Posted on 04/22/2015 7:26:39 AM PDT by george76
Better for states not to comply with the EPA’s plans than to go along and absolve the feds of accountability for the mess.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) set off a firestorm recently when he advised states not to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan. Yet that advice isn’t as radical as his detractors make it sound. As a state public utilities commissioner who deals with the effects of federal regulations on a regular basis, I also recommend that states not comply.
...
While the short-term effects may be painful, the long-term consequences of submitting to this federal power grab are far worse.
For one, compliant states will enter into a “Mother may I?” relationship with the federal government. Not only will the initial SIP require the EPA’s blessing, so will any future modifications. This gives the EPA de facto veto power over any proposed state energy regulations, thus centralizing all energy decisions in Washington.
Compliance also would absolve the federal government of accountability once the disasters of this regulation begin to unfold. The regulation is designed so states will share blame with the EPA when electricity rates skyrocket. If federal regulators want to raise Americans’ electricity bills by thousands of dollars each year, they can do that. State lawmakers would be wise to let them walk that road alone.
The more states that refuse to give in to the EPA’s demands, the more likely it is that the agency will be forced to hold back the most burdensome elements of its Clean Power Plan. This could mean anything from nonenforcement to amending provisions of the regulation to mitigate their impact.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Yes for boycott, about time the States told the Feds to back off. As long as the communists black Muslim is destroying America time to start revolt.
The states should flip off the federal government!!!
I’m guessing building nuclear plants is out of the question?
Among the most unconstitutional things Congress has ever done is to delegate their law writing powers - given by the people to Congress - to the EPA and other rogue agencies to write new laws.
I guess a state might get a few centrifuges then enter into secret talks with the resident, maybe they could get a 50 Billion signing bonus if the promise to not build a bomb for a few years.
“Boycott”?
That’s a word that means voluntarily deciding not to buy something offered for sale.
This is NULLIFICATION. That’s how it has to be stated. The States need to stand up to and nullify unconstitutional acts by the feds.
Thank you.
1. If a state doesn't submit a plan for approval by EPA, then EPA has the legal authority to devise a plan for the state and when EPA does it, they don't have to do a cost benefit analysis. This has been upheld numerous times by the courts including in 2013 over CO2 emissions.
2. When a state's environmental plan has been approved by EPA, that gives the state substantial protection from being sued by environmentalists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.