State and local climate change initiatives: What is motivating state and local governments to address a global problem and what does this say about federalism and environmental law?

Urban Lawyer

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 1015-1029

  Engel, Kirsten ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE; ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; GREENHOUSE GAS; LOCAL GOVERNMENT; STATE;

EID: 33847021863     PISSN: 00420905     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (69)

1. Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, Cal. Assemb. Bill 32;
2. see Juliet Eilperin, California Tightens Rules on Emissions, Wash. Post (Sept. 1, 2006), at A01, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083100146.html.
3. Samantha Young, Calif. to Cap Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Associated Press, Aug. 31, 2006, available at http://www.forbes.com/infoimaging/ feeds/ap/2006/08/30/ap2984280.html.
4. Cal. Assemb. Bill 1493 (Pavley); Cal. Health & Safety Code § 43018.5. Under the legislation, the Air Resources Board is charged with adopting standards that will achieve "the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles," taking into account environmental, social, technological, and economic factors. Regulations by the Air Resources Board implementing the California legislation became effective on January 1, 2006, and can be found at Title 13 § 1961.1(g).
5. See infra note 7.
6. California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Emission Control Regulations, Fact Sheet (Dec. 10, 2004), available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/factsheets/cc_newfs.pdf.
7. Pew Center for Global Climate Change, States Poised to Require Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards (Jan. 2006), available at http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/ vehicle_ghg_standard.cfm.
8. Elizabeth Ridlington & Rob Sargent, 10-State Clean Car Standards to Cut 64 Million Metric Tons of Global Warming Emissions Per Year by 2020, available at http://72.14.203.104/search?q= cache:LAyGH5FVZXwJ:www.newenergyfuture.com/reports/ carsandglobalwarming.pdf+10+states+adopt+greenhouse+california+vehicle+ standards&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6.
9. Clean Air Act, § 209(b) (requiring that EPA find that California's to be, "in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards" and "not inconsistent" with the EPA's federal vehicle standards). While California has routinely received such federal walvers for its car standards in the past, this case is more problematic given the EPA's position that the federal Clean Air Act does not even apply to greenhouse gas emissions. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Control of Emissions from New Highway Vehicles and Engines, 68 Fed. Reg. 52,922 (Sept. 8, 2003). A challenge to the EPA's position (announced in the context of denying a petition for rulemaking to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars under the federal vehicle standards) is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Massachusetts v. Envtl. Protection Agency, 415 F.3d 50 (D.C. Cir. 2005), rehearing en banc denied by, 433 F.3d 66 (D.C. Cir. 2005), cert. granted, 126 S. Ct. 2960 (Mem) (2006).
10. See Cent. Valley Chrysler Valley Jeep, Inc., v. Witherspoon, No.CV-F-04-6663 AWI LJO, 2006 WL 2473663, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2006).
11. Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Transportation Safety Administration, Average Fuel Economy Standards for Light Trucks Model Years 2008-2011, Final Rule, 71 Fed. Reg. 17,566, 17,654 (Apr. 6, 2006) (state regulation of motor vehicle tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide is expressly and impliedly preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 32919(a)).
12. See Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, http://www.rggi.org/index.htm (last visited Sept. 19, 2006).
13. Id. Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.rggi.org/docs/ mou_faqs_12_20_05.pdf#search=%22The%20regional%20greenhouse%20gas% 20initiative%20%26%202019%20%26%202009%22 (last visited Sept. 19, 2006).
14. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Global Warming, Actions, State, http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarning.nsf/content/ ActionsState.html (last visited Sept. 19, 2006).
15. Arizona Climate Action Advisory Group, Climate Action Plan, (July 2006), available at http://www.azclimatechange.usl [hereinafter Climate Action Plan].
16. Id.
17. See Barry G. Rabe, Race to the Top: The Expanding Role of U.S. State Renewable Portfolio Standards, Pew Center Report (2006), available at http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/ race_the_top/index.cfm.
18. Massachusetts v. EPA, No. 05-1120 (oral argument heard Nov. 29, 2006).
19. Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co., 406 F. Supp. 2d 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (No. 04-5669) (dismissed on the grounds that the need for regulations to control greenhouse gas emissions is a "political question" consigned to the political branches of government);
20. California v. General Motors Corp., Case No. (N.D. Cal.) Complaint filed Sept. 20, 2006).
21. Juliet Eilperin, Cities, States, Aren't Waiting for U.S. Action on Climate, Wash. Post, Aug. 11, 2006, at A01, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic1e/2006/08/10/ AR2006081001492.html.
22. Endorsing the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, available at http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/climate/PDF/ ResolutionFinalLanguage_06-13-05.pdf.
23. See Office of the Mayor, Seattle, Washington, U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, available at http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/climate/ default.htm#where.
24. Clean Air Act, § 110.
25. Id. § 110(c).
26. Clean Water Act, § 402; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, § 6901; see also Jeffrey G. Miller, Theme and Variations in Statutory Preclusions Against Successive Environmental Enforcement Actions by EPA and Citizens Part Two: Statutory Preclusions on EPA Enforcement, 29 Harv. Entl. L. Rev. 1, 10 (2005).
27. Jerome M. Organ, Limitations on State Agency Authority to Adopt Environmental Standards More Stringent Than Federal Standards: Policy Considerations and Interpretive Problems, 54 Md. L. Rev. 1373, 1376 n.13 (1995) (reporting that, between 1987 and 1995, nineteen states enacted at least one statute preventing a state agency from promulgating roles more stringent than that required by a federal environmental law).
28. President George W. Bush, The White House, Global Climate Change Policy Book, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/ climatechange.html.
29. See supra sources cited in note 8.
30. 71 Fed. Reg. 9,866 (Feb. 27, 2006). These regulations are being challenged by a coalition of states and environmental organizations. See Air Quality Standards: States, Two Cities Sue EPA, Seek Limits on Carbon Emissions from New Boilers, Env't Rep. (BNA), Air Pollution (May 5, 2006).
31. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1997), 37 I.L.M. 22 (1998).
32. The key objective of the treaty is the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, May, 9, 1992, art. 2, 1771 U.N.T.S. 107, 31 I.L.M. 849, 851 (1992) (entered into force Mar. 21, 1994), available at http://UNFCCC.int/files/ essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/ conveng.pdf.
33. Daniel C. Esty, Toward Optimal Environmental Governance, 74 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 1495, 1554 (1999) ("to be structurally sound and to deliver efficient (and fair) results, the regulatory calculus must include all of the potential cost bearers and beneficiaries of governmental intervention (and nonintervention)");
34. Robert Stavins, Policy Instruments for Climate Change: How Can National Governments Address a Global Problem?, 1997 U. Chi. Legal F. 293 (1997).
35. See, e.g., Barton H. Thompson, Jr., Tragically Difficult: The Obstacles to Governing the Commons, 30 Envtl. L. 241, 253 (2000);
36. see also Richard B. Stewart, Environmental Regulation and International Competitiveness, 102 Yale L.J. 2039, 2099 (1993).
37. See sources cited supra note 31.
38. Kirsten H. Engel & Scott R. Saleska, Subglobal Regulation of the Global Commons: The Case of Climate Change, 32 Ecology L.Q. 183 (2005).
39. Id. at 210.
40. See supra text accompanying notes 13-15.
41. See Rabe, supra note 16.
42. See, e.g., U.S. Department of Energy, Dollars from Sense, The Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy (1997), available at http://www.nrel.gov/ docs/legosti/fy97/20505.pdf (last visited Sept. 19, 2006).
43. Barry G. Rabe & Philip A. Mundo, Business Influence in State-Level Environmental Policymaking, in Business and Environmental Policy (Michael Kraft & Sheldon Kamieniecki eds., 2007).
44. Carolyn Kousky & Stephen H. Schneider, Global Climate Policy: Will Cities Lead the Way?, 3 Climate Policy 359, 367 (2003), available at www.sciencedirect.com (majority of city officials interviewed claimed climate protection policies that generated, or could generate, cost savings to city government);
45. see also Michele M. Betsill, Mitigating Climate Change in U.S. Cities: Opportunities and Obstacles, 4 Loc. Env't 393, 397-98, 404 (2001), available at http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/PoliSci/fac/mb/ Local%20Environment.pdf (local policymakers justify greenhouse gas reductions as a response to rising energy costs, ill effects from air pollution, the need for transportation alternatives, and concerns over the livability of their cities).
46. California Environmental Protection Agency Air Res. Board, Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Regulations to Control Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Motor Vehicles 150-61 (2004), available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/ gmhsgas/isor.pdf.
47. See Barry G. Rabe, Mikael Roman & Arthur N. Dobelis, Arthur N. Dobelis State Competition as a Source Driving Climate Change Mitigation, 14 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 1, 13 (2005).
48. See, e.g., Sarah Ferriter, While Administration and Congress Balk on Kyoto Many U.S. States Move Forward on Greenhouse Emission Efforts, available at http://www.climate.org/topics/localaction/grnhs.shtml (last visited Sept. 19, 2006);
49. Margaret Kriz, Warm-Up Drills, Nat'l. J., 906 (Mar. 26, 2005);
50. Jennifer Lee, The Warming Is Global But the Legislating, in the U.S., Is All Local, N.Y. Times, Oct. 29, 2003, at A21, col. 1;
51. see also Letter to the Editor, People Power Against Climate Change, 430 Nature 15 (2004).
52. Barry G. Rabe, Mikael Roman & Arthur N. Dobelis, State Competition as a Source Driving Climate Change Mitigation, 14 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 1, 13 (2005).
53. Id. at 22-28.
54. Id. at 28-43.
55. Gary Langer, Poll: Public Concern on Warming Gains Intensity, ABC News, March 26, 2006, available at http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ GlobalWarming/story?id=1750492&page=1.
56. See Engel & Saleska, supra note 33, at 212-13.
57. State and local governments that have adopted climate change policies represent about 24 percent of the U.S. population and 27 percent of gross domestic product. Brendan Fisher & Robert Costanza, Brief Communications: Regional Commitment to Reducing Emissions, 438 Nature 301 (2005).
58. For a nice summary of some important examples, see New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, New Hampshire Clean Power Strategy 94-96 (Jan. 2001), available at http://www.des.state.nh.us/ARD/pdf/ NHCPS.pdf.
59. Id.
60. E. Donald Elliott et al., Toward a Theory of Statutory Evolution: The Federalization of Environmental Law, 1 J.L. Econ. & Org. 313, 330-31 (1985) (federal air quality legislation is the result in part of industry efforts to replace inconsistent state laws with a uniform federal law);
61. Andrew P. Morriss & Susan E. Dudley, Defining What to Regulate: Silica and the Problem of Regulatory Categorization, 58 Admin. L. Rev. 269, 324 (2006) (citing same phenomenon with respect to worker safety rules);
62. Baher Azmy, Squaring the Predatory Lending Circle: A Case for States as Laboratories of Experimentation, 57 Fla. L. Rev. 295, 401 n.545 (2005) (same with respect to predatory lending laws).
63. Engel & Saleska, supra note 34, at 226-27.
64. See, e.g., Brief for Entergy Corporation as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners, in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 05-1120, at 3 (Aug. 31, 2006) (one of nation's largest owners of electric-generating power plants supports federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from the utility sector due to greater certainty for strategic capital investments under a federal regulatory regime).
65. For an examination of this idea and barriers to its implementation, see Kirsten H. Engel, Mitigating Global Climate Change in the United States: A Regional Approach, 14 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 54 (2005).
66. See supra text accompanying notes 11-12.
67. See Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers, Environmental Programs, Climate Program, Basis for Action, available at http://www.neg-ecp-environment.org/page.asp?pg=74.
68. See West Coast Governors' Global Warming Initiative, available at http://www.ef.org/westcoastclimate.
69. See Alan Van Ormer, New Hope in the Countryside, PrairieBusiness (June 2004), available at http://www.prairiebizmag.com/article.asp?id=618.