If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now

EPA’s Endangerment Finding Under Fire by States, Lawmakers and Industry Groups

emissions-6A legal battle is brewing for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gasses after several industry groups, conservative think tanks, lawmakers and three states filed 16 court challenges before yesterday’s (Feb. 16) deadline, reports the New York Times.

The lawsuits filed in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals request a review of EPA’s determination that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare. The finding allows the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which separately filed a formal petition to challenge the EPA’s decision to trigger the Clean Air Act regulation, many of these petitioners argue that the EPA regulations will hurt the economy and eliminate jobs, reports the New York Times.

The groups that filed petitions are the Ohio Coal Association, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, the Portland Cement Association, the state of Texas and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, along with a coalition that includes the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the American Petroleum Institute, the Corn Refiners Association, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Oilseed Processors Association, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, and the Western States Petroleum Association.

Ten other petitions have been filed by Alabama, Virginia, the American Iron and Steel Institute, Gerdau Ameristeel, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Mining Association, Peabody Energy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Southeastern Legal Foundation on behalf of 13 House Republicans and business associations, and the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, reports E&E News.

In response, the EPA and environmentalists say the agency is required by law to begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and is finalizing new greenhouse gas rules for automobiles and large stationary sources next month, reports the New York Times.

A coalition of 16 states and New York City, and several environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation are seeking to intervene in the lawsuit against the EPA, reports E&E News.

Conservation Law Foundation filed a separate motion, according to the article.

Environmental Leader Product and Project Awards 2016
Sponsored By: Environmental Leader

How the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) Can Improve Your Business Operations
Sponsored By: Digital Lumens

Emerging Technologies in Learning
Sponsored By: UL EHS Sustainability

Avoid the RFP Trap: The Smart Guide to Purchasing EHS Software
Sponsored By: VelocityEHS


6 thoughts on “EPA’s Endangerment Finding Under Fire by States, Lawmakers and Industry Groups

  1. EPA is out of control. There is no reason for an agency to have as much power as they are trying to claim as their own. I say more power to those who object to the hamfisted rulings emanating from that group.

  2. And I say more power to the EPA as they move to regulate dangerous greenhouse gas emissions. There is every reason for this agency to have the power to do so – starting with the recent supreme court ruling to that effect.

    That’s the law of the land. If you don’t like it, you’re always free to leave.

  3. The Clean Air Act has been in existence since 1963 with revisions as recent as 1990. That’s 47 to 20 years of time that our states and corporations have had to get their ducks in a row with regard to the amount of toxic chemicals that they have been emitting into the air we breathe. The EPA has been very slow at enforcing the requirements of the Clean Air Act – until recently – hence the current outcry. The reality too is that states like Alabama are doing an even poorer job of enforcing the requirements and protecting their citizen’s air quality.
    The real bottom line is that we can survive with a bad economy (granted it will be very painful and some companies may not survive – which means some big polluters out there need to find a better way to do things or go away if they can’t get on board). Nothing is irreplaceable. So EPA, do your job and when the dust settles, hopefully, we will be a nation of new companies that can provide services and products that don’t kill us and/or deteriorate our health and quality of life. They may even be really profitable and provide a bunch of new jobs.

    Think of it this way. It’s against the law to shoot someone. If a gun man holds up a convenient store, steals money and is caught, he’ll go to jail. Well, it’s against the law to pollute the air we breathe too. So it’s time to pay penance. It’s not like they haven’t been warned. Surely, 47 years has given the violators’ time to come up with a plan to do things better. Why should the health of our communities have to pay the price for their bad management and foresight?…Oh wait! Maybe they were counting on the fact that this type of enforcement would never come.

  4. It’s amazing to me how many people would rather support an endangered plant species, endangerd mammal, animal, etc. instead of “save the humans.” Now were talking about emissions in the air and everything around it, that has NO solid proof of “devastation” it supposedly has done. Get your heads out of the sand, what good is it going to do to have “Clean” so called air, when there isn’t going to be a country left for us to enjoy it in. God save the Joshua Trees, the seals, and the idiots who agree to it!

  5. According to the Supreme Court Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 case, “[u]nder the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do.”

    According to the Supreme Court, the EPA is REQUIRED BY LAW to act or otherwise ACTIVELY PROVE that greenhouse gas emissions DO NOT contribute to global warming.

  6. “That’s the law of the land. If you don’t like it, you’re always free to leave.”
    Glennis, the way it works: If we don’t like it we can change the law. You can leave if you don’t like it. I am certain you could find a highly legislated country to your liking somewhere else.

Leave a Comment

Translate »