Supremes on Michigan v. EPA
June 30th, 2015
Here it is, Michigan v. EPA:
Michigan v. EPA U.S. Supreme Court File No. 14-46
Given this decision, it’s going to be hard for any agency to argue that it shouldn’t do a solid cost benefit analysis, and one that includes verification and analysis of benefits! That’s a good thing given the outrageous benefits claims I’ve seen in transmission proceedings. Check this part of the Order early on (I’m just going over it now):
In accordance with Executive Order, the Agency issued a “Regulatory Impact Analysis” alongside its regulation.This analysis estimated that the regulation would force power plants to bear costs of $9.6 billion per year. Id., at 9306. The Agency could not fully quantify the benefits of reducing power plants’ emissions of hazardous air pollutants; to the extent it could, it estimated that these benefits were worth $4 to $6 million per year. Ibid. The costs to power plants were thus between 1,600 and 2,400 times as great as the quantifiable benefits from reduced emissions of hazardous air pollutants. The Agency continued that its regulations would have ancillary benefits—including cutting power plants’ emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide, substances that are not covered by the hazardous-air-pollutants program. Although the Agency’s appropriate-and-necessary finding did not rest on these ancillary effects, id., at 9320, the regulatory impact analysis took them into account, increasing the Agency’s estimate of the quantifiable benefits of its regulation to $37 to $90 billion per year, id., at 9306. EPA concedes that the regulatory impact analysis “played no role” in its appropriate-and-necessary finding. Brief for Federal Respondents 14.
Michigan v. EPA, p. 4. The regulatory impact analysis included the information, it was in the record, but EPA says that it “played no role” in that decision. So can’t they just reissue it, state they took that into account and used it as a basis for its decision and everyone can go home? AAAARGH!
And here’s a highlight where I actually agree (!) with a sentence in Thomas’ Concurrence:
Statutory ambiguity thus becomes an implicit delegation of rule-making authority, and that authority is used not to find the best meaning of the text, but to formulate legally binding rules to fill in gaps based on policy judgments made by the agency rather than Congress.
Dissents, p. 3 (pdf p. 20 of 47).
FERC rejected Petition for Rulemaking, on to DOE!
June 26th, 2015
After a day in the bowels of FERC’s docket system as RM15-22-000, FERC rejected the BLOCK Plains & Eastern Clean Line Petition for Rulemaking. It’s a binary thing, has to be either one or the other, so now it’s in the DOE’s hands.
So, DOE, what cha gonna do? You’ve been thinking about it, but it’s been 10 years since Section 1222 was passed.
And the grand finale of the Administrative Procedure Act, Section 553:
FERC accepts BLOCK Plains & Eastern Petition for Rulemaking
June 23rd, 2015
YEAAAAAA!
When filing BLOCK Plains & Eastern Clean Line: Arkansas and Oklahoma’s Petition for Rulemaking, because it doesn’t have a docket number, it’s not an existing docket, it must be filed, and then FERC staff decides whether to accept it, the next step in deciding what to do with it. Our Petition for Rulemaking has been accepted! Now they will have to decide what they’ll do with it!
Here’s the FERC Notice:
Acceptance for Filing ——————— The FERC Office of the Secretary has accepted the following electronic submission for filing (Acceptance for filing does not constitute approval of any application or self-certifying notice):
Accession No.: 201506165371
Docket(s) No.: RM15-22-000
Filed By: BLOCK Plains & Eastern Clean Line: Arkansas and Oklahoma -Signed By: Carol Overland F
Filing Type: Utility Accounting Request(??)
Filing Desc: Petition for Rulemaking of Regulations for Filing Applications and Review of Transmission Line Projects under Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 of BLOCK Plains & Eastern Clean Line under RM15-22.
Submission Date/Time: 6/16/2015 2:25:40 PM
Filed Date: 6/16/2015 2:25:40 PM
Your submission is now part of the record for the above Docket(s) and available in FERC’s eLibrary system at: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20150616-5371
If you would like to receive e-mail notification when additional documents are added to the above docket(s), you can eSubscribe by docket at: https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eSubscription.aspx
Here are the filings (each was advised of the other Petition for Rulemaking so everyone knows):
Note we also filed a Petition for Rulemaking with the DOE’s Office of General Counsel. Let them argue between themselves and figure out just who is going to do it and when and get it MOVING FORWARD! Rulemaking is long overdue, and FYI, DOE, you have no business making any decision, doing any review, without rules.
Here’s why it’s good the Mesaba Project was not built!
June 14th, 2015
Remember the Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project (see Legalectric posts and Citizens Against the Mesaba Project’s “Camp Site”), the boondoggle coal gasification plant that almost was, the project that got every legislative perk possible, got financing and grants based on wishful thinking and that “something else” that we just can’t identify (without which, who would think this was a good idea? That plant that was to be built, according to the special legislation for this project, on a site WITH INFRASTRUCTURE? This site… dig the infrastructure!
Anyway, it wasn’t built here. But a similar plant WAS built in Indiana, the Edwardsport plant owned by Duke Energy. As with the Mesaba Project it was proposed at a reasonable price, legislators were first told $700 million, and then it went upwards of $2.11 billion. For Edwardsport, same story, and that price kept going up, up, up, and in Indiana, it was so extreme that costs recoverable from ratepayers were capped by the Indiana Public Utility Commission at $2.9 BILLION. It was allowed to be built, and it started operating, sort of… Average output has been 41%, when an 80+% capacity factor was promised. Repairs? That’s putting it mildly. Now they’re going to try to get cost recovery for that.
Now, let’s not all forget all the money given by the Joyce Foundation to support this nonsense.
+++++++++++++
Here’s a specific and eloquent comment from Michael Mullet, very involved in opposition to the Edwardsport fiasco:
Senators and Representatives stand up for the people!
June 9th, 2015
WOW! Hot off the press, U.S. Senators John Boozman and Tom Cotton from Arkansas, Senator Lamar Alexander from Tennessee, and U.S. Representatives Rick Crawford, French Hill, Steve Womack, and Bruce Westerman have all signed on to a letter to Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz to extend the comment period on the Plains & Eastern Clean Line Transmission Project.
And here’s their press release:
Federal Lawmakers Request More Time for Comment Period on Plains & Eastern Clean Line Transmission Project
In their press release, they make it easy for all of you to send your request too… so just do it!
Written comments should be addressed as follows: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE-20), 1222 Program, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. Electronic comments can be emailed to plainsandeastern@hq.doe.gov. [and also send to the DOE assigned staff person, Angela.Colamaria@hq.doe.gov] The Department will make comments available as they are received. Additional information from the Department is available at http://energy.gov/oe/downloads/plains-eastern-clean-line-transmission-line-part-2-application
Please take a few minutes and send them a hearty THANK YOU!!!
Senator Boozman (AR) Contact Page
Senator Cotton (AR) Contact Page
And in the Arkansas News: