A recent decision by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning Maricopa County may have been politically motivated and may pose a national security risk.
The EPA decided earlier this week to reclassify Maricopa County to “serious” nonattainment status for its ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Congresswoman Debbie Lesko claimed that the EPA’s reclassification poses a national security risk in a Wednesday press release. The congresswoman argued that finalization of the reclassification ahead of a second Trump administration would jeopardize Arizona’s newly established semiconductor manufacturing.
“If the EPA continues its expedited schedule in a rush to make their reclassification effective before the Trump Administration takes office, it will negatively impact Arizona and national security,” said Lesko. “The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) was just awarded $6.6 Billion in CHIPS Act funding. This action by the EPA could jeopardize that funding and makes absolutely no sense.”
Lesko speculated in letters of appeal to the EPA and Commerce Department that the EPA was acting in a rushed response to undermine president-elect Donald Trump’s incoming administration.
“The reason for this [EPA] change is not clear to me, but I am concerned that this action was taken based upon the political reality of the upcoming administration change,” said Lesko.
Lesko further argued the EPA was “premature” in its reclassification. Lesko referenced an understanding via communications with the EPA that the agency wouldn’t issue its decision until next May.
Not only has the EPA acted prematurely, Lesko argued, but their expedited timeline works outside of the legal requirement to have a 180-day window for redesignation from Aug. 3, 2024, which would land on Jan. 30, 2025. The presidential inauguration takes place on Jan. 20, 2025. Lesko asked the EPA to honor its original May timeline.
EPA Region 9 advised Maricopa County Air Quality that they would issue a Federal Register Notice containing an “expedited redesignation” within the coming weeks.
The redesignation would lower Maricopa County’s emissions threshold from 100 tons to 50 tons for major sources of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds. Lesko said these adjustments would jeopardize TSMC operations.
“TMSC’s new plant requires an air quality permit to proceed. The current major source threshold of 100 tons would allow TSMC to proceed without needing to acquire emission reduction credits (ERCs),” said Lesko. “However, a redesignation to serious nonattainment would impose the 50-ton threshold, which is currently unfeasible due to the shortage of available ERCs, thus potentially delaying or halting this key project.”
Lesko cited further concerns that the expedited redesignation would harm the Maricopa County and Arizona economies by dissuading industry growth and recruitment for technology and advanced manufacturing.
Maricopa County Air Quality issued a release earlier this year warning that the EPA would reclassify their ozone nonattainment from “moderate” to “serious” nonattainment prior to Feb. 3, 2025.
The EPA included Maricopa County in its final rule, finding it in October as an area that failed to submit a plan addressing EPA ozone requirements for moderate nonattainment areas. The EPA reclassified Maricopa County from marginal to moderate in 2022, and gave the county until last January to submit its plan.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Two Arizona Republicans are challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) increased regulation on energy policies affecting many Americans and Arizonans.
Last week, Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma joined a coalition of states and private parties in an amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Nebraska v. Environmental Protection Agency. The petitioners are challenging the EPA’s final rule, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles – Phase 3.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Senate President @votewarren Files Opening Brief Against Biden-Harris Administration's EPA Over Economically Damaging Electric Vehicle Mandates
According to the press release issued by the State Senate Republican Caucus, this newly enacted standard by the EPA would “require by 2032 nearly 70% of all new vehicles and 25% of all new semitrucks or similar heavy-duty vehicles sold in the United States to be electric, guaranteeing to raise the costs of everything Arizonans purchase, and without adequate charging infrastructure in place or the necessary power grid capacity to accommodate the transition.”
In the brief, the coalition argues that “under the Major Questions Doctrine, EPA lacks statutory authority to effectively mandate electric vehicles,” that “EPA lacks statutory authority to set standards that can be met only by averaging in electric vehicles,” and that “EPA’s rule is arbitrary and capricious.”
“Our federal government does not have the power to mandate electric vehicles, and their actions show just how out of touch the Biden-Harris Administration is by creating costly policies that will inflict more financial pain on our citizens who have already been burned by skyrocketing costs over the past three-and-a-half years,” said Senate President Warren Petersen. “The EPA egregiously overstepped its authority with these arbitrary rules, and the negative impact of forcing industries that every American consumer depends on, to make unreasonable and unattainable changes, will be detrimental to our economy. The Arizona Legislature will continue to hold this Administration accountable and defend our citizens from this big government negligence.”
“Hardworking Americans are hurting enough as it is from soaring inflation caused by the Biden-Harris Administration,” said Senator Frank Carroll, vice chairman of the Senate Committee on Transportation, Technology & Missing Children. “The last thing we need is for this Administration to prioritize expensive and scientifically baseless polices all in the name of a radical climate change agenda from Democrats that imposes unattainable goals, which will lead to soaring consumer prices. The average working-class citizen or trucking business will cripple under these mandates and the cost of just about every basic essential will increase exponentially.”
The coalition writes, “As in West Virginia, EPA cannot unilaterally reshape the energy and transportation sectors by reimagining its statutory authority. Heavy-duty vehicles transport city commuters, move consumer goods across the country, remove refuse, and harvest our food. The question of whether and how internal-combustion-engine heavy-duty vehicles should be phased out in favor of electric vehicles is hugely consequential: It involves millions of jobs, the restructuring of entire industries, and the Nation’s energy independence. If the federal government is going to require that major shift, then a Congress accountable to the American public must say so. It has not.”
Over the past two years, Petersen and Toma have led a prolific defense of state and federal laws against the Democrat administrations in both the Arizona Governor’s Office and the White House. The lawmakers have long had their sights on the Biden Administration’s environmental and energy policies that have threatened to overhaul the country’s systems.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
President Joe Biden has repeatedly called climate change an “existential threat,” worse than nuclear weapons.
Yet, Biden’s green energy mandates result in a greater U.S. demand for wind turbines, solar panels and electric batteries from China, made by coal-fired power plants, increasing the emissions Biden criticizes at home.
The United Nations Environment Programme estimates that in the absence of reductions in carbon emissions, temperatures will rise by about 3 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. The idea that such a temperature change is worse than deaths from nuclear weapons is ludicrous. Over 200,000 people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after America dropped atomic bombs.
Temperatures have varied for centuries. Climate models are not reliable and accurate enough to attribute global warming to human activities. The observed rate of global warming over the past 50 years has been weaker than that predicted by almost all computerized climate models.
Thirty-six computer models overpredicted surface air temperatures during the summer growing season. The models all showed warming well above what happened in reality, with the most extreme model producing seven times too much warming.
Increases in hurricane frequency are erroneously cited as an effect of warming. Although carbon dioxide emissions and temperature — both in America and globally — have increased over the latter parts of the 20th Century, no meaningful increase in frequency and intensity of hurricanes has been observed.
Hurricane damage has increased over time, but this outcome is largely due to increased incomes and wealth, and therefore infrastructure creation, rather than more violent hurricanes. For example, homes in Florida have risen by a factor of 12 since 1975, according to the St Louis Federal Reserve Bank. The same hurricane that in 1975 destroyed a house worth $100,000 would now destroy a house worth $1.2 million.
Although some say that increased CO2 levels are detrimental to human health and welfare, deaths are more likely to result from medical events triggered by the cold than by the heat.
A 2020 study by Dr. Whanhee Lee and others in Lancet showed that cold-related morbidity and mortality — strokes, heart attacks, blood clots, and other problems — result directly from the influence of cold temperatures on the body, where the body is unable to maintain sufficient core temperature to guarantee survival.
In addition, Environmental Protection Agency data shows that death rates are about 10 percent higher in winter, and January is the deadliest month of the year in the Northern Hemisphere.
If Biden truly thought that climate change was an existential threat, he would try to lower global emissions through greater U.S. exports of natural gas. This would enable other countries to reduce emissions by substituting natural gas for coal, just as America has reduced carbon emissions by 1,000 million metric tons over the past 16 years.
In addition, Biden would try to expand emissions-free nuclear power if he thought climate change was a threat. He would make uranium mining easier, because uranium is a critical ingredient for nuclear power. Yet he has taken swaths of land off the table for uranium development and made no attempt to solve the problem of nuclear waste.
Instead, Biden blocks a new liquid natural gas export terminal in Louisiana, which results in greater worldwide use of coal, increasing global carbon dioxide emissions. Europe has already been turning to coal to deal with energy shortages in the aftermath of Russia’s cutoff of natural gas.
Over the past 20 years, U.S. emissions of CO2 have declined by a billion metric tons as natural gas has been increasingly substituted for coal use in the generation of electricity. Over the same period, CO2 emissions in China have risen by 8.7 billion metric tons.
Biden’s repetition that climate change is an existential threat gives him an excuse to impose more regulations and sign into law subsidies for favored donors.
“Never let a good crisis go to waste,” said Amb. Rahm Emanuel when he was President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff. Biden is inventing the crisis and the waste is following.
Diana Furchtgott-Rothis a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and directs the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at The Heritage Foundation.
People in states that have signed on to the EPA/ State Climate Action Plan program can no longer say, “it’s only happening in California” because California is the United Nations blueprint for the entire United States.
On September 20, 2023, the Biden administration met at the Sustainable Development Summit in New York with the goal of recommitting to the [United Nations] 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals—SDGs. A White House fact sheet stated, “The United States is committed to the full implementation of 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, at home and abroad. At their core, the SDGs seek to:
Expand economic opportunity – This means public-private partnerships, which is crony capitalism. In this scheme there are winners and losers, where profits are privatized, and losses are socialized on the backs of middle-class Americans.
Advance social justice – This means placating and advancing people based on their skin color. At its core it is discriminatory.
Promote good governance – This skirts our elected form of government and injects unelected special interest initiatives into our lives, where no one gets to vote.
Ensure no one is left behind – This means catering to protected classes and minorities in order to create “capacity building” for initiatives and redistributive wealth schemes. Under Diversity and Inclusion (DEI), these classes are awarded “equity” and “inclusion” based on their skin color.
The Biden administration hired people from California and put them into positions in all federal agencies relating to climate change in order to fulfill his Green New Deal plan. Therefore, the plan mirrors what California has done at the national level.
The EPA/State Climate Action Plan program are through cooperative grants, (Climate Pollution Reduction Grants, CPRG) which have “take it or leave it” terms and conditions. These agreements bind states and local jurisdictions into creating GHG inventories to reduce GHG emissions, which eventually wind their way into administrative law, constraining property and individual rights. These grants force United Nations style Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) that addresses the U.N. 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which the Biden administration has committed to.
The EPA pitches climate action plans as voluntary. This is not true. Once a state agrees to take grant money, they sign on to mandatory elements in the grant terms and conditions contract — They are now in the United Nations/California club.
The EPA/State Climate Action Plan program is between the federal EPA, a “Partner” and unelected state agencies, boards, bodies, or commissions. Therefore, the entire process is being implemented without the consent of citizens and oversight of state legislatures – no one gets to vote. In essence, most states, including so-called conservative states, are selling out for bribes, aka grant money.
According to the EPA, states submitted Priority Climate Action Plans (PCAPs) under President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. The EPA/State Climate Action Plan program was hurried into place because there was concern that there could be a Republican change in the November 2024 election, which could jeopardize the program; hence, the name “priority” climate action plan in the first phase of the plan.
In 2023, under the first phase of the $5 billion program, the EPA made a total of $250 million in grants available to states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 80 MSAs, four territories, and over 200 Tribes and Tribal consortia to develop ambitious climate action plans that address greenhouse gas emissions. 45 states are now covered by a climate action plan. 5 states: Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, South Dakota and Wyoming decided not to participate.
The program is a two-phase federal grant program that allows the state to develop and implement ongoing community-driven projects that reduce ambient air pollution.
Phase I provided $250 million for noncompetitive planning grants, of which states were eligible for $3 million each to support the development of a climate action plan.
Phase II includes $4.6 billion in competitive implementation grants to execute the projects identified in the climate action plan.
The deadlines for submission of PCAPs are:
Priority Climate Action Plan – Creates an inventory of the state’s primary GHG generators. Due March 1, 2024 (states and Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and due April 1, 2024 (tribes, tribal consortia, and territories)
Comprehensive Climate Action Plan – A plan to cut that pollution statewide. Due two years after planning grant award, or approximately mid-2025 (states and MSAs) and due at the close of the grant period (tribes, tribal consortia, and territories)
The EPA/State Climate Action Plan program seeks to create arbitrary greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions in order to install unconstitutional hidden fees and taxes on hard working Americans. This is accomplished by doing a greenhouse gas inventory for carbon (CO2) and methane.
Once inventories for GHGs have been established, reduction goals can be set by States and local jurisdictions. Taxes and fees follow: GHG pricing mechanisms like cap and trade programs for energy producers; congestion pricing and vehicle mileage taxes for cars and trucks; mandatory retrofitting of commercial and existing residential homes to “green” building standards; zero emission vehicle requirements; increased gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil prices. For example, categories for emission controls include:
Transportation
Electricity Generation
Industry
Agriculture
Commercial and Residential Buildings
Waste and Materials Management
Wastewater
Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry
The EPA provided states with an outline template to follow in the development of their PCAPs called the, Priority Climate Action Plan Guidance: An Outline for States and MSAs. Therefore, the State PCAPs are very similar in their presentation. For example, PCAP lists required elements:
GHG Emissions Inventory,
Priority Measures and Reduction Estimates,
Benefits Analysis,
Low-Income and Disadvantaged Communities (LIDAC) Benefits Analysis,
Review of Authority to Implement,
Intersection with Other Funding Availability, and
Coordination and Engagement.
State legislatures did not pass PCAPs. It all happened through interagency coordination: EPA and state agencies, which are under the control of Governors.
Arizona State University and Northern Arizona University for the Arizona Governor’s Office of Resiliency were the lead players in The Clean Arizona Plan: Priority Climate Action Plan State of Arizona. They coordinated the obligatory public outreach required by EPA grants, which included feedback from numerous special interest stakeholders who directly benefit from environmental initiatives, while hard working residents are relegated to answering simple questions on outcome-based online surveys — All of this is at the detriment to Arizona’s residents.
People need to contact their state’s Governor and condemn them for signing on and creating commissions and task forces while utilizing faux stakeholder consensus to justify existing PCAPs and Comprehensive Climate Action Plans already in the works. They need to notify their state legislatures that this is happening and ask them if they know about this EPA program.
Also, people need to remind elected officials of their constitutional oaths to protect individual property rights, as evidenced in a Paramount Network’s “Yellowstone” season one episode: Patriarch John Dutton is confronted by a group of Communist Chinese tourists who are trespassing on his land. He demands that they leave and when he explains that he owns the land, one trespasser states, “It is wrong for one man to own all this.” Dutton responds, “This is America, we don’t share land here!”
People in states that have signed on to the EPA/State Climate Action Plan program can no longer say, “it’s only happening in California” because California is the United Nations blueprint for the entire United States.
Dan Titus is affiliated with the American Coalition for Sustainable Communities (ACSC). Their mission is sustaining representative government; not governance, by collectivist-oriented unelected agencies and commissions.
Members of Arizona’s Republican legislative leadership are again taking action against harmful energy policies for their state.
Earlier this week, Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over select regulations targeting gas-powered vehicles. The two legislative leaders also signed onto another lawsuit, which was led by a coalition of state attorneys general from across the nation, that challenged a California rule that would also have adverse effects in Arizona.
Joining Petersen and Toma on the legal filings in federal court against the EPA was the Arizona Trucking Association.
“These rules exceed the EPA’s statutory authority, are arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion,” said Senate President Warren Petersen. “In the absence of our Attorney General holding the Biden Administration accountable, the Legislature will gladly protect our citizens from this egregious abuse of power.”
🚨FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Senate President @votewarren Sues Biden Administration's EPA, California Over Costly, Economically Damaging Electric Vehicle Mandates pic.twitter.com/It5BNoePx3
In an exclusive comment to AZ Free News, Speaker Ben Toma said, “This latest California regulation attempts to override federal law, threatens to mandate the use of battery-electric vehicles, and targets owners and operators of trucking fleets. Arizona is among the top states that Californians have fled to in recent years. I joined this lawsuit to protect Arizona’s growing economy, business-friendly policies, and interstate commerce that produces fuel tax revenues for the state.”
“The EPA’s tailpipe emissions rules prioritize politics over science, posing a greater threat to public health by inflating the cost of essential and everyday goods,” said Tony Bradley, President & CEO of the Arizona Trucking Association. “Despite the trucking industry’s remarkable progress—already reducing 98.5% of emissions—we’re dedicated to further advancements through innovation and investment. Yet, the EPA’s impractical mandates, targeting a mere 1.5% of remaining emissions, burden us with unrealistic expectations and exorbitant costs. We proudly join the Arizona Legislature in challenging these detrimental regulations.”
One of the lawsuits asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to “declare [the] EPA’s final action (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles – Phase 3) unlawful and vacate it.” The other took legal aim at the EPA’s final rule for Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles.
According to Arizona Senate Republicans, these regulations from the EPA “require by 2032 nearly 70% of all new vehicles and 25% of all new semitrucks or similar heavy-duty vehicles sold in the United States to be electric, guaranteeing to raise the costs of everything Arizonans purchase, and without adequate charging infrastructure in place or the necessary power grid capacity.”
The California lawsuit was led by the State of Nebraska and challenged California’s “ban [on] internal-combustion engines in medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.” Arizona Senate Republicans pointed out that “the rule applies to any fleets headquartered in Arizona, if they operate within California, which will create dire impacts to the supply chain and dramatically raise costs for Arizona trucking companies that will inevitably be passed onto their customers.”
“The climate change agenda from Democrats imposes expensive and unattainable goals on the automotive and trucking industries, which will undoubtedly lead to soaring consumer prices,” said Senator Frank Carroll, vice chairman of the Senate Committee on Transportation, Technology & Missing Children. “We don’t have the infrastructure to power these vehicles, and the average working-class citizen or trucking business can’t afford to purchase them.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
