One Nation, One Energy Plan -- but It's the Wrong One

All too often, those competing rules -- developed, applied and brought to the marketplace at great expense -- offer negligible differences in outcomes and create much confusion in the marketplace. The California Above All approach, now mimicked by 16 me-too states, is representative.

Manufacturers effectively must sell two sets of vehicles -- those engineered to meet federal EPA standards and those designed to meet CAA (California Above All) and CM2 (California Me Too) standards. This is not an inexpensive requirement, as can be determined by anyone who has bothered to visit the mileage-testing and emission-control labs of domestic and foreign car companies.

Automobile dealership chains selling new cars and trucks in an EPA-governed state cannot sell the same vehicles in a California or a CM2-controlled state.

Check almost any online automotive retail pricing service. Notice the extra prices attached to the emission-control equipment required under California and CM2 rules. Are the people in California breathing any cleaner air than their counterparts in Virginia? How much more, assuming that there is a positive difference for California? Is the extra price paid for California-emission-control equipment worth it?

Johnson said he overruled his staff -- whose stance was based on a mixture of support for states' rights; a belief that the Great State of California, which cannot clean up the intellectual pollution of Hollywood, can force the world's car companies to do more to clean up their tailpipes; and several lawyerly concepts of what is "winnable" or "not winnable" in federal court -- because "the Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules, to reduce America's climate footprint from vehicles."

I support the administration's support for national rules. States' rights should take no more precedence in fuel conservation/clean-air regulation than they are allowed to take in matters such as human slavery or suffrage for women. Some things demand federal solution. A national energy policy is one of them.

As for Johnson's opponents, I have some questions:

¿ Where were you when the House and Senate were allowed, once again, to approve energy legislation without requiring American consumers to pay or do anything extra for fuel conservation or for reducing the carbon footprint of cars and trucks?

¿ Do you support a higher federal gasoline tax, or the imposition of another form of consumption tax to force consumers to think a bit more wisely about their new-vehicle choices?