Let’s not forget that the Oregon court is primarily made up of Democrats
Oregon court strikes down state climate program, rules in favor of utilities, industry
An Oregon court on Wednesday delivered a blow to Oregon’s signature Climate Protection Program, invalidating it over the state’s failure to follow rule-making requirements.
The program mandates ever-increasing cuts in emissions from the state’s natural gas utilities, suppliers of gasoline, diesel, kerosene and propane and large industrial plants.
Oregon’s three gas utilities, an oil-industry group and a dozen other local trade organizations had challenged the program’s rules last year, aiming to block them.
The Oregon Court of Appeals found that the Environmental Quality Commission, the policy and rule-making board for the state’s Department of Environmental Quality, did not meet heightened disclosure requirements.
You mean they shortcut everything in their attempt to force the citizens of Oregon to comply?
In court, lawyers for the utilities and trade group had argued that the state cannot regulate their emissions and that the Climate Protection Program would reduce the amount of available fuel in the state. They also challenged the state’s compliance with the disclosure requirements.
They argued that the notice of proposed rulemaking in the secretary of state’s bulletin omitted any statement regarding whether the rules exceed federal requirements on Title V plants, any description of the alternatives considered and any explanation why those alternatives were rejected. They also said other forms of notice failed to include the information about alternatives and why they were not pursued. (snip)
The state acknowledged that the notice it submitted did not include an explicit statement about additional federal requirements. The state said it “substantially complied” with state rules by posting the notice of proposed rulemaking on its website, sending it to over 20,000 recipients and conducting 18 months of public outreach. (snip)
But the court ruled that is not enough.
“Substantial compliance … is not sufficient. The statute requires actual compliance,” the court wrote.
An amazing ruling. The government office figured they could just do whatever they wanted.