Pruitt’s repeal of the Clean Power Plan starts today

Higher cost of electricity: Pruitt’s proposed rule will show the “significant effect” the Clean Power Plan will have on electricity prices, according to a leaked draft of the rule. The leak showed that the Obama plan would raise electric costs 1 to 2 percent across the U.S. by 2025.

Coal plant losses: The Trump EPA also justifies the repeal by demonstrating that if allowed to move forward, the Clean Power Plan would have scuttled 22 to 23 percent of the coal-fired power plant fleet.  

Higher natural gas prices: “The EPA also estimated that the utility power sector-delivered natural gas prices would increase by up to 2.5 percent in 2030. A repeal of the CPP would directionally have the opposite impact,” according to the leaked rule.  

Obama pushed the bounds: “We can’t comment on the authenticity of the document, but what we can say is that the Obama administration pushed the bounds of their authority so far that the Supreme Court issued a stay – the first in history – to prevent the so-called ‘Clean Power Plan’ from taking effect,” said EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman in an email to the Washington Examiner.

Obama’s ‘uncertain’ cost assessment: “The facts are that the Obama administration’s estimates and analysis of costs and benefits was, in multiple areas, highly uncertain and/or controversial,” Bowman said. “The Trump administration is, in a robust, open, and transparent way, presenting a wide range of analysis scenarios to the public.”

Repeal and replace: “Any replacement rule that the Trump administration proposes will be done carefully and properly within the confines of the law,” she said.

Reckless: “The Trump administration’s proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan is reckless and shortsighted,” Berlin added. “Even as devastating hurricanes have made the reality of the climate crisis so painfully clear, this administration continues to prioritize the interests of the fossil fuel industry over the American people’s right to clean air and a safe climate.”

Tom Steyer renews pressure on governors: The billionaire climate activist rekindled a public petition to get citizens to put pressure on their governors to take action on climate change because Trump won’t.

The petition was started in June when Trump announced his decision to pull out of the Paris climate change agreement. Now, with the EPA formally repealing the Clean Power Plan, Steyer’s group NextGen Climate is making an even stronger bid to “Resist the White House’s #DirtyPowerPlan by urging your governor to #ActOnClimate,” the group tweeted.

The petition urges governors to pledge to transition states to 100 percent clean energy.

“Together, we can protect our kids’ lungs, clean the air and promote a healthy climate, and harness this economic opportunity for all,” it reads.  

Democratic attorneys general threaten lawsuits: New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey said Monday they would sue the Trump administration.

Schneiderman is a leading opponent of the Trump administration’s policies and has instigated legal challenges related to the president’s immigration and environmental actions. Schneiderman is also suing the Trump administration for delaying implementation of clean air standards related to smog.

Healey separately said she would sue “to protect the Clean Power Plan from the climate change deniers in this administration who are trying to move us backwards.”  

Court clarification: The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals wants much-needed clarification to ensure that any ruling against the regulation sticks. The appeals court believes it has jurisdiction and has issued a stay of the rule until the Supreme Court can settle the issue.

Trump’s WOTUS repeal: Meanwhile, the EPA is moving down the path of repealing the rule. Pruitt told the Washington Examiner last month that a proposed rule correcting the definition of what constitutes a waterway will be out early next year. It is uncertain how quickly the Supreme Court will issue a determination about court jurisdiction.

Feds don’t know everything: “How very critical it is to have bidirectional info sharing. We know a lot in the federal [government], but we don’t know everything,” Horne said.

Department of Energy and other government security officials were also at the meeting to offer themselves up as a resource to ensure a cyber attack on the electricity sector is not successful.

The Energy Department invited more utilities to participate in its cyber war games next month called GridEx.

‘Stand on their own’: “I would do away with these incentives that we give to wind and solar,” he said. “I’d let them stand on their own and compete against coal and natural gas and other sources, and let utilities make real-time market decisions on those types of things as opposed to being propped up by tax incentives and other types of credits that occur, both in the federal level and state level.”

It’s windy in Oklahoma: Pruitt’s criticism of wind tax credits is colored by his home state being one of the top producers of wind energy. As a resource, Oklahoma’s wind ranks No. 9 in the nation, according to the American Wind Energy Association.

Just riffing: Pruitt acknowledged ending the tax credits would be a “policy decision” for Congress, not an EPA decision. Congress voted to extend tax credits for the wind and solar industries in 2015. The wind industry’s tax credit begins phasing down this year before expiring in 2020. The solar industry’s tax credit ends in 2022. It’s unlikely the GOP-controlled Congress would extend the credits.

Keeping count: Pruitt also confronted critics who observed a recent public posting of his schedule as EPA administrator, which showed he has met rarely with environmental groups and spent most of his time with industry officials.

The EPA administrator told the Kentucky farmers they “count more” than “NGOs”, or non-governmental organizations, likely meaning environmental groups.

His quote in full: “I was asked by the media, ‘you know there’s a report that you’ve only met with these NGOs, like one percent of the time in Washington D.C.’ And I said, ‘well, what about those farmers and ranchers in Iowa? What about those farmers and ranchers in North Dakota or Kentucky?’ I sat down and listened to them about issues that impact them. Do they not count? The answer is yes, you count more. Because every single day, what we do impacts you, and we have to work together to achieve better outcomes for water and air quality in this country.”

Not a surprise: Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, chairman of the committee and sponsor of the bill, has teased in recent weeks that he would introduce a bill to limit the 1906 Antiquities Act, the monument naming bill that he believes was abused by Obama.

Using the law ‘wrong’: “Today the act is too often used as an excuse for presidents to unilaterally lock up vast tracts of public land without any mechanism for people to provide input or voice concerns,” Bishop said. “This is wrong.”

Size matters: The bill would keep the ability for presidents to name national monuments. But it would subject monument designations to increasingly stringent rules based on size.

Land only: The legislation also would bar presidents from designating marine national monuments.

Trump administration takes lead: Bishop was buoyed to act after the Interior Department undertook a review of 27 national monuments recently made by presidents, and recommended to the White House that some of them be reduced. Interior Department Secretary Ryan Zinke recommends shrinking or changing the boundaries of six national monuments and proposes management changes to four others that could reopen areas to logging, cattle grazing and commercial fishing.

Fight ahead: Environmental and conservation groups as well as Native Americans have threatened to sue the Trump administration if it acts on Zinke’s proposal and scales back the monuments. Supporters of the monuments note the Antiquities Act does not explicitly give authority to presidents to reduce the size of national monuments. The concept has not been tested in court.

Reductions allowed: Bishop’s new legislation would clarify the authority of the president to reduce the size of national monuments. It specifies that reductions greater than 85,000 acres must be approved by the affected counties, state legislatures and governors and must have a NEPA analysis. The Natural Resources Committee plans to mark up the bill Wednesday.

Disaster designation wanted: Gov. Jerry Brown issued emergency declarations for Butte, Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Nevada, Orange, Sonoma and Yuba counties. He also asked Trump to declare a major disaster.

Fires run wild: This year has been extreme for wildfires. More than 8 million acres, about 2.5 million more than in an average year, have burned, according to the National Interagency Coordination Center.

The fires of today are considered more dangerous because they are increasingly burning close to homes and people as the West becomes more populated.

White House acts: The White House last week issued to Congress a disaster relief request for Puerto Rico that also includes money for wildfires. The Trump administration is seeking $576.5 million for wildfire suppression funding.

Congress stalls: The wildfires have caught the attention of Congress, which must deal with funding challenges at the U.S. Forest Service, the largest agency that responds to wildfires.

The funding problem: Under current law, forest fires are not treated the same as other disasters such as hurricanes. That forces the Forest Service to take money from accounts dedicated to preventative maintenance, such as clearing underbrush.

The disagreement: Multiple bills have been introduced in Congress to address the funding problem, but lawmakers can’t find consensus on a path forward.

Some Republicans are pushing for any funding to be matched by forest management reforms that they say will address the root causes of fires and prevent them from being started in the first place.

Opening shipping lanes: Enacted in 1920, the Jones Act prohibits shipments between U.S. ports unless those vessels are American-made, flagged and manned by a crew that is made up of 75 percent U.S. citizens. Waiving the law allowed any ship to help get supplies to the island after two major hurricanes devastated it.

Law under center: The law has long been little-known, but that has changed in recent weeks as critics accused the Trump administration of acting too slowly to declare a Jones Act waiver for Puerto Rico. The president had swiftly announced waivers for Texas and Florida after Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

Permanent solution sought: Critics seized on the waiver’s expiration to exempt Puerto Rico permanently.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., tweeted a link to a bill he recently introduced that would permanently exempt Puerto Rico from the Jones Act.

“Now that #JonesAct waiver for #PuertoRico has expired Congress must pass my bill providing PR w/ permanent exemption,” McCain said.