Suing the EPA to Act
Several states including California and a block of states in the Northeast are preparing to sue the EPA to act. The issue is the EPA’s delay in granting waivers so that states can use their power under the Clean Air Act to regulate automobile emissions. California has been waiting two years for the waiver. The idea is to ensure that the agency acts, but it appears that the agency could rule that the state action is not authorized. As David Doniger, an attorney for the National Resources Defense Council, put it “The real issue is, will [the EPA’s administrator] block the states or let the states go forward?” In addition, a group of 10 states are issuing regulations regarding power plants under a Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. New York is part of that group. Its regulations are to take effect next year. That strategy helps wind and solar power producers and will make it harder for coal-based producers. The Times article noted that the largest investor-owned energy producer in New York backs the idea and does not operate coal plants in the state. In contrast the Independent Power Producers of New York, a trade group that includes coal-based power producers, opposes the state regulations. This quote from the group’s CEO is interesting for its use of fear and the idea that some other state would gain from the regulations.
“We don’t want to put more burden on the rate payers of New York, and the last thing I would think this governor wants to do is send the message that investment should go in other states,” said Gavin J. Donohue, the group’s chief executive. “You can build plants in other states and send the electricity back into New York.”
If one wanted to study a simple way to try and hit the people this quote offers a decent, albeit transparent, example. First claim that costs will go up for individuals. That may be true, but the long-term as opposed to short-term cost question is lost in this framing not to mention that these are elected officials who just might have accounted for the perception of near-term rate increases. Second, indicate that investment will flee. Sure, coal-based and other methods of power production that generate greenhouse gases may leave. Then again, those companies interested in areas favorable to other energy production may rush in and invest more. Furthermore, they will have to build new plants just to be able to offer their energy; that may require investment. Third, suggest that one’s business is impervious because there is always a market and others will take in the producers only to allow them to sell back to New York. This last point raises an issue of whether some states lack the ability, will, or interest to stop the coal producers and thus they will allow the energy producers to generate negative effects in any event. If so, then the argument seems to be let us produce in your state and at least get the investment benefit, because we will pollute elsewhere, further global warming, and still sell our energy so nyah (imagine a tongue sticking out here). It is unlikely that the last analysis is exactly what the group wanted to say, but it seems to be a possible interpretation.
Last, I am not an environmental law person so any thoughts about the issue from the regulation to the implications of suing the EPA to act to the negative externality issues in this context are appreciated.
Hat Tip: Slashdot
(Image Source: Wikicommons)