Hill Heat: California Sues EPA Over Waiver DenialScience Policy Legislation Actiontag:www.hillheat.com,2005:TypoTypo2008-01-03T09:27:15-05:00Brad Johnsonurn:uuid:4f144582-9032-464a-9a14-ffded70fe3ad2008-01-03T09:20:00-05:002008-01-03T09:27:15-05:00California Sues EPA Over Waiver Denial<p>As California Attorney General Jerry Brown <a href="http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2007/12/20/california-reponses-to-california-waiver-denial">announced</a> upon the <a href="http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2007/12/20/epa-admin-denies-california-waiver"><span class="caps">EPA</span> denial of the California waiver</a> request to regulate tailpipe greenhouse emissions, California has filed a <a href="http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1514_epapetition-1.pdf">petition for review</a> of the decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Fifteen other states – Massachusetts, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington – joined the suit.</p>
<p><a href="http://warminglaw.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/01/breaking-califo.html">Warming Law</a> notes:
<blockquote>One interesting legal wrinkle is that the case has been filed in the 9th Circuit—not in the DC Circuit, as many (including ourselves) had suggested. In the wake of <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s decision, LA Times writer David Savage presciently <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-legal21dec21,1,6344577.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=8&cset=true">noted</a> that the DC Circuit might not be naturally inclined to California’s arguments. While the state’s case for a waiver was undoubtedly strengthened by the Supreme Court’s decision on standing in <em>Massachusetts v <span class="caps">EPA</span></em>, it was the DC Circuit that had previously sided with the <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s position (this rationale is strongly mirrored in the <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s current claim that global warming doesn’t pose a unique threat to California). The state’s arguments based on statutory text and the weight of Supreme Court precedent would probably have held up in any court, but its tactical filing move certainly seems, on the surface, to bolster its odds.</blockquote></p><p>As California Attorney General Jerry Brown <a href="http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2007/12/20/california-reponses-to-california-waiver-denial">announced</a> upon the <a href="http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2007/12/20/epa-admin-denies-california-waiver"><span class="caps">EPA</span> denial of the California waiver</a> request to regulate tailpipe greenhouse emissions, California has filed a <a href="http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1514_epapetition-1.pdf">petition for review</a> of the decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Fifteen other states – Massachusetts, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington – joined the suit.</p>
<p><a href="http://warminglaw.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/01/breaking-califo.html">Warming Law</a> notes:
<blockquote>One interesting legal wrinkle is that the case has been filed in the 9th Circuit—not in the DC Circuit, as many (including ourselves) had suggested. In the wake of <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s decision, LA Times writer David Savage presciently <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-legal21dec21,1,6344577.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=8&cset=true">noted</a> that the DC Circuit might not be naturally inclined to California’s arguments. While the state’s case for a waiver was undoubtedly strengthened by the Supreme Court’s decision on standing in <em>Massachusetts v <span class="caps">EPA</span></em>, it was the DC Circuit that had previously sided with the <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s position (this rationale is strongly mirrored in the <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s current claim that global warming doesn’t pose a unique threat to California). The state’s arguments based on statutory text and the weight of Supreme Court precedent would probably have held up in any court, but its tactical filing move certainly seems, on the surface, to bolster its odds.</blockquote></p>