SEARCH BLOG: POLITICS
The EPA has demonstrated its unwillingness to listen to views that do not support preconceived notions. It is possible that your senators will have that same mindset.
July 2, 2009..
Dear Sen. Levin [also Sen. Stabenow]:
As you examine the arguments for and against the proposed energy/climate bill, I suggest that you, as a senator for the state of Michigan, focus very specifically on the factors that will impact Michigan.
Climate change has been the public issue behind this effort. The fact is that since the 1930s the trend of temperatures has been flat to declining and since 2000 the trend has definitely been declining. Climate change and CO2 as a danger is a red herring.
I can accept part of the argument that energy independence from rogue or hostile nations is a reasonable goal, but data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration is a good indicator that we have minimal chance of achieving that goal without a major expansion of domestic oil and natural gas sources... an unlikely scenario under this proposed legislation.
The state of Michigan most definitely will be harmed by this legislation in combination with recent EPA regulations. While it is a simple matter for mandated mileage performance levels to be set, it is entirely another matter to deploy existing and yet-to-be-developed technology in a manner consistent with customer wants and needs... as it relates to the regulatory time line. What, for example, will be the sales mix of trucks that can meet the 2016 mpg requirements? Does that meet customer needs at prices customers will pay?
Looking at the sources of electricity, it becomes very clear that without a significant expansion of nuclear power, non-CO2 producing power sources cannot meet proposed legislative schedules. Additionally, the cost increases to consumers and business must be significant in order to cover the cost increases to utility companies providing energy from these alternative sources.
The very basis for this legislation is faulty and the results of this legislation will be disastrous for Michigan. I request that you carefully consider your decision when casting your vote.
Thank you.Below is the boilerplate answer you will receive under the category of ENERGY:
The automated response is, of course, irrelevant to the message sent.
date Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 10:11 AM subject Re: Your Concerns mailed-by levin.senate.gov
Dear Mr. Hall:
Thank you for contacting me regarding California’s proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this matter.
On January 26, 2009, President Obama ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reconsider Administrator Stephen Johnson’s February 2008 decision to deny California a waiver of federal preemption that would allow for state regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. In directing the EPA to reexamine the Bush administration’s denial of the California waiver, President Obama said he wanted to avoid a “confusing and patchwork set of standards.”
I oppose granting California a waiver of federal preemption because I believe it has the potential to create a set of conflicting and overlapping requirements that could significantly and unfairly burden our domestic auto manufacturers. California’s proposal to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars sold in California relies largely on increasing corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for cars and light trucks. A number of other states have either adopted the California regulations or indicated they intend to do so. The net effect of these regulations adopted in many states across the country, if allowed to go into effect, would be a patchwork of potentially conflicting requirements because the implementation of the California regulations in each state would be driven by the sales mix of vehicles in each state. Moreover, the regulations adopted by the State of California, the model regulations other states would adopt, include a provision that is highly discriminatory against our domestic manufacturers because it exempts manufacturers who sell less than 60,000 vehicles in California.
The most rational way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles is to develop a national policy that brings together regulation of fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions. If we take advantage of the unique opportunity to bring these efforts together, we can develop a strong national policy that incorporates technology innovation into the vehicles sold in the U.S. and that contributes to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions globally. This approach would take advantage of significant new advanced technologies that have the potential to transform the way in which people drive and that offer enormous potential to increase fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It also would take into account the newer, non-discriminatory fuel economy standards enacted by Congress in 2007 (EISA, P.L.110-140) by applying the same standard for similar size and weight vehicles regardless of manufacturer.
The uniform standard should be based on science and technological feasibility, and it should be written in a way that is non-discriminatory. For a single national standard to be non-discriminatory, it needs to be attribute-based and based on solid scientifically-derived information and data. It also needs to take into consideration what is technologically achievable. I hope that the EPA will join with the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) in adopting a single national standard based on technological feasibility for each class of vehicle. I would welcome the opportunity to work with the Obama administration, the State of California, and other interested parties in achieving that goal.
I believe we have a historic and unique opportunity to address global warming and vehicle fuel efficiency in a strong national standard that recognizes the overlapping nature of these two issues and acknowledges the expertise that federal and state agencies can bring in addressing them together. Again, thank you for sharing your views with me.
Sincerely, Carl Levin