States Representing 44% of U.S. Population Sue EPA for Blocking Auto Emissions Standards
02 May 2018
Climate
Drivers battle traffic during rush hour in Los Angeles, CA in March 2015. Eric Demarcq / flickr / cc
By Jessica Corbett
A coalition of 17 states and the District of Columbia is suing the Trump administration for blocking greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles that aimed to reduce air pollution and curb U.S. drivers' contributions to the global climate crisis.
In what critics called an "indefensible and frankly embarrassing decision," last month U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt caved to automobile industry lobbyists' demands and announced that his agency is drafting relaxed manufacturing rules for vehicles made between 2022 and 2025.
<p>"Enough is enough," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said Tuesday. "The evidence is irrefutable: today's clean car standards are achievable, science-based, and a boon for hardworking American families. But the EPA and Administrator Scott Pruitt refuse to do their job and enforce these standards."</p><p>Becerra, California Gov. Jerry Brown and the California Air Resources Board are leading the coalition that filed suit in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. According to a <a href="https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/california-and-states-representing-over-40-percent-us-car-market-sue-defend" target="_blank">statement</a> released by Becerra's office, the lawsuit alleges that Trump's EPA "acted arbitrarily and capriciously, failed to follow its own regulations, and violated the Clean Air Act" when rolling back the regulations.</p><p>"This coalition represents approximately 43 percent of the new car sales market nationally and 44 percent of the U.S. population," the statement noted. States attorneys general or agencies from Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia have signed on to the <a href="https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press_releases/2018-05-01%20Petition%20Revised%20MTE.pdf" target="_blank">lawsuit</a> (pdf).</p><p>In a short video posted to Twitter, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman—who has <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/04/03/savethecensus-major-cities-join-17-states-lawsuit-block-trumps-citizenship-question" target="_blank">spearheaded</a> <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/01/17/22-states-file-suit-stop-ffcs-illegal-rollback-net-neutrality" target="_blank">multiple</a> <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/04/23/federal-court-blocks-trumps-bizarre-attempt-encourage-toxic-tailpipe-pollution" target="_blank">suits</a> challenging the Trump administration's deregulatory efforts—outlined how the "responsible greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and light trucks" were implemented over the course of several years, only to be quashed by Trump and Pruitt "to serve their pro-pollution agenda."</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p>
<p>"This move is totally unjustifiable under the facts and the law. That's why, today, we're going to stop them," Schneiderman said. "We need these responsible emission standards in New York and across the country. They fight climate change, they cut air pollution, and they save drivers money."<br></p><p>The lawsuit was lauded by environmental advocates nationwide.</p><p>Andrea McGimsey of <a href="https://environmentamerica.org" target="_blank">Environment America</a> commended the states for "standing up for the rights of their citizens to a stable climate and clean air."</p><p>"The mission of the EPA is to protect the environment and public health," McGimsey added. "Clearly Administrator Pruitt has not upheld this critical mission, so the states have rightfully filed this lawsuit to hold the administration accountable to the rule of law."</p><p>"Scott Pruitt is recklessly disregarding the vast technical and economic bases for America's clean car standards, and instead launching an all-out attack that risks Americans' health and their pocketbooks," declared Environmental Defense Fund general counsel Vickie Patton. "The states' legal challenge is crucial to protect our nation's clean car standards that reduce dangerous air pollution and save Americans hard-earned money."</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
<iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-991434617256366080" id="twitter-embed-991434617256366080" type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-991434617256366080&created_ts=1525211407.0&screen_name=EcoWatch&text=U.S.+Air+Pollution+Falling+More+Slowly+Than+EPA+Data+Suggests+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2F6WKQIseLMr+%40EPAairmarkets+%40cleanaircouncil&id=991434617256366080&name=EcoWatch" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="P12ONY1576662005"></iframe>
</p><p><br></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Johnny Silvercloud / Flickr
A federal judge on Thursday threw out Exxon Mobil's lawsuit that sought to derail New York and Massachusetts' probe into whether the oil giant misled investors and the public about its knowledge of climate change.
Exxon tried to convince U.S. District Court Judge Valerie A. Caproni that New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey were infringing on the company's free speech rights and the AGs were pursuing politically motivated investigations.
<p>
But in a searing <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4426787-Judge-Caproni-Ruling-Exxon-vs-Attorneys-General.html" target="_blank">ruling</a>, Caproni called the company's claims "implausible" and "a wild stretch of logic."
</p><p>
"The relief requested by Exxon in this case is extraordinary: Exxon has asked two federal courts—first in Texas, now in New York—to stop state officials from conducting duly-authorized investigations into potential fraud," she wrote. "It has done so on the basis of extremely thin allegations and speculative inferences."
</p><p>
Exxon's allegations rested on statements made at the AGs' United for Clean Power <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd4Udhnha2A" target="_blank">press conference</a> in March 2016. The company tried to paint Schneiderman and Healey's participation in the event as a evidence of their political bias against the company.
</p><p>
However, Caproni dismissed that argument, which she considered a result of "cherry-picking snippets from the transcript of the press conference."
</p><p>
"Some statements made at the press conference were perhaps hyperbolic, but nothing that was said can fairly be read to constitute declaration of a political vendetta against Exxon," she wrote.
</p><p>
The company's claims that the AGs "are pursuing bad faith investigations in order to violate Exxon's constitutional rights are implausible," the judge continued. She called it a "a wild stretch of logic" for Exxon to contend that the AGs' comments about public confusion relative to climate change showed any intent to "chill dissenting speech."
</p><p>
Caproni dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, meaning Exxon cannot file it again.
</p><p>
Schneiderman and Healey celebrated the ruling.
</p><p>
"I am pleased with the court's decision to dismiss Exxon's frivolous, nonsensical lawsuit that wrongfully attempted to thwart a serious state law enforcement investigation into the company," Schneiderman said.
</p><p>
"At every turn in our investigation, Exxon has tried to distract and deflect from the facts at hand. But we will not be deterred: our securities fraud investigation into Exxon continues."
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><p>
Healey said, "Exxon has run a scorched earth campaign to avoid answering our basic questions about the company's awareness of climate change. Today, a federal judge has thoroughly rejected the company's obstructionist and meritless arguments to block our investigation."
</p><p>
"This is a turning point in our investigation and a victory for the people."
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
<iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-979495854607302662" id="twitter-embed-979495854607302662" type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-979495854607302662&created_ts=1522364984.0&screen_name=MassAGO&text=Exxon%E2%80%99s+lawsuit+to+stop+our+investigation+into+what+the+company+has+known+about+the+impact+of+burning+fossil+fuels%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FbYCGEeqDVP&id=979495854607302662&name=Maura+Healey" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="J39RHL1576662785"></iframe>
</p><p>
Exxon spokesman Scott Silvestri told <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-mobil-lawsuit/u-s-judge-dismisses-exxon-lawsuit-to-stop-climate-change-probes-idUSKBN1H536R" target="_blank">Reuters</a> the company is evaluating its legal options.
</p><p>
"We believe the risk of climate change is real and we want to be part of the solution," he added. "We've invested about $8 billion on energy efficiency and low-emission technologies such as carbon capture and next generation biofuels."
</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
"Their plan puts the water used by hundreds of millions of Americans for drinking, bathing, cooking and recreation at risk." Blan Holman, Southern Environmental Law Center
Multiple states and conservation groups are legally challenging the Trump administration's decision to delay the Obama-era Clean Water Rule.
Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) put a two-year suspension on the rule, also known as Waters of the United States (WOTUS), which protects large water bodies like lakes and rivers but also listed smaller waterways such as streams, ponds and wetlands for federal protection.
<p>The decision to withdraw and replace WOTUS was advocated by industry groups like the American Farm Bureau Federation and the American Petroleum Institute, as well as Republican politicians and farmers, ranchers and real estate developers who viewed the rule as an infringement on property rights.</p><p>WOTUS was supposed to take effect in the coming weeks after the Supreme Court decided last month that cases regarding the matter should be heard by district courts. However, EPA administrator <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/scott-pruitt">Scott Pruitt</a>'s action halted the rule from implementation to come up with a more industry-friendly alternative.</p><p>But environmentalists say the suspension will allow uncontrolled pollution and destruction of our nation's rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands.</p><p>New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is leading a coalition of 11 Democratic attorneys general from California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia to block the move. </p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><p>In their suit filed in the Southern District of New York on Tuesday, the attorneys general charge that in suspending the Clean Water Rule the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers violated federal law by taking action "with inadequate public notice, insufficient record support and outside their statutory authority." </p><p>"Clean water is fundamental to New Yorkers' <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/health-stories/">health</a>, environment and economy," Schneiderman said. "The Trump Administration's suspension of the Clean Water Rule is clearly illegal, threatening New York's decades-long efforts to ensure our residents have access to safe, healthy water. We will fight back against this reckless rollback and the Trump administration's continued assault on our nation's core public health and environmental protections." </p><p>The <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a> and the <a href="https://www.nwf.org/" target="_blank">National Wildlife Federation</a> filed in the New York southern district, <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2018/180206-0" target="_blank">contending</a> that the Trump administration's attempt to prevent the enforcement of needed protections for lakes, rivers and wetlands, including streams that feed into the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water">drinking water</a> supplies of 117 million Americans.</p><p>Jon Devine, director of federal water policy and senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said: "These safeguards should be working to protect our nation's drinking water and recreation resources, but the Trump administration has instead pursued a rushed and illegitimate process to try and stop them."<br></p><p>"The administration's attack on clean water violates the law and runs roughshod over public concern about their waterways. It's dangerous and that's why we're going to court," Devine said. </p><p>Jan Goldman-Carter, director for wetlands and water resources for the National Wildlife Federation, added, "The American people have made it crystal clear they want to see our rivers and streams protected. They want to be able to fish in the local stream, swim in a nearby lake and turn on the tap and get a glass of safe, clean water to drink. The Clean Water Rule provides that protection and the Trump administration is working to take it away. We have no choice but to defend America's waterways in court."</p><p>The <a href="https://www.southernenvironment.org/" target="_blank">Southern Environmental Law Center</a> also filed a lawsuit Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. </p><p>"Clean water is a way of life we take for granted in this nation thanks to bipartisan laws passed almost 50 years ago, but large polluters now want to dismantle it all," said managing attorney Blan Holman. "The administration is pretending that pollution dumped upstream doesn't flow downstream, but their plan puts the water used by hundreds of millions of Americans for drinking, bathing, cooking and recreation at risk. We are going to court to protect clean water across the country."</p><p>The Southern Environmental Law Center filed the challenge on behalf of American Rivers, Clean Water Action, Defenders of Wildlife, Charleston Riverkeeper, Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, Coastal Conservation League, North Carolina Coastal Federation, North Carolina Wildlife Federation and One Hundred Miles.</p><p>In response to the lawsuits, the EPA said the 2015 rule never went into effect. </p><p>"It's worth noting that these lawsuits are over an embattled regulation that's been put on hold by the courts to prevent it from taking effect," EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox told <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/372586-states-greens-sue-trump-over-obama-epa-water-rule-delay" target="_blank">The Hill</a>. "Our delay rule will keep in place that status quo."</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
<iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-959622579316195329" id="twitter-embed-959622579316195329" type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-959622579316195329&created_ts=1517626826.0&screen_name=EcoWatch&text=EPA+Blocks+Clean+Water+Rule+to+Replace+With+%27Industry-Friendly%27+Alternative+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2Fw7Z0xcjRAf+%40circleofblue%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FHOhs0oIAbH&id=959622579316195329&name=EcoWatch" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="OPX7Q71576683854"></iframe>
</p>
Read More
Show Less
NY Top Court Rejects Exxon's Bid to Keep Critical Files Sealed in #ExxonKnew Case
13 September 2017
Popular
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Exxon's CEO from 2006 to 2016. NY AG's subpoena seeks PwC records from 2010 to the present.
New York's highest court dealt ExxonMobil a major blow Tuesday when it declined to hear the oil giant's appeal to block New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's subpoena seeking audit documents in an ongoing fraud investigation of what "Exxon Knew" about the link between fossil fuels and climate change.
The Court of Appeals refused to hear Exxon's assertion that the documents were protected under "accountant-client confidentiality" under state law in Texas, where the company is headquartered.
<p>
<span></span>The order affirms that state officials can demand Exxon's auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), to immediately turn over the subpoenaed documents. <span></span>
</p><p>
<span></span>A memo from the Attorney General's office states:
</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">
"The New York Court of Appeals denied Exxon's request for further review of its claim that an accountant-privilege under Texas law allowed Exxon to withhold documents responsive to a subpoena issued to Exxon's independent auditor, PwC. The Court of Appeals also dismissed as moot Exxon's motion for a stay pending appeal. Exxon's legal claims had been rejected twice previously by lower state courts."
</p><p>
The court did not include an explanation of its decision.
</p><p>
The finding affirms a Manhattan court's ruling last year that: "New York does not recognize an accountant-client privilege, and controlling authority holds that: 'The law of the place where the evidence in question will be introduced at trial or the location of the discovery proceeding is applied when deciding privilege issues,'" as Judge Barry Ostrager wrote.
</p><p>
Exxon has not yet released a comment.
</p><p>
<span></span>"Today's Court of Appeals order affirms that Exxon and its outside auditor have an obligation to produce all the documents that our office rightfully subpoenaed," Schneiderman said in a statement.
</p><p>
"As we've said from the start, Exxon had no legal basis to interfere with PwC's production," he added. "Our fraud investigation continues to move full speed ahead, despite Exxon's continued strategy of delay."
</p><p>According to <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12092017/exxon-loses-pwc-auditor-ruling-climate-fraud-investigation-new-york-schneiderman-court" target="_blank">InsideClimate News</a>, "Schneiderman's subpoena seeks PwC records from 2010 to the present related to risks to Exxon's profits from regulations limiting the emission of greenhouse gases, policies discouraging the use or development of fossil fuels; and the potential effects of climate change on the price of oil, gas, and other hydrocarbons."<br></p><p>The legal development comes shortly after Harvard released a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/exxon-harvard-study-2476138068.html" target="_blank">breakthrough study</a> of Exxon's internal and external communications on climate change, including scientific research, internal company memos and paid editorial features in the New York Times.<br></p><p>
<span></span>As Climate Nexus <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/exxon-harvard-study-2476138068.html">noted</a> from the study: "The analysis showed a 'quantifiable discrepancy' between internal and external communications, with 81 percent of external advertisements casting doubt on the link between human activity and climate change despite 80 percent of internal communications acknowledging climate <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/science/" target="_blank">science</a>."</p><p>The court's decision was cheered environmental advocates including <a href="http://climatehawksvote.com/" target="_blank">Climate Hawks Vote</a> president RL Miller, who said, "Exxon knew, and now the world will know."</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
<iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-900354783038418945" id="twitter-embed-900354783038418945" type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-900354783038418945&created_ts=1503496282.0&screen_name=EcoWatch&text=Groundbreaking+%40Harvard+Study+Confirms+%23ExxonKnew+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FFkXvrWWyWJ+%40350+%40RobertKennedyJr+%40billmckibben+%40SierraClub+%40MarkRuffalo&id=900354783038418945&name=EcoWatch" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="8PUY5H1505321933"></iframe>
</p>
Read More
Show Less
'A Major Win for New Yorkers': Court of Appeals Upholds State's Denial of Water Quality Certification for Constitution Pipeline
18 August 2017
Energy
Pipes for the Constitution Pipeline are stacked at a pipe yard in Altamont, New York.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld New York State's denial of a water quality certification for the Constitution Pipeline Friday, a critical win for the Attorney General's office and the state's authority to take necessary action to protect its waters and natural resources. The appeals court noted that the state is entitled to "conduct its own review of the Constitution Project's likely effects on New York waterbodies and whether those effects would comply with the state's water quality standards."
New York must be able to do what's necessary to protect our environment—and we're glad that the court agreed.
<p>It would be unacceptable for a <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pipelines">pipeline</a>—or any project—to pollute our waters and undermine New Yorkers' health and water resources. Today's decision marks a major win for New Yorkers, and for the state's right to take the actions necessary to protect the public and our environment.</p><p>My office stands ready to continue to vigorously defend New Yorkers' right to a safe and healthy environment from all who may harm it.</p><p>The proposed Constitution Pipeline would include construction of 100 miles of new natural gas pipeline across undeveloped lands in central New York, impacting and crossing more than 250 streams and more than 80 acres of wetlands.</p><p>In December 2014, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the pipeline but conditioned that approval on certification from New York State that the project would comply with state water quality standards and requirements. Following a thorough review of the project, the Department of Environmental Conservation denied the certification on the grounds that Constitution failed to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the project would meet New York's water quality standards. Constitution challenged Department of Environmental Conservation's denial.</p>
Read More
Show Less
CNN / Screenshot
By Andrea Germanos
Eleven states filed suit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its chief, Scott Pruitt, in federal court on Monday over the agency's decision to postpone implementation of a rule aimed at lessening the risk of a chemical plant disaster such as the deadly one that rocked West, Texas in 2013.
"Protecting our workers, first-responders, and communities from chemical accidents should be something on which we all agree. Yet the Trump EPA continues to put special interests before the health and safety of the people they serve," said New York Attorney General Schneiderman, who's leading the lawsuit.
<p>Noting that EPA itself said there have been more than 1,500 accidents at chemical plants over the past decade resulting in 58 deaths, Schneiderman said, "It's simply outrageous to block these common sense protections—and attorneys general will keep fighting back when our communities are put at risk."</p><p>The EPA <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-extends-rmp-effective-date-2019" target="_blank">said in June</a> it was again delaying implementation of the Risk Management Program Amendments, setting an effective date of Feb. 19, 2019. The states said that the EPA rule delay is arbitrary and capricious, and exceeds the agency's authority under the Clean Air Act.</p><p>The Obama-era rule, a press statement from Schneiderman's office states,</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">would necessitate additional safeguards in accident prevention programs to protect communities and prevent future accidents—requiring "root cause" analyses and third-party audits following accidents, as well as analyses of safer technology and alternatives; emergency response procedures, mandating annual coordination with local first responders, annual notification drills, and periodic field exercises; and increased public access to facility chemical hazard information, in addition to public meetings within 90 days of an incident. In fact, despite Administrator Pruitt's delay of the rule, the Trump EPA published a June 2017 fact sheet explaining how these improvements "will help protect local first responders, community members, and employees from death or injury due to the chemical facility accidents.<br></p><p>The delay of the rules, <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/07/24/%20http%3A//blog.ucsusa.org/genna-reed/signed-sealed-delayed-the-new-fate-of-the-added-sugar-rule-and-other-safeguards" target="_blank">noted</a> Genna Reed at the <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/" target="_blank">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>, "came after several petitions from the American Chemistry Council and a handful of other chemical manufacturing corporations, oil and gas companies, and trade organizations asked the agency to reconsider the rule. Even after receiving thousands of public comments, including those from individuals from low-income communities and communities of color that face the greatest risks from RMP [Risk Management Program] facilities urging the EPA to enforce the rule as planned, the EPA sided with industry and went forward with its decision to delay."</p><p>"President Trump's illegal safety rollback puts our first responders and local communities in danger from chemical accidents," <a href="http://www.nmag.gov/uploads/PressRelease/48737699ae174b30ac51a7eb286e661f/AG_Balderas_Joins_Lawsuit_Against_Trump_EPA_for_Blocking_Vital_Rule_to_Protect_First_Responders___Local_Communities_from_Chemical_Accidents.pdf" target="_blank">said</a> New Mexico Attorney General Balderas, vowing continued legal action against Trump when he "puts our children, families, and whole communities at risk."</p><p>Attorneys General Schneiderman and Balderas are joined in the suit by the AGs from Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.</p><p> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/07/24/epa-decided-preventing-west-texas-style-accident-wasnt-priority-so-11-ags-are-suing" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Interior Department
The Interior Department's new "American Energy" webpage reflects the Trump administration's calls for unfettered fossil fuel development.
The webpage has gone through several revamps since Ryan Zinke took over the department in March. As reported by Motherboard, the current page, last updated on May 19, stresses "removing burdensome regulations at the Department" and omits language that emphasized developing renewable energy technologies.
<p>Additionally, the first sentence of the new page states: "The U.S. Department of the Interior is the steward and manager of America's natural resources including oil, gas, clean coal, hydropower, and renewable energy sources." </p><p><span></span>That's a complete flip from the page's February 11 iteration, then called "<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170211105124/https://www.doi.gov/energy/" target="_blank">New Energy Frontier</a>," which listed clean technologies first: "solar, wind and waves, hydropower, geothermal, biofuels, oil and gas, and coal."</p><p>The Interior Secretary seems to have a dismissive attitude towards renewables. Citing the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/wind-energy-threat-to-birds-is-overblown-1881893026.html" target="_blank">overblown</a> "wind kills birds" threat, Zinke <a href="https://newrepublic.com/minutes/141718/trump-administration-defending-coal-policy-saying-theres-no-thing-clean-energy" target="_blank">said</a> two months ago that "there's no such thing as clean energy" as he <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-lawsuit-coal-public-lands-2335145688.html" target="_blank">officially lifted</a> the Obama-era moratorium on federal coal leasing.</p><p>Earlier this month, Zinke kick-started plans to review oil and gas exploration in the Arctic and Atlantic Ocean.</p><p>"This order in effect makes <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/fracking-alaska-project-icewine-2398239198.html">Alaska open for business</a>," Zinke said. <span></span></p><p>Meanwhile, Zinke's colleagues over at the Energy Department have a <a href="https://energy.gov/science-innovation/climate-change" target="_blank">webpage</a> dedicated to how renewable energy technologies can mitigate the harmful effects of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/">climate change</a> and that it "supports research and innovation that makes fossil energy technologies cleaner and less harmful to the people and the environment." <br></p><p><span></span>The page also states that the department is "working to dramatically increase the efficiency of appliances, homes, businesses and vehicles."</p><p>Ironically, the Energy Department's work is being undermined by a slew of Trump policies. The president's 2018 budget slashes funding for the <a href="https://energy.gov/eere/about-office-energy-efficiency-and-renewable-energy" target="_blank">Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy</a> by a whopping 71.9 percent. Not only that, the administration has also proposed <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-executive-order-weather-underground-2334907513.html">cuts on energy efficiency initiatives</a>, from eliminating the popular Energy Star program to rolling back key vehicle emission standards. </p><p>Trump's efforts to weaken pollution standards for vehicles is already being challenged by a coalition of 13 attorneys general and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.</p><p>"Reducing pollution from cars and trucks is vital to New Yorkers' and all Americans' health and environment, as we protect the clean air we've worked so hard to achieve and fight climate change," New York Attorney General <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/eric-schneiderman">Eric Schneiderman</a> said.</p><p>"Any effort to roll back these affordable, achievable and common-sense vehicle emission standards would be both irrational and irresponsible. We stand ready to vigorously and aggressively challenge President Trump's dangerous anti-environmental agenda in court—as we already have successfully done." </p>
Read More
Show Less
States and Local Governments Oppose Trump's Plan to Dismantle the Clean Power Plan
28 March 2017
Popular
Photo credit: iStock
I led a coalition of 23 states, cities and counties in opposing President Trump's executive order today that the administration described as paving the way to eliminating the Clean Power Plan rule.
The coalition—which includes the Attorneys General of New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia, as well as the chief legal officers of the cities of Boulder, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, South Miami and Broward County, Florida—issued the following statement today:
<p style="margin-left: 20px;">"We strongly oppose <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">President Trump's</a> executive order that seeks to dismantle the Clean Power Plan.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Addressing our country's largest source of carbon pollution—existing fossil fuel-burning power plants—is both required under the Clean Air Act and essential to mitigating climate change's growing harm to our public health, environments and economies.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"We won't hesitate to protect those we serve—including by aggressively opposing in court President Trump's actions that ignore both the law and the critical importance of confronting the very real threat of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/">climate change</a>." </p><p>The <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/clean-power-plan">Clean Power Plan</a> is the culmination of a decade-long effort by partnering states and cities to require mandatory cuts in the emissions of climate change pollution from fossil fuel-burning power plants under the Clean Air Act. The Clean Power Plan, along with the companion rule applicable to new, modified and reconstructed power plants, will control these emissions by setting limits on the amount of climate change pollution that power plants can emit. The rule for existing plants is expected to eliminate as much climate change pollution as is emitted by more than 160 million cars a year—or 70 percent of the nation's passenger cars.</p><iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-846715789667418112" id="twitter-embed-846715789667418112" type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-846715789667418112&created_ts=1490707750.0&screen_name=EcoWatch&text=%23Trump+to+Strike+Biggest+Blow+Against+Obama+%23Climate+Legacy+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FL9JoFshse8+%40SierraClub+%40ClimateReality+%40NRDC+%40RobertKennedyJr+%40350&id=846715789667418112&name=EcoWatch" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="MGOIJ21524750161"></iframe><p>The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency adopted the Clean Power Plan through a multi-year stakeholder process that drew heavily on the experience of states and utilities in reducing power plant greenhouse gas emissions. A number of states have already taken a leading role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by moving forward with their own programs. These states recognize that, on such a crucial issue that is already costing taxpayers billions of dollars in storm response and other costs, state action alone will not be enough and strong federal actions like the Clean Power Plan are needed.<br></p><p>In November 2015, a coalition of 25 states, cities and counties, which I led, intervened in defense of the Clean Power Plan against legal challenge in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The court heard oral argument en banc for a full day in late September; a decision is expected soon. </p><p>On Dec. 29, 2016, a broad coalition of states and localities called on President-Elect Trump to continue the federal government's defense of the Clean Power Plan in a letter, urging him to reject "misguided advice" from a group of Attorneys General led by West Virginia to discard the Clean Power Plan.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
By Andrea Germanos
A New York State judge on Wednesday ordered ExxonMobil to turn over a year's worth of emails it now admits it lost from an alias account used by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson when he was CEO of the company—a "bombshell" revelation, according to a lawyer for New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who's investigating the oil giant's climate cover-up.
Schneiderman's office discovered Tillerson's 2008-2015 use of the email alias "Wayne Tracker" to discuss climate change and other matters as part of its ongoing probe.
<p>Exxon previously <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-17/exxon-says-some-wayne-tracker-emails-may-have-been-lost" target="_blank">blamed</a> the email loss on a technical glitch.<br></p><p>"Exxon has failed to produce management documents from critical time periods when Exxon is known to have been formulating and publicizing key policies and related representations regarding the company's resilience to the impacts of climate change and climate change regulations," Schneiderman said in a letter to the court, <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/exxon-lost-wayne-tracker-emails-152024103.html" target="_blank">according to</a> Bloomberg.</p><iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-841830069454700544" id="twitter-embed-841830069454700544" type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-841830069454700544&created_ts=1489542903.0&screen_name=EcoWatch&text=Tillerson+Used+%27Alias%27+Email+to+Discuss+Climate+at+Exxon%2C+NY+AG+Says+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2Fp04YhJnZR3+%40SunFoundation+%40Public_Citizen&id=841830069454700544&name=EcoWatch" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="PKL73S1490373076"></iframe><p><br>Justice Barry Ostrager of the State Supreme Court in Manhattan "ordered ExxonMobil Corp. to work with New York's attorney general to recover lost emails" and gave the company until the end of the month to produce the documents, Reuters <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tillerson-email-idUSKBN16T2N0?il=0" target="_blank">reported</a>.</p><p>Ostrager also "ordered Exxon to deliver sworn statements and records from its staffers responsible for monitoring the 'Wayne Tracker' emails, so state investigators could determine how they were lost," the New York Post <a href="http://nypost.com/2017/03/22/exxon-says-it-lost-emails-from-tillersons-alias-account/" target="_blank">wrote</a>.</p><p><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/" target="_blank">Greenpeace USA</a> said the order was "a step in the right direction."</p><p>"Exxon has withheld information from the public for long enough. It's time for the oil company to come clean in the courts about what it knew about climate change and what it withheld from the public and shareholders," said Greenpeace USA climate liability campaigner Naomi Ages.</p><p>"Justice Barry Ostrager took a step in the right direction by asking Exxon to be transparent with Attorney General Schneiderman," she continued. "This country needs more attorneys general who, on behalf of the people, are ready to face off with one of the biggest polluters in the world."</p><p> Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/03/22/exxon-ordered-recover-wayne-tracker-emails-it-claims-are-lost" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Despite an understanding of environmental risk and knowledge that international climate action would hurt their bottom line, Exxon aggressively pursued development of carbon-heavy Canadian tar sands for decades, a new investigation from InsideClimate News finds. The investigation is published on the heels of Friday's Canadian carbon tax announcement that could drive down tar sands pricing even further.
In another blow for Exxon, a judge ordered Monday that Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey would not have to appear in Dallas for a deposition.
Healey is being sued with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman by the oil giant for investigating Exxon's internal climate change research, based on InsideClimate News's original 2015 series.
For a deeper dive:
Healey: WSJ, Politico PRO, The Hill, AP, Boston Globe, Boston Herald
Commentary: Huffington Post, David Halperin op-ed
For more climate change and clean energy news, you can follow Climate Nexus on Twitter and Facebook, and sign up for daily Hot News.
By Climate Denier Roundup
ExxonMobil filed a motion Monday to add New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to its court case against Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healy's investigation.
Apparently emboldened by last week's ruling that Healy needed to provide the court with evidence that they were not unduly biased in presuming guilt before beginning the investigation, ExxonMobil asked that the same standard be applied to the New York case. For Healy, the Texas District Court must first be satisfied that the investigation wasn't biased before it will decide on whether to throw out ExxonMobil's complaint or force the Attorney General to back down.
Alleging that the investigations are part of a broad conspiracy, Exxon's filing is a reversal of their prior cooperation with Schneiderman. The purported reason for this newfound conspiracy charge are recent media reports that Schneiderman is investigating whether or not ExxonMobil properly accounted for climate risk and stranded assets when valuing its reserves and dealing with investors. It's not clear how big a change this is from the initial investigation but apparently it is enough for ExxonMobil to worry about and to charge that the narrowed scope is a reason to believe Schneiderman is looking for any excuse to persecute the company. (As opposed to simply following where the evidence is leading him and doing his job investigating a potential breach of New York state laws).
In the filing, deemed a meritless delay tacit and "desperate attempt at forum shopping" by a New York Attorney General spokesperson, ExxonMobil claims that Schneiderman's accusations of fraud are without evidence and that Healy declared before the investigation began that the company was guilty. Both Attorney Generals were merely describing the implications of the reporting done by InsideClimate News and the LA Times/Columbia School of Journalism. With that research, they had sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation, as giving millions of dollars to climate denial groups while their own researchers provided consensus-supporting research seems rather duplicitous.
On a side note, the funding relationship between ExxonMobil and Republican state Attorneys General made a small splash last month. And Rep. Lamar Smith's request for documents from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission about their new investigation has been rebuffed.