Just as members of Congress wrapped up work and were headed out of town for the holiday recess, the Environmental Protection Agency released a long-awaited announcement on whether California would be granted a waiver to pursue more aggressive measures to limit automobile emissions.

The EPA said no, causing holiday heartburns for 17 governors representing about half the nation’s population. Washington’s Chris Gregoire is among those waiting to proceed with their own waiver requests because of climate change concerns.

It’s not difficult to discern who had the agency’s ear. Just try to guess which statement is from the EPA and which is from the automotive industry:

1. “The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules.”

2. The ruling prevents “a patchwork quilt of inconsistent and competing fuel economy programs.”

No. 1 was uttered by EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson. The latter is from Dave McCurdy, head of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. The only mystery is who copied whom.

Johnson noted that the waiver – first sought in 2004 – was no longer needed, because Congress had just passed an energy bill that included increased fuel mileage standards.

But his uniformity argument is undercut by the fact that the EPA has granted California 50 such waivers over the past 37 years. Plus, the Clean Air Act allows for states to adopt different pollution standards as long as they are stricter.

It was in California that the catalytic converter was first mandated to address the choking smog problem that plagued that state’s cities. Soon, other states joined in, and the result has been a significant reduction in smog in the nation’s major cities.

At the time, the auto industry opposed the move, saying such devices would make cars prohibitively expensive for many drivers. As it turned out, car prices did not balloon.

Today, the industry is making the same claim, but the EPA’s scientists say the technology is available to tighten emissions. Automakers themselves signed an agreement with Canada in 2005 to deliver cleaner-burning cars. That pact calls for an emissions reduction of 25 percent by the end of 2010. California is calling for a 30 percent cut by 2009.

Meanwhile, EPA attorneys advised that the waiver be granted, noting that federal law and recent court rulings favored California.

Johnson ignored his staff experts in delivering his holiday gift to automakers.

The public often confuses mileage and emissions issues, and Johnson capitalized on that in touting the recently adopted energy bill. But the bill doesn’t directly address emissions, plus it contains language that says states can still pursue tougher environmental standards.

Congress and the president are to be applauded for adopting the higher mileage standards. Better mileage cars will pollute less. But let’s not confuse that indirect benefit for a more direct approach as we look for ways to limit greenhouse gases.