Will the Supreme Court permit EPA climate decisions to stand?

If it does, the impacts on our lives, livelihoods, liberties and living standards will be enormous

Guest opinion by Paul Driessen

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency. The case will determine how far EPA can extend its regulatory overreach, to control “climate changing” carbon dioxide from power plants and other facilities – by ignoring the Constitution’s “separation of powers” provisions, rewriting clear language in the Clean Air Act, and disregarding laws that require the agency to consider both the costs and benefits of its regulations and what it is regulating.

Put more bluntly, the Court will decide whether EPA may deceive the American people, by implementing regulations that have no basis in honest science and will be ruinous to our economy. It is the most important energy, economic and environmental case to come before the Court it in decades.

Suppose a used car dealership routinely rolled back speedometer mileage, deleted customer complaints from its website, posted fabricated compliments, and lied about defects and accidents, to sell more cars. Or a manufacturer misstated its sales and bottom line, failed to mention major safety violations and fines, and made false claims about new product lines, to attract investors and inflate stock prices?

Both would be indicted for fraud. Now apply the same standards to EPA, whose actions and regulations will affect far more people: virtually every family, facility, company and community in the United States. Jurors would likely rule that the agency is engaged in systematic deceit, dishonesty and fraud.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy insists there is “no more urgent threat to public health than climate change.” She is determined to impose President Obama’s anti-hydrocarbon agenda. “I just look at what the climate scientists tell me,” McCarthy told Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL). Translated, she means she talks only to those who advocate climate alarmism, and ignores all contrary scientists and evidence.

In fact, thousands of scientists and studies argue that there is no empirical, observational evidence to support any of her claims. Recent NOAA and NASA temperature data confirm that global warming ended in 1997 and continues today, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increase steadily, improving plant growth worldwide. Seas are rising at barely seven inches per century, and there is no evidence that recent weather events are any more frequent, intense or “dangerous” than what mankind has dealt with forever.

There is no convincing evidence that carbon dioxide emissions have replaced the powerful, complex, interrelated natural forces that have always driven climate and weather changes. No evidence supports the notion that slashing CO2 emissions and trashing our economy will “stabilize” global temperatures and climate variations, or that developing countries will stop pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

EPA brushes all this aside. The agency just assumes and asserts human causes and disastrous results, disregards any and all experts and evidence to the contrary, and ignores any and all costs imposed by its regulations.

It has also violated the Constitution, by rewriting specific Clean Air Act provisions that specify 250-ton-per-year emission limits, in sections that EPA is relying on for its climate rulemakings. To shut down coal-fired power plants, the agency illegally and arbitrarily raised the threshold to 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year, and ignored the fact that in 692 bills Congress never contemplated applying these sections to greenhouse gases. Unless the Supreme Court intervenes, EPA will continue rewriting the law, gradually tightening its standards to control millions of natural gas generators, refineries, factories, paper mills, shopping malls, apartment and office buildings, hospitals, schools and even large homes.

EPA and other agencies have paid out billions in taxpayer dollars to finance and hype “research” making ludicrous claims that manmade global warming is hidden in really deep ocean waters or obscured by pine tree vapors; tens of thousands of offshore wind turbines could weaken hurricanes; and climate change will cause more rapes and murders. They have used “climate disruption” claims to justify giving eco-activist groups billions of taxpayer dollars to promote alarmist climate propaganda … spending tens of billions on crony-corporatist “green energy” and “climate resilience” programs … and forcing the United States and other nations to spend hundreds of billions on worthless climate change prevention capers.

EPA’s so-called “science” is intolerable “secret science.” The agency refuses to share it with outside experts or even members of Congress and businesses impacted by its regulations. The agency claims this taxpayer-funded information is somehow “proprietary,” even though it is being used to justify onerous regulations that dictate and impair our lives, livelihoods, liberties, living standards and life spans. EPA refuses to be transparent because it wants to prevent any examination of its internal machinations.

Just as bad, EPA routinely ignores its own scientific standards, and many climate reports it relies on come straight from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, as the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow observed in its amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court in this case, the IPCC has been caught red-handed presenting student papers, activist press releases and emailed conjecture as “peer-reviewed expert reports.” It has been caught deleting graphs that clearly show its computer models were worthless, and employing junk models like the one that generated Michael Mann’s infamous “hockey stick” to support assertions that it is 95% certain that humans are causing climate change chaos.

These computer models are built on unproven alarmist assumptions, have never been “validated” and are not merely “unverifiable.” They are flat-out contradicted by real-world evidence right outside the EPA windows, making their results worthless for sound, legitimate public policy. Any yet they drive policy.

In violation of federal laws and executive orders, EPA hypothesizes, concocts or exaggerates almost every conceivable carbon “cost” – to agriculture, forestry, water resources, coastal cities, human health and disease, ecosystems and wildlife. But it completely ignores even the most obvious and enormous benefits of using fossil fuels and emitting plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide: affordable heat and electricity, jobs, transportation, better crop growth and nutrition, and improved living standards, health and welfare.

In reality, hydrocarbon and carbon dioxide benefits outweigh their alleged costs by as much as 500 to 1! That means EPA’s “climate change mitigation” rules impose costs on society that exceed even EPA’s exaggerated regulatory benefits by as much as 500 to 1. The EPA “cure” is far worse than the “disease.”

And let’s not forget that one of Ms. McCarthy’s senior advisors devising the agency’s climate change policies and regulations was none other than John Beale – the guy who bilked us taxpayers out of $1 million in salary and travel expenses for his mythical second job as a CIA agent. To suppose his fraudulent actions did not extend to his official EPA duties defies belief. And yet EPA has apparently taken no steps to reexamine Beale’s analyses or conclusions.

EPA has done all of this knowingly, deliberately, with full knowledge of the grossly deficient foundations of its pseudo-science and policies – to drive an anti-hydrocarbon agenda, without regard for the consequences that agenda will inflict on millions of Americans and billions of people worldwide.

This goes beyond mere sloppiness or incompetence. It is dishonest. It violates the law. According to standards applicable to every citizen and business in the land, it is fraudulent. By controlling the energy that powers our homes, cars, businesses and nation, EPA’s carbon and carbon dioxide policies will control and impair our economy, wipe out tens of millions of jobs, and kill thousands of people – for little or no health or environmental benefits.

The real threat to public health and welfare is not climate change. It is EPA and what this rogue agency is doing in the name of preventing climate change. If the Supreme Court allows this, by giving carte blanche authority to EPA, the battle will rage on countless other fronts, because voters are sick and tired of being lied to, manipulated, defrauded, and forced to pay outrageous prices for oppressive regulations.

Democrats say they plan to use climate change to attack Republicans in 2014. I say, Bring it on!

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
128 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MJW
March 4, 2014 9:46 pm

Matthew R Marler says:

MJW: The limits are specified in the statute.
Odd that isn’t mentioned in the briefs, but if so it certainly simplifies things.

It’s most certainly mentioned in the briefs.
Brief of petitioners Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc.:

Second, though it conceded that applying the Act’s mandatory numerical permitting thresholds to GHGs would produce absurd and impossible consequences never intended by Congress, EPA chose to relieve those consequences by rewriting those thresholds and constructing a regulatory framework far different than that carefully specified in the Act.

(I’d provide more extensive quotations, but the PDFs on SCOTUSblog seem to have copying disabled.)
The EPA refers to their rewriting numerical limits as the “Tailoring Rule.” Search for the term in any of the petitioners’ briefs. The statutory limit for a facility is 250 tons per year; the EPA’s limit for GHGs is initially 100,000 tons per year — 400 times greater. The change was necessary to justify applying a law that was clearly intended to apply to toxins and the like, not GHGs.

Matthew R Marler
March 5, 2014 12:57 am

MJW: Second, though it conceded that applying the Act’s mandatory numerical permitting thresholds to GHGs would produce absurd and impossible consequences never intended by Congress, EPA chose to relieve those consequences by rewriting those thresholds and constructing a regulatory framework far different than that carefully specified in the Act.
Ah. Time for more study. Thank you.

Matthew R Marler
March 5, 2014 1:32 am

MJW, I am encouraged by that brief. According to those writers, EPA created the “absurdity” when it chose to regulate the previously unregulated CO2; and that regulation of CO2 was clearly not authorized, as shown by the explicit lists of other substances.
It may take a while to read through all those briefs. Thanks again.

Gail Combs
March 5, 2014 6:34 am

Gunga Din says: March 4, 2014 at 2:41 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I agree the Constitution should be set in stone but when you have Justices who hold it in contempt ( Ruth Bader Ginsburg To Egypt: Don’t Use US Constitution As A Model “… I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” ) I certainly do not expect it.
But then again I consider DC to mean District of Criminals.

Gail Combs
March 5, 2014 6:46 am

johanna says: March 4, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Thanks Gail, but the explanation you provided seems to focus on process and publication, not the root of the power….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A bit more background.
FDR set up a bunch of bureaucracies as part of his ‘New Deal’. There was a major power struggle where the Supreme Court struck down a lot of FDRs power grab. (FDR is also the president who confiscated the personal gold of US citizens by Executive Order and gave foreign banks the right to own that gold but not US citizens.)

The Commerce Clause: Route to Omnipotent Government
After President Roosevelt threatened to pack the Court to dilute the influence of the uncooperative “nine old men,” a majority of the justices took to the most expansive definition of the commerce clause like a drunk to drink. The Court blessed the secretary of agriculture’s power to set minimum prices for milk sold intrastate . “The marketing of intrastate milk,” wrote the Court in the 1942 Wrightwood Dairy case, “which competes with that shipped interstate would tend seriously to break down price regulation of the latter.” Yes, so? What was the Court’s point? Only that nothing — especially not liberty — should be permitted to get in the way of the national government’s power to regulate the economy.
As hard as it may be to notice, Wrightwood Dairy still preserved something of a distinction: the intrastate sale of milk obviously entailed an act of commerce. Did that mean the commerce clause barred the national government from regulating noncommercial activities? Not for long.
Enter Roscoe Filburn, an Ohio dairy and poultry farmer, who raised a small quantity of winter wheat — some to sell, some to feed his livestock, and some to consume. In 1940, under authority of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the central government told Mr. Filburn that for the next year he would be limited to planting 11 acres of wheat and harvesting 20 bushels per acre. He harvested 12 acres over his allotment for consumption on his own property. When the government fined him, Mr. Filburn refused to pay.
Wickard v. Filburn got to the Supreme Court, and in 1942, the justices unanimously ruled against the farmer. The government claimed that if Mr. Filburn grew wheat for his own use, he would not be buying it — and that affected interstate commerce. It also argued that if the price of wheat rose, which is what the government wanted, Mr. Filburn might be tempted to sell his surplus wheat in the interstate market, thwarting the government’s objective. The Supreme Court bought it.
The Court’s opinion must be quoted to be believed:

[The wheat] supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce.

As Epstein commented, “Could anyone say with a straight face that the consumption of home-grown wheat is ‘commerce among the several states?’” For good measure, the Court justified the obvious sacrifice of Mr. Filburn’s freedom and interests to the unnamed farmers being protected:

It is of the essence of regulation that it lays a restraining hand on the self-interest of the regulated and that advantages from the regulation commonly fall to others.

After Wickard , everything is mere detail. The entire edifice of civil rights legislation stands on the commerce power. Under this maximum commerce power, the government has been free to regulate nearly everything, including a restaurant owner’s bigotry. The Court has held that if Congress sees a connection to interstate commerce, it is not its role to second guess….

MJW
March 5, 2014 10:54 am

Matthew R Marler. It might make more sense to read or listen to the oral arguments rather than read all the briefs. The court’s already heard the case, so the die is case. The most worrisome aspect is mentioned in the SCOTUSblog recap:

He [Kennedy] also seemed to want assurances that greenhouse gases would not be out of the EPA’s regulatory reach. He asked Solicitor General Verrilli: “You are not saying that if you lose, EPA has no significant authority to regulate greenhouse gases?” Verrilli said no, and cited a few possible ways that there would still be a significant amount of control, including setting nationwide limits on that form of pollution.

Kennedy appears willing to decide a case on limits of agency discretion based not on legal principles, but on the practical outcome in this particular case. I can only hope Verrilli’s answer will provide enough assurance that Kennedy will reach what I think is the only correct legal conclusion.

johanna
March 5, 2014 10:54 am

The Wickard decision is mind-boggling!

March 5, 2014 2:13 pm

Gail Combs says:
March 5, 2014 at 6:34 am
Gunga Din says: March 4, 2014 at 2:41 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I agree the Constitution should be set in stone but when you have Justices who hold it in contempt ( Ruth Bader Ginsburg To Egypt: Don’t Use US Constitution As A Model “… I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” ) I certainly do not expect it.
But then again I consider DC to mean District of Criminals.

================================================================
Those such as Ginsburg would be the “refs” that hate “The Freedoms” in the “or” part of the analogy.
Time to get back to basics.

Reply to  Gunga Din
March 6, 2014 2:25 pm

If we need to bring back the Court, Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal Government here is how it is done. It will closed down the EPA and the power of clauses usurped by the Courts and Congress . .
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/article-v—group-overview-and-proposal.html

Matthew R Marler
March 5, 2014 2:45 pm

MJW: Matthew R Marler. It might make more sense to read or listen to the oral arguments rather than read all the briefs
That’s a huge “might”. When they go back to chambers and start circulating drafts of opinions, the importance of the oral arguments will likely diminish as they debate among themselves. At least, that is one of the claims in some of my readings: the whole process is impenetrable to outsiders almost always.
Kennedy appears willing to decide a case on limits of agency discretion based not on legal principles, but on the practical outcome in this particular case.
I was thinking the same thing. In the Kelo case he went to extraordinary lengths to defend the assertion that the City of New London was taking the property for “public use”, expanding “public use” beyond what most observers (of those I read) expected. Whereas one of the briefs I read asserted that EPA had “clearly” gone beyond its statutory authority in deciding to regulate GHGs, Kennedy seems willing to grant that the literal language of the law granted EPA some discretion to find a public health risk in GHGs.

Michael C. Roberts
March 5, 2014 3:31 pm

All – As usual, I am late to the game – hopefully some are still checking this thread.
Attached please find the link to the EPA Endagerment finding for CO2 as a pollutant.
http://epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/Federal_Register-EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-Dec.15-09.pdf
I have had this link available for me to review since it was promulgated. I keep it available, and each time I see the sun break through the clouds (I live in Western Washington State so this is considered a rare and glorious event), and I start to feel really good about living here in the free country we currently know as the good Ole US of A – I reread this and I then can see where we really are heading. And the mental clouds roll back in…Hopefully the outcome of these proceedings will nullify this nonsense.
For your use,
Michael C. Roberts

MJW
March 5, 2014 3:48 pm

That’s a huge “might”. When they go back to chambers and start circulating drafts of opinions, the importance of the oral arguments will likely diminish as they debate among themselves. At least, that is one of the claims in some of my readings: the whole process is impenetrable to outsiders almost always.

I know people claim predicting the outcome based on oral arguments is like reading tea leaves, but I don’t really believe that. Not to say there aren’t occasional surprises, but most of the time if a justice seems to be arguing for one side or the other in oral arguments, that’s the side he or she comes out on in the final opinion.
I’m going to have to see if I can find it, but I seem to recall Kennedy writing or joining a recent dissent that argues executive agencies have been given too much leeway in rule making, encroaching on the separation of powers. Assuming I recall correctly, it would really by a dereliction of principles if he gives agencies even more power in order to achieve a particular result in this one case.

MJW
March 5, 2014 8:25 pm

I’m going to have to see if I can find it, but I seem to recall Kennedy writing or joining a recent dissent that argues executive agencies have been given too much leeway in rule making, encroaching on the separation of powers.

I believe I was thinking of Roberts’ dissent in the 2013 case City of Arlington, Tex. v. FCC. The issue was whether Chevron deference should extend to an agency’s determination concerning the scope of its own authority. The court, in an opinion written by Scalia, held it should. Roberts, joined by Kennedy and Alito, vigorously dissented.
An excerpt (with citations and most internal quotation marks omitted):

When it applies, Chevron is a powerful weapon in an agency’s regulatory arsenal. Congressional delegations to agencies are often ambiguous — expressing a mood rather than a message. By design or default, Congress often fails to speak to “the precise question” before an agency. In the absence of such an answer, an agency’s interpretation has the full force and effect of law, unless it exceeds the bounds of the permissible.
It would be a bit much to describe the result as “the very definition of tyranny,” but the danger posed by the growing power of the administrative state cannot be dismissed.

March 5, 2014 9:50 pm

Please, can someone give me an elevator speech on the “Chevron deference”.
The Wikipedia article below doesn’t qualify.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.

MJW
March 5, 2014 10:21 pm

Please, can someone give me an elevator speech on the “Chevron deference”.

I expect others can define it better, but Chevron deference basically means courts won’t second-guess agency decisions which reasonably interpret the provisions of a statute granting authority to the agency, even if the court thinks there are better interpretations.
To quote the case I previously mentioned (omitting citations and internal quotations):

When a court reviews an agency’s construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, applying the ordinary tools of statutory construction, the court must determine whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. But if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.

In other words, if the statute isn’t clear on an issue, the court will uphold the agency’s interpretation as long as it’s reasonable. (I’ll add that I think numerical limits are about as clear and unambiguous as anything could possible be.)

March 6, 2014 5:29 am

Thanks, MJW.

Matthew R Marler
March 6, 2014 11:48 am

MJW: . The issue was whether Chevron deference should extend to an agency’s determination concerning the scope of its own authority. The court, in an opinion written by Scalia, held it should.
That was my less-informed understanding when I wrote that only EPA has the authority to decide whether its review of scientific evidence is scientifically valid. Note the difference though: I wrote about EPA’s evaluation of its performance (evaluation of relevant science and relevant scientists), not EPA’s evaluation of the scope of its authority.
Thanks again, MJW. In this instance, it was the numerical limits written in the law that led to the “absurdities” identified by EPA when it determined to regulate CO2. Given the absurdities, did EPA come up with a permissible construction of the statute? I have decided that I don’t know what I think (back to that again) about that point (though I know what I would prefer), and I don’t have a bet how the court will decide. I would like to think that creation of the “tailoring rule” exceeded EPA’s authority, but will the Court agree with this preference of mine?

MJW
March 6, 2014 1:54 pm

Given the absurdities, did EPA come up with a permissible construction of the statute?

My answer is, “absolutely not!” When Congress writes specific numerical limits into a statute, there’s no doubt that “Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue.” How could they speak any more clearly? Should they add, “And we really, really mean it”? The fact that applying the statutory numerical limits to the situation at hand produces absurd results shows that the statute doesn’t apply. If Congress had intended it to apply, it wouldn’t have specified limits it did.
Let me give an analogy, which is actually almost identical, but I think makes the situation clearer. Suppose the FDA is given statutory authority to prevent toxins in food, and the statute sets the maximum allowable level for any toxin at one microgram per serving. The FDA really wants to regulate salt, but realizes virtually every food product would exceed the limit. So instead of concluding the statute doesn’t apply to things like salt, it raises the limit when applied to salt to 300 milligrams per serving. Obviously the proportion between the statutory limit and the revised limit is much greater, but if the EPA’s 400-fold increase is permissible, what principle prevents an even larger increase, provided it’s necessary to prevent absurdity?

johanna
March 6, 2014 2:16 pm

So, how does this play out in relation to the infamous ethanol mandates which were unable to be met because there wasn’t enough ethanol, resulting in potential fines for non-compliance?

MJW
March 6, 2014 2:59 pm

If we need to bring back the Court, Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal Government here is how it is done. It will closed down the EPA and the power of clauses usurped by the Courts and Congress . .

Or maybe spacemen will come from another planet and order the EPA to back off. (Though from what I’ve gathered from recent movies, extraterrestrials hare pretty hepped up about stopping global warming!)

Gail Combs
March 6, 2014 3:28 pm

MJW says: March 6, 2014 at 2:59 pm
Or maybe spacemen will come from another planet and order the EPA to back off.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Or maybe American voters will finally wise up and toss all the parasites in the District of Cr1m1nals out!
(Well I can dream) {:>)

R. de Haan
March 6, 2014 4:48 pm

We’re out of luck.
Ted Cruz just decided to abolish the IRS
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2574773/We-need-abolish-IRS-Conservative-firebrand-Ted-Cruz-launches-political-convention-direct-assault-U-S-tax-authority.html
Paul wants to abolish the FED: http://www.petitiononline.com/fedres/petition.html
Anyhow I got about 35,340 results (0.09 seconds) searching for “Abolish the EPA” so that has been tried before.
Maybe the new trend should be to “Nullify” EPA Regulations like they have proposed in IDAHO: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/19/going-rogue-idaho-wants-to-nullify-all-epa-regulations/
Or we should march to Washington and the White House in the same manner the Egyptians kicked out the Muslim Brotherhood in the biggest protest in human history.
If the numbers are big enough and nobody leaves before the deal is done the success rate is very high. http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/2nd-top-military-man-calls-for-millions-to-march-on-d-c/
With the useless hack of a President, the Vice President and “the Kerry”, so goes the EPA, the IRS and the FED.

March 11, 2014 10:42 am

In a related manner, the Dept of the Interior is
Sage Grouse Rebellion
Will Obama use two small birds to limit oil drilling in the West?

In partnership with green activists, the Department of Interior may attempt one of the largest federal land grabs in modern times, using a familiar vehicle—the Endangered Species Act (ESA). A record 757 new species could be added to the protected list by 2018. …
The sage grouse is found in 11 western states—California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Most of the areas affected are federal lands routinely used for farming, ranching, mining, road building, water projects and oil and gas drilling.
Environmental groups have won victories by using a strategy called “sue and settle” under which groups propose species for protected status and then sue the federal government, which settles the lawsuit on terms favorable to the greens rather than fight. [which is how the EPA got SCOTUS to grant them authority over CO2]
Interior’s proposed “land use” amendments are draconian. They require a four-mile “buffer zone” whenever a sage-grouse mating ground is discovered on federal land. The American Petroleum Institute calls the proposed rules a “de facto ban on drilling.” It fears that compliance could cost tens of millions of dollars in legal fees and cause years of drilling delays

It is time to find the entire Endangered Species Act (ESA) process unconstitutional under the 4th and 14th amendment and , Article 2.Sec 3
\\ He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;”. //
The Constitution’s Preamble includes the neglected phrase: “to preserve the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” It is Liberty that is most Endangered.

March 11, 2014 10:47 am

Didn’t review before hitting submit. (I do miss that preview we once had.)
Wall Street Journal, March 10, 2014, Opinion
Sage Grouse Rebellion
Will Obama use two small birds to limit oil drilling in the West?

March 12, 2014 1:24 pm

Burried on page S1415 of the Senate Climate Change Transcripts was this procedural delivery notification of a House Bill.

H.R. 3826. An act to provide direction to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency regarding the establishment of standards for emissions of any greenhouse gas from fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units, and for other purposes.

Hey, Republicans, Work = Force * Distance.
If it doesn’t move (Distance = 0), no work is done.
If no one hears about it, Force = 0.
For follow-up….

1 3 4 5