Legislation

SAN FRANCISCO – California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today filed a motion in federal court demanding public disclosure of Federal Receiver J. Clark Kelso’s $8 billion prison construction plan.

“If public money is being spent, the public has the right to know how it’s going to be spent,” said Attorney General Brown. “To date, the proposed $8 billion medical upgrade for California’s prisons has not been shared with the public. The people of California are entitled to see for themselves whether or not the plan meets constitutional minimums or instead goes way beyond what the Constitution requires under the Eighth Amendment, prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.”

The Receiver’s plan for prison facility construction is a 917-page document containing information on the layout, design and amenities of the seven prison healthcare facilities the Receiver seeks to build. The Attorney General contends that only 23 pages of the 917-page document fall within the terms of the protective secrecy order granted by the court earlier in the proceedings.

The court’s protective order, by its terms, only protects confidential medical records or information that may threaten the safety or security of prison personnel. Specifically, the protective order covers “Department of Corrections’ records that identify any inmate or parolee or that are designated by defendants as threatening prison safety and/or security if disclosed without protective conditions, and which are produced by defendants in informal and/or formal discover in this action.”

The Receiver’s 917-page plan forms the basis for his request to seize $8 billion from the State Treasury to build prison facilities. Attorney General Brown’s motion honors the California Constitutional principle that government is accountable to the people. Article I, Section 3 (b) of the California Constitution declares “The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business…” As the Supreme Court has recognized, “informed public opinion is the most potent of all restraints upon misgovernment,” which is why, as Justice Brandeis so famously said, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”

The Attorney General’s motion is attached.

SAN FRANCISCO– California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today filed a motion in federal court to oppose Federal Receiver Clark Kelso’s motion to hold California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Controller John Chiang in contempt for failing to release $8 billion in state funds for a massive prison healthcare facilities construction project.

“Last year, the Legislature approved $7.4 billion in prison construction funds. That money hasn’t even been spent yet, and the Receiver wants $8 billion more,” said Attorney General Brown. “We simply can’t afford to keep throwing billions of dollars of public money into our state correctional system under the veil of secrecy. Once we spend the billions already allocated to improving healthcare in our prisons, then we can determine if more is needed.”

In August, Federal Prison Receiver Clark Kelso filed a motion compelling Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Controller John Chiang to hand over an additional $8 billion from the California Treasury over the next 5 years, including $3 billion in this fiscal year, for prison healthcare facility construction. Attorney General Brown argues that the federal court does not have the legal power to mandate state prison construction and there is no evidence in the record justifying the massive sums sought by the Receiver.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), approved by Congress in 1996, makes clear that a court may not force a state to pay for prison construction without its consent. The Receiver’s $8 billion demand includes construction of new prison healthcare facilities containing 10,000 new beds for prisoners with acute and long-term health needs. While California has acknowledged the need to provide constitutionally adequate healthcare, the Receiver has not presented convincing evidence that his wide-ranging plan is “necessary and the least-intrusive” plan required by the U.S. Constitution.

The Receiver has refused to disclose his plan to the public, but according to the Receiver’s motion, “the Facility Improvement project will touch virtually every prison in the state” and “will result in the construction of 7 million square feet of new medical facilities—the equivalent of 70 Wal-Mart stores…”

The $8 billion demand is an enormous increase in state spending for prisons. California built 22 new prisons in 23 years, and prison spending topped almost $10 billion in the 2007-2008 state budget. Last year, the California Legislature authorized $7.4 billion for prison construction and has instituted numerous improvements and reforms to the prison healthcare system. The Attorney General’s motion argues that these improvements should be assessed before allocating more money.

The state has made progress on prison healthcare reform. One of the fundamental problems in fulfilling the state’s constitutional healthcare mandate was the lack of qualified medical staff to treat the inmates. The eighth quarterly report of the Receiver shows that 86% of nursing positions and 81% of physician positions have now been filled. This has significantly improved the level of care provided to prisoners. The state has also implemented upgrades and improvements to its appointment-tracking, medication delivery and laboratory services.

SACRAMENTO--California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today released guidelines that, for the first time since California’s Proposition 215 was passed in 1996, clarify the state’s laws governing medical marijuana and provide clear guidelines for patients and law enforcement to ensure that medical marijuana is not diverted to illicit markets.

“California voters approved an initiative legalizing medical marijuana, not street drugs. Marijuana intended for medicinal use should not be sold to non-patients or on illicit markets,” Attorney General Brown said. “These guidelines will help law enforcement agencies perform their duties in accordance with California law and help patients understand their rights under Proposition 215.”

This landmark document marks the first attempt by a state agency to define the types of organizations that are legally permitted to dispense marijuana. Brown’s guidelines affirm the legality of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, but make clear that such entities cannot be operated for profit, may not purchase marijuana from unlawful sources and must have a defined organizational structure that includes detailed records proving that users are legitimate patients.

“We welcome the Attorney General’s leadership and expect that compliance with these guidelines will result in fewer unnecessary arrests, citations and seizures of medicine from qualified patients and their primary caregivers,” said Americans for Safe Access Attorney Joe Elford. “No one benefits from confusion over the law. These guidelines will help patients and law enforcement better understand California’s medical marijuana laws.”

In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 215, an initiative that exempted patients and their primary caregivers from criminal liability under state law for the possession and cultivation of marijuana. In addition, The Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMA), enacted by the Legislature in 2004, intended to further clarify lawful medical marijuana practices by establishing a voluntary statewide identification card system, specific limits on the amount of medical marijuana each cardholder could possess, and rules for the cultivation of medical marijuana by collectives and cooperatives. According to Americans for Safe Access, California has more than 200,000 doctor-qualified medial cannabis users.

Several law enforcement agencies have requested that the Attorney General issue guidelines regarding the lawful possession, sale and cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purposes. These law enforcement agencies believe that individuals and cartels, under the cover of Proposition 215, have expanded illegal cultivation and sales of marijuana, which has led to an increase in drug-related violent crime. Most researchers agree that the U.S. marijuana crop has seen a sharp increase in the past decade. A report, “Marijuana Production in the United States” by drug-policy researcher Jon Gettman, estimated that in 2006, more than 21 million pot plants were grown in California at a street value of up to $14 billion.

Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer, President of the California Police Chiefs Association, praised Brown for establishing these guidelines. 'Since Proposition 215 was passed, the laws surrounding the use, possession and distribution of medical marijuana became confusing at best. These newly established guidelines are an essential tool for law enforcement and provide the parameters needed for consistent statewide regulation and enforcement.'

The guidelines encourage patients to participate in the California Department of Public Health’s registration program to obtain a medical marijuana identification card. The identification card protects the holder from arrest for marijuana possession and is one of the best ways to ensure the non-diversion of medical marijuana. Collectives and cooperatives are advised to keep files on their patients with documented verification of their qualified status.

A copy of the Guidelines is attached.

LOS ANGELES – California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced a raid on an illegal marijuana operation that used a medical marijuana dispensary as a front for massive illegal drug sales. On Friday, August 22, special agents from the California’s Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement (BNE) arrested two men in Los Angeles for the illegal possession, transportation and sale of marijuana in connection with a marijuana dispensary, Today’s Healthcare, in Northridge.

Nathan Holtz, age 37, is the suspected middleman between northern California marijuana growers and the Today’s Healthcare marijuana dispensary in southern California. Louis Godman, owner of the dispensary, admitted he conducted a profitable business with the majority of his customers being between the ages of 18 and 29 years-old. Under the Attorney General’s medical marijuana guidelines, also released today, medical marijuana collectives or cooperatives should operate as not-for-profit only, serving qualified patients who’ve been examined by a doctor.

“This criminal enterprise bears no resemblance to the purposes of Proposition 215, which authorized the use of medical marijuana for seriously sick patients,” said Attorney General Brown. “Today’s Healthcare is a large-scale, for-profit, commercial business. This deceptively named drug ring is reaping huge profits and flaunting the state’s laws that allow qualified patients to use marijuana for medicinal purposes.”

Over the course of the past six months, the Los Angeles Interagency Metropolitan Police Apprehension Crime Task Force (LA IMPACT), led by the BNE, conducted an investigation into the illegal marijuana trafficking of Holtz and Godman. Over the weekend, BNE special agents arrested both subjects, who were caught red-handed buying and selling three pounds of high-grade marijuana with a street value of $18,000.00. During the course of the arrest, it was found that Holtz had approximately three additional pounds of marijuana in his vehicle, and Godman had an additional $9,000.00 in cash.

BNE agents served six additional search warrants at residences in Los Angeles and at the marijuana dispensary, Today’s Healthcare, in Northridge. At the residences, agents uncovered sophisticated indoor growing operations, including complex marijuana growing equipment, such as lighting, timers, and a power system allowing them to divert electrical power from the Los Angeles Water and Power Department to avoid detection of their operations. In total, agents seized more than 1,100 high-grade marijuana plants with a street value of more than $6.6 million. At Today’s Healthcare, agents seized two boxes of client records showing the average age of its clients to be 18 to 29 years-old.

LA IMPACT, which is led by BNE, is a cooperative effort of federal, state and municipal law enforcement agencies in Los Angeles County targeting major narcotic trafficking organizations operating in the region.

From The Wall Street Journal
August 11, 2008
Opinion Journal

Two weeks ago The Wall Street Journal kicked off a debate on how best to allocate scarce resources to solve the world's problems. Bjorn Lomborg offered a summary of the latest findings from his Copenhagen Consensus project, where he has enlisted some of the world's top economists to address the issue. Now we're offering views on the subject from top political and business leaders. How would you spend $10 billion of American resources (either directly or through regulation) over the next four years to help improve the state of the world?

Saving $10 Billion With Efficiency
By Jerry Brown
August 11, 2008

The cost of energy in the United States, on an annual basis, has now soared beyond $1 trillion. Our massive purchases of foreign oil represent perhaps the greatest transfer of wealth from one people to another in all human history. And, paradoxically, this wealth transfer is from a far more technologically advanced nation to poorer countries -- some unstable and hostile -- whose only claim is the oil that lies under their ground. Wake up America! We must stop the hemorrhaging of our national treasure, and we need to do it now.

I propose that we take the $10 billion and invest it in curbing our energy appetite through efficiency programs and incentives. The efficiency I envision would allow us to enhance our quality of life, but do so in ways that reduce the huge quantities of oil, gas and coal that we now consume.

California has kept its per capita electrical consumption flat for the past 25 years -- in significant part through appliance and buildings standards and incentives to adopt ways that get more work out of less energy. I am not talking about some collective hair shirt, but rather about a wide variety of new technologies and designs.

The world is facing a triple threat of unprecedented dimensions: First, the loss of cheap and easily discovered oil; second, explosive energy demand from China, India and other emerging countries as they rapidly improve their standard of living; and third, the climate disruptions caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. None of the three will go away. In fact, each will get progressively worse unless we take decisive action, without delay. America must take the lead in dealing with global energy and climate challenges, and at the same time vastly strengthen its own economy and security.

For too long, the federal government has been slow and unimaginative in setting efficiency standards for appliances and equipment, and in many cases it has set no standard at all. We know from the example of California's energy commission that huge financial savings can be generated through efficiency standards consistent with the best available technology. Billions of dollars and large quantities of fossil fuel could be saved if the federal government would set tough but practical standards for lighting, refrigerators, stoves, computers and other products and pieces of equipment.

Congress provided the legal authority to do so in the 2007 energy bill, but the Department of Energy currently lacks the trained personnel and engineers needed to create such a sophisticated regulatory framework. This will require additional funding -- perhaps as much as several hundred million a year. The next president should engage the appliance and equipment manufacturers and provide the kind of leadership that has so far been totally lacking.

Next, the federal government should establish a financial grant program, encouraging the states to craft efficiency standards for new buildings. Again, the example of California is instructive. Its detailed and regional building standards have saved Californians tens of billions of dollars in lower energy bills. A significant part of the proposed $10 billion could be spent on this type of effort. Each state would be asked to craft their own rules in response to the differing conditions found in various regions of the country.

A third type of program could be modeled on California's current system of rebates, tax credits and other incentives that encourage businesses and consumers to adopt efficiency measures that exceed the mandatory standards. This program is financed through the investor-owned utilities and established under the authority of the state utilities commission.

The federal government could provide a matching program for each state's efforts consistent with standards that are technically feasible, and that provide an economic return on the investment. In California, all the electric and gas utilities have added conservation investments to their historic practice of dealing with energy shortages only though building new plants.

Just as new sources of energy require vast sums spent on R&D, so do new efficiency technologies. They will emerge only if there is adequate investment in research and development. Some of the $10 billion should go for this. Needless to say, overall investment in both energy and efficiency R&D is pathetically and dangerously underfunded.

While military, medical and pharmaceutical research has steadily grown over the past two decades, R&D to increase our national energy efficiency and provide the full gamut of new fuels and power sources has fallen by 50% in real terms. In the early 1980s, energy companies invested more in R&D than drug companies; today, drug companies invest 10 times as much in R&D as do energy firms. To secure our energy and economic future, America must reverse this shameful neglect. Physicist and University of California professor Dan Kammen estimates that we must increase our level of energy and energy efficiency R&D five to tenfold, spending $15 billion to $30 billion per year to develop new fuels, new sources of energy and more efficient technologies.

America is at a crossroads. Total U.S. financial and nonfinancial debt rose to $44.7 trillion in 2006, from $2.4 trillion in 1974. This does not even count longer-term liabilities such as Social Security and Medicare. Oil and gas are consuming more and more of our national wealth. It is time for our political and business leaders to tap into America's unspent creativity and entrepreneurial genius. Many times $10 billion will be needed. But it can be done. It must be done.

Mr. Brown, a Democrat, is attorney general of California.

SACRAMENTO--In response to today’s Sacramento Superior Court decision to deny a lawsuit challenging the title and summary and ballot label for Proposition 8, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued the following statement:

“This lawsuit was more about politics than the law. The court properly dismissed it.”

One of the many responsibilities of the attorney general is to prepare a title and summary for initiative measures. For more information visit: http://ag.ca.gov/initiatives/index.php

The court’s order, issued today, is attached.

RIVERSIDE--California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Riverside District Attorney Rod Pacheco today announced a 37-count indictment against Mark Anthony Leggio, James Lloyd Deremiah, and father-son team Nicola Cacucciolo, and Nick Vito Cacucciolo, for exceeding $3,300 Senate and Assembly campaign contribution limits by laundering money through various friends and associates.

“Leggio contributed $50,000 in excess of campaign contribution limits to six candidates for Senate, Assembly and Board of Equalization by filtering money through friends and associates,” Attorney General Brown said. “Today’s charges send a strong message that the state will crack down on those who try to exceed California’s campaign finance limits.”

In November 2006, the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office launched an investigation into possible campaign money laundering, in violation of Government Code Section 84301, in a Riverside County State Assembly race for the 65th District. The timing and pattern of campaign contributions suggested that various individuals were being reimbursed for contributing to Leggio’s candidate of choice, in violation of the Political Reform Act.

“Democracy is the foundation of our society. The process by which we citizens elect our leaders and representatives must be honest and free from all corruption. Money laundering in elections hides a candidate’s true support. When it is of this significant magnitude a fraud is perpetrated on the public,” Riverside District Attorney Rod Pachecho said.

Investigators found that Leggio funneled money through various friends and employees of the Mark Christopher Auto Center in Ontario and Mountain View Chevrolet in Upland. Nicola Cacucciolo and his son Nick Vito Cacucciolo assisted with the illegal campaign donation scheme, as did James Llloyd Deremiah.

The alleged fraud involved contributions to six state campaigns for Senate, Assembly and Board of Equalization in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The prosecutor from the Riverside District Attorney’s Office, who launched the original investigation, was granted the status of Deputy Attorney General which allows him to prosecute violations in other counties.

The accusations in today’s indictment include: 11 felony counts of perjury, filing false statements, conspiracy, and 26 misdemeanor violations of campaign contribution limit and reporting laws. The indictment was unsealed in San Bernardino Superior Court and the arraignment is scheduled for July 11, 2008. If convicted of the most serious charges, Leggio faces up to 6 years in state prison and the other defendants face up to 3 years.

The indictment, which was filed under seal on June 11, 2008 and made public today, is attached.

In 20 days, a full California State Grand Jury transcript including all other findings in this case will be made public. Until that transcript is unsealed, no additional details of this case can be released.

For more information, please contact Michael Jeandron at the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office: (916) 955-9215

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.

# # #

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 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.