Congressional Resolutions To Block EPA’s Climate Rules and DC Circuit Decision on Stay of Power Plant Rule

Congressional Resolutions To Block EPA’s Climate Rules Are Introduced and Set To Move Quickly

Representative Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s energy subcommittee, introduced resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to block the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing its greenhouse gas rules for new and existing power plants on 26th October.  The subcommittee announced on Friday that it would mark up House Joint Resolutions 71 and 72 on Tuesday, 3rd November. Action by the full committee should quickly follow.  Votes on the House floor could then be held soon after the House returns on 16th November from its Veterans Day week-long recess.

On the Senate side, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) along with 47 co-sponsors introduced Senate Joint Resolution 23 to block the new power plant rule on 27th October.  On the same day, Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and 48 co-sponsors introduced S. J. Res. 24 to block the rule for existing power plants.  CRA resolutions can go to the Senate floor without going through committee, so it is likely that the Senate will vote on the resolutions before the House does.  Under the CRA, resolutions of disapproval are not subject to cloture votes and thus only require a majority of those voting to pass.

DC Circuit Won’t Decide on Stay of EPA’s Power Plant Rule until after Paris Climate Conference

A panel of three judges of the federal D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals have decided not to rule on the petition to stay the EPA’s greenhouse gas rule for existing power plants until well after the U. N.’s climate conference ends in Paris on 11th December.  The petitioners led by Patrick Morrisey, attorney general of West Virginia, had asked the court for expedited review of their request for a stay of the rule until litigation against it is completed.

My CEI colleague Marlo Lewis has an excellent summary of the arguments of the petitioners at