The Attorneys General from the states of Montana and Wyoming filed separate petitions with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Monday asking the agency to reconsider its final carbon emission rule adopted this past August.
Montana Attorney General Tim Fox and Wyoming A.G. Peter Michael both filed petitions for reconsideration with EPA administrator Gina McCarthy.
In his filing, Fox takes issue with the EPA over changing its proposed rule in mid-stream.
"It was disingenuous for the EPA to propose one rule then adopt something far different, especially since the final rule is much more burdensome to the people of Montana," said Fox.
"The bottom line is that Montana did not have a fair opportunity to evaluate and comment on the provisions of the final rule," said Fox.
"In light of our concerns, the EPA should reconsider its action and put the final rule on hold during the reconsideration process," Fox said.
Montana Governor Steve Bullock said he support's Fox's request.
"In the final rule, EPA moved the goalposts and left Montana with one of the most stringent standards in the nation," said Bullock.
"Under the proposed rule, we had done a significant amount of work to develop possible ways to comply, but all of that work was tossed aside by EPA in the final rule, sending us back to the drawing board," explained Bullock.
Gov. Bullock acknowledged the need to address climate change, but said the final EPA rule is unfair to Montana.
In Wyoming, at the direction of Gov. Matt Mead, Wyoming Attorney General Peter Michael also filed a Petition for Reconsideration of EPA's Final rule on Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines.
"This rulemaking process has been flawed from the very beginning," said Gov. Mead.
"The Final Rule is the result of an unfair process, it has both procedural and substantive deficiencies." Mead said.
"I am directing the Attorney General to use every tool in the legal toolbox to stop this arbitrary and extremely harmful Rule," said Mead.
Wyoming's petition argues that the Final Rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act.
The petition also claims the Final Rule is fundamentally different from the Proposed Rule, significantly and adversely affecting the State, without giving fair opportunity to comment..