April 11, 2005 — By John Heilprin, Associated Press
WASHINGTON — A coalition of 12 states and several cities asked a
federal appeals court Friday to make the Environmental Protection
Agency reconsider its decision not to regulate heat-trapping greenhouse
gases as air pollutants.
The case has big potential implications for numerous federal and
state programs under the Clean Air Act, as well as for the auto
industry. Along with other forms of transportation, motor vehicles
account for about a third of all U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide
emissions -- the chief gas scientists blame for global warming.
In a courtroom packed with auto industry representatives, environmentalists
and government employees, three justices of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit sternly questioned lawyers
for the states and the EPA. The judges wondered how far the government
should go in the face of scientific uncertainty over global warming.
"We can't even tell what the weather's going to be two weeks
from now, but these models tell us what the climate is going to
be like 100 years from now," said Judge A. Raymond Randolph,
whose questioning appeared to favor the EPA's position.
The judges did not indicate when they might rule in the case; such
decisions typically take months.
In August 2003, the EPA denied a petition from the nonprofit International
Center for Technology Assessment and other groups that sought to
impose new controls on auto emissions. The agency said it lacked
authority from Congress to regulate greenhouse gases, based on a
legal opinion from the agency's top lawyer -- who had reversed the
Clinton-era legal opinion the gases should be regulated under the
Clean Air Act.
Two months later, states and several cities formally challenged
that decision. In the courtroom Friday, they argued that the EPA
never adequately justified its decision.
"You don't have to look very far to find the authority that
EPA claims it is missing," James R. Milkey, a Massachusetts
assistant attorney general, told the judges Friday.
The states said the fact that another agency, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, regulates vehicles' fuel economy
is beside the point. They also argued that Congress had included
the word "climate" in the Clean Air Act for a reason.
"We don't need to guess what Congress meant on this,"
Milkey said. "The fuel economy issue is a red herring. ...
The predictions of economic turmoil are not only completely overstated,
they are irrelevant."
The EPA would have no easy way to regulate carbon dioxide from
motor vehicles, said Jeffrey Clark, deputy assistant attorney general
for the Justice Department's environment division.
"For CO2, there's no catalytic converter," he argued.
"There's no catch mechanism. The only way to reduce them is
through fuel economy. ... The point is it would usurp NHTSA's authority."
States challenging the EPA are California, Connecticut, Illinois,
Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon,
Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, along with the U.S. territory
of American Samoa and the cities Baltimore, New York and Washington,
D.C.
They said the EPA acknowledged in testimony to Congress in 1998,
1999 and 2000 that the Clean Air Act gives the agency power to regulate
pollution that causes global warming. Other states and cities also
have tried to force federal regulation of greenhouse gases.
Source: Associated Press
|
