Again, Supreme Court defers to EPA

On Monday, the Supreme Court unanimously blocked the case of American Electric Power Co. et al. v. Connecticut et al., ruling that the group of states that brought the lawsuit (California, Connecticut, Iowa, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont) cannot ask the courts to force power companies to cut greenhouse gas emissions.  That authority belongs to the EPA under the Clean Air Act, as determined by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts et al. vs EPA on April 2, 2007.  

The EPA is planning to release these regulations by May 2012, but is facing immense pressure not to do so from Democrats representing coal and oil states as well as from virtually every Republican.  State governments and environmental groups are pushing for regulation of greenhouse gases from every possible angle, and aren't having much success.  Having lost the push for Congressional action in 2009, and having already waited on EPA regulations for the four years since the 2007 Supreme Court ruling, they were appealing to the judicial branch to force immediate action.  Having this case thrown out means that those pushing for regulations will have to keep waiting, as the ruling on Monday further reinforces the 2007 decision that the court won't intervene when a federal law already exists that mandates regulation of greenhouse gases by the EPA. 

The maddening thing about this is the gridlock -- every year of inaction will push our world closer and closer to the tipping points of uncontrollable climate change.  The judicial branch is deferring to the EPA, the EPA was waiting on a climate bill from Congress, and Congress is being controlled by special interests in the oil industry who want to maintain the status quo and, therefore, their power.  The Obama administration is under attack because its EPA is attempting to exercise the very authority reinforced twice now by the Supreme Court.

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich), the Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee (which oversees the Dept. of Energy), stated in a Washington Post op-ed that EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is an "unconstitutional power grab that will kill millions of jobs."  His co-author, Tim Phillips, is the president of Americans for Prosperity -- the front group for the infamous Koch brothers (Koch Industries is a major player in the business of refining and distributing petroleum and natural gas).  Does it bother anyone else that the Chairman of the ECC is presenting his opinions on the role of the EPA and the future of energy along with the president of a group that would benefit immensely from a lack of greenhouse gas regulations?  

This is no coincidence.  In 2010 alone, Upton received $20,000 in contributions from Koch employees.  Before becoming Chairman, Upton was known as a moderate Republican who in 2009 said "we need to reduce emissions."  This is in obvious opposition to his statement in the aforementioned op-ed that regulations are unnecessary because "this presumes that carbon is a problem in need of regulation. We are not convinced."  Oh, really?  What happened in 18 months to change your mind?  Perhaps $20,000?  

Until we can get the special interest money out of government, we won't be able to unlock the gridlock.  Campaign finance reform:  our last best hope.