When the EPA talks, our delegation had better be darned skeptical. And should rein them in.

Yesterday, our Washington Delegation took great issue with the EPA’s “Clean Power Plan,” which could increase the cost of electricity for South Dakotans, and most of America. As noted by Senator Thune in his dissent over the regulations:

“The Obama EPA strikes again,” said Thune. “If there is one thing for which the EPA can be counted on, it is the repeated issuance of rules and regulations that stifle growth and make life harder and more costly for American families and entrepreneurs. This backdoor national energy tax will hurt jobs, cause costs to skyrocket, and threaten grid reliability.


For South Dakota to meet its state reduction target, the recently overhauled Big Stone Plant would likely have to shut down for at least part of the year. The plant, which is nearing completion of a $384 million environmental upgrade to meet the EPA’s Regional Haze and Utility MACT regulations, will soon be among the cleanest in the country. Yet, under the Clean Power Plan, this investment would be stranded and its sunk costs passed on to ratepayers.

Read that here.

And the EPA Strikes again.  But can we trust that the EPA is passing rules and regulations on the basis of science and a sincere desire of a majority of Americans?

Because as noted recently in relation to the waters of the US rule from the EPA and the Corps of Engineers, in that instance the agency actually campaigned on social media seeking comments in support of their position.

For example, the agency used a Thunderclap campaign to drum up support using social media. “We hope you’ll support our clean water proposal. To help you do that, and get your friends to also voice their support, we’re using a new tool called Thunderclap; it’s like a virtual flash mob.” The message was sent to about 1.8 million people.The agency also has used social media in other ways to help promote the rule.

According to The New York Times, “Late last year, the EPA sponsored a drive on Facebook and Twitter to promote its proposed clean water rule in conjunction with the Sierra Club.”


After receiving heat about these questionable actions, the agency defended itself by claiming, “Our goal is to inform and educate. We encourage folks from all perspectives to participate so we can understand more, learn more and finalize a stronger rule.”


McCarthy also fails to mention opposition to the rule is massive. Groups representing farmers, ranchers, small businesses, manufacturers, homebuilders, mining companies, counties, cities and state legislators, as well as individuals, state officials and other groups have submitted substantive comments expressing opposition to the rule. In other words, there is widespread opposition rarely seen to a proposed rule.

Read it here.

This would be akin to the South Dakota Game Fish & Parks seeking an unpopular reduction in mountain lion quotas going to social media, and asking people to leave a comment if they want to “save the kitties.”  It’s ludicrous, and places what’s supposed to be a unbiased quasi-judicial panel who is supposed to judge the merit of proposals and turns them into a political organization campaigning to turn the will of the people.

In other words, it’s the tail wagging the dog.

If that’s what our government is coming to, there needs to be drastic change in the executive branch of government. And in any instance when the EPA talks, our delegation had better be darned skeptical.

And should take steps to rein them in.

Press Release: Attorney General Jackley and other Attorneys General Call Upon EPA to Withdraw Proposed Greenhouse Rule

Attorney General Jackley and other Attorneys General Call Upon
EPA to Withdraw Proposed Greenhouse Rule

PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty Jackley and 18 other State Attorneys General today asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to withdraw the Proposed Rule for the Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Emissions from New Stationary Sources, this rule provides new source performance standards for greenhouse gas emissions for new fossil-fuel fired generating units.
“Protecting the environment through reasonable regulation and enforcement is important to South Dakota. The process and unprecedented action taken by the EPA to expand its authority is unnecessarily affecting economic development and our agricultural industry in South Dakota. In the end these attempts at regulation will only work to stifle economic development, and increase energy prices upon the consumer,” said Jackley.

In 2014, several states submitted extensive comments on the Proposed Rule, explaining the Proposed Rule was unlawful. In addition, they also noted the EPA’s failure to comply with notice and comment requirements. Now over a year later, these comments and related concerns have not been addressed as the EPA moves forward with the implementation of the Proposed Rule.