It's official: no Bush Administration official, current or former, can hold a candle to EPA chief Stephen Johnson when it comes to chutzpah.

Alberto Gonzales, to be sure, would normally be stiff competition. But for all his lies, half-truths, and careful distortions, Alberto Gonzales somehow lacked something in the way of chutzpah. Maybe it was the way he sometimes stuttered out his answers, his un-recollections, and apologies. Johnson, by stark contrast, does the job with bureaucratic sangfroid.

Last April, the Supreme Court found in a landmark ruling that the EPA could no longer avoid regulating greenhouse gases. It had to make a decision. Even then, it was apparent to all observers what the EPA's finding must be. The EPA's scientists, wonks and lawyers went to work on it. And they found, not surprisingly, that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, which means they must be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Johnson himself reviewed that work, disputed part of it, but agreed with the overall thrust of the finding. The EPA then, having dotted the i's and crossed the t's, sent the finding to the White House in December. And there things stopped.

So the finding is finished. It is sitting on the shelf at the White House. Also sitting on a shelf is the EPA's 300-page draft of a rule to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. But such regulation can go nowhere until the endangerment finding is made official.

We reported earlier this month that Johnson was transparently stonewalling. His stated rationale then was that the energy bill which the president signed into law last December had complicated things, a transparently bogus argument, since the only law at issue is the Clean Air Act.

But as Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) noted in a statement last night, the Heritage Foundation has been floating an alternative strategy for stonewalling: the EPA should call for public comment on the rule. Such a move would delay any endangerment finding for months. And, The Los Angeles Times reports, "during an economic downturn, seeking comprehensive public comment and a 'go-slow' approach would be far better," the think tankers reasoned (presumably they're all for environmental regulation during boom times). At the very least, the move would push the issue into the next administration, which is really all pro-business conservatives can hope for.

And yesterday, that's exactly what Johnson did. As he proudly proclaimed in his letter (pdf) announcing the move:

"This approach gives the appropriate care and attention this complex issue demands. Rather than rushing to judgment on a single issue, this approach allows us to examine all the potential effects of a decision with the benefit of the public's insight. In short, this process will best serve the American public."

His spokesman was similarly proud:

"No matter what is shouted or screamed from the rooftops, this is truly a historic moment. No administration has taken this step to evaluate this new pollutant."

And that's what I call chutzpah.

Keep in mind that Johnson has also -- against the unanimous recommendation of his staff -- blocked California's attempt to pass stiff greenhouse gas limits. After all, what good would it be for him to stonewall instituting limits at the EPA if California and 16 other states went ahead with their proposed limits? No good at all.

So what will EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson be doing for two weeks in April in Australia -- besides not testifying before Congress, that is? EPA Deputy Press Secretary Tim Lyons finally got back to us:

"The Administrator is set to discuss shared environmental goals and challenges with our global partners, while learning about their innovative approaches to carbon sequestration, water treatment and management, methane capture, pesticide risk reduction, and resource sustainability."

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson will not be rushed, no sir. We gave you the rundown earlier this month of how Johnson had managed to ignore a landmark Supreme Court ruling. The EPA could no longer avoid taking a stance on whether greenhouse gases were covered by the Clean Air Act. And it's become crystal clear from statements that Johnson has made where the agency will come down on the issue.

But of course Johnson has avoided just that. And now he says that, a year after the ruling came down, he needs a couple more months to think on it. From the AP:

The government made clear on Thursday it will not be rushed into deciding whether to regulate emissions linked to global warming, as the Supreme Court directed nearly a year ago.

Such action "could affect many (emission) sources beyond just cars and trucks" and needs to be examined broadly as to other impacts, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency wrote lawmakers.

Stephen Johnson said he has decided to begin the process by seeking public comment on the implications of regulating carbon dioxide, a leading greenhouse gas, on other agency rules that cover everything from power plants and factories to schools and small businesses.

That process could take months and led some of his critics to suggest he was shunting the sensitive issue to the next administration.

The man continues to impress with his chutzpah.

Hardly a week goes by where EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson isn't interrogated by lawmakers, sued by states and environmental groups, or undermined by his own angry staff. So you can understand the urge to get the hell out of Dodge.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), one of Johnson's main persecutors as the chair of the Senate environmental committee, has got wind that Johnson is leaving for a prolonged trip to Australia. She is, typically, dubious. "I understand that you and a substantial number of EPA staff members are planning a trip to Australia, and that this trip has made you unavailable to testify before this Committee on certain important matters through much of April," she writes in a letter to Johnson today.

And she wants to know a little more about it such as: what it's for. "If your goal is to learn about actions to address global warming, I suggest that you visit California, which has moved ahead aggressively with greenhouse gas controls," she writes, in a bit of irrepressible snark. Johnson, against the unanimous recommendation of his staff, has blocked California's attempt to institute tougher greenhouse gas limits on cars and trucks. Boxer also inquires about the cost of the trip, noting that Bush has proposed to cut $500 million from the EPA's budget next year.

My call to the EPA wasn't returned. But an environmental committee spokesperson said that Boxer's staff have heard that the trip will last for two weeks.

The full letter is below.

Read more »

The Environmental Protection Agency's reaction to oversight has been less than friendly. Administrator Stephen Johnson's crew never misses the chance to redact the particularly embarrassing parts of agency documents. House sleuth Henry Waxman (D-CA) has already issued two subpoenas for EPA documents when they weren't promptly forthcoming.

But now the EPA wants a little something from Waxman: transcripts for the interviews Waxman's staff has done with seven senior EPA staffers. Waxman is investigating Johnson's decision to overrule the unanimous recommendation of his legal and technical staff and block California's greenhouse gas rules.

Now, why would the agency want to know what its own employees are telling congressional investigators? A cynic might say that Johnson wants to know what his staff are saying so that he's prepared for any unpleasant questions when Waxman finally asks him to testify before the House oversight committee. After all, there's such a gulf between the EPA's staff and the political appointees that union representatives have backed out of a cooperation agreement. But the EPA says otherwise:

The EPA "has an interest in ensuring that the information provided ... by agency employees in their official capacity is accurate and complete," wrote [EPA Associate Administrator Christopher Bliley] in a letter dated March 14, a day after Waxman had issued a subpoena for 196 internal EPA documents.

It's a reasoning reminiscent of the agency's refusal to turn over documents showing that Johnson had ignored his staff's recommendation. Agency lawyers argued then that the documents shouldn't be turned over because "many of the documents are pre-decisional and thus do not reflect the Agency’s full and complete thinking on the matter." So you might say that the EPA frequently expresses discomfort with the idea of the public getting information that the EPA would rather keep mum.

If there's one thing EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson doesn't like to talk about, it's his conversations with the White House. When questioned about some decision that just happened to delight the White House, Johnson, the most disciplined adherent to talking points in recent memory, responds with a version of "the final decision was mine and mine alone" or "I have routine contacts with various officials on a wide range of issues. . . . I value the ability to have candid discussions that are part of good government."

But unfortunately, sometimes you just can't keep a lid on things. Earlier this week, the EPA issued a new rule on the allowable amount of smog-forming ozone in the air. It was a decision taken against the unanimous advice of EPA scientists, who advised a much lower standard than the one ultimately decided upon. That has come to be a sadly regular occurrence. But this time, the role of the White House -- and President Bush himself -- is clear. From The Washington Post:

EPA officials initially tried to set a lower seasonal limit on ozone to protect wildlife, parks and farmland, as required under the law. While their proposal was less restrictive than what the EPA's scientific advisers had proposed, Bush overruled EPA officials and on Tuesday ordered the agency to increase the limit, according to the documents.

"It is unprecedented and an unlawful act of political interference for the president personally to override a decision that the Clean Air Act leaves exclusively to EPA's expert scientific judgment," said John Walke, clean-air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The White House's intervention was so last minute and arbitrary that the Justice Department was evidently set to scrambling in an effort to find the legal support for it. As the Post reports, the effect of the decision will likely be long term: "Under the Clean Air Act, the federal government must reexamine every five years whether its ozone standards are adequate, and the rules that the EPA issued Wednesday will help determine the nation's air quality for at least a decade."

The White House's influence (first reported by The Los Angeles Times earlier this week) was made evident by documents that the EPA was forced to produce in support of the decision. And in those documents, you can see the different ways EPA scientists and White House officials approached the problem. One the one side, you have concern for the environment. On the other, concern for "personal comfort and well-being":

The EPA's documents suggest that senior officials and scientific advisers resisted the White House's position. Last year, the agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee wrote -- using italics for emphasis -- that it unanimously supported the EPA staff's conclusion that "protection of managed agricultural crops and natural terrestrial ecosystems requires a secondary [ozone standard] that is substantially different from the primary ozone standard. . . ."

When the OMB's Susan E. Dudley urged the EPA to consider the effects of cutting ozone further on "economic values and on personal comfort and well-being," the EPA's Marcus Peacock responded in a March 7 memo: "EPA is not aware of any information that ozone has beneficial effects on economic values or on personal comfort and well being."

You can be sure that Johnson's next trip to Capitol Hill will put his talking points to the test.

House oversight committee Henry Waxman (D-CA) follows through on his threat.

It's hard keeping up with EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson's many efforts at squelching staff recommendations and issuing industry-friendly decisions, I know. But House sleuth Henry Waxman (D-CA) is doing his best. And interviews with EPA staff are revealing the extent of Johnson's foot-dragging and stonewalling.

Last week, we noted that Johnson seemed to be ignoring a decision by the Supreme Court. The Court said the EPA could no longer avoid deciding whether greenhouse gases were pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. But almost one year later, Johnson still hasn't released an official determination.

But as Waxman has found out -- and as he detailed in a letter to Johnson yesterday -- the EPA has already done all the necessary work. EPA employees told his staff in interviews that a team of 60 to 70 hashed it out last year and actually sent it to the White House in December (the EPA, of course, found that greenhouse gases did endanger public welfare). They also produced new regulations to reduce CO2 emissions from cars and trucks and sent that off to the Department of Transportation. But since then, nothing has been heard. It's just sitting on the shelf.

Read more »

It's gotten to be almost a dog bites man story. The EPA has overruled its staff once again. From The Washington Post:

The Environmental Protection Agency has decided to lower the allowable amount of smog-forming ozone in the air to 75 parts per billion, a level significantly higher than what the agency's scientific advisers urged for this key component of unhealthy air pollution, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.

The new smog rules -- one of the most important environmental decisions President Bush will make during his final year in office -- will be a major factor in determining the quality of the air Americans will breathe for at least a decade....

Nearly a year ago, the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee reiterated in writing that its members were "unanimous in recommending" that the agency set the standard no higher than 70 parts per billion and that the agency should consider reducing ozone levels to as low as 60 parts per billion. Public health advocates, including the American Lung Association, have lobbied for a 60-parts-per-billion ozone limit.

Remember that leaders of the union representing EPA staff have already withdrawn from a cooperation agreement with political appointees there out of protest of just this sort of thing.

The EPA was under a court order to produce a decision by tomorrow. The actual announcement of the new standard is expected later today.

You know that EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson is no slouch at rebuffing Congressional inquiries. He's never met a question he couldn't talking-point his way through. And his staff is quite skilled at redaction.

Ever since Johnson made his decision (against the advice of his legal and technical staff) to reject California's petition to pass strict greenhouse gas emission rules for cars and trucks, House sleuth Henry Waxman (D-CA) has been on his case. Back in February, Waxman issued a subpoena to compel the EPA to turn over certain documents. It did. Now he's on the verge of issuing his second subpoena of the investigation (pdf), as he wrote in a letter yesterday to Johnson.

That's because Waxman and his staff have been engaged in prolonged negotiations with the EPA over documents, but patience is wearing thin. The EPA, citing an “Executive Branch confidentiality interest" because the documents "reflect internal deliberations and/or attorney-client communications," has been busily redacting pages. And they also continue to withhold "communications between EPA and the White House and the Department of Justice," Waxman writes -- "hundreds of documents" worth. Johnson has refused to discuss any communications with the White House about the California waiver.

If Johnson doesn't respond with an indication of when Waxman can expect more documents by tomorrow afternoon, he writes, then he'll be forced to consider another subpoena.

It was a landmark ruling by any measure. On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency had the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and that it had to act. The justices made the choice clear: the agency had to determine whether greenhouse gases contribute to climate change or not. Environmental groups exulted that, after several years of stalling, the administration would finally be forced to do something.

Except that they didn't. Nearly a year after that ruling, which required the EPA to make a decision, the agency still hasn't. And with Administrator Stephen Johnson at the helm, there's no sign that it's going to happen anytime soon.

This is made all the more remarkable by the fact that Johnson, in blocking California's attempt to regulate greenhouse gases, has made it clear that the EPA considers them pollutants. As Georgetown Law professor Lisa Heinzerling, who wrote the lead brief in the Supreme Court case, Massachusetts v. EPA argues, "Johnson concluded that California's problems aren't "compelling and extraordinary" because they're no worse than the very bad problems the rest of the country faces as a result of climate change." That reasoning, she says, made explicit the EPA's view "that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare." That leaves Johnson with no choice, she writes.

But Johnson is a stubborn opponent. Yesterday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asked Johnson a simple question during a Senate appropriations subcommittee hearing: How many staff at the EPA does he have working on this? Johnson, a Zen master of digression, mind numbing minutiae ("gobbledygook"), and generally thwarting questioners, never gives a simple answer. Here's the video:

After a digression covering Judge Antonin Scalia's minority opinion and all the other things that the EPA is considering ("I can go on and on"), Feinstein had had it.

"Let me ask you this... all right let me ask you this question. How many personnel right now are working on the endangerment finding?"

Read more »

If you're a staffer at the Environmental Protection Agency, you might have found yourself wondering what the point is. As EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson likes to put it, the final decision is his to make. And he has a history of disregarding the recommendations of EPA staff when he makes them.

Which makes this not very surprising:

Unionized EPA workers are withdrawing from a cooperation agreement with the political appointees who supervise them over controversies including the agency's refusal to let California regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks.

Nineteen union local presidents representing more than 10,000 Environmental Protection Agency employees signed a letter to Administrator Stephen L. Johnson last Friday accusing him of "abuses of our good nature and trust."...

The union locals involved represent the vast majority of EPA workers around the country. Signers included William Evans, president of the EPA headquarters chapter of the National Treasury Employees Union.

Evans said that the purpose of the Clinton-era National Labor-Management Partnership Council was for senior agency officials and workers to deal with workplace and other issues before the decision stage.

Instead, "what we found is decisions are being made and they're being presented to us," said Evans.

You can read the letter from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility here.

As you can see, the union senses a pattern in Johnson's leadership. Scientific standards get junked they say, "whenever political direction from other federal entities or private sector interests so direct." Johnson's denial of a waiver for California's greenhouse gas rules, of course, being a prime example.

We'll have a little bit more on Johnson in a bit.