Pax­ton Leads Effort to Stop EPA from Ban­ning Safe, Wide­ly Used Compound; Joins in Sup­port of States’ Free­dom to Reg­u­late Emissions


“To ban a substance that has been used for decades based on data that is at the same time both underdeveloped and obsolete reflects a rush to judgment that we fear will have long-term consequences, not just on the economy but on the safety of Americans.”

Texas Insider Report: AUSTIN, Texas – Attorney General Ken Paxton led a 12-state coalition to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) plan to ban all uses of Chrysotile Asbestos. In doing so, EPA relies on old and often obsolete data to reach its sweeping conclusion to ban the substance, and ignores scientific, economic, legal, and constitutional considerations that cut in the opposite direction. EPA’s decision rests on bad science and will adversely affect Americans’ drinking water, as well as the plastic, consumer goods, pharmaceutical, medical supply, and petrochemical industries worth hundreds of billions of dollars.  

“To ban a substance that's been used for decades based on data that is at the same time both underdeveloped and obsolete reflects a rush to judgment that we fear will have long-term consequences, not just on the economy but on the safety of Americans,” the comment letter says.  
 
  • Read the full letter here.  
AG Pax­ton Joins Ami­cus Brief Sup­port­ing States’ Free­dom to Reg­u­late Own Emissions

Attorney General Paxton joined an Indiana-led amicus brief before the United States Supreme Court asking the Court to review a lower court’s decision that “threaten[s] regulatory chaos [and] undermines the coequal sovereignty of each State to regulate emissions within their respective borders,” according to the brief.  

The Court of Appeals’ ruling, which the Supreme Court has the power to overturn, “threatens to let a single State’s judiciary set climate-change policy for other States. If replicated in other similar lawsuits . . . it threatens to subject energy companies . . . to multiple vague and conflicting rules governing the extraction, production, and promotion of fossil fuels . . . .”  

The case is Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., et al. v. Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County, et al., (No. 21-1550.  
 
  • Read the amicus brief here










 
Texas AG Ken Paxton by N/A is licensed under N/A
ad-image
image
08.05.2022

TEXAS INSIDER ON YOUTUBE

ad-image
image
08.05.2022
image
08.04.2022
ad-image