Underwood Sues EPA Over Rollback of Climate Change Rule
Ten other states have also signed onto the lawsuit, which claims the EPA violated the Clean Air Act in April when it issued a guidance on the use of greenhouse gases used commonly in refrigeration and air conditioning.
June 27, 2018 at 05:07 PM
3 minute read
Photo Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM State Attorney General Barbara Underwood announced a multistate lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday for seeking to roll back an Obama-era climate change policy. Ten other states have also signed onto the lawsuit, which claims the EPA violated the Clean Air Act in April when it issued a guidance on the use of greenhouse gases used commonly in refrigeration and air conditioning. Those are hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, which the Obama administration moved to prohibit or severely limit in 2015. The Obama-era rule was estimated to avoid 26 to 31 million metric tons of greenhouse gases annually by 2020, Underwood's office said. Two HFC manufacturers sued the EPA over the 2015 rule, partially claiming victory in 2017. HFCs are classified as greenhouse gases, but they do not substantially deplete the ozone like other gases, according to NASA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the EPA was allowed to block companies from using HFCs as a new replacement for ozone-depleting substances. But in a split decision, the court said the EPA could not force manufacturers to ditch HFCs if they had already switched to them from another ozone-depleting substance. The guidance issued by the EPA in April throws out the 2015 limits on HFCs in their entirety, Underwood's office said. The guidance was issued without a public notice or opportunity for comment, which Underwood said violates the federal Clean Air Act. “The Trump EPA is seeking to gut critical climate protection rules through the backdoor—once again endangering New Yorkers while thumbing their nose at the law,” Underwood said. “My office will continue to fight back against the Trump administration's brazen disregard for rule of law, and the health, safety and welfare of New Yorkers.” The section of the Clean Air Act Underwood referred to allows a court to reverse the decision by the EPA if the agency acts “without observance of procedure required by law.” The lawsuit argues the agency violated that part of the law when the guidance was issued without warning. The Obama-era rule was ordered based on a part of the Clean Air Act added in 1990 designed to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. The law requires, according to its text , that any replacement for an ozone-depleting chemical by manufacturers must “reduce overall risks to human health and the environment.” Allowing HFCs to be reintroduced conflicts with that part of the law because they contribute to climate change, Underwood's office said. They also believe allowing HFCs would make it harder for New York to reduce climate change pollution. The state has committed to reduce emissions 80 percent by 2050. Wednesday's lawsuit is the latest in a string of legal challenges from New York's attorney general against the EPA since Trump took office in 2017. The office has sued the agency over methane emissions, clean water protections and more. Attorneys general from California, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia joined Underwood in the lawsuit.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
Luigi Mangione Defense Attorney Says NYC Mayor’s Comments on Case Raise Fair Trial Concerns
4 minute readDistressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
Trending Stories
- 1Tuesday Newspaper
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-85
- 3Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 4Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 5Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250