Slapping the EPA: Rogue & lawless |

Slapping the EPA: Rogue & lawless


No, it’s not a rerun of a fight scene from the old “Batman” TV series from the 1960s; it’s the bottom line of a federal court panel’s ruling that fully exposes the Environmental Protection Agency for what it is ­— a serial perverter of the rule of law.

In a 2-1 decision sure to be Supreme Court-bound, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the EPA exceeded its statutory authority with its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. The year-old rule was designed to limit sources of upwind pollution, primarily from coal-fired electricity generation, that supposedly caused downwind states to be in noncompliance with clean-air laws.

The EPA exceeded its congressional warrant in two ways. First, it arbitrarily forced upwind emissions reductions in excess of the nonattainment of downwind “victims.” Second, it hijacked remedies reserved to the states.

Given the onerous costs associated with “compliance,” juxtaposed with the Obama administration’s clearly stated War on Coal, it’s clear that the EPA’s illegal rule was designed to shut down those power plants and, in doing so, not just raise consumers’ bills but threaten the very integrity of the electric grid and national security itself.

“EPA seems reluctant to acknowledge any textual limits on its authority,” the court ruled. And that makes it a rogue and lawless outfit, one whose very charter should, come January, be revoked by a Republican Congress.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.