The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court of Appeals asks the federal Environmental Protection Agency to review its own decision last month to deny California a waiver it and 16 other states need to regulate greenhouse gases from new cars and trucks.
EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson said the federal government had a national plan to raise fuel economy standards and dismissed California's arguments that it faced extraordinary threats from climate change.
"I think we are coming back strong not only with our legal case, but our technical justification," California Air Resources Board chair Mary Nichols told reporters in a conference call Wednesday.
Johnson said energy legislation signed by President Bush will raise fuel economy standards to an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, which he called a far more effective approach to reducing greenhouse gases than a patchwork of state regulations.
California's more aggressive law would have required the auto industry to cut emissions by one-third in new vehicles by 2016, boosting efficiency to about 36.8 mpg.
In an e-mailed statement Wednesday, EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar said the new federal standard "establishes an aggressive standard for all 50 states - as opposed to a lower standard in California and a patchwork of other states."
He said federal estimates show California's law would achieve reductions to only 33.8 mpg.
But an analysis released Wednesday by California air regulators showed their 2004 tailpipe regulation would be faster and tougher than the federal fuel economy rules.
By 2016, California's standard would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that vehicles produce by 45.4 million metric tons a year in California and the 12 other states that have adopted the rules. That's nearly double the 23.4 million metric tons the report forecast would be cut under the federal fuel-efficiency standards, according to the analysis, which was based on EPA air pollution modeling.
By 2020, the California law would achieve a 44 mpg standard if the state extended its law as regulators have suggested, the report said.
Nichols said the report shows the EPA's rationale for denying the waiver was wrong. She and a coalition of environmental groups also challenged Johnson's claim that California does not face extraordinary conditions from climate change.
Scientists say rising seas could erode the state's coastline and top its levees, while warming temperatures are expected to reduce the Sierra snowpack, leading to a potential water crisis.
"He's wrong factually and legally," said David Doniger, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which led environmental groups in filing a similar lawsuit Wednesday. "No other state can claim to be affected in so many serious ways as California."
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a statement that EPA officials "are ignoring the will of millions of people who want their government to take action in the fight against global warming."
Twelve other states - Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington - have adopted California's emissions standards, and others have said they plan to do so. The 12 states, along with Arizona, Delaware and Illinois, said Wednesday that they plan to intervene in support of California.
"Today, there is simply no environmental issue more compelling - or extraordinary - than the increasing threat of climate change," New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said in a statement.
The EPA's decision was a victory for automakers, who had argued they would be forced to reduce their selection of vehicles and raise prices in states that adopted California's standards.
It was the first time the EPA had fully denied California a waiver under the Clean Air Act since Congress gave the state the right to obtain such waivers in 1967.
Brown filed the suit Wednesday in San Francisco's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is viewed as more friendly to the state's position than other federal courts. Brown said he expects the Bush administration will seek to transfer the case to the more conservative Washington, D.C.-based appeals court. The legal battle could take years.
"We understand this is a long fight that may go to the Supreme Court," Brown said. "We feel this is going to be a struggle."
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which represents General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., Chrysler LLC, Toyota Motor Corp. and six other automakers, favors the federal plan, spokesman Charles Territo said.
"We agree with EPA that a national policy is important to avoid a patchwork quilt of state regulations," Territo said.
The EPA's denial angered members of Congress, including California Democrats. Sen. Barbara Boxer and Rep. Henry Waxman, who chair the committees that oversee the EPA, said the agency ignored the legal requirements of the Clean Air Act.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Wednesday called on the agency's inspector general to investigate allegations that Johnson acted against recommendations from his technical and legal staff in denying the waiver.
Last week, the EPA said it would turn over all documents about its decision to congressional committees that have promised hearings, including its communications with the White House.
The auto regulations are a major part of California's global warming law, which aims to reduce greenhouse gases statewide by 25 percent by 2020. Auto emissions account for about 17 percent of the state's proposed reductions.
Nichols said the California air board is reviewing other measures it could impose on automobile manufacturers if the lawsuit fails or delays the state's regulations from taking effect.
---
Associated Press writers Paul Elias in San Francisco and Ken
Thomas in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.
