Industry, government role reversal cases before SCOTUS

America has turned so upside-down that government has become the adversary bent on harming those it is pledged to serve, and the coal and oil industry has become the advocate for the People and free enterprise. In effect, the EPA is increasing mortality among the populace of the United States, whom it is supposedly empowered to protect, by creating a hurdle for power generating plants to supply enough electricity at an affordable rate to individuals. These regulations place the populace in physical danger and possible death for: lack of heat in winter, food spoilage for lack of refrigeration, lack of food and necessary goods due to increased cost, and lack of cooling in extreme hot weather (which ought to make the global warming adherents ecstatic). Whereas "renewable" energy sources are not cost-effective (forcing government subsidization and placing another fiscal burden upon the populace that the agency is designed to protect), the EPA standards have managed to place all power sources beyond the financial resources of individuals and businesses. This, in turn, slashes productivity and reduces earning capacity further cutting access to power sources, forcing Americans closer to subsistence levels. The regulations these suits are challenging would force the closure of coal-fired plants, reducing the coal-generated power capacity of the nation by 1/6^th of the roughly 50% of all energy it now provides for the country. Under the guise of avoiding or lessening "environmental risks" rather than "public health" hazards (Utility Regulatory Group v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from which comes this article's quotes) because they couldn't meet the requirements, the EPA has actualized a public health hazard against their charge, the American people. The health hazard being the probable increased incidence of deaths and injury due to malnutrition, or heat exhaustion and freezing because of exposure to the elements by inability to cool or heat homes. Even the minimal IQ loss among "the most sensitive individuals" that EPA refers as a factor supporting the rule, cannot outweigh the above health peril, as such individuals also comprise the first population to be affected by the more direct danger of exposure and malnourishment.

The petitioners address a valid point where the EPA has no standing "... to expand regulation beyond the targeted pollution at issue (i.e. residual "public health" risks) by adding a new criterion for regulation (i.e. "environmental" risk)." Yet the EPA, and every other administrative bureaucratic agency, goes about the business of inventing new standards whenever it suits their fancy and the shifting political wind. By imposing its self-directed standards (bypassing or ignoring the will of Congress), the EPA has abandoned its duty of protecting American citizens from health hazards introduced into the environment to that of protecting the environment from American citizens' good health and welfare. "Considered as whole, the Final Rule is the most costly ever issued by the EPA." This is not just because of the nearly 2000 to one ratio of financial outlay to benefit (which isn't even of human health risk but that of the "environment"), but is because of the cost to the American people's ability to feed, clothe and house themselves. The dramatically increased cost of energy, which is not alleviated by more costly "renewables," exponentially multiplies the harm done to the very People the EPA was created to protect. Unaffordable costs directly, negatively affect human health by devaluing living standards. The outcome of these unnecessary regulations is the ultimate endangerment of the People's health, contriving government to try to fill a need with services and entitlements that could, and should, have been initially avoided through sound government practices. "Try" is purposefully italicized as the services perform no service at all but create countless, cyclical problems for the now disenfranchised people. As with each additional rule handed down, the EPA is simply reflecting the attitude of the Obama Administration and government in general by disregarding the cost of backbreaking regulation. Washington, D.C. culture is one of indiscriminate spending always assuming that what is (in their minds) "good" for the People should be enacted no matter the cost to the People. This thinking is based on a lack of business and common sense, understanding, of course, that the latter modifier (i.e. common) is nonexistent, having been educated out of students over the last 50 years. The EPA, only one of numerous self-expanding administrative agencies, has become the true adversary to the American people whom it is pledged to serve. And the energy industry now serves as the advocate for human health and welfare. Once the balance of authority has switched from being administered by the creator constituent (the People's free market) to that of the creation servant, which includes the office of President, then the creation must be dismantled or disabled.