• I truly think that the governor’s mansion is Jerry Brown’s if he wants it.  I always aprreciate a guy who’s been marginalized and demonized by the right for so long, and just keeps going, shoving it right back in their faces.  Brown’s speech at the convention, delivered without a teleprompter, was great for red meat but also reflected an agile mind that has been right about so many issues for so long.  I like a guy who takes “Governor Moonbeam” as a compliment.  I really think that if he wants to be Governor again the seat is his.  Outside of President I don’t believe he’s ever lost a political race. (Plus I still remember that Joe Trippi ran his campaign against Bill Clinton in 1992.)

• I don’t have a connection to the Leno-Migden fight outside of what I read on Calitics and what I hear from my friends on the site.  But I have to say that, looking at it from the outside, this is the biggest waste of resources I’ve ever seen in my life.  What would happen if these hundreds of volunteers walked precincts in the district, instead of providing “visibility” while fighting for an endorsement in a high-information area that won’t ultimately matter much?  The battle is swamping the entire convention, and it’s clearly become a giant pissing contest between the Assembly and the Senate, with each side taking up for their colleague.  As you’ve read here, Migden is nuts, and I have pretty strong opinions about who should serve, and in particular the principle of the unbalanced endorsement process, where an incumbent needs a lower threshold to get the party endorsement than a challenger.  That’s ridiculous, and in fact Joye Swan of the Progressive Caucus is leading an effort for a bylaw change to address just that.  But this is a waste.

• Relevant to that, I think Bill Clinton has NO IDEA what he’s about to step into on Sunday.  The Leno-Migden thing is sucking up most of the oxygen out of this convention.  Clinton and San Francisco DA Kamala Harris are speaking for Hillary and Barack Obama tomorrow, but there’s going to be less focus on that than he’d expect.

• We are doing several interviews with Congressional and legislative candidates.  So far we had a good chat with Bill Durston, a candidate in the rapidly purpling area of CA-03.  We have interviews with Charlie Brown (CA-04), Hannah-Beth Jackson (SD-19) and Russ Warner (CA-26) later on.  We will be posting the audio as we get it in.  We also had a nice chat between bloggers and Mayor Gavin Newsom.  His effort to sue for restoration of Medi-Cal reimbursements is a very strong stand.  What I didn’t get a chance to ask him about is why he’s trying to curtail free speech when the Olympic torch relay comes to San Francisco on April 9.

Former (and future?) governor and current Attorney General Jerry Brown was waxing nostalgic about his days in the governor’s mansion, driving the famous blue Plymouth (“it lasted 240,000 miles without an engine overhaul – now that was sustainability”), and suing Ronald Reagan over the governor’s mansion.

But the core of his speech dealt with our climate crisis. Brown emphasized his administration’s earlier efforts to encourage smart growth, urban density, walking, even trains. And he called for renewed action on this today. He conceptualized it as “elegant density” – get people out of their cars, build more walkable communities served by trains and other forms of mass transit, powered by solar energy, to not just deal with global warming, but to encourage a more sustainable California.

During the 1970s, Brown had tried to promote a similar agenda. He appointed a trains advocate as the head of Caltrans, promoted a solar energy program, and cut off funds for freeway construction projects, and establishing the Office of Planning and Research. He even promoted an ambitious Urban Strategy for California emphasizing density and limiting sprawl.

Prop 13’s passage ended much of this as state government was starved of funds. But Prop 13 was about more than low taxes. It was the reaction of the lovers of suburban sprawl, of the 1950s model of California, against Brown’s more forward-thinking model. As recently as 2001 arch-conservative Tom McClintock danced on the grave of Brown’s sustainability strategy calling it:

a radical and retrograde ideology into California public policy that quite abruptly and permanently changed the state.

That radical ideology has been the central tenet of governance in California through four successive gubernatorial administrations, Democratic and Republican, to the present day. It was described by Jerry Brown as “the era of limits,” punctuated by such new-age nonsense as the mantra, “small is beautiful.” Suburban “sprawl” would be replaced with a new “urban strategy.”

Republicans continue to make these arguments. They are bent on preserving the failed 1950s model of urban life at all costs. By doing so they have become a party of aristocracy. “Elegant density” isn’t just an environmental and climate strategy – it’s also necessary for the survival of California’s working and middle classes in the 21st century. Republicans will fight against this, and so it is very good to hear Jerry Brown mounting a full-throated defense of sustainable living.

The rest of his speech is pure red meat – bashing the Bush Administration and its EPA (“those idiots”), denouncing them for the mortgage crisis, and calling for the repeal of NCLB. If he does have the governor’s office in mind in 2010, this kind of playing to the base would make him an even more formidable opponent in the Democratic primary.

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.

Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown went right to work Tuesday, preparing to sue the federal government “at the earliest possible moment” for the EPA’s denial of a waiver to let California implement Fran Pavley’s AB1493, the law regulating auto tailpipe emissions that was to begin with model year 2009.  The regulations, which sought to control greenhouse gases and not just boost auto efficiency standards, would have had the effect of an increase in MPG to roughly 43, far above the 35MPG by 2020 just mandated in the federal energy bill.  Indeed, the EPA in its decision noted the passage of the energy bill as a reason to deny California’s request, claiming that there should be one standard and that the new bill pre-empted California’s authority.  So much for state’s rights conservatives.

The lawsuit is about as close as you can get to a slam dunk.  The case law is already enormously in favor of California.  They have been granted every waiver they’ve ever requested from the EPA since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1963, and the “compelling and extraordinary conditions” of the state’s topography, climate, and number of cars on the road has always been specifically cited.  That hasn’t changed.  In addition, federal lawsuits in California and Vermont have upheld the standards set out in AB1493 as fully legal.  And just this year, the Roberts Supreme Court has ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the federal government can regulate greenhouse gas emissions, writng that:

“Judged by any standard, U.S. motor-vehicle emissions make a meaningful contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Sadly, it’s true that the Bush Administration probably has the ability to put up enough of a fight in the courts to make implementation virtually impossible so long as he remains in office.  And so this is likely to come down to a decision for the next President to make.  So you would think that the media, knowing this, knowing the potential of global warming to impact all of our lives, would bother to ask a question about it.  But so far in 2007, out of 2275 questions asked of the Presidential candidates on the Sunday chat shows, 3 mentioned global warming.  Here’s a news peg, Russert, Stephanopoulos, Blitzer, Wallace and Schieffer.  Have at it!

The New York Times has more on this.

Let me clear out my Inbox and set you on your weekend way:

• The Megan’s Law website apparently is being used as a hit list and may have led to at least one death.  This is the downside of a “what about the children?” über alles mentality.

• I’m not entirely certain about this claim that state lawmakers could have solved the mortgage crisis back in 2001 by cracking down on predatory lending practices.  It’s a boilerplate story, a typical “they bought off the politicians” frame.  But the problem, as Paul Krugman notes today, is that home prices lowered, leading to negative equity for homeowners.  Not sure what the lawmakers could have done about that.  This is a national crisis that required federal action.  And what action could be taken on the state level is in the purview of the Attorney General.  Jerry Brown is investigating home loans from Countrywide Financial for improprieties, particularly forcing buyers with good credit into subprime mortgages.

• For all the talk about Steve Poizner, he is doing his job in suing Blue Shield for their loathsome practice of dropping patients retroactively after they seek coverage.  Blue Shield’s response?

The state’s interpretation of laws governing policy cancellations “is simply wrong.”

Stupid state, not knowing their own laws as well as a private entity!

• Nancy Pelosi is under fire for saying that Republicans like this war.  Juan Cole is right to slam her for assuming that Republicans would act in good faith and help to end the war after the 2006 elections.  What Republican Party was she talking about?

• Anthony Wright has the new amendments released to the public on the new health care reform.  I should have a lot more on this over the weekend.

• I know that I didn’t execute a House roundup in November, but honestly there wasn’t a whole lot going on in the races.  So I postponed it and will have a December roundup in the next few days.

• And finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the California Democratic Party buying three grand in French wine from Fabian Nuñez, who’s now a wine salesman, I guess.  I have to acknowledge Kevin Spillane (two Republicans in one day, I know) from the No on 93 campaign for the funny move of sending a bottle of Two Buck Chuck to Nuñez’ office.  It is an award winner.

It’s an open thread.

Let’s turn Calitics into Court TV for a little while, shall we?  In addition to Debra Bowen suing ES&S, Jerry Brown has made the strongest move to date against companies who profited from toxic toys made in China, suing Mattel, Toys “R” Us and about 20 other companies for “knowingly” selling the products with illegal amounts of lead.

The suit, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, alleges the companies knowingly exposed children to lead and failed to provide warning of the risk, which is required under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, known as Proposition 65.

If the suit is successful, the companies could pay a $2,500 fine for each violation, according to the complaint […]

The suit, which was joined by the Los Angeles city attorney’s office, also named as defendants Wal-Mart, Target, Sears, KB Toys, Costco Wholesale and others.

That could add up in a hurry, when you consider the millions of lead-filled toys in California that have been sold.

Meanwhile, the state isn’t the only with prosecuting attorneys, as the auto industry is challenging the state’s global warming law in a Fresno District Court.

Lawyers for car manufacturers, dealers and trade associations said California’s 2002 law, the model for statutes in 11 other states, amounted to a requirement for higher gas mileage, a subject that only the federal government can regulate.

Although federal law allows California to take a lead role in reducing air pollution, Congress never “intended a single state to have such sweeping authority to unilaterally set national fuel economy policy … and profoundly affect a vital national industry,” said Raymond Ludwiszewski, lawyer for a trade group of international automakers.

But U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii suggested that the industry’s argument had been undercut by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in April upholding the federal government’s authority to limit emissions of greenhouse gases.

The district judge will follow precedent here; this lawsuit is frivolous.  But the point is to buy time.  Meanwhile, the EPA is still foot-dragging on granting a waiver that would put the 2002 tailpipe emissions law into effect, and the state has sued the federal government over that.

It was scheduled to happen the week of the SoCal wildfires, but events intervened.  Now, California is poised to sue the federal government over the EPA’s failure to grant a waiver to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Schwarzenegger and Brown plan to file a lawsuit asking a federal court to order the Bush administration to decide whether to approve California’s landmark law requiring automakers to gradually reduce tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming.

“California has a long and proud history of leadership in reducing pollution and fighting for clean air for our residents,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement yesterday. “And we are upholding that tradition by filing a lawsuit against the federal government that takes a big step forward in the battle against global warming.”

Under federal law, California must receive an EPA waiver to implement emissions standards tougher than federal levels.

But even if they prevail in court, California leaders are pessimistic that they will secure the waiver from the Bush administration, which has been slow to acknowledge warnings that human-caused global warming is a serious threat to the planet.

“Realistically, we think the chances are slim,” said Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board. “We’ve made the case on the merits. We’re right on the law. Somehow or the other politics will intervene. We just don’t know where or how.”

The strategy here has been to slow-walk the decision to avoid the negative consequences of disallowing broadly popular legislation.  It should be noted that the EPA has NEVER in its history failed to grant a waiver of this kind for tighter air pollution control laws.  There’s not even any standing for denying the waiver under the Clean Air Act, which only should occur if the regulations are not “technologically feasible.”  Considering that people are making 150mpg conversions in their garages, that’s just patently absurd.  Automakers in this country are killing themselves slowly by refusing to adapt to the needs and desires of consumers.  If they persist, states should be allowed to recognize the impact on their own air quality and demand a shift.

This is going to be a long fight, but eventually, we will get this law.

Jerry Brown’s effort to sue automakers for the production greenhouse gas emissions through their vehicles, a holdover from Bill Lockyer’s tenure, has been thrown out of court.

In its lawsuit filed last year, California blamed the auto industry for millions of dollars it expects to spend on repairing damage from global-warming induced floods and other natural disasters.

But District Judge Martin Jenkins in San Francisco handed California Attorney General Jerry Brown’s environmental crusade a stinging rebuke when he ruled that it impossible to determine to what extent automakers are responsible for global-warming damages in California. Many culprits, including other industries and even natural sources, are responsible for emitting carbon dioxide.

“The court is left without guidance in determining what is an unreasonable contribution to the sum of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere, or in determining who should bear the costs associated with global climate change that admittedly result from multiple sources around the globe,” Jenkins write.

The judge also ruled that keeping the lawsuit alive would threaten the country’s foreign policy position.

I didn’t know that judges were responsible for managing foreign policy decisions, but Jenkins also did say that it’s the responsibility of lawmakers and not the courts to “determine how responsible automakers are for global warming problems.”  To that end, another lawsuit that would allow lawmakers to do just that, to hold automakers responsible by mandating a curtailing of the greenhouse gas emissions their vehicles spew, has won a major victory (over):

A federal judge in Vermont gave the first legal endorsement yesterday to rules in California, being copied in 13 other states, that intend to reduce greenhouse gases emitted by automobiles and light trucks.

Ruling in a lawsuit against Vermont’s standards on those heat-trapping gases, the judge, William K. Sessions III, rejected a variety of challenges from auto manufacturers, including their contention that the states were usurping federal authority.

The ruling follows a decision by the United States Supreme Court in April that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide as air pollutants. The ruling in Vermont explicitly endorses the idea that California has the right to set its own regulations on the gases, and that other states, like Vermont, have the right to follow its lead.

The Vermont ruling merely follows the Supreme Court precedent, albeit to devastating effect.  The California case is pending, but it would be hard to see how the ruling could be any different.  Now it’s time for the EPA to allow the waiver that would enable the tailpipe emissions law to go into effect.  With even the White House Science Adviser acknowledging the man-made causes of global warming, it’s beyond time for the Cheney-Bush Administration to give states back the ability to manage their own air quality standards and contribution to climate change.  This lawsuit adds to the pressure on the EPA.

As a side note, last week Jerry Brown reached a settlement with Conoco-Phillips that would require the company to spend $10 million to offset the emissions created by their East Bay refinery expansion.

Brown told a news conference that the accord is believed to be the first time an oil refinery in the country has agreed to mitigate increased carbon emissions from an expansion project.

Brown is definitely using every option at his disposal in this fight.

I just finished reading Jonathan Adler’s take in National Review Online on California’s request to the federal government that they allow the state to enact tough tailpipe emissions standards that would curb the emission of the greenhouse gases causing climate change. Now I may not agree with what he has to say later, but at least Adler gets the facts right early on (mostly).

California Attorney General Jerry Brown came to Washington this week, urging the federal government to let California impose the first regulations on greenhouse-gas emissions from automobiles. The Golden State has adopted regulations under which automakers must reduce greenhouse-gas emissions from new cars sold in California beginning in 2009. By 2016, new vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions must decline by nearly 30 percent. If the federal government won’t take decisive action on climate change, Brown declared, “California will take action.”

The problem for California is that it cannot enforce its new regulations without a waiver of federal law. Under the federal Clean Air Act, states are generally precluded from adopting their own vehicle-emission standards. According to Congress, regulating motor vehicles is a federal job. California gets special treatment, however. California is authorized to seek a waiver of federal law when it adopts vehicle-emission regulations. Once a waiver is obtained, and only then, other states may follow suit.

So why can’t California get a waiver? Adler says that the state is stepping to much on the federal government’s toes when it comes to the state doing what the feds are supposed to do. Follow me after the flip as I explain why Adler is wrong here…

So what’s so bad about what Adler has to say? He seems to know his law here:

California’s special status in air-pollution law dates to the early days of federal environmental regulation. California adopted the nation’s first vehicle-emission standards in the 1960s. Afraid that other states would soon follow suit, the automakers went to Washington, D.C. seeking a uniform federal standard that would preempt the states. The automakers hoped they would get less stringent rules from Washington, D.C., but preferred a tighter federal rule than a polyglot of state rules. From the automakers’ perspective, it was essential that a car rolling off an assembly line in Pontiac, Michigan, could be sold in any state.

Yes, this is true. California did adopt vehicle emissions standards some five years before the federal government did. And yes, the federal government later adopted nationwide standards on vehicle emissions. However recognizing that California did this first, the federal government allowed California to continue setting its own standards, just so long as they are at least as strong as federal standards. And always, California standards have been stronger than federal standards.

So why can’t California adopt tough standards to curb global climate change?

The waiver provision was designed to ensure that California could adopt tighter emission controls where necessary for California cities to meet federal air-quality standards. California had the worst air pollution in the nation, and there was a strong argument that what would clear the air in Houston or Chicago might not work so well in southern California. So, over the past 30 years, California sought and obtained tens of waivers to help control soot and smog. In each case, California could argue that more stringent auto-emission rules were necessary to meet the “extraordinary conditions” that California faced.

Global climate change, however, is a global phenomenon. The relevant airshed is not the Los Angeles basin or South Coast Air Quality Management District, but the global atmosphere. The degree of warming experienced by California is a consequence of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, not local conditions or controls.

California may face specific threats from the effects of global warming, but the climate-forcing of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is dispersed throughout the world.

Oh, really? Now yes, climate change is a global phenomenon. So California doesn’t face any specific threats from global climate change?

Another problem for California’s case is that adopting new car-emission standards will have no meaningful effect on the climate-related threats that California fears. Even once California’s standards are adopted in a dozen states, this will do nothing to reduce the threat of sea-level rise that Californians’ face. That climate change may present a “compelling” threat to the nation or the world is not relevant as a legal matter, as the Clean Air Act proscribes other considerations. California was granted the ability to seek waivers to enact measures addressing pollution problems in California, not a roving authority to drive environmental policy for the nation as a whole.

Hold on, Mr. Adler! Actually, those greenhouse gases are contributing to the rise in sea level that would threaten our state. And yes, this is a real threat! And oh yes, it’s already happening! And yes, it’s more than just the sea level. Look at the flooding in Marin County. Look at what’s happening in the Delta. Look at the bizarre deep freeze in much of Orange County this winter.

Obviously, climate change is something that something that our federal government needs to tackle. The US Supreme Court even recognizes that now! However, Bush has refused to act. And in the mean time, places like California are suffering the consequences! So why doesn’t the state government have the right to protect its citizens by taking action against climate change?

I never thought I’d say this, but I agree with Arnold here [writing with Governor Jodi Rell (R-Connecticut)]:

(From Washington Post)

There can be little debate anymore on whether the effects of climate change constitute a looming threat to the public’s health and welfare.

Republicans and Democrats in statehouses around the country have already spoken loudly that federal inaction on climate change is unacceptable and have acted on their own initiative.

Whether it is Northeastern states uniting to reduce greenhouse gases from electric generators or Western states looking to reduce emissions throughout the economy, momentum is building everywhere but in Washington. The federal government should not stand in the way of dealing with the most serious environmental challenge facing the world.

While the United States represents just 5 percent of the world’s population, it produces 25 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases.

With the landmark legislation authored by former assemblywoman Fran Pavley and passed in 2002, California demonstrated that it is serious about cutting down these emissions from cars. Connecticut also has a strong record on greenhouse gas reduction, which includes adoption of California’s tough standards for vehicle tailpipe emissions.

California, Connecticut and a host of like-minded states are proving that you can protect the environment and the economy simultaneously.

It’s high time the federal government becomes our partner or gets out of the way.

So why can’t California take action on a global climate phenomenon that is already harming the people of this state? Why can’t the state regulate the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing all this trouble? Why shouldn’t the EPA give California a waiver to take action and reduce these dangerous emissions?

It’s high time the State of California is allowed to stop the global climate catastrophe that’s causing real harm in this state. And it’s time to allow these other states to follow California’s lead. It’s just too bad that Bush won’t allow the federal government to do the same. I guess that’s why these states need to take action in the first place.