The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in a case that will go a long way in determining the power and reach of the EPA in the climate change debate.
At issue is whether the EPA is fulfilling its mission or bypassing Congress as it imposes ever stricter rules on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses (GHG).
The source of the fight goes back to a 5-4 decision (Massachusetts vs. EPA) by the court in 2007 which said the EPA had the authority to regulate GHG in vehicle emissions. The EPA said that under the Clean Air Act, the agency then had the obligation to regulate GHG from stationary sources, such as power plants and factories.
That, by the EPA’s own admission, is impossible. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA would have to regulate tens of thousands of sources. Instead, the EPA decided on its own to regulate only sources that generate 100,000 tons of GHG per year.
Texas is among the 12 states challenging the EPA. Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell wrote that the absurdity of attempts to apply the Clean Air Act to GHG show the EPA is off base.
“The far-reaching and near-ridiculous regulatory burdens required by the EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions… prove that the (Clean Air) act never delegated to EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions as ‘air pollutants,’” said Mitchell.
The coal industry has been caught up in the EPA’s broad brush. Under new carbon emission rules, it will be virtually impossible for any new coal-fired power plants to be built. Soon the agency will come out with new rules for existing power plants, which will cause further damage to one of the nation’s primary energy sources and drive up electricity prices for consumers.
The EPA is on a mission, and one that is fully endorsed by the Obama administration. Just last week, Secretary of State John Kerry said global warming is as serious a threat as disease, poverty, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. (For the record, the World Health Organization says 1.9 million people died in 2011 as a result of diarrhoeal diseases.)
The Clean Air Act was never intended to deal with the temperature of the planet. If Congress wants to limit GHG emissions, then it should pass a law. But attempts to pass cap-and-trade have failed, and there’s no prospect President Obama could get such a bill through now.
So the EPA listens to its own voices and proceeds down an ideology-driven path that is destined to raise the cost of energy and slow economic growth while having a negligible, if any, impact on climate.
Hopefully the Supreme Court will rein in the EPA and, in doing so, remind us all that policy making decisions rest with the people’s representatives.