SCOTUS To Hear Arguments On EPA “Climate Change” Power Grab

This could be a big, and game changing, case, one which could place limits on the ever-expansive role of not just the EPA, but other federal agencies and the Chief Executive

(CNS News) The Obama administration is squaring off at the Supreme Court with industry groups and Republican-led states over a small but important program aimed at limiting power-plant and factory emissions of gases blamed for global warming.

The justices are hearing arguments Monday in a challenge to a regulation that forces companies that want to expand industrial facilities or build new ones that would increase overall pollution to evaluate ways to reduce the carbon they release. Carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas.

There have been other cases, mostly at the lower court levels, but a few at the Supreme Court level, which have given the EPA the power to continue to extend its own power without legislative direction. Ie, legislation. The 2007 SCOTUS ruling gave the EPA the power without legislation to make rules for automobile greenhouse gas emissions. Under Obama, the EPA has continued to grab power and extend it to power plants.

In the meantime, the only way EPA can compel companies to address global warming pollution is through a permitting program that requires them to analyze the best available technologies to reduce carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas.

The utility industry, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 13 states led by Texas are asking the court to rule that the EPA overstepped its authority by trying to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the permitting program.

The EPA’s actions “represent one of the boldest seizures of legislative authority by an executive agency in history,” Peter Keisler, representing the American Chemistry Council among two dozen manufacturing and industry groups that want the court to throw out the rule, said in court papers.

What the suit is going after are the permits themselves, which are costly and burdensome. Say, guess who ends up being the recipient of the extra costs? That’s right, the American consumer, who is already suffering under the rising costs thanks to the Obama administration and the never-ending “feels like a recession”.

Perhaps the EPA should regulate President Obama, who has the largest carbon footprint in the world.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!