Monday, June 29, 2015


Indiana says it won't follow EPA climate rule

Indiana is prepared to ignore the Obama administration’s climate rule for power plants unless the regulation is changed considerably from last year’s proposal, according to the state's governor.
He wrote a letter to Obama:

If a state does not submit a plan, the EPA would write its own rules for the state and enforce them, assuming the regulation is not blocked by Congress or the federal courts.

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) is the only state leader so far to instruct her staff to ignore the regulation.

Leaders in Texas and Wisconsin have voiced strong objections to the rule and expressed doubts that their states would comply, but have also stopped short of completely rejecting it.

More states need to stand up to Obama and the EPA.  The Constitution does not give the EPA this kind of power.  There is no law that gives the EPA this kind of power.  They received this power from a unconstitutional executive order from Obama.

I say it’s time to resend the executive order.  The job of the EPA is supposed to be to advise congress, not to make laws.   Congress is supposed to make the laws and the justice department is supposed to enforce them.

Obama’s overreach is changing the way our whole system of government works and the RINO’s in charge of Congress are allowing him to do it.


A Small temporary win is better than no win at all.
In a major win for the energy industry, the Supreme Court ruled TODAY (June 29th) against the Environmental Protection Agency's effort to limit certain power plant emissions -- saying the agency "unreasonably" failed to consider the cost of the regulations. 
The rules curbing emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants began to take effect in April. But the court said by a 5-4 vote Monday that the EPA failed to take their cost into account when the agency first decided to regulate the toxic emissions from coal- and oil-fired plants. 
The challenge was brought by industry groups and 21 Republican-led states. 
Writing for the court, Justice Scalia said it is not appropriate to impose billions of dollars of economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits. 
"EPA must consider cost -- including cost of compliance -- before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary," the court said. 
The case now goes back to lower courts for the EPA to decide how to account for costs. 

No comments:

Post a Comment