-
-
States Sue EPA Over Refinery Emissions
New York and 11 other states sued the Environmental Protection Agency, claiming it failed to regulate global-warming gas emissions from refineries.
In a lawsuit filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the states said the EPA's air-pollution-control regulations for refineries violate the Clean Air Act because they don't include standards to control greenhouse-gas emissions from new or updated equipment.
"The EPA's refusal to control pollution from oil refineries is the latest example of the Bush administration's do-nothing policy on global warming," Andrew M. Cuomo, New York's attorney general, said in a statement.
Timothy Lyons, a spokesman for the EPA, said that the attorneys general could better spend their time and taxpayers' dollars by encouraging Congress to "take sound environmental action on legislation." The agency is now taking public comments that it will consider for potential regulations on greenhouse gases under the Clean Air act that would address emissions from vehicles as well as manufacturing plants such as refineries, he added.
In a decision last year, the Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are considered air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and that the Bush administration has legal authority to regulate them. The oil industry argues that the Clean Air Act isn't the right vehicle to regulate emissions, saying that it would be too cumbersome and expensive. The lawsuit comes amid a flurry of talk in Washington about the costs of curbing global warming emissions and their burden on industry. "What we need is a deliberative concerted effort that takes into account greenhouse gases but also economic concerns," said Charles T. Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, an industry trade group.
The other states joining in the lawsuit are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington; the District of Columbia and New York City are also plaintiffs. New York and 11 other states sued the Environmental Protection Agency, claiming it failed to regulate global-warming gas emissions fro... more -
Cuomo Leads 12 States In Lawsuit Against EPA Over Global Warming
Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said today that New York is among 12 states that filed a lawsuit against federal Environmental Protection Agency for failing to adopt regulations to control pollution from oil refineries.
New York City and Washington D.C. also joined the suit, which claims EPA has not enacted laws that require oil refineries to control pollution that is causing global warming. The lawsuit claims that EPA’s inaction is in violation of the Clean Air Act, Cuomo aides said today.
“The EPA’s refusal to control pollution from oil refineries is the latest example of the Bush Administration’s do-nothing policy on global warming,” said Cuomo, a Democrat.
Cuomo claims that the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set pollution standards for oil refineries, power plants and other sources.
Katherine Kennedy, special deputy Attorney General for Environmental Protection, defended New York’s role in the suit, even though the state has no oil refineries.
Any global warming sources affect us,” she told Gannett News Service.
The lawsuit was filed today in the federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Other states in the lawsuit include California, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
The suit seeks to vacate the EPA’s decision in June to not include air pollution control regulations for oil refineries.
There was no immediate comment from EPA. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said today that New York is among 12 states that filed a lawsuit against federal Environmental Protectio... more -
States, environmentalists to sue EPA over greenhouse gases
California, New York City, three other states and a coalition of environmental groups will file notice Thursday that they'll sue the Environmental Protection Agency to push it to regulate pollution from ocean ships and aircraft that's causing global warming.
Under the Clean Air Act, a U.S. district court can compel the EPA to take action to protect the public's welfare if the agency delays doing so for an unreasonably long time. The law requires that a notice of intent to sue be filed 180 days in advance, the step that the groups are taking now.
The timing means that any suit would be filed after President Bush leaves office. The groups concluded that they couldn't guess what the next administration would do and should be ready to sue if necessary, said Jackie Savitz of Oceana, a group that's devoted to protecting the world's oceans.
"It's basically what we have to do to maintain our progress going forward to get ships and aircraft regulated," she said. California, New York City, three other states and a coalition of environmental groups will file notice Thursday that they'll sue ... more -
EPA Officials Contradict Each Other at Senate Hearing
"Burnett told the panel that Johnson had concluded that California had met the legal requirement for a waiver by showing it faced 'compelling and extraordinary circumstances' in light of the threat that climate change poses to the state.
"There was no reasonable defense of a denial," Burnett said, adding that Johnson had initially agreed to grant California a 'partial waiver' lasting several years.
"Johnson reversed course after consulting with the White House[.]" "Burnett told the panel that Johnson had concluded that California had met the legal requirement for a waiver by showing it faced... more -
Did George Bush Break the Clean Air Act?
By: emptywheel
The Clean Air Act does not allow the EPA Administrator to take cost into account when he sets new standards for things like ozone levels. Now, as Henry Waxman's Oversight Committee makes clear, on several occasions, the EPA Administration changed his preferred policy to one much less beneficial for the environment after speaking to the White House.
In today's hearing, Administrator Johnson repeatedly discussed costs, even while insisting that his final decision did not take cost into account. So Paul Hodes asked the obvious question: well, did the White House take cost into account, and then you take the White House's counsel into account.
The law is very clear that EPA may not consider costs in setting a national air quality standard to protect the environment. The Supreme Court specifically addressed the issue in 2001, the court wrote that if EPA established a standard by 'secretly considering the costs without telling anyone' it would be grounds for throwing out the standard, because the administrator did not follow the law. I'm concerned that this is exactly what happened in this case. The record before this committee shows that the unanimous recommendation of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee was rejected by you, Mr. Johnson, apparently on the basis of White House opinion or desire.
That's when Administrator Johnson got all evasive. He was asked (the first several times by Hodes), whether the White House considered cost in its own consideration of the issue. When Johnson refused to answer that question, Hodes asked him to answer the much simpler question: whether he recalled talking to the White House about the ozone standard.
Johnson wouldn't answer that either.
Johnson neither asserted executive privilege, nor explained on what basis he could refuse to answer questions about whether he recalled whether or not he had had a conversation with the White House about it.
That's when Henry Waxman got pissed.
That's the execrable Darrell Issa that Waxman blew his stack at.
Of course, Johnson is desperately clinging to a memory that rivals Alberto Gonzales' for one reason: While Administrator Johnson can say he didn't consider cost when he set ozone levels (since he was apparently considering primarily what the White House told him), if the White House "secretly considered the costs without telling anyone," then the White House broke the law.
And in case you're wondering, Johnson made it clear that it was not Cheney, this time, interfering into scientific decisions. It was the Petroleum President, not the Vice President, who appears to have illegally considered cost when setting ozone levels. By: emptywheel ... more -
Bush May Ease Clean Air Rules For Nat'l Parks
The Bush administration is on the verge of implementing new air quality rules that will make it easier to build power plants near national parks and wilderness areas, according to rank-and-file agency scientists and park managers who oppose the plan.
The new regulations, which are likely to be finalized this summer, rewrite a provision of the Clean Air Act that applies to "Class 1 areas," federal lands that currently have the highest level of protection under the law. Opponents predict the changes will worsen visibility at many of the nation's most prized tourist destinations, including Virginia's Shenandoah, Colorado's Mesa Verde and North Dakota's Theodore Roosevelt national parks.
The rewriting of air-quality rules would ease the way for the construction of 33 coal-fired power plants within 186 miles of 10 national parks, including Great Smokey Mountains, left, according to the National Parks Conservation Association. The Bush administration is on the verge of implementing new air quality rules that will make it easier to build power plants near nati... more -
Sierra Club threatens suits over coal power plants
Sierra Club sent letters on Tuesday threatening to file suit to stop construction of eight coal-fired power plants in six states because, the environmental group claims, they violate the Clean Air Act.
"This is the first major ramification on the ground from the (Washington) D.C. circuit kicking out the Bush administration's rules in February," said Bruce Nilles, director of the Sierra Club's effort to stop coal power plants.
In February, a federal appeals court in Washington ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act in not setting mandatory cuts for mercury emissions of power plants.
The suits would be filed in the federal districts where the proposed power plants would be located, Nilles said. The suits would seek to require the plants to go back to state permitting agencies for new permits that meet the tougher emission standards, Nilles said.
Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of mercury emissions in the United States as well as 40 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. CO2 is the by far the largest contributor to greenhouse gases that cause global warming.
Coal-fired power plants also are seen by most national politicians as essential because they make half the electricity used in the United States.
The Sierra Club said there are alternatives to coal power plants and that until capturing and sequestering carbon dioxide emissions is proven feasible and affordable, no more coal plants should be built.
Nilles said the Sierra Club has helped stop 63 of the 150 coal-fired power plants that were in the planning stages since 2002, including 31 last year. Sierra Club sent letters on Tuesday threatening to file suit to stop construction of eight coal-fired power plants in six states becau... more -
California Sues Over EPA Waiver
Usually, when someone applies for a waiver of some legislation, it?s because they are unable to comply with the standards set. Not so when it comes to the EPA air quality standards and the state of California. California has been on the forefront of combating smog since the 70s when we had nearly daily smog alerts. And since 1975, California has requested and received a waiver from federal EPA standards, because our standards were stricter.
But then we got the Bush administration.
The Environmental Protection Agency today denied a waiver that would have allowed California and at least a dozen other states to impose their own stricter vehicle tailpipe emissions standards under the Clean Air Act.
?The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution ? not a confusing patchwork of state rules ? to reduce America?s climate footprint from vehicles,? EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson said in a statement.
The decision is a victory of sorts for auto makers, who opposed state-by-state regulations.
In November, California sued to force the Environmental Protection Agency to rule whether the state can put its strict vehicle tailpipe emissions standards into effect.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said the state would ?sue again and sue again and sue again? in order to get approval to put in place tough new fuel economy regulations.
Why is it that Republicans trumpet ?states? rights? until it actually benefits the states? Usually, when someone applies for a waiver of some legislation, it?s because they are unable to comply with the standards set. Not so ... more
-
related topics
Clean Air Act
Contributors (16)
Clean Air Act
