Document 4JmaJRqwEy5vBbeZRxGZr01Qx

To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov] From: David Stevenson Sent: Wed 10/25/2017 11:23:52 AM Subject: RE: Clean Power Plan Repeal published support article New York Times CPP quote.docx Samantha, I was also able to provide some balance in a NY Times story, see attached. Dave Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Dravis. Samantha Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 7:53 AM To: David Stevenson Subject: RE: Clean Power Plan Repeal published support article Thanks, David! From: David Stevenson [mailto:davidstevensonl948@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 7:51 AM To: Dravis, Samantha <dravis.samantha@epa.gov>; Gunasekara, Mandy <Gunasekara.Mandy@epa.gov> Subject: Clean Power Plan Repeal published support article Thanks for the call in update last week. My attached defense of the repeal was published in the Wilmington, DE, News Journal, the state's largest newspaper and the local paper for Joe Biden and Senator's Tom Carper and Chris Coons. David T. Stevenson Director, Center for Energy Competitiveness Caesar Rodney Institute 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00007449-00001 'Nnn ^'y-zyai^dw-.j riry 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00007449-00002 E.P.A. Says It Will Write a New Carbon Rule, but No One Can Say When By LISA FRIEDMANOCT. 10, 2017 A coal-fired power station in Newburg, Md., on Tuesday. The process of unraveling the Clean Power Plan could take months, and that is before any court challenges. Credit Mark Wilson/Getty Images WASHINGTON -- When Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, signed a blueprint Tuesday to eliminate a major Obama-era climate change regulation, the text said the agency would at some point consider a new rule to ratchet down greenhouse gas emissions. But those adept at reading between the lines of dense federal documents say the subtext reads more like: "Don't hold your breath." Industry leaders and environmental activists predict that when the Trump administration formalizes its plan to repeal the Clean Power Plan, nothing will take its place for possibly years to come. The E.P.A. said it would seek public comment on how to fashion a more modest measure to address pollution from power plants, although the agency has not said when it would do so. "I suspect this will drag out for years, many years," said Robert Murray, chief executive of Murray Energy Corp. and a vocal opponent of carbon regulations. "They need to take the time to study this and see if they come up with anything to substitute. I hope they come up with nothing." Mr. Pruitt previewed his plan on Monday at a coal equipment supply company in Hazard, Ky., where he declared, "The war on coal is over." There and in the repeal proposal, Mr. Pruitt accused the Obama administration of favoring renewable energy over coal and violating the 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00007450-00001 Clean Air Act when it established state-by-state targets for carbon emission reductions. "The last administration just simply made it up," Mr. Pruitt said. "When you think about the Clean Power Plan, it was not about regulating to make things regular. It was about regulating to pick winners and losers." He said the Obama administration overstepped its authority in order to favor renewable energy over fossil fuels. We are committed to righting the wrongs of the Obama administration by cleaning the regulatory slate," Mr. Pruitt added in a statement Tuesday. "Any replacement rule will be done carefully, properly, and with humility, by listening to all those affected by the rule." Under the proposed repeal, the bureaucratic process of unraveling the Clean Power Plan could take months, and that is before any court challenges. Separately, the E.P.A. said it would ask the public for ideas about how to write a different, more tapered regulation. It gave no indication, however, of when it would do so or even whether it actually intended to create such a new rule. Moreover, soliciting public comment -- in federal jargon, an "advance notice of proposed rule making" -- is usually used by an agency to test ideas far in advance of even putting forward a proposed new regulation. "I think they're just dragging their feet," said Vicki Arroyo, executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center at Georgetown Law School. "They've had all this time to figure out what it is they would do if they were in charge, and they've been in charge since January, and they've known since November. So it's literally been a year and they really don't have anything to come up with other than kicking the can down the road?" she said. "They're basically running out the clock." Business leaders from the Chamber of Commerce and leading utility companies have urged the E.P.A. in recent months to design a replacement for the Clean Power Plan. The groups, all opponents of the Obama-era plan, have argued that some type of regulation must exist to protect the E.P.A. from lawsuits. Even if the Trump administration succeeds in killing the Clean Power Plan, a 2009 agency determination known as the endangerment finding still compels the agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The E.P.A. administrator, Scott Pruitt, speaking before the Senate in June. Credit Saul 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00007450-00002 Loeb/Agence France-Presse -- Getty Images "When they finalize the repeal, there will certainly be a lawsuit. And separate and apart from that, if they don't move forward with a replacement rule they will also have a lawsuit," said Jeff Holmstead. a lawyer with Bracewell LLP, a firm representing energy companies that sued to overturn the Clean Power Plan. Mr. Holmstead said challenging the E.P.A. will not be easy because there is no specific deadline for the agency to move forward with a replacement. But, he added, "I think there will be pressure from the business community for the E.P.A. to do something so there is a regulation in place." "We are concerned legally that not having a replacement regulation in place opens them up to liability," said Ross Eisenberg. vice president of energy policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, which applauded Tuesday's repeal. Mr. Eisenberg said he was not concerned that the agency appears to want some time to consider a replacement. But, he said, companies are eager to see that effort move forward. Industry isn't all on the same page. Mr. Murray said he didn't believe a replacement was necessary. "Right now, there's no urgency to do anything in my opinion," he said. Supporters and opponents alike point out that the E.P.A. may not have enough senior officials in place to design a new rule. President Trump only last week nominated a deputy administrator to the agency, and other key appointees are awaiting senate confirmation. Another factor is Mr. Pruitt himself, a vocal denier of the scientific consensus that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are the main cause of climate change. Policy analysts said they did not believe Mr. Pruitt wanted his name attached to any greenhouse gas regulation, even a weak one. "It's very clear that this administration has no interest in seriously taking on climate change, be it in the power sector or other sources of emissions," said David Konisky. an associate professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University. "Delaying is the policy." Bui where some see c\nical strategy. Mr. Pruitt's supporters see considered reasoning. . policy director at the Center for Lnergy Competitiveness at the Caesar Rodney Institute in Delaw are and a member of Mr. Trump's F.P..A. transition team, said smart policy takes lime. Designing and moving forw ard a replacement for the Clean Power Plan could lake as Iona as two vears. he said. If you do it right that's how long it lakes." he said. "These kinds of rules were pul in place for a reason, so you couldn't just w illy-nilly regulate the heck out of things." 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA 6/22 Production ED 001523 00007450-00003