When we last left EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, his agency was facing a lawsuit from California and over a dozen other states over his failure to grant a waiver allowing tailpipe emission regulation.  It was fairly clear that this decision was wholly political and in no way matching the scientific studies inside the EPA; Johnson’s staff was unanimously opposed to the decision.  Last week, Sen. Boxer chaired a field hearing in Los Angeles to investigate what was behind the denial of the waiver.  Johnson failed to attend.  This is from an email:

California Attorney General Jerry Brown, California Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols, the Sierra Club’s Carl Pope, the NRDC’s Fran Pavley, and Congresswoman Hilda Solis all appeared as witnesses.  Unfortunately, one chair at the briefing was noticeably empty:  the seat we reserved for EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson.

Clearly, EPA Administrator Johnson does not want California and 18 other states to implement California’s higher emission standard for automobiles — a key part of our fight against global warming — but the public deserves to know why.  We can’t let Administrator Johnson hide the truth from the American people.

At the hearing, Attorney General Brown called on Boxer to subpoena Johnson and all of the relevant documents that went into the decision.  Boxer is planning a hearing on January 24th with the EPA Administrator, and she’s attempting to use public pressure to get Johnson to release the documents.  She’s asking supporters to forward Johnson this email (over):

Dear Administrator Johnson,

I urge you explain why the EPA denied a request from California and 18 other states to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, and to release all documents surrounding how the decision was made.

You would have us believe that granting California’s waiver request would establish a complicated “patchwork” of state regulation standards. But in reality, 14 other states have joined California and would use our higher standard, and 4 more states intend to do the same.  The national government should encourage — not stymie –the efforts of nineteen states to fight global warming.  

Last year, you told Senator Boxer’s Committee that the EPA needed more time to make a decision on California’s waiver request because it was “performing a rigorous analysis.” However, according to an article in the Washington Post, you ignored the advice of your technical and legal staff and denied our waiver request anyway.

We deserve to know the truth about why, over the unanimous advice of your own technical and legal staffers, you rejected California’s legitimate waiver request — waivers which have been issued 50 times in the past and never denied.

I urge you to explain to the public why you denied California’s waiver request, and release all related documents to reveal how the decision was made.

Meanwhile, House Oversight Committee chair Henry Waxman has also demanded the documents, and is scheduling interviews with EPA employees about Johnson’s decision.  These are two ornery committee chairs that will not let up on the EPA.

Let me also commend Hillary Clinton for being the first Presidential candidate to address this issue, lauding the state’s decision to take the EPA to court.  From the comments, Barack Obama sent out a press release on the EPA decision soon after it was handed down.  And Edwards urged granting of the waiver back in the summer.  There isn’t much daylight between the major candidates on this issue.

Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Sean from Warming Law has more.

I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez has one priority this February: pass Proposition 93 so that he can remain Speaker for another six years – even if it means betraying Democratic constituencies.  When Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed budget cuts last week, the Governor had at least one good idea: release 22,000 of the state’s non-violent offenders (most of whom are low-income people of color) who are overcrowding our prison system.  But while Republicans predictably cried “betrayal,” the big surprise was that Nunez backed them up – saying such a move would “put the public at risk.”  Did Nunez do this because the prison guards gave $100,000 to pass Prop 93?

If so, it won’t be the first time that Fabian Nunez sold out to advance his career.  A while back, the former union organizer allowed the 4 wealthiest Indian tribes in California to pass anti-labor gaming compacts – after they threatened to campaign against Prop 93.  As voters consider Prop 93 in February, they should wonder what the price is to keep Nunez in power?

Arnold announced some disgraceful budget cuts last Thursday – including $4 billion in education and closing down 45 state parks.  But one idea he had to save money was a good one: release non-violent offenders from prison who have no prior serious or violent offenses and place them on parole.  This would reduce our prison population – currently at 173,000 – by more than 28,000 next year and nearly 35,000 by 2010.  It would save the state $17.9 million this year, $378.9 million next year and $782.7 million in 2010.  Up to 2,000 prison guards will be laid off.

Assemblyman Todd Spitzer, an Orange County Republican, called this move a “betrayal” – and the legislature’s caucus of right-wing lunatics will certainly oppose it.  But Fabian Nunez, the powerful Democratic Speaker who represents a poor part of Los Angeles, also opposed the Governor’s proposal because releasing non-violent offenders will “put our public in danger.”

A budget cut opposed by both the Speaker and the Republican caucus is likely dead on arrival.  With the state budget in crisis, that means other cuts in public education, parks and social services will probably become a reality.  Can we really do with even more budget cuts – after the state took $1 billion out of public transportation this year, and the Governor took $55 million out of housing for the mentally ill?

Meanwhile, Nunez has prioritized the passage of Proposition 93 so that some – but not all – members of the legislature can stay in office longer.  The California Correctional Peace Officers Association (i.e., prison guards) gave $100,000 to the “Yes on 93” campaign committee.  Does that explain why Nunez now says releasing non-violent offenders would “put the public at risk”?

In fairness, Nunez also criticized Schwarzenegger’s budget package for not considering tax increases.  Which is a good point.  Arnold has consistently refused to support raising taxes on the wealthy – as he repealed the vehicle license fee and eviscerated higher education.  But while the state clearly has a revenue problem, Nunez added that tax increases should be a “last resort” – meaning that, unlike his Prop 93, it’s not a priority for him.

Apparently, Nunez prefers to raise revenue by letting the 4 wealthiest Native American tribes build the equivalent of 12 Las Vegas casinos – without respecting California labor law, environmental law, or a guarantee that more impoverished tribes get part of the proceeds.  The gaming compacts are now on the February ballot as Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97 – so the voters can undo the damage that Nunez and Schwarzenegger inflicted.

Why did Nunez, a former union organizer first elected to the California State Assembly with labor support decided to sell out his main constituency?  The four Indian tribes threatened to spend money against Prop 93 if he did not.  You would think that the Native American tribes would have rewarded Nunez – like the prison guards did – by contributing money to the Prop 93 after he bailed them out.  But they haven’t, at least not yet.  Nunez’s goal was merely to neutralize any opposition to his term limits initiative.

When the Democratic leadership in Sacramento put Prop 93 on the ballot, they said it would be good for progressives because it would keep them in power longer – giving them time to get more experience and be on stronger negotiating terms with the Governor.  It’s why the California Democratic Party and the vast majority of labor unions have ponied up money to the “Yes on 93” campaign effort.  But the question should be what is the value of letting Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez stay in office longer?

Is it worth letting the prison guards get Nunez to argue against releasing non-violent offenders who shouldn’t be locked up and are a drain on our state budget?  Is it worth doing that when the inevitable result of not releasing these offenders is that the state will make more draconian cuts in education, health care and housing?  Is it worth letting the four wealthiest Indian tribes get a sweetheart deal that disrespects labor law, environmental law and does not guarantee revenue-sharing with impoverished tribes?’

While our term limits law leaves much to be desired, I think we can do a lot better than another six years of Fabian Nunez.

UPDATE: I have been advised that the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) contributed $1 million against Prop 93 — and that they have formally taken a position against it.  This does not negate the fact, however, that the  prison guards gave $100,000 to “Yes on 93” campaign — or that Nunez has criticized the Governor’s early prisoner release program.

I spent a good part of yesterday afternoon at Will Rogers State Park.  Named after the famed humorist (he coined the phrase “I don’t belong to any organized party; I’m a Democrat”), the park stretches across the Santa Monica Mountains and offers stunning views of both the Pacific Ocean and the city of Los Angeles.  And it is one of the 48 parks scheduled for closure.

The official reason for the closure is that the park doesn’t make enough money to cover its own overhead costs.  Apparently state parks now need to be money makers instead of gifts to the people of California.  There’s a $7 parking fee but no entry fee; people entering the park on foot pay nothing.  With a small residential community nearby, plenty of people just leave their cars a few blocks away and walk into the park for free.  According to 2006-20007 statistics, 28% of the park’s entrants were walk-ins.  Seems to me that there’s a fairly simple solution here that would relieve residential congestion and keep the park afloat, but what do I know, I just write for the Internets.

What struck me was the large number of people out for the afternoon.  I don’t know if it was because of the notice of impending closure or not, but this is not a portrait of a struggling piece of public land that needs to be shuttered.  There were hundreds of people playing soccer at the polo fields, hiking, and touring the fully restored 31-room ranch house.  There’s another point to be made here.  The grounds of the park include part of the 55-mile Backbone Trail which connects several state parks together along the Santa Monica Mountains.  It’s not entirely clear where one park ends and another begins, and putting up a chain to cordon off the closed portions isn’t really going to stop anyone.  In other words, you’re going to simply have an unsupervised park still used by hikers, decreasing public safety while saving very little, perhaps a half-million dollars in maintenance, which could certainly be less if the parking fee was an entrance fee.

The point is this.  Will Rogers’ widow offered the preserve as a gift to the people of California (the family is still fighting to keep it open).  The park system is part of the California dream, part of what makes the state so unique in its diversity, its landscape, its opportunity for activity.  In California, you can sunbathe in the morning and be on the ski slopes by sundown.  If we can’t “afford” the natural beauty of the state park system, we’ve done something terribly wrong, and every Californian has a stake in opening up the land and keeping it available for recreation.  

The austere, cuts-only budget will hurt people in a variety of different ways, most of them more profoundly than by closing 48 parks.  But the symbolism of having to close the land, having to close the ocean view, having to close part of what makes California what it is, this is truly ignominious.  And at some point, you’d think Californians would hold their leaders responsible for this shame.