Blogger Alerts

Wednesday
Jul292015

CEI - EPA's Clean Power Plan Overreach 

The “Clean Power” Plan final rule is due in August and the word is that it will be released next Tuesday, August 4.

In advance of that final rule, CEI released a new paper today “EPA’s Clean Power Plan Overreach,” by William Yeatman.

In the Clean Power Plan proposal, the EPA took the unusual step of preemptively seeking Chevron deference from federal courts, even though the Clean Power Plan will not undergo judicial review until after the final rule is published in the Federal Register. Chevron deference is a famous and oft-employed administrative law principle that federal courts should defer to reasonable agency construction of the statutes they are charged with administering, in reference to a seminal 1984 Supreme Court ruling, Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. As this analysis demonstrates, the agency’s request for judicial deference lacks merit.

The paper’s four sections break down the EPA’s overreach considering Chevron deference:

  • The first section of this paper explains the legal reasoning behind Chevron deference, as well as subsequent refinements of the doctrine in Article III courts.
  • The second section discusses the Clean Power Plan’s unprecedented scope and the EPA’s capacious interpretation of Clean Air Act Section 111(d), which allegedly authorizes the rule.
  • The third section argues that the Clean Power Plan contravenes every direct and indirect foundation for Chevron deference.
  • The last section briefly investigates how federal courts are likely to review the Clean Power Plan, without resorting to the Chevron framework, and concludes that the EPA’s interpretation is unlikely to survive such a “fair” reading.

Read the paper here and feel free to share the link on Facebook and Twitter.


The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy group in Washington, D.C. CEI promotes the institutions of liberty and works to remove government-created barriers to economic freedom, innovation, and prosperity through timely analysis, effective advocacy, inclusive coalition-building, and strategic litigation.

Monday
Jul272015

TPN - Bruce Davis: POLITICIANS SCREWING THE PUBLIC OVER ETHANOL FUELS

 

Once again the American public is being ripped off by the actions of greedy politicians with little recourse by the average voter.    In 1988 Congress passed legislation called The Alternative Motor Fuels Act that provided so many incentives that it basically mandated the addition of ethanol to our hydrocarbon fuels.   Among other provisions it provided a 51 cent a gallon tax credit to “blenders” who add ethanol to gasoline.  It also provided fuel economy credits to auto producers who build vehicles capable of running on ethanol blended fuels.  The purported reason for this legislation was to reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

This rationale behind this legislation was severely flawed and also had the following negative effects.

1.  According to tests done by Consumer Reports and others ethanol blended fuels have significantly less energy than straight gasoline fuels and vehicles get between 7% to 27% less fuel mileage compared to using regular gasoline depending upon the percentage of ethanol used in the fuel.  What this means is that using an ethanol blend provides ZERO benefits in reducing our fuel imports of gasoline and never will provide any such benefits. It also costs more to make than regular gasoline.

2.  The production of ethanol takes significant energy, which has to come from somewhere, and also produces byproducts that are known to be carcinogenic so any positive environmental effects are largely bogus.

To Continue Reading Click Here ---> POLITICIANS SCREWING THE PUBLIC

Sunday
May032015

Newsmax - Top Scientists to Question Global Warming Claims

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), March of this year was the hottest March since record-keeping began in 1880, and 2014 was "the hottest year ever."

NOAA's figures were based on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA's Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN).

But two other officially recognized entities measuring temperatures, Remote Sensing Systems and the University of Alabama, are based on a different method of measuring, by satellite. And these "give a strikingly different picture," Christopher Booker discloses in The Telegraph.

"Neither shows [March] as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as 'the hottest year ever.'"

According to Booker, analysts have found hundreds of examples of how the data recorded by some 3,000 weather stations in the GHCN have been "adjusted" to exaggerate how much the planet has actually been warming.

Figures from earlier decades have frequently been adjusted downward and more recent data adjusted upward to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data indicated, he explained.

Now the Global Warming Policy Foundation has assembled an international team of five top scientists to determine how these "adjustments" of data may have distorted what is in fact happening to global temperatures.[...]

The five are Dr. Petr Chylek, a physicist from the National Los Alamos Laboratory; Richard McNider, founder of the Atmospheric Sciences Program at the University of Alabama in Huntsville; Prof. Roman Mureika, a statistics expert from Canada; Prof. Roger Pielke Sr., a noted climatologist from the University of Colorado; and Prof. William van Wijngaarden, a physicist at York University in Canada with many papers on climatology.

The team is led by Terence Kealey, until recently the vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham in Britain.

Their goal is to establish to what extent original data has been "adjusted" by the three main keepers of surface records: the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the U.S. National Climate Data Center, and the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain in conjunction with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.

"All three of them are run by committed believers in man-made global warming," Booker notes.

"Only when the full picture is in will it be possible to see just how far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures accepted as reliable by the politicians who shape our energy policy."

 

Friday
May012015

Personal Liberty Digest - Another state considers getting out of the marriage licensing game

Just more than a month has passed since Oklahoma legislators voted to get out of the marriage licensing business. Now another conservative state is eying a similar measure.

Alabama State Sen. Greg Albritton, a Republican, announced SB 377 recently, bringing before the legislature a proposal that would end any licensing requirement for marriage and removing from probate judges the obligation of sanctioning a union.

By exclusion, same-sex marriage is not legal under Alabama law – even though the state has recently wrestled with conflicting interpretations, across various levels of government, of a court decision that overturned the existing law. [...]

To Continue Reading Click Here ---> Ending Government Sanctioned Marriage

Wednesday
Apr292015

Personal Liberty Digest - The Clinton Foundation spent more on office supplies than on charity gifts in 2013

clinton foundation logo

A new review of the Clinton Foundation’s recent expenditures challenges the foundation’s boast that most of the money it spends goes “directly to our life-changing work.”

The foundation took to social media last week to counter recent revelations about its omission of foreign donations from the IRS, as well as the general scandal surrounding the possibility that Hillary Clinton’s State Department policy may have been influenced by those same donations.

The foundation’s official Twitter account sent out an April 25 message boasting that “[m]ore than 88% of our expenditures go directly to our life-changing work,” and linked to an infographic purporting to break down its 2013 expenditures by category.

That graphic claimed 88.4 percent of the foundation’s outlay went for “Program” expenditures, 7 percent went for “Management and General,” and 4.5 percent went for “Fundraising” – with “Program” encompassing the catch-all category of charitable giving.

But The Federalist took a look at the information the Clinton Foundation provided on its 2013 IRS Form 990 and quickly concluded that the foundation’s claim was egregiously misleading. [...]

To Continue Reading Click Here ---> Clinton Foundation Slush Fund