The EPA, NHTSA, and the Multiple Streams drive climate policy outcome

ABSTRACT

Although United States environmental policy is frequently being decided in administrative agencies, it is unclear what factors influence policy outcomes. Some limited scholarship has explored whether the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) used for congressional policymaking can be used to explain rulemaking outcomes. This research explores the validity of the MSF via a case study of the controversial 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards Rule (CAFE Standards Rule) jointly published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). This research relies on original interviews with 30 agency staff and stakeholders to conclude that the model is helpful in understanding why these agencies produced the policy they did. However, the results here illustrate the importance of understanding the role and impact of the political stream on outcomes earlier in the process than outlined by previous scholars. Thus, when analyzing controversial regulatory outcomes, the policy and political stream may have to converge as early as the pre-proposal stage to ensure a rule is finalized.

KEYWORDS:

• CAFE
• interest groups
• kingdon
• multiple streams
• regulatory policy
• rulemaking

Notes

ⁱ NEPA requires the agency to publish a draft proposal of the environmental document, which in the case of CAFE standards is commonly an EIS, and provide a public comment period. The law also requires the agency to conduct scoping sessions prior to publishing the draft EIS to incorporate stakeholder input (42 USC § 4321).

ⁱⁱ Kingdon broadly defines policy entrepreneurs as those individuals “that invest their resources—time, energy, reputation, and sometimes money—in the hope of a future return” (p. 123).

ⁱⁱⁱ This study was approved by the Colorado State University Institutional Review Board (IRB). In accordance with this approval, all the interviewees remained anonymous for this study.

^iv The OMB five-point scale categorizes the importance of any rule from a one to five scale where one designates an economically significant rule; two designates a rule with some other significant impact; three designates a rule with substantial non-significant impacts; four designates a rule with a routine or frequent impact; and five designates a rule with an administrative impact.

^v Kingdon broadly defines the government agenda as “the list of subjects to which governmental officials and those around them are paying serious attention” (p. 3).

^vi For example, Boyce, Lewis, and Worm (2010) linked the decline in ocean phytoplankton to climate change, and Shakova et al. (2010) highlighted the significant impact of climate change on increased methane venting in Siberia.

^vii California can request a waiver from the EPA to develop more stringent emission standards for mobile sources under Section 209 of the CAA, and Section 177 allows any state to adopt the California standards (EPA, 2014).

^viii CARB implements California’s vehicle emission standards. Format these as footnotes per journal style.