Fed. gov. uses "Regional haze" authority of Clean Air Act to extract millions in US taxpayer cash from states, EPA favorite parasite cronies include enviro litigators, and groups like the taxpayer enriched American Lung Assn and Sierra Club

.
2/17/13, "EPA's Secret And Costly 'Sue And Settle' Collusion With Environmental Organizations," Forbes, Larry Bell

"EPA’s abuse of its Regional Haze authority forces states to relinquish their authority and accept EPA’s far more expensive plans, thereby increasing consumer utility charges. He concluded that: “… no state is immune from having its rightful Regional Haze authority trampled by EPA at profound costs for virtually nonexistent benefits.” Having conducted eight state case studies, Yeatman found that:

In Arizona, EPA’s Regional Haze regulation threatens to increase the cost of water, forcing the state to spend an additional $90.2 million per year to implement the federal regulation.

In Montana, EPA’s proposed Regional Haze controls are nearly 250% more expensive than what that agency’s standing rules presume to be “cost-effective” for compliance,

In 2011, the EPA disregarded New Mexico’s Regional Haze plan, instead imposing a federal plan that requires nearly $840 million more in capital costs…potentially raising average annual household utility bills by $120.

Although North Dakota is one of only 12 states that achieves all of EPA’s air quality standards for public health, it would not be able to achieve EPA’s Regional Haze goals for visibility even by shutting down all industry. The EPA plan would also cost the state an additional $13 million per year,

Refusing to approve Oklahoma’s Regional Haze plan, the EPA’s plan would cost the state $282 million annually.

In Wyoming, the EPA proposed a federal implementation plan that would cost almost $96 million per year more than the state’s plan.

Minnesota is subject to back-to-back Regional Haze regulations, whereby EPA is claiming authority to regulate regional haze twice in succession at its Sherburne County generating plant.

EPA’s proposed plan would cost Nebraska nearly $24 million per year to achieve invisible “benefits”.

Louisiana Senator David Vitter (R-LA), the new ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, plans to investigate this Sue and Settle practice, “using all available tools to bring to light this often abused path to regulatory influence”. For starters, he asked his Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell to join with AGs of 13 other states who filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with EPA on August 10, 2012, asking for any and all correspondence between EPA and a list of 80 environmental, labor union and public interest organizations that have been party to litigation since the start of the Obama administration.

Unfortunately, getting federal agencies to comply with formal FOIA requests isn’t proving to be easy. And to make matters worse, there is evidence that top bureaucrats have even used private e-mail accounts and aliases to cover culpability tracks....

One of those private e-mails at issue involved an exchange between Martin and Vickie Patton, the General Counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, regarding an arranged meeting with him. ...

On January 28, 2013, on behalf of the American Tradition institute (ATI) Horner also sued in the Federal District Court of Washington, D.C. to compel EPA to end its eight-month stonewall of two FOIA requests regarding its “uncomfortably close ties at great taxpayer expense” with the American Lung Association (ALA), and the Sierra Club. Both of these organizations lobby for stringent regulatory legislation the EPA wants, while at the same time, receiving agency funding. 

ALA has received $20,405,655 from EPA over the past 10 years, and has run campaigns against politicians who challenge its policies. An ALA billboard ad in Michigan targeted House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, featuring a child with an oxygen mask over her face. The text read: “Rep. Fred Upton, protect our kids’ health. Don’t weaken the Clean Air Act.”

According to the ATI complaint, “The Sierra Club employs a similar model and has close working relationships with Agency officials.” This charge refers most particularly to a recent incidence where Sierra hired disgraced EPA Region 6 Administrator Al Armendariz. He left EPA shortly after a videotape revealed him acknowledging his “philosophy of enforcement” as being akin to random crucifixions used to keep subjects suitably respectful and “really easy to manage for the next few years.” Armendariz has pledged to continue to help Sierra (and, presumably, EPA) fight the coal industry.

Senator Vitter’s office has informed me that there are ongoing investigations regarding a known revolving door of environmentalists and agencies, as well as Equal Action to Justice Act recovery money flowing to these groups post-settlement. In other words, the litigating groups are getting paid to sue both at the front end and tail end as well."...


.
.