In a small victory for the Obama Administration’s climate-change agenda, a federal court on Tuesday rejected a constitutional challenge by 15 states and coal companies against a proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule limiting carbon emissions from power plants. The panel of judges ruled there is no precedent for challenging the legality of a rule before it has been finalized, an act that is expected to take place later this summer.
The following statements from environmental and energy policy experts at The Heartland Institute – a free-market think tank – may be used for attribution. For more comments, refer to the contact information below. To book a Heartland guest on your program, please contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at [email protected] and 312/377-4000.
“This is indeed a setback proving once again the damage the Environmental Protection Agency is doing to this nation. It should focus more attention on the importance of potential Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker’s plan to phase out the USEPA over a period of time and give its authority over to a committee of the whole of the 50 state environmental protection agencies, which are already doing the lion’s share of the nation’s protection while 15,000 federal employees just look over their shoulders. The states collectively would do a better job of environmental protection without bringing the nation’s economy to its knees and likely save taxpayers more than half the current $8 billion budget.”
Jay Lehr
Science Director
The Heartland Institute
[email protected]
312/377-4000
“This is a very minor decision that did not reach the substantive issues underlying the challenge. The court merely said the issues are not ripe for judicial review until EPA issues a final rule. The court in no way validated any of EPA’s challenged justifications for its proposed power plant restrictions.”
James M. Taylor
Senior Fellow for Environmental Policy
The Heartland Institute
[email protected]
312/377-4000
“This decision is not surprising. It was not a not based on the merits of the case but rather the timeliness. Undoubtedly, once the clean power plant rule is finalized, this lawsuit and similar ones will be filed to challenge it. Laurence Tribe’s analysis seems sound, the rule is likely unconstitutional, but precedent dictates you can’t challenge the constitutionality of a regulation or law before it actually becomes the law of the land. “Thankfully for industry and ratepayers, EPA’s clean power plant rule is still years from taking effect, if ever. Unfortunately, huge amounts of private and taxpayer resources will be squandered challenging and defending EPA’s new rule, which never should have been issued in the first place.
“The CPP does nothing to help the environment, no species will be saved, no premature death or amount of sea level rise prevented, but countless numbers of people will live less well, will have to do without, as their energy costs rise, and others will see their jobs and livelihoods destroyed, all to pursue dogmatic climate change orthodoxy.”
H. Sterling Burnett
Research Fellow, Environment & Energy Policy
The Heartland Institute
Managing Editor, Environment & Climate News
[email protected]
312/377-4000
The Heartland Institute is a 31-year-old national nonprofit organization headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our Web site or call 312/377-4000.
Jay Lehr was an internationally renowned speaker, scientist, Senior Policy Advisor with the International Climate Science Coalition and Senior Science Analyst at CFACT.
H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is the Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy and the managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
