Meddling by Obama, EPA will prove costly

By Justin Danhof

National Centerf for Public Policy Research

President Barack Obama has now conceded that the electorate has no interest in his cap-and-trade bill to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, but the president also warned Nov. 4 that legislation is “just one way of skinning the cat.”

In fact, the president had already dispatched his bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency to increase greenhouse-gas regulations.

In response, state officials are rising up as the EPA begins to seize regulatory control of the emissions in 13 states. EPA’s move, which goes into effect Jan. 2, 2011, addresses emissions from power plants, large buildings and other sources.

The EPA, in its “Endangerment Finding,” will subject new buildings to strict rules and will force some old buildings to undergo expensive renovations. Just as “ObamaCare” is increasing health-care costs, this latest government meddling will greatly increase business and consumer prices. It will slow economic growth and reduce job creation.

In the name of combating “global warming,” “climate change,” or “climate disruption” (pick your phrase), Obama’s EPA is determined to stretch its tentacles across the country. And if the states don’t like it, that’s too bad. Washington knows best.

Currently, states may voluntarily regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Some states choose to regulate such emissions, while others — states that do not fall for climate alarmists fear-mongering — choose not to. However, all states may eventually fall under EPA control, since the new rule gives the EPA unfettered discretion to determine emission levels.

Many states have laws that prevent carbon regulation, but Obama and his self-anointed climate stewards are changing the rules. Indeed, contempt for federalism, and for the whole notion of state primacy, has become a hallmark of this administration.

STATES FIGHT BACK

Part or all of 13 states [Ohio not among them] will soon be under EPA control – but they are fighting back.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is suing the EPA to halt the federal takeover. According to Abbott, the EPA has no legal authority to regulate state greenhouse gas sources.

Abbott is right. The Clean Air Act – the vehicle for the new rules – was designed to regulate toxins. Carbon dioxide is not a toxin, and the EPA is standing on shaky legal ground to claim otherwise.

What will the Obama scheme cost? The EPA doesn’t know. Howard J. Feldman of the American Petroleum Institute explains, “The EPA has carefully avoided providing a formal regulatory impact analysis on the costs of the regulation.”

Some states have laws preventing the regulation of carbon dioxide. Yet the EPA rule forces Wyoming to break its own laws or cede control to the feds.

Wyoming’s Democratic governor, Dave Freudenthal, wrote a letter to the EPA detailing his concern, saying, “I have serious concerns about EPA’s implementation timelines … there is a high likelihood that any permitting strategy imposed on the states at this juncture is premature.”

Ohio’ Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, also thinks the EPA’s effort is misguided, noting that it requires the use of technologies that are not commercially available. Strickland explains, “stationary sources will be subject to best available control technology (BACT) requirements even though such technology is currently undetermined… it may take years before BACT for such sources can be efficiently and consistently identified.”

Justin Danhof is general counsel for the National Center for Public Policy Research. Its website is at www.nationalcenter.org.