Today's award goes to the US Environmental Protection Agency, which appears to be arguing against itself before the US Congress.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy testified today before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on EPA’s proposed carbon standards for existing power plants. Describing the goal of the proposed rule under Section 111 (d) of the Clean Air Act, McCarthy exclaimed:
“The great thing about this [111(d)] proposal is that it really is an investment opportunity. This is not about pollution control. It’s about increased efficiency at our plants, no matter where you want to invest. It’s about investments in renewables and clean energy.”
But in previous testimony last month before the House Energy and Power Subcommittee, one of McCarthy’s top deputies at EPA, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Janet McCabe had a much different description of the rule. She testified:
“Chairman Upton, this is not an energy plan. This is a rule done within the four corners of 111(d) that looks to the best system of emission reduction to reduce emission… The rule is a pollution control rule, as EPA has traditionally done under section 111(d).”
There's more at the link.
When the agency contradicts itself so blatantly, why should anyone believe a word the EPA says about anything?