BUT HERE’S WHERE IT GETS INTERESTING…
Among the co-plaintifs in this case was the “Utility Air Regulatory Group.” One of its members is Luminant Energy in Texas, a part of Energy Future Holdings (formerly TXU) acquired by TPG Capital in 2007. TPG’s founding partner is billionaire venture capitalist/environmental benefactor and Grand Canyon Trust board member, DAVID BONDERMAN.
So again…how should enviros respond?…should they be depressed that efforts by the EPA to clean up the air have been thwarted by a conservative Supreme Court? Or should they be relieved that their venture capitalist benefactor won his battle? After all, increased costs for improved environmental air quality could hurt Bonderman’s bottom line, and…INCREDIBLY…mainstream environmental groups as well.
How’s that for irony?
Here, in part, is what Luminant had to say about the case that was just decided in their favor:
“The Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) proposed Clean Power Plan does not reflect the reality of electricity generation and supply. The proposals EPA has put forward—which it claims will reduce greenhouse gas emissions—are unlawful and simply unworkable in light of the reality in which electricity is generated, distributed, and utilized. The proposals do not balance the economy, energy security, reliability,and the environment. The proposals also have numerous legal and technical failings, as detailed in these comments….A power plan that works for Texas, and the nation,would look very different than EPA’s proposal.
“A workable power plan would recognize that greenhouse gas emissions are a global issue that requires a global solution and would not burden the U.S. economy with massive new and incremental costs that are not demonstrated to have any measureable benefit to global greenhouse gas levels or climate change.
“EPA’s plan is not a workable plan. It is contrary to the legal mandates of the Clean Air Act and disregards the states’ primary authority and expertise over these matters. It will fundamentally disrupt the nation’s energy markets without realizing any meaningful environmental benefit to global carbon dioxide levels, which makes EPA’s plan bad public policy that will have severe negative economic and social consequences.”
–STILES
0 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.