• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Time to Rein in the EPA’s Authority

    The American people didn’t want it and Congress couldn’t do it, but don’t let that stop the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    Despite Congress’s inability to pass cap-and-trade legislation that would have increased energy prices dramatically, the EPA is moving forward with its own regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, most notably carbon dioxide (CO2). The EPA will start regulating emissions from new power plants and major expansions of large greenhouse gas emitters and set the schedule for the next two years:

    By midyear 2012, refineries and fossil-fuel-fired electric utilities will be required to begin lowering their greenhouse gas emissions under a recent court settlement reached by the Environmental Protection Agency and several states and environmental groups. Refineries and power plants are responsible for 40% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, EPA said when making the announcement on Dec. 23.

    Under the settlement, EPA will use Clean Air Act regulations to propose emissions standards for power plants in July 2011 and for refineries in December 2011 and to issue final regulations in May and November 2012, respectively.

    EPA has not determined what the standards will be, however, and the agency said the lengthy schedule allows it to host several “listening sessions” with businesses, states, and other stakeholders early in 2011 as it draws up actual regulations.

    Incoming chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Fred Upton (R–MI) is making EPA regulations a priority. On Sunday he told FoxNews, “We are not going to let this Administration regulate what they’ve been unable to legislate.” Congress could do this by amending the Clean Air Act to exclude CO2 and other greenhouse gases from coming under the EPA’s purview. Defunding the EPA in a spending bill or using the Congressional Review Act could also prevent the EPA from regulating CO2. Several states and businesses have already filed lawsuits challenging the regulation’s constitutionality and urging that the EPA’s procedures violate existing statutory language.

    The uncertainty of what will come of all this is making it difficult for large industrial projects to move forward. Jeffrey Holmstead, a President Bush-era EPA official, emphasized, “It slows everybody down because nobody knows what the rules are going to be.” And it’s not just the EPA regulating CO2. Environmental groups can challenge new projects, and other EPA rules make it nearly impossible to break ground for new projects. “”That is a huge part of the problem,” says Holmstead. “There are multiple opportunities for it to be challenged and held up.”

    Although the EPA is targeting the heavy emitters first, the burden of the EPA regulations will be paid for by every American. Regulating CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act would burden the economy with higher energy costs, higher administrative compliance costs for businesses, and higher bureaucratic costs for enforcing the regulations. Reining in the EPA’s authority is long overdue and should be a top priority for our 112th Congress.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    17 Responses to Time to Rein in the EPA’s Authority

    1. e. cown carson city, says:

      '……By midyear 2012, refineries and fossil-fuel-fired electric utilities will be required to begin lowering their greenhouse gas emissions under a recent court settlement reached by the Environmental Protection Agency and several states and environmental groups. Refineries and power plants are responsible for 40% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, EPA said when making the announcement on Dec. 23……….'

      A true test of the new Republican majority in the House, and larger membership in the Senate, will be their willingness to "rein in" the EPA.

      And the DOE and the HHS, Dept of (worsening) Education.

      Time to stop Rule by Unelected Bureaucrats!

    2. T.J. O'Hara, Ra says:

      The long-established EPA is demonstrating one of the political "benefits" of creating NUAs (New Useless Agencies). In effect, it is serves as a role model for emerging NUAs. If you can't orchestrate social change through the Legislature, just orchestrate it through agency regulation. Why do you think we needed to create 159 NUAs in the Health Care Reform Bill? (Just as a historical perspective: the entire New Deal only created about 40 new Agencies.)

      If the EPA really wants to positively impact the environment, why doesn't it lobby against NUAs? Think about it. Every New Useless Agency has to promulgate New Useless Regulations that are printed on hundreds of thousands of sheets of paper. Then, hundreds of thousands of New Useless Regulatory Forms need to be printed because paperwork is the only tangible work product of a New Useless Agency. We're killing the Rain Forest! Where are the radical environmentalists when we need them? :O)

    3. Pingback: Tweets that mention Time to Rein in the EPA’s Authority | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. -- Topsy.com

    4. Pingback: » Financial News Update – 01/03/11 NoisyRoom.net: The Progressive Hunter

    5. Bobbie says:

      this is dishonest and corrupt. Necessary regulations, but nothing added where EPA has no facts or evidence to their claims. Defund all environmental groups and EPA, due to incompetence and their failure to reason with the facts, jeopardizing our lives and health and forcing a direct result to weaken and destroy the economy and people's freedom to run a business within reasonable regulations, not unconstitutional ones…

      Tell us EPA, remind us where you see this to be constitutional so we can correct your misunderstanding?

    6. Pingback: PA Pundits - International

    7. Lloyd Scallan (New O says:

      This is not the EPA working on it's own. This is Obama using the EPA, just as

      he is using every other means at his disposal, to "transform" this nation into his

      socialist dream. He uses surrogates to do he bidding to deflect blame. He knows full well the overwhelming majorty of the American people has, and will continue to reject his policies, but does not want to accept the disastrous results.

    8. BJ Ft. Myers Fl says:

      There is one way to cut down on the carbon footprint and that is to cut Air Force 2 from all of the vacation runs that it has had in the last 2 years. Air Force 1 should be used for work not political appearences. At least Pelosi's Air Force 3 is finally grounded as the new Speaker of the House is using a Bus.

      The EPA is just another political arm of the Obama Administration and is being used in the Chicago style thugery politics of this administration.

    9. Kenneth Chilton, PH. says:

      My recommendation (published as an op-ed in the November 27 issue of the Washington Times) is that the Senate revisit and pass the Murkowksi Resolution which tells EPA to cease and desist from usurping the role of Congress in considering whether or not to regulate greenhouse gases. This action would also correct the improper finding of the Supreme Court that the Clean Air Act gives EPA the authority to regulate carbon dioxide. The Court should have recognized that, if this authority was included in the Act, then why would Congress have been debating cap and trade regulation and carbon taxes all these years?

    10. Pingback: Must Know Headlines 1.4.2011 — ExposeTheMedia.com

    11. c. derr charlo monta says:

      The epa, esa and the environmental community has been over stepping their boundrys for quite some time now. They are why america is falling down today. The environmental community has pushed their agenda by lobbying senators and congressmen to vote a certain way ,thus deindustrialising america and creating laws that the rest of the world does not have to live with. American companies move over seas not only for cheap labor but their is no environmental laws. American business and the american people need to wake up and fight back against these unjust laws. It boils down to do you want to die of starvation in 5 years or do you want to die of bad water and air and take 300 years to do so. Looks like a no brainer to me. Also, nobody is buying global warming as it has proved to be a hoax and fits right in to the new world order of soro`s. It was said many years ago, give me the power to control your economy and i care not who makes the laws. So true today.

    12. Spiritof76, NH says:

      Defund the EPA immediately. Let us grid rid of the first socialist symbol, top down and command and control, EPA. Next, Dept. of Energy. Keep going until the budget is balanced. Find any bureaucrat that violates the Congressional authority, in contempt of Congress.

    13. O.C. CROTHERS, ARCAD says:

      AMERICAN COMPANIES CAN AND WILL CONTINUE TO CREAT JOBS,

      BUT NOT IN OUR U,S,A, DUE TO THE CREATION OF A CULTURE OF

      FEAR BY MR. OBAMA THROUGH THE E.P.A. AND OVER NEEDLESS

      REGULATION OF OUR JOB CREATING INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX,EVEN

      THE AIR WE BREATHE AND THE CO2 WE WE EXHALE. ELIMINATING USELESS AGENCIES WOULD BE ONE PLACE TO START !

    14. William E. Beers, Wa says:

      When will the states wake up to their constitutional responsibilities? If an EPA regulator steps foot in a state, he/she/it should be arrested and escorted to the state line. Further more, all EPA offices in any state ought to be shut down. And it shouldn't stop with the EPA.

    15. Joe - Tampa says:

      The EPA must be just one of the many agencies to get their wings clipped. THANKS TO THE SOCIALISTS IN CONGRESS WE NOW HAVE A FOOD SAFETY BILL GIVING THE GOVERNMENT UNPRECIDENTED POWER OVER OUR FOOD SUPPLY. AS USUAL, THEY TOOK A LIGITIMATE NEED AND DISTORTED IT TO THIS BIG GOVERNMENT PURPOSES. THIS MONSTROSITY HAS TO GO. THEY WANT TO CONTROL THE GARDENS IN OUR BACK YARD AND SMALL FARMERS WILL BE A TERM OUR KIDS WILL HAVE TO READ ABOUT IN HISTORY BOOKS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WERE!

      The next time I hear Republicans gush about bipartisanship, I am going to go over the edge. THESE PEOPLE ARE TAKING OUR FREEDOMS SYSTEMATICALLY WHILE REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS TRY TO IMPRESS EVERYONE WITH THEIR ABILITY TO GET ALONG. BY THE TIME THEY GET THEIR HEADS OUT OF THEIR BUTTS, WE'LL ALL HAVE TO CALL THE WHITE HOUSE TO FIND OUT IF WE CAN TURN ON OUR LIGHTS TODAY.

    16. Bruce, Mesa says:

      I question the technical information that supported the Supreme Court decision that determined CO2, among other greenhouse gasses, were a danger and should be regulated by the EPA. The EPA and global warming proponents all point to this court decision as the impetus for their regulatory bent. We now know the link between CO2 and rapid global warming is a false premise. Warming trends have not been demonstrated they have been artificially manipulated under the guise of peer reviewed science.

      Was this same flawed science the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision relative to the regulation of greenhouse gasses? If so, those responsible for the duplicitous technical guidance rendered to the Court should be tried and convicted. Then the Court should overturn itself on this decision now that ‘new’ truths have come to light. Once the decision to regulate green house gases is reversed, the EPA mandate on regulating carbon emissions should be severely if not completely curtailed.

    17. Pingback: EPA Changing the Rules as They Go | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×