Off-base on cross-state
The maturity level in the editorial “Slapping the EPA: Rogue & lawless” (Aug. 23 and TribLIVE.com) is regrettable at the very least. The appeals court decision is pure politics (two Bush appointees, one Clinton appointee), and to think that a 2-1 decision is somehow a unanimous referendum on the EPA as a whole is to place the rule of law on the back of a single judge.
Should the dissenting judge be tarred and feathered? Do you intend to revoke her charter?
The completely legal and binding Clean Air Act allows for the regulation of pollution across state lines. It is an admittedly difficult task. This is why the rule was overturned — not because the EPA threatens “the very integrity of the electric grid and national security itself,” but because air toxics from multiple sources can mix in the atmosphere and create more dangerous gases with no single release point.
The EPA has not “hijacked remedies reserved to the states,” as it was attempting to do something outside the jurisdiction of a single state. This is why we have a federal government.
This editorial is so off-base it almost makes an unintentionally accurate observation. The EPA is given far too much credit as a monolith of regulation, while earlier this summer, it took a lawsuit from 11 states to force the agency to update the 15-year-old soot rule that is required by law to be revised every five years.
The writer is a Clean Air Council (cleanair.org) support-staff member.