States sue EPA over refinery GHGs
New York, 28 August: In the latest attempt to force the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, state and local governments sued the agency this week for failing to adopt rules to control oil refinery emissions.

Twelve states, New York City and the District of Columbia have asked the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to review the EPA’s failure to set New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for controlling GHG emissions from oil refineries. These standards ensure that new or renovated oil refineries install pollution-control technology.

The EPA finalised regulations for oil refineries on 24 June without setting the standards, in violation of the Clean Air Act. The act requires the EPA to adopt NSPS for oil refineries, as well as power plants and other major stationary sources, if the agency determines they emit air pollution that poses a danger to public health and welfare. The EPA’s failure to issue the regulations is problematic because oil refineries account for almost 15% of the carbon dioxide emitted from industrial processes in the US, according to the petition.

“The EPA’s refusal to control pollution from oil refineries is the latest example of the Bush administration’s do-nothing policy on global warming,” said New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, whose office is leading the lawsuit.

"Once again, the states are being forced to sue the federal government for its failure to live up to its statutory responsibilities to address global climate change,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.

State and local governments have filed suit against the EPA several times for failing to take action to address global warming. In April, 18 states, two cities and several non-governmental organisations filed a court petition to force the agency to act on a US Supreme Court ruling to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.

However, this latest lawsuit fails to acknowledge that the EPA has not yet made an “endangerment finding” on carbon dioxide, said Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market think-tank based in Washington, DC.

“Regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act would create regulatory chaos because the Clean Air Act wasn’t designed to address issues such as global warming,” he said. “The Clean Air Act route to addressing global warming is truly a Pandora’s Box and would give the EPA the authority to blow up the economy.”

The EPA will review Cuomo’s petition and respond appropriately, but the public can provide input during a 120-day comment period for EPA’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), said Tim Lyons, deputy press secretary for the EPA. The ANPR – published 11 July – is the EPA’s response to the Supreme Court decision last year deeming carbon emissions a pollutant and requiring the agency to regulate them. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson has laid the regulatory burden on the US Congress.

“Certainly, I think the Attorney General could focus his resources and taxpayer dollars more efficiently by encouraging the Democratic-led Congress to take action on sound, responsible environmental legislation,” Lyons said.

Cuomo has been “very vigilant” in attempting to force the federal government to take action on global warming issues, said Leslie Lowe, energy and environment programme director for the Interfaith Centre on Corporate Responsibility, an investor group based in New York. “He is really showing he understands the impact of the fossil fuel industry on the environment,” she said.