It has become standard. I agree with you. That was the intent of the 90s act. Use a different model. That is what this proposed rule is going to do as well. Use it in a way that accomplishes the goal that will be very flexible. Let me ask you this question. The constitutionality of the epa setting standards has been published before. He upheld approaching the the 19 night independent in whitman versus American Trucking in 2001. In 2011 the Supreme Court ruled the epa has the authority to set standards for Carbon Pollution under section 111 d. And eight connecting opinion versus connecticut. We believe the epa can consider as it is undertaking to do with regulating existing nonauthorized versus under section 111 of the Clean Air Act. Is there any constitutional question about epas approach or the Legal Authority to regulate Carbon Pollution under section 111 of the Clean Air Act . No, i dont think so. The constitutional issues have been a distraction. Theyve been used to make people wor
All our states are hit by the slew of proposed epa rules aimed squarely at the fossil fuel industry and folks that work in that industry. I would like to highlight a letter from the governor of wyoming to the epa administrator on april 28th i ask that letter be entered into the record, madam chairman. In this letter the governor highlights a study by the center for Energy Economics and Public Policy at university of wyoming entitled impact of the coal economy on wyoming published february of this year. I would ask that this study be entered into the record. Without objection. Thank you. The governor states about the study that it determined the single largest threat to wyomings coal industry is epas clean power rule. In fact, the study says that 111 d climate regulation has potential to drastically reduce wyoming coal production. Coal output under favorable circumstances decreases by 32 of the 2012 production by the year 2025. Study goes on to say even the best case of impact modeling
Been given one year, thats a very real problem. But there are real costs being expended by the states and also i believe this administration is not interested whether the rule is finalized so long as the marketplace moves away from them. If coal fired power plants have to be retired quicker than baseline, then theyre going to accomplish the goal, even if this regulation never is upheld in courts. Thank you i want to follow up on this. Ill wait until the second round. Senator markey. Thank you madam chair. I ask that two articles by jed ee freedman and Richard Lazarus be included they provide thorough analysis of that clean power rule. So ordered. Pope frances is about to issue on Climate Change. They named the jesuit who taught chemistry as the pope. Pope frances believes science is the answer to our prayers, we have to look at modest ways to look at this to reduce the danger that growing Greenhouse Gases will impose to gods creation of the planet. I think it is important for us to fin
Shuddering coal generation in the state of oklahoma. Its a concern 3r5k9ically and a concern legally. Looking at it as a nonattorney, you look at the tenth amendment which refers to reserving power to the states do you think this is consist went the tenth amendment . Well, i think this case and i would add this to the comments earlier from a fellow panelist, i dont think its terribly novel for us to have a dispute or a case about statutory construction. You know, i indicated that it is a Traditional Police power to regulate Power Generation and for the federal government to intervene or to invade that, it has to be the statute has to be explicit and clear and unambiguous, and i think by virtue of our discussion today, its demonstrative that that is not the case. So, senator i think its less about the tenth amendment and less about states rights under the tenth amendment and more about statutory construction and whether the epa possesses the authority that you gave it to regulate in thi
The owner of the Silver Springs Estates Trailer Park in Gorham Township and a water treatment system operator were handed $33,000 in fines for violating the Safe Drinking Water Act and Ontario Resources Act