The wait is over for a New York university think tank to sue the Environmental Protection Agency in an attempt to force the agency to create a cap-and-trade system for transportation fuels.

In 2009, the Institute for Policy Integrity petitioned the EPA to create a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions from fuels used in motor vehicles, non-road vehicles and aircraft. However, the agency never responded to the petition and IPI filed an intent to sue under the Clean Air Act last November. The 180-day waiting period for filing the suit ends Wednesday.

“The damage caused by Superstorm Sandy was widely linked to some of the potential risks associated with a warming planet,” IPI said in a statement. “It highlighted the need to work faster to bring down emissions.

Critics fear that the IPI lawsuit will be an example of “sue and settle.” This controversial practice occurs when an outside group — usually an environmental organization — sues the EPA to force rulemaking. The EPA then quickly settles and begins crafting new rules and regulations under court order.

The practice has been derided as a way for the EPA and environmentalists to collude, forcing a shared regulatory agenda on industry from behind closed doors.

“Implementing a cap-and-trade system on transportation fuels would cause a huge negative financial impact on consumers,” Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter said in an emailed statement to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“The IPI’s intent to sue is a prime example of a far-left organization pushing EPA to play the ‘sue-and-settle’ game, hoping EPA will again circumvent transparency,” Vitter added. “The administration has a pattern of excluding states, individuals and businesses from important rule-making decisions – an unacceptable process that needs to change.”

However, IPI has not yet filed suit and is weighing its legal options as to how it will proceed.

“We have not filed suit,” said an IPI spokeswoman in an email. “The end of our 180 day waiting period is not a deadline. We continue to weigh our legal options and have not made a final decision as to the timing of our next move.”


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/29/potent.../#ixzz2UgeylWH6