EPA finalizes most sweeping regulations ever
Earlier this month the Environmental Protection Agency finalized the most sweeping set of regulations ever devised to govern our nation’s energy providers.
Heralding the new rules as necessary to save the planet from catastrophic global warming, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy proudly proclaimed the result would be a healthier nation and a stronger economy.
The following day, 16 states sent McCarthy a letter arguing that the new regulations were not legal and would coerce the states to unnecessarily expend enormous public resources preparing plans of unprecedented scope and complexity.
The outcome, they wrote, would result in great damage to the nation’s economy and skyrocketing electricity bills for American businesses and every U.S. resident.
What has followed that first salvo are initiatives by industry and congressional allies to pursue what one state’s attorney general said were necessary prerequisites “to confronting this illegal power grab by the Obama administration and EPA.”
No, it was not the Texas attorney general who said that, but you can be sure that our state will be a strong ally in actions designed to bring the implementation of the new rules to a halt.
At the center of all this historic intervention by the federal government is the ongoing debate over whether world temperatures are rising to dangerous levels.
Actual measurements reveal no warming for almost 20 years. Scientific models paint a different picture, and the argument over the need for government intervention continues to intensify.
But there is something else that is getting very little attention about what is taking place that deserves examination.
EPA promises the new rules will cut emissions coming mostly from burning coal (identified as the major cause of warming) from the power sector by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
If we take a closer look at what Obama’s Energy Department says, that goal has practically already been achieved even though there have never before been any limits on such emissions.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s latest annual report shows that coal accounted for about 55 percent of all fuel sources in 2005. Today coal usage has fallen to less than 40 percent and was already projected to drop to 35 percent by the target date of 2030.
So the question becomes whether new controls were even needed. If the goal already will be achieved, what is the need for more regulation?
Why, you may ask, would another agency of Obama’s administration produce a report that suggests EPA’s actions were not needed?
The report provides the answer: “By law, EIA’s data, analyses, and forecasts are independent of approval by any other officer or employee of the United States Government.”
So, by law, even the government’s top boss can’t prevent the Energy Department from reporting what they know and what they forecast for the future.
In another lawsuit filed against the agency, emails between the EPA’s highest officials and powerful environmental lobbyists have come to light that suggest violations of constitutional guarantees in federal rule-making.
It appears that environmentalists may have colluded with the EPA in crafting the sweeping new regulations, and that alone may help explain why we have what we have even if we didn’t need it.
Next up are rules for control of methane emissions from oil and gas production, even though, according to the EPA, the industry is already working on capturing more and more of this valuable fuel so they can sell it.
Another unnecessary government intervention in the market? We shall see.
Richard Greene is a former Arlington mayor and served as an appointee of President George W. Bush as regional administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency.
This story was originally published August 21, 2015 at 6:52 PM with the headline "EPA finalizes most sweeping regulations ever."