Lawmakers Take Aim at EPA Greenhouse Delay, California Auto Decision

Posted on April 3, 2008 by Dennis Pfaff

At least U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, presumably, still has friends in the executive branch. Because he’s facing some opposition in the other two arenas of government.

The EPA, which this week landed in court action because of Johnson’s decision to take his time to study whether to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, could find itself getting new marching orders from Congress.

Two senators, one a Democrat and the other a Republican, have announced they're backing legislation to set a 60-day deadline for the agency to complete a critical step on the road to restricting climate-changing gases (see press release and text of bill). The measure sponsored by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-California (pictured), and Olympia Snow, R-Maine, would also require the EPA to reconsider its denial of California’s attempt to regulate tailpipe emissions believed to contribute to global warming (see previous Climate Law Update story).

The EPA had only a bare-bones response to the announcement.

"We will review any legislation that is passed by Congress," wrote Jonathan Shrader, the agency's press secretary, in an e-mail to Climate Law Update.   

A coalition of states and environmental groups launched a new court fight with the EPA Wednesday over Johnson’s decision to institute a lengthy administrative process to consider what to do in light of last year’s landmark Massachusetts v. EPA decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. That petition, if successful in court, would also set a 60-day deadline for the EPA to issue its so-called endangerment finding, which would set the stage for new regulation of greenhouse gases (see Climate Law Update story).

Snowe’s statement was particularly notable, coming as it did from a Republican:

“The administration has a court-mandated obligation that they can no longer ignore. Their deliberate efforts to delay adherence to the Supreme Court’s decision is reckless and irresponsible. The administration’s response to global warming must coincide with what the science and the American people require.”

Attorneys who spoke with reporters Wednesday describing the legal action said it would have no impact on the decision regarding California’s automobile regulations, despite the fact the Supreme Court ruling dealt with vehicle emissions. But the Feinstein-Snowe legislation would address the issue by setting a June 30, 2009 deadline for the EPA to complete taking another look at the question of California’s efforts to restrict the emissions.

The EPA's action regarding California was in response to the state's attempt to enforce rules implementing a 2002 state law (see description rules and legislation).

(Photo of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, courtesy of her office)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

States, Enviros to Take Legal Action Against EPA over Greenhouse Delay

Posted on April 1, 2008 by Dennis Pfaff

No surprise in this, except perhaps for the quick timing, but last week’s decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to go slow on regulating greenhouse gases looks like it's landing the agency back in court.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown, along with attorneys representing the state of Massachusetts, the Sierra Club and others are expected to announce Wednesday new legal action to force the EPA to move forward. The action coincides with the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which held that the agency had the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. In a statement, Brown’s office said Tuesday the legal maneuver would be taken to force the EPA “to obey” the decision.    

EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson (pictured) sparked the ire of Democrats and environmentalists – and the praise of industry groups – by announcing that he wanted to avoid “rushing to judgment” on the issue. He laid out an administrative process to study the matter, citing the fact the EPA’s decision could have widespread ramifications beyond automobiles, which had been the immediate focus of the Supreme Court decision (see previous Climate Law Update stories here and here).

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)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Manufacturers Agree with EPA Go-Slow Approach

Posted on March 28, 2008 by Dennis Pfaff

Stephen L. Johnson, the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, might be feeling a bit besieged after the reaction to his decision to go slow on regulating greenhouse gases. But he’s still got friends in the industrial community and elsewhere.

“I think he made a very sensible move,” Hank Cox, a spokesman for the National Association of Manufacturers, told Climate Law Up date Friday. The association, headed by former Michigan Gov. John Engler (pictured), has itself been urging a cautious approach to addressing climate change and it recently released a study warning of major economic and employment losses if Congress enacts legislation such as the Lieberman-Warner bill (see recent Climate Law Update story), which would establish a national emissions cap-and-trade system.

Johnson provoked outrage among Democrats and environmental organizations when he informed lawmakers he was going to take more time to study the regulation of greenhouse gases before acting. Some critics accused the Bush administration of acting according to an “industry script” on the issue.

Johnson’s action came nearly a year after a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, which said the agency had the authority to regulate the emissions believed to contribute to global warming as pollutants, and it ordered its officials to look into such questions as whether the gases pose a threat to people. Critics threatened a new round of legal action to force the EPA to move on the issue (see Thursday’s Climate Law Update story).

Cox said he believed his organization made its views known to the EPA before Johnson announced his decision Thursday.

“I’m sure we did,” Cox said.

Cox said the manufacturers’ organization was not trying to dispute evidence that the planet is getting warmer. But he said officials run the risk of creating “economic havoc” in the country, especially in light of what other nations, such as China, are doing to move forward with fossil plants. Burning such fuels, such as coal and oil, produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse pollutants.

“There’s a limit in how fast we can move our energy mix away from fossil fuels,” Cox said. He said there is already a virtual moratorium on the construction of new coal plants in the United States, a situation he said could easily produce power shortages in a few years.

Critics of the trade association’s economic analysis of global warming legislation have knocked it for, among other alleged shortcomings, looking only at the costs of reducing emissions but not the cost of inaction, potentially leading to unbridled climate change. But Cox, who said society must “wean” itself off of fossil fuels and toward other energy sources such as rewewables, said it will take a viable economy to be able to deal with the problem.

“If you shut down the economy,” Cox said, “that will take people’s minds off global warming quickly.”

 Another group that was apparently pleased with Johnson’s decision was the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. The Los Angeles Times reported that official of the organization said it had spent months sending detailed legal analyses and memos to government officials noting the Supreme Court decision could have widespread impacts on businesses. An EPA spokesman, the paper reported, said Johnson had acted independently.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,