Does the USA Federal government have the authority to regulate efficiency standards?

Lately, the United States Federal government has been going on a regulation spree, mandating efficiency standards that have effectively banned incandescent light bulbs and coal power plants. But does the Federal government actually have the authority to do this?

Unique in the United States government is the concept of Federalism. The country's constitution deligates certain powers to the individual states and certain other powers to the federal government. Where in the constitution has the federal government been granted the power to be able to mandate efficiency standards? The Federal government can regulate anything related to interstate commerce (trade between states). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

Here are the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the American Constitution:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce."
—James Madison


Here is a paper discussing the legal justification of using the commerce clause to tax carbon dioxide emissions:
http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi...r5zlAg&usg=AFQjCNEfioTYMATtqu2KKvF9KGlQZObLNQ

One legal scholar explained: "the legitimacy of the Environmental Protection Agency comes from the commerce clause. Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce."

Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Gibbons versus Ogden (1824), stated that Congress has the power to regulate activities that occur within the states only if those activities "affect other states". Here is an exert from his decission:

In an attempt to justify the expanding powers of the federal government, progressive legal scholars have tried to make the argument that the world has "changed", that "there is hardly an item that we purchase that has not originated in different states or countries, sometimes with elements and components from dozens of different sources".

Here is a quote from Professor Will Huhn (Constitutional Law, 2008) showing the tenants of the progressive school of legal thought:

The Environmental Protection Agency was NOT authorised by any act of Congress, nor has there been any ammendments made to the United States Constitution granting it regulatory authority. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which mandated lighting efficiency, was passed by Congress, but presumably (?) it would not apply to commerce solely within a particular state, for reasons I have already mentioned.

I strongly believe that the environment should be protected and that the Federal government needs to have a role in this. But I am also strongly against the current system and the types of ridiculous regulations appearing. I believe that the Constitution gives the Federal government authority to tax, not to ban certain products on the basis of efficiency regulations.

 

Nonsense. The EPA was created by executive order, but it is authorized by Congress every time Congress appropriates money for the EPA. In other words, Congress authorizes the EPA every single year.

A constitutional amendment is not required to create regulatory authority. A simple law will do, and there are many such laws on the books.

You'd have a hard time explaining how energy use in one state does not affect any other state, considering that (a) anything that comes out of a smokestack or tailpipe can cross state lines; and (b) anything tied to the grid crosses state lines. Do you seriously believe that a power plant in Rhode Island has no effect on the air quality in Massachusetts?

 

Ben Dover. The name of all of the fearful corporate managers and executives that allow the EPA to bully them and defer criminal liability to clueless employees. Perhaps poor debater is used to bending over, however, I'm not. I'll quit work again in a heartbeat if I see excessive regulation. I might quit out of spite if dunce-boy Obama is elected again. I mean, a country that elects Forest Gump TWICE deserves everything coming to it.

 

Is there an argument amidst that pile of insults? Naaaah ... actual thought is too much to expect from a conservative these days.

 

The argument is simple. If you can't technologically and financially understand and justify the regulation, you (i.e. a metaphor for any regulatory agency) have no right or authority to declare expertise and make the regulation. Your acquiescence to authority was insulting to me in post 2.

 

Any time economic transactions impose external costs on non-consenting third parties, government has not merely the right but the absolute moral obligation to recover those costs. Mitigation of those costs through regulation is the absolute minimum we should expect. That justification should meet even your standards.

And where I come from, we have a word for people who don't acquiesce to authority. That word is "criminal".

 

But this is not what is happening with much of the ridiculous regulations we are seeing. Trying to mandate efficiency standards is not neccessarily a good policy. If emitting carobon dioxide and pollution is harmful, the government should tax it appropriately. End of story.

The government should not have any right to tell people what they have to use to save electricity. If you honestly believe your country is emitting too much pollution, the best way to prevent more pollution is to prevent your population from rising by refusing to take on any more immigration. Why should I be forced to use an unpleasant lightbulb just to accomodate more people entering my country from the third world?

Light bulbs consume only a tiny fraction of the electricity consumption in a country. Banning incandescent light bulbs will barely make any environmental difference.

 

Agree with Anders. How can one explain the double standard (i.e. a USA "stimulus" plan that was a metaphor for gifts to campaign contributors)? Have you calculated how many nuclear power plants that could have been built with nearly a trillion dollars? Electric cars would have been not only possible but logical in a society that draws 50+% of its power from low CO2 emitting power sources. (*)(*)(*)(*) away a trillion dollars and THEN institute Draconian tactics. Criminal.

 

In a perfect world, yes. But the idiot conservative Republicans will block anything with the word "tax" in it. Therefore the administration must do what it can within the limits of existing law to mitigate those external costs as much as possible. Efficiency regulation is the best they can do.

If you don't like that, vote for a congressperson who supports a carbon tax. Because if one ever gets passed, the need for efficiency regulation will wither away.

 

Plug up your kitchen sink and let one drop of water per minute fall in it before you go to bed tonight. One drop ain't nothin...right?

The issue is about light bulbs...not immigration.

If they tax cabon dioxide you will be griping about high utility bills and the damage "the left" is doing to the national economy. End of story.

 

Why not take a portion of that massive amount of money that would be spent to build a nuclear plant and use it to drill a hole in the earth, pump water into it and generate electricity safely?

 

If it works, OK. You saw the money move with nothing to show for it except increased poverty. The objective is that the statement that you made can be supported with facts (i.e. objective data that is not politically generated). Nuclear power plants are proven with albeit statistically problematic safety records, worldwide.

 

All in favor of a carbon tax, but the problem it seems is whenever politicians propose a "carbon tax" it is actually just some corrupt cap and trade plan that seeks to commodify the right to emit pollution, giving special privilleges to the corporations that were there first.

If there is any tax, it should be a proportional tax on each metric ton of CO2 produced. That simple. Trying to make it any more complex than that is just a recipe for unfairness and cronyism.

(and imports should also be taxed based on the CO2 in other countries it took to produce them, if the other country does not have any carbon tax, otherwise the tax would just drive production overseas)