Alabama manufacturers celebrate Supreme Court's EPA decision

(Video above: The National Association of Manufacturers explains how federal regulations hurt Alabama businesses)

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — The U.S. Supreme Court’s Monday ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) overstepped its bounds when it sought to impose billions of dollars in costs on the American people through stringent and expensive new air quality rules of dubious effect is being applauded by Alabama’s business leaders, including Business Council of Alabama President and CEO William J. Canary.

“Monday’s ruling is a tremendous victory,” Canary told Yellowhammer. “By rolling back this draconian regulation, Alabama will remain competitive with other states and nations. Neither consumers, nor small businesses or our critical manufacturing industry can afford skyrocketing rates, and certainly not 30 percent higher rates.”

The court ruled that the Obama administration should have considered the cost of compliance when it decided to limit emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants mainly from coal-fired power plants.

The BCA and its national partner, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), in a video prior to the ruling, explained the negative consequences of the EPA’s proposed rule that would make Alabama’s manufacturing uncompetitive due to energy costs nearly one-third higher than today.

Perhaps the most jaw-dropping moment of the video is when NAM reveals that the average U.S. manufacturer spends $19,564 per year, per employee to comply with regulations.

“The government needs to prioritize rather than penalize this state’s incredible advantage of reliable and affordable energy,” says Jay Timmons, NAM’s president and CEO in the video above. “Excessive and burdensome regulations impede your ability to compete and succeed.”

BCA First Vice Chairman Tommy Lee, President and CEO of Vulcan Inc., a manufacturer in Foley, adds higher manufacturing costs would make it difficult to compete overseas and with imports that are produced without the same regulations.

“The regulations themselves, they’re unfair and they are mandates that simply are going to be very, very difficult not only for the producers to abide by and the manufacturers in his country to live with,” Lee said. “When we go outside the country and try to move our products that way we need to be as competitive as possible and rising energy costs to us is not the way to do it.”

The BCA supported a lawsuit joined by Alabama and 22 other states seeking to roll back the punitive rule that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimated would increase energy costs to consumers by as much as 30 percent—that’s $60 on a $200 electricity bill in a hot summer month.

The EPA said its interpretation of the Clean Air Act allowed it to impose rules on business and, ultimately, consumers, rules that bypass Congress that has the ultimate authority in determining federal environmental policy. The EPA added that cost is irrelevant to the initial decision to regulate. The Supreme Court said otherwise.

The court said costs to power plants were between 1,600 and 2,400 times as great as the quantifiable benefits from reduced emissions of hazardous air pollutants.

The court ruled the EPA must consider cost—including cost of compliance—before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary.

The new regulation could have cost the economy billions of dollars and threaten thousands of jobs all in the name of reducing global carbon emissions by 1.3 percent, the equivalent of 13.5 days’ worth of emissions from China, and reduce the standard of living of most Americans.

“When these are fully implemented it’s going to cost Alabama 11,000 jobs,” Canary said. “This is unnecessary, this is something we don’t need and will tremendously affect economic development in this state and ultimately affect every other positive thing that we’ve accomplished.”