Friday, August 6, 2010

Texas Attorney General Abbot Writes Like Me? Nice.

Attorney General Greg Abbot and Dr. Bryan Shaw, head of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality are pulling no punches when it comes to the discussion about the EPA trying to crush the economy of hick cowboy redneckland regulate CO2 emissions down in Texas. The opening paragraphs:

"In order to deter challenges to your plan for centralized control of industrial development through the issuance of permits for greenhouse gases, you have called upon each state to declare its allegiance to the Environmental Protection Agency's recently enacted greenhouse gas regulations - regulations that are plainly contrary to United States Law. 75 Fed. Reg. 31,514, 31,525, & 31,582 (June 3, 2010) (hereinafter, the "Tailoring Rule"). To encourage acquiescence with your unsupported findings you threaten to usurp state enforcement authority and to federalize the permitting program of any state that fails to pledge their fealty to the Environmental Protection agency (EPA).

"On behalf of the State of Texas, we write to inform you that Texas has neither the authority nor the intention of interpreting, ignoring, or amending its laws in order to compel the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions"

And a few other highlights:

"Notably absent from your rules is any evidence that they would achieve specific results; in fact, you assiduously (and correctly) avoid ascribing what environmental benefit may be achieved by mandating permits to emit a uniformly distributed, trace constituent of clean air, vital to all life, that is emitted by all productive activities on earth."
. . .
"Your view is not enough. Applicable law provides to the contrary."
. . .
"In other words, you have asked Texas to agree that when it promulgated its air quality permitting program rules for pollutants "subject to regulation" in 1993, that Texas really meant to define the term "subject to regulation" as set forth in the dozens of paragraphs and subparagraphs of EPA Rule 51.166, first promulgated in 2010."
. . .
"EPA has shown no intention of following the Clean Air Act procedures . . . ."
. . .
"Each of these objections to EPA's demand for a loyalty oath from the State of Texas would suffice to justify our refusal to make one. Indeed, it is an affront to the congressionally-established judicial review process for EPA to force states to pledge allegiance to its rules (or forfeit their right to permit) on the final day by which states must exercise their statutory right to challenge those same rules. Texas will not facilitate EPA's apparent attempt to thwart these established procedures and ignore the law. In the event a court concludes EPA's actions comport with the law, Texas specifically reserves and does not waive any rights under the federal Clean Air Act or any other law with respect to the issues raised herein."

They also note that EPA seems to be saying they can regulate CO2 because they feel like it, because just following the law would mean they couldn't regulate CO2. They assert that the whole shebang is (to paraphrase) beside the point, because the rules the EPA put out regulating CO2 emissions were not properly adopted in the first place (and therefore void). Indeed, they come right out and say the EPA got the whole thing exactly bass-ackwards and is trying to make an end-run around Congress! It's truly astonishing stuff. It kinda sounds like the stuff secessions are made of, but Pretty Boy Rick Perry seems not to be a fan of that (yet).

The trial lawyers of America were set for the next decade or so, the moment President Obama was sworn into office. Stuff like this is going to be tying up the federal court system for years, if not generations. It is my sincere hope that Texas will lead the way (or at least be in the van) when it comes to ignoring the illegal attempts of the leftist watermelons in the Obama administration to run the country just how they like, laws to the contrary notwithstanding.

All emphasis is mine.

Tip of the 10-gallon hat to Uncle

No comments: