The National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the cities of Baltimore (MD), Coral Gables (FL), Grand Rapids (MI), Houston (TX), Jersey City (NJ), Los Angeles (CA), Minneapolis (MN), Portland (OR), Pinecrest (FL), Providence (RI), Salt Lake City (UT), San Francisco (CA), West Palm Beach (FL) and Boulder County (CO) all filed a […]

(This post was written by EDF General Counsel Vickie Patton and EDF Senior Attorney Peter Zalzal) This upcoming Monday, June 2nd, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will announce proposed standards to reduce harmful, climate-destabilizing carbon pollution from our nation’s fleet of existing fossil fuel fired power plants. EPA has clear authority to address this harmful […]

(This post originally appeared on EDF Voices) Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case challenging EPA’s interpretation that the Clean Air Act permit program requiring new and rebuilt industrial sources to deploy leading pollution control technology for each pollutant subject to regulation under the Act applies to greenhouse gases, just as […]

A few days ago, the Wall Street Journal reported that Peabody Coal Company is one of the top five worst performing stocks of 2013. In a year when the S&P 500 was up 29 percent and the Dow rose by 26 percent, Peabody Coal’s stock plummeted by 28 percent. While most investors recognize the serious […]

America has driven a little bit further down the road toward clean and fuel efficient cars. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation just announced their joint proposal to set new, stronger fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks – for model years 2017 to 2025. EDF’s Fred Krupp said the announcement: […]

Great news, today, for anyone who wants cleaner air. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) just announced a settlement agreement to establish national emission standards that will address the greenhouse gas pollution from new and existing fossil fuel power plants. The agreement follows litigation launched in 2006 by a wide variety of parties — including EDF — after EPA refused […]

EDF General Counsel Vickie Patton reveals how the state of Texas and Big Coal are prime movers behind a legal campaign attacking EPA’s greenhouse gas pollution cuts for smokestacks and tailpipes. On December 10, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected a request that it stay the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from implementing some common […]

Tomorrow, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold an important hearing on the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. On April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the power of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address global warming under existing law. Unfortunately, EPA’s progress has […]

This post is by Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel at Environmental Defense Fund, and former attorney in EPA’s General Counsel’s office. Yesterday, the D.C. Circuit denied the petition for writ of mandamus filed by a coalition of states and environmental organizations to enforce the Supreme Court’s landmark decision on global warming in Massachusetts v. EPA. […]

This post is by Vickie Patton, Deputy General Counsel at Environmental Defense Fund, and a former attorney in EPA’s General Counsel’s office. One year ago, the Supreme Court rejected the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claim that it lacked legal authority to regulate global warming pollution (for example, from vehicle tailpipes). EPA administrator Stephen Johnson promised […]

By Vickie Patton

This post is by Vickie Patton, Deputy General Counsel at Environmental Defense, and a former attorney in the EPA's General Counsel's office.

Two lawsuits were filed today against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which sits in San Francisco. The first lawsuit was filed by California, and the second by several environmental organizations – Environmental Defense, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Conservation Law Foundation, and the International Center for Technology Assessment.

The lawsuits challenge EPA's denial of California's request for a preemption waiver under the Clean Air Act to implement the state's landmark standards for greenhouse gas emissions – requests that have been granted by EPA over 50 times in the past 40 years [PDF].

The EPA's decision relies on a flawed argument that the federal courts already have rejected and are likely to reject again.

In denying California's request, EPA paradoxically argued that California's innovative clean car program must be disallowed because global warming is a pervasive problem that does not affect California alone. But EPA's decision would deny remedies to the most widespread, profound harm to the climate – vehicle emissions.

Besides, California has its own compelling stake in stabilizing the climate and in speeding the transition to cleaner cars:

• California is home to one in seven Americans.
• California has more than 32 million registered vehicles, far more than any state.
• Climate change is a clear and present danger.
• California's coasts, its people, and its economy are vulnerable to sea level rise.
• Climate change threatens its precarious water resources.
• California is distinctly prone to wildfires.
• California is already afflicted by the death and disease associated with the worst air quality in the nation, and higher temperatures will increase the intensity and frequency of unhealthy smog days.

In other words, California's innovation is born of necessity. EPA had no basis for denying California's request to carry out a bold new Clean Car program that limits greenhouse gases.

The lawsuits were filed today because time is of the essence. California's Clean Car standards, which will cut fleet-wide emissions for passenger cars and trucks by 30 percent, are scheduled to take effect in model year 2009. Many greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere for decades, so every ton of global warming pollution eliminated now is critical in stabilizing the climate.

California's innovation in addressing global warming is cascading across the land. Seventeen other states have adopted or committed to adopt California's standards. Collectively, these states account for nearly one-half of the U.S. population and about one-half of all new motor vehicle sales nationwide.

There is strong state support for California's legal action. We anticipate that 15 other states will immediately file motions to intervene in support of California's case.

EPA should be leading the nation to address the global warming crisis. Instead, EPA is obstructing state leadership. Today's legal action should not be necessary.

By Vickie Patton

This post is by Vickie Patton, Deputy General Counsel at Environmental Defense, and a former attorney in the EPA's General Counsel's office.

Two years ago, California asked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to pave the way for landmark standards to limit global warming from motor vehicles. Seventeen other states plan to implement the Clean Car standards, pending the EPA decision. But today – after two years of stalling – EPA said no. This decision is virtually unprecedented; EPA has granted similar requests over 50 times in 40 years.

The Bush administration is putting the brakes on state action to address the global warming crisis. Doing nothing about global warming is bad enough – but going out of your way to block the state leaders who are taking action is just plain shocking.

For decades, EPA administrators have recognized the important role that California plays in innovating new air pollution limits for motor vehicles to fight pollution, and to deliver cleaner, healthier air. The 18 states that plan to implement the Clean Cars program account for nearly 50 percent of the total U.S. population and 45 percent of new automobile sales. Their implementation of the Clean Cars program would make a significant dent in global warming pollution, securing a 30 percent pollution cut by 2016 and eventually preventing 100 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, equivalent to removing 20 million cars from the road.

EPA said that new fuel economy standards in the recently authorized energy bill would suffice to reduce global warming emissions from new automobiles. But the Clean Cars program secures deeper pollution reductions faster. The California clean car standards will start in Model Year 2009, fully phasing in by 2016. Science says we can't wait; global warming is already occurring. We must take action now. Every ton of global warming pollution prevented today is critical in stabilizing the climate.

The Supreme Court ruled in April 2007 that EPA has the authority and the obligation to regulate global warming pollution. When automakers sued, two federal courts – in Vermont and in California – affirmed states' rights to proceed with the Clean Cars program. Federal district court Judge Anthony Ishii ruled just last week that EPA's duty to protect human health and welfare from global warming pollution is more expansive than the nation's fuel efficiency laws:

Given the level of impairment of human health and welfare that current climate science indicates may occur if human-generated greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, it would be the very definition of folly if EPA were precluded from action."

Given the grim urgency of the global warming crisis, EPA's own decision to put the brakes on state action is more than folly – it is tragic.

By Vickie Patton

This post is by Vickie Patton, Deputy General Counsel at Environmental Defense.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just issued a 90-page opinion overturning major aspects of the Bush administration's flawed fuel economy standards for light-duty trucks. Sean Donahue argued the case for Environmental Defense and Susan Fiering for the California Attorney General's office – on behalf of a larger group of state and environmental petitioners.

Among other things, the court held that the Department of Transportation (DOT):

1. Failed to account for the value of reducing heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions in setting the standards,

2. Failed to close the SUV loophole,

3. Failed to set fuel economy standards for all vehicles in the 8,500 to 10,000 pound gross vehicle weight class (for example, the Ford Excursion, the Hummer H2, and the F-250 pickup), and

4. Failed to carry out an adequate environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The court ordered DOT to take corrective action immediately.

The opinion was by penned by Judge Betty Fletcher who was joined in her opinion by Judge Michael Daly Hawkins and Judge Siler. There was a very limited, narrow dissent by Judge Siler.