Clean Power Plan CPP

new 2/15

<div>covers epa plan to cut co2, esp coal, and really just all attacks on epa post 2/15</div>

<div>

=nythttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/opinion/a-climate-plan-businesses-can-like.html?
A Climate Plan Businesses Can LikeBy JODY FREEMAN and KATE KONSCHNIK AUG. 3, 2015
WITH the release of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, a flood of legal challenges will begin. Already, opponents have denounced the new rule limiting carbon pollution as unconstitutional. Behind the rattling sabers, however, there’s a quieter story worth noticing. Many big players in the electric power industry will gain more with the rule in place than if the courts strike it down.In fact, many power companies have worked with the administration to get the best possible deal, and with states to discuss compliance strategies. Given their financial interests, some of these utilities may even wind up helping the government defend the rule.The plan sends a clear market signal that low-carbon energy will be profitable. Many of the country’s most powerful investor-owned utilities, including MidAmerican, Southern Company and Exelon, have made big investments in low carbon sources like wind, solar or nuclear power. Their decision to do so was driven by a mix of market opportunities, investor preferences, tax credits and state and federal air pollution standards.In the last several years, utilities also have begun shifting away from coal toward cheaper natural gas. What they want now is a clear and predictable federal plan that will help them profit from these investments, and reward them for making more.The president’s plan does just that. It limits carbon pollution at the nation’s oldest and dirtiest power plants and allows them to meet those limits in a variety of ways; for example, by becoming more efficient, operating less often or investing in cleaner energy sources.Incentives in the plan will encourage the development of renewable energy. States can award credits to companies that buy or build renewable projects, and these companies can bank them even before the compliance period for meeting emissions limits begins. The federal government will match these state credits, which will help businesses comply with those limits. With these incentives, it pays to produce clean energy.Any utility that already owns cleaner forms of energy, or hopes to build them, can profit — whether it is Southern Company constructing new nuclear reactors and steadily expanding its portfolio of renewables, or MidAmerican, a national leader in installed wind power that may look to expand its market.Stand-alone solar and wind companies are expected to publicly back the plan because the demand for their renewable power will only increase.In an era of flat electricity demand, utilities have been hard-pressed to get approval from state regulators to build new power projects. But the plan’s clean-energy incentives offer utilities the opportunity to make investments that will enable state utility commissions to justify rates so utilities can recover their costs.
What’s more, knowing there will be new demand for wind and solar energy will encourage investors to build new transmission lines. Meanwhile, utilities like Calpine, which own efficient natural gas plants, will be winners because the plan creates financial incentives to switch from coal to less-polluting gas.
Finally, utilities like Pacific Gas and Electric that design innovative ways to reduce energy demand, or offer energy retrofit and appliance rebate programs, also stand to gain, because energy efficiency now will be a valuable commodity.
Understanding these behind-the-scenes dynamics makes it clear that much of industry opposition to the rule is really just posturing. In any case, the legal jockeying is only part of the story.
Many power companies are fully prepared to implement the rule. And they are well positioned to press their states to help them, for instance by adopting statewide caps on carbon pollution, and allowing polluters to trade credits to let them cut emissions in the most economically efficient way. States could enlarge these markets to lower costs by joining regional trading schemes. Similar trading programs have already proved highly successful in addressing other pollution, like acid rain.
The question is whether some utilities will vocally support a rule that is in their financial interest, or remain on the sidelines. Clearly, it would bolster the government’s legal defense for major power companies to reinforce the argument that the new carbon standards are achievable at a reasonable cost without jeopardizing the electricity system’s reliability.
And just as it will be important to have supportive states on the government side to counter states that challenge the plan, it will also be crucial to have some industry players there. For conservative judges who may be skeptical of regulation, industry voices can make a big difference.
In any event, even companies that oppose the rule will continue to work quietly with the Environmental Protection Agency and the states on implementation. The legal challenges will drag on, and politicians will take their stands. The coal industry will say the sky is falling. But behind the scenes, real work is being done and progress is being made toward a lower carbon future.
Jody Freeman is a professor at Harvard Law School, where Kate Konschnik is the policy director for the environmental law program.
On February 9, just days before the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the U.S. Supreme Court <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/09/supreme-court-puts-the-brakes-on-the-epas-clean-power-plan/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204);">granted a stay</a> freezing President Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan (CPP). 

While many articles have speculated on what Scalia's death means as it relates to the future of the CPP — and the Court's voting balance tipping from a 5-4 conservative majority to a potential 5-4 liberal majority — there's been less attention paid to the corporate-funded network that launched a slew of lawsuits against the government to add legal muscle to the state Attorneys General attacks on the CPP.

A DeSmog investigation of the dozens of <a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/stopping-the-clock-on-the-clean-power-plan-4" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204);">legal challenges filed just before the holidays at the federal Appeals Court level</a> reveals that big corporate interests sit at the center of a coordinated attack against the Obama administration's regulatory attempt to curb emissions for coal-fired power plants.These plaintiffs include groups with ties to the Koch Brothers, Peabody Energy and other coal companies, trade associations, and front groups from the utility industry and major corporate law firms.
The easy ones to identify are the companies and industry trade associations. These <a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/stopping-the-clock-on-the-clean-power-plan-4" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204);">include</a> the National Mining Association, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), Peabody Energy Corporation, Murray Energy Corporation, Norfolk Southern, the Association of American Railroads and others. 

The tougher nut to crack is the identities behind the front groups. We dug into them and put faces to front group names so you don't have to.<h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;">Energy-Intensive Manufacturers’ Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Regulation</h3>Sometimes a name says it all, which is the case with this group that filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on December 22. (Most of the petitions were filed at the last minute on December 22 as the challenge period ended, which happened to conveniently line up with the holiday break, so that may explain some of the lack of attention to this story until now.)

The Energy-Intensive Manufacturers Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Regulation is represented by John J. McMackin, who serves as a principal for the Williams & Jensen law firm. McMackin also lobbies for coal-carrying freight rail company Norfolk Southern.

The Working Group's members include Alcoa, Corning, Dow, Holcim U.S., NewPage Corporation, Nucor, Owens Corning, Owens-Illinois, PPG, Rio Tinto, and U.S. Steel, according to <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg67814/pdf/CHRG-111hhrg67814.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204);">congressional testimony</a> given by McMackin in 2009.<h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;">Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group</h3>The Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group is <a href="https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/content/2016.02.05_utilities_reply_in_support_of_stay.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204);">counseled</a> by James S. Alves, an attorney who also represents coal utility giant Gulf Power Company. Its dues-paying members <a href="https://www.fcg.org/default.aspx" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204);">include</a> coal power plant giant Duke Energy. The Coordinating Group, which filed a Petition for Review with the D.C. Court of Appeals in October 2015, is also <a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.23-15-1372-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204);">lawyered</a> by two attorneys employed by the Florida firm Hopping Green & Sams (HGS).

“HGS represents many electric utilities and other regulated interests through the legislative process, state and federal agency rulemaking processes, project permitting and, when necessary, litigation,” the firm says of itself on its climate change litigation website portal.<h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;">American Public Power Association, Utility Air Regulatory Group</h3>APPA is best described as a ratepayer-subsidized utility <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?cycle=2016&strID=C00161570" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204);">lobbying</a> collective for the milieu of local utility industry companies dotting the U.S. It brought a Petition for Review alongside the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), which is a <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jwalke/UARG%20members%20from%202006%20filing%20on%20PM%20standards.pdf%20-%20Adobe%20Acrobat%20Pro.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204);">whos-who of coal-fired utility companies</a>, in October 2015 to the D.C. Appeals Court.

Both groups maintain the legal counsel of Hunton & Williams' attorneys Peter Glaser and Allison Wood. As previously reported here on DeSmog, Wood has <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/03/20/peabody-coal-lawyer-laurence-tribe-obama-law-professor-testifies-congress-epa-carbon-rule" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204);">made a career</a> out of battling against clean air regulations.Matt Kasper, a fellow with the Energy & Policy Institute, created a LittleSis map and wrote an accompanying <a href="http://www.republicreport.org/2015/corporations-funding-the-lawyers-to-fight-the-clean-power-plan/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204);">article</a> in August 2015 about the lawyers fighting against CPP's implementation. Wood and Glaser made the list, as did UARG.

<div style="line-height: 18.59px; padding: 5px;"><a href="http://littlesis.org/maps/872-lawyers-suing-the-epa-over-clean-power-plan" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204);">view this map on LittleSis</a></div><h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;">Koch-Tied Groups</h3>There's King Coal and then there's King Koch. As with many stories involving big corporate interests fighting against environmental regulations, the Kochtopus has spread its tentacles and front groups into the fight against the CPP. Energy and Environment Legal Institute Enter the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/energy-environment-legal-institute" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204); line-height: 18.59px;">Energy and Environment Legal Institute</a> (EELI), an anti-clean energy front group formerly known as the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Tradition_Partnership" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204); line-height: 18.59px;">American Tradition Institute</a>, which filed a Petition for Review in October 2015 with the D.C. Appeals Court. EELI <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Energy%26_Environment_Legal_Institute#Partnership_with_George_Mason_University_School_of_Law" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204);">maintains close ties</a> to<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/koch-and-george-mason-university" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204);">Koch-funded George Mason University</a> School of Law. According to a <a href="https://news.vice.com/article/the-environmental-protection-agency-funded-diesel-experiments-on-children" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204); line-height: 18.59px;">January 2015 piece published by Vice News</a>, “The Atlas Economic Research Foundation, Lair Foundation, and Doug Lair are all listed as donors” on ATI's 2010 IRS 990 tax form. “The Atlas Economic Research Foundation has been funded in the past partly by Exxon, while Doug Lair is a Montana businessman who sold his petroleum company to one of the Koch brothers back in 1989.” Lee Fang of The Intercept further <a href="https://theintercept.com/2015/08/25/chris-horner-coal/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204); line-height: 18.59px;">revealed</a>, by examining bankruptcy filings of coal mining giant Alpha Natural Resources, that EELI Senior Legal Fellow <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-horner" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204); line-height: 18.59px;">Chris Horner</a> received funding from the company. Stink Tanks Members of the Koch-tied State Policy Network (SPN), the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)-<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/12/09/stink-tanks-historical-records-reveal-state-policy-network-created-alec" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204); line-height: 18.59px;">created apparatus</a>called “stink tanks” by the Center for Media and Democracy, also entered into the CPP legal fray by filing a Petition for Review with the D.C. Appeals Court in December.  These SPN members include the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, the Independence Institute, the Rio Grande Foundation, and the Sutherland Institute.  <h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;">CPP's Future? </h3>For now the CPP's fate sits largely in the hands of the D.C. Appeals Court. A date to watch for is June 2, but it appears the Court will not publish a decision until at least this autumn. “As a practical matter, this stay means that the EPA may not continue to take any actions to implement or enforce the CPPpending the resolution of the state and industry challenge to the rule. That challenge is currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which will hear oral arguments on June 2,” <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/09/supreme-court-puts-the-brakes-on-the-epas-clean-power-plan/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204); line-height: 18.59px;">The Washington Post explained</a>. “In all likelihood, this means a D.C. Circuit decision will not be issued until early fall, at the earliest.” In the meantime, keep your eyes on amicus briefs filings, especially those penned by groups with ambiguous-sounding names. Generally, the real story can be found, as investigative journalist Izzy Stone once said, “in the bowels of government” and amicus briefs filed to a federal court certainly fit that bill. <h1 class="entry-title" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; clear: both; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif; line-height: 1.3em; font-size: 21px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Stopping the Clock on the Clean Power Plan</h1><div class="entry-meta" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif; color: rgb(119, 119, 119); font-size: 12px; line-height: 24px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Posted on <a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/stopping-the-clock-on-the-clean-power-plan-4" title="1:32 pm" rel="bookmark" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(119, 119, 119); background: transparent;">October 27, 2015</a> by <a class="url fn n" href="http://consideringthegrid.com/author/patela" title="View all posts by Anjali Patel" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(119, 119, 119); background: transparent;">Anjali Patel</a></div><div class="entry-content" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 12px 0px 0px; vertical-align: baseline; clear: both; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Georgia, 'Bitstream Charter', serif; line-height: 24px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p style="font-size: 16px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">UPDATED 1.28.2016 with additional information about the parties;
UPDATED 12.29.2015 with additional information about the petitions and parties;
UPDATED 12.7.2015 with additional information about the petitions and parties;
UPDATED 11.4.2015 with additional motions to stay and petitions for review, and list of parties that have moved to intervene;
UPDATED 10.29.2015 to add briefing schedule on motions for stay.
<p style="font-size: 16px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">On Monday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an <a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.26-Order-Consolidating-Cases.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">order consolidating the cases</a>challenging the Clean Power Plan under the caption State of West Virginia, et al. v. EPA.<p style="font-size: 16px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">As the challenges to EPA’s Clean Power Plan mount, so do the requests for a stay of the rule. Parties are seeking a stay because the mere act of bringing a challenge to the EPA’s rulemaking does not stop the clock on the rule’s deadline.  Rather, parties must request, and the agency or court must grant, a stay pending the court’s review.<p style="font-size: 16px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">The parties making these motions bear a heavy burden. Pursuant to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ <a href="https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL%20-%20RPP%20-%20Circuit%20Rules/$FILE/RulesJune2015LINKSandBOOKMARKSfinal.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">Rules of Procedure</a>, a party seeking a stay from the court must file a motion discussing whether it requested relief from the EPA and address the following factors: (i) the likelihood that the moving party will prevail on the merits; (ii) the prospect of irreparable injury to the moving party if relief is withheld; (iii) the possibility of harm to other parties if relief is granted; and (iv) the public interest. The bar is high, and courts rarely grant such relief.<p style="font-size: 16px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><del style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">EPA’s (and intervenors’) responses are due by November 2, 2015— unless the court decides to act sooner (unlikely) or to change the response date.</del> Given the number of motions filed, EPA will likely file a request to extend the response date.  <del style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Replies will be due 7 days after the response(s) are filed.  </del>Because this is a contentious issue (and the court previously briefed and held oral argument in <a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.06.09-In-Re-Murray-Energy-Corporation-et-al.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">Murray Energy Corp. et al. v. EPA</a>, the cases that unsuccessfully challenged EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan) it would not be surprising if the court decides to hold oral argument before issuing an order on the motions for stay of the final rule.<p style="font-size: 16px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">On October 29, 2015, the court issued an <a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.20.29-Order-Setting-Briefing-Schedule.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">order</a> consolidating the motions for stay for purposes of briefing, and setting a briefing schedule.  Any further motions for stay must be filed by Nov. 5, 2015; EPA has until Dec. 3, 2015 to file a consolidated response; intervenors in support of EPA have until Dec. 8, 2015 to file their response; and the parties that originally filed the motions have until Dec. 23, 2014 to file their replies.<p style="font-size: 16px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Below are a list of the currently filed motions for stay (with information on which petitioners joined which motion), and a table of the petitions that have been filed to date.<p style="font-size: 16px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Motions for Stay:<ul style="font-size: 16px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px 0px 24px 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; list-style: square; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><li style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.23-15-1363-Motion-for-Stay.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">State Petitioners’ Motion for Stay and for Expedited Consideration of Petition for Review</a> (Petitioners in Case No. 15-1363)</li><li style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.23-15-1365-and-1370-to-1378-Motion-for-Stay.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">Motion of Utility and Allied Petitioners for Stay of Rule</a> (Petitioners in Case Nos. 15-1365, 15-1370, 15-1371, 15-1372, 15-1373, 15-1374, 15-1375, 15-1376, 15-1377, 15-1378)</li><li style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.23-15-1366-1367-and-1368-Motions-for-Stay.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">Coal Industry Motion for Stay</a> (Petitioners in Case Nos. 15-1366, 15-1367, 15-1368)</li><li style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.23-15-1382-Motion-for-Stay.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">Motion for Stay of EPA’s Final Rule</a> (Petitioners in Case No. 15-1382)</li><li style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.28-15-1364-Motion-for-Stay.pdf" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">Petitioner Oklahoma’s Motion for Stay of EPA’s Existing Source Performance Standards for Electric Generating Units </a>(Petitioner in Case No. 15-1364)</li><li style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.28-15-1364-Motion-for-Stay.pdf" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">Petitioner State of North Dakota’s Motion for Stay of EPA’s Final Rule</a> (Petitioner in Case No. 15-1380)</li></ul><p style="border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><strong style="border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Petitions for Review:<table width="84%" style="border: 1px solid rgb(231, 231, 231); border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px -1px 24px 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0px; width: 639px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><tbody style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Party(ies)</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Case No.</td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">(LEAD CASE)The States of West Virginia, Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming; the Commonwealth of Kentucky;  the Attorney General for the State of Michigan; the State of Arizona Corporation Commission, and the Departments of Environmental Quality of the states of Louisiana and North Carolina</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.23-15-1363-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1363</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">The State of Oklahoma and Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.23-15-1364-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1364</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, AFL-CIO</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.23-15-1365-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1365</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Murray Energy Corporation</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.23-15-1366-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1366</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">National Mining Association</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.23-15-1367-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1367</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.23-15-1368-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1368</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Utility Air Regulatory Group and American Public Power Association</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.23-15-1370-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1370</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, and Mississippi Power Company</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.23-15-1371-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1371</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">CO2 Task Force of the Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc.</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.23-15-1372-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1372</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., a Division of MDU Resources Group, Inc.</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.23-15-1373-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1373</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association, Inc.</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.23-15-1374-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1374</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">United Mine Workers of America</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.23-15-1375-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1375</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">National Rural Electric Cooperative Association; Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.; Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Big Rivers Electric Corporation; Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.; Buckeye Power, Inc.; Central Montana Electric Power Cooperative; Central Power Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Corn Belt Power Cooperative; Dairyland Power Cooperative; Deseret Generation & Transmission Cooperative; East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc.; East River Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.; East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Georgia Transmission Corporation; Golden Spread Electrical Cooperative, Inc.; Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.; Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc.; North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation; Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Northwest Iowa Power Cooperative; Oglethorpe Power Corporation; PowerSouth Energy Cooperative; Prairie Power, Inc.; Rushmore Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.; Sam Rayburn G&T Electric Cooperative, Inc.; San Miguel Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc.; South Mississippi Electric Power Association; South Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Southern Illinois Power Cooperative; Sunflower Electric Power Corporation; Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc.; Upper Missouri G. & T. Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.; Western Farmers Electric Cooperative; and Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.23-15-1376-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1376</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Westar Energy, Inc.</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.23-15-1377-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1377</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">NorthWestern Corporation d/b/a NorthWestern Energy</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.23-15-1378-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1378</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">National Association of Home Builders</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.23-15-1379-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1379</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">State of North Dakota</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.23-15-1380-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1380</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style="border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Association of Manufacturers, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, National Federation of Independent Business, American Chemistry Council, American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, American Foundry Society, American Forest & Paper Association, American Iron & Steel Institute, American Wood Council, Brick Industry Association, Electricity Consumers Resource Council, Lignite Energy Council, National Lime Association, National Oilseed Processors Association, and Portland Cement Association</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.23-15-1382-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1382</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Association of American Railroads</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.23-15-1383-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1383</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Luminant Generation Company, LLC, Oak Grove Management Company, LLC, Big Brown Power Company, LLC, Sandow Power Company, LLC, Big Brown Lignite Company, LLC, Luminant Mining Company, LLC, and Luminant Big Brown Mining Company, LLC</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.26-15-1386-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1386</a> </td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Basin Electric Power Cooperative</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.10.29-15-1393-Petition-for-Review.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1393</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Energy & Environment Legal Institute</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015.10.30-15-1398-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1398</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.11.05-15-1409-Petition-for-Review.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1409</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style="border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.11.05-15-1410-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1410</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Entergy Corporation</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.11.12-15-1413-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1413</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">LG&E and KU Energy, LLLC</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.11.16-15-1418-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1418</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">West Virginia Coal Association</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Petition-for-Review-15-1422.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1422</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Newmont Nevada Energy Investment, LLC and Newmont USA Limited</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015.11.25-15-1432-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1432</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">The Kansas City Board of Public Utilities- Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.12.08-15-1442-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1442</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">The North American Coal Corporation</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.12.14-15-1451Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1451</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Indiana Utility Group</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.12.14-15-1459-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1459</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Louisiana Public Service Commission</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2015.12.18-15-1464-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1464</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Gen-On Mid-Atlantic, LLC, Indian River Power LLC, Louisiana Generating LLC, Midwest Generation LLC, NRG Chalk Point LLC, NRG Power Midwest LP, NRG Rema LLC, NRG Texas Power LLC, NRG Wholesale Generation LP, and Vienna Power LLC
</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2015.12.18-15-1470-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1470</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Prairie State Generating Company
</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.12.21-15-1472-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1472</a>
</td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Minnesota Power</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2015.12.21-15-1474-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1474</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Denbury Onshore, LLC
</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.12.21-15-1475-Petition-1.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1475</a>
</td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">The Energy-Intensive Manufacturers Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Regulation</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.12.22-15-1477-Petition-1.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1477</a>
</td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Local Government Coalition for Renewable Energy</td><td width="19%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><a href="http://consideringthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.12.22-15-1483-Petition.pdf" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">15-1483</a></td></tr><tr style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><td width="81%" style="border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); margin: 0px; padding: 6px 24px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">The Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, the Independence Institute, the Rio Grande Foundation, the Sutherland Institute, Klaus J. Christoph, Samuel R. Damewood, Catherine C. Dellin, Joseph W. Luquire, Lisa R. Markham, Patrick T. Peterson, and Kristi Rosenquist </td></tr></tbody></table></div>CPP AA
<a href="http://grist.org/grist-50/profile/jalonne-l-white-newsome/">http://grist.org/grist-50/profile/jalonne-l-white-newsome/</a>

<a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/10022016/supreme-courts-order-block-clean-power-plan-has-implications-far-beyond-us">http://insideclimatenews.org/news/10022016/supreme-courts-order-block-clean-power-plan-has-implications-far-beyond-us</a>
scalia RIPSupreme Court Halts Clean Power Plan, with Implications Far Beyond the U.S.
BY: JOHN H. CUSHMAN JR.
The 5-4 decision was hailed as a victory by the states suing to block the rules, as well as by the fossil fuel companies supporting the suit.

Clean Power Advocates Downplay Supreme Court's Damage to Paris Accord
BY: JOHN H. CUSHMAN JR.
The new Paris Agreement on climate change could be endangered if the U.S. fails to achieve its emission reduction pledges, premised partly on deep reductions in power plant emissions.

Some States Forging Ahead With Emissions Reduction Plans, Despite Supreme Court Ruling
BY: KATHERINE BAGLEY
More than half the states had urged the courts to put the rules on hold while the litigation played out, but at least a dozen say they plan to comply with it despite the legal maneuvering.

=<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/scotus-blocks-obama-clean-power-plan">http://www.alternet.org/environment/scotus-blocks-obama-clean-power-plan</a>
The U.S. Supreme Court's temporary block of the Environmental Protection

Agency's Clean Power Plan came about as a result of an Obama executive

order that directed the EPA to reduce coal emission, mostly from coal

power plants. The court split 5-4, the five conservative members for the

temporary block and the four liberal members against it. The case in

front of them was brought by 29 mostly Republican-led states and the

energy industry....
But all that progress could unravel if Big Coal makes headway in its legal attacks on the Clean Power Plan. Coal companies and utilities like Peabody Energy, Murray Energy, Southern Company, and American Electric Power are throwing the full weight of their legal and lobbying machines behind this effort.  nrdcBS(CNSNews.com) – The U.S. Senate passed two resolutions on Tuesday to block the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from implementing its<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/08/03/fact-sheet-president-obama-announce-historic-carbon-pollution-standards" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 82, 145); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent;">Clean Power Plan</a> (CPP), the centerpiece of President Obama’s “historic” attempt to reduce carbon emissions 32 percent by 2030.<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/23/text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 82, 145); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent;">Senate Joint Resolution 23</a>, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) with 47 co-sponsors, stated that “Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ‘Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units’”.The Senate also passed a <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/24/text" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 82, 145); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent;">resolution of disapproval</a> sponsored by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) stating that the CPP “shall have no force or effect.” The House is expected to pass a similar measure.The resolutions, which were both approved 52 to 46, were introduced under the <a href="https://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%270E%2C*P%5C_%3D%22P%20%20%0A" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 82, 145); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent;">Congressional Review Act</a>, which allows Congress to disapprove regulations that have an economic impact of more than $100 million.Three Democratic senators - Joe Donnelly (IN), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), and Joe Manchin (WV) - joined the Republican majority in support of the resolutions.Three Republican senators - Kelly Ayotte (NH), Susan Collins (ME) and Mark Kirk (IL) - voted against them.Republican presidential candidates Lindsey Graham (SC) and Marco Rubio (FL) did not vote.

Even as new data suggest that October of 2015 was a record-breaking hot month — with a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/11/17/record-crushing-october-keeps-earth-on-track-for-hottest-year-in-2015/" style=" box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(46, 109, 157); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(212, 212, 212); zoom: 1;">1.04 degree Celsius global temperature anomal</a>y, the biggest monthly departure from average ever seen in NASA records — Senate Republicans led a vote to block President Obama’s flagship climate policy, the<a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-10-23/pdf/2015-22842.pdf" style=" box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(46, 109, 157); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(212, 212, 212); zoom: 1;">Clean Power Plan</a>, and also <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/10/23/2015-22837/standards-of-performance-for-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-new-modified-and-reconstructed-stationary" style=" box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(46, 109, 157); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(212, 212, 212); zoom: 1;">another major EPA energy regulation</a> of new power plants.

[<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/11/17/record-crushing-october-keeps-earth-on-track-for-hottest-year-in-2015/" style=" box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(46, 109, 157); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(212, 212, 212); zoom: 1;">Record crushing October heat keeps Earth on track for hottest year in 2015</a>]

The largely symbolic votes, which have prompted <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/23/text" style=" box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(46, 109, 157); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(212, 212, 212); zoom: 1;">strong resistance</a> from environmental groups, took place on Tuesday evening after debate and speeches throughout the day.

There were two related resolutions under consideration. One, advanced by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), was a <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/24/text" style=" box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(46, 109, 157); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(212, 212, 212); zoom: 1;">resolution</a> of disapproval, under the Congressional Review Act, saying that the Clean Power Plan “shall have no force or effect.” The bill has 48 co-sponsors, including Democrats Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. The measure<a href="https://twitter.com/SenGOP_Floor/status/666752279937200128" style=" box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(46, 109, 157); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(212, 212, 212); zoom: 1;">passed Tuesday evening</a>:

Passed, 52-46: S.J.Res.24, a joint resolution of disapproval of EPA carbon emissions rule on existing power plants.

— Floor Monitor (@SenGOP_Floor) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenGOP_Floor/status/666752279937200128" style=" box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(46, 109, 157); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(212, 212, 212); zoom: 1;">November 17, 2015</a>

</blockquote>

The <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/23/text" style=" box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(46, 109, 157); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(212, 212, 212); zoom: 1;">second</a>, sponsored by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), would similarly disapprove of and repeal a rule governing emissions from new power plants. It also relies on the <a href="http://www.gao.gov/legal/congressional-review-act-faq/about" style=" box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(46, 109, 157); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(212, 212, 212); zoom: 1;">Congressional Review Act</a>, which lets the body review major regulations issued by executive agencies and, potentially, block them. It <a href="https://twitter.com/SenGOP_Floor/status/666761345921105920" style=" box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(46, 109, 157); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(212, 212, 212); zoom: 1;">passed</a> by exactly the same margin.

The twin votes were unlikely to actually hobble the Clean Power Plan or other power plant regulations — the White House promptly <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/114/sapsjr24s_20151117.pdf" style=" box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(46, 109, 157); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(212, 212, 212); zoom: 1;">announced</a> Tuesday Obama would veto the resolutions. But they sent a strong message of resistance at a time when Obama, having just rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline, is trying to project climate leadership just weeks before a crucial summit in Paris.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sq-XyHu2SI" style=" box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(46, 109, 157); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(212, 212, 212); zoom: 1;">Speaking</a> on the Senate floor Tuesday, Capito invoked a “war on coal” and called the Clean Power Plan “the most expensive environmental regulation that the EPA has ever proposed on our nation’s power sector.”

Democrats had objected to the vote and, particularly, its timing.

“We are not here on the floor to discuss national security. We are here on the floor right now because the Republican leadership is taking a run at the president’s Clean Power Plan,” said Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse in a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxo-nBaODWI" style=" box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(46, 109, 157); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(212, 212, 212); zoom: 1;">Senate floor speech</a> earlier Tuesday, objecting to the planned votes. “Paris has not recovered from the devastation of the other day, and we have important bills…that would improve the capacity of our Department of Justice, of our FBI, of our Department of Homeland Security to address these threats. And are we on those bills? No.”

<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/114/sapsjr24s_20151117.pdf" style=" box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(46, 109, 157); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(212, 212, 212); zoom: 1;">In announcing </a>that Obama would veto the resolution opposing the Clean Power Plan, the White House noting that “by nullifying the Clean Power Plan, S.J.Res. 24 seeks to block progress towards cleaner energy, eliminating public health and other benefits of up to $54 billion per year by 2030, including thousands fewer premature deaths from air pollution and tens of thousands of fewer childhood asthma attacks each year.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce <a href="https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/documents/files/151117_kv_sjres23_sjres24_senate.pdf" style=" box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(46, 109, 157); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(212, 212, 212); zoom: 1;">applauded the planned votes</a>, however, <a href="http://www.americaspower.org/sites/default/files/Senate%20CRA%20Resolution.pdf" style=" box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(46, 109, 157); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(212, 212, 212); zoom: 1;">as did</a> the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.

The overall message is that as Obama and his negotiators head to Paris for COP-21, there is considerable resistance at home to the key policy by which the U.S. itself promises to reduce emissions.

==

<div class="caption" style="font-style: italic; line-height: 1.4em; margin-top: 3px;">Yale Project on Climate Change Communication</div>

</div>

Two weeks ago, President Barack Obama's <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/07/obama-epa-clean-power-plan" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">signature climate action plan</a> was formally published. The new regulations will require many states to reduce their use of coal, the dirtiest form of energy, in an effort to slash greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector by about a third by 2030. Almost immediately, the plan came under a <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2015/10/coal-loving-states-are-suing-obama-again" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">barrage of legal attacks</a> from two dozen coal-dependent states, almost all led by Republican governors and attorneys general. Meanwhile, Republican members of Congress introduced legislation to overturn the plan.

On Tuesday, after the House of Representatives resolution was <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/259000-house-committee-approves-climate-rule-resolutions" target="_blank" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">approved in committee</a>, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) claimed a victory for all Americans. The vote, he said, shows that "the American people are not happy with President Obama's climate change policy."

Except that, they kind of are happy about it. That's according to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bessie-schwarz/61-of-the-public-in-the-states-suing-to-stop-the-clean-power-plan-actually-support-the-policy_b_8451928.html" target="_blank" style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">new polling</a> by Yale University's Project on Climate Change Communication, which found that 61 percent of residents in the states suing the Obama administration support tight limits on emissions from coal-fired power plants. Individual state results are listed in the table above. Even in Kentucky, home to the plan's biggest opponent, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R), most residents support the plan.

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2015/11/republicans-hate-climate-plan-poll-chart

--

http://ecowatch.com/2015/08/11/carl-pope-clean-power-plan/

<h1 id="pf-title" style=" margin: 1em 0px; clear: both; direction: ltr; page-break-inside: avoid !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Untold Story Behind the Clean Power Plan</h1>

Carl Pope

</h2>

</div>

</div>

<a href="http://ecowatch.com/author/carl-pope/" style=" word-wrap: break-word; text-decoration: none;"> </a>The media missed the real story on the <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/08/04/clean-power-plan-carbon-free-economy/" style=" word-wrap: break-word; text-decoration: none;">Obama Clean Power Plan</a> (CPP). Most outlets, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/03/us/politics/obama-policy-could-force-robust-climate-discussion-from-2016-candidates.html?r=0" target="blank" style=" word-wrap: break-word; text-decoration: none;">like the New York Times,</a> hail it as a ground-breaking major new initiative, which “could lead to the closing of hundreds of polluting coal-fired power plants, freeze future construction of such plants and lead to an explosion in production of wind and <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/energy-environment/solar-energy/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" title="More articles about solar power." target="_blank" style=" word-wrap: break-word; text-decoration: none;">solar energy</a>,” while Republicans blasted it as a huge example of Presidential hubris —precisely because it would accomplish those goals.

Political insiders like <a href="http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/08/why-obamas-epic-climate-plan-isnt-such-a-big-deal-000183" target="blank" style=" word-wrap: break-word; text-decoration: none;">Politico</a> and <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/08/02/obama_climate_change_plan_the_clean_power_plan_is_supposed_to_be_bold_but.html" target="blank" style=" word-wrap: break-word; text-decoration: none;">Slate</a> claim it isn’t such a big deal. And at first blush the numbers seem to support the skeptics.

The new rule will require reductions in carbon pollution from the power sector by 770 million tons—32 percent against a 2005 baseline. But by the end of 2014 utilities had already cleaned up 350 million tons, and <a href="http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec12_9.pdf" target="blank" style=" word-wrap: break-word; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">emissions were cut by another 15 percent in the first four months of 2015</a>. As of last week power companies had also announced the future shut-down of additional plants which should lead to another 120 million tons—for a pre-CPP rule total of more than 470 out of the 770 million. So most of the cuts required have already taken place or been announced. Even Kentucky, the state whose Senior Sen. Mitch McConnell, seems willing to restart the Civil War over the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/26052015/kentucky-may-accidentally-comply-epa-clean-power-plan-coal" target="blank" style=" word-wrap: break-word; text-decoration: none;">was already retiring</a> or had retired 14 coal boilers—and these retirements will provide most of the emission cuts required under the CPP. What’s the big deal?

It’s true that the announcement of the final version of the CPP is more in the nature of a mopping up operation than the initial invasion of Normandy. But armies engage in mopping up operations only after they secure victory, and the CPP did not spring like Venus from the brow of President Obama last week—there’s a long history here. The CPP is the keystone of one of the most dramatic and fundamental economic restructurings in history.

To understand what’s happened, look back to the summer of 2008. Coal was generating more than half of U.S. electricity, Peabody stock was headed towards $84.05/share, up two-fold since its 2001 IPO. Export coal from Australia was selling for close to $200/ton on the back of Chinese demand. The U.S. utilities had proposed to add 150 new coal fired power plants to the 500 coal boilers the country already relied upon.

President George Bush <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/07/business/energy-environment/coal-industry-wobbles-as-market-forces-slug-away.html?r=0" target="blank" style=" word-wrap: break-word; text-decoration: none;">had declared</a> “clean coal” the key to American “energy independence” and had designated the 150 new coal plants as the key ingredient in the nation’s energy strategy.

<div>

Now look. As the New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/07/business/energy-environment/coal-industry-wobbles-as-market-forces-slug-away.html?r=0" target="blank" style=" word-wrap: break-word; text-decoration: none;">headlined this week</a>, “King Coal, Long Besieged, Is Deposed by the Market.” In April, coal<a href="http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_01" target="_blank" style=" word-wrap: break-word; text-decoration: none;">generated only 30 percent</a> of U.S. electricity (less than gas). By August two of the nation’s biggest coal companies, Alpha and Murray had declared bankruptcy. Peabody stock closed at $1.10, and rumors of bankruptcy circulated widely. Indeed for the past three years one U.S. coal company announced for bankruptcy every month.

<a href="http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=coal-australian&months=60" target="blank" style=" word-wrap: break-word; text-decoration: none;">Asian coal prices</a> had fallen to $62.86, and one sixth of Australia’s coal fields were in the red, with <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-31/the-600-million-mine-sold-for-a-dollar-underscores-ruin-of-coal" target="blank" style=" word-wrap: break-word; text-decoration: none;">the Isaac Plains mine</a> fire-selling for $1 after being valued at $624 million only three years ago. In the U.S., not only had 90 percent of those 150 new coal plants being proposed in 2008 been cancelled, but 200 of the 500 legacy plants in operating in 2008 had either closed down or had their shuttering dates announced. Brand new German coal generation facilities <a href="http://www.renewablesinternational.net/new-german-coal-plant-worth-one-euro/150/537/89142/" target="_blank" style=" word-wrap: break-word; text-decoration: none;">were being sold for one hundred Euros.</a>

So in seven years the fuel that launched the industrial revolution went from the height of its magnificence to a tottering finale. How did it happen, and what is the role of the Clean Power Plant rule in the saga?

Coal’s customers dug its grave and sealed its fate in 1990. Faced with revisions to the Clean Air Act designed to clean up acid rain, coal dependent electric utilities faced a choice. They could agree to modernize their aging coal burners by installing scrubbers and other pollution control equipment, thus removing not only the sulfur which caused acid rain but also a variety of other toxic pollutants like mercury and particulates. Or they could cling to the clean up exemption they had crafted for coal plants in the last revision of the Clean Air Act in 1977, and do the bare minimum clean up required to reduce acidification problems by shifting from local, but higher sulfur Appalachian coal to remote, but lower sulfur Wyoming coal stocks.

West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd fought desperately to require scrubbers, battling to save the economic future of the higher sulfur Northern Appalachian coal fields, joined by his allies in the labor movement. Environmentalists divided; the Sierra Club supported Byrd’s plan, which would have significantly improved air quality, but the Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resource Defense Council sided with Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell who wanted to compromise with the utilities and allow them to get by with fuel switching. Mitchell won on the Senate floor by one vote. Utilities switched from Appalachian to Wyoming Coal, sulfur emissions were significantly reduced at what turned out to be a bargain cost.

But America’s coal fleet, once again, avoided modernization.

As the fleet aged, and concerns over both pollution and <a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">climate</a> grew, pressures mounted for clean up. George W. Bush, when he ran for President in 2000, <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2014/07/29/obama-clean-power-plant-rule/" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">promised to clean up pollution</a> from these “grandfathered” coal power plants, including carbon dioxide. Once in office, his EPA Administration, Christy Todd Whitman prepared to fulfill the pledge. But in the first salvo of Big Carbon’s climate stonewall, <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB984011368437778756" target="_blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">the right wing of the Republican Party made it</a> clear to Bush that action on climate pollution meant a serious renomination battle for a second term. Bush caved, allowed Vice President Cheney to put new coal plants at the center of his energy strategy, as coal and its customers doubled down on the past.

But if coal would not find the future, the future would find coal. Citizen resistance first flared up against the air pollution impacts of proposed new coal plants, and then <a href="http://patch.com/georgia/cartersville/report-plant-bowen-10th-most-toxic" target="_blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">mercury pollution</a> became a hot button issue with fishing groups. Alliances were forged with beleaguered but deep-rooted movements in the coal fields against mountaintop removal mining.

A new president, Barack Obama, took on the climate challenge. Thwarted by coal and oil interests in their efforts to move national climate legislation, environmentalists did persuade a majority of the states to carve out guaranteed markets for wind and solar. As <a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear initial; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">renewables</a> scaled, their costs began to plummet. And beginning in 2005 new supplies of tight natural gas from shale fields brought prices down to the point where almost every state had some combination of wind, solar and gas which was cheaper than the proposed new coal plants. The Sierra Club aided by support from coal’s natural gas competitors, scaled up its <a href="http://content.sierraclub.org/coal/" target="_blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Beyond Coal</a> campaign and began to knock of proposed new power plants with stunning speed.

As Obama’s first EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, took on George Bush’s unfulfilled promise to clean up coal plants, beginning with mercury, particulates and sulfur, markets concluded that new coal made no sense. Only a dozen of the 150 modern coal burners that were to have been the black rock’s future were built; all turned out to be, in one way or another, white elephants—bankrupting their developers, triggering crippling rate increases, <a href="http://midwestenergynews.com/2014/05/13/prospects-turning-around-for-embattled-spiritwood-coal-plant/" target="_blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear initial; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">or being shuttered immediately</a> on completion.

The window to modernize coal power, it turned out, had closed. The one vote lobbying victory of 1990 over the Byrd Amendment had been an unnoticed death knell for coal. Producers were left utterly dependent selling to the 500 legacy boilers, half more than 50 years old, most lacking modern pollution controls, all facing EPA’s new health requirements. And behind everything loomed Barack Obama’s determination to fulfill “W”s campaign promise—to clean up all the pollution from power plants, including carbon.

Bloomberg Philanthropies, impressed by the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal success at blocking the new generation of coal plants, and appalled by the death and health costs of the outmoded legacy fleet, stepped in with a $50 million contribution to enable the Sierra Club and its allies to ensure the retirement of the first one-third of coal generators; and an <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/04/08/bloomberg-philanthropies-sierra-club/" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">additional $30 million</a>to secure the retirement of a full half the U.S. coal fleet by 2017.

As utilities and their regulators looked at the costs of modernizing 50 year old boilers, the likelihood that President Obama would implement a clean up mandate for carbon pollution as well, and the increasingly cheap option of using wind, solar or natural gas, the option of modernizing no longer seemed appealing. In New Mexico, for example, PNM, the local utility,<a href="http://www.newenergyeconomy.org/pnm_responds_to_criticism_with_new_ad_on_coal_replacement_plan" target="_blank" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">is seeking to spend hundreds of millions of dollars</a> to install pollution control equipment on the San Juan Power Plant even though solar power is available at a much lower cost, a decision a hearing examiner determined it “is not fair, just and reasonable and in the public interest.” The primary cities consuming the power <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/28/burn-coal-or-switch-renewables/" style=" box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear initial; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">oppose retrofitting the San Juan Plant</a> because it will require huge increases in consumer rates.

Beyond Coal began racking up retirements—more than 200 in just four years. But the knowledge that the Clean Power Plant rule was coming framed and influenced many of these 200 decisions—just as the knowledge that communities would not tolerate being poisoned, that ratepayers would not accept being ripped-off and that wind and solar were just getting cheaper and cheaper informed these decisions, and the fact that so many power plants had already closed for health reasons made it easier for the president to be so ambitious.

That is the essence of the future—it changes everything. You can’t pick on one moment and one marker, and call it “the cause.” Once the coal industry and its customers decided to maximize their short term profits, they had, unknowingly, sealed their long term fate.

So, looking back, am I glad that George Mitchell beat Robert Byrd in 1990 by one vote that the Sierra Club (I was then leading) lost?

Not really. Because the defeat of the Byrd amendment changed a lot of the American political landscape. Without it, Al Gore would, almost certainly, have won the election of 2000—and other pathways to a better future would have opened.

But there is a lesson in that defeat, and this summer’s collapse of King Coal.

The future happens. We are better off if we embrace it.

</div>

==

8/15 http://www.alternet.org/environment/obama-just-created-carbon-cap-and-trade-program

==

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/04/conservatives-baselessly-scaring-people-about-w/204760

Rightwing media are echoing claims by the fossil fuel industry that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Power Plan, President Obama's landmark climate change policy, will dramatically increase electricity bills. In reality, while the Clean Power Plan may slightly increase Americans' electric bills in the short term, multiple independent analyses support the EPA's claim that the plan will result in significantly lower electric bills once it is fully implemented.

<h2 style=" margin: 15px 0px; padding: 0px 0px 2px; clear: both; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 153, 255); line-height: 1.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">EPA Finalizes First-Ever Limits On Carbon Pollution From Power Plants

</h2>

President Obama: Clean Power Plan Is "Most Important Step" U.S. Has Ever Taken On Climate Change.On August 3, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the final version of its Clean Power Plan, a key component of President Obama's climate change agenda. In a press conference announcing the final rule, President Obama called it the "single most important step that America has ever made in the fight against global climate change." [NPR.org, <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/03/429044707/president-obama-set-to-unveil-new-power-plant-rules-in-clean-power-plan" style=" outline: none; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(204, 204, 204);">8/3/15</a>]

<h2 style=" margin: 15px 0px; padding: 0px 0px 2px; clear: both; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 153, 255); line-height: 1.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Right-Wing Media Make Dire -- And Baseless -- Predictions About Plan's Impact On Electric Bills

</h2>

Karl Rove: Manufacturing Companies "Have Been Warned ... Their Utility Bills Will Go Up 30 To 40 Percent." On the August 4 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Republican political consultant and Fox News contributor Karl Rove said those who say the Clean Power Plan will cost too much for consumers are "right," and added: "I've been talking, for example, to some manufacturers in Ohio who say they've been warned by their power provider their utility bills are going to go up between 30 and 40 percent. And because they're energy-intensive industries, this is going to make them uncompetitive on the national market":

Townhall's Benson: Clean Power Plan Is "A Regressive Tax That Hits Poor People The Hardest." On the August 3 edition of Fox News' Outnumbered, Townhall.com's Guy Benson said that the Obama administration's claim that the Clean Power Plan will lower electricity bills is "just fiction," and that "study after study shows that this is a tax." He also said: "It's a regressive tax, by the way, that hits poor people the hardest because they can't afford to pay more for electricity." During the segment, co-host Sandra Smith added, "[I]f you don't want to take Guy's word for it ... you can take the word of all these states who have looked at it and said it's not good for jobs, it's not good for our electricity costs, it's pretty much bad all around." Co-host Harris Faulkner added that people in warmer states "are going to end up paying more to try to be just as comfortable, because who's going to want to suffer just because the White House thought it was a good idea?"

[vid]

FBN's Phil Flynn: Under EPA Plan, Prices Consumers Pay For Electricity "Are Going To Be Through The Roof." On the August 3 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, Fox Business Network's Phil Flynn claimed of the Clean Power Plan: "[W]hat it means for the American consumer is that the prices you pay for electricity are going to be through the roof." [Fox News, Happening Now, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2015/08/03/41116/fnc-hn-20150803-consumerenergycost" style=" outline: none; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">8/3/15</a>]

Marc Morano: Clean Power Plan "Will Make Energy More Expensive Across The Board," Hurting "Minorities, The Poor, [And] Seniors." On the August 3 edition of Fox Business' Cavuto: Coast to Coast, frequent guest and "Merchant of Doubt" Marc Morano claimed that the Clean Power Plan "will make energy more expensive across the board":

MORANO: It's going to make energy more expensive across the board. Families are going to suffer. People on fixed incomes. We've already had an African-American civil rights leader protesting some of these policies. Some of them have gone after Robert Redford for his supporting policies that would hurt minorities, the poor, seniors on fixed incomes. [Fox Business, Cavuto: Coast To Coast, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2015/08/03/41117/fbn-cavuto-20150803-cppmorano" style=" outline: none; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(204, 204, 204);">8/3/15</a>]

</blockquote>

<h2 style=" margin: 15px 0px; padding: 0px 0px 2px; clear: both; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 153, 255); line-height: 1.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Independent Analyses Agree With EPA That Clean Power Plan Will Lower Electric Bills When Fully Implemented</h2>

==

<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/states-cut-power-plant-emissions-ahead-new-epa-rule">http://www.alternet.org/environment/states-cut-power-plant-emissions-ahead-new-epa-rule</a>

States Cut Power Plant Emissions Ahead of New EPA Rule

42 states are already reducing CO2 emissions from power plants before Obama's Clean Power Plan takes effect.

By Bobby Magill / Climate Central July 15, 2015

Next month, the Obama administration is set to finalize its climate ultimatum to states: Control carbon dioxide emissions from electric power plants or the federal government will do it for you.

The ultimatum is called the Clean Power Plan, and before it takes effect, 42 states are already reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants on their own as they move toward using less coal and more natural gas to produce electricity.

Between 2008 and 2013, those states reduced greenhouse gas emissions from electric power plants by an average of 19 percent, according to a report published Tuesday by sustainability advocacy group Ceres, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Bank of America and four large utilities.

Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of the greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change, but their dominance has begun to wane as federal emissions standards have forced some coal plants to shut down and the U.S. shale gas boom has brought natural gas prices down. In April, natural gas, which releases roughly half the carbon dioxide as burning coal, surpassed coal as the dominant fuel for electric power generation in the U.S. for the first time in history.

RELATED: Oklahoma Sues EPA, Calling Clean Air Rule Unconstitutional

Nationwide, carbon dioxide emissions rates from electric power plants were 14 percent higher than 1990 levels, but declined 12 percent between 2008 and 2013. Among the nation’s largest utilities, coal accounts for nearly four-fifths of their carbon emissions. Natural gas accounts for just one-fifth, according to the report.

Though most states are slowing their emissions, the report shows eight states moving in the opposite direction, each seeing an increase in its emissions rate between 2008 and 2015. They include Kentucky, Louisiana, Arkansas, Nebraska, Utah, Idaho and Alaska. Another is Hawaii, which generates most of its power using imported crude oil and has passed a law requiring 100 percent of the state’s electricity to be generated using renewables by 2045 — the first state to make such a commitment.

“Most parts of the country are firmly on the path toward a clean energy future, but some states and utilities have a longer way to go, and overall the carbon emissions curve is not bending fast enough,” Ceres’ president, Mindy Lubber, said. “To level the playing field for all utilities, and achieve the broader carbon dioxide emissions cuts needed to combat climate change, we need final adoption of the Clean Power Plan.”

RELATED: U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Obama's EPA Limits on Air Pollution

In 2013, coal-rich Kentucky had the nation’s highest carbon dioxide emissions rate — a measure of how carbon intensive a utility’s power supply is. The state released more than 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour of electricity generated. Wyoming, West Virginia, Indiana and North Dakota were the top five states with the highest emissions rates.

The five states with the lowest carbon emissions rates are all heavily dependent on hydropower, including Vermont, Idaho, Washington, Oregon and Maine.

Generally, utilities with the highest carbon emissions rates are heavily dependent on coal, while those with the lowest rates depend on nuclear, natural gas and renewables.

RELATED: By Fighting EPA Rules, Congress Thinks Your Life Is Worth Less Than $3,800

Of the 100 largest utilities in the U.S., coal-dependent Big Rivers Electric in Kentucky had the highest emissions rate in 2013, releasing more than 2,200 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour. Nuclear-dependent Exelon, an Illinois utility, had the lowest rate, emitting about 200 pounds of carbon per megawatt hour.

“Consistent with our efforts to advance clean energy, Exelon has low total emissions and some of the lowest emissions rates of the nation’s largest power producers,” Chris Gould, senior vice president and chief sustainability officer of Exelon, said.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

GOP Congressman Lamar Smith Declares War on NASA and EPA Climate Science Research

EPA Moves to Regulate Airplane Emissions Under Clean Air Act, Citing Danger to Human Health

How Your Carbon Emissions Could End Up Starving Poor People in Africa

Paris Climate Summit Sponsors Include Fossil Fuel Firms and Big Carbon Emitters

As Carbon Emissions Continue to Increase, So Will Extreme Downpours

The Good, the Bad and the Dirty: Climate, Congress and Carbon

===

...

Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of the greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change, but their dominance has begun to wane as federal emissions standards have forced some coal plants <a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/news/flurry-of-coal-power-plant-shutdowns-expected-by-2016-17086" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">to shut down</a> and the U.S. shale gas boom has brought natural gas prices down. In April, natural gas, which releases roughly half the carbon dioxide as burning coal, <a href="https://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/Article.aspx?cdid=A-33130767-13612" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">surpassed coal</a> as the dominant fuel for electric power generation in the U.S. for the first time in history.

RELATED: <a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/oklahoma-sues-epa-calling-clean-air-rule-unconstitutional" target="_blank" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">Oklahoma Sues EPA, Calling Clean Air Rule Unconstitutional</a>

Nationwide, carbon dioxide emissions rates from electric power plants were 14 percent higher than 1990 levels, but declined 12 percent between 2008 and 2013. Among the nation’s largest utilities, coal accounts for nearly four-fifths of their carbon emissions. Natural gas accounts for just one-fifth, according to the report.

Though most states are slowing their emissions, the report shows eight states moving in the opposite direction, each seeing an increase in its emissions rate between 2008 and 2015. They include Kentucky, Louisiana, Arkansas, Nebraska, Utah, Idaho and Alaska. Another is Hawaii, which generates most of its power using imported crude oil and has passed a law requiring 100 percent of the state’s electricity to be generated using renewables by 2045 — the <a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hawaii-vermont-set-ambitious-examples-for-renewables-19189" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">first state</a> to make such a commitment.

“Most parts of the country are firmly on the path toward a clean energy future, but some states and utilities have a longer way to go, and overall the carbon emissions curve is not bending fast enough,” Ceres’ president, Mindy Lubber, said. “To level the playing field for all utilities, and achieve the broader carbon dioxide emissions cuts needed to combat climate change, we need final adoption of the Clean Power Plan.”

RELATED: <a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/us-supreme-court-strikes-down-obamas-epa-limits-air-pollution" target="_blank" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Obama's EPA Limits on Air Pollution</a>

In 2013, coal-rich Kentucky had the nation’s highest carbon dioxide emissions rate — a measure of how carbon intensive a utility’s power supply is. The state released more than 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour of electricity generated. Wyoming, West Virginia, Indiana and North Dakota were the top five states with the highest emissions rates.

The five states with the lowest carbon emissions rates are all heavily dependent on hydropower, including Vermont, Idaho, Washington, Oregon and Maine.

Generally, utilities with the highest carbon emissions rates are heavily dependent on coal, while those with the lowest rates depend on nuclear, natural gas and renewables.

RELATED: <a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/fighting-epa-rules-congress-thinks-your-life-worth-less-3800" target="_blank" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">By Fighting EPA Rules, Congress Thinks Your Life Is Worth Less Than $3,800</a>

Of the 100 largest utilities in the U.S., coal-dependent <a href="http://www.bigrivers.com/" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">Big Rivers Electric</a> in Kentucky had the highest emissions rate in 2013, releasing more than 2,200 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour. Nuclear-dependent Exelon, an Illinois utility, had the lowest rate, emitting about 200 pounds of carbon per megawatt hour.

“Consistent with our efforts to advance clean energy, Exelon has low total emissions and some of the lowest emissions rates of the nation’s largest power producers,” Chris Gould, senior vice president and chief sustainability officer of <a href="http://www.exeloncorp.com/aboutus.aspx" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">Exelon</a>, said.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/gop-congressman-lamar-smith-declares-war-nasa-and-epa-climate-science-research" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">GOP Congressman Lamar Smith Declares War on NASA and EPA Climate Science Research</a>

<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/epa-moves-regulate-airplane-emissions-under-clean-air-act-citing-danger-human-health" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">EPA Moves to Regulate Airplane Emissions Under Clean Air Act, Citing Danger to Human Health</a>

<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/how-your-carbon-emissions-could-end-starving-poor-people-africa" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">How Your Carbon Emissions Could End Up Starving Poor People in Africa</a>

<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/paris-climate-summit-sponsors-include-fossil-fuel-firms-and-big-carbon-emitters" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">Paris Climate Summit Sponsors Include Fossil Fuel Firms and Big Carbon Emitters</a>

<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/carbon-emissions-continue-increase-so-will-extreme-downpours" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">As Carbon Emissions Continue to Increase, So Will Extreme Downpours</a>

<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/good-bad-and-dirty-climate-carbon-and-congress" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">The Good, the Bad and the Dirty: Climate, Congress and Carbon</a>

==

Since they were first proposed nearly a year ago, <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Senate-Republicans-attack-EPA-on-carbon-cuts-at-5150642.php" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">Republican lawmakers</a> have <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/11/11/republicans-congress-seek-crush-epa" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">relentlessly attacked</a> the <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/obama-climate-republicans-20150505" target="_blank" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">EPA’s new power plant emissions standards</a>.

Even this week, <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/241952-senate-gop-aims-to-overturn-epa-climate-rules" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Senate Republicans introduced legislation</a> that would not only roll back the new standards but,<a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/241952-senate-gop-aims-to-overturn-epa-climate-rules" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">according to The Hill</a>, would make it nearly impossible for the EPA to rewrite the rules for power plants. Though they claim the new legislation is “bipartisan,” only one Democrat signed onto it: Senator Joe Manchin from the coal state of West Virginia.

To put the <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/06/18/2014-13726/carbon-pollution-emission-guidelines-for-existing-stationary-sources-electric-utility-generating" target="_blank" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">EPA’s rules succinctly</a>, these health and safety measures require existing power plants to reduce emissions with carbon capture technology, or by reducing total output. New power plants will be required to be built with technology that reduces emissions.

The Republicans object to these standards because they claim that they will destroy the coal industry and put thousands of Americans out of work, causing a devastating ripple effect throughout the national economy. It's an age-old industry argument that never comes true, from the days when we abandoned whale oil, removed lead from gasoline or required seat belts in cars.

And a new report turns the Republicans' “job killing EPA regulations” argument on its head. <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/22/3649809/clean-power-plan-will-create-jobs/" target="_blank" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">Think Progress explains</a>:

Researchers at private consulting firm Industrial Economics and the University of Maryland-based Interindustry Economic Research Fund credit efficiency improvements and lower electricity bills with adding about 273,000 jobs over the next 26 years. The analysts project that the plan will add 74,000 jobs by 2020. The findings support the EPA’s contention that the Clean Power Plan will not hurt the economy.

The real reason for the <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/senate-bill-to-roll-back-epa-rules-draws-fire/article/2564474" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">objection from the GOP</a> is that it will cost the coal industry a little bit of money. And if the industry has to spend money making their power plants less lethal, it might not be able to match the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2014&ind=e1210" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">$5.6 million in campaign contributions</a> that they gave to Republicans in 2014, or even the $7.7 million that they gave to Republicans in 2012.

Those campaign contributions come to a little more than $13.3 million in the last four years, and apparently that amount of money is worth more to the Republican Party than the collective lives of more than 3,500 American citizens. That’s how many lives a new study claims can be saved by implementing the new standards.

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/health/epa-emissions-plan-will-save-thousands-of-lives-study-finds.html?r=1" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">The New York Times has more</a> on the new study, which was a joint effort between Harvard University and Syracuse University:

The health benefits of the rule would be indirect. While carbon emissions trap heat in the atmosphere, which contributes to a warming planet, they are not directly linked to health threats. Emissions from coal-fired power plants, however, also include a number of other pollutants, such as soot and ozone, that are directly linked to illnesses like asthma and lung disease.

Researchers calculated that the changes in the EPA rule could prevent 3,500 premature deaths a year and more than 1,000 heart attacks and hospitalizations from air-pollution-related illness.

The Republican Party has put the value of an American life at less than $3,800. That’s the total amount of their recent campaign contributions from the coal industry divided by the number of lives that could be saved by these new rules. If you happen to live near a power plant, you should know how much your life is worth to your elected officials.

<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/fighting-epa-rules-congress-thinks-your-life-worth-less-3800">http://www.alternet.org/environment/fighting-epa-rules-congress-thinks-your-life-worth-less-3800</a>

==

officially full ct press: axis of evil trifecta:

<h2 style=" max-width: 100%; width: 694.296875px;">NBCC's Op-Ed Campaign Follows Similar Attacks On The Clean Power Plan From Fossil Fuel Front Groups</h2>

Americans For Prosperity State Directors Are Running Op-Ed Campaign Attacking Clean Power Plan. At least 16 newspapers across the country have published nearly identical op-eds from state leaders of Americans for Prosperity (AFP), which misleadingly cite statistics on electricity prices while calling for state legislatures to fight back against the Clean Power Plan. Every newspaper Media Matters reviewed except one failed to disclose the group's ties to the oil industry: AFP was founded, and continues to be largely funded, by the oil billionaire Koch brothers. [Media Matters, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/25/the-koch-brothers-campaign-against-epa-climate/203041">3/25/15</a>]

Beacon Hill Institute And State Policy Network Also Seeking To Undermine EPA Climate Plan With Op-Ed Campaign. The Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) partnered with members of the State Policy Network (SPN) to jointly produce sham studies and op-eds that dramatically inflate the Clean Power Plan's projected cost without even analyzing the EPA's actual proposal. As of April 13, 11 newspapers in four states had published op-eds written mostly by executives from SPN groups or state legislators, but none of the op-eds disclosed the fossil fuel industry funding behind them. Both BHI and SPN have financial ties to the Koch brothers, and the reports themselves were funded by a group run by Richard Berman, a corporate PR executive who has solicited millions in funding from the oil and gas industry. [Media Matters, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/13/a-web-of-climate-deception-the-beacon-hill-inst/203263">4/13/15</a>]

</div>

<div class="im-alert"><a href="http://mediamatters.org/inclusionmatters">The values and voices of America's diverse communities are too often excluded from the news media. </a></div>

==

6/15 attack by whitfield and

Cosponsor Date Cosponsored

Rep. Griffith, H. Morgan [R-VA-9]* 04/28/2015

Rep. Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. [D-GA-2]* 04/28/2015

Rep. Peterson, Collin C. [D-MN-7]* 04/28/2015

Rep. Sewell, Terri A. [D-AL-7] 05/05/2015

Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH-5] 05/05/2015

Rep. McKinley, David B. [R-WV-1] 05/05/2015

Rep. Guthrie, Brett [R-KY-2] 05/05/2015

Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX-32] 05/05/2015

Rep. Ellmers, Renee L. [R-NC-2] 05/05/2015

Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN-2] 05/05/2015

Rep. Stivers, Steve [R-OH-15] 05/05/2015

Rep. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK-2] 05/05/2015

Rep. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND-At Large] 05/05/2015

Rep. Barr, Andy [R-KY-6] 05/05/2015

Rep. Gibbs, Bob [R-OH-7] 05/12/2015

Rep. Murphy, Tim [R-PA-18] 05/12/2015

Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC-3] 05/12/2015

Rep. Brooks, Mo [R-AL-5] 05/12/2015

Rep. Byrne, Bradley [R-AL-1] 05/15/2015

Rep. Rogers, Mike D. [R-AL-3] 05/15/2015

Rep. Kelly, Mike [R-PA-3] 05/15/2015

Rep. DeSantis, Ron [R-FL-6] 05/15/2015

Rep. Bost, Mike [R-IL-12] 05/15/2015

Rep. Crawford, Eric A. "Rick" [R-AR-1] 05/15/2015

Rep. Hartzler, Vicky [R-MO-4] 05/15/2015

Rep. Collins, Chris [R-NY-27] 05/21/2015

Rep. Rouzer, David [R-NC-7] 05/21/2015

Rep. Forbes, J. Randy [R-VA-4] 05/21/2015

Rep. Jenkins, Evan H. [R-WV-3] 06/09/2015

Rep. Black, Diane [R-TN-6] 06/09/2015

Rep. Long, Billy [R-MO-7] 06/09/2015

Rep. Lummis, Cynthia M. [R-WY-At Large] 06/09/2015

Rep. DesJarlais, Scott [R-TN-4] 06/09/2015

Rep. Wagner, Ann [R-MO-2] 06/09/2015

Rep. Stewart, Chris [R-UT-2] 06/09/2015

Rep. Harper, Gregg [R-MS-3] 06/09/2015

Rep. Womack, Steve [R-AR-3] 06/09/2015

Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN-1] 06/09/2015

Rep. Flores, Bill [R-TX-17] 06/09/2015

Rep. Johnson, Bill [R-OH-6] 06/09/2015

Rep. Kline, John [R-MN-2] 06/09/2015

Rep. Jenkins, Lynn [R-KS-2] 06/09/2015

Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS-4] 06/09/2015

Rep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC-8] 06/12/2015

Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36] 06/12/2015

Rep. Abraham, Ralph Lee [R-LA-5] 06/12/2015

Rep. Tipton, Scott R. [R-CO-3] 06/12/2015

Rep. Zinke, Ryan K. [R-MT-At Large] 06/12/2015

Rep. Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [R-WI-5] 06/12/2015

Rep. Bridenstine, Jim [R-OK-1] 06/12/2015

Rep. McCaul, Michael T. [R-TX-10] 06/12/2015

Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12] 06/12/2015

Rep. Ribble, Reid J. [R-WI-8] 06/12/2015

Rep. Brooks, Susan W. [R-IN-5] 06/12/2015

Rep. Roby, Martha [R-AL-2] 06/12/2015

Rep. Barton, Joe [R-TX-6] 06/12/2015

Rep. Shuster, Bill [R-PA-9] 06/12/2015

Rep. Jolly, David W. [R-FL-13] 06/12/2015

Rep. Ashford, Brad [D-NE-2] 06/12/2015

Rep. Luetkemeyer, Blaine [R-MO-3] 06/12/2015

Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1] 06/12/2015

Rep. Smith, Lamar [R-TX-21] 06/16/2015

Rep. Crenshaw, Ander [R-FL-4] 06/16/2015

Rep. Lamborn, Doug [R-CO-5] 06/16/2015

Rep. Love, Mia B. [R-UT-4] 06/16/2015

Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA-11] 06/16/2015

Rep. McSally, Martha [R-AZ-2]

==

<h2 class="yiv5386805708null" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1434210727592_28570" style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(64, 64, 64); line-height: 32.5px; letter-spacing: -0.75px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://insideclimatenews.us2.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=7c733794100bcc7e083a163f0&id=1461ae406e&e=06876ede6b" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1434210727592_28569" style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(17, 85, 204); outline: none; word-wrap: break-word; font-weight: normal; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">EPA Clean Power Plan Dodges Court Challenge—For Now</a></h2>

The Environmental Protection Agency won an easy, early victory in federal court on Tuesday over coal industry challenges to its forthcoming Clean Power Plan. The struggle over regulating carbon and other pollution from fossil-fuel power plants, however, will continue.

<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://insideclimatenews.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=7c733794100bcc7e083a163f0&id=df1dc39ad0&e=06876ede6b" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1434210727592_28562" style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(17, 85, 204); outline: none; word-wrap: break-word; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Read more</a>.

he Environmental Protection Agency won an easy, early victory in federal court on Tuesday over coal industry challenges to its forthcoming Clean Power Plan. The struggle over regulating carbon and other pollution from fossil-fuel power plants, however, will continue.

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit <a href="http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/E432B66C9D6FA18885257E5F0051085E/$file/14-1112-1556371.pdf" style=" color: rgb(0, 100, 0); text-decoration: none; outline: none;">bluntly and unanimously rejected</a> the attempt of Murray Coal and its allies, drawn from industry and coal-friendly states, to erase the EPA's proposed limits on carbon dioxide emissions before the regulatory ink was dry.

"Petitioners are champing at the bit to challenge EPA's anticipated rule restricting carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. But EPA has not yet issued a final rule," wrote Judge Brett Kavanaugh. "But a proposed rule is just a proposal." A second judge joined his opinion and the third concurred.

Now, they said, was not the time to test the EPA's legal grounds for fighting climate change by using a section of the Clean Air Act that has a checkered past and an uncertain future as a tool to govern carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas.

But the industry's day in court, Kavanaugh reminded the plaintiffs, "will not be very long from now." The EPA has said its final rule will be issued this summer.

At issue in this case, as in so many others under the Clean Air Act, is the leeway granted by the courts to EPA to exercise its discretion. Often, industry accuses the federal agency of stretching the law's language to the snapping point.

But the courts have given the agency considerable, if not unlimited, maneuvering room, and environmental advocates said they expect the agency to be able to continue using the law to fight climate change.

“The first legal challenge to the Clean Power Plan failed today, and others the polluters will trot out should fail as well,” said David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council, who was involved in the Murray case on the EPA's side. “The Supreme Court has three times already upheld EPA's duty to tackle carbon pollution and climate change.”

That's true, but no one can predict what the Supreme Court, or the appeals court that issued its ruling today, will do in the many cases that the EPA is facing on pollution rules, especially those involved in the <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/carbon-copy/01062015/coal-industry-fighting-survival-7-fronts" style=" color: rgb(0, 100, 0); text-decoration: none; outline: none;">multi-front war on coal </a>or in its expanding climate campaign.

For example, the EPA is holding its breath as a Supreme Court decision nears on the industry's challenge to a rule controlling mercury and air toxins. Limiting those pollutants is so expensive that many coal-fired power plants around the country have closed, or are planning to do so, rather than clean up their emissions. The<a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/03/argument-preview-epa-on-the-defensive-again/" style=" color: rgb(0, 100, 0); text-decoration: none; outline: none;">industry is arguing</a> that the agency should have considered the costs before deciding to issue the regulations. Writing on ScotusBlog, Lyle Dennison deemed the back-and-forth during oral arguments <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/03/argument-analysis-epa-may-be-a-vote-short-or-not/" style=" color: rgb(0, 100, 0); text-decoration: none; outline: none;">too close to call</a>.

Although each case is different, industry complaints about the EPA's supposed over-reaching have a cookie-cutter familiarity. And it often seems that the courts are inclined to give the EPA quite a bit of regulatory discretion.

For example, in a recent ruling on consolidated challenges to the current ozone standards under the Clean Air Act, the D.C. appeals court dismissed complaints right and left, leaving the agency free to exercise its judgment without judicial second-guessing.

In particular, defenders of the EPA's Clean Power Plan are hoping the agency will get as deferential treatment from the courts as it did <a href="http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/74C882991045080985257E580051699C/$file/12-1309-1555205.pdf" style=" color: rgb(0, 100, 0); text-decoration: none; outline: none;">in the part of that ruling</a>devoted to constitutional challenges to its ozone rules in Texas. The appeals court rejected arguments that the EPA was “commandeering” the state's autonomy, that it was drawing outside the lines of federal authority, and that its bureaucrats were not providing due process. Nay, nix and nyet, the court ruled on those three arguments.

While each case and each courtroom is different, that’s the kind of treatment the EPA will need if it is to continue to move ahead in its fight for a safe climate.

</div>

</div>

<div class="views-field views-field-title"><a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/03062015/clean-power-plan-coal-obama-49-states-making-plans-epa-carbon-rule-even-ones-hate-it" style=" color: rgb(0, 100, 0); text-decoration: none; outline: none;">49 States Making Plans for EPA Carbon Rule—Even the Ones That Hate It</a></div>

</div>

<div class="views-field views-field-title"><a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/carbon-copy/17042015/judges-greet-early-challenge-epa-rule-skepticism-climate-change-clean-power-plan-coal-laurence-tribe" style=" color: rgb(0, 100, 0); text-decoration: none; outline: none;">Judges Greet Early Challenge to EPA Rule With Skepticism</a></div>

</div>

<div class="views-field views-field-title"><a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/carbon-copy/21042015/epa-clean-power-plan-will-create-quarter-million-jobs" style=" color: rgb(0, 100, 0); text-decoration: none; outline: none;">EPA's Clean Power Plan Will Create Quarter-Million Jobs</a></div>

</div>

==

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued April 16, 2015 Decided June 9, 2015

No. 14-1112

IN RE: MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION,

PETITIONER

Consolidated with 14-1151

On Petition For Writ of Prohibition

and On Petition For Review

No. 14-1146

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, ET AL.,

PETITIONERS

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

RESPONDENT

CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.,

INTERVENORS

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

United States Environmental Protection Agency

2

Elbert Lin, Solicitor General, Office of the Attorney

General for the State of West Virginia, argued the cause for

Petitioner-Intervenors States. (bad guys) With him on the briefs were

Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General, Misha Tseytlin, General

Counsel, J. Zak Ritchie, Assistant Attorney General, Luther

Strange, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for

the State of Alabama, Andrew Brasher, Solicitor General,

Craig W. Richards, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney

General for the State of Alaska, Steven E. Mulder, Senior

Assistant Attorney General, Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney

General, Office of the Attorney for the State of Indiana,

Timothy Junk, Deputy Attorney General, Derek Schmidt,

Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State

of Kansas, Jeffrey A. Chanay, Deputy Attorney General, Jack

Conway, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for

the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Doug Peterson, Attorney

General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of

Nebraska, Blake E. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General,

Michael DeWine, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney

General for the State of Ohio, Eric E. Murphy, State Solicitor,

E. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney

General for the State of Oklahoma, Patrick R. Wyrick,

Solicitor General, P. Clayton Eubanks, Deputy Solicitor

General, Alan Wilson, Attorney General, Office of the

Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, James

Emory Smith, Jr., Deputy Solicitor General, Peter K. Michael,

Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State

of Wyoming, James Kaste, Deputy Attorney General,

Michael J. McGrady, Senior Assistant Attorney General,

Jeremiah I. Williamson, Assistant Attorney General, James D.

ABuddy@ Caldwell, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney

General for the State of Louisiana, Megan K. Terrell, Deputy

Director, Marty J. Jackley, Attorney General, Office of the

Attorney General for the State of South Dakota, and Roxanne

3

Giedd, Deputy Attorney General at the time the brief was

filed. C. Joseph Cordi Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General,

Office of the Attorney General for the State of Arkansas,

Steven R. Blair, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the

Attorney General for the State of South Dakota, Steven B.

Jones, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney

General for the State of Louisiana, Daniel P. Lennington,

Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General

for the State of Wisconsin, and Katherine Jean Spohn, Deputy

Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State

of Nebraska, entered appearances.

Geoffrey K. Barnes argued the cause for Petitioner

Murray Energy Corporation. With him on the briefs were J.

Van Carson, Wendlene M. Lavey, John D. Lazzaretti, and

Robert D. Cheren. Rebecca A. Worthington entered an

appearance.

Laurence H. Tribe argued the case for PetitionerIntervenor

Peabody Energy Corporation. With him on the

briefs were Jonathan S. Massey, Tristan L. Duncan, and

Thomas J. Grever.

Robert R. Gasaway, Dominic E. Draye, Allison D. Wood,

Tauna M. Szymanski, C. Boyden Gray, and Adam Gustafson

were on the briefs for Intervenor-Petitioners National

Federation of Independent Business and Utility Air

Regulatory Group.

Peter D. Keisler, Roger R. Martella, Jr., C. Frederick

Beckner III, Paul J. Ray, Joshua Thompson, Leslie A. Hulse,

Linda E. Kelly, Quentin Riegel, Steven P. Lehotsky, Sheldon

Gilbert, and Richard Moskowitz were on the briefs for amici

curiae Trade Associations and Pacific Legal Foundation in

support of petitioners.

4

Peter S. Glaser and Carroll W. McGuffey were on the

brief for amici curiae the National Mining Association and

the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.

Brian H. Lynk and Amanda Shafer Berman, Attorneys,

U.S. Department of Justice, argued the causes for

respondents. With them on the briefs were John C. Cruden,

Assistant Attorney General, and Elliott Zenick and Scott

Jordan, Attorneys, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Morgan A. Costello, Assistant Attorney General, Office

of the Attorney General for the State of New York, argued the

cause for Respondent-Intervenors States. With her on the

briefs were Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Office

of the Attorney General for the State of New York, Barbara

D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Steven C. Wu, Deputy

Solicitor General, Michael J. Myers and Brian Lusignan,

Assistant Attorneys General, Kamala D. Harris, Attorney

General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of

California, David A. Zonana, Acting Supervising Deputy

Attorney General, M. Elaine Meckenstock, Elizabeth B.

Rumsey, Timothy E. Sullivan, and Raissa Lerner, Deputy

Attorneys General, George Jepsen, Attorney General, Office

of the Attorney General for the State of Connecticut,

Kimberly P. Massicotte and Scott N. Koschwitz, Assistant

Attorneys General, Matthew P. Denn, Attorney General,

Office of the Attorney General for the State of Delaware,

Valerie M. Edge, Deputy Attorney General, Maura Healey,

Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Melissa A. Hoffer and

Turner Smith, Assistant Attorneys General, Janet T. Mills,

Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State

of Maine, Gerald D. Reid, Natural Resources Division Chief,

Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General at the time the brief

5

was filed, Office of the Attorney General for the State of

Maryland, Mary Raivel, Assistant Attorney General, Hector

Balderas, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General

for the State of New Mexico, Tannis Fox, Assistant Attorney

General, Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Office of the

Attorney General for the State of Oregon, Paul Garrahan,

Acting Attorney-in-Charge, Peter Kilmartin, Attorney

General, Rhode Island Department of Attorney General,

Gregory S. Schultz, Assistant Attorney General, William H.

Sorrell, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for

the State of Vermont, Thea Schwartz, Assistant Attorney

General, Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General, Office of the

Attorney General for the State of Washington, Leslie R.

Seffern, Assistant Attorney General, Karl A. Racine, Attorney

General, Office of the Attorney General for the District of

Columbia, Amy McDonnell, General Counsel, and Carrie

Noteboom. Carol A. Iancu, Assistant Attorney General,

Office of the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts, and Christopher G. King, entered

appearances.

Sean H. Donahue argued the cause for Respondent Intervenors (good guys)

NGOs. With him on the briefs were David

Doniger, Benjamin Longstreth, Tomás Carbonell, Vickie

Patton, Joanne Spalding, Andres Restrepo, and Ann Brewster

Weeks. Megan Ceronsky entered an appearance.

Katherine E. Konschnik was on the brief for amicus

curiae Law Professors in support of respondents.

Kevin Poloncarz was on the brief for amicus curiae

Calpine Association in support of respondents.

6

Richard L. Revesz and Denise A. Grab were on the brief

for amicus curiae Institute for Policy Integrity at New York

University School of Law in support of respondent.

Before: HENDERSON, GRIFFITH, and KAVANAUGH,

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge

KAVANAUGH, with whom Circuit Judge GRIFFITH joins.

Opinion concurring in the judgment filed by Circuit

Judge HENDERSON.

KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge: Petitioners are champing at

the bit to challenge EPA’s anticipated rule restricting carbon

dioxide emissions from existing power plants. But EPA has

not yet issued a final rule. It has issued only a proposed rule.

Petitioners nonetheless ask the Court to jump into the fray

now. They want us to do something that they candidly

acknowledge we have never done before: review the legality

of a proposed rule. But a proposed rule is just a proposal. In

justiciable cases, this Court has authority to review the

legality of final agency rules. We do not have authority to

review proposed agency rules. In short, we deny the petitions

for review and the petition for a writ of prohibition because

the complained-of agency action is not final.

* * *

==

http://legalnewsline.com/issues/global-warming/256209-u-s-sen-capito-introduces-bill-to-roll-back-epas-proposed-clean-power-plan

By <a class="url fn n" href="http://legalnewsline.com/author/jessicamkarmasek883" title="View all posts by Jessica M. Karmasek" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(136, 136, 136); text-decoration: none; background: transparent;">JESSICA M. KARMASEK</a></div>

WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline) – West Virginia’s U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito has introduced legislation aimed at rolling back President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

Capito, a Republican and chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, introduced the Affordable Reliable Energy Now Act, or ARENA, Wednesday.

<a href="http://legalnewsline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/capito.jpg" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">Capito said ARENA will ensure reliable and affordable energy, put jobs and the economy first, and curb federal overreach.</a>

<a href="http://legalnewsline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/capito.jpg" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">The bill is co-sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas; Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Thune, R-S.D.; Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.; and Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.; John Barrasso, R-Wyo.; Roy Blunt, R-Mo.; Roger Wicker, R-Miss.; Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.; Pat Roberts, R-Kan.; Rand Paul, R-Ky.; John Hoeven, R-N.D.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; Dan Coats, R-Ind.; Mike Crapo, R-Idaho; Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.; Jim Risch, R-Idaho; Deb Fischer, R-Neb.; Ted Cruz, R-Texas; John Boozman, R-Ark.; David Perdue, R-Ga.; Steve Daines, R-Mont.; Tom Cotton, R-Ark.; Tom Tillis, R-N.C.; Mike Rounds, R-S.D.; and Bill Cassidy, R-La.</a>

<a href="http://legalnewsline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/capito.jpg" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">“This bill, which further highlights a ‘way out’ for states from these massive new regulations that seem more motivated by ideology than science — regulations that could negatively impact their economy and hurt both the cost and reliability of energy for their citizens — effectively reiterates the message I relayed in a letter to our nation’s governors in March.”</a>

<a href="http://legalnewsline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/capito.jpg" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">“The agency’s regulations will threaten the stability of our electric grid, low electricity prices, countless jobs in the energy, production and manufacturing sectors, and the American economy. That is simply unacceptable,” he said. “The EPA cannot place unreasonable regulations and unobtainable standards that will undoubtedly strangle energy production.</a>

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who <a href="http://wvrecord.com/news/274251-morrisey-capito-critical-of-epa-plan" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(116, 51, 153); background: transparent;">testified last week before a Senate subcommittee</a>, applauded Capito’s efforts.

“This legislation is another critical tool to stop federal overreach that will inflict real harms on the states, their citizens and taxpayers, regardless of whether they live in an energy-producing state like West Virginia or not,” Morrisey said in a statement.

“As we have argued in court, and testified to in the U.S. Senate, the EPA is illegally regulating coal-fired power plants and going much further than permitted under the Clean Air Act.”

Morrisey said, if passed, ARENA will prohibit the EPA from implementing its final emissions rules on existing power plants until courts can make a decision on our lawsuit and others.

The EPA, in a statement released in response to Capito’s bill, noted that power plants are the largest source of carbon pollution in the United States.

“Climate change is one of the greatest threats of our time,” she said in a statement late Wednesday. “Scientists, faith leaders, mayors, insurance companies, parents, engineers, military leaders, and business owners all recognize the health and environmental dangers posed by climate change.”

The EPA argues that its plan, called for by President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, is built on “a time-tested state-federal partnership in the Clean Air Act, which was established by Congress decades ago.”

“The plan will be affordable, will drive American innovation and American jobs, and will demonstrate our leadership in the international community,” Purchia said, noting that the agency has been reaching out and engaging with a “wide range” of stakeholders.

“In the EPA’s nearly 45-year history, emissions from power plant pollution have decreased dramatically, improving public health protection for all Americans, while the economy has grown,” she said. “The EPA’s plan will not change that.”

</div>

: the bill West Virginia Senator Shelley Moore Capito and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell just introduced is dangerous.

It cuts at the heart of the Clean Air Act and makes it impossible to effectively limit carbon pollution from power plants — the number one U.S. source of the pollution fueling climate change. It says that the Clean Power Plan and other critical clean air rules “shall be of no force or effect, and shall be treated as though the rules had never been issued.”

===

cand/ scott walker ~

==

The Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to crack down on carbon pollution from power plants would create more than a quarter of a million additional jobs, according to a new analysis by economists using a trusted, sophisticated model.

The findings support the EPA's argument that the benefits of its approach exceed the costs, and undermine the claims of the fossil fuel industry that the rules would

==

Thursday morning, several of the nation’s top environmental lawyers gathered at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., for the first round of arguments in a pair of lawsuits challenging the cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s climate plan.

One of the suits was brought by coal company Murray Energy, the other by a group of a dozen states (all with Republican governors, and all either large producers or consumers of coal); they both contend that the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t have the authority to set tough new standards for carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. The rules, first proposed last summer, are designed to cut the nation’s carbon footprint 30 percent by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. The question before the court today was whether the lawsuits can go forward.

We probably won’t know the judges’ decision for a month or more. As my colleague Kevin Drum <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/04/republican-judges-set-rule-republican-objection-new-epa-regs" target="blank" style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 183, 243); background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">pointed out</a>, it’s conceivable they could rule against the EPA. All three judges on the panel were appointed by Republican presidents (two by George W. Bush, and one by his dad), and at least two of them have <a href="http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2015/04/16/obamas_climate_agenda_is_in_trouble__heres_how_to_save_it_108422.html" target="blank" style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 183, 243); background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">a history of anti-environmental rulings.</a> One of the judges, Brett Kavanaugh, filed a dissent on a separate case in 2012 arguing that greenhouse gases shouldn’t be regulated as air pollutants.

Still, many experts believe that it’s unlikely the judges will decide to hear the case — at least not yet. That’s because the climate rules won’t actually be finalized until later this year. According to <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/16/us-usa-carbon-court-idUSKBN0N721220150416" target="_blank" style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 183, 243); background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Reuters</a>, one of the W-appointed judges, Thomas Griffith, said in court this morning that he and his colleagues <span id="articleText" style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">“could guess what the final rule looks like, but we’re not usually in the business of guessing.”

For as long as the Clean Air Act has been on the books (half a century and counting), there have been attempts by polluting industries to tear it apart. Every time the Obama administration puts forward new regulations based on it (for mercury emissions, for example, and carbon emissions from new power plants), lawsuits start to pile up as soon as the draft language is out of the gate. But courts have never, not once, taken up a challenge to any EPA rule before it was made final.

If they did, “It would create enormous mischief,” said Richard Revesz, a leading environmental law scholar who has testified to Congress in support of the proposed to rule and was in the courtroom this morning. “It would double the amount of litigation on every proposed rule.”

That’s because the final rule is almost certain to look quite different from what’s on the table now. The EPA is currently sifting through more than 4 million public comments on the rule, submitted by everyone from corporations and governors to environmentalists and your Grandpa Joe, and trying to amend the final rule accordingly. Once <em style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">that rule is made public, it is inevitably going to face another round of legal challenges from the very same cast of characters. So it really doesn’t make sense for the court to listen to arguments about regulatory language that’s virtually guaranteed to change.

Once lawsuits on the final rule <em style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">do get taken up, there are likely to be some really interesting debates. The meaning of some of the key Clean Air Act language being employed by the EPA is hotly contested, thanks in part to <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/could-a-copy-editing-error-undermine-obamas-climate-rule/" target="_blank" style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 183, 243); background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">an apparent clerical error</a> that led to potentially competing versions of the same passage both being signed into law. And there are constitutional issues at stake as well, such as whether the federal government has the right to tell states how to manage their energy supply (if past is any precedent, Revesz has repeatedly said, they do; that’s kind of the whole point of the Clean Air Act).

But for now, there’s a pretty good chance today’s hearing was just a warm-up round for a much more serious fight yet to come. At this point, says Sierra Club chief counsel Joanne Spalding, the EPA’s opponents “are trying to derail a train that’s still in the station.”

==

http://www.globalpossibilities.org/4-reasons-why-the-supreme-courts-mercury-case-is-worth-watching/

==

3/15

A new <a href="http://action.sierraclub.org/site/DocServer/Coal_Tracker_report_final_3-9-15.pdf?docID=17381" target="_blank" style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(216, 27, 34); text-decoration: none; letter-spacing: 0.389999985694885px; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">report by CoalSwarm and the Sierra Club</a> provides compelling evidence that the death knell for the global coal boom might very well have rung some time between 2010 and 2012.

Based on data CoalSwarm compiled of every coal plant proposed worldwide for the past five years as part of its <a href="http://endcoal.org/global-coal-plant-tracker/" target="_blank" style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(216, 27, 34); text-decoration: none; letter-spacing: 0.389999985694885px; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Global Coal Plant Tracker</a> initiative, the report finds that for every coal plant that came online, plans for two other plants were put on hold or scrapped altogether.

The failure-to-completion rate was even higher, as much as 4 to 1, in Europe, South Asia, Latin America, and Africa, according to the report, which also says that the long decline in coal-fired energy production in the United States and

==

<a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/todaysnews/05032015/sen-mcconnell-urges-states-defy-us-plan-cut-greenhouse-gas">http://insideclimatenews.org/todaysnews/05032015/sen-mcconnell-urges-states-defy-us-plan-cut-greenhouse-gas</a>

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/politics/mcconnell-urges-states-to-defy-us-plan-to-cut-greenhouse-gas.html?ref=energy-environment&_r=1

==

</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>

Over objections from the White House and many science and environmental groups, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives this week approved two bills that would change how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) obtains and uses scientific data and advice. The bills aren’t likely to become law this year, but they are fueling an intense political battle that is likely to resurface when the new Congress convenes in January.

Proponents of the bills, which the House passed almost entirely with GOP votes, say they would increase transparency in how EPA uses data to justify its regulations and result in better, more balanced scientific advice for the agency. “EPA has an extensive track record of twisting the science to justify their actions,” and so reform is needed, said Representative Lamar Smith (R–TX), head of the House science committee, <a href="http://science.house.gov/press-release/house-passes-bill-boost-scientific-integrity" style=" box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(46, 67, 118); text-decoration: none; background: transparent;">in a statement supporting one of the bills</a>.

But opponents say the legislation would do more harm than good. “These bills are the culmination of one of the most anti-science and anti-health campaigns I’ve witnessed in my 22 years as a member of Congress,” said Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D–TX), top Democrat on the House science committee, <a href="http://democrats.science.house.gov/press-release/house-consider-partisan-anti-science-bills-aimed-hamstringing-epa" style=" box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(46, 67, 118); text-decoration: none; background: transparent;">in a statement</a>.

White House officials say they would recommend that President Barack Obama veto the legislation if it reaches his desk. That’s unlikely in the current Congress, which ends next month, given that Democrats still hold a majority in the Senate. That makes the votes largely symbolic. But observers say they represent another salvo in a long-standing battle over the<a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/environment/2013/08/house-panel-subpoenas-epa-air-pollution-data" style=" box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(46, 67, 118); text-decoration: none; background: transparent;">release of scientific data that underlines key regulations</a>—and a sign of battles to come once Republicans assume control of both chambers of Congress in January.

One bill, approved 18 November on a mostly party-line 229 to 191 vote, would overhaul rules regarding the membership and meetings of EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB). That federally chartered body of scientists, economists, and other scholars reviews agency risk assessments and scientific documents and advises the agency on other matters. The <a href="https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/hr1422/BILLS-113hr1422rh.pdf" style=" box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(46, 67, 118); text-decoration: none; background: transparent;">EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act</a> (H.R. 1422), sponsored by Representative Chris Stewart (R–UT), would require the agency to make SAB’s membership “fairly balanced,” add more public comment opportunities, require more acknowledgment of dissenting panelists’ views, bar panelists from discussing their own research, and limit nonscientific advice from the panel. “Ensuring that the [board] is balanced and transparent will help instill more confidence in the EPA’s decision making process,” Stewart <a href="http://stewart.house.gov/SAB" style=" box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(46, 67, 118); text-decoration: none; background: transparent;">said in a statement</a>.

The bill would seek to balance membership by setting a quota for state, local, and tribal government officials on SAB panels and clarify that industry experts aren’t barred from membership as long as their potential conflicts of interest are disclosed.

The second bill, the <a href="http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HR%204012_0.pdf" style=" box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(46, 67, 118); text-decoration: none; background: transparent;">Secret Science Reform Act</a> (H.R. 4012), would require that the data from any study that EPA draws upon to inform its regulations, risk assessments, and guidance documents be “reproducible” and released publicly as long as the law doesn’t forbid it. “If you’re going to make public policy, do it by public data,” said Representative David Schweikert (R–AZ), the bill’s lead sponsor and chair of the House science committee’s environmental subpanel, on the House floor on 19 November. The House approved the measure on a mostly party-line 237 to 190 vote.

Trade associations in key industries—from chemicals to oil to natural gas—<a href="http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/AAI%20Letter%20of%20Support%20for%20House%20Secret%20Science%20Bill%20HR%204012.pdf" style=" box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(46, 67, 118); text-decoration: none; background: transparent;">support the bills</a>, saying that boosting data transparency and <a href="https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/11.18.14-hill_letter_supporting_h.r.1422_the_epa_science_advisory_board_reform_act.pdf" style=" box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(46, 67, 118); text-decoration: none; background: transparent;">changing SAB’s composition</a> would result in more scientifically sound, and thus publicly trusted, regulations.

Opponents, however, say the bills are thinly disguised efforts to make EPA’s job more difficult.

For instance, the EPA SAB reform act could “turn conflict of interest on its head” by opening the door to more representation from industry scientists, says Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a science and environmental advocacy group, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. A <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/113/saphr1422r20141117.pdf" style=" box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(46, 67, 118); text-decoration: none; background: transparent;">White House statement</a>argues that the new membership requirements “could preclude the nomination of scientists with significant expertise in their fields.”

Public health groups, scientists, and environmental groups warned in a <a href="http://democrats.science.house.gov/sites/democrats.science.house.gov/files/documents/Public%20health%20sign-on%20letter%20--%20opposing%20HR%204012%20and%20HR%201422%20-%20FINAL.pdf" style=" box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(46, 67, 118); text-decoration: none; background: transparent;">letter to lawmakers</a>that the bill would grind SAB to a halt by requiring an “endless loop” of public comment and responses from the panel to almost every comment. “At best, the SAB will be reduced to busy work. At worst, the SAB’s assessments will address the concerns of corporations, not the desires of citizens for science-informed regulation that protects public health,” the letter argues.

The “secret science” bill could drastically cut the number of studies that EPA would be allowed to use in developing rules, the advocates’ letter argues. By requiring “reproducible” data, the bill “seems to adopt a very narrow view of scientific information solely based on laboratory experiments,” it argues, noting that many studies that EPA traditionally relies on involve modeling or analyzing real-world health data, which can be hard to replicate.

H.R. 4012 could also rule out EPA’s use of other studies involving confidential health information, which can be important, critics say. And the bill’s requirements “could be used to prevent EPA from finalizing regulations until legal challenges about the legitimate withholding of certain scientific and technical information are resolved,” a <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/113/saphr4012r20141117.pdf" style=" box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(46, 67, 118); text-decoration: none; background: transparent;">White House statement</a> warns.

Rosenberg argues that the real purpose of H.R. 4012 is to enable EPA critics to obtain data and turn it over to their own analysts, in order to pick apart studies they don’t like and produce findings more favorable to their views. “The problem they’re trying to fix is, they don’t like the answer” provided by certain studies, he says.

Both bills, or similar versions, are likely to resurface in the new Congress.

</div>

</div>

Posted in <a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/category/environment" style=" box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(46, 67, 118); text-decoration: none; background: transparent;">Environment</a>, <a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/category/policy" style=" box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(46, 67, 118); text-decoration: none; background: transparent;">Policy</a>

</div>

<div>

Few Republicans have kind words for the Environmental Protection Agency. Many refer to it as a menacing, conspiratorial madhouse—rather than an agency that takes up <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/fy15_bib.pdf" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(102, 0, 51); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">0.2 percent of the federal government’s budget</a> to keep the air and water clean. Michele Bachmann once pledged to padlock its doors; John Boehner has called it “<a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/207926-boehner-climate-plan-nuts" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(102, 0, 51); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">nuts</a>”; and Mitch McConnell says getting “<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/07/3590277/mcconnell-priority-rein-epa/" target="_blank" style=" color: rgb(102, 0, 51); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">the EPA reined in</a>” will be a top priority when he ascends to Senate majority leader come January.

</div>

Those who insist the EPA needs muzzling claim it is consistently “overreaching” and making laws at “unprecedented” rates. (The agency is “<a href="http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704658204575610924168519824" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(102, 0, 51); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">a regulatory firehose on U.S. business</a>,” intoned the Wall Street Journal.) But such bellows are at odds with the reality. According to the Office of Management and Budget, from 2001 to 2011, EPA regulations accounted for annual benefits to the country worth between $141 billion and $691 billion, while incurring annual costs between $42.4 billion and $66.3 billion. As of 2010, <a href="http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41561.pdf" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(102, 0, 51); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">fewer Clean Air Act rules had been proposed or issued under the Obama administration</a> than during the same point in the presidencies of George W. Bush or Bill Clinton.

</div>

But the agency is plagued by real problems—bureaucracies tasked with complicated rulemaking and enforcement cannot avoid them. Too many poor or outdated assessment models increase costs, a Government Accountability Office report found this summer. Decisions are often delayed, causing confusion and frustration about otherwise useful regulations. It ought to be possible to make the EPA more efficient, transparent, modern, and effective. Yet two bills that passed the House of Representatives last week show how good ideas about improving the EPA can turn radioactive in Republicans’ hands.

</div>

One of the bill’s sponsors decries evolution as a lie “from the pit of hell.”

</aside>

</div>

Last Wednesday, the chamber approved the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014, which prohibits the EPA from “proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based on science that is not transparent or reproducible.” It compels the agency to release all scientific and technical information used in its assessments.

</div>

On its face, this does not sound bad. Early in his presidency, Barack Obama promised to make <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-for-the-Heads-of-Executive-Departments-and-Agencies-3-9-09/" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(102, 0, 51); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">agency science transparent</a>. Many on the <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/03/barack_obama_promised_transparency_the_white_house_is_as_opaque_secretive.html" style=" color: rgb(102, 0, 51); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">left</a> and right have pointed out that the administration’s Open Government Initiative has fallen far short of that goal.<a href="http://blog.ucsusa.org/west-virginia-scientists-to-epa-cdc-allow-your-scientists-to-speak-389" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(102, 0, 51); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">Scientists</a> and <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/integrated-approach-of-openness-and-scientific-rigor.pdf" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(102, 0, 51); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">bureaucrats</a> themselves <a href="http://centerforopenscience.org/" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(102, 0, 51); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">want to work toward more clarity and openness</a>.

</div>

Alas, the “Secret Science” bill was put forth by Republicans on the <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/10/06/the_us_congress_anti_science_committee.html" style=" color: rgb(102, 0, 51); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">House Science, Space, and Technology Committee</a> with a penchant for alienating those who could lead reforms and improvements. Georgia’s Rep. Paul Broun (one of the bill’s sponsors) calls climate change a “hoax” and decries evolution as a lie “from the pit of hell.” That doesn’t inspire faith in science legislation with his backing. EPA mandarins—mere mortals just trying to do what’s asked of them—are attacked as job killers, and are bound to think any Republican bill is passed with their destruction in mind. “The EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country,” reads the press release from the bill’s author, Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz. And as <a href="http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-18/republicans-secret-science-bill-isnt-what-you-think" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(102, 0, 51); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">Christopher Flavelle of Bloomberg points out</a>, rather than making the EPA leaner, the bill would increase the agency’s costs tremendously without any real gains. What’s more, the Congressional Budget Office says implementing the law would mean <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49443" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(102, 0, 51); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">far fewer scientific studies (about half of the current number)</a> would go into making the EPA’s decisions.

</div>

Denouncing the EPA plays to conservative constituents during election season—the majority of voters in eight battleground Senate states in this year’s midterms said they opposed new EPA carbon emission limit rules, according to <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/MagellanStrat/magellan-strategies-epa-regulation-survey-press-release-061214" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(102, 0, 51); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">a poll from Magellan Strategies</a>, a research firm. So right-wing politicians are keen to bash it as a costly and growing juggernaut they promise to tame. Two other House bills, also passed last week, would <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1422/text" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(102, 0, 51); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">bar scientists from advising the EPA on their own research</a>and <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4795/text" target="_blank" style=" color: rgb(102, 0, 51); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">speed up issuing air pollution permits for new factories</a>. Supporters of the bills swear they are necessary for creating more transparency and ensuring that fewer onerous regulations will be imposed on businesses.

</div>

Scientific integrity is something everyone should fight for, and government agencies like the EPA are not bad places to push for more clarity and collaboration. But politics has poisoned that figurative well. Sadly, this risks poisoning literal ones Americans might drink from.But the <a href="http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41561.pdf" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(102, 0, 51); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">pace of EPA regulations has “slowed considerably since 2011</a>,” according to a report this summer from the Congressional Research Service, Congress’s public policy research arm. Public comment periods on new rules have frequently been extended, with revisions that “often relied on data submitted by industry” stakeholders. Many finalized rules on big issues were more lax than originally proposed as a result, CRS found. That makes Republican bills that effectively allow even more industry input in the name of curtailing runaway EPA authority look even more disingenuous. Worse, they breed distrust—the White House has already warned that it would <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/17/white-house-threatens-to-veto-3-house-gop-epa-bills/" target="blank" style=" color: rgb(102, 0, 51); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">veto all three bills should they pass the Senate</a>—which makes it harder to pass legislation that might actually be meaningful.

</div>

</section>

Boer Deng writes for Nature. Follow her on <a href="https://twitter.com/boerdeng" target="_blank" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(102, 0, 51) !important;">Twitter</a>.

</div>

</section>

</footer>

</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/clean-power-plan-proposed-rule</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>

<p style=" box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 1.5em; word-wrap: break-word; color: rgb(21, 21, 21); line-height: 24px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">On June 2, 2014, EPA proposed a commonsense plan to cut carbon pollution from power plants. States, cities and businesses across the country are already taking action to address the risks of climate change. EPA's proposal builds on those actions and is flexible - reflecting that different states have a different mix of sources and opportunities, and reflecting the important role of states as full partners with the federal government in cutting pollution. This proposal will maintain an affordable, reliable energy system, while cutting pollution and protecting our health and environment now and for future generations.

<h2 class="pane-title" style=" box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear; line-height: 1.1; margin: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; padding: 0.5em 1em; border-width: 1px 1px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: solid; border-left-style: solid; border-color: rgb(77, 142, 77); text-align: center; color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-image: -webkit-linear-gradient(top, rgba(255, 255, 255, 0) 0%, rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.4) 100%); background-color: rgb(77, 142, 77);">Supplemental Proposal</h2>

<li style=" box-sizing: border-box; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear;"><a href="http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/clean-power-plan-supplemental-proposal" style=" box-sizing: border-box; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear; outline-offset: 2px; color: rgb(77, 142, 77); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);">Clean Power Plan Supplemental Proposal</a><br style=" box-sizing: border-box; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear;" />

On October 28, 2014, the EPA issued a supplemental proposal to the Clean Power Plan to address carbon pollution from affected power plants in Indian Country and U.S. territories</li>

</ul>

</div>

<h2 class="pane-title" style=" box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear; line-height: 1.1; margin: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; padding: 0.5em 1em; border-width: 1px 1px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: solid; border-left-style: solid; border-color: rgb(238, 119, 0); text-align: center; color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-image: -webkit-linear-gradient(top, rgba(255, 255, 255, 0) 0%, rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.4) 100%); background-color: rgb(238, 119, 0);">For States, Tribes & Territories</h2>

<li style=" box-sizing: border-box; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear;"><a href="http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplantoolbox" style=" box-sizing: border-box; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear; outline-offset: 2px; color: rgb(77, 142, 77); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);">Clean Power Plan Toolbox</a><br style=" box-sizing: border-box; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear;" />

Resources to help develop plans</li>

</ul>

</div>

<h3 style=" box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear; line-height: 1.1; margin: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; padding: 0px 0px 0.5em; color: rgb(21, 21, 21); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><strong style=" box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">June 2014 - Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule</h3>

<li style=" box-sizing: border-box; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear;"><a href="http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/clean-power-plan-proposed-rule-regulatory-impact-analysis" style=" box-sizing: border-box; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear; outline-offset: 2px; color: rgb(77, 142, 77); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);"><span id="file-67433" style=" box-sizing: border-box; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear;"><span style=" box-sizing: border-box; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, transform 0.25s linear;">Regulatory Impact Analysis: Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule - June 2014</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

</ul>

</li>

</ul>

</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>

State legislatures in coal-dependent parts of the country are taking action to delay complying with the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan.

Since the 2015 legislative session convened last month, at least a dozen states have introduced bills that effectively increase bureaucratic red tape and stall states from submitting compliance plans to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). And, in some cases, the bills grant legislatures the power to veto their states' carbon emission reduction plans.

Three states––Kentucky, Virginia and Pennsylvania––have already enacted such laws.

The bills introduced in <a href="https://legiscan.com/WV/bill/HB2004/2015" style=" color: rgb(0, 100, 0); text-decoration: none; outline: none;">West Virginia</a>, <a href="https://legiscan.com/MN/bill/HB333/2015" style=" color: rgb(0, 100, 0); text-decoration: none; outline: none;">Minnesota</a> and <a href="https://legiscan.com/MT/text/SB236/2015" style=" color: rgb(0, 100, 0); text-decoration: none; outline: none;">Montana</a>, for instance, require that state plans be submitted to the legislature for approval before they go to the EPA. In <a href="https://legiscan.com/CO/text/SB092/2015" style=" color: rgb(0, 100, 0); text-decoration: none; outline: none;">Colorado</a>, legislators want the state utility commission to sign off on the plan before it goes to Washington.

The maneuvering has quickly spread well beyond the borders of coal-rich states. In <a href="https://legiscan.com/NE/text/LB469/2015" style=" color: rgb(0, 100, 0); text-decoration: none; outline: none;">Nebraska</a>, <a href="https://legiscan.com/AZ/text/HB2657/2015" style=" color: rgb(0, 100, 0); text-decoration: none; outline: none;">Arizona</a> and <a href="https://legiscan.com/SD/text/HB1203/2015" style=" color: rgb(0, 100, 0); text-decoration: none; outline: none;">South Dakota</a>, lawmakers are trying to require that their states' environmental agencies prepare a preliminary report detailing the plans' impact on the economy.

"The overall strategy is to find ways to choke the state plan with red tape one way or the other," said Aliya Haq, a director in the climate-and-clear-air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "These bills are all misguided in that they ironically limit the state's options," she said.

</div>

Under the Clean Power Plan, states have been assigned specific carbon reduction targets. Nationwide, the Obama administration aims to slash emissions 30 percent by 2030. The EPA is currently reviewing comments on the plan and is expected to finalize the regulations this summer. Once the rulemaking process is completed, states are on deadline to submit their plans by June 2016.

If a state does not submit a plan or submits one that fails to meet the EPA’s requirements, then the federal agency must formulate a plan of its own for the state.

Lawmakers have argued that they should be allowed to weigh in on any plan that significantly affects their states' economies. They contend that the EPA is overstepping its authority and that the Clean Power Plan will lead to higher electricity prices for consumers.

"This is greater than just a coal debate," Delegate John Shott said at a hearing in the West Virginia House. "This is a debate about the federal EPA telling citizens how much energy they can use in their own homes."

Shortly after, West Virginia’s House passed a bill requiring legislative approval of the state plan, which would be drawn up by the Department of Environmental Protection.

Environmental groups see the recent onslaught of legislation as a delaying tactic. They say that trying to push back or prevent submission of a plan will not give states a free pass from reducing carbon emissions. Instead of choosing the most cost-effective plan agreeable to all stakeholders, the states will ultimately pigeonhole themselves and be forced to accept a boilerplate plan proposed by the EPA, they say.

The Trouble with Kentucky

After the Obama administration announced the Clean Power Plan last year, a number of states introduced bills seeking to restrict the content of their compliance plans. Although many of the proposed bills were watered down during the legislative process, one state—Kentucky—successfully passed a bill that limits the environmental agency's options to meet the EPA's target.

As a result, Kentucky cannot propose a solution that increases the use of renewable energy or energy efficiency, or encourages power plants to switch from coal to natural gas.

"It's tough to say exactly what we're going to do," said John Lyons, assistant secretary for climate policy and the man in charge of putting together Kentucky's carbon reduction plan. "There've been no attempts to revise the law in any way and it will likely be the same statute when we’re thinking about submitting the plan. Certainly, we're not going to meet the target with this law."

If Kentucky's plan is rejected, the EPA is obligated to propose a plan for the state, under federal edict. Lyons finds this less than ideal. A federal plan will not take Kentucky’s specific situation into consideration, he said.

Kentucky’s new law was based on model legislation advocated by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative, business-backed group based in Virginia. ALEC routinely proposes legislation for states to adopt. While ALEC is secretive in its operations, <a href="http://prwatch.org/news/2014/03/12414/peabody-energy-lobbyist-schooled-alec-legislators-getting-travel-perks" style=" color: rgb(0, 100, 0); text-decoration: none; outline: none;">leaked internal documents</a> show that coal companies like Peabody Energy and their trade associations are bankrolling the group.

At the national level, opposition to the EPA's plan has been fierce. The GOP-led Congress has severely criticized the EPA for proposing to regulate carbon emissions. In a recent hearing, Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, who chairs the Senate environment committee, lambasted a senior EPA official, insisting that the science on climate change is not settled. Inhofe also questioned why the U.S. should take action when developing countries’ emissions continue to increase.

"Are you operating on some kind of delusion that China is going to change their behavior?" he asked.

In an effort to derail action on carbon emissions, coal-reliant states have also banded together to sue the EPA on the grounds that it lacks jurisdiction to impose carbon reductions. Kentucky is one of the 12 states involved in the lawsuit.

"Once the rule is finalized, then the litigation and/or acts by Congress will start," said Lyons. "But the clock is going to be ticking for the states by late summer of 2015. We don't have the luxury of waiting around after that if we in fact intend to submit a plan."

'A Pseudo-Organic Feel of Outrage'

ALEC recently <a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/act-requiring-approval-state-plan-implement-epas-carbon-guidelines/" style=" color: rgb(0, 100, 0); text-decoration: none; outline: none;">produced model legislation that offers ways to block states</a> from submitting compliance plans to the EPA. The model suggested that lawmakers require the state environmental agency to submit a report assessing the plan's effects on the state's power sector, consumers and economy. The model also included language requiring agencies to submit their plans to their legislatures for approval.

"The whole concerted national effort to have this pseudo-organic feel of legislative outrage about tackling climate change seems completely contrived by groups like ALEC," said David Masur, executive director of PennEnvironment, an advocacy organization based in Pennsylvania. But Masur cautioned that ALEC is not the only organization working to undermine efforts to address climate change. Segments of the Tea Party, the coal industry and mining unions are all hugely influential, he said.

ALEC did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Pennsylvania is one of a handful of states that have already enacted rules requiring legislative approval of the state plan to cut carbon emissions. The law does provide a loophole that allows the governor to submit a compliance plan without legislative approval. The legislation was signed last October under then Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican who <a href="http://powersource.post-gazette.com/powersource/policy-powersource/2014/09/15/Corbett-other-governors-oppose-greenhouse-gas-controls/stories/201409150016" style=" color: rgb(0, 100, 0); text-decoration: none; outline: none;">had been vocal in his opposition to the Clean Power Plan</a>.

Since then, polls have confirmed that Pennsylvanians believe climate change is a real and immediate threat that requires swift action. A <a href="http://docs.nrdc.org/globalwarming/files/glo_15020401a.pdf" style=" color: rgb(0, 100, 0); text-decoration: none; outline: none;">recent survey conducted by a bipartisan polling team</a> found that 82 percent of Pennsylvanians want their state to implement its own plan to reduce carbon pollution. A majority support clean energy and doubt that renewable energy will mean burdensome costs to consumers.

Pennsylvania's newly elected governor, Tom Wolf, a Democrat who ran on a pro-environment platform, has indicated that he will engage with the EPA to meet the state's targets under the Clean Power Plan.

"It's depressing that groups like ALEC have so much influence," said Masur. "When hundreds of thousands of people say that the time to tackle climate change is now and the state legislature and governor [Corbett] ignore that and say we will still do what we want, that’s a bad signal for democracy."

</div>

<div class="field-item even"><a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20150205/wva-new-gop-majority-defangs-renewable-energy-law-never-had-bite" style=" color: rgb(0, 100, 0); text-decoration: none; outline: none;">In W.Va., New GOP Majority Defangs Renewable Energy Law That Never Had a Bite</a></div>

<div class="field-item odd"><a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/carbon-copy/20140605/green-states-black-states-obamas-climate-plan-paints-us-new-colors" style=" color: rgb(0, 100, 0); text-decoration: none; outline: none;">Green States & Black States: Obama's Climate Plan Paints U.S. in New Colors</a></div>

</div>

</div>