Environment

WASHINGTON DC—California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. went to federal court today to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to release a court-mandated determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health or welfare. Such a determination of endangerment is the first step towards establishing federal controls on greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.

“The EPA said it would take action to regulate greenhouse gases by the end of last year but then broke its word and ignored the Supreme Court’s mandate,” Attorney General Brown said. “The EPA has rejected the Supreme Court’s order, an action which is outrageous and unlawful. We’re taking the EPA to court to force it to do its job.”

In a writ of mandamus filed today in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Brown and seventeen other states and eleven national environmental groups asked for a court order that would force the EPA to release its determination of endangerment within sixty days.

On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the EPA must regulate greenhouse gas emissions after making a formal determination that such pollution threatens public health or welfare. The EPA itself described the Court’s mandate as follows: “...the EPA must determine...whether greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that endangers public health or welfare.”

A recent investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform revealed that the EPA had already made its endangerment determination--including an extensive scientific review--and sent it to the White House Office of Management and Budget for final approval. Brown called EPA’s inaction “a textbook case of unreasonable delay” because the agency already completed its endangerment determination last year and is simply refusing to release it publicly.

“It is makes absolutely no sense for the EPA to say it needs a year-long public comment period before it can obey the Supreme Court,” Brown said. “The EPA has finished its determination and Johnson should keep his promise by releasing the final version immediately.”

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said repeatedly, under oath, that he would comply with the Court’s mandate and issue a determination of endangerment by the end of 2007. Last week, Johnson broke that promise by extending the time period another twelve months until President Bush leaves office.

In February, Brown and seventeen other states asked the EPA why it was delaying in issuing its report. In response, Administrator Johnson backtracked on his earlier promise, stating “the Agency does not have a specific timeline for responding to the remand.” The EPA tried to explain its abrupt change of course by pointing to the recent enactment of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, a law which does not change EPA’s duties under the Supreme Court’s decision.

Brown said that the EPA cannot use the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which only improves fuel economy, as an excuse for ignoring its duty to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA’s obligation to regulate such emissions is wholly independent from the mandate, under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, to promote energy efficiency.

Under Johnson, the EPA has also failed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft, ocean-going vessels and non-road vehicles and engines. Brown sued the EPA in January after the agency broke forty years of precedent by rejecting California’s petition to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gases.

Since the beginning of the industrial era, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have reached their highest point in the last half-million years. Rajendra Pachauri, a scientist who heads the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently said “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

Nineteen states and local governments joining California in filing today’s legal action include: Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, District of Columbia, City of New York, Mayor and City Council for Baltimore.

National and international environmental groups also joining include: Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Advocates, Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, International Center for Technological Assessment, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group

All of these parties were either petitioners in Massachusetts v. EPA, or joined amicus briefs in support.

LOS ANGELES--Tomorrow, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. will take legal action to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to obey last year’s Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, which affirmed that greenhouse gas emissions are pollutants subject to regulation.

After the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision--exactly one year ago on April 2, 2007--the EPA promised to begin regulating greenhouse gases by issuing an official determination that such pollutants endanger public health or welfare.

The EPA said it would issue the determination of endangerment by the end of 2007 but then broke its promise last week by extending the time period another twelve months until President Bush is out of office.

A recent investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform exposed the fact that the EPA already completed its endangerment determination--including an extensive scientific review document--but is refusing to release the final document.

On a conference call tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. Attorney General Brown will assert that the EPA’s willful rejection of the Supreme Court’s instruction is “outrageous and unlawful.” Brown will join dozens of states and national environmental groups in taking legal action to stop the EPA from continuing to ignore the Supreme Court.

WHAT:
Press conference call announcing new legal action in the Supreme Court case, Massachusetts v. EPA

WHO:
California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Massachusetts Attorney General's Office Chief of Environmental Protection James Milkey
Sierra Club Chief Climate Counsel David Bookbinder
International Center for Technology Assessment Legal Director Joe Mendelson

WHEN:
10:00 a.m. Pacific Wednesday April 2, 2008

OAKLAND--California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today met with more than two hundred local officials, challenging them to “take the lead” in the fight against global warming.

“Climate change threatens our way of life,' Attorney General Brown said. 'In the absence of national leadership, local government must take the lead in bringing about a low-carbon future.”

At the request of Attorney General Brown, scientists, local planners and elected officials convened at a one-day workshop at the State Office Building at 1515 Clay Street in downtown Oakland to discuss specific steps that can be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California.

This is the first in a series of five local workshops that will take place in Sacramento, Visalia, Los Angeles and Monterey. Representatives of the Attorney General's Office and the Governor's Climate Action Team will brief local officials about how government at all levels can reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Brown addressed the local officials, stressing the urgent need to combat climate disruption by setting greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Mary Nichols, Chair of the California Air Resources Board, discussed local government’s key role California’s plan to fight global climate change.

During today's workshop, local government will learn how to model greenhouse gas emissions and to design emissions inventories that can improve local planning decisions. Other topics on the agenda included:

• How cities and counties should analyze the global warming-related impacts of planning and land use decisions
• Mitigation strategies local governments should employ to reduce emissions
• How cities and counties can efficiently analyze emissions

The Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32, requires California to cut greenhouse gas emission to 1990 levels by 2020, but the rules and market mechanisms will not take effect until 2012. Meanwhile, local government will make hundreds, if not thousands, of planning decisions that will have decades-long implications. Brown has called upon local officials to take action now to limit long-term greenhouse gas emissions.

To date, Attorney General Brown has submitted nearly thirty comment letters, under the California Environmental Quality Act, on local projects that have the potential to emit large quantities of greenhouse gas emissions. The Act, signed into law by Governor Reagan in 1970, requires state and local agencies to evaluate significant environmental impacts of proposed projects and adopt all feasible measures to mitigate those impacts.

As a result of Brown’s comment letters, local governments are taking action to reduce greenhouse through planning and land use decisions. The City of Berkeley, for example, is preparing to fund solar projects with public monies and allow property owners to repay the city through property tax assessments.

Other greenhouse gas mitigation strategies being employed across California include:

• High-density developments that reduce vehicle trips and utilize public transit.
• Electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located alternative fueling stations.
• Regional transportation centers where various types of public transportation meet.
• Energy efficient design for buildings, appliances, lighting and office equipment.
• Solar panels, water reuse systems and on-site renewable energy production.
• Carbon emissions credit purchases that fund alternative energy projects.

In addition, over one hundred and twenty California cities have joined the Cool Cities campaign which commits the local jurisdictions to take concrete steps to fight global warming including the development of greenhouse gas emissions inventories.

In July 2007, Alameda County became one of twelve charter members of the Cool Counties initiative. Participating counties inventory their greenhouse gas emissions levels and create a plan to cut emissions 80% below current levels by 2050.

Attorney General Brown frequently updates the California Department of Justice Website to provide information that helps local agencies join the fight against global warming: http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/ceqa.php

LOS ANGELES--California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Secretary for Resources Mike Chrisman today sued the United States Forest Service for adopting “illegal forest management plans” that permit road construction and oil drilling in California’s largest national forests.

“The United States Forest Service adopted illegal forest management plans that threaten California’s pristine national forests with road construction and oil drilling,” Attorney General Brown said. “The Forest Service should scrap these destructive forest plans and protect California’s natural areas as required by law.”

The Forest Service's plans allow road construction on more than 500,000 acres of roadless area within the Angeles, Los Padres, Cleveland and San Bernardino National Forest. California’s lawsuit alleges that the Forest Service's plans ignore California’s moratorium on road construction in pristine areas of the national forests.

The four national forests include over 3.5 million acres of federally-managed public land, from Big Sur to the Mexican border. The forests have great geologic and topographic diversity including chaparral, oak woodlands, savannas, deserts, alpine areas, and specialized habitat niches. The forests provide habitat for 31 threatened and endangered animals and 29 plants as well as 34 animal species and 134 plants recognized as sensitive.

The Los Padres National Forest, which is one of the state’s largest national forests, also provides habitat for the California Condor and is the site of the principal effort to bring this species back from the brink of extinction.

Brown charged the Forest Service with illegally violating the federal National Forest Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the agency to develop its forest plans in coordination with state laws and policies. California’s policy is that there should be a moratorium on any plan that could permit construction in roadless areas in national forests.

The attorney general is representing the People of California, the California Resources Agency and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to challenge the forest plans.

In 2005 and 2006, the Forest Service assured the Resources Agency, in writing, that it would not allow road construction on California’s roadless areas. Secretary for Resources Mike Chrisman today criticized the Forest Service for not honoring this agreement.

“Time and again we have tried to hold the Forest Service to their word on the roadless policy. They have failed to live up to their promises,” Secretary Chrisman said.

“The Forest Service failed to even acknowledge state policy on roadless areas in national forests in California, let alone attempt to coordinate with those protections,” Brown asserts in the lawsuit.

The Forest Service also ignored public recommendations, including comments from qualified scientists, recommending that one million acres of the forest land be designated as wilderness. Instead the final plans only recommended protecting half that amount, without providing adequate scientific rationale for the reduction.

The plans also fail to properly evaluate the harm to the California Condor and its habitat that will be caused by oil and gas exploration and drilling. Specifically, the plans allow oil drilling on more than 52,000 acres in or adjacent to the Los Padres National Forest—areas which include critical habitat areas for the endangered California Condor.

Los Padres National Forest, which encompasses nearly 1.8 million acres that stretch 220 miles from north to south, is one of the state’s largest national forests. San Bernardino National Forest, which abuts the Inland Empire, is 665,700 acres. Angeles National Forest, near Los Angeles, is 663,000 acres. Cleveland National Forest contains 420,000 acres of natural space in Orange and San Diego Counties. Over twenty million Californians live within one hour’s drive of at least one of these four forests.

California’s lawsuit, filed today in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, is attached.

# # #

LOS ANGELES--California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today invited more than five hundred mayors, local planning directors, and county Supervisors to attend statewide workshops where they can learn practical ways to combat global warming by reducing dangerous greenhouse gas emissions.

"California must adopt the necessary changes that will encourage economic growth while reducing greenhouse gases,' Attorney General Brown said. 'This difficult transition from our current escalating dependence on fossil fuel, demands that cities and counties encourage maximum building efficiency and innovative land-use.

The Global Warming Solutions act, AB 32, requires California to cut greenhouse gas emission to 1990 levels by 2020, but the rules and market mechanisms will not take effect until 2012. Meanwhile, local government will make hundreds, if not thousands, of planning decisions that will have decades-long implications. Brown has called upon local officials to take action now to limit long-term greenhouse gas emissions.
Encouraging local officials to meet with the attorney general's office, Brown said, 'These workshops will launch the first statewide movement to reduce the negative impact of local planning decisions on global climate.'

In 534 letters mailed statewide today, Brown invited public officials from all 58 California counties and nearly 200 cities to join the attorney general's office for regional conferences on climate change and the California Environmental Quality Act. The Act requires local agencies to analyze and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from projects with significant impact, including regional transportation and development plans.

During the upcoming workshops--to be held from March to May in Oakland, Sacramento, Visalia, Los Angeles and Monterey--methods of modeling greenhouse gas emissions will be discussed in detail. Representatives of the Attorney General's Office and the Governor's Climate Action Team will brief the local officials about how government at all levels can reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Some of the questions that will be addressed at the workshops include:

* How should cities and counties analyze the global warming-related impacts of development?
* What mitigation strategies should local governments employ to reduce their CO2 emissions?
* How can cities and counties undertake the required analysis efficiently and on limited budgets?

To date, the Attorney General has submitted formal comments to twenty three local jurisdictions throughout the state under CEQA, encouraging them to evaluate and avoid or reduce the increases in CO2 emissions caused by land use decisions. Attorney General Brown has also reached landmark agreements with San Bernardino County and ConcoPhillips on specific greenhouse gas reduction strategies.

Other local jurisdictions across California including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sonoma, Santa Monica, Berkeley, Marin, Palo Alto, Chula Vista, Modesto and Healdsburg are also initiating measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The City of Berkeley, for example, is developing an innovative program that funds solar projects with public monies and allows the property owners to repay the city through property tax assessments. Other greenhouse gas mitigation strategies being employed across California are the following:

* High-density developments that reduce vehicle trips and utilize public transit.
* Electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located alternative fueling stations.
* Transportation impact fees on developments to fund public transit service.
* Regional transportation centers where various types of public transportation meet.
* Energy efficient design for buildings, appliances, lighting and office equipment.
* Solar panels, water reuse systems and on-site renewable energy production.
* Methane recovery in landfills and wastewater treatment plants to generate electricity.
* Carbon emissions credit purchases that fund alternative energy projects.

In addition, over one hundred and twenty California cities have joined the Cool Cities campaign which commits the local jurisdictions to take concrete steps including the development of greenhouse gas emissions inventories and a local Climate Action Plan to fight global warming.

In July 2007, Alameda County became one of twelve charter members of the Cool Counties initiative. Participating counties establish a greenhouse gas emissions inventory and regional plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below current levels by 2050.

Recently, Attorney General Brown expanded the Department of Justice Website to provide information that can help local agencies join the fight against global warming: http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/ceqa.php

Brown sent letters to 534 local government officials: cities with populations greater than 50,000, 178 Mayors, 171 Planning Departments, 58 County Board of Supervisors Chairs or Presidents, 58 County Planning Agency Directors, 33 Councils of Government and 36 Air Quality Control Districts.

# # #

LOS ANGELES—California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from construction, mining, agricultural, industrial equipment—machines which annually emit as much carbon dioxide as approximately 40 million cars.

“Millions of industrial machines in mines, on farms, and construction sites spew massive quantities of unregulated greenhouse gas pollution,” Attorney General Brown said. “The Environmental Protection Agency has not regulated the emissions from these vehicles and engines—just like it has failed to curb greenhouse gases from cars, ocean-going vessels, and aircraft.”

Among the wide range of nonroad vehicles and engine that the EPA is authorized to regulate are the following: construction and farm machinery, logging equipment, outdoor power equipment, recreational vehicles, lawn and garden equipment, marine vessels, aircraft, and locomotives. Attorney General Brown recently filed separate petitions to the EPA calling for aircraft and ocean-going vessel regulations. Locomotives are excluded from today’s petition because regulating train emissions involves different technological and legal issues.

The engines and vehicles cited in today’s petition emitted 220 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2007—an amount equivalent to the emissions from 40 million cars. Mining and construction equipment accounted for 32% of these emissions, followed by agricultural and industrial equipment. According to the California Air Resources Board, there are approximately 17.8 million of these machines and engines in California.

According to EPA data, the emissions from snowmobiles, golf carts, riding lawn mowers, agricultural equipment and off-road vehicles are growing at a faster rate, 49% between 1990 and 2005, than greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles or aircraft. These vehicles emit more greenhouse gases than all domestic aircraft.

In today’s petition, California asserts that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has the authority and the duty to adopt national greenhouse gas emissions standards for the entire sector of nonroad engines and vehicles. California is petitioning the EPA to:

• Make a determination that greenhouse gas emissions from nonroad sources contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health and welfare
• Adopt greenhouse gas emissions standards, under Section 213 of the Clean Air Act, for new nonroad vehicles and engines
• Adopt the regulations that are necessary to carry out these emissions limits.

Other states, government agencies, and national environmental organizations that are joining California in petitioning the EPA today include: Connecticut, Oregon, Massachusetts, New Jersey, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the International Center for Technology Assessment, Center for Food Safety and Friends of the Earth.

There is a wide range of technologies and operational procedures that can substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

• Auxiliary power units reduce the need for idling engines to heat or cool vehicle cabs
• Electrification and hybrid technology can increase efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions
• Reflective paint on trucks and truck cabs can reduce the use of air conditioning
• Low-carbon fuels, low viscosity lubricants, and onboard oil purification systems can improve engine efficiency
• Alternative air conditioning equipment and refrigerants can curb greenhouse gases
• Lighter body materials improve the efficiency of off-road vehicles and power boats

In 2006, California adopted the groundbreaking Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32, which requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020—approximately a 25% reduction. To date, the EPA has failed to issue any regulations covering greenhouse gas emissions. The agency has also blocked California’s attempt to set automobile greenhouse gas emissions standards.

Visit the Attorney General’s Website for up-to-date information about how public officials, industry leaders, and private citizens can join the fight against global warming: http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/

California’s petition to the EPA is attached. A factsheet on CO2 Emissions from nonroad vehicles and engines is also attached.

WASHINGTON DC – Citing the potential “to manipulate the system,” California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today recommended that the Federal Trade Commission sharpen its guidelines for businesses that sell carbon emission offset credits.

“The Federal Trade Commission must set clear guidelines for the sale of carbon offset credits,” Attorney General Brown said, “As more Americans try to offset their carbon emissions, the danger grows that some individuals will attempt to manipulate the system. Consumers must feel confident that they actually get what they pay for—real carbon reduction offsets.”

Ordinary activities, such as driving cars and running power plants, produce greenhouse gas emissions which trap heat from the sun, causing global temperatures to rise. Under a carbon offset program, consumers are able to purchase emissions credits—which reflect specific environmental projects that reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gases elsewhere in the environment.

The national market for carbon offset credits is expected to reach $100 million annually within the next four years. Currently, the market for these offsets is volatile, largely unregulated, and has serious potential for fraud.

The Federal Trade Commission is responsible for ensuring that carbon offset projects are fairly and honestly marketed to consumers. Recently, the Federal Trade Commission requested comments, by January 25, 2008, on the marketing of carbon offsets and renewable energy certificates.

In a letter sent today to the Federal Trade Commission, Attorney General Brown and several other state attorneys general outlined potential problems with carbon offset markets and offered recommendations to the Federal Trade Commission aimed at protecting consumers. Other states joining today’s letter include: Vermont, Arkansas, Delaware, Maine, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Illinois, Connecticut and New Hampshire.

Among the recommendations to the Federal Trade Commission are the following:

• Conduct research on consumers’ understanding of carbon offsets
• Ensure that offset projects do not double sell credits or claim credits for practices that are already required by law
• Engage in aggressive education and outreach to ensure that consumers understand the nature of carbon offsets and the potential for fraud

The states also called for a clearer definition of what qualifies as a carbon offset. Currently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency asserts that offset credits can be backed by projects that will go forward regardless of whether emissions credits are sold. An alternative offset definition would only allow the sale of credits from projects that would not otherwise have gone forward.

The states also demanded that the Federal Trade Commission consider whether renewable energy certificates—proof that energy was generated by a renewable source—should count as a valid offset. The certificates may not qualify as offsets because renewable energy does not always displace traditional energy sources.

The states recommended that the Federal Trade Commission offer consumer tips on its Website and place explicit details about offsets—including the name, location and project owner—on all marketing material.

For more information on the Federal Trade Commission’s review of carbon offset markets, visit: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/carbonoffsets/index.shtml

The state’s letter is attached.

# # #

WASHINGTON DC—California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today called upon the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency to “obey the Supreme Court’s landmark decision,” Massachusetts v. EPA, opening a new front in the legal battle for tailpipe greenhouse gas regulations.

“The Artic is melting faster than ever before, yet the EPA stubbornly refuses to do its job,” Attorney General Brown said. “The EPA should obey the Supreme Court’s landmark decision and issue regulations to curb greenhouse gas pollutants without further delay.”

The landmark Supreme Court case, Massachusetts v. EPA, held that the EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. The EPA itself, in a notice last month in the Federal Register, described the Court’s mandate:

“…the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA must determine, under Section 202 (a) of the Clean Air Act, whether greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that endangers public health or welfare.”

Greenhouse gas pollutants are pouring into the atmosphere, causing global temperatures to rise at an unprecedented rate. Eleven of the 12 warmest years since record keeping began, 150 years ago, have occurred in the past 12 years. In 2006, Arctic sea ice declined by the largest amount ever recorded, losing an area roughly the size of Texas and California combined.

Before the EPA can regulate greenhouse gas pollution, the agency must make a formal determination that such emissions threaten public health or welfare. After the Court’s decision in April 2007, the EPA said it would propose regulations by the end of the year, but it has failed to do so. In a letter sent today by California and 17 other states and local governments, Brown asserted that “the EPA is unreasonably delaying” the procedural steps necessary for issuing regulations.

Brown called upon the EPA to immediately issue a formal conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions “cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” Brown requested a response, with the agency’s specific intentions, by February 27, 2008.

Today’s letter serves as a notice that states are preparing to go back to court to get the EPA to comply with the Supreme Court's mandate.

Brown said that the EPA cannot use the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which only improves fuel economy, as an excuse for ignoring its duty to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Supreme Court ruled that EPA’s obligation to regulate such emissions is wholly independent from the mandate, under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, to promote energy efficiency.

Under the Clean Air Act, California is also allowed to impose tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions regulations if the state obtains a waiver from the EPA. Brown sued the EPA on January 2, after the agency broke forty years of precedent by denying California’s request, which would have allowed the state to cut tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2016. It was the first denial since the Clean Air Act was established in 1967.

In rejecting the state’s request, the EPA stated that California failed to demonstrate “compelling and extraordinary conditions,” as required by the Clean Air Act. This statement contradicted forty years of agency practice and ignored the dangerous consequences of global warming to the State of California.

Under the Bush administration, the EPA has also failed to set greenhouse gas emissions standards for ocean-going vessels and aircraft—both major worldwide contributors to global warming.

Global warming threatens California’s coastline, levees, and Sierra mountain snow pack which provides one-third of the state’s drinking water. California’s unique topography and its high human and vehicular population have already caused higher ozone concentrations than other parts of the country. For more information on the impacts of global warming, visit: http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/impact.php

Seventeen other states and local governments are joining today’s letter including: the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, the City Solicitor for the City of Baltimore and the Corporation Counsel for the City of New York.

The states’ letter to the EPA is attached.

LOS ANGELES--California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today attacked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for betraying its “sacred mission” to protect the environment and called upon Congress to require the agency’s top staff to explain, under oath, their flawed and illegal decision-making process.

“Charged with protecting the environmental trust, the EPA has instead betrayed its sacred mission,” Attorney General Brown told members of the Senator Barbara Boxer’s Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works at a briefing in Los Angeles. “The agency’s top staff should explain, under oath, why they sabotaged the groundbreaking effort by California and fourteen other states to reduce dangerous greenhouse gases emitted by motor vehicles.”

Brown sued the EPA last week after the agency broke forty years of precedent by denying California’s request for a waiver, which would have allowed the state to cut tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2016. It was the first denial since the Clean Air Act was established in 1967.

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson’s rejection decision, outlined in a two-page letter, contained no supporting technical or legal analysis. Brown’s lawsuit charged the EPA with not following the criteria for reviewing waiver requests, as set forth in Clean Air Act section 209, and failing to provide any facts to support its decision.

The EPA stated that California failed to demonstrate “compelling and extraordinary conditions,” as required by the Clean Air Act. This not only contradicted forty years of agency practice but it also ignored the dangerous consequences of global warming to the State of California. California’s unique topography and its high human and vehicular population have already caused higher ozone concentrations than other parts of the country. Global warming also threatens California’s coastline, levees, and Sierra mountain snow pack which provides one-third of the state’s drinking water.

For decades, EPA has agreed that California needs its own emissions program to meet these “compelling and extraordinary conditions.” In a 1975 waiver determination, EPA said that the waiver process is meant to ensure “that the Federal government would not second-guess the wisdom of state policy” and “that no ‘Federal bureaucrat’ would be able to tell the people of California what auto emission standards were good for them, as long as they were stricter than Federal standards.”

Administrator Johnson incorrectly asserted that the federal energy bill, which raises gas mileage to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, rendered California’s greenhouse gas emissions standards unnecessary. An analysis by the California Air Resources Board confirms that California’s emissions rules cut twice the level of greenhouse gases compared with federal program. The California program will also result in fuel efficiency—44 miles per gallon by 2020—that is far better than the federal standard.

14 other states, representing 44% of the nation’s population, have adopted California’s regulations: Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Four other states, Utah, Colorado, Illinois and Delaware are in the process of adopting the standards.

The EPA was established in 1970 under President Nixon to set and enforce environmental protection standards, conduct research on pollution, and recommend policies to the President for the protection of the environment. In 2005, President Bush appointed Stephen Johnson as the agency’s 11th administrator.

Under Johnson, the EPA has also failed to set greenhouse gas emissions standards for aircraft and ocean-going vessels, both major worldwide contributors to global warming. The agency has also weakened the Toxic Release Inventory, a program which requires facilities to report annual quantities of toxic chemicals that are emitted, prompting Attorney General Brown to file a lawsuit in November 2007.

For more information on climate disruption please visit: www.ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/

WASHINGTON D.C. — Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr., on behalf of the State of California, today sued the United States Environmental Protection Agency for “wrongfully and illegally” blocking the state's landmark tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions standards.

Brown filed the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to challenge the EPA’s denial of California's request to implement its emissions law—which requires a 30 percent reduction in motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions by 2016. California's new standards require federal approval in the form of a waiver from the EPA. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson denied California's request on December 19, 2007 in a letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“The denial letter was shocking in its incoherence and utter failure to provide legal justification for the administrator's unprecedented action,” California Attorney General Brown said. “The EPA has done nothing at the national level to curb greenhouse gases and now it has wrongfully and illegally blocked California's landmark tailpipe emissions standards, despite the fact that sixteen states have moved to adopt them.”

Under the Clean Air Act, passed by Congress in 1963, California is expressly allowed to impose environmental regulations that are stricter than federal rules in recognition of the state’s “compelling and extraordinary conditions” which include unique topography, climate, and high number and concentration of vehicles.

The administrator stated in his decision that California did not need its tailpipe emissions standards to meet “compelling and extraordinary conditions,” a finding which reversed decades of agency practice and ignored the dangerous consequences of global warming to the State of California.

Global warming threatens California's Sierra mountain snow pack, which provides the state with one-third of its drinking water. California also has approximately 1,000 miles of coastline and levees that are threatened by rising sea levels.

Section 307 of the Clean Air Act gives California the authority to challenge adverse decisions by filing a petition for review two weeks after a rejection is issued. According to sources from within the EPA--as quoted in several national media accounts--Administrator Johnson rejected the unanimous recommendation of his agency’s legal and technical staff to grant the waiver.

In the 40-year history of the Act, EPA has granted approximately 50 waivers to California for innovations like catalytic converters, exhaust emission standards, and leaded gasoline regulations. Until last month, a waiver request had never been denied. The National Academy of Sciences has reviewed the waiver system and strongly supports maintaining California's role as “a proving ground for new-emission control technologies that benefit California and the rest of the nation.”

Cars generate 20% of all human-made carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, and at least 30% of such emissions in California.

Fifteen other states or state agencies—Massachusetts, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington—are joining today's lawsuit as interveners.

“The EPA’s attempt to stop New York and other states from taking on global warming pollution from automobiles is shameful,” said New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. “As recognized by the scientific community and most world leaders, global warming will have devastating impacts on our environment, health, and economy if it continues to go unchecked.”

In December, the U.S. District Court in Fresno rejected the auto industry's challenge to California’s emissions law, concluding that both California and the EPA are equally empowered to limit greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. In September, a federal court judge in Vermont also rejected a similar effort, by the same automobile industry group, to block the state from implementing California’s tailpipe emissions law.

EPA’s rejection letter is attached along with the state’s lawsuit challenging the denial.