Air Pollution Update
Justices side with Maine in two air pollution cases
April 3, 2007
By JOHN RICHARDSON, Staff Writer
By JOHN RICHARDSON, Staff Writer
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Bush administration must consider limits on carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles as a way to slow global warming.
The landmark decision, which divided the court 5-4, could lead to a range of federal regulations to fight climate change and could help bring more fuel-efficient cars to Maine dealerships as soon as next year.
It was one of two major air pollution cases decided Monday in favor of Maine and other states that have been pushing in the courts for stronger federal action on the environment.
The second ruling, a unanimous one, said the federal government must continue to use a strict standard for requiring added pollution controls at power plants that increase production. Maine and other states feared a loosening of standards could have meant more air pollution blowing into the state.
“These decisions represent clear wins for the health of the American people,” said Maine Attorney General Steven Rowe, whose office submitted arguments in favor of both lawsuits.
The global warming lawsuit was filed by 12 states, including Maine, and 13 environmental groups. The lawsuit argued that carbon dioxide produced when motor vehicles burn gasoline and diesel fuel should be regulated as a pollutant because it contributes to global warming and rising sea levels.
The EPA argued that the states did not have legal standing, that Congress did not mean to cover carbon dioxide in the Clean Air Act and that regulating vehicle emissions won’t stop global warming, among other things.
Justice John Paul Stevens criticized the EPA in the majority opinion. He was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Anthony Kennedy, who is considered the court’s swing vote in the case.
“EPA has refused to comply with this clear statutory command. Instead, it has offered a laundry list of reasons not to regulate,” Stevens wrote.
EPA can’t dismiss regulation because it won’t reverse global warming or because there is uncertainty about the effects of climate change, among other arguments, he wrote. “EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change,” Stevens wrote.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Roberts wrote a minority opinion, arguing that he was making “no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem.” But, he said, the states went to court because they did not get what they wanted quickly enough in the political process and that “redress of grievances of the sort at issue here is ‘the function of Congress and the chief executive,’ not the federal courts.”
Although the decision was a close one, it also is clear, according to Rowe. “EPA sidestepped its obligations, and that’s what the court found,” he said.
The court did not order EPA to regulate the emissions, but said it must do so unless there is a scientific reason to decide against it. Rowe said he believes EPA will act. “If the EPA focused on the science of global warming, it would be forced to regulate,” he said.
Environmental groups that joined the lawsuit issued statements hailing the decision.
“This will be a huge turning point in federal policy,” said Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust.
“Today’s ruling is not just about vehicle emissions,” said Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for Biological Diversity. He said the ruling could force the federal government to fight global warming — by protecting polar bears as an endangered species, for example.
Steve Hinchman of the Conservation Law Foundation in Brunswick said the ruling will help Maine defend a state effort to require the sale of more fuel-efficient cars, starting with model year 2009.
The automobile industry is now challenging laws adopted by Maine and about 10 other states, saying the pollution laws interfere with federal fuel-efficiency standards.
“This decision unequivocally says that (carbon dioxide) is a pollutant and can be regulated under the Clean Air Act,” Hinchman said.
Reacting to the court ruling Monday, automakers called for an across-the-economy approach to global warming, cautioning that no single industry could bear the burden alone.
EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood said the agency is studying the court’s ruling. She defended EPA’s voluntary efforts to reduce emissions. “These national and international voluntary programs are helping achieve reductions now while saving millions of dollars, as well as providing clean, affordable energy,” Wood said.
The second ruling Monday also was welcomed by Maine officials and environmentalists as having long-term implications for air quality in Maine.
The ruling hinged on when EPA must require power plants to increase their pollution controls. Existing federal rules require added controls whenever a plant increases the amount of air pollution.
Duke Energy Corp. and industry groups argued that improvements shouldn’t trigger expensive pollution controls if the plants don’t increase hourly emissions. Under that standard, a plant could operate for more hours — increasing annual pollution — without triggering the tougher standards.
Maine and others states, as well as the EPA, argued the federal government should continue to base the rules on annual emissions.
The Supreme Court sent the case back to a federal appeals court that had sided with Duke Energy.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Staff Writer John Richardson can be contacted at 791-6324 or at: jrichardson@pressherald.com
The landmark decision, which divided the court 5-4, could lead to a range of federal regulations to fight climate change and could help bring more fuel-efficient cars to Maine dealerships as soon as next year.
It was one of two major air pollution cases decided Monday in favor of Maine and other states that have been pushing in the courts for stronger federal action on the environment.
The second ruling, a unanimous one, said the federal government must continue to use a strict standard for requiring added pollution controls at power plants that increase production. Maine and other states feared a loosening of standards could have meant more air pollution blowing into the state.
“These decisions represent clear wins for the health of the American people,” said Maine Attorney General Steven Rowe, whose office submitted arguments in favor of both lawsuits.
The global warming lawsuit was filed by 12 states, including Maine, and 13 environmental groups. The lawsuit argued that carbon dioxide produced when motor vehicles burn gasoline and diesel fuel should be regulated as a pollutant because it contributes to global warming and rising sea levels.
The EPA argued that the states did not have legal standing, that Congress did not mean to cover carbon dioxide in the Clean Air Act and that regulating vehicle emissions won’t stop global warming, among other things.
Justice John Paul Stevens criticized the EPA in the majority opinion. He was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Anthony Kennedy, who is considered the court’s swing vote in the case.
“EPA has refused to comply with this clear statutory command. Instead, it has offered a laundry list of reasons not to regulate,” Stevens wrote.
EPA can’t dismiss regulation because it won’t reverse global warming or because there is uncertainty about the effects of climate change, among other arguments, he wrote. “EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change,” Stevens wrote.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Roberts wrote a minority opinion, arguing that he was making “no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem.” But, he said, the states went to court because they did not get what they wanted quickly enough in the political process and that “redress of grievances of the sort at issue here is ‘the function of Congress and the chief executive,’ not the federal courts.”
Although the decision was a close one, it also is clear, according to Rowe. “EPA sidestepped its obligations, and that’s what the court found,” he said.
The court did not order EPA to regulate the emissions, but said it must do so unless there is a scientific reason to decide against it. Rowe said he believes EPA will act. “If the EPA focused on the science of global warming, it would be forced to regulate,” he said.
Environmental groups that joined the lawsuit issued statements hailing the decision.
“This will be a huge turning point in federal policy,” said Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust.
“Today’s ruling is not just about vehicle emissions,” said Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for Biological Diversity. He said the ruling could force the federal government to fight global warming — by protecting polar bears as an endangered species, for example.
Steve Hinchman of the Conservation Law Foundation in Brunswick said the ruling will help Maine defend a state effort to require the sale of more fuel-efficient cars, starting with model year 2009.
The automobile industry is now challenging laws adopted by Maine and about 10 other states, saying the pollution laws interfere with federal fuel-efficiency standards.
“This decision unequivocally says that (carbon dioxide) is a pollutant and can be regulated under the Clean Air Act,” Hinchman said.
Reacting to the court ruling Monday, automakers called for an across-the-economy approach to global warming, cautioning that no single industry could bear the burden alone.
EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood said the agency is studying the court’s ruling. She defended EPA’s voluntary efforts to reduce emissions. “These national and international voluntary programs are helping achieve reductions now while saving millions of dollars, as well as providing clean, affordable energy,” Wood said.
The second ruling Monday also was welcomed by Maine officials and environmentalists as having long-term implications for air quality in Maine.
The ruling hinged on when EPA must require power plants to increase their pollution controls. Existing federal rules require added controls whenever a plant increases the amount of air pollution.
Duke Energy Corp. and industry groups argued that improvements shouldn’t trigger expensive pollution controls if the plants don’t increase hourly emissions. Under that standard, a plant could operate for more hours — increasing annual pollution — without triggering the tougher standards.
Maine and others states, as well as the EPA, argued the federal government should continue to base the rules on annual emissions.
The Supreme Court sent the case back to a federal appeals court that had sided with Duke Energy.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Staff Writer John Richardson can be contacted at 791-6324 or at: jrichardson@pressherald.com
UMaine Awarded More Than $1.5 Million for Wood Bioproduct Research
April 5, 2007
Contact: Sandra Neily (207) 581-2831; David Munson (207) 581-3777
Contact: Sandra Neily (207) 581-2831; David Munson (207) 581-3777
ORONO, Maine – The Department of Energy (DOE) has awarded more than $1.5 million in federal funding to the University of Maine to advance the university’s ongoing efforts to develop methods for converting biomass from Maine’s forests into fuels and valuable chemicals. The state will contribute 50 percent in matching funds to the multi-faceted project through the Maine Economic Improvement Fund.
The money, which was awarded through the DOE’s Experimental Programs to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), will be added to the $6.9 million the Forest Bioproducts Research Initiative (FBRI) received as part of the National Science Foundation’s EPSCoR award in 2006.
The UMaine initiative is a truly collaborative, multidisciplinary effort that brings together scientists from educational institutions and businesses across the state to develop effective and efficient methods for transforming waste products from paper processing and other wood-based enterprises into fuels, plastics, and other materials.
“This project adds the thermal conversion pathway to our earlier biochemical conversion focus for the utilization of woody biomass to produce biofuels and other co-products,” says Hemant Pendse, chair of UMaine’s Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering. “Together these projects put UMaine in the position of strength to deal with the entire spectrum of technical issues involved in biomass conversion.”
Supporting 12 researchers from across the state, the new research cluster will allow UMaine to expand its efforts to overcome the technological barriers faced by Maine companies currently working to develop effective techniques for producing wood-based fuels and chemicals within the wood products industry’s existing infrastructure.
“Forest biomass, including logging residue, pulp mill residue and spent liquors from pulp mills, hogfuel and sawdust, represents a significant renewable resource in Maine. Efficient use of this resource using our existing forest products industry manufacturing assets will help us save Maine jobs and build new businesses,” said Pendse. “New technologies coming out of university laboratories will help us to advance forest biorefinery deployment in Maine.”
By using the funding to create a highly integrated and focused infrastructure for research, the project promises rapid advances in the area of bioproducts for Maine businesses and will help to establish Maine as a leader in bioproduct research and production.
This year, the Department of Energy awarded grants totaling $7.5 million to universities in Maine, New Hampshire, Delaware and Kentucky for research ranging from biofuels to nanomaterials, with states matching at least 50 percent of the awarded funds. The grants are part of an experimental program to improve the capability of universities to conduct nationally competitive, energy-related research in states that have historically received less federal research and development funding.
