Complete list of press releases

Contact: 
NRDC: Pat Remick, 202-696-6272, premick@nrdc.org
EDF:     Erica Morehouse, 916-492-4680, emorehouse@edf.org
Jennifer Andreassen, 202-572-3387, jandreassen@edf.org 

(SACRAMENTO, California) — In a major victory for California’s fight against climate change, the state’s Third District Court of Appeal today forcefully rejected a challenge to the carbon auctions in California’s ambitious cap-and-trade program, a key feature of the landmark program.

The 2-1 majority decision in favor of the California Air Resources Board, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) holds that the carbon auctions are within the Board’s statutory authority, and rejects the argument from the California Chamber of Commerce that auctioning carbon allowances constitutes an unlawful tax. Cap-and-trade places a firm limit on emissions, and – by creating a market for companies to buy and sell emission allowances – provides flexibility to businesses on how to comply cost-effectively.

EDF senior attorney Erica Morehouse said: “The court has thoroughly affirmed California’s innovative climate program, including its carbon auctions that serve as vital safeguards to ensure polluters are held accountable for their pollution. Today’s decision helps clear the way for California to continue its ambitious, globally significant climate leadership, and to do so in a way that promotes the best interest of Californians – especially those in pollution-burdened communities that will be hit hardest by climate change impacts.”

Alex Jackson, legal director of NRDC’s California Climate Project, said: “The world is looking to California to lead on climate. Making polluters pay for their harmful emissions and investing the proceeds in clean energy is critical to winning that fight and protecting the most vulnerable Californians.”

EDF and NRDC are parties to the consolidated cases in the Third District Court of Appeal, California Chamber of Commerce et al. v. California Air Resources Board, et al., and Morning Star Packing Co. et al. v. California Air Resources Board et al.

The court stated in its decision: “The purchase of allowances is a voluntary decision driven by business judgments as to whether it is more beneficial to the company to make the purchase than to reduce emissions. Reducing emissions reduces air pollution, and no entity has a vested right to pollute.”

The decision is posted at:  https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B401IQwbFScSdzJiMnZ6ZXNYRDQ

California’s allowance trading market and the use of auctions promote equity, provide useful information to the carbon market, and prevent windfall profits to polluters. Auctions are a key component of how California expects to meet its carbon pollution targets of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. California included auctions in its cap-and-trade program after considering the experience of other cap-and-trade programs and heeding the advice of experts in designing the program. Economists, environmental groups, and regulated parties – including some of California’s major utilities such as PG&E – have all voiced support for California’s landmark program.

California has committed to using the proceeds from the cap-and-trade auction – more than $4.4 billion to date – for investments that reduce climate pollution while also benefiting the state’s overall health and economy. A significant portion of these investments are targeted at disadvantaged communities.

###

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 2 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world’s natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Bozeman, Montana, and Beijing. Visit us at www.nrdc.org and follow us on Twitter @NRDC.

Environmental Defense Fund (edf.org ), a leading international nonprofit organization, creates transformational solutions to the most serious environmental problems. EDF links science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships. Connect with us on EDF Voices, Twitter and Facebook.

(Washington, D.C. – April 5, 2017) Environmental Defense Fund and a broad, diverse coalition of public health and environmental organizations today asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to continue its review of vital safeguards that address the threat of climate change and protect the health of American families.

The coalition filed a brief today opposing the Trump Administration’s efforts to delay judicial review of the Clean Power Plan.

“Delaying these urgently-needed pollution reductions would harm the health and well-being of communities across the nation,” said Tomás Carbonell, Director of Regulatory Policy and Lead Attorney for Environmental Defense Fund. “The D.C. Circuit has already invested an extraordinary amount of time and resources in the Clean Power Plan case – an expedited briefing, a nearly seven-hour argument in front of ten judges, and six months of consideration since then. There is absolutely no justification for asking the court to suspend its deliberations at this late stage, and neither EPA nor the parties challenging the Clean Power Plan have pointed to any precedent.”

The Clean Power Plan establishes the only nationwide limits on climate-destabilizing carbon pollution from existing power plants, our largest source of this pollutant. When fully implemented, the Clean Power Plan would avoid each year 3,600 premature deaths, 1,700 heart attacks, 90,000 asthma attacks, and 300,000 missed work and school days.

The Trump Administration filed a motion last week asking the D.C. Circuit to indefinitely suspend (or “hold in abeyance”) pending legal challenges to the Clean Power Plan – even though the case was argued before the en banc court more than six months ago. The motion was filed immediately after a sweeping executive order seeking rollbacks for a wide array of climate and public health protections. 

In today’s brief, EDF and others urge the court to proceed to a ruling on the merits of the Clean Power Plan, arguing that EPA’s motion comes at a very late stage in the litigation and that EPA’s requested abeyance could delay urgently needed pollution reductions from power plants by years. 

The brief says:

“[T]his Court [should] deny the [EPA’s] extraordinary motion for indefinite abeyance of the Court’s deliberations over the Clean Power Plan, which would have the effect of improperly suspending the Rule without review by any court, without any explanation, and without mandatory administrative process … [EPA] cannot be allowed to accomplish through abeyance something [that] it cannot do on its own: an indefinite suspension of a duly promulgated rule without judicial review, without a notice and comment rulemaking, and without any reasoned explanation.”

Opponents launched legal challenges against the Clean Power Plan before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency even finished writing it. An extraordinarily broad and diverse coalition — including numerous states and cities, former Republican heads of EPA, leading businesses such as Google, Mars and Apple, numerous power companies, public health groups including the American Lung Association, and many more – are currently defending the Clean Power Plan in the D.C. Circuit. Large majorities of Americans support the Clean Power Plan – including in states that are currently opposing these common sense, cost-effective safeguards in court.

A coalition of 17 states and seven major cities and counties also filed a brief today asking the court to continue its judicial review of the Clean Power Plan. 

You can get more information, including all legal briefs in these cases, on EDF’s website.

(RALEIGH, N.C.) Today, North Carolina state lawmakers are expected to give initial approval to House Bill 467, which aims to restrict damages from nuisance lawsuits against agriculture to the value of the property that is harmed. The bill would prevent plaintiffs from seeking punitive as well as other kinds of damages, and will severely limit legal options for individuals with lower property values. 

“Environmental Defense Fund has a long history of collaborating with farmers, food companies, and agribusinesses in North Carolina and across the U.S. We work in partnership with agriculture to go beyond regulatory compliance, protect natural resources, and improve air and water quality.

Restricting legal options and services for communities with more limited means is not the way to build trust or work towards a cleaner future for North Carolina. We are opposed to any legislation that would disproportionately limit the legal resources of disadvantaged communities while deepening the divide between agriculture and environmental groups.

We believe that sustainability makes good business sense for agriculture, and that the path forward should include increased collaboration between agribusinesses and environmental groups working to protect low-income communities.”

• Maggie Monast, Sustainable Sourcing Manager, EDF Ecosystems Program

 

(NEW ORLEANS—April 3, 2017) An overwhelming 88 percent of Louisiana voters want their legislators to vote for the 2017 Coastal Master Plan, according to a new statewide poll released today. The master plan is the state’s science-based blueprint for large-scale restoration and protection of Louisiana’s critical coastal areas. The draft plan will soon be finalized and is expected to be approved by the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Board. It will be sent to the state Legislature for passage later this month.

The poll identifies extensive statewide support for the master plan, including 93 percent in the southwest coastal region, 92 percent in the Orleans metro region, 89 percent in the Bayou Central region, 88 percent in Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes, and 84 percent in north Louisiana. A majority of Louisiana voters (52 percent) say they will be more likely to vote for their legislator if he/she votes for the plan; only 4 percent would be less likely to do so.

“Our way of life in coastal Louisiana cannot continue without immediate action to restore and protect the coast,” said Steve Cochran, campaign director for Restore the Mississippi River Delta. “Louisianians statewide agree that our coast is crucial to the safety of our residents and to the industries that support our economy – and they want their legislators to act to help protect us by passing the master plan.”

The poll found that 97 percent of voters statewide say that Louisiana’s coastal areas and wetlands are personally important to them. Additionally, 74 percent of voters (87 percent of coastal and 66 percent of non-coastal voters) believe that coastal land loss will affect them personally in the future, and 85 percent believe this land loss poses a “very serious threat” to coastal cities and communities subject to hurricane storm surge.

“The future without action presents an unacceptable reality. Louisiana residents have seen the destructive forces of nature first-hand, and every effort must be made to ensure the protection of our culturally and economically important coastal region for generations to come,” continued Cochran.

Two-thirds of Louisiana voters (67 percent) also recognize there is currently not enough money available to do all that needs to be done to protect and restore coastal Louisiana, and 86 percent believe the state should identify and secure additional funding for master plan projects. Most voters (91 percent) maintain the opinion that funds dedicated to coastal restoration and protection should not be spent on anything else.

“The state has made formidable progress toward restoring our coast using dedicated coastal funding,” said Cynthia Duet, deputy director of Audubon Louisiana. “We have the public support, the plan, and funding to get started. But legislators must work to protect every dollar that exists for coastal restoration and secure additional consistent funding to get the job done.”

About the poll: The statewide Louisiana poll was developed and conducted by Applied Technology Research Corporation for the National Audubon Society on behalf of Restore the Mississippi River Delta. Interviews for this statewide poll were completed by telephone with 1,050 likely Louisiana voters from March 2 through March 8, 2017. The overall sample error for the statewide statistics is not greater than plus or minus 4.0 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence.

(Washington, D.C. – March 30, 2017) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an order today that temporarily postpones oral argument in the legal challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon pollution standards for new, modified, and reconstructed power plants.

The oral arguments, which had been scheduled for April 17, will be delayed while the court decides a procedural motion filed on Tuesday by the Trump Administration.

The Trump Administration filed a motion for abeyance seeking to indefinitely suspend the litigation, pursuant to this week’s executive order attacking a wide array of climate and public health protections. 

Today’s order does NOT grant that motion. It does announce that oral argument is deferred “pending disposition” of the motion.

The order does not affect the ongoing litigation over the Clean Power Plan, which establishes our only nationwide limits on carbon pollution for existing power plants. 

(BOSTON - March 30, 2017) –  The following is a statement from the Environmental Defense Fund:

“Carlos Rafael’s crimes are a stark example of how the current groundfish monitoring program has failed to protect fish and fishermen. There are extensive regulations in place, but no one can have faith that all of the rules are being followed if monitoring is inadequate. These crimes don’t just damage the fishery, they badly hurt fishermen as well.

The good news is that NMFS and the New England Fishery Management Council are now committed to a major overhaul of monitoring, with the goals of improving the accuracy of information and increasing accountability. We hope the new monitoring program will be developed in a way that provides critical insurance for fishermen to know there is a level playing field, and that it will restore confidence in the government’s science and management decisions.” 

El día de ayer, el presidente Donald Trump, firmó una orden ejecutiva solicitando a la Agencia de Protección Ambiental de los Estados Unidos, debilitar diversas políticas en materia de salud, e incluye las bases para revocar el Plan de Energía Limpia la primera normatividad realizada para reducir las peligrosas emisiones contaminantes de carbono provenientes de las grandes centrales eléctricas.

Fred Krupp, presidente del Environmental Defense Fund, comentó: “El decreto firmado ayer, también ordena una revisión de las políticas de protección contra la contaminación por metano.  Al ir en esa dirección, el gobierno está minando soluciones sencillas y de sentido común a un problema muy serio. Alrededor de 10 millones de toneladas métricas de gas natural son desperdiciadas año con año en Estados Unidos a través de fugas, venteo y quema de metano suficiente gas para satisfacer las necesidades energéticas de cada hogar en Pennsylvania u Ohio por todo un año. Este desperdicio de recursos e impuestos, viene acompañado de una gran nube contaminante que amenaza la salud de cientos de miles de estadounidenses que viven cerca de los yacimientos petroleros o gaseros, compresoras u otros centros de producción, almacenamiento o transportación. Al solicitar a las agencias desmantelar estas políticas de salud, el gobierno se está asegurando que la industria del gas natural no sea capaz de establecer su reputación de proveer energía limpia”.

“La orden ejecutiva también busca terminar con el uso de un importante instrumento de medición del daño económico causado por el impacto del cambio climático. Esta medición, conocida como el costo social del carbón, fue desarrollada mediante un riguroso y transparente proceso interinstitucional basado en la ciencia y la economía. El costo social del carbón es esencial para asegurar un sólido y consistente análisis de la política ambiental basada en los impactos a la salud pública. Retirar su uso en el gobierno federal no sólo llevará a la confusión regulatoria, sino a encubrir los costos de la contaminación por carbono, inclinando los análisis y viciando las políticas contra las soluciones de sentido común que protegen la propiedad y la salud pública”, añadió Krupp.

Esta orden ejecutiva regresa a los Estados Unidos a una época de más contaminación y más enfermedades, y es con vista a este futro que México puede decidir tomar acciones diferentes en materia de metano. Los cambios históricos en el sector energético de México, quinto mayor emisor del mundo, abrieron a la industria mexicana de petróleo y gas a la inversión privada por primera vez desde que fue nacionalizada en 1938. Es directamente viendo hacía los intereses de México la importancia de garantizar que todas las empresas de petróleo y gas que operan dentro de sus fronteras cumplan los mismos estándares ambientales que se cumplen en otras partes de Norteamérica. De lo contrario, las empresas que operan en otras regiones pueden aprovechar las diferencias en las protecciones nacionales y esto podría perjudicar la economía de México y a sus ciudadanos.

Los estados de Ohio y California aprobaron recientemente nuevas políticas para regular la contaminación por metano de la industria del petróleo y el gas, dejando claro que las acciones en Estados Unidos continuarán a pesar de la última orden del presidente Trump. De igual forma, Canadá está dispuesto a proponer sus regulaciones federales sobre metano esta primavera. En junio pasado, México se comprometió a reducir las emisiones de metano en un 40-45% para 2025. México ha dado los primeros pasos hacia su meta, pero se necesitan más medidas para desarrollar regulaciones sólidas y completas que puedan cumplir plenamente con el compromiso de reducir las emisiones de metano en el país.

On Tuesday, President Trump signed an executive order commanding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to weaken a range of important public heath protections, including steps to revoke the Clean Power Plan, America’s first-ever standards to reduce dangerous carbon pollution from large power plants.

Fred Krupp, President of Environmental Defense Fund, said: “Yesterday’s order also commands a review of the protections against methane pollution. By taking that step, the Administration is undercutting common-sense remedies to a serious problem. As much as 10 million metric tons of America’s natural gas are wasted each year through leaks, venting, and flaring of methane pollution – enough natural gas to fuel the needs of every home in Pennsylvania or Ohio for an entire year. Along with this waste of resources and taxpayer revenue comes toxic, smog-forming, air pollution that threatens the health of hundreds of thousands of Americans living near oil and gas wells, compressors, and other gathering, production, and transportation sites. By asking the agencies to dismantle these basic public health safeguards, the Administration is ensuring that the natural gas industry will not be able live up to its reputation for providing a cleaner fuel.

 “The executive order also seeks to end the use of an important measure of the economic harm caused by the impacts of climate change. This measure, known as the social cost of carbon, was developed through a transparent and rigorous interagency process and based on the latest peer-reviewed science and economics. The social cost of carbon is essential to ensuring sound, consistent analysis of climate policy based on public health impacts. Rolling back its use across the federal government will not only lead to regulatory confusion, but help conceal the costs of carbon pollution, skewing analysis and biasing policy against common-sense solutions that protect property and public health,” Krupp added.

This executive order points the United States backward to an era of more pollution and more disease, and it is a future that Mexico can decidedly take a different approach on concerning methane. Historic changes in Mexico’s energy sector opened up the Mexican oil and gas industry, already the world’s fifth largest emitter, to private investment for the first time since it was nationalized in 1938. It is squarely in Mexico’s interest to ensure that all oil and gas companies operating within its borders meet the same environmental standards as elsewhere in the northern continent. Otherwise, companies operating in other regions are able to exploit differences in national and subnational safeguards that could hurt Mexico’s economy and its citizens.

The States of Ohio and California recently approved new policies to regulate oil and gas industry methane pollution, making it clear that substantive U.S. action will continue despite the latest order by President Trump. Canada is also set to propose its federal methane regulations this spring. Last June, Mexico pledged to reduce it methane emissions by 40-45% by 2025. Mexico has taken initial steps toward its goal but further action is needed to develop strong, comprehensive regulations that can fully deliver on the country’s methane commitment.  

(Washington, D.C. – March 28, 2017) On the heels of the Trump Administration’s release of a sweeping executive order intended to roll back a wide array of climate and clean air protections, the Department of Justice filed a motion tonight to delay judicial review of the Clean Power Plan.

The Trump Administration is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to hold in abeyance the legal challenges to the merits of the Clean Power Plan, notwithstanding the fact that the case has been fully briefed and was argued before the en banc court six months ago.  

“We will vigorously oppose the Trump Administration’s outrageous attempt to prevent the D.C. Circuit from reaching a decision in legal challenges over the Clean Power Plan, and will continue our legal defense of this vital safeguard regardless of any change in the government’s position,” said Tomás Carbonell, Director of Regulatory Policy and Lead Attorney for Environmental Defense Fund, which is party to both cases. “The Trump Administration’s plan to roll back the Clean Power Plan will cost American lives, threaten the health of our communities, and undermine the single most important step our nation has taken to combat the urgent threat of climate change. Large majorities of Americans in red and blue states alike support the Clean Power Plan – and they want swift action to implement and strengthen this vital safeguard, not tear it down.”

The Clean Power Plan establishes the only nationwide limits on climate-destabilizing carbon pollution from existing power plants, our largest source of this pollutant. Opponents launched legal challenges against the Clean Power Plan before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency even finished writing it. It has been almost a year since briefing concluded in this case, and six months since an exhaustive, seven-hour en banc oral argument before ten judges of the D.C. Circuit.

The motion follows today’s executive order, which commands the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to review, and then “if appropriate … as soon as practicable, suspend, revise, or rescind” the Clean Power Plan. The executive order also instructs the Attorney General to “in his discretion, request that the court stay [any] litigation or otherwise delay further litigation” for the Clean Power Plan.

You can get more information, including all legal briefs in the case, on EDF’s website.

Today President Trump signed an executive order commanding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to weaken a range of important public heath protections, including steps to revoke the Clean Power Plan, America’s first-ever standards to reduce dangerous carbon pollution from large power plants. By finalizing this plan in 2015, the agency stepped in to protect the health of all Americans in a way that also protects consumers.  

Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund, made the following statement:

“Let’s face facts: Rolling back public health protections will cost American lives. By allowing pollution levels to go up, President Trump is also allowing premature deaths to go up, heart attacks and asthma attacks to go up, and sick days from work and school to go up. According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s own scientific analysis, revoking the Clean Power Plan – which reduces a range of dangerous air pollutants in addition to carbon – would cause each year up to 3,600 more premature deaths, 1,700 more heart attacks, 90,000 more asthma attacks, and 300,000 more missed work days and school days. 

“Today’s order also commands a review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s and the Bureau of Land Management’s protections against methane pollution. By taking that step, the Administration is undercutting common-sense remedies to a serious problem. As much as 10 million metric tons of America’s natural gas are wasted each year through leaks, venting, and flaring of methane pollution – enough natural gas to fuel the needs of every home in Pennsylvania or Ohio for an entire year. Along with this waste of resources and taxpayer revenue comes toxic, smog-forming, air pollution that threatens the health of hundreds of thousands of Americans living near oil and gas wells, compressors, and other gathering, production, and transportation sites. By asking the agencies to dismantle these basic public health safeguards, the Administration is ensuring that the natural gas industry will not be able live up to its reputation for providing a cleaner fuel.

“The executive order also seeks to end the use of an important measure of the economic harm caused by the impacts of climate change. This measure, known as the social cost of carbon, was developed through a transparent and rigorous interagency process and based on the latest peer-reviewed science and economics. The social cost of carbon is essential to ensuring sound, consistent analysis of climate policy based on public health impacts. Rolling back its use across the federal government will not only lead to regulatory confusion, but help conceal the costs of carbon pollution, skewing analysis and biasing policy against common sense solutions that protect property and public health.

“This executive order doesn’t just turn its back on our kids, our seniors, and the most vulnerable among us. It turns its back on the next generation. The president seeks to repeal life-saving safeguards yet offers no replacement plan to protect our communities and families from the clear and present danger of climate pollution, and move our nation toward a clean energy economy. This executive order takes us backward to an era of more pollution and more disease.”  

​         ​​​​​   - Fred Krupp, president, Environmental Defense Fund 

Background: The Clean Power Plan

The Clean Power Plan is designed to ensure healthier, longer lives for Americans in all parts of our nation. Once implemented it would prevent up to 3,600 premature deaths, 90,000 asthma attacks, and 300,000 missed work or school days every year.

The Clean Power Plan gives all states tremendous flexibility in designing solutions to achieve pollution reductions based on their own policy priorities and prerogatives – including cost-effective energy-saving solutions that would save an average American family an estimated $85 a year in electricity bills.

Millions of Americans and an extraordinarily broad and diverse coalition — including numerous states and cities, former Republican heads of EPA, leading businesses such as Google and Apple, numerous power companies, public health groups including the America Lung Association, and many more — are currently defending the Clean Power Plan in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Large majorities of Americans support the Clean Power Plan – including in states that are currently challenging these vital safeguards in court.

Today’s executive order ignores settled law that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act, as found in three Supreme Court opinions in the last decade. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Clean Air Act provision that underlies the Clean Power Plan “speaks directly” to climate pollution from existing power plants. Just like mercury and acid rain, greenhouse gases are regulated under our nation’s clean air law due to the cascade of serious health and environmental impacts that follow from the discharge of these dangerous contaminants.

Today’s order also disregards America’s clean energy economy, which is already a powerful economic engine across the country. The bi-partisan Governors’ Wind and Solar Coalition, led by Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo and Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, recently sent a compelling letter to President Trump highlighting the shared economic benefits of clean energy, including for low income rural communities:

“The nation’s wind and solar energy resources are transforming low-income rural areas in ways not seen since the passage of the Homestead Act over 150 years ago.”

Their letter detailed the impressive contributions of wind and solar to the American economy —particularly to low-income rural communities — such as the $222 million in revenue paid by U.S. wind facilities to rural landowners every year, and the 200,000 people employed in the solar industry in 2016, with 31,000 new jobs added last year alone.

The administration’s agenda would run rough-shod over years of thoughtful policy-making – based on extensive public comment and judicial review – designed to move our nation toward cleaner energy. We need to move forward to the clean energy economy, not backward to an era of more pollution and disease.

Americans in all regions of our nation do not want dirtier water and air. They overwhelmingly support a strong, effective Environmental Protection Agency. We will fight any attacks on clean air and clean water in Congress, the courts, in boardrooms and alongside Americans from both parties who work to safeguard healthier, longer lives for our children and our families.

White House officials revealed tonight that President Trump will  sign an executive order Tuesday commanding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to begin weakening a range of important public heath protections, including taking steps to review and ultimately rescind the Clean Power Plan, America’s first-ever standards to reduce dangerous carbon pollution from large power plants. By finalizing this plan in 2015, the agency stepped in to protect the health of all Americans in a way that also protects consumers.  

Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund, made the following statement:

“Let’s face facts: Rolling back public health protections will cost American lives. Rhetoric about protecting the environment cannot obscure the fact that the President’s executive order launches a process explicitly designed to allow air pollution levels to go up. This will allow premature deaths to go up, heart attacks and asthma attacks to go up, and sick days from work and school to go up. According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s own scientific analysis, rescinding the Clean Power Plan – which reduces a range of dangerous air pollutants in addition to carbon – would cause each year up to 3,600 more premature deaths, 1,700 more heart attacks, 90,000 more asthma attacks, and 300,000 more missed work days and school days. 

“This action doesn’t just turn its back on our kids, our seniors, and the most vulnerable among us. It turns its back on the next generation. The President offers no replacement plan to protect our communities and families from the clear and present danger of climate pollution, and move our nation toward a clean energy economy. This executive order points us backward to an era of more pollution and more disease.” 

“Keystone was wrong on the merits yesterday, and it remains wrong on the merits today. However, ignoring sound science, good economics, and the legitimate concerns of local communities is becoming familiar ground for this Administration. It now is up to the courts to address what, on its face, appears to be an arbitrary decision.

“Meanwhile, if the President is truly interested in national energy security, he should act to protect and strengthen fuel efficiency standards for our nation’s cars and trucks, rather than attack and weaken them.”

            - Eric Pooley, EDF Senior Vice President for Strategy and Communications

(Riverside, CA – March 24, 2017) Today, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) – the state’s clean air agency – voted unanimously to keep the state’s Advanced Clean Cars Program in place to address climate pollution, smog-forming emissions and other air pollutants from cars and passenger trucks.

Today’s vote was based on extensive technical analysis showing the standards are being achieved at a fraction of the estimated costs. The Board also decided to begin putting in place new safeguards to achieve its long-term clean air objectives.

“We strongly support California’s decision to maintain its protective clean car standards and to move forward in providing vital additional clean air protections over the long-term. Today’s vote means Californians will make forward progress in providing cleaner, safer air for our families and communities,” said Quentin Foster, Environmental Defense Fund’s California Climate director.

Experts from Environmental Defense Fund were among dozens who testified in favor of the standards at a public hearing that was held before the vote today.

Experts noted that the array of pollutants from cars are one of the single largest threats to human health for millions of Californians. Pollution from cars and trucks contributes to smog and climate change. Vehicle pollution is linked to increased asthma attacks, an increased risk of heart disease and lung cancer, and more premature deaths.

Under the Clean Air Act, California has longstanding authority to set vehicle emission standards that are tailored to its needs — and can be more protective than federal standards. 

CARB worked with the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration to develop standards in conjunction with the national Clean Car standards for cars from model years 2017 to 2025. Each agency also committed to conducting a mid-term review for the later year standards (for cars in model years 2022 to 2025).  

CARB released its Advanced Clean Cars Midterm Review Report on January 18, 2017. It concludes that the current standards for cars in model years 2022-2025 should stay as adopted – and found that they will result in equivalent or greater benefits than originally projected for California.

Today, CARB board members, after hearing staff recommendations and public testimony about the clean cars program, voted to maintain the stringency of the Advanced Clean Car Program, including standards for model year 2022-25 vehicles.

(The Environmental Protection Agency also found, after an extensive and rigorous mid-term review, that the national Clean Car standards should stay as adopted. However, last week the Trump Administration announced that it would reopen that review, which could lead to weakening the standards.)

(Riverside, CA – March 24, 2017) Experts from Environmental Defense Fund are joining dozens of others today to testify about the importance of clean cars for the health and safety of Californians. The array of pollutants from cars are one of the single largest threats to human health for millions of Californians.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) — the state’s clean air agency — is holding a public meeting in Riverside about the midterm review of their Advanced Clean Cars Program, which addresses climate pollution, smog-forming emissions and other air pollutants from cars and passenger trucks.

“The Advanced Clean Cars Program helps keep dangerous pollution out of California’s air and out of our communities. It protects our children’s lungs, helps keep us all safe from climate change, and reduces the amount of gas we need to use – which saves us all money,” said Quentin Foster, EDF’s California Climate director. “California should keep its strong clean car standards and must make forward progress in providing cleaner, safer air for the communities and families afflicted by air pollution.”

Under the Clean Air Act, California has longstanding authority to set vehicle emission standards that are tailored to its needs — and can be more protective than federal standards. 

CARB worked with the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration to develop standards in conjunction with the national Clean Car standards for cars from model years 2017 to 2025. Each agency also committed to conducting a mid-term review for the later year standards (for cars in model years 2022 to 2025).  

CARB released its Advanced Clean Cars Midterm Review Report on January 18, 2017. It concludes that the current standards for cars in model years 2022-2025 should stay as adopted – and found that they will result in equivalent or greater benefits than originally projected for California.

(The Environmental Protection Agency also found, after an extensive and rigorous mid-term review, that the national Clean Car standards should stay as adopted. However, last week the Trump Administration announced that it would reopen that review, which could lead to weakening the standards.)

Today, CARB board members will hear staff recommendations and public testimony about the clean cars program. They will then vote on whether to adopt the recommendations of the mid-term review.

In its testimony, Environmental Defense Fund noted that technologies have been developed and marketed more quickly and cost-effectively than anticipated in 2012 and urged the board to reaffirm California’s commitment to the current standards for model years 2022 to 2025, and to build from this foundation in driving forward to achieve deeper pollution reductions and greater health protections for the millions afflicted by tailpipe air pollution. You can read the full testimony here.

Reducing air pollution from cars and trucks is especially important in California, which has the largest passenger and commercial vehicle fleet in the nation – more than 13 percent of all highway vehicles are registered in California.

Pollution from cars and trucks contributes to smog and climate change. Vehicle pollution is linked to increased asthma attacks, an increased risk of heart disease and lung cancer, and more premature deaths.

The new clean cars are also more fuel efficient, which will save Californians money at the gas pump. People who purchase a new car or truck in 2025 are expected to spend thousands of dollars less on fuel over the lifetime of that vehicle.

(RIVERSIDE, California – March 23, 2017) The California Air Resources Board today finalized new regulations targeting methane emissions from the state’s oil and gas facilities. Methane is both the main component of natural gas and a potent climate pollutant. Emissions from the industry can also reduce local air quality and cause other public health concerns. The policies approved today will apply to both new and existing facilities, both on and offshore, making them the strongest methane standards in the country.

Statement from Tim O’Connor, Director of California Oil and Gas, Environmental Defense Fund

“California’s actions represent commonsense energy policy. Reducing the oil and gas industry’s emissions is one of the most affordable ways to minimize climate pollution, protect public health and ensure companies operate responsibly. Adopting these standards will help communities enjoy a healthy environment with less pollution and create a stronger energy economy with less waste.

“At a time when our country’s most basic societal protections are under threat, efforts to reduce harmful air pollutants and support a strong economy are more important now than ever before. Even if the Trump Administration tries to roll our country’s environmental protections backward, smart leadership can and will continue moving forward. California is making it clear it will hold the industry accountable for its pollution.”

• Tim O’Connor, Director of California Oil and Gas, Environmental Defense Fund