Letters & Comments

Letters and Comments Dec 1, 2014

The following comments to the proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgating Carbon Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units (79 Federal Register 34830, June 18, 2014) also known as the Clean Power Plan (CPP) are submitted on behalf of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA).

Letters and Comments Dec 1, 2014

The Partnership for a Better Energy Future (the Partnership), a coalition of business organizations representing over 80 percent of the U.S. economy, appreciates this opportunity to provide comments regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed Carbon Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, also known as the Clean Power Plan (CPP).

Letters and Comments Nov 14, 2014

The following comments to the proposal of April 21, 2014 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), hereinafter referred to as ”the agencies”, defining the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA), in light of the U.S. Supreme Court cases in U.S. v. Riverside Bayview, and Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC), and Rapanos v. United States (Rapanos) (7 6 Fed. Reg. 22187, April 21, 2014 ), are submitted on behalf of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, the American Exploration & Production Council and the Western Energy Alliance. Collectively, these three groups will be referred to as ”the Associations.” The comments are also supported by the listed organizations set forth below.

Letters and Comments Nov 13, 2014

The Waters Advocacy Coalition (WAC) writes to provide comments on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) proposed rule to re-define “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act (CWA), 79 Fed. Reg. 22,188 (Apr. 21, 2014). In enacting the CWA, Congress exercised its commerce power over navigation and granted EPA and the Corps (together, the agencies) very specific, limited powers to regulate navigable waters, defined as “waters of the United States.” Congress recognized and sought to preserve the States’ traditional and primary authority over land and water use. For years, the agencies’ regulations and guidance documents have attempted to expand the definition of “waters of the United States” beyond its constitutional and statutory limits. On two occasions, in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) (SWANCC), and Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), the Supreme Court has recognized the Congressional limits placed on CWA jurisdiction and invalidated the agencies’ sweeping assertions of regulatory authority. Despite this history, the agencies’ proposed rule ignores the limits and structure that Congress put in place, as well as the limits recognized by the Supreme Court, and continues the agencies’ practice of overreaching in their assertions of CWA jurisdiction and impinging on the traditional power of the States to regulate land and water.

Letters and Comments Nov 12, 2014

The undersigned 375 groups from each of the 50 states, representing a broad range of businesses, industries, and commercial interests of every size, in every part of the country, write to express our strong opposition to the revised definition of “Waters of the United States” proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Along with many other affected interests, the undersigned groups believe they will be seriously and adversely affected by the revised definition, for the reasons explained in detail below.

Letters and Comments Oct 9, 2014

Independent producers drill about 95 percent of American oil and natural gas wells, produce about 54 percent of American oil, and more than 85 percent of American natural gas. Many of their activities require federal permits, and thus are subject to the full range of Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements that apply in areas designated as critical habitat. The Services have proposed to amend their regulations that govern the designation of critical habitat. IPAA’s comments in this docket focus on the proposed changes to 50 CFR § 424.12(b) and (e), which deal with the criteria for designating critical habitat “outside the geographical area occupied by a listed species at the time it is listed” (the unoccupied areas).

Letters and Comments Oct 9, 2014

Independent producers drill about 95 percent of American oil and natural gas wells, produce about 54 percent of American oil, and more than 85 percent of American natural gas. Many of the wells they develop and operate require federal permits because they involve activities that are regulated by federal law. As a result, those activities, if conducted in an area that has been designated as critical habitat, must be conducted so that they are not likely to result in the “destruction or adverse modification” of that habitat. For the reasons explained in detail below, the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and cooperating associations respectfully request that the draft “Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act,” as it pertains to the exclusion of federal lands from critical habitat designations, be withdrawn.

[widget id="text-26"]