Environmental Law

Lawmakers Take Aim at EPA Greenhouse Delay, California Auto Decision

By Dennis Pfaff and Kevin Livingston, Editors

At least U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, presumably, still has friends in the executive branch. Because he’s facing some opposition in the other two arenas of government.

The EPA, which this week landed in court action because of Johnson’s decision to take his time to study whether to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, could find itself getting new marching orders from Congress.

Two senators, one a Democrat and the other a Republican, have announced they're backing legislation to set a 60-day deadline for the agency to complete a critical step on the road to restricting climate-changing gases (see press release and text of bill). The measure sponsored by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-California (pictured), and Olympia Snow, R-Maine, would also require the EPA to reconsider its denial of California’s attempt to regulate tailpipe emissions believed to contribute to global warming (see previous Climate Law Update story).

The EPA had only a bare-bones response to the announcement.

"We will review any legislation that is passed by Congress," wrote Jonathan Shrader, the agency's press secretary, in an e-mail to Climate Law Update.   

A coalition of states and environmental groups launched a new court fight with the EPA Wednesday over Johnson’s decision to institute a lengthy administrative process to consider what to do in light of last year’s landmark Massachusetts v. EPA decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. That petition, if successful in court, would also set a 60-day deadline for the EPA to issue its so-called endangerment finding, which would set the stage for new regulation of greenhouse gases (see Climate Law Update story).

Snowe’s statement was particularly notable, coming as it did from a Republican:

“The administration has a court-mandated obligation that they can no longer ignore. Their deliberate efforts to delay adherence to the Supreme Court’s decision is reckless and irresponsible. The administration’s response to global warming must coincide with what the science and the American people require.”

Attorneys who spoke with reporters Wednesday describing the legal action said it would have no impact on the decision regarding California’s automobile regulations, despite the fact the Supreme Court ruling dealt with vehicle emissions. But the Feinstein-Snowe legislation would address the issue by setting a June 30, 2009 deadline for the EPA to complete taking another look at the question of California’s efforts to restrict the emissions.

The EPA's action regarding California was in response to the state's attempt to enforce rules implementing a 2002 state law (see description rules and legislation).

(Photo of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, courtesy of her office)

Full post as published by Climate Law Update on April 03, 2008 (boomark / email).