Environment

SACRAMENTO – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today commended the Environmental Protection Agency for taking the federal government’s “first concrete step toward curbing global warming” by issuing a proposed determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health or welfare.

“After years of inexcusable neglect under the Bush Administration, the EPA has taken the first concrete step toward curbing global warming by making a preliminary determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health or welfare.” Attorney General Brown said. “This proposed endangerment determination opens the door to the first serious national effort to reduce greenhouse gases.”

This proposed determination stems from the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA -- a case in which California was a lead plaintiff -- which required EPA to determine whether the greenhouse gas emissions that lead to global warming “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”
The Bush Administration refused to comply with the court’s order to make such a determination.

Brown has made combating global warming a major priority of the Attorney General’s office. He has:
• Requested the EPA requesting to curb greenhouse gases from ocean-going vessels, aircraft, and non-road vehicles;

• Urged the EPA to regulate emissions from power plants and other large polluting sources;

• Sued the Department of Energy for failing to require updated efficiency standards for appliances and other equipment;

• Sued the Fish and Wildlife Service for allowing federal projects to be approved without considering the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on endangered species; and

• Defended California's new motor vehicle greenhouse gas regulations from challenge by the automobile industry.

In California, Attorney General Brown has reached path-breaking settlements with San Bernardino County and the City of Stockton requiring them to adopt Climate Action Plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and has filed over 40 comments letters on local land-use projects under the California Environmental Quality Act.

More information on Attorney General Brown’s efforts to combat global warming can be found at http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/.

RIVERSIDE – Fighting to safeguard groundwater supplies threatened by toxic contamination, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. has filed suit against a national gas station chain – TravelCenters of America – to force the corporation to comply with underground fuel storage laws it has “knowingly and repeatedly disregarded” for years.

“TravelCenters of America has knowingly and repeatedly disregarded California’s underground fuel storage laws for years,” Attorney General Brown said. “This has put the Inland Empire’s scarce groundwater supplies at serious risk of contamination.”

On July 10, 2008, Riverside District Attorney Rod Pacheco filed legal action seeking an injunction against TravelCenters for violating the laws governing the management and handling of underground storage tanks of hazardous materials.

TravelCenters subsequently responded to the suit, offering more than a dozen legal theories as to why the law does not apply. This includes claims that the law is unconstitutional, is pre-empted by federal law, and violates due process.

At the request of the Riverside District Attorney, Attorney General Brown joined the case to enforce California’s health and safety laws, which Travelcenters has consistently violated and ignored. The suit was filed last week and made public today.

Over a number of years, the Riverside Department of Environmental Health conducted inspections at the TravelCenters facility in Riverside County, which revealed numerous, longstanding violations of California’s underground storage tank law. TravelCenters has failed to correct many of the deficiencies, even after repeated warnings.

Given these violations, Brown is seeking a permanent injunction to block TavelCenter’s illegal activities under Chapters 6.5, 6.7, and 6.95 of Division 20 of California’s Health and Safety Code, and section 17200 of California’s Business and Professions Codes, which governs unfair competition and business practices.

Brown’s suit contends that TravelCenters:

• Failed to have adequate containment and detection equipment for hazardous materials storage tanks;
• Improperly raised, altered, tampered, or disabled sensors in spill boxes that detect leaks;
• Failed to identify the date the hazardous materials were received;
• Failed to manage hazardous waste containers;
• Failed to maintain documentation of employee training;
• Failed to identify an emergency coordinator;
• Failed to inspect container storage areas;
• Failed to store incompatible wastes in separate containers;
• Failed to remove accumulated liquid or debris from the secondary containment system;
• Failed to have an operational audible/visual alarm system connected for continuous monitoring;
• Failed to have emergency response plans; and
• Failed to maintain a complete hazardous materials business plan.
In addition, the lawsuit seeks up to a statutory maximum of $25,000 in civil penalties for each day of each violation. This could amount to millions of dollars in penalties.

TravelCenters of America operates 234 travel centers, including 188 owned and 46 franchisees along interstate highways of 41 US states and in the province of Ontario, Canada.

A copy of Attorney General Brown’s complaint is attached.

SACRAMENTO – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and 14 other states yesterday urged the Obama Administration to overturn the Bush EPA’s “shameful denial” of California’s request to enforce its automobile greenhouse gas emissions law.

“The Bush Administration’s shameful denial of California’s waiver fundamentally ignored the serious impacts that global warming is having on our state,” Attorney General Brown said. “The Obama Administration should overturn Bush’s wrongheaded decision and allow California to enforce its greenhouse gas law.”
In a comment letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Attorney General Brown, joined by 14 other states, wrote that under the Clean Air Act, California is entitled to be granted authority to enforce its law and EPA should grant the waiver immediately.

In 2002, California enacted legislation requiring a 30 % reduction in automobile greenhouse gas emissions by 2016. But before the State can enforce its law, EPA must grant a Clean Air Act wavier.

The Bush EPA denied California’s request for such a waiver in 2007, arguing that California did not need the regulation to address 'compelling and extraordinary conditions.' This denial reversed decades of agency practice and ignored the dangerous consequences of global warming to the State of California.

Global warming threatens California's Sierra mountain snow pack, which provides the state with one-third of its drinking water. California also has approximately 1,000 miles of coastline and levees that are threatened by rising sea levels.

In the 40-year history of the Act, EPA has granted approximately 50 waivers to California for innovations like catalytic converters, exhaust emission standards, and leaded gasoline regulations. Until the Bush Administration’s decision, a waiver request had never been denied.

On February 6, 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced that the Obama EPA would review the Bush EPA’s denial of California's waiver request.

There are 32 million registered vehicles in California, twice the number of any other state. Cars generate 20% of human-made carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, and at least 30% of such emissions in California.

Brown’s letter was also signed by the New York City Corporation Counsel and 14 other states, including Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

Attorney General Brown's letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is attached.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 5, 2009
Contact: Christine Gasparac (916) 324-5500

Brown Urges Obama Administration to Allow California to Enforce Tough Greenhouse Gas Emissions Law

SACRAMENTO –Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today urged the Obama Administration to overturn the Bush EPA’s “illegal and shortsighted” denial of California’s request to carry out its state law requiring a 30% reduction in tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions.

“The Clean Air Act gives California the right to pass tough laws to fight pollution,” Attorney General Brown said. “The Bush EPA adopted an illegal and shortsighted policy by blocking California’s tough emissions standard. California’s law will drive technological innovation and cut greenhouse gases. I urge the Obama Administration to grant our request.”

In 2002, California passed AB 1493, which requires a 30 % reduction in tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions by 2016, starting with model year 2009.

EPA must grant California’s waiver request before the state can enforce its tough emissions standards. The Bush administration had been ducking California’s request since 2005. In 2007, the Bush Administration denied California’s request.

On February 6, 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced the Agency’s decision to review its denial of California’s request to implement its greenhouse gas emission law.

There are 32 million registered vehicles in California, twice the number of any other state. Cars generate 20% of all human-made carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, and at least 30% of such emissions in California. If California’s landmark global warming law—and the corresponding 30% improvement in emissions standards—were adopted nationally, the United States could cut annual oil imports by $100 billion dollars at $50 per barrel.

Attorney General Brown’s letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is attached.

March 6, 2009

Via E-Mail and First Class Mail

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460

Re: Request for Comments on California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Greenhouse Gas Regulations; Reconsideration of Previous Denial of a
Waiver of Preemption; 74 Fed. Reg. 7040 (Feb. 12, 2009); Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0173
Dear Administrator Jackson:

These comments are submitted in support of California’s waiver application. I strongly support EPA’s decision to reconsider its decision denying the waiver. The denial was in error, on both legal and factual grounds. EPA’s willingness to review that decision represents an important step after years of Bush Administration resistance to environmental protection. I intend to submit more detailed comments addressing both the factual errors and legal defects in EPA’s waiver denial decision. Today, however, I make two points: First, EPA’s decision to reconsider its waiver denial is proper. Second, given the urgency of dealing with global warming, EPA should grant California’s waiver as soon as possible.

EPA’s Decision to Reconsider the Waiver Denial is Appropriate and Proper.

EPA’s decision to reconsider its denial of California’s waiver request is both sound and legally correct. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. Vanantwerp, 560 F. Supp.2d 21 (D. D.C. 2008). There are substantial defects in EPA’s waiver denial decision that require correction, and it makes sense for EPA, the expert administrative agency, to cure its own mistakes.

In this denial, EPA departed from long standing past practice and considered whether California’s GHG emissions standard was needed to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions related to a specific pollutant – GHG emissions. Until this decision, EPA had looked at California’s emissions program in its totality, as the Clean Air Act requires. 42 U.S.C. § 7543. California’s separate emissions program has been approved because of the state’s climate, geography, extraordinarily severe air quality problems, and the large number and concentration of motor vehicles contributing to these problems. The Administrator also determined that climate change impacts in California were not sufficiently different from the nation as a whole and, therefore, did not support adoption of state standards regulating motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. This conclusion ignores that California continues to have compelling and extraordinary conditions justifying its own mobile source program, and that the impacts from climate change will be particularly severe in the state, given California’s extensive coastline, significant dependence on snow pack for water supply, vulnerability to floods and wildfires, severe ozone problem, and other impacts. These fundamental errors, among others, undermine the legitimacy of the waiver denial because they misconstrue the Clean Air Act and depart from decades of prior, sound agency practice.

In the landmark case Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S. Ct. 1438 (2007), the Bush Administration fought to avoid its responsibility to deal with the threat of global warming. It took the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which rejected its arguments and ruled that global warming emissions are pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Even after the Court’s decision, EPA delayed taking any action on greenhouse gases for close to two years. EPA’s decision denying California’s waiver was another attempt to avoid the agency’s obligation to administer the Clean Air Act, as Congress wrote it. Now that EPA is reconsidering that decision, California looks forward to working with EPA so that these important standards can, finally, become effective.

EPA Should Grant the Waiver as Soon as Possible.

Global warming is the arguably most urgent environmental issue of our time. Our way of life and perhaps even our survival depend on our response to this problem. The regulations before you are a first, bold step toward dealing with global warming. They are ready to be enforced. Without Congress’ foresight in allowing California its important leadership role in setting automobile emissions standards, we would not have these ready-to-implement regulations today. All we need is a waiver from EPA. That waiver is long overdue. We have been waiting since 2005 for it.

Fourteen states plus the District of Columbia have adopted California’s greenhouse gas emissions regulations, with another four states in the process. The 14 states represent at least 37 percent of the nation’s vehicles and the four states in the process will raise the level to approximately 47 percent. There are several more states debating whether to adopt the program and, if they move forward, will represent over half the nation. We are optimistic that EPA will, upon reconsideration, grant California’s waiver request, thereby allowing California’s standards to become effective.

EPA therefore should waste no time in granting California’s waiver application as soon as possible. I am confident that upon reconsideration, the agency will determine that the request is consistent with the Clean Air Act and must be granted.
Sincerely,

EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
Attorney General

cc: Dickinson.David@EPA.gov

Sacramento–Attorney General Edmund G. Brown today announced that a coalition of 18 states and cities have won reversal of controversial Bush-era pollution standards “justified by nothing more than junk science” and which threatened to undermine public health.

"This dangerous air pollution causes thousands of premature deaths each year. Yet the Bush Administration callously ignored the facts and put forward a standard justified by nothing more than junk science,” Attorney General Brown said. “Today, the DC Circuit Court cleared the way for the Obama Administration to right this wrong.”

Fine soot pollution (also known as fine particulate matter pollution or “PM 2.5”) comes from diesel vehicles, power plants and other sources, and is prevalent in urban areas. Because fine soot can lodge deep in the lungs, it can cause numerous harmful health effects, including premature death, chronic respiratory illness, decreased lung function, cardiovascular disease and asthma. Children, senior citizens, and people with existing lung and heart diseases are especially susceptible to harm from fine soot pollution.

That is why EPA’s scientists and scientific advisory committee recommended strict new standards for fine soot in 2005. However, the Bush Administration rejected their advice and chose a weaker, less protective standard. Today’s decision clears the path for the Obama Administration to issue new, stronger standards.

Today’s decision, issued by the federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, agreed with the coalition that the Bush EPA had acted illegally in issuing weak air pollution standards for fine soot, acting against the advice of EPA professional staff and EPA’s own scientific advisory committee. The court found that the Bush EPA had also erred by not taking into account the special sensitivity to air pollution of children, elderly people and other vulnerable populations. The Court remanded the standards to the new Obama EPA to issue new, more protective air pollution standards for fine soot that will better protect public health.

The states, cities and other state agencies joining in the challenge that led to today’s victory are: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Rhode Island, Vermont, the District of Columbia and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The States of Arizona, Maryland and Massachusetts also joined as friends of the court.

'Today’s decision is a return to sanity by an agency whose fairness and balance had been sabotaged by the partisan extremism of the Bush Administration.

This is but a first step, but it signals that this EPA has a renewed commitment to sound science and to rule of law.

California has led the way on global warming, and the state should be allowed to continue in its leadership role in reducing automobile emissions and addressing global warming.”

Sacramento – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown today issued the following statement in response to President Obama’s direction to the EPA to reconsider California’s Clean Air Act waiver to enforce its landmark global warming legislation.

“Today’s dramatic announcement by President Obama marks the first time that an American President has taken decisive action to deal with global warming.

California welcomes President Obama’s commitment to make cars cleaner, more efficient, and less dependent on foreign oil.

What a difference from the dangerous paralysis of the Bush years.”

Last year, Attorney General Brown filed suit against the Bush Administration for denying California’s request for a Clean Air Act waiver to enforce the state's landmark greenhouse gas emissions standards. This was the first time that the EPA had denied a Clean Air Act waiver request from California.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 16, 2009
Contact: Christine Gasparac (916) 324-5500

Brown Joined by Eight States in Seeking to Thwart
Bush Administration Effort to Gut the Endangered Species Act

SAN FRANCISCO – California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr.’s effort to overturn an eleventh hour move by the Bush Administration to gut provisions in the Endangered Species Act received a major boost today when eight states – Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island – signed on to his lawsuit.

“There is broad and deep opposition to the Bush Administration’s effort to gut the Endangered Species Act,” Attorney General Brown said. “It is my hope that the new Obama Administration will take a fresh look at these rules and restore the independent scientific review of projects affecting endangered species, which has been a hallmark of the ESA for 35 years.”

The new regulations, initially proposed by the Departments of the Interior and Commerce in August 2008, largely eliminate a requirement in the Endangered Species Act that mandates scientific review of federal agency decisions that might affect endangered and threatened species and their habitats.

The changes allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to permit mining, logging, and other commercial activities to take place on federal land and other areas subject to federal regulatory control without review or comment from federal wildlife biologists on the environmental effects of such activities on endangered and threatened species and their habitat.

The new regulations are the most significant changes to the Endangered Species Act and its implementing regulations in over 20 years. Now that these regulations have been adopted, many decisions on whether to permit commercial activity on federal land or issue federal permits or licenses will be made at the sole discretion of federal agency project proponents, without input from biological experts at the federal wildlife agencies. Federal project agencies generally lack adequate biological expertise and have incentives to conclude that their projects will not have adverse affects on endangered and threatened species and their habitat.

The changes also eliminate the requirement to consider the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on species and ecosystems from proposed federal projects. Federal agencies now no longer need to consider the possible adverse impacts on species like the polar bear from commercial projects that require federal approval or funding such as highway construction and coal-fired power plants.

The lawsuit, which was filed last December in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that the Bush Administration:

• Violated the Endangered Species Act by adopting regulations that are inconsistent with that statute;
• Violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to consider the environmental ramifications of the proposed new regulations; and
• Violated the Administrative Procedures Act by not adequately considering public comments submitted by the Attorney General and numerous other organizations and concerned citizens.

The Attorney General’s lawsuit follows three similar lawsuits challenging the regulations filed earlier by environmental groups.

Attorney General Brown’s amended complaint challenging the regulations and comments on the proposed regulations are attached.

SAN FRANCISCO—California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. filed a lawsuit today on behalf of the California Department of Fish and Game Office of Spill Prevention and Response, State Lands Commission and State Water Boards against the owners, operators and pilot of the M/V Cosco Busan, the shipping vessel that spilled more than 53,000 gallons of oil into San Francisco Bay, “polluting our waters and killing thousands of birds.”

“This was a preventable accident that had tragic consequences,” Attorney General Brown said. “The Cosco Busan crashed into the Bay Bridge, polluting our waters and killing thousands of birds.”

On November 7, 2007, the Cosco Busan, piloted by John Cota, hit the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge’s Delta Tower. The crash caused approximately 53,569 of gallons of oil to spew into San Francisco Bay and spread to the Pacific Ocean and along Bay Area shorelines.

Oil from the spill was found along at least 56 miles of rocky intertidal coastline, 52 miles of sandy beach coastline, 10 miles of saltmarsh coastline, and several hundred acres of intertidal eelgrass beds. According to the California Department of Fish and Game, responders collected 1,084 live birds, of which 418 were released after rescue. Responders found 1,859 birds dead from the oil spill.

The California Department of Fish and Game Office of Spill Prevention and Response, along with the United States Coast Guard, the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, National Parks Service, San Francisco Department of Public Health, and the National Marine Sanctuaries arrived at the scene and immediately began clean-up and wildlife rescue efforts. To date, the state has spent countless resources from the Oil Spill Response Trust Fund on the clean-up and assessment of natural resource damages resulting from the massive oil spill.

“We appreciate the Attorney General’s efforts to assist the Department of Fish and Game Office of Spill Prevention and Response in protecting and restoring California’s wildlife, habitats and recreational opportunities that were injured or lost as a result of the Cosco Busan oil spill,” said Office of Spill Response Administrator Stephen Edinger.

"The Cosco Busan spill has all the makings of an international puzzle,” said San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Executive Officer Bruce Wolfe. “The Regional Water Board has unique authority under California's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act to focus the diverse parties involved here on restoring the water quality of San Francisco Bay and other affected waters of the state. With the help of Attorney General Brown, we expect a fair and just resolution on behalf of the people of the state.'

Today’s lawsuit aims to recover damages to restore natural resources injured by the spill and the costs of response, containment and clean-up. The lawsuit also seeks to recover the costs of removal and treatment of wildlife affected by the spill, as well as the cost of assessing natural resource damages, legal costs and civil penalties.

The defendants include:
• Regal Stone Ltd.
• Fleet Management Ltd.
• Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd.
• Synergy Management Services
• Synergy Marine Ltd.
• John J. Cota, San Francisco Bar Pilot

A copy of the complaint filed in San Francisco Superior Court is attached.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 29, 2008
Contact: Christine Gasparac (916) 324-5500

Attorney General Brown Sues to Overturn Bush Administration Rules Undermining Endangered Species Act

SAN FRANCISCO– California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. has filed suit in federal court to block an “audacious attempt” by the Bush Administration to gut provisions in the Endangered Species Act mandating scientific review of federal agency decisions that may threaten endangered species and their habitat.

“The Bush Administration is seeking to gut the Endangered Species Act on its way out the door,” Attorney General Brown said. “This is an audacious attempt to circumvent a time-tested statute that for 35 years has required scientific review of proposed federal agency decisions that affect wildlife.”

The new regulations, initially proposed by the Departments of the Interior and Commerce in August 2008 and made final on December 16, largely eliminate a requirement in the Endangered Species Act that mandates scientific review of federal agency decisions that might affect endangered and threatened species and their habitats.

The changes allow federal agencies to undertake or permit mining, logging, and other commercial activities on federal land and other areas without obtaining review or comment from federal wildlife biologists on the environmental effects of such activities.

The new regulations are the most significant changes to the Endangered Species Act and its implementing regulations in 20 years. Now that these regulations have been adopted, many decisions on whether to permit commercial activities on protected land will be made at the discretion of federal agency project proponents. These agencies generally lack adequate biological expertise and have incentives to conclude that their projects will not have adverse affects on endangered and threatened species and their habitat.

The changes also eliminate the requirement to consider the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on species and ecosystems from proposed federal projects. Federal agencies now no longer need to consider the possible adverse impacts on species like the polar bear from commercial projects that require federal approval or funding such as highway construction and coal-fired power plants.

The lawsuit, which was filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that the Bush Administration:

• Violated the Endangered Species Act by adopting regulations that are inconsistent with that statute;
• Violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to consider the environmental ramifications of the proposed new regulations; and
• Violated the Administrative Procedures Act by not adequately considering public comments submitted by the Attorney General and numerous other organizations and concerned citizens.

The Attorney General’s lawsuit follows three similar lawsuits challenging the regulations filed earlier by environmental groups.

Attorney General Brown’s complaint challenging the regulations and comments on the proposed regulations are attached.