http://www.arizonapirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/clean-cars-for-arizona/clean-cars-for-arizona-reports http://www.arizonapirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/clean-cars-for-arizona/clean-cars-for-arizona-reports/californias-2007-epa-waiver-hearing Background • The Clean Air Act allows states with poor air quality to choose between complying with federal vehicle emission standards and adopting the more protective standards—known as the Clean Cars Program—implemented by the state of California. In late 2004, California adopted first-of-their-kind standards requiring cars and light-duty trucks to limit emissions that contribute to global warming. Since then, 11 other states have adopted the California tailpipe emissions standards. • The U.S. EPA has been sitting on California’s application for a waiver under the Clean Air Act, which will permit the state to require stricter global warming emission standards for new vehicles. Without the Bush administration’s stamp of approval, California—and the other 11 states that have adopted the Clean Cars Program—will not be able to take this important step toward cutting global warming pollution from tailpipes. • EPA has routinely granted California’s waiver requests more than 50 times in the last four decades. California’s Standards are, in the Aggregate, at least as Protective of Public Health and Welfare as the Federal Standards • California’s package of standards is more protective of public health and welfare than the federal standards. The federal government has not even set global warming emission standards for vehicles. California Needs These Standards to Meet Compelling and Extraordinary Conditions • California continues to face compelling and extraordinary conditions that justify the need for separate state standards. Global warming poses a compelling and extraordinary threat to California’s environment, public health, and economy. Global warming will worsen air quality, threaten water supplies for people and agriculture, and damage important ecological systems. • California and the rest of the United States already are feeling the effects of global warming, which will only get worse as temperatures continue to rise. In April 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that continued warming will cause: o Water stress. Warming in western mountains is projected to cause “decreased snowpack, more winter flooding, and reduced summer flows, exacerbating competition for over-allocated water resources.” o Forest fires. Pests, diseases, and fire are projected to have “increasing impacts on forests, with an extended period of high fire risk and large increases in area burned.” o Heat waves. Cities that currently experience heat waves are expected to face “an increased number, intensity, and duration of heat waves,” threatening people’s health, particularly that of elderly Americans. • The IPCC also concluded, however, that “many impacts can be avoided, reduced, or delayed” by quickly and significantly reducing global warming pollution. To prevent dangerous global warming, the United States must reduce its total global warming emissions from today’s levels by the end of this decade, by at least 15-20% by 2020, and by at least 80% by 2050 in order to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. • Given the compelling need to cut global warming pollution and the extraordinary consequences of failing to do so, EPA should immediately allow California and the other states implement global warming emissions standards for cars and light trucks. California’s Program Not “Arbitrary and Capricious” • California acted based upon the facts—that cars and SUVs are a major contributor to global warming pollution—and rationally acted to reduce that pollution at the source. California’s standards were developed over four years with careful and measured technical review and public input. • Passenger vehicles are the largest source of global warming emissions in California, responsible for approximately 40% of carbon dioxide emissions in the state. • California’s program would significantly cut global warming pollution from passenger vehicles in the state. Beginning in model year 2009, California’s program would require automakers to reduce the average amount of global warming pollution from their cars, light trucks and SUVs. By 2015, new cars would be required to emit 34% and light trucks 25% less global warming pollution on average. • California and the other states that have adopted the California program account for more than one-third of the U.S. auto market. By cutting global warming pollution from tailpipes, these states can help make a big dent in the emissions reductions we need to achieve to avoid the worst effects of global warming. • According to an analysis by the Arizona PIRG (Arizona Public Interest Research Group) Education Fund, by 2020 the cumulative emissions reductions achieved by the 12 state clean cars programs will be equivalent to taking 74 million of today’s cars off the road for an entire year. California’s Standards Are Feasible • California’s standards are feasible. They can be met with technology already in the market and will save vehicle owners in lower maintenance and operating costs over the lifetimes of the vehicle. The standards give automakers flexibility to apply any technology they choose to reduce global warming emissions, including production of vehicles that use lower carbon fuels. Conclusion • California officially requested this wavier in December 2005—18 months ago. It is time for the EPA to give the states the green light to implement the program. • Global warming demands immediate action at the local, state and federal levels. The EPA should grant California’s waiver request and give states the power to cut global warming pollution from cars and light trucks. For More Information: Diane E. Brown (602)318-2779 (c) http://www.arizonapirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/clean-cars-for-arizona/clean-cars-for-arizona-reports/californias-2007-epa-waiver-hearing Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:39:26 -0600 http://www.arizonapirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/clean-cars-for-arizona/clean-cars-for-arizona-reports/massachusetts-v_-epa-primer On June 26, 2006, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the Clean Air Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) that cause global warming. Challenging EPA’s position that it has no such authority is a coalition of nearly 30 states, cities, and environmental organizations. (A complete list of these Petitioners, and all other documents referred to herein, can be found at http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/lawsuits/viewCase.asp?id=316.) While the case directly concerns EPA’s authority over motor vehicle GHG emissions, it has strong implications for California (which has set its own GHG limits for motor vehicles) and the 10 other states that have adopted California’s standards. The outcome also will likely determine whether EPA can regulate GHG emissions from power plants and other industries. The history of this case goes back to 1998 when, in response to a request from former Congressman Tom DeLay, EPA’s General Counsel formally opined that the Clean Air Act gives EPA authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. EPA’s opinion was based on the fact that the Act authorizes EPA to regulate emissions of “any air pollutant” that “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” EPA concluded that GHGs are “air pollutants” (defined in the Clean Air Act as “any physical [or] chemical … substance or matter emitted into … the ambient air”), and Congress further defined “welfare” to include “effects on weather and climate.” In 1999, the Center for Technology Assessment (CTA) led a coalition of environmental groups in petitioning EPA to set emission standards for CO2 and other vehicle GHG emissions. (Vehicle emissions are the second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., comprising almost 24% of U.S. GHG emissions.) After more than three years without a response, in 2002 CTA and Sierra Club sued EPA to for unreasonably delaying action on the petition. This resulted in EPA’s decision denying the petition, where EPA first reversed its prior position and now asserted that Congress did not intend to give it authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate anything related to global warming, and then said that even if it had such authority, it would not regulate GHGs because it would be bad public policy to do so. Petitioners challenged this decision, and in July 2005 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit voted 2-1 to let EPA’s decision stand. The panel splintered three ways, producing no majority opinion; Judge Sentelle found that because climate change affects everybody, no one has the “particularized injury” required to establish standing. Judge Randolph assumed the existence of EPA’s authority, but ruled for EPA on its “policy” grounds. Judge Tatel wrote that the Clean Air Act does authorize EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, and that EPA’s “policy reasons” for refusing to do so were not valid under the Clean Air Act. Given the inconclusive nature of these opinions, the Supreme Court’s decision to take the case was somewhat surprising; the Court usually would have waited for one or more of the other climate change cases percolating through the courts (see below). It appears that the Court recognized the enormous public policy implications of this case, and chose to resolve these issues at the first possible opportunity. On the question of EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, we have a powerful “plain text” argument that the Clean Air Act explicitly authorizes EPA to protect against adverse effects on “weather or climate.” This statutory question is actually no harder than other recent environmental cases that resulted in favorable -- and unanimous -- decisions. See Whitman v. American Trucking Assns, 531 U.S. 457 (2001) (Scalia, J., upholding national ambient air quality standards); S.D. Warren Co. v. Maine Bd. of Environmental Protection, 126 S.Ct. 1843 (2006) (Souter, J., construing the plain meaning of “discharge” under Clean Water Act). As to whether EPA may decline to act based on “policy considerations” that are not found anywhere in the statute, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rebuffed agencies that base regulatory decisions on criteria that Congress has not put into the relevant law. Here, Congress said that EPA’s only role is to decide whether the climate change caused by these emissions is “reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” Anxious to avoid that issue, EPA instead relied on factors such as its preference for voluntary action. If we are successful on both issues, the Supreme Court would send the matter back to EPA with instructions for it to then make the required determination whether greenhouse gas emissions and the resulting climate change is “reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The case will be argued on November 29, 2006 and will be decided before June of 2007. This decision will have significant impacts for the other pending global warming cases. First, the auto industry has sued California, arguing that the state’s GHG vehicle standards are illegal. (They have also filed two parallel cases against Vermont and Rhode Island, two of the states that have adopted California’s standards.) If the Court rules favorably on Clean Air Act authority, the states will likely prevail. The other major climate change case is a challenge by States and environmental groups to EPA’s refusal to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants on the grounds that it lacked Clean Air Act authority to do so. This case will be deferred pending the decision in Massachusetts, which should resolve the issues in this case as well. http://www.arizonapirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/clean-cars-for-arizona/clean-cars-for-arizona-reports/massachusetts-v_-epa-primer Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:42:23 -0600 http://www.arizonapirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/clean-cars-for-arizona/clean-cars-for-arizona-reports/clean-cars-a-legal-background For more than 30 years, under Title II of the Clean Air Act, automobile emission standards have been set federally, with authority for California to adopt its own standards so long as the standards were at least as protective of public health as the federal standards. States have the choice to either adopt the California standards or to default to the federal standards. When writing the automobile emissions section of the Clean Air Act, Congress both recognized California’s leadership in addressing automobile pollution, and avoided creating a regulatory patchwork by limiting states to just the two regulatory options. Over the years, eleven states have opted into the more stringent California emission standards. These states include: Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The Governors of four additional states, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Florida have recently expressed their intent to adopt the California standards either through executive order or a public announcement. The California emissions standards have always included fleet-average standards for conventional air pollutants like nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds. In 2002 the state legislature added limits on emissions of global warming pollutants – carbon dioxide and other pollutants that are known to contribute to climate change. The rules implementing this state law would cut the amount of global warming pollution from the automobile fleet by about 30%. The rules will begin to go into effect in the 12 states listed above in 2009, pending the outcome of several legal and regulatory decisions described below. Federal courts have been asked to weigh in on several fundamental questions regarding the authority and duty of the agencies and automakers with respect to automobile emissions of carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants. Moreover, U.S. EPA must grant California a waiver from the federal emissions standards. The following is a brief summary of the decisions that have been made so far, and the status of the proceedings. http://www.arizonapirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/clean-cars-for-arizona/clean-cars-for-arizona-reports/clean-cars-a-legal-background Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:44:09 -0600 http://www.arizonapirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/clean-cars-for-arizona/clean-cars-for-arizona-reports/clean-cars-myths-and-facts The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) is waging a national campaign to preempt states from adopting more protective standards for automobile emissions. Fourteen states, home to one-third of the U.S. auto market, have adopted more stringent than federal emission regulations (Clean Cars Program) for automobile air pollution, led by California. The Clean Cars Program has two components: the LEV 2 standards for air pollution, and the global warming pollution standards. LEV 2 is already in effect in many states, while the global warming pollution standards is being reviewed and will go into effect, or not, in LEV 2 states once the EPA rules on California’s waiver request. In its zeal to defeat state efforts, the Alliance has been distributing misinformation about the Clean Cars Program. This fact sheet corrects some of their misstatements: http://www.arizonapirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/clean-cars-for-arizona/clean-cars-for-arizona-reports/clean-cars-myths-and-facts Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:46:11 -0600