by Chris Horner.
Today, Energy Policy Advocates filed a movement for depart to file a quick as amicus curiae in State of New York vs Environmental Protection Agency within the DC Circuit. This is the problem to EPA’s ozone rule sustaining the present requirements, filed by progressive state attorneys basic and New York City the day earlier than the Biden EPA took the reins.
You could recall a 2009 Obama EPA memo, obtained for CEI within the “Richard Windsor” FOIA litigation, laying out the meant reframing of the local weather marketing campaign — the “shift from making this about the polar caps [to] about our neighbor with respiratory illness…”, acknowledged by the Obama EPA as vital on account of “climate change in the abstract [being] an increasingly – and consistently – unpersuasive argument to make.” This swimsuit is a continuation of that.
Today’s amicus transient builds on and supplies the documentary help for a submitting by 6 states (TX, joined by AR, LA, MO, MS, MT) which final week sought to intervene citing comparable issues: that the administration appears to be getting ready to invoke a “climate crisis” to switch the just-adopted Rule, and that “The intervenor States cannot trust that the federal government will serve as adequate representatives of their interests—or that it will provide an adequate defense of the 2020 rule—going forward.”
The data excerpted and linked to in as we speak’s transient recommend that fewer more true phrases have been written on this context than these. The transient reveals that the AGs and the Biden Administration’s Acting Assistant Administrator with accountability for the Rule consulted on utilizing a alternative, secondary ozone NAAQS — earlier than this Rule was even proposed — as a backdoor to impose a CO2/GHG nationwide normal. This was so radical — because the transient additionally factors out — that Obama’s EPA administrator and inexperienced teams on the time labored exhausting to dispute that they’d search a local weather NAAQS.
My, how issues have modified, because the cited emails, privilege logs and different paperwork (e..g, “ClimateNAAQS.ppt”) attest.
Further, the transient factors to data revealing an ulterior motive, a said silver lining within the occasion the Petitioners lose: to acquire a declaration that EPA rules don’t displace *all* GHG regulation, in hopes of circumventing that protection employed by power firms sued within the epidemic of “climate nuisance” litigation.
Energy Policy Advocates suggests to the Court that these components warrant a tough take a look at what is bound to quickly be sue-and-settle, Step 1