EPA Continues To Implement Global Warming Plan Supreme Court Said It Couldn’t

mccarthyEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials are moving ahead with a key part of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) despite the Supreme Court issuing a stay against the agency’s global warming plan in February.

The EPA submitted a proposal to the White House for green energy subsidies for states that meet the federally mandated carbon dioxide reduction goals early. The Clean Energy Incentive Program would give “credit for power generated by new wind and solar projects in 2020 and 2021” and a “double credit for energy efficiency measures in low-income communities,” according to Politico’s Morning Energy.

Te move seems to violate the Supreme Court’s stay against CPP preventing the EPA from implementing its plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. power plants. EPA, however, argues it’s doing this for states that want to voluntarily cut emissions — despite this being part of CPP.

“Many states and tribes have indicated that they plan to move forward voluntarily to work to cut carbon pollution from power plants and have asked the agency to continue providing support and developing tools that may support those efforts, including the CEIP,” reads a statement provided to Politico from EPA.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is set to talk more about the plan Wednesday afternoon and will no doubt defend it from critics who will say the agency is violating a Supreme Court order.

“Sending this proposal to OMB for review is a routine step and it is consistent with the Supreme Court stay of the Clean Power Plan,” the EPA said.

EPA has been moving forward with aspects of the CPP despite the Supreme Court’s decision. After the court’s February decision, EPA began signalling it would continue to work with states that want to “voluntarily” move forward.

“Are we going to respect the decision of the Supreme Court? You bet, of course we are,” McCarthy told utility executives in February. “But it doesn’t mean it’s the only thing we’re working on and it doesn’t mean we won’t continue to support any state that voluntarily wants to move forward.”

Read rest…

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (4)

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Like her imposter boss, Gina McCarthy is a lawless pig.
    When will these swine who think they are above law to be prosecuted for their crimes against the American people ?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    What would happen to the USA military command if they unilaterally decided to invade Sweden ? The Supreme Court issues a stay against EPA overreach and they disregard it ? WTF . Why do these people still have jobs ?
    Any wonder people are fed up with loose cannon government agencies pursuing their own lobbiest infiltrated agenda’s ?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    This illustrates the DEPTH of corruption in our government. High officials no longer fear prosecution for clearly committed crimes. Hillary, are you listening?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    It is obvious Co2 is a nutrient not a pollutant and more and more evidence confirms the fact the earth is greening in part due to higher levels of Co2. Greenhouse house owners like CO2 levels more than double what is in the atmosphere to ensure rapid plant growth .
    The EPA and their green lobby group pals have orchestrated a false crisis robbing the economy of limited resources for their pet projects . Kill coal , shut down industry
    and displace workers all for zero measurable effect on the earth’s temperature as if humans could ever or should ever naively think we trump Mother Nature .

    The fact the earth is greening as a result in part of CO2 levels incidentally that have been higher at times long before Hollywood actors were globe trotting to their next save the world speech .

    When did the EPA know higher levels of CO2 were extremely beneficial to plants and trees. How could they not know
    policies to reduce CO2 which would be detrimental to plant and forest growth if implemented ?

    Why has the EPA purposely pushed policies to reduce plant and forest growth ?

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.