Kan. AG lauds federal ruling limiting EPA's power


By Bryan Lowry

By Bryan Lowry

The Wichita Eagle

(MCT) — Attorney General Derek Schmidt lauded a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to limit some of the EPA's power to regulate greenhouse emissions.

The high court ruled 5-4 that the Environmental Protection Agency cannot use a provision of the Clean Air Act to regulate facilities, such as factories and refineries, solely on the basis that they emit greenhouse gases.

Schmidt called the ruling "an important victory for Kansas jobs, our state's economy, and the rule of law."

Kansas joined twelve other states and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in challenging the agency's use of permitting programs to regulate greenhouse emissions under the Obama administration.

"This ruling is about basic civics," Schmidt said in a statement. "Those who seek additional government controls on greenhouse gases need to engage the United States Congress, where issues like these can be fully debated — not bypass Congress and attempt to stretch existing laws beyond all recognition."

"To ensure that any regulatory action EPA pursues stays within the law, Kansas stands ready and willing to challenge any regulation that exceeds EPA's authority," Schmidt said.

Gov. Sam Brownback issued a statement praising the decision and saying it is "only step one of many in the fight to maintain our rights as a State. We still face the unnecessary listing of the Lesser Prairie Chicken, the expanded EPA rule on Waters of the U.S., and various other areas of federal government overreach."

The practical impact of the ruling will be limited. The court kept the EPA's power to regulate greenhouse gases intact.

The court ruled that the agency could continue to regulate facilities under its Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program, but that it could not regulate solely on the basis of emissions, as that could extend to smaller sources such as schools, churches and shopping centers, according to Justice Antonin Scalia.

The agency sought to regulate 86 percent of sources of greenhouse emissions; it still will be able to regulate 83 percent under the court's ruling, according Justice Antonin Scalia.

"EPA is getting almost everything it wanted in this case," Scalia said when announcing the decision, according to the Washington Post.

Environmentalists saw the ruling as a victory.

Zack Pistoria, legislative director for the Kansas Sierra Club, responded to the case's outcome in an e-mail.

"Today's Supreme Court's ruling reaffirms two established points: First, that the largest new industrial facilities and all our current biggest polluters will need to limit their greenhouse gas emissions, and second, that the Clean Air Act gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency specific capacity to regulate climate-disrupting pollution including carbon dioxide and methane," Pistoria said. "This case, and the court precedent set prior, dictates that greenhouse gas pollution can and should be regulated."

comments powered by Disqus
I commented on a story, but my comments aren't showing up. Why?
We provide a community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day.
Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. We expect civil dialogue.
Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome.
Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum.

If you don't see your comment, perhaps you ...
... called someone an idiot, a racist, a moron, etc. Name-calling or profanity (to include veiled profanity) will not be tolerated.
... rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.
... included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.
... accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.
... made a comment in really poor taste.