Legislation

From The Wall Street Journal
August 11, 2008
Opinion Journal

Two weeks ago The Wall Street Journal kicked off a debate on how best to allocate scarce resources to solve the world's problems. Bjorn Lomborg offered a summary of the latest findings from his Copenhagen Consensus project, where he has enlisted some of the world's top economists to address the issue. Now we're offering views on the subject from top political and business leaders. How would you spend $10 billion of American resources (either directly or through regulation) over the next four years to help improve the state of the world?

Saving $10 Billion With Efficiency
By Jerry Brown
August 11, 2008

The cost of energy in the United States, on an annual basis, has now soared beyond $1 trillion. Our massive purchases of foreign oil represent perhaps the greatest transfer of wealth from one people to another in all human history. And, paradoxically, this wealth transfer is from a far more technologically advanced nation to poorer countries -- some unstable and hostile -- whose only claim is the oil that lies under their ground. Wake up America! We must stop the hemorrhaging of our national treasure, and we need to do it now.

I propose that we take the $10 billion and invest it in curbing our energy appetite through efficiency programs and incentives. The efficiency I envision would allow us to enhance our quality of life, but do so in ways that reduce the huge quantities of oil, gas and coal that we now consume.

California has kept its per capita electrical consumption flat for the past 25 years -- in significant part through appliance and buildings standards and incentives to adopt ways that get more work out of less energy. I am not talking about some collective hair shirt, but rather about a wide variety of new technologies and designs.

The world is facing a triple threat of unprecedented dimensions: First, the loss of cheap and easily discovered oil; second, explosive energy demand from China, India and other emerging countries as they rapidly improve their standard of living; and third, the climate disruptions caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. None of the three will go away. In fact, each will get progressively worse unless we take decisive action, without delay. America must take the lead in dealing with global energy and climate challenges, and at the same time vastly strengthen its own economy and security.

For too long, the federal government has been slow and unimaginative in setting efficiency standards for appliances and equipment, and in many cases it has set no standard at all. We know from the example of California's energy commission that huge financial savings can be generated through efficiency standards consistent with the best available technology. Billions of dollars and large quantities of fossil fuel could be saved if the federal government would set tough but practical standards for lighting, refrigerators, stoves, computers and other products and pieces of equipment.

Congress provided the legal authority to do so in the 2007 energy bill, but the Department of Energy currently lacks the trained personnel and engineers needed to create such a sophisticated regulatory framework. This will require additional funding -- perhaps as much as several hundred million a year. The next president should engage the appliance and equipment manufacturers and provide the kind of leadership that has so far been totally lacking.

Next, the federal government should establish a financial grant program, encouraging the states to craft efficiency standards for new buildings. Again, the example of California is instructive. Its detailed and regional building standards have saved Californians tens of billions of dollars in lower energy bills. A significant part of the proposed $10 billion could be spent on this type of effort. Each state would be asked to craft their own rules in response to the differing conditions found in various regions of the country.

A third type of program could be modeled on California's current system of rebates, tax credits and other incentives that encourage businesses and consumers to adopt efficiency measures that exceed the mandatory standards. This program is financed through the investor-owned utilities and established under the authority of the state utilities commission.

The federal government could provide a matching program for each state's efforts consistent with standards that are technically feasible, and that provide an economic return on the investment. In California, all the electric and gas utilities have added conservation investments to their historic practice of dealing with energy shortages only though building new plants.

Just as new sources of energy require vast sums spent on R&D, so do new efficiency technologies. They will emerge only if there is adequate investment in research and development. Some of the $10 billion should go for this. Needless to say, overall investment in both energy and efficiency R&D is pathetically and dangerously underfunded.

While military, medical and pharmaceutical research has steadily grown over the past two decades, R&D to increase our national energy efficiency and provide the full gamut of new fuels and power sources has fallen by 50% in real terms. In the early 1980s, energy companies invested more in R&D than drug companies; today, drug companies invest 10 times as much in R&D as do energy firms. To secure our energy and economic future, America must reverse this shameful neglect. Physicist and University of California professor Dan Kammen estimates that we must increase our level of energy and energy efficiency R&D five to tenfold, spending $15 billion to $30 billion per year to develop new fuels, new sources of energy and more efficient technologies.

America is at a crossroads. Total U.S. financial and nonfinancial debt rose to $44.7 trillion in 2006, from $2.4 trillion in 1974. This does not even count longer-term liabilities such as Social Security and Medicare. Oil and gas are consuming more and more of our national wealth. It is time for our political and business leaders to tap into America's unspent creativity and entrepreneurial genius. Many times $10 billion will be needed. But it can be done. It must be done.

Mr. Brown, a Democrat, is attorney general of California.

SACRAMENTO--In response to today’s Sacramento Superior Court decision to deny a lawsuit challenging the title and summary and ballot label for Proposition 8, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued the following statement:

“This lawsuit was more about politics than the law. The court properly dismissed it.”

One of the many responsibilities of the attorney general is to prepare a title and summary for initiative measures. For more information visit: http://ag.ca.gov/initiatives/index.php

The court’s order, issued today, is attached.

RIVERSIDE--California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Riverside District Attorney Rod Pacheco today announced a 37-count indictment against Mark Anthony Leggio, James Lloyd Deremiah, and father-son team Nicola Cacucciolo, and Nick Vito Cacucciolo, for exceeding $3,300 Senate and Assembly campaign contribution limits by laundering money through various friends and associates.

“Leggio contributed $50,000 in excess of campaign contribution limits to six candidates for Senate, Assembly and Board of Equalization by filtering money through friends and associates,” Attorney General Brown said. “Today’s charges send a strong message that the state will crack down on those who try to exceed California’s campaign finance limits.”

In November 2006, the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office launched an investigation into possible campaign money laundering, in violation of Government Code Section 84301, in a Riverside County State Assembly race for the 65th District. The timing and pattern of campaign contributions suggested that various individuals were being reimbursed for contributing to Leggio’s candidate of choice, in violation of the Political Reform Act.

“Democracy is the foundation of our society. The process by which we citizens elect our leaders and representatives must be honest and free from all corruption. Money laundering in elections hides a candidate’s true support. When it is of this significant magnitude a fraud is perpetrated on the public,” Riverside District Attorney Rod Pachecho said.

Investigators found that Leggio funneled money through various friends and employees of the Mark Christopher Auto Center in Ontario and Mountain View Chevrolet in Upland. Nicola Cacucciolo and his son Nick Vito Cacucciolo assisted with the illegal campaign donation scheme, as did James Llloyd Deremiah.

The alleged fraud involved contributions to six state campaigns for Senate, Assembly and Board of Equalization in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The prosecutor from the Riverside District Attorney’s Office, who launched the original investigation, was granted the status of Deputy Attorney General which allows him to prosecute violations in other counties.

The accusations in today’s indictment include: 11 felony counts of perjury, filing false statements, conspiracy, and 26 misdemeanor violations of campaign contribution limit and reporting laws. The indictment was unsealed in San Bernardino Superior Court and the arraignment is scheduled for July 11, 2008. If convicted of the most serious charges, Leggio faces up to 6 years in state prison and the other defendants face up to 3 years.

The indictment, which was filed under seal on June 11, 2008 and made public today, is attached.

In 20 days, a full California State Grand Jury transcript including all other findings in this case will be made public. Until that transcript is unsealed, no additional details of this case can be released.

For more information, please contact Michael Jeandron at the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office: (916) 955-9215

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.

# # #

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 blasted the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s rejection of California’s request to impose greenhouse gas emissions limits on motor vehicles.

“It is completely absurd to assert that California does not have a compelling need to fight global warming by curbing greenhouse gas emissions from cars,” Brown said. “There is absolutely no legal justification for the Bush administration to deny this request--Governor Schwarzenegger and I are preparing to sue at the earliest possible moment.”

Under the Clean Air Act, California can adopt stricter standards by requesting a waiver from EPA and such requests have been approved more than 50 times in the past. California’s law requires a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions standards from motor vehicles by 2016.

Sixteen other states—Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington—have adopted, or are in the process of adopting California’s emissions standards

Approval of California’s waiver would have meant that other states get approval automatically.

Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1963 and subsequent amendments in 1967, 1970 and 1977 expressly allowed California to impose stricter environmental regulations in recognition of the state’s “compelling and extraordinary conditions,” including topography, climate, high number and concentration of vehicles and its pioneering role in vehicle emissions regulation. Brown said Congress intended the state to continue its pioneering efforts at adopting stricter motor vehicle emissions standards, far more advanced than the federal rules.

Section 307 of the Clean Air Act gives California the authority to challenge a waiver decision by the US Environmental Protection Agency. The state must file a petition to review the EPA’s waiver decision within 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.

Earlier this month the U.S. District Court in Fresno concluded that both California and the United States Environmental Protection Agency are equally empowered under the Clean Air Act to set regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. The court also ruled that California regulations do not conflict with federal authority.

Under the Clean Air Act, California can adopt stricter emissions standards than the federal government—thereby allowing other states to also adopt the standards—but the state must first obtain a waiver of federal preemption from the Environmental Protection Agency. California filed its request in December 2005 and has been awaiting a response ever since.

There are 32 million registered vehicles in California, twice the number of any other state. Cars generate 20% of all human-made carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, and at least 30% of such emissions in California. If California’s landmark global warming law—and the corresponding 30% improvement in emissions standards—were adopted nationally, the United States could cut annual oil imports by $100 billion dollars, at $50 per barrel.

FRESNO—California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today hailed the United States Eastern District Court’s “stinging rejection” of an automobile industry challenge to California’s landmark motor vehicle emissions standards. The emissions standard, established by AB 1493 in 2002, requires a 30 percent reduction in tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions by 2016, starting with model year 2009.

“This is the fourth major legal victory for California and a stinging rejection of the automobile industry’s legal challenge to greenhouse gas emissions standards,” Attorney General Brown said. “This court ruling leaves the Bush administration as the last remaining roadblock to California’s regulation of tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions,” Brown added.

Under today’s decision, the Court concluded that both the United States Environmental Protection Agency and California are equally empowered under the Clean Air Act to set regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. The court also ruled that California regulations do not conflict with federal authority. Under today’s decision, the Court:

• Rejected the automakers’ claim that United States foreign policy and federal fuel economy laws preempt state authority to curb emissions.
• Ruled that if California’s motor vehicle regulations are approved by EPA, enforcement of the regulations will be consistent with federal law.

The court held that there is no conflict between EPA’s or California’s duty to regulate emissions and the federal National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s authority to set fuel efficiency standards. The court held that mileage standards should be harmonized with the California’s emission regulations.

Today’s decision leaves the EPA, which has failed to act on California’s request to impose tough emissions standards, as the last remaining roadblock to implementing the law. Under the Clean Air Act, California can adopt this standard if it obtains a waiver from the EPA. The Bush administration has been ducking California’s request since 2005.

After two years of delay on this request, Attorney General Brown and Governor Schwarzenegger sued the EPA in November, demanding a response. Fourteen other states— The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the States of New York, Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection—joined California as interveners in that lawsuit against EPA. Under the Clean Air Act, other states can adopt California standards after California gets a waiver from EPA.

EPA has said it will make a decision by the end of the year.

In September, a Vermont District Court also ruled in favor of the state regulations, rejecting a similar challenge from the automobile industry.

There are 32 million registered vehicles in California, twice the number of any other state. Cars generate 20% of all human-made carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, and at least 30% of such emissions in California. If California’s landmark global warming law—and the corresponding 30% improvement in emissions standards—were adopted nationally, the United States could cut annual oil imports by $100 billion dollars, at $50 per barrel.

The court's decision is attached.

LOS ANGELES — Calling aviation a “large and rapidly growing source” of greenhouse gas emissions, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today petitioned the United States Environmental Protection Agency to adopt global warming regulations for aircraft. The request comes on the heels of a landmark petition filed last month that asked the EPA to set limits on greenhouse gas emissions from ocean-going vessels.

“Aviation is a large and rapidly growing source of greenhouse gases and the EPA should have taken action by now to curb these emissions. Not to do so, ignores the tremendous opportunity for technological innovations that can increase efficiency and reduce emissions,” Attorney General Brown told a news conference at the Los Angeles International Airport. “Aircraft engines burn massive quantities of fossil fuels and inject greenhouse gas pollution at high altitudes—right where these emissions have a heightened negative impact.”

According to estimates by the EPA, aircraft in 2005 contributed three percent of the United States’ total carbon dioxide emissions and 12 percent of the transportation sector emissions. The Federal Aviation Administration estimates that emissions from domestic aircraft will rise 60 percent by 2025, primarily due to expected increases in air transportation.

Because aircraft release emissions at high altitudes, the impact of aviation on global warming is greater than other major greenhouse gas emission sources. When nitrous oxide, for example, is emitted at high altitudes it generates much greater concentrations of ozone than when it is emitted at ground-level.

Because aircraft contribute large quantities of global greenhouse gas emissions and the volume of air traffic is expected to increase substantially in the future, California is asking the EPA to:

• Make an explicit finding that greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health and welfare
• Adopt regulations to control greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft

Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA must first make such findings before establishing emissions standards. The petition filed today asks the EPA to respond within 180 days and initiate a formal process to ultimately limit emissions from all aircraft arriving or departing from U.S. airports. These emissions controls would reach the majority of aircraft operations in the United States—domestic aircraft accounted for 97% of the air operations in 1999.

There are currently no greenhouse gas emissions controls on aircraft and only limited controls for some conventional pollutants such as carbon monoxide. Last year, the International Civil Aviation Organization—a United Nations agency—passed a resolution to set international emissions reduction agreements but the organization has taken no additional action to further this goal.

In response to the persistent lack of aircraft emissions rules, the European Parliament gave preliminary approval last month to a global warming control plan that limits carbon dioxide emissions from airlines flying to and from Europe beginning in 2011.

In today’s petition, California asserts that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority and the duty to adopt greenhouse gas emissions standards for aircraft. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases are pollutants and therefore within EPA’s regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act. Section 231 of the Act reads:

The Administrator shall, from time to time, issue proposed emission standards applicable to the emissions of any air pollutant from any class or classes of aircraft engines which in his judgment causes, or contributes to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

On Monday, a team of three dozen scientists called upon Congress to make an annual $30 billion public investment in energy technologies—across all sectors of the economy—to reduce climate risk, increase energy security, and enhance competitiveness. The team of scientists, which includes Nobel Prize winners in chemistry, economics and medicine, said such an expenditure would be less than half of what America already invests in military research and development.

There are currently few controls on aircraft emissions and therefore the opportunity for technological innovation is substantial. The Massachusetts Institute for Technology, in a recent report to Congress, identified several strategies to increase fuel efficiency and reduce aircraft greenhouse gas emissions including:

• Increase the capacity of airports to handle more landings and thereby reduce unnecessary fuel expenditures on the ground and in the air
• Reduce auxiliary power usage by plugging aircraft into ground-side power supplied by the airport
• Use single engine taxiing
• Select more fuel-efficient routes and speeds
• Reduce excess fuel carried by aircraft
• Increase maintenance and cleaning of engines and airframes.

A recent study in the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Journal found that engine technology improvements, combined with design improvements and operational changes, could result in a 10% reduction over 2005 levels in carbon dioxide and other emissions.

The need for action to combat climate disruption is urgent. Last month, Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chief of the Noble-prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated that, “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.” Impacts that will continue to occur include: increasing temperatures, heat waves, melting of glaciers, changes in precipitation, increased hurricane intensity, coastal flooding, and increased heat-related illnesses.

California acknowledged the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change and adopted the ground-breaking Global Warming Solutions Act, commonly known as AB 32. AB 32 requires California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020—approximately a 25% reduction.

Other states, local governments, and national environmental organizations that joined California in petitioning the EPA today include: the South Coast Air Quality Management District, City of New York, District of Columbia, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Oceana, Earth Justice, Friends of the Earth, and the Center for Biological Diversity.

Today, Brown also launched a significant expansion of the Attorney General’s Website to provide valuable and up-to-date information about how public officials, industry leaders, and private citizens can join the fight against global warming. For more information visit: http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/

California’s petition is attached.

SAN FRANCISCO--California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today hailed the 9th Circuit’s decision striking down national automobile mileage standards, calling it a “stunning rebuke” to the Bush administration's failed energy policies.

Commenting on the decision Attorney General Brown said, “This decision sends a clear message that the Congress must get serious about combating dangerous foreign oil dependency and global warming. This is a major victory and a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration and its failed energy policies.”

In May, Attorney General Brown had argued that the administration had failed to consider the effects of vehicles’ greenhouse gas emissions on global warming, a requirement under the National Environmental Policy Act, when formulating new mileage standards. Brown asserted that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s mileage standards violated federal law by ignoring both global warming and America’s “dangerous foreign oil dependency.”

Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act—adopted four decades ago in response to the Arab oil crisis—the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations sets gas mileage standards for motor vehicles. The Administration, under Bush, ordered a pathetic one mile per gallon increase, from 22 to 23 miles per gallon by 2010, which Brown challenged in court as a violation of federal environmental law.

“A paltry one-mile-per gallon increase in gas mileage was clearly unlawful,” said Brown, “and today’s decision to reject that dangerously misguided policy is a victory for states that want to fight climate disruption and oil dependency.”

Other states and national environmental organizations that joined the lawsuit against the Bush Administration include: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, New York, the District of Columbia, New York City, the Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense and the Sierra Club.

Last week, Attorney General Brown joined sixteen states in petitioning Congress to protect California’s landmark motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions law, known as the Pavley Bill, from federal preemption. Brown sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, urging Congress to “clearly and unambiguously protect the States’ existing authority to set new motor vehicle emission standards under the Clean Air Act.”

Brown wrote the letter because influential members of Congress are threatening to change federal automobile fuel economy standards, and at the same time preempt California’s ability to set tailpipe restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.

The Energy Bill is a federal effort to improve fuel efficiency and reduce dependency on foreign oil. Congress is currently working to reconcile House and Senate versions of the energy bill—HR 3221 and HR 6.

Attorney General Brown asked Congress to make sure that the Energy Bill would not undermine state authority to set tough greenhouse gas emissions standards. Brown suggested that the most direct way to protect California’s greenhouse gases would be to adopt the following provision: “Nothing in this title shall be construed to conflict with the authority provided by sections 202 and 209 of the Clean Air Act.”

Under the Clean Air Act, there are two sets of emissions standards for motor vehicles—those adopted by EPA and those adopted by California, which are approved by the EPA in a formal waiver process. In addition, there are also federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards set by National Highway Transportation Safety Association.

The case is California v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 06-72317.

WASHINGTON D.C.—California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today joined sixteen states in petitioning Congress to “back California’s fight against global warming,” and protect the state’s motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions law from federal preemption.

In a letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Brown urged Congress to “clearly and unambiguously protect the States’ existing authority to set new motor vehicle emission standards under the Clean Air Act.” Brown wrote the letter because influential members of Congress are threatening to change federal automobile fuel economy standards, and at the same time preempt California’s ability to set tailpipe restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.

“Preemption of state tailpipe greenhouse gas emission standards would be a death blow to California’s pioneering effort to fight global warming,” Brown stated. “Congress should both improve fuel economy standards and back California’s fight against global warming through its tailpipe emissions standards—these goals are complementary.”

Attorney General Brown asked Congress to make sure that the Energy Bill did not undermine state authority to set tough greenhouse gas emissions standards. Brown suggested that the most direct way to protect California’s greenhouse gases would be to adopt the following provision: “Nothing in this title shall be construed to conflict with the authority provided by sections 202 and 209 of the Clean Air Act.”

Under the Clean Air Act, there are two sets of emissions standards for motor vehicles—those adopted by EPA and those adopted by California, which are approved by the EPA in a formal waiver process. In addition, there are also federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards set by National Highway Transportation Safety Association.

In response to California’s greenhouse gas emissions law, the automobile industry has brought suit against the state alleging that the law impermissibly establishes a “de facto” fuel economy standard, preempted by Congress. California vigorously asserts that its greenhouse gas emissions standards, set under Clean Air Act, are different from federal CAFE fuel economy standards and therefore not preempted. This view of the law was recently upheld by a federal district court in Vermont.

California’s motor vehicles greenhouse gas emissions standards, known as the Pavley regulations, require a 30 percent reduction in global warming emissions from vehicles by 2016, starting with model year 2009. Eleven other states have also adopted California’s emissions law and are—like California—awaiting EPA approval.

The Energy Bill is a federal effort to improve fuel efficiency and reduce dependency on foreign oil. Congress is currently working to reconcile House and Senate versions—HR 3221 and HR 6. A vote may take place next week.

Sixteen other states joined the attorney general’s letter requesting protection from federal preemption: AZ, DE, CT, IL, IA, ME, MD, MA, MN, NJ, NM, OR, PA, RI, VT, and WA. Attorney General Brown’s letter to Congress is attached.