FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Oregon and Washington Public Interest Groups Petition EPA to Grant Waiver Allowing States to Limit Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions

For immediate release, June 15, 2007

Contact:  Dan Galpern, Attorney
                Western Environmental Law Center    
                (541) 485-2471, ext 114 or
                (541) 968-7164 after 5pm.

Oregon and Washington Public Interest Groups Petition EPA to Grant Waiver Allowing States to Limit Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Eugene, Ore. – On behalf of 18 public interest organizations in Oregon and Washington, the Western Environmental Law Center today urged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to use its authority under section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act to grant California a waiver of federal preemption to enable it to limit vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. EPA’s waiver must be obtained for vehicle GHG limits to be implemented not only in California, but in Oregon, Washington, and other so-called opt-in states pursuant to section 177 of the Clean Air Act.

According to Dan Galpern, an attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center who wrote the comments on behalf of the Oregon and Washington groups, “The Clean Air Act requires the federal EPA to grant a waiver of federal preemption when California vehicle emissions standards are more protective than applicable federal law. Here the EPA has refused to regulate vehicle greenhouse gas emissions directly, and has failed, to date, to enable states to impose limits.  Instead, EPA chooses to dally as the planet bakes.”

The Pacific Northwest’s average regional temperature has increased 1-3^oF in the last century and scientists predict severe consequences to follow if prompt measures are not taken to significantly curb the amount of GHGs released into the atmosphere.

“Vehicle emissions are one of the largest sources of global warming pollution in Washington and Oregon, as in other states,” said K.C. Golden, Policy Director of Climate Solutions.  “Limiting this pollution is one of the most effective and economically attractive climate solutions available to us.”

In their comments, the Oregon and Washington organizations argued that the risks inherent in continuing EPA inaction are prohibitive and avoidable.

“The Supreme Court recently ruled, in Massachusetts v. EPA, that greenhouse gas emissions constitute pollution that can and should be regulated under the Clean Air Act,” attorney Dan Galpern said. “Continued inaction risks unacceptable and potentially irreversible damage to Pacific Northwest forests, vulnerable species, public health, and the regional economy.”

EPA must consider whether California’s standards are at least as protective of public health as the applicable federal standard; whether California needs such standards to meet a compelling and extraordinary condition; and whether California’s standards are consistent with section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.

The Oregon and Washington groups first note that California’s program is perforce more protective of the public health and welfare than current federal standards because currently the federal government does not regulate vehicle GHG emissions, despite their known contribution to climate change.

Second, because climate change poses an environmental threat extreme in modern history, California, no less than Oregon and Washington, faces a “compelling and extraordinary condition.”  According to Steve Pederly, Conservation Director of Oregon Wild, “From the potential loss of our old-growth forest and wild salmon runs, to rising sea levels and the destruction of critical wetlands, the Northwest has a lot at stake in the global warming debate.  To protect these values, we must take meaningful action today, including reducing emissions from cars and trucks, and protecting our forests – nature’s way of removing carbon from the atmosphere.”

Third, the organizations assert that California’s standard amply complies with section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act because it allows enough time for vehicle manufacturers to develop and deploy the requisite technology by the standard’s compliance deadlines.

As noted, the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA establishes EPA’s authority to restrict vehicle GHG emissions.  The Oregon and Washington organizations argue that the Clean Air Act similarly imposes the obligation on EPA to allow the states to act to reduce vehicle GHG emissions.

“EPA’s year-and-a-half delay to act on the waiver request is entirely unacceptable because it nullifies state efforts to act in the best interest of their citizens, and the natural environment.”   Galpern said.  “EPA should reverse course, comply with the law, and allow states to exercise leadership to strictly regulate greenhouse emissions from vehicles, along with other sources.”

###