For anybody concerned about having a “regulation nation,” a vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce paints a bleak picture, outlining an overall assault on energy in particular.

William Kovacs, senior vice president for the Chamber’s Environment, Technology and Regulatory Affairs Division, spoke about “the growing regulatory state” at the Kalispell Chamber of Commerce luncheon on Wednesday and in an interview with the Inter Lake.

Kovacs asserts that the federal bureaucracy “really runs the show, and Congress has taken a back seat” when it comes to the application of laws through regulations.

He focuses on the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, describing how Congress granted those agencies broad authority 35 years ago to implement laws such as the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act.

And he describes how environmental organizations have incrementally commandeered the agendas of those agencies through “sue and settle” actions.

The implications have been and will continue to be increasingly costly for businesses and consumers, he said.

Over the last 14 years, he said, 30 regulations have been implemented that cost $1 billion annually, and the EPA is enforcing 17 of the 30. And there are thousands of additional regulations that are enforced with additional costs.

But there are additional costs, Kovacs contends, because the complexity of the regulatory environment has created “uncertainty and hesitancy” for businesses small and large.

Kovacs is disturbed by what he regards as a trend of the EPA working to expand its jurisdiction in various ways.

He cites as an example the agency’s proposal to require a 30 percent reduction in carbon emissions from coal-fired plants by 2030. The goal is to be met with varying impacts from one state to the next, and Montana’s estimated emission reduction is expected to be 21 percent.

Kovacs points out that the proposal does not apply just to emissions from the plants — it also involves getting states to adopt energy efficiency measures, to use alternatives such as natural gas, to use renewable energy sources, and to adopt energy conservation efforts.

This is significant because the EPA historically has not been involved with state energy policy.

“The EPA has never had jurisdiction outside the fenceline of the facility,” he said.

The proposed emission standards for states will have the EPA directly involved with matters that will affect energy costs.

What if the EPA’s policy leads to the Montana Public Service Commission considering a 30 percent rate increase, and being an elected commission, it refuses to go along with the EPA?

“The question is if what the EPA is trying to do is legal,” Kovacs said. “How do we allow the EPA to control the energy mix of the 50 states?”

Just last year, the U.S. Chamber was involved with over 100 lawsuits pushing back against federal regulations, and Kovacs said that if the emission rules are adopted, there will be litigation, with the Chamber’s attorneys having nearly 100 different approaches on how to challenge them.

Another area the EPA appears to be pursuing expanded jurisdiction involves water.

A 2009 inventory of waters regulated by the EPA included 3.5 million miles of rivers and streams. But a 2012 EPA inventory, carried out with the U.S. Geological Survey, identified 8.1 million miles — counting basically all potential tributaries.

“Really, all ditches are going to be defined as tributaries,” Kovacs said, and that would be an enormous extension of EPA authority over land across the country.

But if regulations to make that happen are ever brought forward, Kovacs predicts the proposal would be withdrawn because there would be such fierce opposition.

Kovacs said the EPA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with its enforcement of the Endangered Species Act, are targeting energy, largely at the direction of environmental groups through court orders.

“They are specifically targeting energy projects in energy states,” he said.

He asserts that greenhouse gas or carbon reductions are being used to justify blocking not only coal-fired plants and other forms of new power generation, but also coal export terminals, liquid natural gas export terminals, the Keystone XL Pipeline, fracking for oil extraction and forest management.

The regulatory state has become so overreaching, he said, that it has become a significant impediment to manufacturing and just about every economically productive form of development.

Reporter Jim Mann may be reached at 758-4407 or by email at jmann@dailyinterlake.com.