The title of the August 4th United States Senate Report leaves little doubt about sentiment of the Majority Party, “OBAMA’S CARBON MANDATE: An Account of Collusion, Cutting Corners, and Costing Americans Billions.” And if there was any doubt, the 70-plus page report spells out the findings and opinions in an unapologetic manner.
If you missed it, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works issued a report after conducting oversight of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “…efforts to overhaul America’s electricity generation in the name of combating global climate change.”
Is “Sue and Settle” shaping our environmental laws (Image Credit: US Government)?
According to the Executive Summary, “Since September 2014, the Committee’s oversight has centered on the role played by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) among other environmental activists in influencing the policy options, technical support, legal rationale, and public relations campaign for these rules.”
The summary goes on to say, “Between the use of personal e-mail accounts and private meetings in a city park and coffee shops, there were clear attempts to avoid public involvement in crafting the carbon mandates. While EPA failed to even visit West Virginia for a field hearing on the proposed climate rules – less than 100 miles from EPA headquarters – the agency took calls from NRDC on Saturdays and in the evenings, giving them what appears to be unfettered access to EPA officials developing the rules the president announced this week.”
Sue and Settle
Among the more troubling allegations were, “The carbon rules were the product of the quintessential ‘sue-and-settle’ scheme where EPA and environmental activists, such as NRDC, continued to negotiate behind closed doors, changing regulatory actions and deadlines without providing the public meaningful notice or opportunity to comment” (emphasis added).
The United States Chamber of Commerce has been a vocal opponent of sue and settle: “As an example, between 2009 and 2012, EPA chose not to defend itself in over 60 lawsuits from special interest advocacy groups. These cases resulted in settlement agreements and EPA publishing more than 100 new regulations – including the recent Clean Power Plan.”
There have been previous commentaries in Forbes and other business-related publications that also criticize sue and settle. In particular, Forbes points out that those legal fees of the environmental groups are paid for by tax-payer money.
Environmental issues are enough of a lightening rod, let alone when you begin to suggest that an environmental group or an industry group had undue influence in the rule-making process.
Protecting the Environment
Clearly, protection of the environment while protecting the nation’s economy and jobs is no small task. But when the proper political channels are circumvented, it creates jaded views on both sides of the aisle.
We’ve stated previously that inserting unnecessary political messages into the environmental regulatory process seems counterproductive. And we continue to believe that, by-in-large, the electorate wants an open political process that will find that balance between a clean environment, healthy use of natural resources, and full employment.
With the political season getting into full swing, we would anticipate plenty of mud-slinging. However, hopefully there is careful consideration given to development of regulations, which have a real impact (and in some cases a significant impact) on people and businesses.
We’ll continue to pass along regulatory developments as we see them. As always, if you need assistance with an environmental issue, please contact me (ahahn@dragun.com) at 248-932-0228, ext 134. I’m confident our staff of senior scientists and engineers can help you find a reasonable solution.