SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Nine States Join Lawsuit Against EPA Carbon Rules
Lawsuit initiated by coal executive and climate change denier
Jul 03, 2014
Nine states have joined a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that was initiated by the Murray Energy Corporation, the largest independent coal company in the U.S. The suit aims to strike down the EPA's new rules to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, stating that the agency does not have the authority to enforce them.
Murray Energy Corp. is headed by Robert Murray, a climate change denier who has previously sued the EPA over what he calls a "war on coal" that is costing the industry in job losses.
Alaska, Wyoming, Alabama, Ohio, North Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Oklahoma have all joined the lawsuit that describes the proposed regulations, which seek to cut carbon emissions from stationary sources by 30 percent from the 2005 baseline by 2030, as "nothing short of extraordinary."
According to the suit, the EPA issued rules under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, which prohibits regulation of coal companies that are already following standards set by other sections of the bill. Enforcing the new rules would "impose impermissible double regulation" on those power plants, the suit claims.
However, the bill also gives the agency "expansive authority" to ensure that states comply with what the EPA determines is the "best system of emission reduction." Broad language and limited precedents have made it difficult to determine how far the EPA can go in regulating carbon emissions and greenhouse gases, but recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court show that the agency's regulations have all been legally sound.
In 2007, the court ruled that the government was legally allowed to curb "air pollutants" like carbon dioxide. Earlier this year, it made a similar decision on greenhouse gases, although it said that the agency overextended its authority at times.
The EPA plans to instate its new rules in 2015. Emission reduction requirements would vary state by state. The target to cut 30 percent would still be above pollution levels of 1990.
_____________________
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
Nine states have joined a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that was initiated by the Murray Energy Corporation, the largest independent coal company in the U.S. The suit aims to strike down the EPA's new rules to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, stating that the agency does not have the authority to enforce them.
Murray Energy Corp. is headed by Robert Murray, a climate change denier who has previously sued the EPA over what he calls a "war on coal" that is costing the industry in job losses.
Alaska, Wyoming, Alabama, Ohio, North Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Oklahoma have all joined the lawsuit that describes the proposed regulations, which seek to cut carbon emissions from stationary sources by 30 percent from the 2005 baseline by 2030, as "nothing short of extraordinary."
According to the suit, the EPA issued rules under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, which prohibits regulation of coal companies that are already following standards set by other sections of the bill. Enforcing the new rules would "impose impermissible double regulation" on those power plants, the suit claims.
However, the bill also gives the agency "expansive authority" to ensure that states comply with what the EPA determines is the "best system of emission reduction." Broad language and limited precedents have made it difficult to determine how far the EPA can go in regulating carbon emissions and greenhouse gases, but recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court show that the agency's regulations have all been legally sound.
In 2007, the court ruled that the government was legally allowed to curb "air pollutants" like carbon dioxide. Earlier this year, it made a similar decision on greenhouse gases, although it said that the agency overextended its authority at times.
The EPA plans to instate its new rules in 2015. Emission reduction requirements would vary state by state. The target to cut 30 percent would still be above pollution levels of 1990.
_____________________
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
Nine states have joined a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that was initiated by the Murray Energy Corporation, the largest independent coal company in the U.S. The suit aims to strike down the EPA's new rules to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, stating that the agency does not have the authority to enforce them.
Murray Energy Corp. is headed by Robert Murray, a climate change denier who has previously sued the EPA over what he calls a "war on coal" that is costing the industry in job losses.
Alaska, Wyoming, Alabama, Ohio, North Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Oklahoma have all joined the lawsuit that describes the proposed regulations, which seek to cut carbon emissions from stationary sources by 30 percent from the 2005 baseline by 2030, as "nothing short of extraordinary."
According to the suit, the EPA issued rules under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, which prohibits regulation of coal companies that are already following standards set by other sections of the bill. Enforcing the new rules would "impose impermissible double regulation" on those power plants, the suit claims.
However, the bill also gives the agency "expansive authority" to ensure that states comply with what the EPA determines is the "best system of emission reduction." Broad language and limited precedents have made it difficult to determine how far the EPA can go in regulating carbon emissions and greenhouse gases, but recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court show that the agency's regulations have all been legally sound.
In 2007, the court ruled that the government was legally allowed to curb "air pollutants" like carbon dioxide. Earlier this year, it made a similar decision on greenhouse gases, although it said that the agency overextended its authority at times.
The EPA plans to instate its new rules in 2015. Emission reduction requirements would vary state by state. The target to cut 30 percent would still be above pollution levels of 1990.
_____________________
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.