Clean Air Act // Current

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... more

jefftego
added this

0 responses

3 months ago

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... more

jefftego
added this

0 responses

3 months ago

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... more

bshipp
added this

0 responses

4 months ago

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... more

PPV_Team
added this

1 response

4 months ago

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 The Clean Air Act does not allow the EPA Administrator to take cost into account when he sets new standards for... more