Abby L. Harvey
GHG Monitor
4/17/2015
House lawmakers debated a provision in recently proposed legislation that would extend the deadlines for compliance under the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed carbon emissions standards for existing coal fired power plants until all legal challenges against the proposed regulations had been concluded during an Energy and Power Subcommittee hearing this week. Under the EPA’s proposed rule, which is due to be finalized this summer and has already been subject to various legal challenges, states would be required to develop action plans to meet EPA set emissions reduction goals. However, the “Ratepayer Protection Act,” proposed by Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), would “allow for a judicial review” of any final EPA proposal before states would be required to comply.
Whitfield’s bill came under criticism from Democratic members of the subcommittee at this week’s hearing, who claimed the legislation could result in prompting frivolous litigation with an aim to halt the rule indefinitely. “This bill would automatically delay implementation of the Clean Power Plan by extending all deadlines by the amount of time it takes litigation to conclude,” Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said. “That blanket extension would be given to all polluters regardless of whether their legal arguments turn out to have any merit. … This bill would provide an incentive for polluters to run the clock on litigation so all deadlines in the rule would be extended as long as possible, no matter how frivolous the challenge and regardless of the outcome, this is an incredibly reckless and dangerous precedent to set with regard to any law in my opinion.”
Claiming that the EPA’s proposal would have little environmental impact, Whitfield defended his effort to allow states to delay implementation until all legal challenges are resolved. “When you consider the unique and radical approach that’s being utilized with this rule why would anyone object … to giving states an opportunity to do their state implementation plans after the judicial remedies have been exhausted?” he said.
Bill Ignores Current System for Handling Legal Concerns, EPA Official Says
Acting Assistant Administrator of the EPA Office of Air and Radiation Janet McCabe said during the hearing that Whitfield’s proposal would make it more difficult to implement the EPA’s proposed regulations, noting that there is already a course of action in place for legal challenges to the agency’s proposals. “We do expect legal challenges. EPA gets challenged on many of its rules as you know. It can take several years. If it goes all the way to the Supreme Court that can add time to it and then even after that it could go, if it goes to the Supreme Court, it could go back to a lower court for further proceedings,” she said. “The judicial system already has a way of dealing with this. … If a court finds that our legal basis is so questionable that they think we are not likely to succeed on the merits they can in response to a request put a judicial stay in place.”
