Supreme Court Votes Against Clean Air Act

Yesterday, the Supreme Court vote dealt a major blow to President Obama and his Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and five other pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. However, the new regulation would have severe consequences, as emphasized here by the Supreme Court vote.

In addition, written testimony, related to this issue, by the NCPA to the Environmental Protection Agency last year included:

The EPA’s proposed regulation ― which would lower the threshold of ground-level ozone pollution ― has been characterized as “the most expensive regulation ever.”

President Obama nixed a similar version of this rule in 2011, claiming that he was acting to “underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty.” Yet many are wondering what happened to President Obama’s commitment to “reducing regulatory burdens” in the face of the EPA’s new proposal.

The proposal itself would lower the existing acceptable ozone standard from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to somewhere between 65 and 70 ppb ― though the EPA’s science advisers would rather see limits closer to 60 ppb. According to the EPA and environmentalist groups, lowering the amount of acceptable ozone would increase public health, reduce illness and premature deaths, and lead to $21.2-$42.1 billion in benefits, contrasted with $16.6 billion in costs.

However, a recent study by the National Association of Manufacturers found that the new ozone regulation could have a very high cost in jobs and to the economy. The study found that a stricter new ozone regulation could:

  • Reduce U.S. GDP by $270 billion per year and $3.4 trillion from 2017 to 2040.
  • Result in 2.9 million fewer jobs per year on average through 2040.
  • Cost the average U.S. household $1,570 per year.
  • Increase natural gas and electricity costs for manufacturers and households across the country.

The EPA must make a final decision on the rule by October 1, 2015. While many argue that it’s too early to truly estimate the costs of the proposed regulation, the initial forecasts put millions of jobs, billions of dollars in investment, and trillions of dollars of economic output at risk.

Heavy regulations like this one cost too many jobs and wreck the economy. Businesses will choose to go to other countries with friendlier business environments, further negatively impacting our economy in the long run. We must look at the bigger picture and see the other side of the issue and understand that more harm than good is achieved through many existing regulations like this new one.

A domestic energy boom means nothing if the economy cannot rise with it — over a trillion dollars of estimated regulatory burden directly burdens job markets and wage growth. The American voters are clear: the economy and jobs remains their top concern; elected officials need to begin representing their constituents.

Comments (9)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. John Minich says:

    It seems that the e.p.a. has a complete disregard costs and cost-benefit ratios. I think the e.p.a. has exaggerated the effects of chemicals at various concentrations and disregarded the concept of thresholds, below which substances have no effect. Maybe we should ban subways because of the ozone they produce in tunnels. We’ll need a law to ban thunderstorms for making ozone and nitrogen oxides.

    • Hello There. I discovered your blog using msn. That is a really smartly written article. I’ll be sure to bookmark it and return to learn extra of your helpful info. Thanks for the post. I’ll certainly return.

  2. web page says:

    Hello There. I discovered your blog using msn. That is a really smartly
    written article. I’ll be sure to bookmark it and return to learn extra of your helpful info.
    Thanks for the post. I’ll certainly return.

  3. Wow, marvelous weblog format! How long have you been running a blog for?

    you make running a blog look easy. The whole look of your website is wonderful, as neatly as the content!

  4. boots says:

    What’s up to every body, it’s my first pay a quick visit
    of this website; this weblog contains amazing and truly fine information designed for
    readers.

  5. 事業者に自動車を高く買い取ってもらうには、売り時を見逃さないために、売るまでの手配を円滑に段取ることが大事です。
    売却した自動車は中古となり、また新規の利用者の手に渡ります。その中古車相場は常に変動しており、売却時期を逃すと中古車の価値が下落しまうことも考えられます。
    売るまでの段取りを前から理解し、中古車として高額で売却する時期を逃さないことが売却額上昇になります。

    自動車買取の価格は常に変動しています。中古自動車の相場が季節によって変わるように、買取価格も日々変わっています。満足できる自動車買取にするためには、価格の動きを知ることがとても大切です。

  6. 引っ越し費用を格安にするために大事なのは、最初から業者を決めずに複数の会社から見積りを取り比較判断することです。

    この一括見積もりをしないと、知らず知らずのうちに高い引っ越し費用を払うことになります。

    とはいっても、複数の引っ越し会社に見積もり依頼しようと考えて各社に連絡をするのは手間のかかるしんどい作業です。

    引越し直前の貴重な時間をムダに浪費することになってしまいますね。

    でも、実は「とある方法」を活用することで手間を省け、効率良く一番安い会社を探しだせます。普通に依頼するよりも数万円安い費用で引越しできる可能性が十分ありますよ。

  7. Thanks for sharing your thoughts about film bioskop. Regards

  8. News says:

    After checking out a few of the articles on your site, I truly appreciate your technique of blogging.
    I saved it to my bookmark site list and will be
    checking back soon. Please check out my website as well and tell
    me how you feel.

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.