March 29, 2016
Both chambers of Congress are in recess now, but there were some goings-on in the House last Wednesday that merit mention.
The first was EPA Gina McCarthy’s two appearances before House subcommittees in order to defend her FY 2017 budget. In the morning, she testified before the House Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. In the afternoon, she appeared before a joint hearing of the Energy and Commerce Committee's subcommittees on Environment and the Economy and on Energy and Power.
As well-reported by E&E Daily’s ($) Amanda Reilly,...
February 21, 2016
With the Clean Power Plan, President Obama’s marquee climate policy, the Environmental Protection Agency is trying to run the electricity sector. Of course, the agency is an environmental regulator, and it has no expertise overseeing the generation, transmission, distribution, and consumption of electricity. Authority over the wholesale and retail electricity markets is instead shared by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the states, which have developed know-how and skill in their respective spheres of influence in the industry over the last 90 years. Despite its relative ignorance, the EPA wants to plan the entire electricity sector—both wholesale and retail—in the name of fighting climate change.
According to Reuters, the EPA might have a new and similarly large sector of the economy...
February 10, 2016
In an unexpected and unprecedented decision, the Supreme Court last evening granted an application by more than two dozen states to stay implementation of the Clean Power Plan during pendency of petitions for review.
Absent a stay, the imminent danger was that EPA could effectively escape judicial review in implementing the rule, which is President Obama’s marquee climate policy. Last year, for example, the Supreme Court checked EPA’s absurd Utility MACT...
In Defending Clean Power Plan before the Supreme Court, EPA/DOJ Misrepresent Clean Air Act with Lame Editing TricksFebruary 9, 2016
Lawyers for the EPA and the Department of Justice (DOJ) are trying to pull a fast one on the Supreme Court. Through creative formatting, they are misrepresenting the text of the Clean Air Act such that it omits a major constraint on federal power.
At issue is Clean Air Act §7411(d)(1), which is a regulatory program to control emissions from existing stationary sources. Section §7411(d)(1) allegedly authorizes Obama’s marquee climate policy (known as the Clean Power Plan). Below, I’ve reposted the text of the provision in full.
§7411(d)(1) The Administrator shall prescribe regulations which shall establish a procedure similar to that provided by section 7410 of this title under which each State shall submit to the Administrator a plan which (A) establishes standards of performance for any existing source for any air pollutant (i) for which...
January 21, 2016
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.
June 30, 2015
“In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court blocked the Environmental Protection Agency’s mercury and air toxics standards, charging that the administration failed to adequately consider the estimated $10 billion it would cost utilities to dramatically cut power plant pollution to comply with the measure,” reported The Washington Times yesterday.
While the question has been raised about the broader implications of the court’s decision on other EPA regulations, CEI’s William Yeatman, says there is not much broad impact.
As Reuter’s Lawrence Hurley reported:
"’The agency must consider cost - including, most importantly, cost of compliance - before deciding...
June 23, 2014
My colleagues over at GlobalWarming.org are already mulling over what today’s ruling in UARG v. EPA means for the future of American industry and energy production, but there’s a very important aspect to today’s ruling with constitutional implications.
Part of the reason why EPA’s “tailoring rule” was challenged and struck down was because it was a blatant attempt to rewrite the plain wording of a law for its own convenience, a maneuver that my colleague Marlo Lewis called “breathtakingly lawless.”