The Environmental Protection Agency’s recent and “historic” announcement of rolling back 31 regulatory statutes made waves. The revelation that made the biggest splash is revisiting the 2009 “endangerment finding” that classified carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases as a danger to “both the public health and the environment.” This finding deserves to be revisited.
Established in response to the 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA 5-4 verdict, in which the Supreme Court held that the EPA had the power to regulate atmospheric warming gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act, the endangerment finding laid the foundation for a slew of heavy-handed regulations.
The Clean Power Plan in 2015 sought to regulate power plants out of business. Still, it was ultimately shot down in West Virginia v. EPA.
That did not deter the Biden EPA from instituting a power plant rule that would require most coal plants and any new natural gas plants to cut or capture 90 percent of their carbon dioxide, even though the technology needed to capture and store carbon is expensive and not commercially viable.
The Obama and Biden administrations instituted and increased vehicle emissions standards, the latter of which set regulations requiring two-thirds of all new automobile sales to be electric vehicles within a decade.
The Biden EPA rolled out sweeping regulations targeting methane emissions from the oil and gas industries despite legislators’ concerns that the action would “stifle innovation, increase operational costs, and increase the price of energy.”
The EPA should only be allowed to regulate if it properly considers factors such as price and energy effects, potential benefits or effectiveness of a rule, and other costs and tradeoffs. Instead, the endangerment finding has given rise to regulations driving up costs, restricting vehicle choice, cultivating unreliable energy, eliminating jobs and industries, and hurting national security. Consumers are not better off.
Aggressive pursuits of renewable energy portfolios, which sacrifice affordable and reliable fossil fuels like coal and natural gas for expensive and intermittent sources like wind and solar, are causing problems in various states. Rising costs and energy shortages are hitting homes and businesses. The North American Electric Reliability Corp.’s annual Long-Term Reliability Assessments continually warn of blackouts during extreme weather events or peak usage, mainly due to ambitious decarbonization efforts.
The push for an all (or mostly) electric vehicle fleet favors one product over another and completely transforms an entire segment of the economy. An electric vehicle is not a practical option for many consumers. Limited range, inadequate charging stations, increased expense, and difficulties in colder climates continue to plague the industry.
These coercive regulations disproportionately hurt the poor who can’t afford their energy bills, let alone an expensive electric vehicle. Levels of energy poverty continue to rise, approaching half the country.
Furthermore, the endangerment finding may not be based on sound science. Some experts contend that the climate models “produce too much warming” when compared to actual observations on the ground, with discrepancies of 40 percent to 50 percent. In other words, these models do not accurately portray reality, yet they are being used to inform policy.
Worse yet, the vast majority of climate policies are inconsequential and make little to no difference in affecting climate change. Industries don’t need heavy-handed regulations to reduce emissions.
During the first Trump administration, carbon emissions from energy production dropped by 14 percent, even with the growth of the economy and energy output. This decrease is attributable to innovation and actions taken by industry, not government intervention.
The EPA should not be in the business of shutting down commerce or production to comply with regulations. It should not ban or limit goods, such as gas-powered vehicles, to meet stringent requirements. And it should not be restructuring the electric grid, something on which we all depend, to satisfy austere standards. The agency should be prohibited from promulgating rules beyond its regulatory expertise.
Energy is a necessity, not a luxury, for a first-world nation. Its consumption is linked to economic prosperity. Reliable, affordable and abundant energy enables countries to flourish; its restriction causes them to decline. As we enter an era of surging energy demands, we will need access to inexpensive and dependable supplies.
Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Mass v. EPA states, “Regulating the buildup of CO2 … is not akin to regulating the concentration of some substance that is polluting the air.” Carbon-dioxide emissions don’t affect local air quality.
The endangerment finding is a flawed ruling. Its reconsideration is warranted.
