William Yeatman

Summary: Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling in EPA v. EME Homer Generation, which upheld the EPA’s 2011 Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), clarified more than a decade of contradictory interpretations of the Clean Air Act by the D.C. Circuit. For this, we can be thankful.  At the same time, however, there is reason to be wistful, because there can be little doubt that this Supreme Court would’ve upheld CSAPR’s predecessor, the 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule. That rule was remanded by the D.C. Circuit Court in 2008, but the Bush administration didn’t have time for an appeal.

1. Michigan (2000) & North Carolina (2008): D.C. Circuit  Gives Conflicting Interpretations of the Clean Air Act’s Good Neighbor Provision; Judge David Sentelle’s Key role 

The Clean Air Act’s aptly named “Good Neighbor” provision addresses interstate pollution by prohibiting in-state sources from “emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will … contribute significantly” to downwind States’ non-compliance with national ambient air quality standards. See 42 U.S.C. §7410(a)(2)(D)

[click to continue…]

Ruling below. Ginsburg delivered the Court’s opinion, in which Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas joined.

SCOTUS CSAPR

On Friday, thirty-one non-profit organizations (including the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, where I work) sent a coalition letter to congressional leaders, urging lawmakers to resist reinstating the wind production tax credit, the wind industry’s lucrative subsidy that expired at the end of 2013. I’ve reposted the letter below.

Ptc Coalition Letter 4-25

You’ve probably heard about Years of Living Dangerously, the big-budget, nine-part documentary on the supposedly dire threat posed by global warming.

Part three airs this Sunday on Showtime, and it stars Republican Representative Michael Grimm (NY). The story arc follows Rep. Grimm’s conversion from global warming skeptic to believer. In a nutshell, here’s the plot: Grimm had been a denier, but then he talked to former South Carolina Representative Bob Inglis,* and now he’s really scared of climate change.

This afternoon, only 48 hours before Rep. Grimm was to take his star turn on episode three of Years of Living Dangerously, Politico Breaking News sent out the following headline: “Michael Grimm Expected To Be Indicted.” Reportedly, the charges will include mail and wire fraud. What versatility! Denier, alarmist, mail fraudster, wire fraudster–what role can’t he play?

Snark aside, I think it’s safe to say that Rep. Grimm’s credibility has been damaged. By extension, the same can be said for this week’s episode of Years of Living Dangerously.

[click to continue…]

Secretary of State John Kerry: “Climate change can now be considered the world’s largest weapon of mass destruction, perhaps even, the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.” It is, moreover, “the greatest challenge of our generation.”

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy: “If we don’t start dealing with climate change, which is the biggest public health challenge we face, as well as the biggest economic challenge we face…then I think we’re losing for the next generation and also for our own, frankly.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: “Climate change is the worst problem facing the world today.”

Rolling Stone reporter Jeff Goodell: Climate change is “the greatest challenge human civilization has ever faced.”

MSNBC host Chris Hayes: “The scientific consensus is that human civilization cannot survive in any recognizable form a temperature increase this century more than 2 degrees Celsius.”

Last, but certainly not least:

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy kicked off a jet-fueled, week-long tour to raise alarm about climate change with an appearance Monday on Comedy Central’s Daily Show (video below the break).

Of course, it’s a comedy show, but the host famously skirts the line between real and fake, and near the end of the segment, he asked Administrator McCarthy a very topical question: What would she do to fix the climate, if she had her “druthers.”

Below is her answer:

We’re going to regulate [greenhouse gases] under the Clean Air Act…we’re going to make it [greenhouse gas regulations] flexible, but you’re going to get significant greenhouse gas reductions out of it…We’re not talking about taking any fuel out of the system, we’re talking about making things more efficient, we’re talking about investments in efficiency [and] renewable energy.

Our job is to try to drive those reductions nationally, but to make sure that every state is differently positioned. Some have already done really impressive energy efficiency work. You know what? They could do a lot more.

In her answer, Administrator McCarthy is discussing EPA’s pending Clean Air Act §111(d) guidelines to control greenhouse gases from existing coal-fired power plants. The guidelines are due in June (although there is mounting evidence that the rulemaking is in disarray), and its contents are the subject of heavy speculation. To this end, looking at McCarthy’s quote, I’m struck by how often she stresses “efficiency.”

[click to continue…]