Clean Air Act
In April, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court gave us a tremendous victory in our efforts to get the federal government to act on global warming, in a case entitled Massachusetts v. EPA. California, Massachusetts, and other States sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court rejected EPA's argument that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were not “air pollutants.” The Court also ruled that EPA could not rely on a hodgepodge of political reasons to delay action, but had to decide whether or not these emissions endangered public health and welfare. See a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision. 
[PDF 354 kb / 66 pg]
The Supreme Court’s decision required EPA to consider whether global warming pollutants endanger public health and welfare. Shortly thereafter, President Bush held a Rose Garden press conference in which he directed EPA to propose greenhouse gas regulations for cars and trucks by the end of 2007, and finalize those regulations by the end of his term. Nothing has happened since then. On January 23, 2008 Attorney General Brown and 16 other state attorneys general sent a letter to EPA demanding action See the letter. [PDF 58 kb / 5 pg]
A group of prominent scientists wrote to EPA in November, 2007, highlighting the strong scientific evidence about the threat to health posed by climate change, and urging EPA to act in accordance with this threat in its decisions implementing the Supreme Court’s remand in Massachusetts v. EPA. Read a copy of the letter. [PDF 59 kb / 7 pg]
Between October, 2007 and January, 2008, the Attorney General filed petitions with EPA requesting that it adopt controls, as required by the Clean Air Act, on several other categories of mobile sources that contribute significant greenhouse gas emissions to the environment: ocean-going vessels, aircraft, and nonroad vehicles and engines (such as construction and farm machinery, mining equipment, lawn and garden equipment and others).
Together, these sources emit as much greenhouse gas as 270 million cars, more than the entire number of registered vehicles in the United States. Ocean-going vessels are responsible for 2-3% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. Aircraft contribute 3% of the United States carbon dioxide emissions and 12% of our transportation sector emissions. Nonroad vehicles and engines emitted 220 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2007. Read the ocean-going vessel petition [PDF 1.1 mb / 17 pg]. Read the aircraft petition [PDF 1.4 mb / 22 pg]. Read the nonroad vehicle petition [PDF 1.4 mb / 22 pg].
EPA failed to respond to any of these petitions. Therefore, in July, 2008, the Attorney General, along with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the California Air Resources Board, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the States of Connecticut, New Jersey and Oregon, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the City of New York, notified EPA of their intent to sue the agency for continuing to ignore its duty to regulate greenhouse gas pollution from ocean-going vessels, aircraft, and nonroad vehicles and engines. The Clean Air Act requires anyone intending to sue EPA to give the agency 180 days notice before filing suit. If the agency does not act on the petitions within 180 days, California and the other government petitioners plan to sue EPA for unreasonable delay. Read the notice letter
[PDF 2.1 mb / 13 pg] .
In July, 2008, the Attorney General submitted comments to EPA protesting its continue failure to propose rules under the Clean Air Act regulating carbon dioxide emissions from steam generating units, especially electric utility steam generating units (i.e. power plants). The Attorneys General of Massachusetts and Oregon and the Corporation Counsel for the City of New York joined the comments. Read the comment letter.
[PDF 296 kb / 12 pg]
The Attorney General, along with the attorney generals of several other states, also has sent comment letters about proposed coal-fired power plants in Ohio, Texas, and South Carolina. The plants, slated to use traditional coal-burning technology, are projected to each emit millions of tons of carbon dioxide per year. The comment letters have pointed out that these emissions would seriously undermine states’ efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The letters have urged the state permitting agencies to examine alternative energy sources and require the plants, if it they receive a permit, to be constructed with Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) technology. Read the letters. The Attorney General also joined a friend-of-the court brief filed with EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board by the New York Attorney General and four other states. The brief argues that EPA should not issue a Clean Air Act permit to the Deseret Power Cooperative to build a new 110-megawatt coal-fired power plant, which will emit up to 90 million tons of carbon dioxide over its lifetime, without requiring any controls or limits on the plant's greenhouse gas emissions. Read the brief [PDF 529 kb / 27 pg].