Sentences with phrase «clean air act regulatory»

Although Senator Lisa Murkowski's (R - Alaska) resolution was defeated in the Senate, Senator Jay Rockefeller's (D - West Virginia) proposal of a two - year delay of Clean Air Act regulatory action is still pending; and depending upon the outcome of the November elections, there may be a series of further Congressional actions to tie the hands of EPA in this regard.

Provide a price signal strong enough to reduce the need for future regulation of carbon emissions while preserving the EPA's present Clean Air Act regulatory authority.

Not exact matches

Even as regulatory measures were put in place — the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act — epidemiologists hurried to analyze the risks.

The only time Congress directly spoke to the issue of global warming in the Clean Air Act, it instructed EPA not to jump to regulatory conclusions.

Assessments are a critical part of the decision - making process for chemical management regulatory programs (e.g., Toxic Substances Control Act) and environmental regulations (e.g., Clean Air Act).

Rather, the real choice is between regulatory chaos and legislation that fixes the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act so that pro-Kyoto litigation groups can not use those statutes for a purpose that Congress never intended — to dictate climate and energy policy for the nation.

Secondly, the other thing that you have is a regulatory train wreck with many different laws, such as the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act.

... [T] he other thing that you have is a regulatory train wreck with many different laws, such as the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act.

We understand that you have become aware of the regulatory nightmare that will almost certainly ensue from any one of several litigation strategies involving the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act.

By applying the Clean Air Act, the next president can stand on the shoulders of legal and regulatory precedent.

As EPA's plan to regulate CO2 emissions from existing power plants — the «Clean Power Plan» or «CPP» — gets closer to being finalized, we've been hearing a lot of talk about how Congress should rein in EPA, by either specifically stopping the CPP or revoking EPA's CO2 regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act.

The official title was introduced is «a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce air pollution through expansion of cap - and - trade programs, to provide an alternative regulatory classification for units subject to the cap and trade program, and for other purposes.&raqAir Act to reduce air pollution through expansion of cap - and - trade programs, to provide an alternative regulatory classification for units subject to the cap and trade program, and for other purposes.&raqair pollution through expansion of cap - and - trade programs, to provide an alternative regulatory classification for units subject to the cap and trade program, and for other purposes.»

If Congress were to not only eliminate EPA's regulatory authority, but take CO2 completely out of the Clean Air Act, it would still be up to the courts to decide whether or not that would eliminate state authority over vehicle tailpipe emissions.

On the industrial side, the Clean Air Act demonstrates that regulatory policies can reduce pollution without any compelling evidence for the kinds of economic trauma sometimes anticipated.

Two of the main problems with its Federal Government regulatory approach to reducing CO2 is that it in effect requires rewriting the US Clean Air Act to do something that it was clearly never intended to do and will triple or quadruple electricity rates.

The report, Assessing the Impact of Potential New Carbon Regulations in the United States, estimates the economic impacts associated with an EPA regulatory regime imposed under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act and based on the Obama Administration's emissions reduction goals.

Keith McCoy, vice president for energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, said his organization was «strongly opposed to an E.P.A. regulatory process for greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.»

It beggars belief that the superfluous instruction to remove these six characters when the entire reference «112 (b)(1)(A)» had already been removed by a substantive amendment with real force and purpose could cloud the meaning of the Clean Air Act, let alone form the basis for a massive regulatory undertaking seeking to utterly transform the nation's energy system.

But he added that as a plan B, the president is setting up a regulatory system that will allow the US to regulate greenhouse gases under the existing Clean Air Act.

And it is possible that pending Federal regulatory action under the Clean Air Act will be curtailed or significantly delayed either by the new Congress or by litigation.

What I am referring to is that costly Clean Air Act regulation of CO2 will play into the hands of right - wing opponents of climate action, creating a poster - child of excessive regulatory intervention that will bring about a backlash against sensible climate policies.

That emailed version said greenhouse gases could indeed endanger human health and welfare — a finding that would trigger a regulatory rescue (a regulatory train wreck, said the White House) by the EPA under the Clean Air Act.

Assuming that Congress continues to do nothing on climate, that $ 655 billion floor for regulatory justification (and the totally unknown ceiling) will prove significant when at some point a hypothetical second Clinton Administration — which promises to be serious about climate in a way that the Obama Administration apparently has not been — resorts to Section 115 of the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

It is true that global warming alarmists are filing multiple lawsuits to use the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act to cause a regulatory trainwreck...

From its conception, the Clean Power Plan (which became the global warming regulatory bit of the Clean Air Act) has been controversial due to its aggressiveness in (supposedly) reducing greenhouse gases.

The institute said that the E.P.A., invoking the Clean Air Act, and the Department of Transportation, using its regulatory power over fuel efficiency, could make major strides over the next decade in reducing carbon dioxide pollution.

Broad delegations of regulatory power (such as those found in many sections of the Clean Air Act) allow for few checks and balances on agency power.

«Any one of the several new or likely regulatory initiatives for CO2 emissions from power plants — including state carbon controls, E.P.A.'s regulations under the Clean Air Act, or the enactment of federal global warming legislation — would add a significant cost to carbon - intensive coal generation,» the letters said... Selective disclosure of favorable information or omission of unfavorable information concerning climate change is misleading.

Lastly, what would have represented the most recent, comprehensive regulatory scheme for addressing carbon dioxide emissions from US power plants and thus a key component of US energy policy, the Clean Power Plan developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency under the authority of the Clean Air Act, was mired down by legal challenges under the Obama Administration and has been completely abandoned by the Trump Administration.

Clarification of Federal regulatory authority to exclude greenhouse gases from regulation under the Clean Air Act.

«The administration is engaged with Congress to pass cap - and - trade legislation, which the president believes is far superior to a regulatory approach using the existing Clean Air Act.»

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) estimates that all of this unnecessary regulatory pain asserted under authority of the 1970 Clean Air Act which Congress never intended for «climate pollution» will reduce temperatures only about 0.0015 of one degree by the year 2100.