Wednesday 11/4/2015 Update: Lori Swanson is having none of this, the Associated Press reports in NY attorney general, others seek to defend EPA:
New York's attorney general has joined a coalition of 24 states, cities and counties seeking to intervene in court to help defend a federal plan to require power plants cut their greenhouse gas emissions.
The group is filing a motion to intervene at the U.S. Court of Appeals defending the Environmental Protection Agency's plan that has been challenged by several states and power industry groups.
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says the plan is needed to respond to the threat of climate change and incorporates strategies New York and several other states have used to cut pollution.
The coalition includes attorneys general from California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. [end update]
In Tuesday's Caledonia Argus, we find a press release from state House Majority Whip Roseau Republican Dan Fabian's office reprinted on the southeastern Minnesota newspaper's op-ed page.
Fabian writes in Rep. Fabian renews push for Minnesota to file suit against EPA:
On Thursday, October 29, 2015, Representative Dan Fabian (R-Roseau) sent a letter to Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson asking her to add Minnesota to a coalition of 25 states who have filed suit in the last week against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over President Obama’s Clean Power Plan.
A previous letter was sent to the Attorney General’s office in late September, signed by Rep. Fabian and 43 other state representatives, which requested Attorney General Swanson take action against this overreaching federal rule. Her office responded that this could not be done until the rule was published in the Federal Register, which it was on October 23, 2015.
“This expensive and burdensome new rule, which the EPA has conceded will have no measurable environmental benefit, greatly expands federal authority over state energy policy and will impact the availability of affordable energy for folks across the state,” said Rep. Fabian. “Twenty-five states have already filed suit which demonstrates just how overreaching and devastating President Obama’s Clean Power Plan is. This is a bipartisan issue that has people across the nation concerned, and that’s why now is the time for Minnesota to lead and stand up for the people of our state.”
The letter follows, with the usual crocodile tears for the poor:
Dear Attorney General Swanson,
On September 29, 2015, your office responded to a letter sent by myself and forty-three other state representatives asking the Attorney General to add Minnesota to the growing coalition of states challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a federal court regarding President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, issued under the agency’s 111(d) rulemaking authority. You indicated that your office would consult with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regarding the rule, as well as wait for it to be published by the Federal Register.
This overreaching new rule is now in effect, having been published in the Federal Register on October 23, 2015. Furthermore, you have had ample time to consult with the MPCA in regards to the effects these new federal guidelines will have on our state. That is why I would like to once again ask you to challenge this rule in a federal court on behalf of the state of Minnesota.
As I stated before, not only will this significantly expanded scope of federal power under EPA rulemaking undermine state regulatory authority, but it will also impact the availability of affordable energy for families, businesses and communities statewide. Additionally, there is a possibility that its implementation could lead to the closure of coal-fired power plants in our state, creating significant job loss and increased energy costs. These price increases will most greatly affect those who can least afford it including people with low or fixed incomes, the elderly, local schools and nursing homes.
Furthermore, the EPA conceded there will be no measurable environmental benefit which calls to question the validity of implementing these expensive, overreaching new federal requirements when there is little expected positive environmental results.
Twenty-five states have already filed suit against the Clean Power Plan in the last week, and by joining as a plaintiff, Minnesota will be a strong voice for state regulatory authority, protect Minnesota jobs and energy reliability, and hopefully help stop the alarming expansion of federal power over state energy policy.
I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your response.
We've added the bold emphasis to the text about closing coal plants, since that's the special interest that leading the Republican lamentation on the Clean Energy Plan (and Xcel's response or the MPCA's stakeholders' discussions).
Climate change: the threat that dare not speak its name
Fabian documents may be the ultimate in climate change denial, since neither the press release nor the letter mentions the purpose of the Clean Energy Plan: taking action on climate change by reducing carbon emissions.
The Roseau Republican can't even bring himself to use the phrases "climate change" or "global warming." Not surprising for a guy whose caucus said, 'What climate change?', as Star Tribune columnist Jon Tevlin wrote:
On the front page of Tuesday’s newspaper, a headline read: “As summers get hotter, humans get more blame.” This idea is being accepted as fact by most scientists around the world, by businesses and by government agencies such as NASA and the Department of Defense.
Even the pope seems to be down with it.
But apparently climate change is still not accepted in the Minnesota House.
The issue came up during the omnibus job growth and energy affordability finance bill discussion on the House floor last week. It was one of those debates that make you slap your forehead — and wonder how some of our elected representatives even found their way in to work that day. . . .
For your morning face palm, read the moments from the debate caught Tevlin's attention.
Is Climate Change Real? 99% of House Republicans Vote No, a press release from representative Melissa Hortman, DFL-Brooklyn Park, sums up the final vote.
They don't believe in it, and they're not going to mention its name, if Fabian's prose is an example of the spin.
Silence is golden, or a least a strategy against public opinion
An article published yesterday by US News and World's energy, environment and STEM reporter Alan Neuhauser may underscore Fabian's need to obscure--as in not mention whatsoever--the issue.
Neuhauser writes in 61 Percent of Public Supports Clean Power Plan in States Suing to Stop It:
When it comes to the Clean Power Plan, most voters don't want their day in court.
Across the 26 states suing to stop the landmark rule – the first ever to limit carbon emissions from existing power plants – an average 61 percent of adults say they support the policy, according to an analysis released Monday by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.
In only three of those states do most voters oppose the Clean Power Plan: West Virginia and Wyoming, the nation's top two coal producers, as well as North Dakota, which has seen a boom in unconventional oil and natural gas production, commonly referred to as "fracking.". . .
Neuhauser leaves out our old pals at the North Dakota Industrial Commission-underwritten Coalition for a Secure Energy Future (mind you, that lignite has to be burned close to the mines, not at Sherco, since it is too combustible to haul long distances) but his point stands.
The post draws from 61% of the Public in the States Suing to Stop the Clean Power Plan Actually Support the Policy, posted on the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication webpage.
On October 23rd, President Obama’s signature climate change program The Clean Power Plan was entered into the Federal Register. Almost immediately, 26 US states sued to stop the policy, which sets strict limits on coal-fired power plants. However, according to our model of state-level public opinion (Yale Climate Opinion Maps, 2014), a majority of the public in 23 out of the 26 states filing suits actually support setting strict limits on coal-fired power plants. Across all 26 suing states, 61% of the public supports the policy, ranging from 73% public support in New Jersey to 43% in Wyoming and West Virginia. Across all 26 suing states, only 38% of the public on average opposes the policy. . . .
America’s history of controversy over climate change and the legal and political challenges to the Clean Power Plan might suggest that the nation is divided over regulating carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants. Our research finds the opposite: a large majority of Americans overall support the approach. Our models find that a majority of Americans in almost every state support setting strict emission limits on coal-fired power plants. . . .
The analysis was released after Fabian sent his missive to Attorney General Swanson, but we can be forgiven in thinking that the Majority Caucus communications and political staff likely has access to its own focus group data that helps in framing this as so not being about climate change but helping those poor folks and middle class Minnesotans to whom the Republican Party is dedicated 24/7/365.
When people know the issue is taking on climate change, they support tighter standards on power plants. Solution? Don't talk about climate change.
Image: The map of public opinion from those Climate Communicators at Yale.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Email subscribers can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen at gmail.com as recipient.
Comments