This morning, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington held an oral argument in the case of the relevant Household Electric Consumer Council v. EPA. That’s the case when a tough-nosed citizen group (CHECC) challenged the EPA’s 2009 conclusion that CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” constitute a “danger” to human health and well-being. due to their ability to heat the atmosphere. That finding, known as the Hazard Detection or EF, is the basis for the government-wide regulatory assault on the fossil fuel industry and energy economy currently underway by the Biden Administration onion.
I attended today’s debate as one of CHECC’s attorneys (although my brilliant co-advisor, Harry MacDougald, delivered the argument orally). I have had previous articles summarizing the briefing on the case, including this post at the time of submission of the Opening Abstract in October 2022And this one in february 2023 when submitting the Final Response Summary.
My previous posts on this case have focused on what our attorneys like to call “credit,” which means, did the EPA specify any valid scientific basis. for “detecting” human hazards from increased atmospheric CO2? In that regard, the EPA’s position is weak. With the collective hysteria essentially enveloping all of our major institutions with fear that the world is coming to an end due to “climate change”, you would think that the warlords in their government We will at least have a well-prepared and coherent story of how that happened. must happen. But they don’t. The stated basis for EF is a combination of a temperature series where almost half of the data has been generated and filled in by computer algorithms, along with model predictions of unknown atmospheric temperature patterns. was found in experimental data as it was collected. Unfortunately, almost no oral debate is devoted to these topics.
Instead, a little less than all the arguments are devoted to another issue that our attorneys refer to as “standing.” Since non-attorney readers may not be familiar with the matter, I will provide some background information.
Article III of the United States Constitution, in granting what it calls a “judicial power” in the federal court system, defines the extent of that right in Part 2 about what it calls “cases” and “controversies”. Those provisions have long been understood that in order for someone to be eligible to initiate a federal lawsuit, he must have some real interest in the matter. In contrast to many European countries, our courts do not deal with requests from citizen advocates who simply want to advance a political cause by receiving a favorable court ruling. consulting project. Courts use the term “stand by” to refer to a personal interest necessary in the matter necessary to qualify for a lawsuit.
As an initial suggestion, the standing requirement is actually a good idea and saves our courts from quite a bit of mischief. However, drawing a line between who has and who has not proved quite difficult, especially in the field of challenging administrative initiatives of the state. The DC Circuit has delivered one lengthy opinion after another on the subject — some as long as 100 pages — and the Supreme Court has weighed in as well. The comments are confusing and not entirely consistent. Furthermore, the series of lengthy narratives about the cases create a convenient smokescreen to mask the reality of what happened, that is, cases such as these now exist that give the groups an advantage. campaigning on the left in gaining a foothold, and to the detriment of advocates of limited government seeking to challenge transgressions by the federal agency.
So as an example that is very relevant to our case, it is well established that any person or environmental advocacy organization can take a stand to challenge the regulations. about the environment by simply stating an interest in a clean and healthy environment. That interest is abstract, non-quantifiable and non-monetary; but the courts have said it is enough.
What about the benefits of CHECC members? You might think (and we think) that their interests are ranks higher than those commonly asserted by environmental organisations. CHECC members assert that they all pay their electricity bills, and Hazard Detection is being used in a deliberate effort to increase electricity costs in order to reduce fossil fuel use. For example, we cited the famous quote of then-candidate Barack Obama (“My plan, … the price of electricity is bound to skyrocket.”), as well as the experiences of others places like California and Germany, where aggressive efforts to phase out fossil fuels and promote wind and solar power have resulted in electricity prices two and three times higher than in places that continue to depend on electricity. fossil fuel.
But despite the seemingly favorable contrast to the situation of environmentalists, insisting on the side of CHECC is not open and closed. The questions from the workshop focused entirely on this issue: How do you know that electricity prices will increase? Have you provided enough proof of that?
Even as the judges pressed the CHECC with those questions, in this matter a set of environmental groups (e.g., American Lung Association, Clean Wisconsin, Appalachian Mountain Club) intervened. with no basis other than a general statement of concern for a clean and healthy environment. Note that these organizations are not just “friends” or “friends of the court”. Instead, by “intervening,” they claim to be parties to the case who have a vested interest in having their voices heard, but on no other grounds than concern. fear that the temperature could rise several hundred degrees. years from now. No one bothers to try to object, because case law supports that claim is sufficient to empower standing. Needless to say, all of these groups are in favor of leaving Hazard Detection as-is and transforming the energy economy with the power of regulations enacted by unelected officials.
Meanwhile, the EPA’s energy transition poses unavoidable costs to electricity consumers, possibly in the hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars — no This is without a doubt the most expensive regulatory initiative of all time — and DC Circuits seem to be struggling as to whether any electricity consumer has a stake in the matter to convey. “stand” or not. You really can’t make this stuff up.
It could be weeks if not months before we get the court decision.
Related
