~EPA Lawsuits

===

Note: this includes use of judiciary use of congress for intimidation and delay eg Upton

also budget cuts and other limits on power. see Mass v3/20 i am considering repurpose this for Big Green lawsuits in trump era of dereg, reg capture

<div>=</div><div><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/national-forest-trump-logging-tongass-2645476974.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/national-forest-trump-logging-tongass-2645476974.html</a></div><div>
</div><div>A federal judge in Alaska <a href="https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/40-order-granting-msj_3-11-20.pdf" target="blank" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">ruled</a> late Wednesday against a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/trump-administration" target="self" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">Trump administration</a> plan to open 1.8 million acres of America's largest national <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/forests" target="self" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">forest</a> to logging.</div><div class="body js-expandable clearfix js-listicle-body css-listicle-body-2645476974" style="margin-top: -15px; line-height: 1.5;"><div class="body-description" style="clear: both;"><div class="rebellt-item col1" data-basename="particle-1" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/national-forest-trump-logging-tongass-2645476974.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1" data-id="1" data-is-image="False" data-reload-ads="false" id="rebelltitem1">The Forest Service plan targeted part of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/tongass-national-forest" target="self" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">Tongass National Forest</a> on Prince of Wales Island. It would have been the largest sale of national forest timber in 30 years, <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2020/court-ruling-halts-massive-old-growth-rainforest-logging-plan" target="blank" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">Earthjustice pointed out</a>, permitting 164 miles of new roads and clearing an area of forest three times the size of Manhattan, more than half of it old growth. But U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason ruled that the plan violated the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/national-environmental-policy-act" target="self" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">National Environmental Policy Act</a> (NEPA) because the agency did not take all of its potential impacts into account, <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/487286-alaska-judge-stalls-logging-in-tongass-national-forest" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">The Hill reported</a>.</div><div class="rebellt-item col1" data-basename="particle-2" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/national-forest-trump-logging-tongass-2645476974.html?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2" data-id="2" data-is-image="False" data-reload-ads="false" id="rebelltitem2" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"The magnificent, ancient forests of the Tongass just got a reprieve from the chain saws," Randi Spivak, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/public-lands" target="self" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">public lands</a> director at the <a href="https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">Center for Biological Diversity</a> (CBD), said in the Earthjustice press release. "We're thrilled the court agreed that the Trump administration broke the law when it approved cutting thousands of acres of old-growth <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/trees" target="self" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">trees</a>. It's critical to protect our remaining old-growth forests to have any chance of stopping the extinction crisis and slowing <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="self" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">climate change</a>."</div><div class="rebellt-item col1" data-basename="particle-3" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/national-forest-trump-logging-tongass-2645476974.html?rebelltitem=3#rebelltitem3" data-id="3" data-is-image="False" data-reload-ads="false" id="rebelltitem3">CBD was one of eight <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/conservation" target="self" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">conservation</a> groups that challenged the plan with representation from Earthjustice, according to fellow plaintiff the <a href="https://www.audubon.org/news/federal-court-rules-against-massive-old-growth-rainforest-logging-plan-alaska?ms=digital-eng-social-facebook-x-20200300_fb_link-tongass_update&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=20200300_fb_link-tongass_update&fbclid=IwAR38IjY1dTB_McBAyIG6qhW2-JLaXz9Z7jFx9jm5hZv9RVlBkv4i10r2jXY" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">National Audubon Society</a>. The groups, also including <a href="https://www.seacc.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">Southeast Alaska Conservation Council</a>, <a href="https://alaskarainforest.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">Alaska Rainforest Defenders</a>, <a href="https://defenders.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">Defenders of Wildlife</a>, <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">Sierra Club</a>, <a href="https://www.alaskawild.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">Alaska Wilderness League</a> and the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">Natural Resources Defense Council</a>, argued that it violated NEPA, which allows people to weigh in on major infrastructure projects that will impact their community. Prince of Wales Island is an important location for subsistence hunting and fishing, but the Forest Service did not say in its plans where logging would take place, which meant it was impossible for the local community to meaningfully respond to the plans.Judge Gleason agreed with this assessment of the project, arguing that the service did not state where logging and road building would occur, according to <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-halts-trump-logging-plans-in-pristine-alaska-forest/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">Courthouse News Service</a>.</div><div class="rebellt-item col1" data-basename="particle-7" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/national-forest-trump-logging-tongass-2645476974.html?rebelltitem=7#rebelltitem7" data-id="7" data-is-image="True" data-reload-ads="false" id="rebelltitem7" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><div class="rebellt-item col1" data-basename="particle-9" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/national-forest-trump-logging-tongass-2645476974.html?rebelltitem=9#rebelltitem9" data-id="9" data-is-image="False" data-reload-ads="false" id="rebelltitem9" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"By not developing actual site-specific information, the Forest Service limited its ability to make informed decisions regarding impacts to subsistence uses and presented local communities with vague, hypothetical, and over-inclusive representations of the project's effects over a 15-year period," Gleason wrote.Gleason also ruled that the plan violated the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which requires federal agencies to determine how projects on public lands will impact those who use the lands for subsistence, according to The Audubon Society.The ruling comes as the Trump administration is <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-attacking-nepa-2644853997.html" target="_self" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">proposing changes</a> to NEPA that would drastically weaken the landmark environmental law by, among other things, limiting the length of the review process, exempting certain projects from any review and allowing federal agencies to ignore a project's climate impacts.</div><div class="rebellt-item col1" data-basename="particle-10" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/national-forest-trump-logging-tongass-2645476974.html?rebelltitem=10#rebelltitem10" data-id="10" data-is-image="False" data-reload-ads="false" id="rebelltitem10" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Alaska Wilderness League conservation director Kristen Miller said that Wednesday's ruling showed the importance of NEPA."The Prince of Wales project would've been the largest logging project that we have seen anywhere in our national forests in decades, and it would have destroyed thousands of acres of irreplaceable old-growth forest in the Tongass National Forest," Miller said in the Earthjustice release. "Today's ruling is a win for Southeast Alaska's billion-dollar fishing and tourism industries, and a reminder as the Trump administration tries to significantly weaken the National Environmental Policy Act of the critical role NEPA plays in allowing the public to meaningfully weigh in on issues impacting their public lands."The ultimate fate of the Forest Service project is not yet known, as Judge Gleason did not yet decide on a legal remedy for the plaintiffs' suit. The service did not respond to requests for comment from either Courthouse News Service or The Hill.</div></div></div>

The first chance that the bloc of 85 freshman Republicans had to influence environmental policy was with H.R. 1, the bill that would fund the federal government for fiscal year 2011. The House passed a 27 percent budget cut for the EPA, which, had it passed the Senate, would have been the agency’s largest cut since 1981.

“We were trying to tell our brothers on the Republican side that they’re never going to get this through the Senate, but they were posturing,” said Norm Dicks, a Democrat, and the former ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee. “They wanted to make the cuts. They thought they were going to win political points with the Tea Party-types for cutting the EPA budget.”

Lawmakers also attempted other cuts by proposing 162 amendments, 22 of which would have cut EPA programs or limited the government’s enforcement of environmental regulations and its ability to study climate change. However, H.R. 1 never became law because the House and Senate were not able to reach a budget compromise until April 2011, when H.R. 1473 narrowly avoided a government shutdown. After negotiations with the Senate, the two houses agreed on a 15.6 percent cut, the largest enacted cut since the EPA lost 16 percent of its budget in 1986.

The 22 amendments proposed in H.R. 1 signaled how this group of freshmen Republicans, and pledge-signers, wanted to limit the EPA and climate-change research. <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate-zombie-caucus/?mobile=nc" target="_blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s ease-in 0s;">Think Progress,</a> a liberal blog, researched climate change statements by members of the 112th Congress, and found many members of Congress were doubtful of climate-change science. The Investigative Reporting Workshop matched the Think Progress statements with the list of members of Congress who signed the pledge from Nov. 16, 2010, and found 17 of the 20 Senators who had signed the pledge said they doubted climate change science, as did 78 of the 156 representatives who had signed the pledge.

Throughout the House’s debate on H.R. 1, several pledge signers proposed amendments that would limit government regulation of climate change.

Rep. Mike Pompeo, a Republican who represents the Kansas district where Koch Industries is headquartered, and is a signer of the No Climate Tax Pledge, received $10,000 from Koch Industries PAC in the 2010 election.

Once in the House, Pompeo <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/17/174918/pompeo-koch-amendment/?mobile=nc" target="_blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s ease-in 0s;">proposed an amendment</a> to H.R. 1 to cut $8.5 million, or roughly half the fiscal year 2010 budget, from the EPA’s greenhouse gas reporting program. Pompeo said at the time, “This data is the very foundation of the EPA’s effort to pursue its radical anti-jobs agenda.”

Another amendment was proposed by Republican Rep. John Carter of Texas, who wanted to ban using money to enforce a rule on cement manufacturing emissions. He was one of the first representatives to sign the No Climate Tax Pledge. Carter and two other Texas Republicans proposed an amendment that would have prohibited the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases emitting from stationary sources, such as factories.

Republican Rep. Ralph Hall of Texas, also in that first group of representatives to sign the pledge, sponsored an amendment — which passed — to stop the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from creating a National Climate Service, which was intended to be “a one-stop shop” for climate information.

Republican Rep. Morgan Griffith of Virginia sponsored an amendment — which passed — that stopped funds for EPA guidelines on surface coal mining operations.

Republican Rep. Kristi Noem of South Dakota signed the pledge in 2010 and received $5,000 from KochPAC. She sponsored an amendment — which passed — to prohibit money from being used to change the air quality standards regarding coarse particulate matter (dust).

However, neither these amendments nor the bill survived in the Senate.

Many of the 85 freshman Republicans sponsored bills in the House to limit the EPA’s regulatory power or to expand oil and natural gas drilling. Koch Industries Public Sector LLC, the lobbying arm of Koch Industries, lobbied for H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which would have rolled back the Supreme Court’s ruling that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gases. The bill was sponsored by Republican Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan and co-signed by 92 Republicans (and three Democrats), 61 of whom also signed the pledge. Had it passed, the Energy Climate Prevention Act would have prevented the EPA from defining greenhouse gases as air pollutants and prohibited all federal research or programs on climate change research.

In June 2011, Rep. Griffith of Virginia also introduced the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, which would have allowed companies to ignore future EPA rules on industrial boiler and heater emissions while delaying the implementation of any rules that would constitute the “least burdensome regulatory alternative.” The bill eventually gained 101 Republican and 25 Democratic co-sponsors, 67 of whom signed the No Climate Tax Pledge.

Griffith said he signed the No Climate Tax pledge because he believes national limits on greenhouse-gas emissions harm Virginia’s coal industry and the jobs it provides. He said he didn’t feel any pressure to sign the pledge from Americans for Prosperity, which he credits with helping him win a seat in Congress in 2010 by campaigning against the policies of his Democratic predecessor, Rick Boucher.

Griffith also said that the $5,000 his campaign received from Koch Industries in June 2010 had no influence on his decision to sign the pledge less than two weeks later. Opposing President Obama’s “war on the coal industry” was a top issue during his campaign, he said.

“When I was running in early 2010, this was already on my agenda,” Griffith said. “I was talking about these things long before I even knew that the Koch brothers and AFP were involved in these issues.”

The pledge isn’t limited to those in Washington. Among other office-holders who signed it is Oklahoma Schools Superintendent Janet Barresi, who declined to talk about her reasons for signing the pledge in August 2010. But through her press secretary, Barresi said in statement that the school district relies on property taxes from power plants and oil and gas production.

“Oklahoma’s schools depend on revenue from fossil fuels, and the destructive power of a tax on these fuels is not justified by questionable science,” Barresi said in the statement.

This article is written by <a href="http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/people/contributors/eric-holmberg/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s ease-in 0s;">Eric Holmberg  </a>and <a href="http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/people/interngraduate-assistants/alexia-campbell/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s ease-in 0s;">Alexia Campbell </a>, and is published at<a href="http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/the_koch_club/story/Koch_millions_spread_influence_through_nonprofits/" target="_blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s ease-in 0s;">http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/the_koch_club/story/Koch_climate_pledge_strategy/</a>

===

Law360, New York (June 05, 2012, 7:04 PM ET) --

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, four large environmental groups and the state of Connecticut on Tuesday defended the agency's plan to take over state clean air permitting programs before the D.C. Circuit, arguing those objecting to the policy failed to show their rights were violated.

Filing its final brief in the proceeding before the appeals court, the EPA and its allies urged the D.C. Circuit on Tuesday to dismiss the case, which consolidates more than a dozen suits brought by various state agencies, mining associations and advocacy groups.

The consolidated action centers on a December 2010 rule issued by the EPA finding that 13 U.S. states did not have laws in place for regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

The rule, known as a State Implementation Plan Call, gave the states a year to change their laws, but also said that if they did not act by January 2011, the EPA would issue a construction ban on new stationary sources of greenhouse gases above 75,000 tons per year.

Texas and Wyoming claimed the EPA violated federal law by requiring them to begin implementing new greenhouse gas regulations immediately, rather than giving them three years to come into compliance, as required by federal law. The EPA's ultimatum also undermines the cooperative relationship between the federal government and the states that is central to the CAA, the states argued.

The EPA rejected the three-year claim, finding that the states' argument relies on provisions that are "expressly limited to pollutants for which there are National Ambient Air Quality Standards" and are inapplicable in this case.

Fighting back against state claims that the EPA policy violated state sovereignty, the agency also argued that it was in the right to step in to perform permitting responsibilities after states were given the chance to comply with permitting regulations and failed to do so.

"EPA pointedly did not commandeer any state into performing these permitting duties," the brief said. "The Constitution does not empower — indeed it forbids — states to block federal implementation and enforcement of a valid federal statute like the Clean Air Act."

The states also claimed that the EPA did not provide enough notice to Wyoming as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. The agency originally called the state's implementation plan adequate before it reversed course and said Wyoming's plan was lacking, according to the petitioners.

In Tuesday's brief, the EPA described Wyoming's claim of inadequate notice as "groundless."

"EPA's proposal prominently explained that any state lacking authority to issue greenhouse gas permits would be included within the SIP Call," the brief said. "Wyoming's comments, acknowledging just such a lack of authority, show that the state had due notice."

The Sierra Club, the National Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund and the Conservation Law Foundation joined the EPA and Connecticut in defending the agency's policy before the appeals court.

The petitioners are represented by David B. Rivkin Jr., Mark W. DeLaquil and Andrew M. Grossman of Baker Hostetler, along with counsel from the attorney general offices of Texas and Wyoming.

The environmental groups are represented by Sean H. Donahue of Donahue & Goldberg LLP, Joanne Spalding and Nathan Matthews of the Sierra Club, David Doniger and Meleah Geertsma of the NRDC, Pamela Campos and Peter Zalzal of the Environmental Defense Fund and Ann Brewster Weeks and Lisa J. Zak of the Clean Air Task Force.

The case is Utility Air Regulatory Group et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency et al., case number 11-01037, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

==

2013

WASHINGTON — House Republicans Monday proposed slashing cuts to environmental programs and funding for the Smithsonian Institution and the arts as they unveiled the latest legislation to implement the second year of budget cuts required under so-called sequestration.

The $24 billion spending measure would gut the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency with a one-third cut and cuts the National Endowments for the Arts by almost half. Overall, the measure funding the Interior Department, EPA, national parks and federal firefighting efforts is cut by 19 percent below funding approved in March.

It takes a more modest approach to the national parks with a slight increase over levels mandated by sequestration, the across-the-board cuts forced by Washington's failure to strike a bipartisan budget accord. And firefighting efforts would benefit from $1.5 billion in "emergency" funds on top of the spending limits set by the GOP's austere budget plan.

The measure is the latest of 12 spending bills for the almost one-third of the federal budget funded each year by Congress in the form of day-to-day operating budgets for government agencies. Such budgets are hit the hardest by sequestration.

Republicans control the House and are insisting on living within a tight $967 billion "cap" on agency operating budgets and are shifting more than $47 billion from domestic programs to the Pentagon – which runs counter to a 2011 budget agreement. The restoration of money to the Defense Department would force austere cuts on nondefense programs like foreign aid, transit grants and community development grants sought by local officials...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/22/house-republicans-cuts_n_3635640.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

===

The Chamber of Commerce vs. Climate Science

The business lobby's challenge to carbon regulations probably won't convince a court of law. The court of public opinion is another matter.

—By Kate Sheppard

| Mon Mar. 1, 2010

LAWSUIT

William Kovacs, the US Chamber of Commerce's vice president of environment, technology and regulatory affairs, last year famously called for a "Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" on climate change. Kovacs was referencing the lightning-rod 1925 court case that made it illegal to teach anything other than divine creation in Tennessee public schools—and he wanted a similar public hearing in which climate science would be put on the stand. The remark drew plenty of bad press, and Kovacs soon recanted his "inappropriate" analogy. But it looks like the chamber is angling for that monkey trial after all, by way of a lawsuit it's filed against the Environmental Protection Agency that could be the first wave of a big-business assault on greenhouse gas regulations.

At issue is a scientific finding issued by the EPA last year concluding that greenhouse gases are a threat to human health, due to the lower air quality, extreme weather events, and heat waves caused by rising temperatures. The chamber announced its intent to sue the EPA last month in an attempt to have the endangerment finding, as it's known, tossed out. The big-business lobby has been joined by a collection of trade groups like the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Petroleum Institute, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the National Mining Association; free-market think tanks such as FreedomWorks and the Competitive Enterprise Institute; and the attorneys general of Texas, Alabama, and Virginia.

Legally, the chamber and its allies don't have much of a case. In the 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases could be covered under the Clean Air Act if they are determined to threaten human health. Their ruling required the EPA to investigate whether carbon emissions did in fact pose a health risk. After the agency's scientists reached that conclusion, the EPA was automatically required to regulate the sources of greenhouse gases—otherwise the agency would be breaking the law. And because the EPA's directive is based on a scientific assessment, not a policy preference, it will be extremely hard to overturn, said Michael Gerrard, director of the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School. "These petitions are a real long-shot," he said. "The appellate courts tend to give a large degree of deference to the technical judgments of expert agencies, especially when they are based like this one is on voluminous studies." In addition, the EPA won't actually enforce regulations on the biggest emitters, like power plants and refineries, until 2011. That means the plaintiffs can't prove they've suffered any harm from the EPA's decision, said John Pendergrass, senior attorney at the Environmental Law Institute, who described the lawsuits challenging the endangerment finding as "premature."

So if the odds of this gambit succeeding are so low, then why is the chamber gearing up for a costly lost cause? The goal of the suit "is political obfuscation," argues Bill Snape, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity. That is, the chamber's critics believe that the business lobby group hopes to once again muddy the public understanding of climate change by seeking a high-profile forum in which it can argue that the science isn't settled. "This is part of a media and political strategy. It's not a legal strategy," said David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel at Sierra Club, which has intervened in support of the EPA, along with several other environmental groups and 16 states, many of them litigants in the case that originally prompted the agency's action.

The EPA's opponents couldn't have chosen a better time to argue that the science of global warming is still up for debate, thanks to the recent "ClimateGate" emails scandal, and the revelation that an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report contained flawed data. In reality, the emails released in the so-called ClimateGate flap showed climate scientists behaving unprofessionally over dissenting views, but nothing in the messages discounted the underlying science of climate change, which has been reaffirmed by thousands of peer-reviewed studies from scientists around the world. And although the IPCC's errors have raised questions about the timing and severity of specific anticipated climate events, they have not altered the overwhelming body of evidence and widespread scientific consensus that the planet is warming due to the burning of fossil fuels. Nevertheless, a number of the legal challenges to the EPA seek to exploit these controversies for maximum PR advantage.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, for instance, claimed in a press conference announcing his state's suit that the finding is "based on the tainted data of an agenda-driven international panel." Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II accused the agency of introducing "job-destroying regulations based on unverifiable and unrepeatable so-called science." And the challenge from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, FreedomWorks, and other free-market groups alleges that the hacked emails scandal "has severely undermined EPA's alleged justification for regulating carbon dioxide."

For its part, the chamber claims that it's not attacking the EPA's scientific assessment. Yet its announcement of the lawsuit did just that—charging that the agency failed to perform "careful analysis of all available data and options" before releasing the "flawed" finding. And in its public comments submitted in advance of the release of the endangerment finding last year, the chamber also disputed the science of climate change, suggesting, among other things, that rising temperatures might actually be beneficial for humans, and that any resulting problems could be addressed by the increased use of air conditioners.

The barrage of lawsuits against the EPA comes as an increasing number of lawmakers in Congress from both parties are moving to attempt to block the agency from cracking down on greenhouse gas emissions. Leading the charge is  Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who, with the help of industry lobbyists, has filed a resolution of disapproval that, if signed into law, would nullify the endangerment finding. This rarely used parliamentary maneuver already has 40 cosponsors, including Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), and Mary Landrieu (La.). A bipartisan trio of representatives introduced the same measure in the House in late February.

While EPA administrator Lisa Jackson has pushed back the enforcement of regulations on the largest emissions sources until 2011, she also has made it clear that rules are coming, whether the EPA's adversaries like it or not. "The law of the land found that greenhouse gases are pollutants, and they ordered EPA to make a determination," Jackson told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in late February. "I believe I have no choice but to follow the law." But even if the attempts to block the agency ultimately fail, the lawsuits have given opponents of regulation another platform to attack the science and delay action on climate change further. Says Snape of the Center for Biological Diversity, "If the goal of these lawsuits is to muck up the works, well, unfortunately they're getting a little bit of traction."

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/02/chamber-commerce-vs-climate-science

Chamber of Commerce Climate Civil War Continues

Apple Quits Chamber of Commerce

Another Company Quits Chamber of Commerce Over Climate Position

Fact-Checking the US Chamber of Commerce

America's most overblown business lobby, busted.

----

lawsuit

But that's not the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The U.S. Chamber is a hard-right ideological operation, which provides massive funding to conservative Republicans, including the new GOP majority in Wisconsin. If you want a sense of just how far right: Glenn Beck held a telethon on their behalf, and donated $10,000 of his money. "They are us," he said -- and an executive of the chamber called in to thank him. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent more money lobbying in 2009 than the next five biggest players combined; they spent more money on politics than either the Republican or Democratic National Committees. They're the biggest elephant in the jungle.

Despite their claim to represent three million American businesses, more than half their budget comes from just 16 companies. They don't have to identify them, but it's pretty easy to guess who they might be, since the chamber has devoted much of its time to thwarting any effort to control carbon emissions. For instance, they filed a brief with the EPA demanding they not fight global warming because "populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological, and technological adaptations."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mckibben/koch-brothers-the-us-cham_b_834462.html

mckibben

---

nklein: This is where the intersection between hard-right ideology and climate denial gets truly dangerous. It’s not simply that these “cool dudes” deny climate science because it threatens to upend their dominance-based worldview. It is that their dominance-based worldview provides them with the intellectual tools to write off huge swaths of humanity in the developing world. Recognizing the threat posed by this empathy-exterminating mindset is a matter of great urgency, because climate change will test our moral character like little before. The US Chamber of Commerce, in its bid to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon emissions, argued in a petition that in the event of global warming, “populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological, and technological adaptations.” These adaptations are what I worry about most.

===

<h1><a href="http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/07/23/dc-appeals-court-ruling-will-prove-difficult-to-overturn-largely-ignored-by-conservatives/" rel="bookmark" title="DC appeals court ruling will prove difficult to overturn, largely ignored by conservatives">DC appeals court ruling will prove difficult to overturn, largely ignored by conservatives</a></h1>

<div class="details">Posted on July 23, 2012 by Brian Angliss under <a href="http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/category/environment/" title="View all posts in Environment & Nature" rel="category tag">Environment & Nature</a>, <a href="http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/category/politics/" title="View all posts in Politics, Law & Government" rel="category tag">Politics, Law & Government</a> [ <a href="http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/07/23/dc-appeals-court-ruling-will-prove-difficult-to-overturn-largely-ignored-by-conservatives/#comments">Comments: none</a> ]</div>

</div>

<img src="/291db94a-109a-55b5-9b1f-4901b6118084.png"/>Part five of a <a href="http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/tag/dc-appeals-court-ruling-on-greenhouse-gas-regulations/">series</a>.

On June 26, 2012, the <a href="http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf">DC Circuit Court of Appeals</a> <a href="http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/52AC9DC9471D374685257A290052ACF6/$file/09-1322-1380690.pdf">ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) greenhouse gas regulations</a> were in accordance with the <a href="http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/">Clean Air Act</a> and the Supreme Court’s 2007 <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZS.html">Massachusetts v. EPA</a> ruling. But more than that, the appeals court so strongly worded their opinion, and based it so firmly in long established court precedents and the Supreme Court’s own ruling that it will be very difficult to overturn. These facts were largely ignored by the Attorneys General of the states of Texas and Virginia, and the vast majority of prominent conservative think tanks and conservative media outlets simply ignored the ruling altogether.

The Court’s opinion is very strongly grounded in existing precedent. The court relied on many old precedents that have guided court decisions regarding the Clean Air Act since its inception in 1970. <a href="http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/07/23/dc-appeals-court-ruling-will-prove-difficult-to-overturn-largely-ignored-by-conservatives/#more-46268" class="more-link">Full story »</a>

</div>

===

LAWSUIT

William Kovacs, the US Chamber of Commerce's vice president of environment, technology and regulatory affairs, last year famously called for a "Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" on climate change. Kovacs was referencing the lightning-rod 1925 court case that made it illegal to teach anything other than divine creation in Tennessee public schools—and he wanted a similar public hearing in which climate science would be put on the stand. The remark drew plenty of bad press, and Kovacs soon recanted his "inappropriate" analogy. But it looks like the chamber is angling for that monkey trial after all, by way of a lawsuit it's filed against the Environmental Protection Agency that could be the first wave of a big-business assault on greenhouse gas regulations.

At issue is a scientific finding issued by the EPA last year concluding that greenhouse gases are a threat to human health, due to the lower air quality, extreme weather events, and heat waves caused by rising temperatures. The chamber announced its intent to sue the EPA last month in an attempt to have the endangerment finding, as it's known, tossed out. The big-business lobby has been joined by a collection of trade groups like the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Petroleum Institute, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the National Mining Association; free-market think tanks such as FreedomWorks and the Competitive Enterprise Institute; and the attorneys general of Texas, Alabama, and Virginia.

Legally, the chamber and its allies don't have much of a case. In the 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases could be covered under the Clean Air Act if they are determined to threaten human health. Their ruling required the EPA to investigate whether carbon emissions did in fact pose a health risk. After the agency's scientists reached that conclusion, the EPA was automatically required to regulate the sources of greenhouse gases—otherwise the agency would be breaking the law. And because the EPA's directive is based on a scientific assessment, not a policy preference, it will be extremely hard to overturn, said Michael Gerrard, director of the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School. "These petitions are a real long-shot," he said. "The appellate courts tend to give a large degree of deference to the technical judgments of expert agencies, especially when they are based like this one is on voluminous studies." In addition, the EPA won't actually enforce regulations on the biggest emitters, like power plants and refineries, until 2011. That means the plaintiffs can't prove they've suffered any harm from the EPA's decision, said John Pendergrass, senior attorney at the Environmental Law Institute, who described the lawsuits challenging the endangerment finding as "premature."

The EPA's opponents couldn't have chosen a better time to argue that the science of global warming is still up for debate, thanks to the recent <a href="http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2009/12/study-climategate-emails-dont-support-skeptics">"ClimateGate"</a> emails scandal, and the <a href="http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/02/more-problems-ipcc">revelation that </a>an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report contained flawed data. In reality, the emails released in the so-called ClimateGate flap showed climate scientists behaving unprofessionally over dissenting views, but nothing in the messages discounted the underlying science of climate change, which has been reaffirmed by thousands of peer-reviewed studies from scientists around the world. And although the IPCC's errors have raised questions about the timing and severity of specific anticipated climate events, they have not altered the overwhelming body of evidence and widespread scientific consensus that the planet is warming due to the burning of fossil fuels. Nevertheless, a number of the legal challenges to the EPA seek to exploit these controversies for maximum PR advantage.

...

<h1>The Chamber of Commerce vs. Climate Science</h1>

<h3>The business lobby's challenge to carbon regulations probably won't convince a court of law. The court of public opinion is another matter.</h3>

—By <a href="http://motherjones.com/authors/kate-sheppard">Kate Sheppard</a>| Mon Mar. 1, 2010

==

June 8, 2012

</div>

<div class="primary_tag"><a href="http://wonkette.com/tag/pt-wow-very-subtle-guys/">WOW VERY SUBTLE GUYS</a>  <abbr class="published" title="16:45 2012-06-04" style="float: right; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 14px;">4:45 pm June 4, 2012</abbr></div>

<h1 class="entry-title">EPA Drones Terrorizing Ranchers Because the EPA Hates the Heartland</h1>

by <a href="http://wonkette.com/author/newell/" class="url fn">Jim Newell</a>

</div>

Some folks out in Real America who probably have no problem with President Obama’s unchecked expansion of the drone war to kill children in 500 countries or its use of drones to survey the Mexican border or its use of domestic drones everywhere else because this is something we’ve allowed to happen have finally come up with a tangentially related complaint line that fits their fancy: Obama’s liberal EPA is using drones to spy on hard-workin’ ranchers, in Nebraska. “A Nebraska cattlemen’s group is pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to stop pollution-control flights over ranches, claiming it amounts to spying on citizens,” <a href="http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/31/11993693-epa-planes-spying-on-ranchers-lawmakers-want-answers?lite">MSNBC reports.</a> “EPA, meanwhile, says the flights are an effective way to quickly spot — and stop — pollution from manure lagoons and other waste at large livestock operations.” Wow, it almost seems like this Nebraska cattlemen’s group is cynically using contentious “privacy” grounds to stop the EPA from monitoring all of their violations of the Clean Water Act, doesn’t it? But let’s just say that liberals hate the Heartland instead.

</div>

===

<h2 align="center" style=" text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 115%;">Lawyer Who Challenged EPA Case Had Social Contacts With Judges </h2>

<h4 align="center" style=" text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 115%;">JOHN J. FIALKA / Wall Street Journal 23mar04</h4>

WASHINGTON—A lead attorney pressing a legal attack by industry against pending federal air-pollution regulations had social contacts with two federal appellate judges at a guest ranch before they decided the 1999 case. The meetings came as part of a series of expense-paid seminars for judges paid for by donations from industries and conservative foundations.

U.S. Circuit Judge Douglas Ginsburg

participated with industry lawyer

representing several industry groups

</td></tr></tbody></table>

The case—the American Trucking Association vs. the Environmental Protection Agency—was one of the biggest environmental cases of the 1990s. In it, the appeals court struck down new EPA regulations on soot and smog, claiming that Congress had never delegated the authority to the EPA. The U.S. Supreme Court later rejected the lower court's decision, upholding EPA's right to tighten regulations on soot and smog under the Clean Air Act.

While the case was pending, one of the judges that made the decision—U.S. Circuit Judge Douglas Ginsburg—participated with Ed Warren, who argued the case on behalf of several industry groups. They were both directors of the Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment, a group based in Bozeman, Mont., that holds periodic seminars at a resort hotel and a rustic ranch for selected federal judges. The sessions feature plenty of free time for fishing, hiking, cocktails and other forms of socializing.

According to FREE about 70% of its funds come from foundations, including the Claude Lambe Foundation, which is controlled by closely held Koch Industries Inc., of Wichita, Kan., a broadly diversified energy company. Other contributions, according to FREE, come from corporations, currently including ExxonMobil. Bruce Green, an expert on legal ethics who teaches at Fordham University School of Law in New York, said he was retained by one of the Koch-related foundations to determine whether the seminars violated current standards of judicial ethics.

"For me the question came down to whether it was ethical for judges to attend. Looking at the existing norms, I concluded that it was okay," Mr. Green said.

Douglas T. Kendall, head of Community Rights Counsel, a Washington-based, nonprofit watchdog group, released details of the group's seminars last night in a report that says the meetings pose "serious ethical problems" for judges who attend the seminars.

FREE Chairman John Baden said he was unaware of the pending air-pollution case at the time. He added that Mr. Warren joined the board of FREE in 1998 and resigned in 1999 at about the same time the appeals court reached its initial decision in the case.

"How would I have possibly known of this? I don't do cases," said Mr. Baden, an environmental economist. He said it was "preposterous" to think that any of the judges who attend the seminars, which are often sharply critical of government regulations, might be "brainwashed" by lectures that included one given by Mr. Warren. According to FREE's records, it was attended by Judge David Sentelle, another member of Judge Ginsburg's court.

Mr. Warren, a partner in the Chicago-based firm Kirkland and Ellis, said he decided to resign from FREE sometime after his first board meeting. While he said he saw nothing wrong with the often-cozy seminars, he was worried that his involvement in a pending case might be attacked by some outside group. "I didn't want to create a problem for FREE or Doug Ginsburg," he said. Neither Judge Ginsburg, currently chief judge of the court, nor Judge Sentelle could be reached for comment.

Mr. Kendall, of the Community Rights Counsel, estimated that the activities involved with the week-long seminars amounted to about $10,000 per judge. Mr. Baden said that transportation and lodging came to only about $1,300 per judge for travel and lodging. "This is really cheap stuff, it's rustic," he said, adding that he couldn't break out the cost of FREE's overhead. This year, he said, the group has received acceptances from 44 federal judges for two planned seminars.

http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2004/Judge-Ginsburg-Industry23mar04.htm

===

cross-posted from <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/29/434698/appeals-court-panel-rebuffs-polluters-epa-greenhouse-rules/">ThinkProgress Green</a>.

In 2009, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce called for the “<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/green/2009/08/25/174408/chamber-scopes-climate-trial/">Scopes monkey trial</a> of the 21st century” to question the scientific fact of human-made climate change.

Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia began consideration of a <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/27/432875/court-hears-industry-challenges-to-carbon-pollution-rules-this-week/">landmark case</a> that consolidates a series of challenges to Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2009 finding that greenhouse gases are a threat to public health and welfare and its related rule-makings. The cases, brought by energy companies, industry front groups, Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas), and others, seek to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse pollution. Their legal argument is that <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/27/433414/legal-case-against-epa-greenhouse-endangerment-finding-man-made-climate-change-is-not-certain/">climate science is a hoax</a>.

But the three-judge panel’s questions and comments during the first day of oral arguments showed <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204520204577251743109792540.html">enormous skepticism</a> of the industry arguments. Acknowledging that by law, the panel must show deference to the EPA’s finding, the chief judge told one of the challenger’s lawyers: “You seem to be asking us to determine that the EPA is incorrect, but that is not the standard,” and even that “would not be enough to win the case for you.” Other arguments were similarly <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2012/02/28/day-one-of-landmark-clean-air-cases-a-report-from-the-courtroom/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+environmentaldefense%2Fclimate411+%28Climate+411%29">pooh-poohed</a> by the panel.

Perhaps more significant for the EPA — and the Earth’s climate — is the fact that the chief judge is hardly a liberal lion. David B. Sentelle, a Ronald Reagan appointee, was a <a href="http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19940818&id=cIhOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8xQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6472,978271">protege of the late arch-conservative Sen. Jesse Helms </a>(R-N.C.). Best known as the person who <a href="http://www.observer.com/1999/04/ditch-ken-starr-not-the-office/">installed Ken Starr as the independent council</a> to investigate the Whitewater scandal (and President Clinton’s sex life) and who wrote the opinion <a href="http://openjurist.org/16/f3d/1234/in-re-oliver-l-north-et-al">overturning the conviction of Oliver North</a>, Sentelle has a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/carville-horse.html">reputation</a> [sub. req.] as one of the most right-wing judges in the federal court system. The other two judges on the panel were both appointed by a Democrat, President Bill Clinton.

The comments are not, of course, a formal ruling, but are certainly a strong indicator that the panel is unlikely to reject the EPA’s scientific finding that greenhouse gases are a threat.

The challengers involved with the cases include:

Industry front groups and trade associations

–Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc.

–Industrial Minerals Association – North America

–National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

–National Mining Association

–SIP/FIP Advocacy Group

–Utility Air Regulatory Group

Coal and energy companies

–Alpha Natural Resources, Inc.

–Peabody Energy Company

–Great Northern Project Development, L.P.

–Rosebud Mining Company

Republican-led state governments

–State of Texas

–State of Wyoming

</blockquote>

Perhaps realizing that the law is not on their side, some of these industry groups have simultaneously taken a legislative approach to fighting EPA regulations, pushing for enactment of HR 910, the “<a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.00910:">Energy Tax Prevention Act</a>.” The bill, sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), would take away the EPA’s regulatory power over greenhouse gases. The Republican House endorsed the proposal last April, <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll249.xml">mostly along party lines</a>, but the measure has stalled in the Democratic Senate. The Industrial Minerals Association, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Mining Association, and Peabody Energy Company all reported lobbying on the bill in 2011 — part of their combined $9.8 million lobbying efforts on this and other subjects.

<div>

Josh Israel is a senior investigative reporter for <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/author/jisrael/">ThinkProgress</a> at the Center for American Progress Action Fu

=

<h2 class="slug">CLIMATE:</h2>

<h1>Lawyers descend en masse for arguments on greenhouse gas rules</h1>

Lawrence Hurley, E&E reporter

Greenwire: Monday, February 27, 201

If the importance and complexity of a court case can be established based on the number of lawyers at the lectern, then the battle over the Obama administration greenhouse gas regulations is of epic proportions.

When the three interlinked cases are argued over two days at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit this week, no fewer than 18 different attorneys will advocate for their clients before the three-judge panel.

By contrast, a typical appeals court argument over a U.S. EPA regulation usually takes less than an hour and tends to involve no more than a handful of attorneys.

</td></tr></tbody></table>

In addition to the 18 attorneys who will actually speak -- representing EPA, industry groups, states and environmental organizations -- there are dozens behind the scenes who have been working on the litigation.

"This is one of the most complex and consequential sets of cases in the history of environmental law," said Michael Gerrard, director of the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School. "It involves not just one project, industry or regulation, but a whole structure of interlocking regulations that affect broad swaths of the economy."

There are four principal rules under the legal microscope before the court, although two, the "timing" and "tailoring" rules, have been consolidated into one case.

Arguments over the "endangerment" rule, which focuses on EPA's initial decision in which it held that greenhouse gases are harmful, and the "tailpipe" rule, which adopts new standards for car and light-truck emissions, will be argued tomorrow.

The arguments on the consolidated challenges to the timing and tailoring rule will be heard Wednesday, along with a separate challenge to EPA's existing regulations concerning the long-standing regulation of stationary sources, which petitioners say should not be applied to greenhouse gases or various other pollutants.

The timing rule required that new controls of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources would be triggered on Jan. 2, 2011, the day that new motor vehicle standards went into effect.

The tailoring rule interprets the Clean Air Act in such a way that only major polluters are required to obtain permits for greenhouse gas emissions. That rule is considered the most vulnerable to legal attack because EPA was forced to effectively rewrite the Clean Air Act in order to prevent the regulations from applying to nonindustrial sources like schools and apartment buildings.

<h3>Herding cats</h3>

It is an old joke that getting lawyers to agree on anything is like herding cats, but that is exactly what those involved had to do in order to figure out who was going to argue what over the two days.

This was likely more a problem for the various industry groups and several states challenging the rules, simply because there were so many of them sitting around the table, ranging from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers to the American Petroleum Institute and the states of Texas and Virginia.

Asked how they coordinated, one lawyer involved, who declined to be named, said: "A lot of meetings and conversations boiling down what issues needed to be argued and then trying to decide who would get what."

Ultimately, "it wound up being really one lawyer from each of the main parties interested in each of the issues," he added.

Discussions were similar for the environmental groups and the states that intervened in defense of the rule, according to Sean Donahue, who will be arguing Wednesday on behalf of the groups.

"We did work closely in deciding who was going to argue," he said.

One question the various lawyers agreed upon was that an attorney from Massachusetts should argue in defense of the endangerment finding. That's because Massachusetts was a key player in the litigation that led to the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, in which the justices ruled for the first time that greenhouse gases were a pollutant and could therefore be regulated under the Clean Air Act. The decision led directly to the endangerment finding.

In a similar vein, it made sense for a lawyer representing California -- which has been particularly active in regulating vehicle emissions -- to argue over the tailpipe rule, Donahue said.

Donahue's side also had discussions with the Obama administration's lawyers about how they could be of assistance, he added.

It was up to the administration to cede some of its argument time in order for the environmental groups and states in favor of the rules to have any say at argument.

"We talked to them, and they agreed to the argument time," Donahue said.

<h3>Ceremonial courtroom</h3>

As previously reported in Greenwire, the three judges presiding over the litigation have a history when it comes to both environmental cases in general and, more specifically, greenhouse gases.

They are Chief Judge David Sentelle, a conservative appointed by President Reagan, and two Clinton appointees: Judges Judith Rogers and David Tatel.

Sentelle and Tatel were both on the panel that considered Massachusetts v. EPA before the case ended up at the Supreme Court (<a href="http://eenews.net/Greenwire/2011/11/03/archive/4">Greenwire</a>, Nov. 3, 2011).

The court ruled 2-1 against states that were seeking EPA action on global warming. Sentelle was in the majority, while Tatel was the dissenter.

When the massed ranks of attorneys congregate at the U.S. courthouse on Constitution Avenue in Washington tomorrow morning, the three judges will hear the arguments in a ceremonial courtroom that is much bigger than the more cramped space they normally use. Even that isn't thought to be big enough to accommodate all of those who want to tune in.

Donahue said that based on the lawyers lined up on both sides, the two-day argument will be worth watching.

"They are experienced, talented, able attorneys," he said.

As Daniel Farber, an environmental law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, noted, while it may be unusual for so many lawyers to be arguing, there's an obvious reason why.

"That seems like a lot of lawyers to me," he said. "But of course the challengers are raising a lot of issues."

---

The Lineup

</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2" style=" width: 712px;">The lawyers for the Obama administration, industry groups, states and environmental organizations who will be facing off in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit tomorrow and Wednesday over the lawfulness of EPA's greenhouse gas regulations.</td></tr><tr class="title"><td colspan="2" style=" width: 712px;">Tuesday</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" align="center" style="width: 712px;">The endangerment finding rule</td></tr><tr><td class="column_name" style=" width: 223px;">Challengers</td><td class="column_name" style=" width: 489px;">Defenders</td></tr><tr><td style=" width: 223px;">E. Duncan Getchell Jr.

solicitor general, Virginia

Patrick R. Day

Holland & Hart, for Coalition for Responsible Regulation

Jeffery Bossert Clark

Kirkland & Ellis, for U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Harry W. MacDougald

Caldwell & Watson, for Southeastern Legal Foundation, et al.</td><td style=" width: 489px;">Jon M. Lipshultz & Angeline Purdy

Justice Department, for EPA.

Carol A. Iancu

Attorney General's Office, for Massachusetts</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" align="center" style="">The tailpipe rule</td></tr><tr><td class="column_name">Challengers</td><td class="column_name">Defenders</td></tr><tr><td>Peter S. Glaser

Troutman Sanders, for National Mining Association, Peabody Energy and American Farm Bureau Federation</td><td>Eric Hostetler

Justice Department, for EPA

Raymond B. Ludwiszewski

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, for Alliance of Automobile Mfgs and Global Automakers

Gavin Geraghty McCabe

Attorney General's Office, for California</td></tr><tr class="title"><td colspan="2">Wednesday</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" align="center" style="">Timing and tailoring rules</td></tr><tr><td class="column_name">Challengers</td><td class="column_name">Defenders</td></tr><tr><td>Jonathan Franklin Mitchell

solicitor general, for Texas

Peter Keisler

Sidley Austin, for National Association of Manufacturers, et al.

F. William Brownell

Hunton & Williams, for Utility Air Regulatory Group</td><td>Perry M. Rosen & Amanda Shafer Berman

for EPA

Michael J. Myers

New York Attorney General's Office, for states

Sean H. Donahue

Law Office of Sean Donahue, for environmental groups</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" align="center" style="">Historic regulations</td></tr><tr><td class="column_name">Challengers</td><td class="column_name">Defenders</td></tr><tr><td>Peter Keisler

Sidley Austin, for petitioners</td><td>Perry M. Rosen & Amanda Shafer Berman

Justice Department, for EPA

Sean H. Donahue

Law Office of Sean Donahue, for environmental groups</td></tr><tr><td> </td></tr><tr valign="top"><td class="notes" colspan="2">Source: Court papers, the parties.</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>

edf timeline

===

July 22, 2013

Responses filed by the U.S. Solicitor General, EDF and a coalition of other NGOs, and states including New York, Massachusetts, and California, opposing the request for Supreme Court review.

April 2013

The U.S. Supreme Court received petitions for certiorari to review the D.C. Circuit’s decision from an array of industry groups and some states.

December 20, 2013

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied petitions for rehearing "en banc," meaning the court would not consider overturning its own June decision upholding EPA’s approach to regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Sentelle?

June 26, 2012

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rules in favor of clean air protections, denying petitions against the Climate Pollution Endangerment Finding and the Clean Car Standards and dismissing petitions against the Timing and Tailoring Rules.

February 28-29, 2012

Oral argument defending EPA’s historic, common sense policies controlling climate pollution.

July 1, 2011

New sources emitting at least 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year and modified sources emitting at least 75,000 tons of additional CO2 per year due to the modification must obtain a permit under EPA's Prevention of Significant Deterioration program and apply the best available control technology to control air pollution emissions.

May 10, 2011

Merits briefing in the cases begins.

January 2, 2011

Large industrial sources of greenhouse gas pollution (emitting at least 75,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year) already subject to EPA's Prevention of Significant Deterioration air permitting program begin addressing greenhouse gas emissions by deploying available, cost-effective pollution controls when applying for air permits.

Cleaner cars available for model year 2012 will save consumers an estimated $3,000 over the life of the vehicle in fuel costs, help break our oil addiction, and reduce dangerous pollution.

December 10, 2010

A D.C. Circuit panel of judges denies motions by a coalition of large emitters and the state of Texas to suspend EPA's greenhouse gas pollution reduction policies while the rules are being challenged in court. The court determines that the movants had not shown that they would be harmed by the challenged rules.

July 6, 2010

The American Chemistry Council challenges long standing EPA rules that govern when facilities must apply for permits and deploy cost-effective emissions control technologies for air pollution.

June 3, 2010

EPA issues the final Tailoring Rule providing for only the largest emitters of greenhouse gas pollution to apply for permits. The rule is challenged in the D.C. Circuit on the same day.

May 7, 2010

EPA finalizes the Vehicle Rule which establishes greenhouse gas emissions standards for new passenger vehicles model years 2012-2016. The standards are supported by the auto manufacturers, United Auto Workers, and a number of states. The standards are challenged in the D.C. Circuit on the same day.

December 15, 2009

EPA publishes the Endangerment Finding determining that six greenhouse gases endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations. On December 23, 2009 the Endangerment Finding is challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. ("D.C. Circuit").

July 30, 2008

The Bush EPA issues an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking requesting public comments on how the agency should address climate pollution under the Clean Air Act.

January 31, 2008

Bush EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson transmits a letter to the President noting that the decision in Massachusetts v. EPA "combined with the latest science of climate change requires the Agency to propose a positive endangerment finding."

April 2, 2007

The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and directs EPA to fulfill its statutory obligation to determine whether climate pollution endangers public health and welfare.

September 8, 2003

EPA reverses the Cannon legal opinion and publishes a notice denying the International Center for Technology Assessment's petition. This decision is challenged and the case moves through the courts.

October 20, 1999

The International Center for Technology Assessment and 18 other organizations file a petition with EPA requesting the agency to take action under the Clean Air Act to reduce CO2 and other climate disrupting pollutants that are released from motor vehicles.

April 10, 1998

EPA General Counsel Jonathan Cannon issues a legal opinion determining that "CO2 [carbon dioxide] emissions are within the scope of EPA's authority to regulate."

==

<h1 class="title" style="line-height: 37px; margin: 6px 0px 23px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: normal; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">EPA clean air protections for greenhouse gases affirmed as “unambiguously correct”</h1>

<a href="http://www.edf.org/climate/epa-clean-air-protections-greenhouse-gases-affirmed-%E2%80%9Cunambiguously-correct%E2%80%9D">http://www.edf.org/climate/epa-clean-air-protections-greenhouse-gases-affirmed-%E2%80%9Cunambiguously-correct%E2%80%9D</a>

<h2 style="line-height: 25px; margin: -20px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: normal; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">Polluters are fighting EPA's practical solutions to reduce greenhouse gas pollution</h2>

</div>

After Massachusetts v. EPA, where the <a href="http://www.edf.org/news/supreme-day-clean-air-america" title="Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases are air pollutants" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.15s ease-in 0s;">Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases are air pollutants</a> under the Clean Air Act, EPA has carried out its responsibility to control these harmful pollutants, focusing on solutions that protect human health and the environment while strengthening our nation's security and saving consumers money. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed EPA’s actions as “unambiguously correct.”

Unfortunately, EPA's common sense solutions are still under attack in a flood of litigation by some of the largest polluters in our nation. They are asking the Supreme Court to overturn the D.C. Circuit Court court’s decision.

One industry coalition leading the legal attack on EPA appears to have been <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2010/12/21/attacks-on-epa-led-by-group-that-is-linked-to-owner-of-largest-private-u-s-coal-reserves/" title="formed for this purpose" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.15s ease-in 0s;">formed for this purpose</a>. Many of those that engaged in litigation to derail these vital pollution reductions are not even subject to the clean air measures in question. For example, large industrial polluters and the State of Texas litigated against clean car standards that are broadly supported by U.S. auto makers and the United Auto Workers.

The D.C. Circuit affirmed these protections on June 26, 2012, after rejecting earlier attempts to block the standards on December 10, 2010. Polluters filed petitions with the Supreme Court to challenge the standards in April 2013, and EDF joined a broad coalition in asking the Supreme Court to deny the challenges on July 22, 2013.

<h3 style="line-height: 23px; margin: 25px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: bold; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">Protections facing legal challenges</h3>

New industrial facilities and facilities overhauling operations and increasing air pollution have long been required to deploy the best available, cost-effective technology to control their pollution, harmonizing major capital investments in expanded business operations with clean air measures.

The D.C. Circuit found that the Clean Air Act plainly requires modern pollution control technology for "each pollutant subject to regulation" under the Act, including greenhouse gases. EPA's rules implementing the law have long reflected these protections.

Nonetheless, numerous industrial emitters brought legal challenges to EPA's long-standing rules carrying out these protections.

</li>

Climate pollution <a href="http://www.edf.org/climate/overview-epa-endangerment-finding" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.15s ease-in 0s;">endangerment finding</a>

In Massachusetts v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court held greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and instructed EPA to determine, on the basis of science, whether these gases endanger human health and welfare

On December 15, 2009, EPA determined, based upon an extensive review of the scientific record, that six greenhouse gases endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations. EPA based this finding on more than 100 published scientific studies and peer-reviewed syntheses of climate change research by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program/U.S. Global Change Research Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

Some of the largest emitters of greenhouse gas pollution have challenged the Endangerment Finding, but their challenges were resoundingly rejected by the D.C. Circuit.

</li>

Consistent with its determination that greenhouse pollution endangers human health and welfare, and that motor vehicles contribute to this serious problem, EPA issued motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards that provide significant environmental, economic, and energy security benefits:

<li style="margin: 0px 0px 9px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">reducing greenhouse gas pollution by 960 million tons</li>

<li style="margin: 0px 0px 9px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">saving consumers an estimated $3,000 at the gas pump over the life of the vehicles</li>

<li style="margin: 0px 0px 9px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">reduced reliance on foreign oil by 1.8 billion barrels over the life of the vehicles</li>

</ul>

Despite these vital benefits for our nation, a large group of industrial interests and the State of Texas challenged EPA's clean car standards even though none of the auto manufacturers that must actually comply with the clean car standards challenged them. The D.C. Circuit resoundingly rejected these challenges.

</li>

Consistent with the statutory duty to apply the best available control technology for each pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act, including greenhouse gas pollution, the requirement for large industrial emitters to implement modern technology took effect when climate pollution was first regulated under the law beginning January 2011.

The Agency also calibrated or "tailored" this requirement to be phased in only for the nation's single largest emitters of climate pollution – excluding small sources from this requirement. Paradoxically, the nation's largest sources of climate pollution like power plants, refineries and manufacturers challenged not only the timing of the implementation of these protections under the Clean Air Act but EPA's careful tailoring of these requirements to exclude small emitters. The Court rejected these challenges, finding that these large sources were not harmed by EPA’s action.

</li>

</ol>

</div>