GOP chairman: EPA could ‘restructure every industrial sector’

A high-ranking Republican senator said Thursday that he fears that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) climate rule could give it power to regulate the entire industrial sector.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said that the arguments the EPA makes for why its Clean Power Plan is legal are so far-reaching that they could give the agency unprecedented power if upheld by the courts.

{mosads}“If EPA can convince the courts to uphold their approach to regulating the utility industry through the means Congress never authorized, then they will take these same arguments and use them to restructure every industrial sector in this country in a manner that appeases the political obligations of the president,” Inhofe said at a hearing of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which he chairs.

“Neither the Clean Air Act nor the regulatory system was meant to operate this way and the president knows that,” he added.

The Supreme Court put the rule on hold in February while it works its way through the court system. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is currently considering the regulation’s legality, but it is nearly certain that its decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) disagreed with Inhofe’s assessment of the EPA’s power. But he accused his colleagues of being derelict in their duties to pass new environmental laws, and said the EPA is just doing what it can without new legislation to solve new problems like climate change.

“When we complain about regulations, a lot of times it would be better if Congress did its responsibility and did its work. And this is going to be the first Congress which will not have a legacy of passing legislation to help protect our environment,” Cardin said.

“Instead, what we seem to do is always have bills that prevent the administration from moving forward, rather than finding ways that we can help build on the environmental legacy of this country.”

States are also trying to step up and take charge, Cardin said, adding that federal action would be better.

“We need an effective national strategy on this. And that’s what the administration’s regulations are attempting to do,” he said.

Inhofe, an outspoken skeptic of climate change, organized the hearing to criticize the EPA’s rule and to denounce what he sees as efforts to go around the Supreme Court’s stay.

“EPA is attempting to downplay the significance of the stay and argue against clear legal precedence as a last-ditch effort to scare states into spending scarce resources complying with a rule that could very well be overturned,” he said.

The GOP argues that by helping states plan to comply with the rule, and moving forward with an incentive program for early compliance, the EPA is hurting states that have chosen to stop their planning during the litigation, violating the spirit of the stay.

But Cardin and the Democrats said the EPA is well within its rights.

“As I understand it, the Supreme Court decision does not prevent a state from continuing to move forward in its efforts, and the administration can provide that guidance that they can do what they think is right for the health of their citizens, and under federalism, provide some help for our nation developing the right policies for clean air,” he said.