Pennsylvania Withdraws from Environmental Lawsuits

Pennsylvania has reportedly withdrawn from five federal environmental lawsuits filed during former Gov. Ed Randell’s (D) administration, including four cases the state joined last year supporting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) “endangerment” rule and a 2008 federal suit challenging the EPA’s 2008 smog rules as too lenient.

Federal court records show that the state withdrew from the four cases it joined with 15 other states that backed the EPA’s finding that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases contributed to climate changed and endangered public health and welfare, reported the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The cases had been filed by the Coalition for Responsible Regulation to challenge the EPA’s Tailoring Rule.

Pennsylvania was part of a 12-state coalition that had sued the EPA for its 2008 smog regulations in New York v. EPA (2008). The five cases had been filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

The newspaper noted that the withdrawals show a markedly different course on regulation of fossil-fuel energy under Republican Gov. Tom Corbett’s administration. The state’s decision to end its participation in the federal cases has been criticized by local, state, and national environmental groups.

The state said in a statement regarding President Obama’s recent decision to scuttle the EPA’s Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards that the White House’s actions “vindicates Pennsylvania’s decision to withdraw from litigation on this matter and other similar issues.”

Calling the ozone rule “scientifically infirm,” Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Michael Krancer said that the state pulled out of the greenhouse gas suits because it was “an issue better left to Congress to decide. Because Congress specifically declined to enact such legislation on the matter, there was a question of whether the EPA was attempting to over-rule Congress,” he said.

"The rest of the world, including its most populous and developing areas, would not be included in the restrictions we would impose upon ourselves,” he said. “Imposing restrictions only in the U.S. could be nullified by expansions of emissions in non-participating parts of the world. In light of current economic conditions, there is a serious question of whether it is fair to ask Americans to be the only people taking on the burdens and responsibilities of implementation."

Sources: POWERnews, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pennsylvania DEP