Environment

LOS ANGELES--California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Secretary for Resources Mike Chrisman today sued the United States Forest Service for adopting “illegal forest management plans” that permit road construction and oil drilling in California’s largest national forests.

“The United States Forest Service adopted illegal forest management plans that threaten California’s pristine national forests with road construction and oil drilling,” Attorney General Brown said. “The Forest Service should scrap these destructive forest plans and protect California’s natural areas as required by law.”

The Forest Service's plans allow road construction on more than 500,000 acres of roadless area within the Angeles, Los Padres, Cleveland and San Bernardino National Forest. California’s lawsuit alleges that the Forest Service's plans ignore California’s moratorium on road construction in pristine areas of the national forests.

The four national forests include over 3.5 million acres of federally-managed public land, from Big Sur to the Mexican border. The forests have great geologic and topographic diversity including chaparral, oak woodlands, savannas, deserts, alpine areas, and specialized habitat niches. The forests provide habitat for 31 threatened and endangered animals and 29 plants as well as 34 animal species and 134 plants recognized as sensitive.

The Los Padres National Forest, which is one of the state’s largest national forests, also provides habitat for the California Condor and is the site of the principal effort to bring this species back from the brink of extinction.

Brown charged the Forest Service with illegally violating the federal National Forest Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the agency to develop its forest plans in coordination with state laws and policies. California’s policy is that there should be a moratorium on any plan that could permit construction in roadless areas in national forests.

The attorney general is representing the People of California, the California Resources Agency and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to challenge the forest plans.

In 2005 and 2006, the Forest Service assured the Resources Agency, in writing, that it would not allow road construction on California’s roadless areas. Secretary for Resources Mike Chrisman today criticized the Forest Service for not honoring this agreement.

“Time and again we have tried to hold the Forest Service to their word on the roadless policy. They have failed to live up to their promises,” Secretary Chrisman said.

“The Forest Service failed to even acknowledge state policy on roadless areas in national forests in California, let alone attempt to coordinate with those protections,” Brown asserts in the lawsuit.

The Forest Service also ignored public recommendations, including comments from qualified scientists, recommending that one million acres of the forest land be designated as wilderness. Instead the final plans only recommended protecting half that amount, without providing adequate scientific rationale for the reduction.

The plans also fail to properly evaluate the harm to the California Condor and its habitat that will be caused by oil and gas exploration and drilling. Specifically, the plans allow oil drilling on more than 52,000 acres in or adjacent to the Los Padres National Forest—areas which include critical habitat areas for the endangered California Condor.

Los Padres National Forest, which encompasses nearly 1.8 million acres that stretch 220 miles from north to south, is one of the state’s largest national forests. San Bernardino National Forest, which abuts the Inland Empire, is 665,700 acres. Angeles National Forest, near Los Angeles, is 663,000 acres. Cleveland National Forest contains 420,000 acres of natural space in Orange and San Diego Counties. Over twenty million Californians live within one hour’s drive of at least one of these four forests.

California’s lawsuit, filed today in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, is attached.

# # #

LOS ANGELES--California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today invited more than five hundred mayors, local planning directors, and county Supervisors to attend statewide workshops where they can learn practical ways to combat global warming by reducing dangerous greenhouse gas emissions.

"California must adopt the necessary changes that will encourage economic growth while reducing greenhouse gases,' Attorney General Brown said. 'This difficult transition from our current escalating dependence on fossil fuel, demands that cities and counties encourage maximum building efficiency and innovative land-use.

The Global Warming Solutions act, AB 32, requires California to cut greenhouse gas emission to 1990 levels by 2020, but the rules and market mechanisms will not take effect until 2012. Meanwhile, local government will make hundreds, if not thousands, of planning decisions that will have decades-long implications. Brown has called upon local officials to take action now to limit long-term greenhouse gas emissions.
Encouraging local officials to meet with the attorney general's office, Brown said, 'These workshops will launch the first statewide movement to reduce the negative impact of local planning decisions on global climate.'

In 534 letters mailed statewide today, Brown invited public officials from all 58 California counties and nearly 200 cities to join the attorney general's office for regional conferences on climate change and the California Environmental Quality Act. The Act requires local agencies to analyze and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from projects with significant impact, including regional transportation and development plans.

During the upcoming workshops--to be held from March to May in Oakland, Sacramento, Visalia, Los Angeles and Monterey--methods of modeling greenhouse gas emissions will be discussed in detail. Representatives of the Attorney General's Office and the Governor's Climate Action Team will brief the local officials about how government at all levels can reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Some of the questions that will be addressed at the workshops include:

* How should cities and counties analyze the global warming-related impacts of development?
* What mitigation strategies should local governments employ to reduce their CO2 emissions?
* How can cities and counties undertake the required analysis efficiently and on limited budgets?

To date, the Attorney General has submitted formal comments to twenty three local jurisdictions throughout the state under CEQA, encouraging them to evaluate and avoid or reduce the increases in CO2 emissions caused by land use decisions. Attorney General Brown has also reached landmark agreements with San Bernardino County and ConcoPhillips on specific greenhouse gas reduction strategies.

Other local jurisdictions across California including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sonoma, Santa Monica, Berkeley, Marin, Palo Alto, Chula Vista, Modesto and Healdsburg are also initiating measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The City of Berkeley, for example, is developing an innovative program that funds solar projects with public monies and allows the property owners to repay the city through property tax assessments. Other greenhouse gas mitigation strategies being employed across California are the following:

* High-density developments that reduce vehicle trips and utilize public transit.
* Electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located alternative fueling stations.
* Transportation impact fees on developments to fund public transit service.
* Regional transportation centers where various types of public transportation meet.
* Energy efficient design for buildings, appliances, lighting and office equipment.
* Solar panels, water reuse systems and on-site renewable energy production.
* Methane recovery in landfills and wastewater treatment plants to generate electricity.
* Carbon emissions credit purchases that fund alternative energy projects.

In addition, over one hundred and twenty California cities have joined the Cool Cities campaign which commits the local jurisdictions to take concrete steps including the development of greenhouse gas emissions inventories and a local Climate Action Plan to fight global warming.

In July 2007, Alameda County became one of twelve charter members of the Cool Counties initiative. Participating counties establish a greenhouse gas emissions inventory and regional plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below current levels by 2050.

Recently, Attorney General Brown expanded the Department of Justice Website to provide information that can help local agencies join the fight against global warming: http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/ceqa.php

Brown sent letters to 534 local government officials: cities with populations greater than 50,000, 178 Mayors, 171 Planning Departments, 58 County Board of Supervisors Chairs or Presidents, 58 County Planning Agency Directors, 33 Councils of Government and 36 Air Quality Control Districts.

# # #

LOS ANGELES—California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from construction, mining, agricultural, industrial equipment—machines which annually emit as much carbon dioxide as approximately 40 million cars.

“Millions of industrial machines in mines, on farms, and construction sites spew massive quantities of unregulated greenhouse gas pollution,” Attorney General Brown said. “The Environmental Protection Agency has not regulated the emissions from these vehicles and engines—just like it has failed to curb greenhouse gases from cars, ocean-going vessels, and aircraft.”

Among the wide range of nonroad vehicles and engine that the EPA is authorized to regulate are the following: construction and farm machinery, logging equipment, outdoor power equipment, recreational vehicles, lawn and garden equipment, marine vessels, aircraft, and locomotives. Attorney General Brown recently filed separate petitions to the EPA calling for aircraft and ocean-going vessel regulations. Locomotives are excluded from today’s petition because regulating train emissions involves different technological and legal issues.

The engines and vehicles cited in today’s petition emitted 220 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2007—an amount equivalent to the emissions from 40 million cars. Mining and construction equipment accounted for 32% of these emissions, followed by agricultural and industrial equipment. According to the California Air Resources Board, there are approximately 17.8 million of these machines and engines in California.

According to EPA data, the emissions from snowmobiles, golf carts, riding lawn mowers, agricultural equipment and off-road vehicles are growing at a faster rate, 49% between 1990 and 2005, than greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles or aircraft. These vehicles emit more greenhouse gases than all domestic aircraft.

In today’s petition, California asserts that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has the authority and the duty to adopt national greenhouse gas emissions standards for the entire sector of nonroad engines and vehicles. California is petitioning the EPA to:

• Make a determination that greenhouse gas emissions from nonroad sources contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health and welfare
• Adopt greenhouse gas emissions standards, under Section 213 of the Clean Air Act, for new nonroad vehicles and engines
• Adopt the regulations that are necessary to carry out these emissions limits.

Other states, government agencies, and national environmental organizations that are joining California in petitioning the EPA today include: Connecticut, Oregon, Massachusetts, New Jersey, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the International Center for Technology Assessment, Center for Food Safety and Friends of the Earth.

There is a wide range of technologies and operational procedures that can substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

• Auxiliary power units reduce the need for idling engines to heat or cool vehicle cabs
• Electrification and hybrid technology can increase efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions
• Reflective paint on trucks and truck cabs can reduce the use of air conditioning
• Low-carbon fuels, low viscosity lubricants, and onboard oil purification systems can improve engine efficiency
• Alternative air conditioning equipment and refrigerants can curb greenhouse gases
• Lighter body materials improve the efficiency of off-road vehicles and power boats

In 2006, California adopted the groundbreaking Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32, which requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020—approximately a 25% reduction. To date, the EPA has failed to issue any regulations covering greenhouse gas emissions. The agency has also blocked California’s attempt to set automobile greenhouse gas emissions standards.

Visit the Attorney General’s Website for up-to-date information about how public officials, industry leaders, and private citizens can join the fight against global warming: http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/

California’s petition to the EPA is attached. A factsheet on CO2 Emissions from nonroad vehicles and engines is also attached.

WASHINGTON DC – Citing the potential “to manipulate the system,” California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today recommended that the Federal Trade Commission sharpen its guidelines for businesses that sell carbon emission offset credits.

“The Federal Trade Commission must set clear guidelines for the sale of carbon offset credits,” Attorney General Brown said, “As more Americans try to offset their carbon emissions, the danger grows that some individuals will attempt to manipulate the system. Consumers must feel confident that they actually get what they pay for—real carbon reduction offsets.”

Ordinary activities, such as driving cars and running power plants, produce greenhouse gas emissions which trap heat from the sun, causing global temperatures to rise. Under a carbon offset program, consumers are able to purchase emissions credits—which reflect specific environmental projects that reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gases elsewhere in the environment.

The national market for carbon offset credits is expected to reach $100 million annually within the next four years. Currently, the market for these offsets is volatile, largely unregulated, and has serious potential for fraud.

The Federal Trade Commission is responsible for ensuring that carbon offset projects are fairly and honestly marketed to consumers. Recently, the Federal Trade Commission requested comments, by January 25, 2008, on the marketing of carbon offsets and renewable energy certificates.

In a letter sent today to the Federal Trade Commission, Attorney General Brown and several other state attorneys general outlined potential problems with carbon offset markets and offered recommendations to the Federal Trade Commission aimed at protecting consumers. Other states joining today’s letter include: Vermont, Arkansas, Delaware, Maine, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Illinois, Connecticut and New Hampshire.

Among the recommendations to the Federal Trade Commission are the following:

• Conduct research on consumers’ understanding of carbon offsets
• Ensure that offset projects do not double sell credits or claim credits for practices that are already required by law
• Engage in aggressive education and outreach to ensure that consumers understand the nature of carbon offsets and the potential for fraud

The states also called for a clearer definition of what qualifies as a carbon offset. Currently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency asserts that offset credits can be backed by projects that will go forward regardless of whether emissions credits are sold. An alternative offset definition would only allow the sale of credits from projects that would not otherwise have gone forward.

The states also demanded that the Federal Trade Commission consider whether renewable energy certificates—proof that energy was generated by a renewable source—should count as a valid offset. The certificates may not qualify as offsets because renewable energy does not always displace traditional energy sources.

The states recommended that the Federal Trade Commission offer consumer tips on its Website and place explicit details about offsets—including the name, location and project owner—on all marketing material.

For more information on the Federal Trade Commission’s review of carbon offset markets, visit: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/carbonoffsets/index.shtml

The state’s letter is attached.

# # #

WASHINGTON DC—California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today called upon the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency to “obey the Supreme Court’s landmark decision,” Massachusetts v. EPA, opening a new front in the legal battle for tailpipe greenhouse gas regulations.

“The Artic is melting faster than ever before, yet the EPA stubbornly refuses to do its job,” Attorney General Brown said. “The EPA should obey the Supreme Court’s landmark decision and issue regulations to curb greenhouse gas pollutants without further delay.”

The landmark Supreme Court case, Massachusetts v. EPA, held that the EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. The EPA itself, in a notice last month in the Federal Register, described the Court’s mandate:

“…the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA must determine, under Section 202 (a) of the Clean Air Act, whether greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that endangers public health or welfare.”

Greenhouse gas pollutants are pouring into the atmosphere, causing global temperatures to rise at an unprecedented rate. Eleven of the 12 warmest years since record keeping began, 150 years ago, have occurred in the past 12 years. In 2006, Arctic sea ice declined by the largest amount ever recorded, losing an area roughly the size of Texas and California combined.

Before the EPA can regulate greenhouse gas pollution, the agency must make a formal determination that such emissions threaten public health or welfare. After the Court’s decision in April 2007, the EPA said it would propose regulations by the end of the year, but it has failed to do so. In a letter sent today by California and 17 other states and local governments, Brown asserted that “the EPA is unreasonably delaying” the procedural steps necessary for issuing regulations.

Brown called upon the EPA to immediately issue a formal conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions “cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” Brown requested a response, with the agency’s specific intentions, by February 27, 2008.

Today’s letter serves as a notice that states are preparing to go back to court to get the EPA to comply with the Supreme Court's mandate.

Brown said that the EPA cannot use the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which only improves fuel economy, as an excuse for ignoring its duty to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Supreme Court ruled that EPA’s obligation to regulate such emissions is wholly independent from the mandate, under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, to promote energy efficiency.

Under the Clean Air Act, California is also allowed to impose tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions regulations if the state obtains a waiver from the EPA. Brown sued the EPA on January 2, after the agency broke forty years of precedent by denying California’s request, which would have allowed the state to cut tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2016. It was the first denial since the Clean Air Act was established in 1967.

In rejecting the state’s request, the EPA stated that California failed to demonstrate “compelling and extraordinary conditions,” as required by the Clean Air Act. This statement contradicted forty years of agency practice and ignored the dangerous consequences of global warming to the State of California.

Under the Bush administration, the EPA has also failed to set greenhouse gas emissions standards for ocean-going vessels and aircraft—both major worldwide contributors to global warming.

Global warming threatens California’s coastline, levees, and Sierra mountain snow pack which provides one-third of the state’s drinking water. California’s unique topography and its high human and vehicular population have already caused higher ozone concentrations than other parts of the country. For more information on the impacts of global warming, visit: http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/impact.php

Seventeen other states and local governments are joining today’s letter including: the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, the City Solicitor for the City of Baltimore and the Corporation Counsel for the City of New York.

The states’ letter to the EPA is attached.

LOS ANGELES--California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today attacked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for betraying its “sacred mission” to protect the environment and called upon Congress to require the agency’s top staff to explain, under oath, their flawed and illegal decision-making process.

“Charged with protecting the environmental trust, the EPA has instead betrayed its sacred mission,” Attorney General Brown told members of the Senator Barbara Boxer’s Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works at a briefing in Los Angeles. “The agency’s top staff should explain, under oath, why they sabotaged the groundbreaking effort by California and fourteen other states to reduce dangerous greenhouse gases emitted by motor vehicles.”

Brown sued the EPA last week after the agency broke forty years of precedent by denying California’s request for a waiver, which would have allowed the state to cut tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2016. It was the first denial since the Clean Air Act was established in 1967.

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson’s rejection decision, outlined in a two-page letter, contained no supporting technical or legal analysis. Brown’s lawsuit charged the EPA with not following the criteria for reviewing waiver requests, as set forth in Clean Air Act section 209, and failing to provide any facts to support its decision.

The EPA stated that California failed to demonstrate “compelling and extraordinary conditions,” as required by the Clean Air Act. This not only contradicted forty years of agency practice but it also ignored the dangerous consequences of global warming to the State of California. California’s unique topography and its high human and vehicular population have already caused higher ozone concentrations than other parts of the country. Global warming also threatens California’s coastline, levees, and Sierra mountain snow pack which provides one-third of the state’s drinking water.

For decades, EPA has agreed that California needs its own emissions program to meet these “compelling and extraordinary conditions.” In a 1975 waiver determination, EPA said that the waiver process is meant to ensure “that the Federal government would not second-guess the wisdom of state policy” and “that no ‘Federal bureaucrat’ would be able to tell the people of California what auto emission standards were good for them, as long as they were stricter than Federal standards.”

Administrator Johnson incorrectly asserted that the federal energy bill, which raises gas mileage to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, rendered California’s greenhouse gas emissions standards unnecessary. An analysis by the California Air Resources Board confirms that California’s emissions rules cut twice the level of greenhouse gases compared with federal program. The California program will also result in fuel efficiency—44 miles per gallon by 2020—that is far better than the federal standard.

14 other states, representing 44% of the nation’s population, have adopted California’s regulations: Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Four other states, Utah, Colorado, Illinois and Delaware are in the process of adopting the standards.

The EPA was established in 1970 under President Nixon to set and enforce environmental protection standards, conduct research on pollution, and recommend policies to the President for the protection of the environment. In 2005, President Bush appointed Stephen Johnson as the agency’s 11th administrator.

Under Johnson, the EPA has also failed to set greenhouse gas emissions standards for aircraft and ocean-going vessels, both major worldwide contributors to global warming. The agency has also weakened the Toxic Release Inventory, a program which requires facilities to report annual quantities of toxic chemicals that are emitted, prompting Attorney General Brown to file a lawsuit in November 2007.

For more information on climate disruption please visit: www.ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/

WASHINGTON D.C. — Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr., on behalf of the State of California, today sued the United States Environmental Protection Agency for “wrongfully and illegally” blocking the state's landmark tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions standards.

Brown filed the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to challenge the EPA’s denial of California's request to implement its emissions law—which requires a 30 percent reduction in motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions by 2016. California's new standards require federal approval in the form of a waiver from the EPA. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson denied California's request on December 19, 2007 in a letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“The denial letter was shocking in its incoherence and utter failure to provide legal justification for the administrator's unprecedented action,” California Attorney General Brown said. “The EPA has done nothing at the national level to curb greenhouse gases and now it has wrongfully and illegally blocked California's landmark tailpipe emissions standards, despite the fact that sixteen states have moved to adopt them.”

Under the Clean Air Act, passed by Congress in 1963, California is expressly allowed to impose environmental regulations that are stricter than federal rules in recognition of the state’s “compelling and extraordinary conditions” which include unique topography, climate, and high number and concentration of vehicles.

The administrator stated in his decision that California did not need its tailpipe emissions standards to meet “compelling and extraordinary conditions,” a finding which 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.

Section 307 of the Clean Air Act gives California the authority to challenge adverse decisions by filing a petition for review two weeks after a rejection is issued. According to sources from within the EPA--as quoted in several national media accounts--Administrator Johnson rejected the unanimous recommendation of his agency’s legal and technical staff to grant the waiver.

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 last month, a waiver request had never been denied. The National Academy of Sciences has reviewed the waiver system and strongly supports maintaining California's role as “a proving ground for new-emission control technologies that benefit California and the rest of the nation.”

Cars generate 20% of all human-made carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, and at least 30% of such emissions in California.

Fifteen other states or state agencies—Massachusetts, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington—are joining today's lawsuit as interveners.

“The EPA’s attempt to stop New York and other states from taking on global warming pollution from automobiles is shameful,” said New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. “As recognized by the scientific community and most world leaders, global warming will have devastating impacts on our environment, health, and economy if it continues to go unchecked.”

In December, the U.S. District Court in Fresno rejected the auto industry's challenge to California’s emissions law, concluding that both California and the EPA are equally empowered to limit greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. In September, a federal court judge in Vermont also rejected a similar effort, by the same automobile industry group, to block the state from implementing California’s tailpipe emissions law.

EPA’s rejection letter is attached along with the state’s lawsuit challenging the denial.

WASHINGTON DC--California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today blasted the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s rejection of California’s request to impose greenhouse gas emissions limits on motor vehicles.

“It is completely absurd to assert that California does not have a compelling need to fight global warming by curbing greenhouse gas emissions from cars,” Brown said. “There is absolutely no legal justification for the Bush administration to deny this request--Governor Schwarzenegger and I are preparing to sue at the earliest possible moment.”

Under the Clean Air Act, California can adopt stricter standards by requesting a waiver from EPA and such requests have been approved more than 50 times in the past. California’s law requires a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions standards from motor vehicles by 2016.

Sixteen other states—Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington—have adopted, or are in the process of adopting California’s emissions standards

Approval of California’s waiver would have meant that other states get approval automatically.

Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1963 and subsequent amendments in 1967, 1970 and 1977 expressly allowed California to impose stricter environmental regulations in recognition of the state’s “compelling and extraordinary conditions,” including topography, climate, high number and concentration of vehicles and its pioneering role in vehicle emissions regulation. Brown said Congress intended the state to continue its pioneering efforts at adopting stricter motor vehicle emissions standards, far more advanced than the federal rules.

Section 307 of the Clean Air Act gives California the authority to challenge a waiver decision by the US Environmental Protection Agency. The state must file a petition to review the EPA’s waiver decision within 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.

Earlier this month the U.S. District Court in Fresno concluded that both California and the United States Environmental Protection Agency are equally empowered under the Clean Air Act to set regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. The court also ruled that California regulations do not conflict with federal authority.

Under the Clean Air Act, California can adopt stricter emissions standards than the federal government—thereby allowing other states to also adopt the standards—but the state must first obtain a waiver of federal preemption from the Environmental Protection Agency. California filed its request in December 2005 and has been awaiting a response ever since.

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.

FRESNO—California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today hailed the United States Eastern District Court’s “stinging rejection” of an automobile industry challenge to California’s landmark motor vehicle emissions standards. The emissions standard, established by AB 1493 in 2002, requires a 30 percent reduction in tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions by 2016, starting with model year 2009.

“This is the fourth major legal victory for California and a stinging rejection of the automobile industry’s legal challenge to greenhouse gas emissions standards,” Attorney General Brown said. “This court ruling leaves the Bush administration as the last remaining roadblock to California’s regulation of tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions,” Brown added.

Under today’s decision, the Court concluded that both the United States Environmental Protection Agency and California are equally empowered under the Clean Air Act to set regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. The court also ruled that California regulations do not conflict with federal authority. Under today’s decision, the Court:

• Rejected the automakers’ claim that United States foreign policy and federal fuel economy laws preempt state authority to curb emissions.
• Ruled that if California’s motor vehicle regulations are approved by EPA, enforcement of the regulations will be consistent with federal law.

The court held that there is no conflict between EPA’s or California’s duty to regulate emissions and the federal National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s authority to set fuel efficiency standards. The court held that mileage standards should be harmonized with the California’s emission regulations.

Today’s decision leaves the EPA, which has failed to act on California’s request to impose tough emissions standards, as the last remaining roadblock to implementing the law. Under the Clean Air Act, California can adopt this standard if it obtains a waiver from the EPA. The Bush administration has been ducking California’s request since 2005.

After two years of delay on this request, Attorney General Brown and Governor Schwarzenegger sued the EPA in November, demanding a response. Fourteen other states— The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the States of New York, Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection—joined California as interveners in that lawsuit against EPA. Under the Clean Air Act, other states can adopt California standards after California gets a waiver from EPA.

EPA has said it will make a decision by the end of the year.

In September, a Vermont District Court also ruled in favor of the state regulations, rejecting a similar challenge from the automobile industry.

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.

The court's decision is attached.

LOS ANGELES — California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa today announced that the Port of Los Angeles will take several important steps to “identify and reduce” the significant greenhouse gases generated at the Port of Los Angeles. The agreement, which was approved last night by the Harbor Commission, specifically addresses the global warming impact of the TraPac terminal expansion.

“This path breaking agreement calls for several important steps that will identify and reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with maritime operations at the Port of Los Angeles,” Attorney General Brown told a news conference today with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Under the agreement, the port will conduct a comprehensive inventory of port-related greenhouse gases—-tracking these emissions from their foreign sources to domestic distribution points throughout the United States. The port will annually report this data to the California Climate Action Registry, a program which gathers baselines emissions data about greenhouse gases generated in California. This annual report will include:

• Emissions of all ships bound to and from the Port of Los Angeles terminals, encompassing points of origin and destination
• Emissions of all rail transit to and from Port terminals, encompassing major rail cargo destination and distribution points in the United States
• Emissions of all truck transit to and from Port terminals, encompassing major truck destinations and distribution points

The port-wide inventory will be conducted annually until AB 32 regulations become effective.

“Today’s agreement demonstrates the commitment of the City and Port of Los Angeles to take specific and concrete steps to fight global warming,” Brown said.

Under the agreement the Port will also construct a 10 Mega-Watt photovoltaic solar system to offset approximately 17,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually. The Port is also adopting a program to use electricity, rather than conventional fossil fuels, to power ocean-going vessels when in port.

Imports of foreign goods are a growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. A recent study published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers estimated that the annual emissions associated with the foreign manufacture and importation of electronic goods into the United States total approximately 470 million metric tons—-the equivalent of nearly all the emissions from the State of California. Ocean-going vessels alone emit more CO2 emissions than any nation in the world except the U.S., Russia, China, Japan, India and Germany. These emissions are projected to increase nearly 75% during the next 20 years.

The need for action to combat climate disruption is urgent. Last month, Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chief of the Noble-prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated that, “if there’s no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that while industrialized countries account for about 80% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, the poorest nations will suffer the most severe consequences of climate change. Increased flooding from glacier melting could reduce freshwater availability for Central, South, East, and South-East Asia, potentially harming more than a billion people by 2050. Disruption of freshwater access in Africa could decrease agricultural production and may threaten up to 250 million people by 2020. Latin America will likely see a drop in crop productivity due to global warming, leading to an increased risk of starvation.

A copy of the agreement is attached.