Checking the EPA: Reviewing overreach
The prospects for reining in the Obama administration's out-of-control Environmental Protection Agency are brighter because the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether it has overstepped the authority to regulate “greenhouse gases” it was granted by the justices in 2007's Massachusetts v. EPA .
That ruling said the EPA had Clean Air Act authority to limit vehicles' emissions as a health hazard. Two years later, the EPA decided that ruling also meant it could regulate emissions from stationary sources, such as power plants and factories. (Is your home hearth next?) Last week, the justices said they'll review a unanimous federal appellate court ruling upholding the EPA's interpretation.
Environmentalists are relieved that the justices won't consider reversing their 2007 ruling or overruling the EPA's labeling of greenhouse gases as health hazards. But opponents of the EPA's ever-expanding reach see an opportunity to curb a noxious trend.
This Supreme Court review “arguably opens the door to whether EPA can regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources at all,” a lawyer for business groups involved in the case told The Associated Press.
Hopefully, the justices will agree that the EPA's overreaching attempt to regulate power plant and factory greenhouse gases — counter to congressional intent, burdening industry, consumers and the economy as a whole and driven more by leftist anti-growth politics than by genuine science — has no legal leg to stand on.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Sunday pops
- The hunting proposal: A rule too far
- The Box
- State of Corruption: The McCord scandal
- Host a Super Bowl?: False prophets/profits
- U.N. Watch: Climate games
- Saturday essay: A new (& blue) feeder
- Catholic Education Week: School choice & more
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Benchmarking questions: Fueling perversion
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances