The EPA v. California discussions have not reached their limit yet, as Senate Democrats are expected to search into the records of the decision the Environmental Protection Agency’s administrator Stephen Johnson took last year against the state of California. The unfavorable answer denied California and other states the right to regulate their own greenhouse emission standards.

The conflict generated numerous discussions nationwide on whether this was a political decision, as California is said to have strong arguments to support its demand. According to California’s petition, 30 percent of the gas emissions would have to be cut by 2016, which would greatly affect the automakers.

Johnson was accused of ignoring the recommendations of the agency’s staff members and the provisions of the Clean Air Act. He responded: “President Bush and the Congress have set the bar high and, when fully implemented, our federal fuel economy standard will achieve significant benefits by applying to all 50 states,” avoiding a confusing patchwork of state rules.”

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger threatened to overturn EPA’s decision, and on January 2 a suit was filed. The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee released to the public eye the a series of documents belonging to the Environmental Protection Agency, which provided the possible consequences of both a negative and a positive decision on California’s petition.

The documents apparently stated that if the EPA was to reject the waiver, California would most likely file a lawsuit that EPA would lose. At the same time, a favorable decision would have meant a legal challenge from the automakers, which the agency would most likely win. According to the same documents, granting California the right to set its own emission standards would be consistent with the federal laws and regulations.

The decision was highly contested and more people are waiting for the senators investigating the case to find out the truth behind EPA’s decision, or better yet, behind Administrator Johnson’s decision, as he appeared to have made the ruling despite warnings and wishes of other members of the agency.