EPA CHIEF SAYS SUPREME COURT RULING DOESN'T AFFECT EXPENSIVE PLANS
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Regina A. McCarthy told Congress Thursday that she rejects the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling last month against a major EPA regulation.
"Last week's ruling will not affect our efforts," McCarthy said told the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. "We are still on track to produce that plan this summer."
McCarthy said the Obama administration's environmental agenda will go forward despite a Supreme Court ruling against the EPA's carbon dioxide regulation, a regulation which will cost businesses and consumers billions of dollars but which she considers legal.
McCarthy characterized the June 29 ruling in Michigan v. EPA as "very narrow" and said it will have no bearing on the administration's carbon dioxide rules for power plants or other regulations. She testified at a House committee hearing on "Examining EPA's Regulatory Overreach."
On the day she defended her legally flawed interpretation of the Clean Air Act, National Association of Manufacturers Vice President of Energy and Resources Policy Ross Eisenberg said, "It is time for Congress to take a serious look at modernizing the Clean Air Act."
The court 5-4 said that although the EPA considered the costs of its 2011 regulation limiting mercury and air toxics emissions from power plants, it should have considered costs before even endeavoring on the regulatory process.
The decision did not overturn the MATS rule, which is still in effect while the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit considers how to enforce the Supreme Court's mandate, The Hill reported.
"EPA is still committed to finalizing the Clean Power Plan," she said at an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. "So making a connection between the mercury and air toxics standards decision and the Clean Power Plan is comparing apples and oranges."
McCarthy said she could not guess how the D.C. Circuit Court would proceed, but she is confident that the rule will continue to stand. Business Council of Alabama president and CEO William J. Canary issued a statement last year in response to the EPA's proposed standard for existing power plants.
"This Administration has set its sights on the coal industry and the jobs it creates," Canary said. "It couldn't get Congress to go along with this job-killing plan, so now the EPA has chosen to skirt Congress and act through regulation. Here in Alabama, we'll all be paying much, much more for electricity."
Eisenberg wrote that the Administration is applying the Clean Air Act in such a way that it leaves states with a diminished role in what is supposed to be a cooperative federalism system, increasing costs and leaving manufacturers and other regulated sectors waiting years for courts to resolve overreaching regulations.
"As manufacturers await final rules on ozone and greenhouse gases-regulations where costs reach into the trillions of dollars and millions of jobs are put at risk-we implore members of Congress from both sides of the aisle to work together toward a more modern federal air regulatory system," he said.
