Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Daily Caller

States Attempting To Hijack National Energy Policy

Published

5 minute read

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By James V. F. Dickey and Ivan London

The Trump administration is suing Michigan and Hawaii over their stated plans to sue energy companies for alleged climate change harms. Minnesota attorney general Keith Ellison should watch out because he’s probably next.

Minnesota’s lawsuit against energy producers is a naked attempt to reshape national energy policy that will have global repercussions for costs. In other words, bad decisions by Minnesota courts will skyrocket prices for consumers everywhere, which is explicitly against the Trump administration’s energy policies.

Ellison’s lawsuit claims that energy production that results in burning gasoline and natural gas has caused global climate change. Yet Ellison’s beef with the companies isn’t about harm from climate change but what energy producers supposedly have said or not said to the public about the energy they produce for our nation. He also faults these companies for having funded research by organizations that disagreed with the State’s view of the climate science.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

It’s part of a larger coordinated effort to use litigation to lay the groundwork for an economy-wide green energy transition and to secure additional income for state budgets. Democratic prosecutors in nine states, more than a dozen cities and counties, and Washington, D.C. have brought similar cases using the same playbook to try to keep the deliberations in state courts. In Puerto Rico, “similar” turned out to be identical, as Judge Aida Delgado-Colon discovered when large blocks of text in a complaint filed on behalf of San Juan matched word-for-word a different lawsuit by 16 Puerto Rican municipalities the year before.

Climate activists found Ellison a willing partner for persecuting energy companies when they sold him on the idea of getting millions of dollars a year for Minnesota by securing a settlement like the tobacco master settlement agreement but with energy companies as the target.

Attorney General Ellison has admitted that Minnesota’s special assistant attorneys general were paid for by the New York University School of Law’s climate-alarmist group, the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center. The purpose of that funding is to advance “progressive clean energy, climate change, and environmental legal positions,” said then-executive director David J. Hayes. If this troubles you, you’re on to something: just imagine the reaction if an immigration-hawk group paid staffers’ salaries at the Minnesota attorney general’s office to coordinate deportations with ICE.

Minnesota’s demand in the lawsuit is mind-boggling: a gag order on energy producers’ speech, a forced “public education campaign” about supposed climate change myths, and an order for the energy companies “to disgorge all profits” because of their speech. The last bit is the kicker: Minnesota’s case is really just a virtue-signaling cash grab dressed in legalese.

If the case continues, Minnesotans will reap the whirlwind sown by their attorney general in the form of unreliable sources of energy, a crippled economy and astronomically high prices for travel and home-heating. Every state in the union would reel from this economic disaster’s ripple effect, which is why 19 states asked the Supreme Court this year to halt these lawsuits by Minnesota and four other states.

Minnesota should not try to set the entire country’s climate policy. Only Congress—where Minnesota and other states have elected representatives representing their interests—can do that. Minnesota’s appellate courts should end this charade—though they have so far balked.

Lawsuits like this one have already been rejected by courts in Maryland, New York, and New Jersey and partially dismissed in Delaware. For the sake of every American, Minnesota judges must follow suit and let federal courts litigate the issues that affect the entire nation. If they don’t, they should expect the Trump administration to come knocking.

James V. F. Dickey is managing attorney for the Upper Midwest Law Center and Ivan London is a senior attorney at the Mountain States Legal Foundation.

conflict

‘They Don’t Know What The F*ck They’re Doing’: Trump Unloads On Iran, Israel

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Harold Hutchison

President Donald Trump expressed frustration Tuesday after Iran broke a ceasefire, prompting retaliation from Israel during a gaggle with reporters on the White House lawn.

Trump announced the ceasefire Monday, saying it was supposed to take effect at 1 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time, but Iran fired missiles at Israel Tuesday. Trump vented, saying the countries had been “fighting so long” they couldn’t make peace.

WATCH:

“You know, when I say okay, now you have 12 hours, you don’t go out in the first hour just drop everything you have on them,” Trump said. “So I’m not happy with them. I’m not happy with Iran either. But I’m really unhappy if Israel is going out this morning because the one rocket that didn’t land, that was shot, perhaps by mistake, that didn’t land, I’m not happy about that.”

“We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard, that they don’t know what the fuck they are doing,” Trump added.

The United States struck facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan related to Iran’s effort to develop nuclear weapons early Sunday morning local time, using as many as 14 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators in the operation, which involved a 37-hour flight by seven B-2A Spirit bombers.

The American strikes came ten days after Israel launched a military operation targeting the Iranian nuclear program. Iran has responded with repeated missile attacks on Israeli cities and a refusal to resume negotiations over its efforts to pursue nuclear weapons.

Continue Reading

Automotive

Supreme Court Delivers Blow To California EV Mandates

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Katelynn Richardson

“The Supreme Court put to rest any question about whether fuel manufacturers have a right to challenge unlawful electric vehicle mandates”

The Supreme Court sided Friday with oil companies seeking to challenge California’s electric vehicle regulations.

In a 7-2 ruling, the court allowed energy producers to continue their lawsuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to approve California regulations that require manufacturing more electric vehicles.

“The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. “In light of this Court’s precedents and the evidence before the Court of Appeals, the fuel producers established Article III standing to challenge EPA’s approval of the California regulations.”

Kavanaugh noted that “EPA has repeatedly altered its legal position on whether the Clean Air Act authorizes California regulations targeting greenhouse-gas emissions from new motor vehicles” between Presidential administrations.

“This case involves California’s 2012 request for EPA approval of new California regulations,” he wrote. “As relevant here, those regulations generally require automakers (i) to limit average greenhouse-gas emissions across their fleets of new motor vehicles sold in the State and (ii) to manufacture a certain percentage of electric vehicles as part of their vehicle fleets.”

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals previously rejected the challenge, finding the producers lacked standing to sue.

“The Supreme Court put to rest any question about whether fuel manufacturers have a right to challenge unlawful electric vehicle mandates,” American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) President and CEO Chet Thompson said in a statement.

“California’s EV mandates are unlawful and bad for our country,” he said. “Congress did not give California special authority to regulate greenhouse gases, mandate electric vehicles or ban new gas car sales—all of which the state has attempted to do through its intentional misreading of statute.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X