States, Environmental Groups Sue EPA to Trigger Greenhouse Regs
A legal action led by Massachusetts and supported by 17 other states and nearly a dozen environmental organizations was launched Wednesday to force the Environmental Protection Agency to issue a critical document that would trigger nationwide regulation of greenhouse gases.
The new move, in the form of a petition for a writ of mandamus, was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It sought to require the EPA to put forward its formal determination of whether emissions of the climate-changing gases endanger the public’s health or welfare. Such an “endangerment” finding, the filing charged, has already been made but it is being withheld (see text).
“It is a necessary and critical step, which is why the administration is making its stand there,” said David Bookbinder, chief climate attorney for the Sierra Club, one of the groups filing the action, during a nationwide conference call with reporters. “They know once the endangerment finding is made they’re obligated to begin controlling greenhouse gases.”
He acknowledged that no final regulation was likely to be in place until after a new administration comes into office. However, he and others said that it was important to move forward now to get the process started.
“Time is not on our side,” said James Milkey, chief of the environmental protection division under Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (pictured).
Joining Massachusetts as parties were California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, the District of Columbia, the city of New York and the government officials of Baltimore. A number of other states also came in as friends-of-the-court in support of the filing. Many of the nation’s largest environmental groups also came on board, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund and the Center for Biological Diversity.
The latest action came on the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Massachusetts v. EPA decision holding that the agency had the authority to regulate the emissions as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The high court’s ruling did not outright require the agency to issue regulations but it told the EPA it had to consider such issues as whether the public health might be threatened. The ruling came in the context of regulating emissions from motor vehicles but no one believes the implications stop there.
Last week, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson cited the broad potential of a decision to regulate in the area when he informed lawmakers he would take more time to consider the decision under an administrative procedure that could take months to complete. That announcement set off a wave of criticism from Democrats and environmental groups that culminated in Wednesday’s court action. But it also drew praise from some in industry (see previous Climate Law Update stories here and here).
Not all the critics were Democrats. California's Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a statement Wednesday (see text) chastising the EPA for having "failed to lead" and pledging that the state is "prepared to force it out of the way in order to porect the environment."
In an e-mail to Climate Law Update, Jonathan Shradar, the EPA’s press secretary, said the agency would continue working on the process laid out by Johnson, “taking into account all sources of GHG emission and realizing the best approach for dealing with climate issues.” Shrader characterized the rule-making procedure announced by Johnson as “a reasonable path forward.”
Advocates of government regulation have not missed the larger implications, either. Bookbinder noted that petitions have already been filed with the EPA seeking to regulate emissions from such sources as power plants. One heated controversy involves a Utah coal-fired power plant for which the EPA issued a permit that is now being appealed by environmentalists, including the Sierra Club, citing the Supreme Court decision (see Climate Law Update story).
Said Milkey:
“While the petition we filed today is specific to motor vehicles, the same logic also applies to power plants. That is, if motor vehicle emissions are causing endangerment then certainly power plant emissions are doing so and EPA has an obligation to regulate them under the Clean Air Act.”
California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who also signed on to the writ, suggested that forcing the EPA to issue its finding would have important ramifications for the national conversation over climate change:
“If this administration says that greenhouse gases endanger public health, then that’s something. That’s an important step that prevents somewhat their continuing obfuscation of this whole matter of global warming.”
The filing puts the case back in the hands of a court that had previously agreed with the EPA’s decision that it lacked the authority to regulate greenhouse emissions (see text of ruling). It was that decision the Supreme Court overturned last year. Bookbinder said the District of Columbia court is where the case started and “they’ll be the one whose job it is to enforce the Supreme Court’s mandate.”
Brown seemed to acknowledge the case might be headed into unfriendly territory.
“There’s some right-wing judges that were put on there and, you know, they have their own view of the world,” he said. He quickly added: “We’re hopeful the strength of the case is so clear that we have a good chance, although we recognize the realities that pertain in present-day Washington.”
(Photo of Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley via Wikipedia)
