Texas lost a third bid Wednesday to block the EPA from regulating emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases.
The state had asked the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to delay the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to seize control of permits for greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other large industrial sources in Texas.
But the three-judge panel concluded that Texas officials have not met “the stringent standards required for a stay” while the court reviews the EPA’s takeover of the state’s permitting authority.
The ruling is just the latest chapter in what is a spirited fight between Texas and the federal government over the way the state regulates air pollution. The new rules on greenhouse gases would have a profound impact on Texas, which pumps more carbon dioxide into the air than any other state.
“Three strikes should mean ‘you’re out’ in this case,” said Steve Cochran, vice president for climate at the Environmental Defense Fund, an advocacy group. “If Texas put half the effort into carrying out greenhouse gas pollution control measures that it put into fighting them, EPA would not need to be involved.”
The state will continue to challenge the EPA despite the ruling, said Lauren Bean, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Greg Abbott.
“With the jobs and livelihoods of thousands of Texas families and businesses at risk, Texas will continue to challenge the EPA’s unlawful overreach,” Bean said.
The first federal rules on carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases took effect this month. Texas is the only state refusing to implement them — a position that prompted the EPA’s attempted takeover of greenhouse gas permits for power plants and other large industrial sources.
Federal and state officials have said that 167 facilities in Texas would be subject to the permitting requirements, which include new pollution controls.
The EPA will hold a public hearing on greenhouse gas permits in Dallas on Friday.
Houston Chronicle file photo/Carlos Antonio Rios
SECEDE!
Suppose the refineries and chemical plants were to reduce their product output, thus reducing CO2 output. Only on the condition that all reductions are on products shipped outside the state while no reductions affect businesses in Texas.
thanks for the loss of jobs hobama idiot
Smart move to have that hearing in Dallas where you have a whole lot of non texan transplants and basically noone who works in the plants. A public hearing should be held closer to the area where people are affected. In Dallas all you’ll get are the dudes making 50k a year driving their $70k BMV on a 5 year lease with their surgically enhanced girlfriends(who they will be paying for long after she has dumped them). In other words, Dallas isn’t Texas, it is a LA wannabe. That hearing should be held in Texas City, LaPorte, Beaumont, or even Houston.
Just out of curiosity, exactly how much are we spending to fight against compliance with federal clean air regulations? I thought our state was broke? Actions like this and our looming deficit simply stun me when I think about the fools that gladly re-elected Perry yet again. I guess we won’t be happy until he’s left us with a cash-strapped, polluted shell of a state.
That’s another thing: “secede”?!?!? Are you REALLY that retarded? Our state HAS NO MONEY. And you want us to strike out on our own? My advice to you “secede” nuts: LAY OFF THE DRUGS!
Thank goodness for a smart three-judge panel. It is time we came into the 21st century. We should be leading the way, not bringing up the end.
Attention Eric: Saying Dallas is not part of Texas is plain stupid. Have you ever lived there? Contrary to popular belief it is actually more progressive than Houston. Dallas con thrive on all the high tech jobs while Houston still depends on those polluting refineries. BTW pollution affects Dallas just as much as Houston so regulation is necessary otherwise industries will not stop polluting and the end result is Texans’ health will suffer!
It’s good to see the EPA leaning ahead in this fight. It’s not only unsightly to look at the smog across the state, but it’s smelly and it has deeply profound implications on the health of all of us Texans. Sure, these plants argue they get to make more money…but it’s our air and our water, isn’t it? Should we have to suffer for their dollars?
And if every other state except Texas is following the new regulations, then something is seriously wrong here. 49 out of 50 states didn’t object to these regulations, suggesting that the 1 out of 50 who is…is way out on the extreme.
Reduce carbon emissions, and Texas: start bringing us more green energy jobs to replace the dying fossil fuel industry sector!
The headline makes it sound like it is a loss for Texas, when it is in fact a win, to give us cleaner air to breathe. Texas has given polluters a free ride for far too long, and it is time it stopped. This is not likely to cost jobs, because these polluting companies still need employees to run, though it will probably force them to raise prices somewhat, but that’s life. And it will in fact probably create jobs, for engineering companies to design less polluting facilities and workers to make the changes in the polluting plants.
If the US states were a neighborhood, Texas would be the one with the abandoned cars on blocks in a yard overgrown by weeds that has a pit bull that runs after every car or bicycle that goes by. I am not sure why Texas thinks it is special when it comes to following rules that every state does designed to not destroy our environment and get all of the populace poisoned with carcinogens.
why are our tax dollars being spent to fight laws that make our living standards better. Oh thats right lawmakers work for corporations not people. My mistake.
Again-in Texas the family comes last. With our State fighting what was designed to protect Texas families, and our children’s health- it big business first and the family last.
It is our air and our water and recent reports of what is actually in our water and air should scare the stuffing out of everyone.
It is a travesty that big bucks in the political arena trump what is best for Texas families. Our representatives spending our tax dollars fighting NOT to protect Texas children -should be ashamed!
The companies should modernize and make improvements to reduce CO2 and air pollution, and create jobs at the same time. It will cost them money in the short term, but will save money and make the plants more efficient, and save the environment, in the long term. Too bad the EPA has to force them to do what they should have been doing all along.
Good! The clueless politicians we have in Austin can’t regulate anything, much less themselves. Secede? What a childish sentiment.
Also, it is a “Gravey Train” whereby corporations can save money by not treating or controlling releases, and later, the US government picks up the expense of having to clean up the messes. This effectively converts public money into private money.
Damn Yankee’s!
Charles
January 13, 2011, 9:40 AM
Attention Eric: Saying Dallas is not part of Texas is plain stupid. Have you ever lived there? Contrary to popular belief it is actually more progressive than Houston
You say that like it’s a good thing. Lived right down the street from Texas Instruments. I’v been to the beautiful campus of Frito Lay(Plano). But your right… definitely more progressive than Houston. And exactly how does that fit in with the rest of Texas?
We are fighting the EPA because we are the state with the most to lose. The Texas Coast is the area with the most to lose. That is why a public hearing is Dallas is ridiculous. Even a progressive idiot such as yourself should be able to get off your elitist high horse and see that.
“Green” jobs is a myth. Some of you have been drinking the left wing kool-aid. There is a reason the term didn’t even exist until the 2008 coronation. Environmental protections are a drag on the economy.. there is no way around it. A balance has to be met… and it is a decision that should be made by Texas.
Justice/Vernon – I think you should educate yourself – controlling CO2 emissions has nothing to do with smog or any other pollutant as the term has historilly ben defined – in fact, reducing CO2 emissions may increase smog.
Sean – I am not in favor of seceding, but if Texas was independent, we could have plenty of money – this is not a reason to not secede.
WriterDude – you understand that we are talking about CO2, which is what you exhale when you breathe. Perhaps we should control releases by executing a large percentage ofthe population?
Nigel/etc. – The long term effect of the EPA overreach, if it succeeds, will be to push refining, petrochemicals and manufacturing to India and China, reducing the standard of living for all Americans, and leading to long term high unemployment, economic stagnation/retreat, and civil unrest.