Climate Law Update: Climate Change & Sustainable Energy News : Thelen Reid Law Firm : Renewable Energy, Construction, Project Finance Lawyers & Attorneys

Bush also expressed concern over efforts to employ existing laws, such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air Act to tackle the problem. Environmentalists have been trying to prod action with the species law (see Climate Law Update stories here and here). California, and by extension other states, want to use the air law to control climate-changing emissions from cars but they have been thwarted by Bush administration officials (see Climate Law Update story here). In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to consider whether to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the law (see Climate Law Update stories here and here).

Bush, in his speech Wednesday, predicted the application of those laws could have widespread intrusive effects, forcing the federal government to "act like a local planning and zoning board, [having] crippling effects on our entire economy." 

The president, who has opposed such international treaties as the Kyoto Protocol, said that "all major economies" must take action to make a dent in the problem. He then suggested the United States would be willing to enter a new pact:

"Like many other countries, America's national plan will be a comprehensive blend of market incentives and regulations to reduce emissions by encouraging clean and efficient energy technologies. We're willing to include this plan in a binding international agreement, so long as our fellow major economies are prepared to include their plans in such an agreement."   

Congressional critics of Bush also quickly ripped the president’s stance. U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat who chairs the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, issued a statement (see text here) saying Bush’s “plan to have America stand by while greenhouse gases reach dangerous levels and threaten America and the world is worse than doing nothing – it is the height of irresponsibility.” Although greenhouse gas emissions have shown some decreases lately in the United States (see Climate Law Update story here), officials estimate they have grown nearly 15 percent since 1990 (access latest inventory here).   

Others, meanwhile, reacted more cautiously. Sens. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., co-sponsor of legislation that would limit greenhouse emissions and set up a trading program to help control them, said he shared the president’s preference for a market-based approach over the imposition of new carbon taxes. Lieberman said he did not believe Bush’s statement would hamper the chances of the bill he and Sen. John Warner, R-Va., are sponsoring. The measure is expected to come before the Senate in June (see text of legislation here), .

Warner, in the same statement, said the president’s support for “measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. is welcome news as the Senate prepares to consider climate change legislation this summer.” Warner also praised Bush's call for an international approach to the issue (see full text of statement here).

(Photo credit: White House)

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)

Critics of Johnson's move said it virtually guaranteed that the EPA would not act during the remainder of President Bush’s term in office, and threats to take the agency back to court flowed freely. The statement from Brown’s office Tuesday charged the EPA had extended “the time period another twelve months” until Bush leaves the White House.

Tuesday's announcement did not say specifically what legal avenue Brown and “dozens of states and national environmental groups” planned to take. But it said their action would be aimed at stopping the EPA “from continuing to ignore the Supreme Court.”

The Supreme Court ruling did not require the agency to issue regulations but it told the EPA it had to consider such issues as whether public health was endangered.

A spokesman for the EPA could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

(Photo of Stephen L. Johnson, courtesy EPA)

California, joined by numerous other states  that also want to impose stricter greenhouse gas standards on vehicles, as well as environmentalists who back them, has already sued the EPA to overturn the decision. Johnson's filing brought a sharp rejoinder from one of those states, New York, which also wants to adopt California's standards. New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo issued a statement ripping the administrator's rationale as full of "twisted logic in its outrageous attempt to deny states the right to fight global warming pollution."

The Natural Resources Defense Council, a supporter of California's efforts, issued a statement from David Doniger, the environmental group's lead attorney in the litigation, claiming that Johnson was both legally and factually wrong. Doniger noted that a previous EPA administrator, William Ruckelshaus, found that California need not have a unique plight in order to qualify for a waiver. Nevertheless, Doniger said the state would experience special problems from climate change:

“No other state can claim the same wide range of severe impacts that California will suffer – indeed, already is suffering – more illnesses from heat-enhanced smog levels, dramatic reductions in state’s water supply, more horrendous wildfires, sea level rise, and agricultural losses. The combination and severity of these impacts makes California’s conditions “compelling and extraordinary.” 

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers has endorsed Johnson's decision, saying it protects a national approach to the issue.  

In a sense, the battle is being fought over familiar ground. In 2005, the California Air Resources Board, in justifying the regulations, suggested the state had special reason for concern:

"Climate is a central factor in California life. It is at least partially responsible for the State’s rapid population growth in the past 50 years, and largely responsible for the success of industries such as agriculture and tourism. The observed and future effects of climate change on California have been widely studied from a variety of perspectives. The signs of a global warming trend continue to become more evident and much of the scientific debate is now focused on expected rates at which future changes will occur."