emission

For nearly 20 years, thousands of industrial plants across the U.S. and California have been required to track and report the greenhouse gas pollution they spew into the atmosphere.

This month, the Trump administration moved to permanently end that program, which has long held bipartisan support, originating during the administration of George W. Bush. President Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Lee Zeldin, said that greenhouse gas reporting was expensive and burdensome, and that cutting the program would save American businesses up to $2.4 billion in regulatory costs.

But ending the requirement will make it harder for some state regulators to track climate progress, and for residents to know if their neighboring power plant or factory is reducing or increasing emissions.

“Measuring and reporting climate pollution is a critical step in reducing the deadly impacts of climate-driven extremes that cause more pollution, catastrophic weather events, health emergencies and deaths,” said Will Barrett, assistant vice president for nationwide clean air policy at the American Lung Assn. “Ignoring this reality is a deadly choice, and not one that EPA should be making for American families.”

The EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program requires about 8,000 power plants, oil refineries and other industrial facilities to report their output each year, representing about 90% of the country’s emissions. Greenhouse gases are by far the largest driver of climate change.

If finalized, the proposal to end the program would remove reporting obligations for most large facilities and all fuel and industrial gas suppliers, the EPA said. The move comes after various business groups have lobbied the administration for reduced regulatory requirements across numerous federal agencies.

Environmental groups said the announcement marks yet another blow from an administration that has already taken aim at many of the nation’s bedrock climate programs. The EPA this year has also proposed rolling back more than 30 rules and regulations that govern air and water quality while simultaneously promoting oil and gas production. Among the proposed repeals is the so-called endangerment finding, which establishes that fossil fuel emissions pose a threat to human health and the environment.

California, however, may be better prepared to weather the storm than other states.

The California Air Resources Board — a major state agency under the umbrella of the California EPA — administers its own state-level greenhouse gas reporting program that in some ways exceeds that of the federal one that is now on the chopping block.

CARB requires large stationary polluters that emit over 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent to report their emissions each year, compared with the minimum 25,000 metric tons at the EPA. The state’s program also includes additional reporting categories such as fuel suppliers and electricity importers that the EPA does not require.

“We’ve been taking climate change seriously for many years,” said John Balmes, a professor emeritus at UC Berkeley who also serves as CARB’s physician board member. “Knowing what greenhouse gas emissions there are in California is important to our planning mitigation strategy, so we have pretty strict reporting.”

Unlike the federal program, California’s system also goes beyond data collection and is directly tied to compliance obligations. That’s because CARB’s reporting is integrated with cap-and-trade, California’s signature climate program that sets limits on greenhouse gas emissions and allows large polluters to buy and sell unused emission allowances at quarterly auctions.

CARB uses the data reported by the state’s emitters to determine their allowance allocations. Each year, fewer allowances are created, lowering the total annual climate pollution in the state. The program is seen as critical to California meeting its ambitious climate goals — including 100% carbon neutrality by 2045 — and state lawmakers on Saturday agreed to extend cap-and-trade for an additional 15 years through that same year.

“It’s a global issue, but jurisdictions have to lead where they can, and California has long been a sub-national leader in climate change mitigation policy,” Balmes said.

For his part, Zeldin said the cut is justified by lack of regulations tied to the EPA’s reporting program. The federal program’s facility-level data is used to monitor national emission estimates and trends over time, identify opportunities for reductions, inform state and local policies, and aid communities in identifying nearby sources of pollution.

“The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is nothing more than bureaucratic red tape that does nothing to improve air quality,” Zeldin said in a news release. “Instead, it costs American businesses and manufacturing billions of dollars, driving up the cost of living, jeopardizing our nation’s prosperity and hurting American communities.”

California’s reporting program applies to more than 550 facilities, the largest of which include Pacific Gas & Electric, the Southern California Gas Co. and fossil fuel companies such as Chevron, Marathon and Phillips 66, according to state data from 2023, the most recent year available. Marathon’s Los Angeles Refinery — the largest refinery on the West Coast — was also high on the list.

Total emissions reported to the state that year were about 370 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, compared with 2.58 billion metric tons reported to the federal program that same year.

Under the EPA’s proposal, none of these entities would be required to report their emissions to the federal government. Though they would still be subject to state reporting, officials noted that pollution doesn’t stop at state lines.

“Requiring polluters to report their emissions is a critical way local governments can keep track of how industries in their cities are impacting people’s health,” read a statement from Kate Wright, executive director of Climate Mayors, a bipartisan group of nearly 350 mayors in the U.S. that includes L.A. Mayor Karen Bass.

“Air pollution kills about 135,000 Americans each year — and cities are working hard every day to lower that number,” Wright said. “They need access to that data to help them make the best decisions for their communities and ensure people across the country can breathe clean air free of toxic, cancer-causing chemicals. Without that accountability in place, emissions will go unchecked, and thousands of Americans will pay the price.”

While California is home to many nation-leading climate policies, the state has also long suffered from some of the worst air quality in the country — driven largely because of its vast numbers of cars, trucks, trains and cargo vessels and by topography that traps pollution in the state’s interior. Los Angeles has been ranked the nation’s smoggiest city 25 out of the last 26 years.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration took aim at some of the state’s regulatory muscle by moving to revoke its authority to set strict tailpipe emission standards under the EPA — an action that prompted California to respond with a lawsuit.

Trump has also moved to roll back Biden-era regulations designed to address mercury air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, and has offered large polluters two-year exemptions from key regulations governed by the Clean Air Act, which they can request by sending an email.

The Environmental Protection Network, a D.C.-based group composed of more than 650 former EPA employees, estimated that the repeal of these and other safeguards would lead to nearly 200,000 premature deaths through 2050 and cause more than 10,000 asthma attacks each day for U.S. children, among other outcomes.

The latest proposal to end the greenhouse gas reporting program is a “broadside against climate science and policies to protect human health,” said Barrett, of the American Lung Assn.

Such federal efforts, he added, “shine a spotlight on the importance of California’s ongoing climate and clean air leadership.”

EPA will initiate a public comment period to solicit input on its proposal to eliminate the greenhouse gas reporting program in the weeks ahead.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday joined President Trump and congressional Republicans in siding with the oil and gas industry in its challenge to California’s drive for electric vehicles.

In a 7-2 decision, the justices revived the industry’s lawsuit and ruled that fuel makers had standing to sue over California’s strict emissions standards.

The suit argued that California and the Environmental Protection Agency under President Biden were abusing their power by relying on the 1970s-era rule for fighting smog as a means of combating climate change in the 21st century.

California’s new emissions standards “did not target a local California air-quality problem — as they say is required by the Clean Air Act — but instead were designed to address global climate change,” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote, using italics to described the industry’s position.

The court did not rule on the suit itself but he said the fuel makers had standing to sue because they would be injured by the state’s rule.

“The fuel producers make money by selling fuel. Therefore, the decrease in purchases of gasoline and other liquid fuels resulting from the California regulations hurts their bottom line,” Kavanaugh said.

Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed.

Jackson questioned why the court would “revive a fuel-industry lawsuit that all agree will soon be moot (and is largely moot already). … This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens.”

But the outcome was overshadowed by the recent actions of Trump and congressional Republicans.

With Trump’s backing, the House and Senate adopted measures disapproving regulations adopted by the Biden administration that would have allowed California to enforce broad new regulations to require “zero emissions” cars and trucks.

Trump said the new rules adopted by Congress were designed to displace California as the nation’s leader in fighting air pollution and greenhouse gases.

In a bill-signing ceremony at the White House, he said the disapproval measures “will prevent California’s attempt to impose a nationwide electric vehicle mandate and to regulate national fuel economy by regulating carbon emissions.”

“Our Constitution does not allow one state special status to create standards that limit consumer choice and impose an electric vehicle mandate upon the entire nation,” he said.

In response to Friday’s decision, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said “the fight for fight for clean air is far from over. While we are disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to allow this case to go forward in the lower court, we will continue to vigorously defend California’s authority under the Clean Air Act.”

Some environmentalists said the decision greenlights future lawsuits from industry and polluters.

“This is a dangerous precedent from a court hellbent on protecting corporate interests,” said David Pettit, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “This decision opens the door to more oil industry lawsuits attacking states’ ability to protect their residents and wildlife from climate change.”

Times staff writer Tony Briscoe, in Los Angeles, contributed to this report.

June 20 (UPI) — Fossil fuel companies can challenge California setting stricter emissions standards for cars, the U.S Supreme Court ruled Friday.

California has stipulated that only zero-emission cars will be able to sold there by 2035, with a phased increase in ZEV requirements for model years 2026-2035. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has set a fleet-wide average of 49 mpg by model year 2026, with higher standards in the following years.

In the 7-2 opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court ruled that oil producers have legal standing to sue over California’s clean car standards approved by the U.S. EPA. Dissenting were Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, two of the court’s three Democratic-appointed justices.

“This case concerns only standing, not the merits,” Kavanaugh wrote in the 48-page opinion that included two dissents. “EPA and California may or may not prevail on the merits in defending EPA’s approval of the California regulations. But the justiciability of the fuel producers’ challenge to EPA’s approval of the California regulations is evident.”

The Clean Air Act supersedes state laws that regulate motor vehicle emissions, but it allows the EPA to issue a waiver for California. Other states can copy California’s stricter standard.

The states are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia.

The EPA, when Barack Obama was president, granted a waiver for California, but President Trump partially withdrew it during his first term.

When Joe Biden became president in 2021, the EPA reinstated the waiver with the tougher emissions.

Last week, Trump signed a bi-partisan congressional resolution to rescind California’s electric vehicle mandate. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, called this move illegal and will sue over this order.

“You couldn’t buy any other car except an electric-powered car, and in California, they have blackouts and brownouts,” Trump said last week. “They don’t have enough electricity right now to do the job. And, countrywide, you’d have to spend four trillion dollars to build the firing plants, charging plants.”

Gasoline and other liquid fuel producers and 17 Republic-led states sued, arguing California’s regulations reduce the manufacturing of gas-powered cars. The lead plaintiff was Diamond Alternative Energy, which sells renewable diesel, an alternative to traditional petroleum-derived diesel. Valero Energy Corp. also joined in the suit.

Automakers were involved in the case.

California lawyers argue the producers have no legal standing, which requires showing that a favorable court ruling would redress a plaintiff’s injury.

The EPA said consumer demand for electric cars would exceed California’s mandate and hence the regulations wouldn’t have an impact.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the lawsuit.

“If invalidating the regulations would change nothing in the market, why are EPA and California enforcing and defending the regulations?” Kavanaugh wrote.

“The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand and what automakers would otherwise manufacture and sell.”

Sotomayor and Jackson separately wrote the case may become moot.

“I see no need to expound on the law of standing in a case where the sole dispute is a factual one not addressed below,” Sotomayor wrote.

She said she would have sent the case back to the lower court to look at the issue again.

Jackson said her colleagues weren’t applying the standing doctrine evenhandedly and it can erode public trust in judges.

“This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens. Because the Court had ample opportunity to avoid that result, I respectfully dissent,” Jackson wrote.

The ruling does not prevent California and other states from enforcing standards, Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, told The Guardian.

“The standards have saved hundreds of lives, have provided enormous health benefits, and have saved families money,” Patton said. “While the Supreme Court has now clarified who has grounds to bring a challenge to court, the decision does not affect California’s bedrock legal authority to adopt pollution safeguards, nor does it alter the life-saving, affordable, clean cars program itself.”