The Supreme Court has been harsh on
the Obama Administration’s regulatory overreach (remember Hobby
Lobby and the National Labor Relations
Board vs. Noel Canning decision), and this week’s decision on mercury and air toxics standards for power plants —
known as the MATS regulations — serves as a severe smack down and has the
potential to impact future regulations like the Clean Power Plan (CPP), which
is even more far-reaching and costly than MATS. Addressing CPP, American
Electric Power President and CEO Charles Patton sees that the ruling “provides
the basis for future litigation.”
(A multi-state coalition tried to
stop the proposed CPP in federal court; however, the court dismissed the case
June 9, saying the challenge is premature because the rule hasn’t been
finalized.)
Bill Raney, President of the West
Virginia Coal Association was happy with the Supreme Court’s decision: “The
ruling is a positive, clearly better than a negative position.” Addressing the
ruling’s impact on the upcoming CPP final rule, scheduled for release this
summer, he added, “They’re going to have to do economic analysis. And, there’s
no available technology to meet the CO2 standards they want.” Many believe the
newly required economic analysis will have to delay the release of the final
rule and may require new public hearings.
Unfortunately, the justices’
decision comes after much of the electricity-generation industry has started
costly moves toward meeting the regulation. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has essentially responded with a shrug. In a statement, EPA spokeswoman
Melissa Harrison said, “This rule was issued more than three years ago,
investments have been made, and most plants are already well on their way to
compliance.” Patton is pleased with the decision, but is not over-the-top with
enthusiasm as his company, to comply with the regulation, has already engaged
in closures, conversions, and retrofits — “all at a cost,” he explained, “that
will be borne by consumers.”
In his response, Senator James Inhofe
(R-Okla.) stated, “While the ruling is certainly a victory, EPA even
acknowledges the negative economic costs that have already occurred including
the premature closure of coal plants and thousands of lost jobs. EPA’s actions
have far-reaching consequences, even when they are the result of unauthorized
actions. The Courts must keep this in mind as the agency approaches
finalization of its so-called Clean Power Plan.”
That’s right, just introducing the
regulation, forced expensive modifications and premature power plant closures —
meaning increased rates for consumers and thousands of lost jobs.
The big lesson for the Obama
Administration should be read between the lines. They may be, in some back room
at the White House, rubbing their hands in glee over the court’s EPA decision.
The Administration can introduce all kinds of controversial and unreasonable
rules and regulations that crush growth, kill jobs, and favor its friends and
ideology. And even if they, ultimately, get shot down, it will be too late; the
impact will already be felt.
“The tragedy of it all is when the
EPA fails to fully contemplate the economic cost of their proposals,” Patton
added. “We don’t see any opportunity to bring these plants back. Sometimes you
can’t turn that aircraft carrier back; you cannot put the toothpaste back in
the tube.”
Before more aggressive, expensive
policy, like the CPP, is finalized and wends its way through the appeal
process, something must be done to blunt the impact of announced rules. Patton
agrees, “Let’s have a definite solution, a set of rules that are un-appealable
before we spend billions of dollars.”
Fortunately, as Justice Antonin
Scalia admonished in last year’s UARG v. EPA decision, Congress is working on
such legislation. The bipartisan Ratepayer Protection Act passed the House on June 24 and is headed to the Senate. The
legislation allows states to delay compliance with, for example, CPP, until all
legal challenges have been exhausted.
In the Senate, Shelley Moore Capito
(R-W.Va.) and a bipartisan group of Senators has introduced the Affordable Reliable Energy Now Act (ARENA) that would
go much further than the House-passed bill by immediately killing off pending
carbon pollution rules and setting even stricter requirements for the EPA to
meet if it elects to try again on regulating carbon dioxide emissions from
power plants.
The court’s decision should also encourage
more governors to refuse to comply with the administration’s CPP. Encouraged by Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), several states have
announced that they will not draft their own compliance plan as required by
CPP.
In April, Governor Mary Fallin (R)
signed Executive
Order 2015-22 declaring that the state will not
develop a plan to implement the CPP. The order prohibits Oklahoma’s
environmental agencies from developing an implementation plan unless it is
determined to be legally required by the Attorney General of Oklahoma or a
court of competent jurisdiction.
Texas Governor Gregg Abbott (R) flew
to Washington, D.C., to meet with McConnell. He called CPP: “unprecedented meddling with Texas in order to push
the Obama Administration’s liberal climate change agenda.” Two different pieces
of legislation with intent similar to Oklahoma’s order have been filed in
Texas.
On May 21, Wisconsin Governor Scott
Walker sent a letter to President Obama in which he called CPP “unworkable” and stated, “Compliance with the rule
could cost Wisconsin as much as $13.4 billion and raise electricity rates in
the state by 29 percent.” Walker says, “Wisconsin will not comply with the
president’s plan without ‘significant and meaningful changes.’”
Last week, Indiana’s Governor Mike
Pence (R) sent a letter to President Obama stating that his state will not comply
unless major changes are made to CPP. In West Virginia, lawmakers sent a letter to Governor Earl Ray Tomblin (D) urging him not to submit a
compliance plan. Up to twenty states are expected to forgo developing their own
implementation plans, though the number could be higher. Real Clear Policy reports, “According to one survey, there are today 32 states ‘in
which elected officials (e.g., legislatures, governors, and/or attorneys
general) have expressed firm opposition’ to the CPP.”
Monday’s Supreme Court decision is
worth celebrating — if for no other reason than that the anti-fossil fuel
movement isn’t celebrating. While the decision may be too late to save the
money spent and the jobs lost due to MATS, it does put the brakes on the EPA’s
headlong rush to minimize hydrocarbon fuel sources without due consideration of
the real costs to American families and our industries.
Experts believe that this decision
will impact all pending rules and regulations, setting a new course toward a
rational, measured approach to energy issues. We need to seize this momentum
shift by voicing support for ARENA and encouraging state leaders in resisting
EPA’s draconian edicts while leaving environmental protection to the states.
(Author’s note: Thanks to Coleman
Alderson, author of Mountain
Whispers, Days without Sun, and purveyor
of LittleRedPill.com for access to the content of his interviews with Charles
Patton and Bill Raney.)
The
author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio
program, “America’s Voice for Energy”—which expands on the content of her
weekly column.
http://netrightdaily.com/2015/07/the-supreme-courts-epa-decision-while-not-all-positive-is-worthy-of-celebration/
No comments:
Post a Comment