits government personnel from lobbying Congress on proposed legislation. While administration officials may not have said "vote no" so explicitly, they did convey their opposition to the California waiver, and Congress is considering legislation that would force EPA to make a decision on the waiver. Moreover, Congress has the ultimate authority in initiating and overseeing agency regulatory activity through statute, so any opinion on a regulatory decision could be construed as lobbying. The Department of Justice does not apply the Anti-Lobbying Act to direct communications between agency personnel and legislators (only to "grassroots" lobbying) so don't hold your breath on legal action unless someone takes this to the courts.
• Resources and priorities Regardless of the legal question, this controversy raises significant concern over agency priorities and the use of resources. Couldn't Secretary Peters' and Chairman Connaughton's time be of better use elsewhere? More importantly, as Rep. Waxman says in his letter, "It is not an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars to organize a lobbying campaign to politicize this vital regulatory decision."

The Bush administration engaged in a broad, multi-agency effort to lobby congressmen and governors to urge them to oppose a California plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to a recent investigation.

In December 2005, California petitioned EPA to let the state develop its own program and standards for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. Under the Clean Air Act, the federal government holds the express right to regulate emissions but may grant waivers to states, which it often does. If EPA grants California's waiver request, 11 other states could follow suit.

In June, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson wrote California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stating EPA would make its decision by the end of 2007. That's two full years after the initial request.

Why so long? Since the Supreme Court decided in April greenhouse gases may be subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act, there is no basis for denying California's petition. Therefore, for an administration which holds environmental regulation in contempt, the only remaining choice is endless delay.

But apparently Johnson's obstinacy was not enough for the Bush administration. An investigation by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has revealed a coordinated effort to prevent California from pursuing its state regulations. The effort includes Johnson, Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters, and James Connaughton, the Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) has written to Connaughton. The letter explains the full details of the campaign. Here are some highlights:

Mr. Gros, who was the Deputy Chief of Staff in the Transportation Department, provided details about how the lobbying campaign was conducted. He explained that five Department staffers contacted between 20 and 25 members of Congress. He also said that Secretary Peters personally called between two and four governors.

And this gem:

The lobbying campaign was coordinated with the auto industry. On June 5, the Auto Alliance provided a list of automotive facilities organized by congressional district to the Department. According to Mr. Gros, the Department then used this document to create a target list of members of Congress to lobby.

Waxman's committee should be commended for its investigation. It couldn't have been easy because, as always, senior administration officials suffer from selective memory loss:

[Council on Environmental Quality] Chief of Staff, Mr. Hall, was asked about the White House role when the Committee staff interviewed him. He did not confirm or deny White House involvement. He said he could not remember specifics. At least twenty times during the interview, he responded to questions about his knowledge of the lobbying campaign with variations of "I don't recall."

Reg•Watch Update: "More on the California Waiver Controversy"

Be sure to check out the latest issue of our biweekly newsletter, The Watcher. Regulatory policy articles this time:

Federal Agencies Knew of Diacetyl Dangers and Kept Silent

Bush's Anti-Regulatory Ideology under Increasing Scrutiny

It's Industry vs. Consumers and Health Specialists in National Ozone Hearings

New Small Business Program Will Influence Agency Regulatory Reviews

An article in yesterday's New York Times describes how President Bush has started a flurry of 11th hour regulatory activity. Every president since John Adams has used the waning days of his presidency to issue executive edicts and final regulations in order to ensure his policy beliefs outlast his days in the White House.

The article mentions the environmentally damaging mountaintop mining rule the administration proposed last month (click here for details) as a precursor of things to come.

Reg•Watch is concerned Bush may be more effective at this than many of his predecessors. While presidents have spent the end of their terms pursuing individual policy goals, Bush appears to place just as high a priority on altering the policymaking system.

In January, Bush amended Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. The changes will further politicize the rulemaking process by giving senior officials unlimited reach into agency scientific and technical decisionmaking (as if they needed it). The changes also force agency guidance documents — i.e. policy statements and interpretive memos — through a White House review process.

The next year may bring more meddling in the cross-cutting policy by which agencies develop rules. Susan Dudley, the White House's regulatory czar, has indicated she will pursue finalization of OMB's Risk Assessment Bulletin. The Bulletin would create uniform and inflexible requirements for the preparation of agency risk assessments — the process by which agencies determine the severity of an environmental risk. Dudley would pursue the Bulletin despite the pleadings of Congress and the National Academies of Science.

And that's just what we know they're planning. The next 16 months could prove to be tumultuous.

The Government Accountability Office — the research arm of Congress — released a report today on the federal government's responsiveness to climate change. Specifically, the report focuses on how officials who manage federal land and resources have planned for the effects of climate change.

The report recognizes the danger extreme weather, rising sea level, and biological instability pose to our nation's waters, lands, and coastal areas. Yet, according to the report, the Bush administration isn't taking the danger seriously:

In particular, [the Bureau of Land Management], [Forest Service], [Fish and Wildlife Service], [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration], and [National Park Service] have not made climate change a priority, and the agencies' strategic plans do not specifically address climate change.

Another striking conclusion of the report is the broad information gaps federal resource managers face when grappling with the effects of climate change:

Resource managers do not have sufficient site-specific information to plan for and manage the effects of climate change on the federal resources they manage. In particular, the managers lack computational models for local projections of expected changes and detailed inventories and monitoring systems for an adequate baseline understanding of existing local species. Without such information, managers are limited to reacting to already-observed climate change effects on their units, which makes it difficult to plan for future changes.