EPA Runs Amuck
We in the Ninth District know that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and this Administration has run amuck. I am often critical of the EPA, but I am not alone.
I recently joined Congressman Bob Goodlatte (VA-06) – Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee – and others in filing an amicus brief (a “friend of the court” brief, meaning it is filed by someone not a party to the case) in the case of American Farm Bureau Federation, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al. to remind the Court that the Clean Water Act (CWA) leaves to the states the authority to implement water quality goals related to the EPA’s proposed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).
Congress authorized the EPA to establish a single TMDL under the CWA in an effort to ensure water quality. Despite the CWA not permitting EPA to apportion the TMDL to specific sources, the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Model would set strict limits on the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment discharged into the Bay and its tributaries by point sources (like water treatment plants) and non-point sources (like farms). In doing so, the EPA is attempting to supersede the power of state and local governments, stripping them of their right under the CWA to make the land-use decisions needed to be in compliance with CWA water quality standards. Instead, the EPA would micromanage and dictate to the state and local governments how to handle non-point sources.
Our amicus brief, which is in support of the Farm Bureau’s position, reads in part: “Agencies should not be allowed to seize virtually limitless power by simply positing an expansive statutory interpretation that is not expressly prohibited. Such an approach unfairly asks Congress to anticipate every possible contrary interpretation an agency could conceive in the future.”
Not only is there concern about the EPA’s job-killing regulations, but many of us in Congress see a serious threat to the role of the various states in our federal system from an EPA that is dictating a wide array of policies to the states.
Similarly, I and others are of the belief that EPA does not have the legal authority to regulate existing power plants through their recently-proposed rules. These rules set state-by-state targets for greenhouse gas reductions that look to be improbable or impossible for many states to achieve. These goals are, in my opinion, illogical. For instance, the state of Texas would have to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by a whopping 39 percent by 2030, but Kansas would only have to cut emissions by 23 percent.
I have been advised by an industry insider that these new regulations actually punish states for power companies’ past efforts to cut carbon dioxide emissions. For example, a power company operating in the state of Minnesota (Minnesota Power, a division of ALLETE) has built wind mills in North Dakota. The power generated from these turbines goes to the state of Minnesota. However, because the wind mills are located in North Dakota, the state of Minnesota gets no credit for the company’s past wind initiative in North Dakota.
At a June 19 Subcommittee on Energy and Power hearing, I made the point to EPA Acting Administrator for Air and Radiation Janet McCabe that her agency is improperly interpreting vital statutory language, and that the plain reading from the Clean Air Act actually excludes the EPA from enforcing this sort of rule regulating existing power plants under Section 111 because they already regulate them under Section 112. Video can be found on my YouTube page, https://www.youtube.com/user/RepMorganGriffith.
On Monday, June 23, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA cannot interpret the Clean Air Act to require large factories or power plants (stationary sources) to get a special permit for construction or modification of that facility based upon the facility’s greenhouse gas emissions. “Today's decision will help to ensure that permitting requirements fall within the authority granted by Congress,” American Petroleum Institute vice president and general counsel Harry Ng is reported as having said. He also said, “It is a stark reminder that the EPA's power is not unlimited.”
The decision that the EPA cannot essentially regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the permitting process does not affect the EPA’s recently-announced standards discussed above, but at least one lawsuit has been filed on the recently-announced standards as well. Stay tuned!
As always, if you have concerns or comments or wish to inquire about legislative issues, feel free to contact my offices. You can call my Abingdon office at 276-525-1405 or my Christiansburg office at 540-381-5671. To reach my office via email, please visit my website at www.morgangriffith.house.gov.
###