Contact: Kelly Klass 609-713-4243 or [email protected]
Follow Kelly on Twitter @KellyAKlass
Follow NFIB on Twitter @NFIB
The US Supreme Court found EPA’s new regulations on power
plant emissions were too costly for the little public benefit they would have
provided
Washington, D.C.
(June 29, 2015) – A ruling by the Supreme Court today invalidating a
massive new clean air regulation is a victory for the rule of law and small
businesses everywhere that would have been otherwise hit with substantially
higher energy costs, said the National
Federation of Independent Business (NFIB).
“When agencies come up with these costly and fickle
regulations, they need to consider who will inevitably pay the bill,” said NFIB Small Business Legal Center Executive
Director Karen Harned. “The EPA does
not have the authority to implement hugely expensive new rules without
performing the mandatory economic analyses.”
NFIB filed an amicus brief supporting the state of Michigan in
its case against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). At issue is whether the EPA unreasonably refused
to consider the full impact its new regulations on the emissions would have on
the economy. Under the Clean Air Act,
the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions released from
power plants if it finds the regulation to be “appropriate and necessary” after
conducting a cost-benefit analysis.
Michigan and NFIB argued that the agency did not properly consider all
of the costs that would be triggered by the new rule.
“This has been a pattern with the EPA, which waved aside its
obligation to consider costs in its new water regulations as well,” said
Harned. “But the laws are very clear and,
as a constitutional matter, there must be some restraints on the executive
branch of government. Otherwise the
separation of powers is rendered meaningless.”
As an economic matter, the clean air rule would have been a
disaster for small businesses. Energy
costs are already a top concern for local owners and the regulation would have
resulted in sky high energy costs, a reduction in reliable energy and would
have forced power plants to close their doors for good,” Harned continued.
The EPA’s new rules would have been the Obama Administration’s
most significant environmental regulation and would have controlled the
emissions of mercury and other pollutants from coal and oil-fired power
plants. The EPA estimated the regulation
would cost power plants almost $9.6 billion a year in direct compliance costs.
“Not only did the Supreme Court strike down a regulation
that would have been detrimental to small business owners, but it has confirmed
that agencies must consider all economic implications before creating any
future regulations.”
###
