by Chris Horner.
Today, proponents of energy policy filed an application for permission to file a pleading as an amicus curiae in New York State against the Environmental Protection Agency on the DC Circuit. This is the challenge to the EPA’s ozone rule, which meets the current standards filed by progressive attorneys-general and New York City the day before the EPA took over the reins in Biden.
You may recall an Obama-EPA memo from 2009 that CEI received as part of the FOIA “Richard Windsor” litigation that set out the intended reformulation of the climate campaign – the “shift from the polar cap” [to] about our neighbors with respiratory diseases … “recognized by the Obama EPA as necessary because” climate change is abstract [being] an increasingly – and consistently – unconvincing argument. “This suit is a continuation of that.
Today’s Amicus letter builds on a filing from 6 states (TX, along with AR, LA, MO, MS, MT) that wanted to intervene last week citing similar concerns: The administration appears to be preparing to appeal a ” Climate crisis ”as a replacement for the rule that has just been passed and that“ the intervening states cannot trust that the federal government will act as an appropriate representative of their interests in the future – or that it will offer an appropriate defense of the 2020 rule. ”
The records extracted and linked in today’s letter suggest that fewer truer words were written in this context than these. The letter shows that the AGs and the deputy administrator of the Biden administration, who is responsible for the rule, are considering the use of a replacement NAAQS for secondary ozone – before this rule was even proposed – as a back door to the introduction of a national CO2 / Advised on GHG standards. It was so radical – as the letter also emphasizes – that Obama’s EPA administrator and green groups were working hard at the time to deny that they were going for a climate NAAQS.
My goodness, how things have changed, as confirmed by the cited emails, authorization logs and other documents (e.g. “ClimateNAAQS.ppt”).
In addition, the letter refers to records that reveal an ulterior motive, a declared silver lining in case the petitioners lose: a statement that EPA regulations will not replace * all * GHG regulations in the hope that those of The sued energy company deployed defense to circumvent the epidemic of “climate-nuisance” litigation.
Energy policy advocates suggest to the Court that these factors require a close look at what is sure to be sued and settled soon, step 1