Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Upholds Most EPA Rules On Greenhouse Gases
UnknowingFool writes In Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled against the EPA on some limits to greenhouse gases but also upheld other limits. In a 5-4 partial decision, the high court ruled that EPA overstepped their authority in requiring permits only for greenhouse gases for new and modified facilities using the Clean Air act. Such regulatory action can only be granted by Congress. But in the same case on a 7-2 decision, the court ruled that the EPA can enforce greenhouse gas limits on facilities that already require permits for other air pollutants. This leaves intact most of the new regulations proposed by the Obama administration earlier this month as many coal plants produce other air pollutants that can be regulated by the EPA.
What the Supreme Court actually did was to disallow direct regulation of CO2 unless the EPA actually wants to attempt to regulate ALL producers of >250 tons annually, which is impractical.
What the EPA intended to do was to regulate producers of >100,000 tons annually, with the possibility of reducing that threshold over time as we get handle on the issue.
What the Supreme Court did leave intact is the ability to regulate CO2 production by producers who are already regulated for other reasons 'anyway'.
That does happen to match up fairly well with what the EPA intended to do originally, but does not allow the flexibility to regulate CO2 producers who do not produce large amounts of other pollution.
This would be checked authority, by definition, since it was reviewed by a court as being in keeping with the law as written. It's almost like all 3 parts of the government played exactly the roles they were supposed to.
But don't let me stop you from making things up, just because your ideology demands that the science be wrong, thus imagining acting on the science is wrong, thus twisting your mind to invent new and interesting ways of stating the opposite of reality.
The function of the executive agency is precisely to create and uphold rules. Most people think congressional laws detail out rules; this is mostly wrong. One clear example showing the difference between agency rules and laws is the American Disabilities Act of 1990. It's a very short law, but the executive agencies that enforce the laws have well over 100,000 pages of rules, none of which are defined verbatim in the law.
Congress's job is not to micromanage, it is to appropriate funds, enact legislation and oversee the executive during the life of the legislation.
Well then Congress shouldn't give them that power? That was the court's finding, that Congress had already authorized the EPA to regulate any gases produced at a plant that also produces named pollutants. So CO2 gets lumped in with the rest under their blanket authority over existing polluters. Which is why they struck down the ability to expand their authority to non-polluting entities. It was outside their existing jurisdiction.
Congress does that a lot, authorizes blanket authority, and then bitches when it gets exercised. It's like they don't read the bills they pass or something...
Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
And, of course, that's got NOTHING to do with the fact that it's big businesses who are the ones fouling the global commons for their own selfish profit. Again.
And NOT enforcing, say, banking or clean air regulations.
Existing regulations (as approved by Congress) is one thing. Adding new categories to those regulations and demanding they be enforced minus legislative oversight is another.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Can you cite the direct Congressional actions that outlawed diazinon or PCBs or even DDT? Yeah, I thought not. Those were all executive actions.
Uh, Big Business is doing a fantastic job of destroying the middle-class without the EPA even being involved.
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
If you have rules that are too detailed for Congress, then those are rules which should not exist at the federal level.
A lot of legislation (at all levels) is simple wording, with an understanding that an agency more equipped to work out the minutiae will do so.
Those administrative agencies (like, say, the EPA) figure out that minutiae, and those details (functionally speaking) become law. Chevron v EPA is a cornerstone of administrative law. [Congress made broad stroke laws, EPA enforced it as they interpreted it, Chevron sued, and SCOTUS made clear that regulatory agency administration is - pretty much - law.]
Actually, it is Congress' obligation to be extremely specific in the laws they write. The nondelegation doctrine is an important concept in American jurisprudence.
J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States helped establish the rules under which power can be delegated, essentially stating that Congress has to establish an "intelligible standard" for the executive or legislative branch.
Congress can't simply tell the executive branch, "Hey, you guys control pollution so we can have a clear sky." Congress has to establish an intelligible standard upon which an administrative agency can build regulations AND Congress has to grant the power to the agency to establish those rules. Typical statutes might read, "...xxx agency is empowered to institute regulations in support of this statute."
The function of the executive agency was not to create rules but, rather, to faithfully enforce the laws of the United States. The fact that Congress has found numerous ways in order to delegate its power to the executive agency doesn't change the fundamental design of the system. This delegation of power is what's lead everyone to believe the executive branch holds more power than it really does.
The most unfortunate thing about Congress' abdication of power to the executive branch using so many specific delegations is that we've created a situation in aggregate where the executive has an almost blanket delegation of Congressional power; a delegation that would be unconstitutional if granted via a single Congressional action.
It's just a coincidence that every law is anti-big business. Imagine all the business opportunities, if big business could just hire some gun men and force people out of their houses! Those pesky property laws are so totally anti-big business. It's so anti free market that the people with more and better guns shouldn't be able to expand their market share.
There is nothing inherently anti-big business in the recommended solutions, just big business (especially the fossil fuel industry) as it is currently practiced. There are plenty of big businesses that are more or less environmentally responsible and they don't get that much attention for it.
These EPA regulations are going to be a lot more expensive than that, in both terms
That would be a first since it the past EPA regulations have generally cost less than expected and have provided benefits that far outweigh any costs they may impose.
Who ever gave you the idea that pollution must be toxic? Pollution = "a resource out of place". eg: don't pollute my scotch with water.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
That "97%" BS argument has been debunked over and over.
Great, so you got a link to that survey of climate scientists where they all say it's a scam?
And it's repeated ad nauseum by people that should know science is not about consensus.
Of course it's not, but when idiots like you ignore science no matter what facts are presented, the only way to even try to have a dialogue is to reference an impartial source like a survey of a large numbers of scientists. Also, if 97% of scientists all believe something, they *could* all be wrong ... but they probably aren't.