Shannon Goessling: EPA wants to regulate emissions with Clean Air Act — but can they?

With the U.S. Senate taking a pass on climate and energy legislation before the election, all eyes are on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Besides the question of how regulation will broadside the U.S. economy, EPA's proposed regulations also raise an important legal question.

 

EPA has concluded that requiring power plants and other industrial sources to get permits for greenhouse gas emissions leads to “absurd results” and “administrative impossibility.” Why, then, is EPA asserting Congress intended it to do this?

 

EPA's endangerment finding and decision to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) under the Clean Air Act have been challenged in court by industries, states, members of Congress and others. It's high stakes for EPA and the Obama administration.

In considering whether to issue a tailpipe emissions rule in response to a Supreme Court decision, the agency found a “scientific consensus” in the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that GHG emissions will “endanger” human health and the environment. So EPA said the Clean Air Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court required it to regulate GHGs in car and truck emissions to save the world.

 

Challengers to the endangerment finding – including dozens of organizations like ours representing millions of American jobs – say there was blatant manipulation of the “science” by the authors of the reports upon which EPA relied. And they predict that GHG regulation as now proposed by EPA will paralyze the American economy, and simply send our manufacturing jobs to China, Brazil and India, where the resulting GHG emissions will be higher than they would have been in our more efficient factories.

 

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson may feel like she's got good options in court. The courts generally defer to EPA on disputed environmental science questions. And once she declared that “science” leads her to find that GHGs endanger human health and the environment, and that GHGs from tailpipes contribute to that endangerment, then the Clean Air Act's provisions for automobile and truck emissions provisions say she “shall” make auto manufacturers reduce GHG emissions from vehicle tailpipes. This she has done, in two separate rules.

 

But she did a lot more, too, and that may have gotten her into legal trouble.

 

Politically, the EPA Administrator had to put Mr. Obama in a position to tell the world in Copenhagen that even if Congress failed to act on GHG emissions, his Administration would be taking steps to reduce them.

 

But EPA faced a big legal problem if it went beyond tailpipes. Congress gave EPA the tools for regulating non-tailpipe pollutants in the Clean Air Act's stationary source permit programs. These programs cover “major” sources of regulated pollutants.

 

When Congress developed the stationary source programs, it made political and practical judgments as to the size of operations that should be required to go through the necessary procedures to get permits. It decided these programs should apply to all “major” sources of pollutants, including petroleum refineries, steel mills and paper mills.

 

EPA knew that if it applied the permit programs to GHGs in the way Congress had written them, including an apartment house furnace or a bakery's oven, there would be thousands more “major” sources that would be required to get permits, setting off a political firestorm that would put the Clean Air Act permit programs in political jeopardy.

 

So rather than limiting regulation to mobile sources (the “tailpipe rule”), EPA decided on a bold move and a creative legal theory: It would “tailor” Congress's permit program and substitute its own political judgments about who should have to get permits, and when.

EPA issued a “tailoring rule,” acknowledging that regulating GHGs under the permit programs (as Congress surely intended EPA to do) would lead to “absurd results” and “administrative impossibility.” EPA finalized the endangerment finding in time for Copenhagen. The final tailoring rule raised the permit threshold from 250 tons to 75,000 tons for GHGs.

 

The challengers say this is an unconstitutional step beyond EPA's statutory bounds. Under the rule, states will be compelled to force small businesses to obtain costly permits – something the EPA itself has described as “absurd,” creating an “administrative impossibility.”

At stake are hundreds of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of jobs, and the constitutional question whether the administration can take liberties with authority granted by Congress.

Shannon Goessling is executive director and chief legal counsel for Southeastern Legal Foundation

NEPOp Edsop-edOpinion

If you find our journalism valuable and relevant, please consider joining our Examiner membership program.
Find out more at www.sfexaminer.com/join/

Just Posted

From left, California state Sen. Milton Marks, Sen. Nicholas Petris, Assemblyman John Knox and Save San Francisco Bay Association co-founders Esther Gulick, Sylvia McLaughlin and Kay Kerr watch Gov. Ronald Reagan sign the bill establishing the Bay Conservation and Development Commission as a permanent agency in 1969. (Courtesy Save The Bay)
Sixty years of Saving San Francisco Bay

Pioneering environmental group was started by three ladies on a mission

Temporary high-occupancy vehicle lanes will be added to sections of state Highway 1 and U.S. Highway 101, including Park Presidio Boulevard, to keep traffic flowing as The City reopens. <ins>(Ekevara Kitpowsong/Special to S.F. Examiner)</ins>
Transit and high-occupancy vehicle lanes coming to some of The City’s busiest streets

Changes intended to improve transit reliability as traffic increases with reopening

Tents filled up a safe camping site in a former parking lot at 180 Jones St. in the Tenderloin in June 2020.<ins> (Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)</ins>
Proposal for major expansion of safe sleeping sites gets cool reception in committee

Supervisor Mandelman calls for creation of more temporary shelter sites to get homeless off streets

A surplus of	mice on the Farallon Islands have caused banded burrowing owls to stay year round instead of migrating, longtime researchers say. <ins>(Courtesy Point Blue Conservation Science)</ins>
Farallon Islands researchers recommend eradicating mice

The Farallon Islands comprise three groups of small islands located nearly 30… Continue reading

Once we can come and go more freely, will people gather the way they did before COVID? <ins>(Jessica Christian/S.F. Examiner file photo)</ins>
What happens when the pandemic is over?

After experiencing initial excitement, I wonder just how much I’ll go out

Most Read