Environment

LOS ANGELES — Calling aviation a “large and rapidly growing source” of greenhouse gas emissions, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today petitioned the United States Environmental Protection Agency to adopt global warming regulations for aircraft. The request comes on the heels of a landmark petition filed last month that asked the EPA to set limits on greenhouse gas emissions from ocean-going vessels.

“Aviation is a large and rapidly growing source of greenhouse gases and the EPA should have taken action by now to curb these emissions. Not to do so, ignores the tremendous opportunity for technological innovations that can increase efficiency and reduce emissions,” Attorney General Brown told a news conference at the Los Angeles International Airport. “Aircraft engines burn massive quantities of fossil fuels and inject greenhouse gas pollution at high altitudes—right where these emissions have a heightened negative impact.”

According to estimates by the EPA, aircraft in 2005 contributed three percent of the United States’ total carbon dioxide emissions and 12 percent of the transportation sector emissions. The Federal Aviation Administration estimates that emissions from domestic aircraft will rise 60 percent by 2025, primarily due to expected increases in air transportation.

Because aircraft release emissions at high altitudes, the impact of aviation on global warming is greater than other major greenhouse gas emission sources. When nitrous oxide, for example, is emitted at high altitudes it generates much greater concentrations of ozone than when it is emitted at ground-level.

Because aircraft contribute large quantities of global greenhouse gas emissions and the volume of air traffic is expected to increase substantially in the future, California is asking the EPA to:

• Make an explicit finding that greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health and welfare
• Adopt regulations to control greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft

Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA must first make such findings before establishing emissions standards. The petition filed today asks the EPA to respond within 180 days and initiate a formal process to ultimately limit emissions from all aircraft arriving or departing from U.S. airports. These emissions controls would reach the majority of aircraft operations in the United States—domestic aircraft accounted for 97% of the air operations in 1999.

There are currently no greenhouse gas emissions controls on aircraft and only limited controls for some conventional pollutants such as carbon monoxide. Last year, the International Civil Aviation Organization—a United Nations agency—passed a resolution to set international emissions reduction agreements but the organization has taken no additional action to further this goal.

In response to the persistent lack of aircraft emissions rules, the European Parliament gave preliminary approval last month to a global warming control plan that limits carbon dioxide emissions from airlines flying to and from Europe beginning in 2011.

In today’s petition, California asserts that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority and the duty to adopt greenhouse gas emissions standards for aircraft. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases are pollutants and therefore within EPA’s regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act. Section 231 of the Act reads:

The Administrator shall, from time to time, issue proposed emission standards applicable to the emissions of any air pollutant from any class or classes of aircraft engines which in his judgment causes, or contributes to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

On Monday, a team of three dozen scientists called upon Congress to make an annual $30 billion public investment in energy technologies—across all sectors of the economy—to reduce climate risk, increase energy security, and enhance competitiveness. The team of scientists, which includes Nobel Prize winners in chemistry, economics and medicine, said such an expenditure would be less than half of what America already invests in military research and development.

There are currently few controls on aircraft emissions and therefore the opportunity for technological innovation is substantial. The Massachusetts Institute for Technology, in a recent report to Congress, identified several strategies to increase fuel efficiency and reduce aircraft greenhouse gas emissions including:

• Increase the capacity of airports to handle more landings and thereby reduce unnecessary fuel expenditures on the ground and in the air
• Reduce auxiliary power usage by plugging aircraft into ground-side power supplied by the airport
• Use single engine taxiing
• Select more fuel-efficient routes and speeds
• Reduce excess fuel carried by aircraft
• Increase maintenance and cleaning of engines and airframes.

A recent study in the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Journal found that engine technology improvements, combined with design improvements and operational changes, could result in a 10% reduction over 2005 levels in carbon dioxide and other emissions.

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.” Impacts that will continue to occur include: increasing temperatures, heat waves, melting of glaciers, changes in precipitation, increased hurricane intensity, coastal flooding, and increased heat-related illnesses.

California acknowledged the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change and adopted the ground-breaking Global Warming Solutions Act, commonly known as AB 32. AB 32 requires California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020—approximately a 25% reduction.

Other states, local governments, and national environmental organizations that joined California in petitioning the EPA today include: the South Coast Air Quality Management District, City of New York, District of Columbia, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Oceana, Earth Justice, Friends of the Earth, and the Center for Biological Diversity.

Today, Brown also launched a significant expansion of the Attorney General’s Website to provide valuable and up-to-date information about how public officials, industry leaders, and private citizens can join the fight against global warming. For more information visit: http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/

California’s petition is attached.

NEW YORK — Charging the federal government with “subverting a key public safety measure,” California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for allowing companies to hide information about toxic chemicals at thousands of facilities around the United States.

Brown joined eleven other states in challenging the EPA’s decision to weaken the Toxic Release Inventory, a program which requires facilities to report annual quantities of toxic chemicals emitted by refineries, chemical plants, and other manufacturing facilities.

Blasting the new disclosure requirements, Attorney General Brown said, “The EPA is subverting a key public safety measure that helps communities protect themselves from toxic chemicals. The federal government should require more--not less--disclosure of the toxic substances that the threaten public health and safety.”

Under the new rules, approximately 5,300 facilities nationally could be permitted to conceal vital safety information from the Environmental Protection Agency about toxic chemical levels and management of toxic waste. The new regulations increase by 10-fold the quantity of chemical waste that a facility can generate without providing detailed reports.

The attorney general is filing the lawsuit to invalidate EPA's revised regulations and return to the former, more stringent, reporting requirements. California asserts that EPA’s adoption of the new rule violates the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, a law which requires EPA to collect information on toxic chemicals. The law was passed under Ronald Reagan after a cloud of methyl isocyanate killed thousands of people in Bhopal, India and then a similar chemical release occurred at a sister plant in West Virginia.

Facilities covered by the Right-to-Know Act must disclose their releases of approximately 650 toxic chemicals as well as the quantities of chemicals they recycle, treat, burn, or otherwise dispose of on-site and off-site. The information in the database has been used by citizen groups, state and local governments and labor organizations to protect workers and monitor toxic chemicals.

The database has also been used in California to support Prop 65, a state law that requires companies to warn the public about exposure to chemicals known to the cause cancer or reproductive harm. Since the disclosure requirements were established in 1986, thousands of companies have voluntarily cut their toxic chemical releases by billions of pounds.

The states joining today’s lawsuit against the EPA include: Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and Vermont.

The states’ lawsuit, filed today in United States District Court in Manhattan, is attached.

LOS ANGELES—California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Los Angeles City Attorney Rockard J. Delgadillo today sued twenty companies for manufacturing or selling toys with “unlawful quantities of lead.”

Commenting on the lawsuit which was filed today in Alameda County Superior Court, Attorney General Brown said, “Companies must take every reasonable step to assure that the products they handle are safe for children and their families and fully comply with the laws of California. Despite the lengthening global supply chain, every company that does business in this state must follow the law and protect consumers from lead and other toxic materials.”

“Lead in toys poses a significant threat to the health and well being of our children,” said Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo. “This lawsuit is intended to ensure that these companies eliminate lead and other harmful substances from children’s toys, once and for all.”

The state’s lawsuit alleges that companies knowingly exposed individuals to lead—a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer and reproductive harm—and failed to provide any warning about this risk. Under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, known as Proposition 65, businesses cannot expose individuals to hazardous chemicals without posting a clear warning.

Proposition 65 is enforced through lawsuits brought by the attorney general, district attorneys and city attorneys in cities with a population exceeding 750,000. Lawsuits may also be brought by private parties, but only after these parties notify the attorney general of the alleged violation.

The California Attorney General—who successfully negotiated settlements in the past to remove lead in candy, soda bottles, jewelry and other consumer products—launched an investigation into toy manufacturers and retailers after the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission began issuing recall notices for toys that exceeded federal lead limits. Beginning with the recall of 1.5 million Thomas the Tank Engine toys in June, 46 toy products have been recalled for excessive levels of lead—totaling approximately 6 million toys this year.

Following the national recall, the attorney general received notices of impending lawsuits against toy companies from the Center for Environmental Health, Environmental Law Foundation, and As You Sow. Under Prop 65, private parties must notify the attorney general of the allegations before bringing a lawsuit. The attorney general then has the option to take over these lawsuits or allow the complaints to proceed independently.

Although Proposition 65 only requires companies to post hazard warnings, many businesses choose to eliminate the toxic chemicals altogether. Last year, the attorney general prompted over 70 retailers and distributors to meet tougher lead standards for jewelry. Many companies subject to today’s lawsuit have indicated they are also committed to taking measures to ensure that lawful standards are met in the future.

Businesses that violate Proposition 65 are subject to civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day for each violation. In addition, courts may order businesses to stop committing the violation. Today’s lawsuit seeks to remedy past violations and prompt manufacturers and retailers to establish processes that prevent toys with lead from being sold in the future.

Proposition 65 requires the Governor to publish a list of chemicals that are known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. Lead has been listed since 1987 as a chemical that can cause reproductive harm and birth defects, and has been on the list of chemicals known to cause cancer since 1992.

Lead is a toxic metal that damages the nervous system and other organs. Children are particularly susceptible to the risks of lead exposure. Children can ingest the lead in toys when they place the toys in their mouths, handle the toys and then touch their mouths, or transfer the lead from the toys to other items such as food.

Companies subject to today’s lawsuit include: Mattel, Fisher-Price, Michaels Stores, Toys R Us, Wal-Mart, Target, Sears, KB Toys, Costco Wholesale, A&A Global Industries, RC2 Corporation, Eveready Battery Company, Kids II, Kmart, Marvel Entertainment, Toy Investments.

For more information about Prop 65 and to view the private party notices please visit: http://ag.ca.gov/prop65/index.php. For more information about the national toy recall, please visit the Consumer Product Safety Commission at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prerel.html

The state’s lawsuit is attached.

SAN FRANCISCO--California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today hailed the 9th Circuit’s decision striking down national automobile mileage standards, calling it a “stunning rebuke” to the Bush administration's failed energy policies.

Commenting on the decision Attorney General Brown said, “This decision sends a clear message that the Congress must get serious about combating dangerous foreign oil dependency and global warming. This is a major victory and a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration and its failed energy policies.”

In May, Attorney General Brown had argued that the administration had failed to consider the effects of vehicles’ greenhouse gas emissions on global warming, a requirement under the National Environmental Policy Act, when formulating new mileage standards. Brown asserted that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s mileage standards violated federal law by ignoring both global warming and America’s “dangerous foreign oil dependency.”

Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act—adopted four decades ago in response to the Arab oil crisis—the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations sets gas mileage standards for motor vehicles. The Administration, under Bush, ordered a pathetic one mile per gallon increase, from 22 to 23 miles per gallon by 2010, which Brown challenged in court as a violation of federal environmental law.

“A paltry one-mile-per gallon increase in gas mileage was clearly unlawful,” said Brown, “and today’s decision to reject that dangerously misguided policy is a victory for states that want to fight climate disruption and oil dependency.”

Other states and national environmental organizations that joined the lawsuit against the Bush Administration include: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, New York, the District of Columbia, New York City, the Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense and the Sierra Club.

Last week, Attorney General Brown joined sixteen states in petitioning Congress to protect California’s landmark motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions law, known as the Pavley Bill, from federal preemption. Brown sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, urging Congress to “clearly and unambiguously protect the States’ existing authority to set new motor vehicle emission standards under the Clean Air Act.”

Brown wrote the letter because influential members of Congress are threatening to change federal automobile fuel economy standards, and at the same time preempt California’s ability to set tailpipe restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.

The Energy Bill is a federal effort to improve fuel efficiency and reduce dependency on foreign oil. Congress is currently working to reconcile House and Senate versions of the energy bill—HR 3221 and HR 6.

Attorney General Brown asked Congress to make sure that the Energy Bill would not undermine state authority to set tough greenhouse gas emissions standards. Brown suggested that the most direct way to protect California’s greenhouse gases would be to adopt the following provision: “Nothing in this title shall be construed to conflict with the authority provided by sections 202 and 209 of the Clean Air Act.”

Under the Clean Air Act, there are two sets of emissions standards for motor vehicles—those adopted by EPA and those adopted by California, which are approved by the EPA in a formal waiver process. In addition, there are also federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards set by National Highway Transportation Safety Association.

The case is California v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 06-72317.

OAKLAND—At the 113th annual meeting of the California State Association of Counties, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today challenged supervisors representing the fifty-eight counties of California to “combat global warming through green buildings, alternative energy and wise land use rules.”

During the meeting, held today at Oakland’s City Center, Attorney General Brown said: “California is committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels. This radical change in our fossil fuel economy demands imagination, massive investment and extraordinary ingenuity. The counties should immediately lead the charge against climate disruption and combat global warming through green buildings, alternative energy and wise land-use rules.”

Under California law, the state is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and then reducing 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. To achieve the state’s 2020 target, California must reduce current emissions by at least 25%. Brown emphasized that global warming is a growing threat to California, the nation and the world. Potential problems, he said, include:

• Reduced water storage in the Sierra snow pack that threatens half of the state’s surface water
• Rising sea levels that increase coastal erosion and introduce seawater into the delta and levee systems
• Increasing smog and extreme heat events that raise the risk of heatstroke and heart attack.
• Rising electricity demands that overburden the state’s power grid.

Local government agencies are responsible, under the California Environmental Quality Act, to address the potential impacts of global warming. In comments to thirteen local jurisdictions, on projects with potentially large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, Attorney General Brown has outlined feasible mitigations which include: green building, alternative energy and land use mitigations.

After providing these comments, Attorney General Brown has reached landmark agreements with San Bernardino County and ConcoPhillips that will reduce the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to these major projects and developments.

Under the global warming agreement with San Bernardino, the County is embarking upon a thirty-month public process to cut greenhouse gas emissions attributable to land use decisions and government operations. The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan mandates:

• An inventory of greenhouse gas sources in the County.
• An inventory of 1990 emissions levels, current levels, and projected levels for 2020.
• A reduction target for the emissions attributable to discretionary land use decisions and internal government operations.

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 their own measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some of these greenhouse gas mitigation proposals include:

• High-density developments that reduce vehicle trips and utilize public transit.
• Parking spaces for high-occupancy vehicles and car-share programs.
• Electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located alternative fueling stations.
• Limits on parking.
• 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.

The Institute for Local Government is taking seriously its leadership role in the fight against global warming and has partnered with the California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities to launch a California Climate Action Network to fight global warming.

The Network proposes actions that local jurisdictions can take to cut greenhouse gas emissions including: conserving energy, reducing travel distances, and using lower carbon fuels. For more information visit: http://www.ca-ilg.org/climatechange/

The California State Association of Counties advocates for county governments at the State and Federal level in addition to educating the public about the value and need for county programs. California counties employ approximately 330,000 people and provide services to all 36.5 million Californians.

The theme of this year’s conference is: “58 Counties, One California: Creating a Better Tomorrow.”

WASHINGTON D.C.—California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today joined sixteen states in petitioning Congress to “back California’s fight against global warming,” and protect the state’s motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions law from federal preemption.

In a letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Brown urged Congress to “clearly and unambiguously protect the States’ existing authority to set new motor vehicle emission standards under the Clean Air Act.” Brown wrote the letter because influential members of Congress are threatening to change federal automobile fuel economy standards, and at the same time preempt California’s ability to set tailpipe restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.

“Preemption of state tailpipe greenhouse gas emission standards would be a death blow to California’s pioneering effort to fight global warming,” Brown stated. “Congress should both improve fuel economy standards and back California’s fight against global warming through its tailpipe emissions standards—these goals are complementary.”

Attorney General Brown asked Congress to make sure that the Energy Bill did not undermine state authority to set tough greenhouse gas emissions standards. Brown suggested that the most direct way to protect California’s greenhouse gases would be to adopt the following provision: “Nothing in this title shall be construed to conflict with the authority provided by sections 202 and 209 of the Clean Air Act.”

Under the Clean Air Act, there are two sets of emissions standards for motor vehicles—those adopted by EPA and those adopted by California, which are approved by the EPA in a formal waiver process. In addition, there are also federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards set by National Highway Transportation Safety Association.

In response to California’s greenhouse gas emissions law, the automobile industry has brought suit against the state alleging that the law impermissibly establishes a “de facto” fuel economy standard, preempted by Congress. California vigorously asserts that its greenhouse gas emissions standards, set under Clean Air Act, are different from federal CAFE fuel economy standards and therefore not preempted. This view of the law was recently upheld by a federal district court in Vermont.

California’s motor vehicles greenhouse gas emissions standards, known as the Pavley regulations, require a 30 percent reduction in global warming emissions from vehicles by 2016, starting with model year 2009. Eleven other states have also adopted California’s emissions law and are—like California—awaiting EPA approval.

The Energy Bill is a federal effort to improve fuel efficiency and reduce dependency on foreign oil. Congress is currently working to reconcile House and Senate versions—HR 3221 and HR 6. A vote may take place next week.

Sixteen other states joined the attorney general’s letter requesting protection from federal preemption: AZ, DE, CT, IL, IA, ME, MD, MA, MN, NJ, NM, OR, PA, RI, VT, and WA. Attorney General Brown’s letter to Congress is attached.

WASHINGTON D.C. — In a precedent setting lawsuit, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today sued the U.S. EPA, to force the agency to take action on California’s request to curb greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. The lawsuit, filed today in Washington D.C., charges the EPA with an unreasonable delay in reaching a decision on California’s landmark law, known as the Pavley bill, which mandates a 30 percent reduction in motor vehicle emissions by 2016.

“Despite the mounting dangers of global warming, the EPA has delayed and ignored California’s right to impose stricter environmental standards,” Attorney General Brown told a news conference at the state capitol with Governor Schwarzenegger and California Air Resources Board chair, Mary Nichols. “We have waited two years and the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor. What is the EPA waiting for?” Brown asked.

Under the Clean Air Act, passed in 1963, California can adopt environmental standards that are stricter than federal rules, if the state obtains a waiver from the U.S. EPA. Congress allowed California to impose stricter laws in recognition of the state’s “compelling and extraordinary conditions.” After a California waiver request is granted, other states are permitted to adopt the same rules.

In the Act’s 40-year history, EPA has granted approximately 50 waivers for innovations like catalytic converters, exhaust emission standards, and leaded gasoline regulations. In today’s lawsuit, California asserts that EPA has failed to act in a reasonable length of time.

In 2002, California passed AB 1493 which require a 30 percent reduction in global warming emissions from vehicles by 2016, starting with model year 2009. In December 2005, the California Air Resources Board applied for a waiver to implement the law. Governor Schwarzenegger wrote to the EPA in April 2006 and in October 2006, requesting action on California’s application.

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.

The state asserts that EPA does not need any additional time to review the facts—the California Air Resources Board submitted a detailed 251-page assessment in 2005 and the U.S. Supreme Court already issued a decision that greenhouse gases are pollutants. In September, a Vermont District Court ruled in favor of the state regulations, rejecting a challenge from the automobile lobby.

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.

Last year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the landmark Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32, which sets a goal to cut California greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020. To meet this target, California must reduce emissions by 174 million metric tons. If California’s motor vehicle emissions law is implemented, it will account for 17% of this reduction target.

Climate research shows that global warming is having a profound effect on California’s temperature, weather, air quality, and mountain snowfall. Last year Southern California experienced its driest year since record-keeping began 130 years ago. Between 1949 and 1999, average temperature in California increased 1.03 degrees Fahrenheit and mountain snow accumulation declined ten percent. By 2099 there will be virtually no snow below 3280 feet.

California’s complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is attached. California’s petition for review, filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, is also attached.

Later today, fourteen other states are expected to support California as interveners in the lawsuit.

LOS ANGELES – Citing the “threat of global climate disruption,” California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today joined three national environmental organizations in petitioning the United States Environmental Protection Agency to adopt strict greenhouse gas regulations for ocean-going vessels. The petition asks the EPA to make specific findings that ships significantly contribute to global warming.

At a news conference at the attorney general’s headquarters in Los Angeles, Brown said: “The U.S. EPA has the authority to curb greenhouse gas emissions and our petition today asks the agency to exercise that authority without delay.”

Ocean-going vessels, in total, emit more CO2 emissions than any nation in the world except the U.S., Russia, China, Japan, India and Germany. Ominously, these emissions are projected to increase nearly 75% during the next 20 years.

“International law guarantees a right of ‘innocent passage’ for all ocean-going vessels, but this right does not include polluting the air or water near our coastal cities,” Brown said. “If the U.S. is to do its part in reducing the threat of global climate disruption, then EPA must limit the global warming emissions from ships that enter the ports of the United States,” Brown added.

Under the Clean Air Act, California has the authority to file a petition asking the EPA to establish CO2 emissions standards. In the petition filed today, Brown asks the EPA to:

• Make a finding that carbon dioxide emissions from ocean-going vessels contribute to air pollution and endanger human health and welfare.
• Set standards for reducing such carbon dioxide emissions.

Brown said that under the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Massachusetts v. EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to adopt standards for greenhouse gas emissions from vessels that enter U.S. territorial waters.

The United Nations International Maritime Organization (IMO) has authority under international treaties to establish pollution standards for vessels but to date has failed to adopt controls on greenhouse gas emissions. At a recent meeting of the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee, it was agreed to inventory greenhouse gases by 2009, but no commitment was made to regulate such emissions.

The state’s petition to EPA is attached.

For more information, please visit http://www.oceana.org/climate/solutions/oceana/no-more-free-ride/

SACRAMENTO – In response to today’s District Court decision in Vermont, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. renewed his vow to “haul the Bush administration into court” if the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) refuses to grant California’s request to impose tough emissions standards on motor vehicles.

Responding to today’s decision Brown said, “Unfortunately, today’s decision upholding California's greenhouse gas emissions standards will turn out to be a hollow victory if the EPA persists in denying California's waiver petition.”

The Bush administration has been ducking California’s request since 2005.

“We will haul the Bush administration into court if it persists in stalling on our request to regulate emissions from motor vehicles,” Brown warned.

Judge Sessions, who wrote the decision, affirmed that Vermont’s effort to control greenhouse gas emissions is not preempted by the federal law.

In 2002, California adopted AB 1493 to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles to fight global warming. 14 other states -- Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington -- have enacted the California law and are also waiting for federal approval. Under the Clean Air Act, California can adopt stricter standards by obtaining a waiver from EPA.

Approval of California’s waiver means the other states would get approval automatically.

“Our petition represents a reasoned approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and it has been shamefully ignored for almost two years,” Brown said.

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.

California has long asserted that the automobile industry can rise to the challenge of global warming. Judge Sessions -- in a thorough 240-page analysis -- agreed and stated: “History suggests that the ingenuity of the industry, once put in gear, responds admirably to most technological challenges.”

SAN FRANCISCO – California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced that ConocoPhillips has agreed to an “unprecedented global warming reduction plan” to off-set greenhouse gases caused by the expansion of its Northern California oil refinery.

Brown said that the oil company has agreed to offset greenhouse gas emission increases until the carbon-cutting regulations of AB 32 take effect in 2012.

“This agreement is a groundbreaking step in California’s battle to combat global warming and gives the state an early edge in meeting the greenhouse gas reduction goals of AB 32,” Brown told a news conference with ConocoPhillips at the Attorney General’s Office in San Francisco.

ConocoPhillips has proposed an oil refinery expansion at its Rodeo facility in Contra Costa County, including a hydrogen plant to make cleaner-burning gasoline and diesel fuels from the heavy portion of crude oil. Brown appealed to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, challenging the environmental documentation for the project and the failure to mitigate the increased greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the operation of the hydrogen plant.

The Attorney General said he would now withdraw the state’s appeal based on the significant greenhouse gas emission offsets agreed to by ConocoPhillips.

Brown added, “Under this unprecedented global warming reduction plan, ConocoPhillips becomes the first oil company in America to off-set greenhouse gas emissions from a refinery expansion project. This is a breakthrough.”

The hydrogen project will initially emit approximately 500,000 metric tons of CO2 per year. ConocoPhillips will take the following actions as part of its efforts to offset these emissions:

• Auditing all its California refineries and identifying all greenhouse gas emission sources and reduction opportunities.

• Conducting an energy efficiency audit at Rodeo to identify feasible energy efficiency measures.

• Funding a $7 million offset program that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District will use to support offset projects in the Bay Area.

• Funding $2.8 million for reforestation efforts in California, with an estimated sequestration of 1.5 million metric tons of greenhouse gases over the life of the reforestation projects.

• Funding $200,000 for restoration of the San Pablo wetlands.

• Surrendering the operating permit for the calciner at the Santa Maria facility, which ConocoPhillips estimates emitted 70,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases annually.

• If ConocoPhillips reduces its greenhouse gas emissions at the Rodeo facility, it will get credit towards its contribution to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District offset fund.

ConocoPhillips also agrees to offset any CO2 emissions in excess of 500,000 metric tons per year from the hydrogen unit if it increases its use of hydrogen. The company may apply to receive offsets credits for reductions achieved through the projects and activities funded through this agreement, under AB 32, or any equivalent state or federal law or regulation.

In 2005, ConocoPhillips proposed a project, known as the Clean Fuels Expansion Project, designed to make cleaner-burning gasoline and diesel fuels from the heavy gas oil already produced at the refinery. The expansion included a hydrogen plant to produce steam and electricity for these refinery processes. ConocoPhillips estimated that the project would increase the supply of cleaner burning fuels by approximately one million gallons per day in California.

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Contra Costa County prepared an Environmental Impact Report on the project and accepted public comments. After the concluding that the report adequately addressed greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, the County Planning Commission certified the report. Attorney General Brown appealed to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors in May 2007 on grounds that the impact report did not adequately address the greenhouse gas emissions and the associated climate change impacts of the project.

Scientists throughout the world overwhelming agree that global warming is real, is here now, and will get worse. At current emissions levels, temperatures in California will increase by 4 to 10 degrees during this century. In 2006 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, landmark global warming legislation that commits the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020—a 25% reduction. But AB 32 regulations do not take effect until 2012 and there are no current limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Today’s agreement with ConocoPhillips comes on the heels of a landmark agreement with San Bernardino County to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the county level. These actions join a growing movement at the local level to combat climate change. As of June 2007, over 540 mayors from 50 states have signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, a pledge to reduce global warming pollution in cities 7% below 1990 levels by the year 2012.

In California, the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties have partnered with the Institute for Local Government to launch a California Climate Action Network. The network proposes a variety of actions—from conserving energy to using lower carbon fuels—that can be taken by local jurisdictions to cut greenhouse gas emissions. For more information visit: http://www.ca-ilg.org/climatechange/

The attorney general’s global warming agreement with ConocoPhillips is attached.