E&E LEGAL’S STATEMENT RE: D.C. CIRCUIT COURT’S DECISION TO DENY BRIEF ILLUSTRATING EXTENSIVE COLLUSION BETWEEN EPA AND GREEN GROUPS IN WRITING CLEAN POWER PLAN
The Energy & Environmental Legal Institute (E&E Legal) is extremely disappointed that the DC Circuit three judge panel refused to consider whether the EPA was improperly influenced by so called ‘green’ groups when the agency put forth the Clean Power Plan (CPP) that intended to “bankrupt” coal power plants and eliminate coal miners jobs throughout the country. We have painstakingly gathered evidence of improper ex parte contact between these outside groups and key EPA employees while the rule was being drafted, yet the Court has decided not to look at it in this case. The ex parte contact was extreme and included meetings at coffee shops across the street from EPA, extensive use of private e-mail servers by agency officials, and the ‘green groups’ clear involvement in the drafting and editing of the CPP.
“I spent thirty-three years of my life at the EPA, and never witnessed the level of illegal collusion and outside influence that occurred with the drafting and release of the CPP,” said E&E Legal General Counsel David Schnare. “This rule is tainted from the beginning, must be remanded to the EPA for a do-over, and E&E Legal will not stop pursuing this line of argument until a court hears it.”
E&E Legal intends to fight to present this evidence before other courts. We will work to introduce it when the DC Circuit considers the EPA’s rule limiting new coal power plants. We have also submitted a petition for reconsideration to EPA based on these improper contacts and if the Agency fails to do its duty to act on the petition in a timely fashion, we will sue to enforce the EPA’s obligations under the Clean Air Act.
Meanwhile, while some of the same eco-groups involved cheer, Peabody Energy warns they may be declaring bankruptcy
Obama’s SCOTUS nominee is Obama’s secret weapon because he is anti-coal. Jobs gone – for what reason? His acceptance would kill the coal industry totally because he could support the EPA when this case comes to his court, methinks.
Yes
Building blocks, emissions credit swapping, aggregation of EGUs, flexibility and autonomy in meeting the state’s goals all lip stick on the Federalist pig attempting to disguise its overreach. The states should take the initiative and EPA at its word and manipulate its EGUs as needed to meet their performance standard. WECC, ERCOT and the western states should get together and manipulate both existing and new generation to achieve their aggregate performance standards. Once the numbers fall chances are the impact on coal would be minor, certainly not fatal.
California with a lot of NG could swap with Utah allowing intermountain, Huntington, Hunter, et al. to press on with little real change. Colorado and Nebraska trade with Wyoming and the Dakotas. Vermont has no coal fired EGU’s, but it does have other EGUs and should have a standard like every other state it could use to play in the credit swapping game.
Different standard for different states violates the equal protection clause. There should be one lb CO2/MWh which achieves the national goal of a 32% reduction and applied to ALL including Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Guam. All states with EGUs start with the same number of chips which they can then trade, swap, sell, negotiate to achieve the national goal.
Where is the document they wished to present? It is not on their website under petitions.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. E&E Legal, who were hired by Arch Coal to take legal action against climate scientists and against law changes that would impact their business, is upset that green groups do the same thing.
http://blogs.wsj.com/bankruptcy/2016/03/11/arch-coal-made-10000-gift-to-energy-environment-legal/
…One is LEGAL, one is NOT !! ……D’oh !!
Chris
The government is not supposed to be making regulation for political purposes, environmentalist are clearly political in nature. For there to be equivalence in your argument the environmentalist should be taking legal action. Instead they are making the policy, crafted for political purposes that directly damages the people whom they government is supposed to act for.
You cant be serious about regulated pricing…”
Bob B your reading skills need improvement. I said power company profits are regulated. This is because generally you only have a choice of buying electricity from one power company. You do have the choice to make your own power but you will not save money. If your power company makes better choice, then you may have your rates set lower than those who live in a different location.
The price of coal, natural gas, and uranium are not regulated.
Kit
Did you read the article at all? Its about the government using regulation to drive the coal industry out of business!
All forms off energy are highly regulated and the monopolies that exist are a direct result of government intervention. You are correct I could generate my own electricity but I would have to by my fuel from someone, have you ever notice what level of taxation there is on private purchase of fuels? I do use propane for much of my household needs because I can shop that around some and have saved quite a bit, but the taxes on this are still ridiculously above any thing a utility would pay for the same fuel.
Did you ever wonder why Big business supports politicians that actively advocate for more regulations? Its quite simple big corporations have the resources to absorb the cost incurred by regulation but smaller to mid size companies do not, this tends to drive competition down for the big corporations. Look at the auto industry they don’t appose any regulations forwarded by the government, in fact they actively support more regulation, they get the double benefit of making sure that competition is held down and that prices are held high, a 3% profit on a $25,000 car is a lot better than a 3% profit on a $12,000 car. Why do you think no one tries to enter the market any more with a cheep car for everyone?
Ask your self when and where is the government working to get cheaper energy for the people? That answer is quite simply no where, do you really think that the energy companies have a problem with all of the green issues, the answer is no they love them they drive up cost and there for eliminate competition cementing their position for ever by government mandate.
Sanders and Trump are opposed by the establishment because both the democrats and republicans know that if either of these guys wins they won’t be beholden to corporations that have financed their campaigns and this risks the future money going all to the other side. This has totally panicked all of the bought and paid for politicians. Corporate money is used for one purpose to ensure that corporations face the least amount of competition possible, without competition costs become no longer relevant and generating a profit becomes almost a sure thing and there is no longer a fear of someone coming along with a new process or innovation that threatens your entire business.
There are four types of electric power generators: 1) investor owned utilities granted a franchise and service territory with their ROI/profit regulated by a PUC, 2) Municipals and co-ops that are customer “owned” and regulated at most by FERC but not a PUC, 3) For profit merchant plants regulated by FERC but not a PUC, 4) Industries such as mining and smelting with their own power plants.
Depending on the local rates it is quite possible to produce your own electricity at a lower rate, but the noise, maintenance, and reliability are now your problem. Home Depot, Graingers, Northern Equipment, the internet all have engine generator sets that are little more complicated than a lawn mower or snow blower. Fuels pricing might not be “regulated,” but are most certainly “manipulated.” Coal pricing might not be regulated, but I understand the railroad transportation is.
So, it is about coal-fired advocacy. Not science.
The CPP reg notes that there is no state performance standard for Vermont because it has no coal generation. Vermont does have oil and NG “fossil” fired generation so it should have a standard same as other states. So, yeah CPP is all about an anti-coal & pro NG enviro-political agenda.
Oh, and another observation. Internal combustion engine driven electric generators are not included in the CPP, they stay in CAA, even though they are FF fired CO2 producers. Some of these can be 2 to 3 MW in capacity.