House Republicans are getting more aggressive in their effort to transform obscure provisions of a 2005 energy law into the strands that unravel EPA’s carbon-emissions rules for newly constructed power plants.
The Energy and Commerce Committee’s GOP leaders, in a new letter to the Environmental Protection Agency, demand the names of people at EPA who determined that the proposed emissions rules don’t run afoul of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
The letter also seeks a slew of internal documents.
Here’s what the fight is about: The 2005 law authorizes tax credits and Energy Department funding for projects using technology that traps carbon emissions from coal-based energy projects.
But provisions in the same law say a technology can’t form the basis for future EPA regulations simply because it’s deployed at these “clean-coal” projects.
EPA rules proposed in September would require future coal-fired power plants to trap and store a substantial amount of their carbon emissions.
The 2005 provisions suddenly matter because EPA has pointed to Energy Department-backed projects when making the case that carbon capture and storage is far enough along to form the basis for the rule.
But EPA says it’s in the clear, because this handful of projects backed under the 2005 law are far from the sole basis for the agency’s determination that CCS is ready for prime time.
The agency, in a detailed memo released several weeks ago, said it also reviewed projects that aren’t funded under the 2005 law and other information.
But Republicans say they’re not convinced. The letter seeks expansive documentation from EPA on the topic, such as internal emails and communications with other agencies.
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."