“I would not recommend, and I am confident that the Administrator would not sign, a final rule that the EPA did not believe was on firm legal footing and worthy of being upheld by the federal courts. In light of that, the effect of the draft bill would be a wholly unnecessary postponement of reductions of harmful air pollution,” said Environmental Protection Agencies (EPA) Acting Air Chief Janet McCabe.
The statement above was given in a congressional hearing, while under oath to members of Congress who were debating draft legislation that would restore some regulatory certainty for businesses and state governments by delaying implementation of EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulation for the existing power sector until after the inevitable legal challenges are resolved.
It would be nice to take McCabe’s testimony at face value, but currently at least 32 states believe the rule exceeds the EPA’s legal authority and already 15 states have supported a formal legal challenge to EPA’s ability to issue this regulation at all. And to make matters worse, the EPA does not have history on its side. Last year, the Supreme Court turned back the EPA’s first attempt at regulating greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources.
Manufacturers are leading the way in reducing emissions including greenhouse gases, but they need fair and balanced regulations that allow for innovation and production while balancing costs. However, regulations that to expand beyond what the law allows will inevitably lead to delays and costly litigation and perpetuate an era of regulatory uncertainty that will stifle growth.
Latest posts by Greg Bertelsen (see all)
- Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) Offers Legislative Relief for 2015 Ozone Regulation - February 28, 2017
- Ozone Implementation Relief Bill Introduced in House and Senate - February 7, 2017
- Energy-Efficiency Bill Introduced in House and Senate to Promote Public–Private Partnerships - January 31, 2017