TribLIVE

| Opinion/The Review

 
Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

The EPA & the Supreme Court: Time for a slap

Email Newsletters

Click here to sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Letters home ...

Traveling abroad for personal, educational or professional reasons?

Why not share your impressions — and those of residents of foreign countries about the United States — with Trib readers in 150 words?

The world's a big place. Bring it home with Letters Home.

Contact Colin McNickle (412-320-7836 or cmcnickle@tribweb.com).

Daily Photo Galleries

'American Coyotes' Series

Traveling by Jeep, boat and foot, Tribune-Review investigative reporter Carl Prine and photojournalist Justin Merriman covered nearly 2,000 miles over two months along the border with Mexico to report on coyotes — the human traffickers who bring illegal immigrants into the United States. Most are Americans working for money and/or drugs. This series reports how their operations have a major impact on life for residents and the environment along the border — and beyond.

Thursday, Feb. 27, 2014, 8:55 p.m.
 

The Supreme Court can take advantage of an important environmental regulation case to slap the Obama administration for yet again freelancing the rule of law.

Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA concerns whether the Environmental Protection Agency is exceeding its authority by trying to regulate so-called “greenhouse gases” from stationary sources — mainly power plants and factories. The agency wants to expand upon its authority — upheld in 2007's Massachusetts v. EPA — to treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and to regulate vehicle emissions.

Never mind that the Clean Air Act doesn't address CO2 and specifies annual stationary emissions of 100 or 250 tons of other pollutants as thresholds for requiring permits. Applied to vastly greater CO2 emissions, those thresholds would make permits necessary for 6 million stationary sources — including schools, hospitals, office and apartment buildings and even large homes. So, the EPA seeks to rewrite the Clean Air Act by arbitrarily setting the CO2 permitting threshold at 75,000 or 100,000 tons.

Monday's oral arguments suggested the justices might allow the EPA to regulate carbon emissions only from stationary sources already subject to permitting for other pollutants. But even that outcome would give King Obama too much leeway to continue ruling by decree.

What's needed is an unambiguous decision that upholds the rule of law and the letter of the Clean Air Act — and declares unequivocally that the EPA is exceeding its authority.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.

 

 


Show commenting policy

Most-Read Editorials

  1. EPA diktats: Pushing back
  2. Sunday pops
  3. The Box
  4. Kittanning Laurels & Lances
  5. Regional growth
  6. Greensburg Laurels & Lances
  7. State of Corruption: The nature of politics
  8. The Thursday wrap
  9. Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
  10. Saturday essay: Garden chances
  11. The Export-Import Bank: The Senate’s shame