Coalition Submits Comments to EPA on Proposed Clean Power Plan Model FIP

Today, January 21, 2016, is the final day for submission of comments on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) notice of proposed rulemaking concerning a Model Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for compliance with the Clean Power Plan.

In other words, this is the opportunity for states who will be impacted by the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan to voice questions and concerns about what implementation will mean for their state in terms of cost and legitimacy.

CEI’s William Yeatman compiled comments for submission as part of an effort driven by numerous nonprofits around the country and in Washington, D.C.

The comments raise three critical questions:

Questions Presented by Group Comments:

  1. Is there a distinction between the Model FIP and a cap-and-trade, as the EPA purports?
  2. Does the political illegitimacy of a federally administered “emissions trading system” raise Tenth Amendment concerns?
  3. Who will pay to administer the proposed Model FIP “emissions trading system”?

And offer these three key points:

Comment 1: EPA officials contradict mainstream understanding when they claim that the Clean Power Plan Model FIP is unrelated to a cap-and-trade, but the agency hasn’t explained the difference between an “emissions trading system” and a “cap-and-trade.” 

Comment 2: If, as policymakers and the public agree, the Model FIP is a cap-and-trade policy, then this rulemaking is likely the product of a defective political process, and thereby raises concerns under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Comment 3: Past cap-and-trade legislation envisioned significant administration costs, yet the EPA doesn’t address administrative costs in the proposal. Who will pay?

You can read the full comments here.

The comments were submitted collectively by the following organizations:

​Competitive Enterprise Institute, American Conservative Union, Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, Cardinal Institute for West Virginia, Center for Individual Freedom, Energy & Environment Legal Institute, Federalism in Action, Frontiers of Freedom, Independence Institute, James Madison Institute, John Locke Foundation, Mississippi Center for Public Policy, National Taxpayers Union, Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Pelican Institute for Public Policy, Rio Grande Foundation, Sutherland Institute, Taxpayers Protection Alliance, Texas Public Policy Foundation, Wyoming Liberty Group