Groups Fight Back in EPA Greenhouse Gas Case
PACE to Co-Host Energy Conference in Mississippi
March 5, 2012PACE in National Journal: The Energy Policy Debate We Should Have
March 8, 2012Over the past two weeks, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has heard oral arguments in a lawsuit challenging EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act.
Chief among the concerns expressed in the lawsuit is EPA’s decision to exempt smaller stationary sources such as schools from the GHG rule, instead “tailoring” its rule to target facilities whose emissions exceed 250 tons per year. If implemented, the rule would have its greatest impact on power plants. Pursuant to a 2007 court finding in Massachusetts v EPA, the EPA is scheduled to finalize a GHG regulation for power plants in 2012.
According to a report from Reuters, Texas Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell argued that EPA “wrote rather than reinterpreted the rule, a move he called arbitrary and not reflective of Congress’ intent for the Clean Air Act.”
“We are asking the court to hold the EPA’s feet to the fire and force them, if they are going to regulate stationary source greenhouse gas emissions, to do so based on what the statute says,” Mitchell said.
Among business groups presenting to the court was the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), whose President and CEO Jay Timmons argued that “EPA’s decision to move forward with the regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources is one of the most costly, complex and far-reaching regulatory issues facing manufacturers and harms their ability to compete globally.â”
PACE has argued that EPA’s approach to GHG regulation presents a threat to the American economy, calling the strategy “extremely costly.” In addition, last April a number of attorneys general from across the U.S. called on EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to defer her agency’s GHG regulation program, allowing Congress an opportunity to fully debate the matter through legislative forums. NAM’s Timmons echoed that feeling before the court.
“Policies to address climate change deserve full debate in the U.S. Congress and should foster economic growth, not impose additional burdens on businesses,” Timmons said.
