EPA's ginormous power grab

[JohnSmith2007 353]

EPA's ginormous power grab

Congress should block agency's effort to regulate climate policy

By Iain Murray

It's a sure sign that a government agency has become overmighty when it vastly increases its budget, grabs power unconstitutionally and treats Congress with contempt. All of this applies to the Environmental Protection Agency. Unless Congress acts quickly to curb the EPA's power, it will become a huge drag on the economy. Few bodies are more deserving of cutbacks now. This year, EPA's budget (which had hovered at $7 billion to $8 billion since 1997) increased by 34 percent, to more than $10 billion for the first time ever. The budget increase does not translate into an upsurge in staffing level - which remains lower than its apex of more than 18,000 workers in 1999 - but instead represents much more patronage in the form of grants to states.

This increased patronage comes at a time when the EPA is accruing much more power. Its finding under the Clean Air Act that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare goes way beyond the powers of the act. The agency has decided it has the power to:

c License California and other states to adopt nonfederal fuel-economy standards within their borders.

c Act as co-equal (or even senior partner) with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in setting fuel-economy standards for the auto industry.

c Establish climate and energy policy for the nation.

c "Tailor," that is, amend, the Clean Air Act to avoid an administrative debacle of its own making.

As my colleague Marlo Lewis has pointed out, in each of these cases, the EPA is ignoring the plain language of the statutes and, in some cases, the constitutional requirements of the Supremacy Clause and separation of powers.

The details of each of these actions are complicated, but the basic thrust of this four-step power grab is as follows.

By granting California the power to ignore federal fuel-economy standards, the EPA created a regulatory patchwork that imposes significant burdens on the auto industry.

This led to the White House brokering a deal whereby the EPA muscles in on the NHTSA's statutory authority to regulate fuel-economy standards, something for which the EPA has no statutory authority.

The EPA claims this then compels it to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources, thereby making it the effective arbiter of national climate policy - even as Congress debates what to do about the issue.

Even the EPA seems to recognize the absurdity of the resulting regulations under the language of the Clean Air Act - which would lead to the EPA having to issue permits for fast-food franchises and large apartment buildings to emit greenhouse gases - so the agency took upon itself the power to tailor statutory language, thereby playing lawmaker, to avoid the regulatory debacle which it itself had put in motion.

Fortunately, some lawmakers have caught on to what the EPA is up to. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Alaska Republican, was so concerned that she wrote to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, asking 13 simple questions about the proposed course of action. The reply she received was so evasive that it answered only two of the questions - and partially at that.

Congress may soon get its first real opportunity to rein in this rogue agency. Sometime between now and May 25, the Senate is expected to vote on Mrs. Murkowski's Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution of disapproval. This measure would veto the legal force and effect of EPA's endangerment finding. The EPA's nongovernmental allies are so worried about this resolution that they have engaged in a smear campaign, accusing Mrs. Murkowski and others of seeking to impose a "Dirty Air Act." She has not been intimidated, though, and her proposal is likely to come to a vote.

A rogue regulatory agency is like an oil tanker with sails. Once in motion, it takes a lot to stop it. Congress can take the wind out of the EPA's sails through the Murkowski resolution of disapproval and a significant reduction in the agency's budget.

On the other hand, if the EPA gets away with this power grab, we can expect further abuses of its authority in relation to the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Protection Act. If it gets its way, the agency's $10 billion budget will look like chicken feed.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/08/epas-ginormous-power-grab/

[Danno 1,228]

And to bring it just a bit closer to home....

Few people are aware of the huge change effective this month which requires every handyman, carpenter, remodeler, painter to not only take a COurse on lead-paint but also pay like $300 every 5 years (some states $300 every year) to an Gov agency if you are to disturb or paint as little as 6 sqft of area in pre-1978 houses.

If you own pre 1978 rental property LOL, you are on the hook big time too.

http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm#contractors

EPA Requirements

Common renovation activities like sanding, cutting, and demolition can create hazardous lead dust and chips by disturbing lead-based paint, which can be harmful to adults and children.

To protect against this risk, on April 22, 2008, EPA issued a rule requiring the use of lead-safe practices and other actions aimed at preventing lead poisoning. Under the rule, beginning in April 2010, contractors performing renovation, repair and painting projects that disturb lead-based paint in homes, child care facilities, and schools built before 1978 must be certified and must follow specific work practices to prevent lead contamination.

Until that time, EPA recommends that anyone performing renovation, repair, and painting projects that disturb lead-based paint in pre-1978 homes, child care facilities and schools follow lead-safe work practices.

Looks like the Asbestos nipple went dry, time to converge all those agencies onto the next money grab.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's a sure sign that a government agency has become overmighty when it vastly increases its budget, grabs power unconstitutionally and treats Congress with contempt.

You Right Wing Nuts and your imaginary understanding of the Constitution is just funny to watch. Everything you nutjobs don't agree with is unconstitutional. Oye vey!

[JohnSmith2007 353]

You Right Wing Nuts and your imaginary understanding of the Constitution is just funny to watch. Everything you nutjobs don't agree with is unconstitutional. Oye vey!

Who are you calling a right wing nut? You assume a lot cowboy.

[Craneman 2]

Who are you calling a right wing nut? You assume a lot cowboy.

Anyone who doe not agree with him is a Wing Nut, where you been? keemosabre

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Who are you calling a right wing nut? You assume a lot cowboy.

The Washington Times is a Right Wing Nut publication, owned and operated by the nutty Reverend Moon. Anyone who quotes anything they publish as the gospel is therefore a nut himself or at least an enabler.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Anyone who doe not agree with him is a Wing Nut, where you been? keemosabre

I used to lurk here a few years ago, got away from it for a while. I remembered Steven as a pretty normal guy back then. I see he has changed quite a bit.

The Washington Times is a Right Wing Nut publication, owned and operated by the nutty Reverend Moon. Anyone who quotes anything they publish as the gospel is therefore a nut himself or at least an enabler.

Hmm... I guess I missed the part where I said it was gospel. Like I said, you assume a lot cowboy.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Anyone who doe not agree with him is a Wing Nut, where you been? keemosabre

Keemosabre? Is that some sort of cancer fighting sword?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I used to lurk here a few years ago, got away from it for a while. I remembered Steven as a pretty normal guy back then. I see he has changed quite a bit.

*cough* Bill *cough*

[JohnSmith2007 353]

*cough* Bill *cough*

Well, I don't know who Bill is. Like I said, you assume a lot brother. I remembered you as an all right guy, Tried not to hurt peoples feelings, seemed fair and middle of the road. Two years later you are now spitefull, hatefull and judgmental. You have also seemed to have gone off the deep end of the left side of the pool. Sorry man, if this is what VJOT does to people maybe it was a good thing I left when I did.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well, I don't know who Bill is. Like I said, you assume a lot brother.

You think the EPA is in violation of the Constitution? If so, explain.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

You think the EPA is in violation of the Constitution? If so, explain.

I didn't say a thing, I posted a story for discussion.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I didn't say a thing, I posted a story for discussion.

From the Washington Times...which has about as much journalistic credibility as the back of a cereal box. Thanks for playin, Mister Troll.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

Well, I don't know who Bill is. Like I said, you assume a lot brother. I remembered you as an all right guy, Tried not to hurt peoples feelings, seemed fair and middle of the road. Two years later you are now spitefull, hatefull and judgmental. You have also seemed to have gone off the deep end of the left side of the pool. Sorry man, if this is what VJOT does to people maybe it was a good thing I left when I did.

2 years fighting around in OT will do that to a person.

[Danno 1,228]

I didn't say a thing, I posted a story for discussion.

Yeah ya gotta hand it to Ole Steve, he assesses posts pretty quick.

He just skips right down to the Link and makes the judgement call.

Doesn't make for worthwhile discussion but you must admit, it's a real time-saver.