On January 2nd, the EPA began regulating climate altering greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions from stationary sources like for the first time. The long overdue action has the new Congress up in arms.

The new chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), has called the EPA action an “unconstitutional power grab,” while the new chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID), has called the EPA, “the scariest agency in the federal government, an agency run amok.” Meanwhile, Sen. John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) plans to reintroduce a measure in the Senate that would suspend EPA’s authority to regulate ghg emissions from stationary sources. The state of Texas has flat out refused to comply with the new rules, forcing the EPA to do the State’s job for it.

So what is it that is so deviously evil in the new regulations that the new Republican Congress is threatening to do anything it can, including gutting the EPA’s budget, to stop them? Newly constructed or newly upgraded industrial sources of ghg emissions (think big power plants…small businesses are specifically excluded) are now required to apply for permits. The permits, which ensure new facilities are built with the best available control technologies (BACT) function almost identically to other permits that have been issued under the Clean Air Act for decades and allow for cost effectiveness to be taken under consideration.

The rules are not even close to the unconstitutional mayhem the Republicans have made them out to be. The EPA is not creating its powers out of thin air. A 2007 ruling by the Supreme Court in fact found the EPA in violation of the Clean Air Act (a bill signed into law by two Republican Presidents) because at the time it was refusing to rule on whether ghg emissions were a potential danger to human health which began the process which led to these new regulations. The EPA, after subsequently ruling that global climate change may in fact have some negative effects on human well being, now believes it would be violating the law if it were to continue to ignore ghg emissions. Furthermore, Pacific Gas & Electric and New Jersey’s Public Service (two of the country’s largest utilities) have stated that the industry has had plenty of time to prepare, and that implementing cost-effective pollution reduction will result in a net gain in jobs.

The Obama administration has so far built a solid record when it comes to climate change rulemaking and budgetary consideration. President Obama needs to step up and hold strong against attempts to wrest regulatory power away from the EPA and slash its budget. While the most dramatic attacks on the EPA’s rulemaking ability should be able to find cover under a presidential veto, the budget process could do as much damage if Democrats don’t stand firm.