EPA Is Sued for Answers on Emissions
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Officials from 18 states and several environmental groups sued the Environmental Protection Agency yesterday in an effort to force the administration to determine whether greenhouse-gas emissions are endangering public health.
The plaintiffs said the agency is ignoring a year-old Supreme Court ruling that the federal government has legal authority under the Clean Air Act to control carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. They asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to compel the EPA to act within 60 days.
"What we have is an environmental agency acting completely contrary to its essential mission and duty," said California Attorney General Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. (D) in a telephone news conference.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee recently reported that EPA staff members had determined in December that the emissions endanger public health, but the process stalled after the EPA forwarded the findings to the White House. The House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming yesterday voted 12 to 0 to subpoena all EPA documents related to the staff action, along with records of the agency's decision to block California from regulating tailpipe greenhouse-gas emissions on its own.
In an e-mail, EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar said agency officials "will review this new petition" and, in the meantime, will focus on its proposed rule-making as "a reasonable path forward."
