The wait is over for a New York university think tank to sue the Environmental Protection Agency in an attempt to force the agency to create a cap-and-trade system for transportation fuels.
In 2009, the Institute for Policy Integrity petitioned the EPA to create a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions from fuels used in motor vehicles, non-road vehicles and aircraft. However, the agency never responded to the petition and IPI filed an intent to sue under the Clean Air Act last November. The 180-day waiting period for filing the suit ends Wednesday.
“The damage caused by Superstorm Sandy was widely linked to some of the potential risks associated with a warming planet,” Policy Integrity said in a statement. “It highlighted the need to work faster to bring down emissions.
Critics fear that the Policy Integrity lawsuit will be an example of “sue and settle.” This controversial practice occurs when an outside group — usually an environmental organization — sues the EPA to force rulemaking. The EPA then quickly settles and begins crafting new rules and regulations under court order.
The practice has been derided as a way for the EPA and environmentalists to collude, forcing a shared regulatory agenda on industry from behind closed doors.
“Implementing a cap-and-trade system on transportation fuels would cause a huge negative financial impact on consumers,” Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter said in an emailed statement to The Daily Caller News Foundation.
“The IPI’s intent to sue is a prime example of a far-left organization pushing EPA to play the ‘sue-and-settle’ game, hoping EPA will again circumvent transparency,” Vitter added. “The administration has a pattern of excluding states, individuals and businesses from important rule-making decisions – an unacceptable process that needs to change.”
However, Policy Integrity has not yet filed suit and is weighing its legal options as to how it will proceed.
“We have not filed suit,” said a Policy Integrity spokeswoman in an email. “The end of our 180 day waiting period is not a deadline. We continue to weigh our legal options and have not made a final decision as to the timing of our next move.”
Many environmentalists favor a cap-and-trade system as a way to curb carbon dioxide emissions, which they argue contributes to global warming. EPA administrator nominee Gina McCarthy said that the EPA is not considering implementing such a program for vehicle emissions.
However, if the EPA were to settle a future lawsuit from Policy Integrity, they might be under court order to create a cap-and-trade system for vehicle emissions.
“It is also important to watch IPI and other groups who may decide at any time to sue the EPA, hoping to force a settlement that would lead to the development of [a low carbon fuel standard] regime,” said Michael Whatley, vice president of Consumer Energy Alliance. “Unfortunately, too many groups that lose policy fights in Congress and within federal agencies seek to use the courts as another venue to get what they cannot get through legitimate channels.”
A cap-and-trade system has often been criticized as bad for consumers, especially the poor. Even Policy Integrity’s original 2009 petition acknowledges this criticism, but the group suggests auctioning off greenhouse gas permits to raise funds which would then be used to reimburse Americans for higher prices.
“When an emissions cap is put in place, many consumers are likely to see increases in their fuel prices as a consequence,” reads the 2009 petition. “But this will not affect everyone equally: lower and middle-income households spend a larger percentage of their income on energy. Because they spend more of their income on energy, the effects of an emissions cap are felt most keenly at the bottom side of the income scale — the same groups that can least afford the cost.”
A 2010 study by the Charles River Associates — prepared for CEA — found that a low carbon fuel standard would cost up to 4.5 million U.S. jobs and increase gasoline and diesel costs by up to 170 percent over 10 years.
However, Policy Integrity’s executive director Michael Livermore told Politico that the rule could be written in a way to “protects consumers” from price increases.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
