Slashdot Mirror
Court Blocks EPA Effort To Suspend Obama-Era Methane Rule (pbs.org)
Michael Biesecker reports via PBS: A federal appeals court in Washington ruled Monday that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency overstepped his authority in trying to delay implementation of a new rule requiring oil and gas companies to monitor and reduce methane leaks. In a split decision, the three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered the EPA to move forward with the Obama-era requirement that aims to reduce planet-warming emissions from oil and gas operations. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced in April that he would delay by 90 days the deadline for oil and gas companies to follow the new rule, so that the agency could reconsider the measure. Last month, Pruitt announced he intended to extend the 90-day stay for two years. In a detailed 31-page ruling, the court disagreed with Pruitt's contention that industry groups had not had sufficient opportunity to comment before the 2016 rule was enacted. The judges also said Pruitt lacked the legal authority to delay the rule from taking effect.
Does the EPA go to court try to make the envirnment worse.
And oil and gas companies should be required to minimize methane leaks
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
What does that have to do with this?
Imagine if every government threw out everything agreed by the last government, just to score political points.
Really Pruitt needs to be more professional here. Country before party.
Something about this smells really bad.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Oh, I did. It's bullshit.
The head of the EPA != the EPA. Being executive of any company, agency, or government still requires following procedures..
Which they didn't do because the procedure to do it would be difficult. The EPA is mandated to enforce pollution rules by Congress. Methane is a pollutant. So, how can they override the rule? Their current effort to give industry "more time" is really just a stalling mechanism with some hope Congress might change the law.
Read above. Congress will likely have to act precisely because the EPA has found methane to be a pollutant and hence within the purview of its required enforcement. I don't see how they can, legally, get out of enforcement through mere stalling or handwaving.
While it's certainly partly true, the other part is that most changes to law often occur over the span of 4+ years. This is not only designed to allow industry time to comment and otherwise amend the law as appropriate but also usually to easy the transition instead of forcing all requirements at once or otherwise not granting industry time to find the funds to carry out a mandate. Hell, that's the reason why the first "90 day extension [for comment]" wasn't really questioned but the new 2 year one was. They've had plenty of time.
Again, agreed. On the other hand, can you imagine the chaos that would happen if industries were regularly required to make substantial changes on the order of a couple of months? Look how long Congress takes to pass just one bit of legislation, and you'd realize that if they fucked up the legislation and there was no real comment or phase in period, it'd potentially be months or years before things were corrected. One could argue the above is true with Obamacare. Unfortunately, I don't think we're seeing anything close to real, honest debate on change on either side for the better in that area. *sigh*
Pruitt is trying to create a DEFACTO status quo bypassing the EPAs rules for review. He's making the decision FIRST, then implementing the process to make that decision SECOND.
He can't do that.
Imagine if an election board could simply decide to suspend an election while it decides how to secure the election from Russian hackers? Or Trump could simply decide to suspend implementation of any Congress passed law while he decides how it should be 'best' implmented.
It's similar to the Visa thing. Trump cannot change the laws beyond the limits Congress has set him. This is why the Supreme Court has done this weird thing of allowing the legal part of Trump's travel ban through while literally making the whole of the Executive branch liable for contempt of court if they follow it the non-legal bit. Normally Supremes would strike down the whole Executive order and President would rewrite it to comply, but Trump would just throw a tantrum, so they enjoined the Executive branch instead. Putting the grownups in charge.
If the EPA wants to delay enforcement then would not that be within their authority as an executive agency?
Not necessarily. There is a rule-making process which it must legally follow. The process is there to protect citizens from arbitrary enforcement of laws and rules. With all its flaws, the US is still a nation of laws, which even its regulatory agencies must follow. If you don't like the rules, you still have to follow the process to remove them. If you don't like the laws, you still have to follow the law-making process to undo them. Countries that don't follow law- or rule-making process have a name: they are called dictatorships.
I don't know whether delaying enforcement is within the legally required process or not, I'd guess that's why the court is stepping in.
OK; I'm for being good stewards of God's green earth, but now the courts ruling on a rule that's not even a law? The court's overstepped their authority period. Time for the court to judge law and not un-passed rules that are dictates from a commander and chief. It's the executive branch that enforces such rules. It's only the judicial's responsibility to rule on current law. :)
Pruitt is trying to delay this for two years while he follows a process to change the rules. Two years. He has his department and its rules, and he has to follow those rules to make that change. Court has ruled correctly, this two year delay is nothing but a defacto cancelling of the rule. It's a Pruitt power grab.
If he wants his department rules to be easier, then he can go to Trump. If Trump tries to ease them beyond Executive branch powers, then courts will strike that down and he has to go to Congress. The court is what stops little emperors like Pruitt making their little empires.
Trump's travel ban is similar. Trump cannot simply ignore the Immigration and Nationality Act/1965 or the Constitution for 90 days while he reviews them. If he wants the law changed, he has to go to Congress, and propose the law change, and they have to get Senate to sign off on it, and it mustn't to violate the Constitution etc. etc. etc...
They have not ruled on the merits of that law change, only that he has to follow the law making processes. Or in fact the way they've done it, means the whole Executive branch is required to follow the law making processes.
moratorium? Yet they call it a ban.
Court run methane in Bartertown! No talk! Do!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
From the decision:
Like you said, there's a process, and the court didn't think that the EPA was following it.
The EPA wants to delay enforcement of a regulation they wrote, correct? If the EPA wants to delay enforcement then would not that be within their authority as an executive agency? I'm confused.
"Follow the procedures and make it happen" is the right answer. Likely the EPA didn't. A regulation is not like an internal company policy--it can only be created and enforced in ways that are authorized by law. The short version is that if an administrative agency exceeds the scope of its Congressional grant of authority, acts in an arbitrary and capricious manner, fails to follow the legal rulemaking process, or takes action which otherwise is contrary to law, then people who are harmed can take them to court. That's a big part of how the federal government works, although the regulatory process is so under-taught in our schools that probably most of the country doesn't really know it exists.
People can also apply to courts to force agencies and government officials to do their job, although it's rare to do so explicitly.
Real lawyers write in C++
But the law puts in place guidelines on how the rules can be made and changed and that's what was ruled against in court. Are you pro-methane or something?
The last thing power plants want is uncertainty in regulations.
The methane rule, along with many other administrative regulations, are governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (the APA, for short). The APA is the law, enacted in 1946, that governs how administrative agencies of the federal government can propose and establish any regulation they are empowered to create. For rulemaking (writing or changing regulations), it requires notice, public participation, agency response and feedback, and a permanent record of the rulemaking activity itself. All of that had to be done for the methane rule to be adopted by the EPA. It was adopted, and Congress had a chance to overturn the regulation, and it decided not to (a vote to overturn the regulation failed in the Senate).
The Trump administration's EPA doesn't want to enforce the methane rule, but they have to now. It is the law. So what the EPA tried to do is stay it (prevent enforcement) while they went through the rulemaking process of trying to get rid of it. And various groups sued because the EPA did not have a legal basis to stay enforcement while the rule is being reconsidered. And the Court agreed. While the EPA could appeal this ruling, their possibility of success is slim. There aren't enough votes on the DC Circuit to overturn the panel opinion and rehear the case en banc, and the odds of the Supreme Court hearing the case are minimal. The opinion is a pretty straightforward application of the APA to the case.
So while the EPA is going through the rulemaking process to get rid of the methane rule, they will have to enforce it in the meanwhile, and it is not entirely clear that the result of a new rulemaking would be repeal of the methane rule, due to the notice, public participation, and comment parts of the rulemaking process.
President Obama would have been happy to enforce the methane rule, as would 51 US Senators in the current Congress, apparently. It's not a dick move to enact laws and regulations you believe in, no matter how misguided they may be. People have sincere differences of opinion on policy, and engaging in the legislative and administrative processes to change those policies are part of our democratic system. The real dick move was by Scott Pruitt, when he tried to stay enforcement of a regulation without having the legal authority to do so.
All the commenters here saying, "I don't get why the EPA can be stopped from deciding its own regulations, etc. etc." don't really understand how regulation works, I think.
When a department of the government issues a regulation, it has to do so with public comment, input, and published reasoning. That, by the way, is an admirable aspect of our country, and why we're not some third world banana republic. People would be thankful for this, I'd think.
When some new administration comes in, they can't just overturn something willy nilly because they feel like it. They have to go through the same process of showing why the rule should be overturned, delayed, stayed, etc.
Scott Pruitt of the EPA basically got marching orders from Trump to do anything possible to revoke this rulemaking, and the arguments in court showed how flimsy that was. In order to delay implementation of a regulation (which is tantamount to retracting it, for the amount of time it is delayed), there must be good reason like evidence was ignored, people were not allowed to comment timely, etc.
None of these was found to be the case, and as a result, the EPA cannot just revoke an order it lawfully issued under the proper process. It can change its mind, but it has to go through the same process.
We should be thanking the rule of law for saving us from the administration's madness.
Because the EPA has to follow the Administrative Procedure Act if it wants to NOT implement a rule it has already adopted. And the EPA didn't do so.
This ruling won't be overturned: not enough votes to overturn en banc, and it's not a case the Supremes will have interest in.
It won't get overturned on appeal. There aren't enough votes at the DC Circuit to overturn this opinion en banc, and I doubt the Supreme Court will want to hear it.
This is a case about the Administrative Procedure Act, about the rule of law. It is not about any lack of democracy. As the Court opinion pointed out, the EPA can engage in the rulemaking process to change or eliminate the rule it adopted. It just can't lawlessly fail to enforce the rule it adopted in the meanwhile.
This is governed by the Administrative Procedures Act, which has specific judicially-enforceable rules about the manner in which the agencies can make rules. Among the more mundane requirements of the APA are things like public notice-and-comment periods. More germanely to the instant case, is that if an agency has formally adopted a rule (with all the rigmarole that goes with it, the agency cannot just turn around and repeal it a good reason. And even if it does, it must go through some of the same procedures.
Part of the motivation for this process is practical: regulated industries ought to have stability in the rules and it's needlessly inefficient to be churning them all the time. That is to say, even if the rule is unfavorable to a particular company, it's better to be able to know and plan than to be facing constant uncertainty. At the same time, part of the motivation is political: Congress sought to limit the Executive branch as part of its prerogative -- a President of either party that can either instantly adopt or repeal new rules would upend the balance of power.
So yeah, the EPA doesn't have authority under the APA to start implementing something contrary to the formal rule that they have adopted.
Presidents don't serve more than 8 years. Any rule they (cause to be) enact(ed) will not be a rule they have to enforce. Not for all that long, anyway.
Someone should stuff a methane leak up your ass and light it. That would take care of all your problems, and make the world a better place. win/win
And you're completely wrong about this. Agency regulations are, for the most part, governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, the APA. Agencies, like the EPA, have to follow the procedures set out in the APA to write or change regulations they are empowered to create. It isn't at the whim of the current Administration, though administrations do have a lot of control over the process.
The methane rule was adopted by the EPA pursuant to the Clean Air Act, and followed the procedures of the APA for notice, public participation, and comment. It is a validly adopted regulation. It cannot be changed at the will of any administration - a change will require another rulemaking process under the APA, with notice, public participation, and comment. Which the Trump administration has started. That they can do.
But while that rulemaking process is under way, they have no legal basis to delay or stay implementation and enforcement of the rule that was adopted. That's what the case was about. Not about being able to change the rule, but about not enforcing the rule while it is being reconsidered. And the judges did not overstep their bounds at all, since the APA gives them jurisdiction to consider these kinds of disputes.
But the methane rule isn't about power plants: it's about harvesting natural gas and other fossil fuels, and how companies that do that should detect, prevent, and repair leaks of methane. So it isn't the power plants that objected to the rule, it's the oil and natural gas companies.
Methane has a much more powerful greenhouse effect the CO2. This is really bad news.
That's why the proper way for Obama to have done any of this stuff (had he really given a damn) would have been to get congress to pass a bill he could sign into LAW.
That is exactly what he did idiot. That's why Scott Pruitt can't just stay it indefinitely.
As another poster has more clearly pointed out, the Administrative Procedure Act well spells out the point that there's procedure that must be followed and trying to usurp it is definitely against the law. The notion that they're not compelled to act is absurd because of (3)--refusal to comply with legislation can lead to defunding--and (1) can lead to impeachment and conviction for malfeasance of office (incredibly unlikely since defunding does enough).
What you're basically ignoring is that just because something is illegal doesn't necessarily mean there's an explicit punishment. A lot of regulations, mandates, etc don't include explicit "and if you don't, here's the punishment". Instead, it comes down to the risk of defunding, further legislation that does spell out punishments, etc. Since Republicans are in office, it's highly unlikely defunding will occur except as a means to encourage not following previous APA mandated actions. Which is one major reason why the courts have gotten involved--as a byproduct of environmental groups against the EPA. The legislature and the executive branches are so dysfunctional at actually checking each others powers, the courts often is the one who steps in upon execution. Funny that people would call it legislating from the bench, but what else does the court do when law says the EPA must follow its own rules (as an extension of regulations which are an extension of laws governing regulation creation) and it fails to? It seems the 1st amendment petition for redress of grievances would apply and the courts do their best to apply such meaningfully.
PS - Feel free to tell me how I'm still wrong and there's no law requiring the courts to obey the law or some equally inane bullshit.
That was a pointless drivel of a post. No one said that later administrators can't undo previous work. They just have to do it within defined procedures. Even Congress has LOTS of procedures to undo previous Congress decisions. The speaker of the house just can't say "Obamacare repealed, Ryancare enforced."
Not sure if you are supporting the orignal poster but he does quite clearly state that the law can be revoked but you cannot just pull it out of circulation without going though due process. If you willing to kill of due process of anything because the new person in charge doesn't like X or Y then you really should look at the rise of fascism in Italy and their recent vote to stop the upper elected houses of their lawmakers being able to reduce due process. Before you jump on it no I dont think Trump would turn the USA into a fascist state, dont even think he is one either.
Well, Congress has the power to enact laws under the Constitution. This is how Congress allocated their power to unelected bureaucrats to write laws:
1. Congress enacted laws that delegated further rulemaking authority (with some guidance as to how to make those rules) to an agency, generally under the executive branch.
2. Congress enacted a law, the APA - the Administrative Procedure Act, that defines the rules and processes those agencies must follow to exercise their rulemaking authority. It lays out rules and procedures agencies have to follow, and rules that are adopted pursuant to those procedures then have the force of law. 3. Congress has also enacted other laws, allowing Congress to overturn a regulation on a simple majority vote expressing disapproval of that regulation, continuing to reserve the ability to undo those regulations.
So unelected bureaucrats have the power to write rules/regulations that have the force of law because Congress delegated that to them and let them do it.
As for regulators later being able to change the regulations, that's never been the issue. The judges noted that the administration can continue its rulemaking process to revise the methane rule. But what the administration cannot do is stay enforcement of the methane rule in the interim without a legal basis for doing so.
Yeah, but his argument is BS and the court have said so too. "Not enough time" is not written into the rules. An ACTUAL time is written into the rules. Want more time? Get Congress to write the new rule and pass that through both houses and the prez, then pass the court check on their power. Waiting another 2 years is not allowed by the rules, not even if you want 2 years to rewrite them.
Wrong, unless you meant to write "absolute monarchy" instead.
Washington, Jefferson and the rest gave the courts a major role for a reason.
After reading the dissenting opinion I think the EPA certainly has a case to do what it did. It's a lot of legalese but this is how I understand the issue, there's three flaws in the majority opinion:
1. The stay was not a "final rule" which means the court did not have jurisdiction to even hear the case. The executive has authority to create temporary pauses in enforcement and the courts can only hear cases of final rulings of the executive. I don't know if this is considered a lack of standing but it seems the effect is similar, the case should have been tossed until more time had passed.
2. The rules allow for some leeway if there is some unusual circumstances making the timely issuance of rule changes difficult. While the EPA did decide to enact the rule they have some allowance to review the rule at any time. I'm not sure if the missing of the deadline to issue a stay by a few days was explicitly part of the argument but that does seem to be what was implied. With things still being decided on how to enforce the rule, or even if the rule should be enforced, it would be wise to avoid the distraction and expense of enforcement while going through the formal rule change process.
3. The EPA has discretion on what punishment to impose. The finding of a violation and imposing no punishment is effectively no different than not looking for a violation. Since the EPA was not sure it wanted to enforce the rule it should be allowed some time to make up its mind.
So it comes down to time. The EPA missed it's own deadline by three days, wanted only 90 days to get things in order, and not enough time has passed to make this something worthy of taking the court's time.
The opinion is a pretty straightforward application of the APA to the case.
Is it? The rules allow for some "wiggle room" in things like enforcement and unusual circumstances. Seems silly for the courts to order the EPA to send out enforcement agents to measure methane emissions when there is a very high probability these rules won't even exist 90 days later and no punishment for violations would be imposed.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
It is beyond irony that the party that claims to support law and order has no idea what these words actually mean. There is a lot more to our legal institutions then cops arresting people and throwing them in jail. Watching a "reality" show about cops on the beat and thinking you understand how the system works seems to be the level of stupidity that these comments express.
What these Republicans are actually describing is authoritarianism.
Why is Snark Required?
The question was never should they, but by how much.
As usual, regulations like these are mere Trojan Horses. By setting limits to unreasonably low levels, production could be made too expensive or even brought to a halt. That's the kind of lever it is. A Democrat Administration would undoubtedly be able to use this in the same way Obama used regulations on coal to essentially kill the industry, as he promised.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
And oil and gas companies should be required to minimize methane leaks
Reducing leaks is an "easy win". It is cost effective, and can make a substantial difference. Delaying the implementation is stupid. But deciding if a regulation or law is stupid is NOT WHAT COURTS ARE FOR. The job of the judiciary is to rule on the legality. When courts start ruling on the merits, and doing the legislature's job, then the courts become politicized and lose their legitimacy.
Err... there are no senators in congress.
Are you sure about that AC? Wikipedia: The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States consisting of two chambers: the Senate and the House of Representatives. ...
For those who think that Wikipedia is written by left-wing SJW's I will - very reluctantly - quote from Conservapedia: Congress (Congress of the United States) (a word derived from the Latin "congressum", from "congredior", meaning "to come together") is the term for the legislative body of the United States of America, composed of the House of Representatives and Senate. ...
Incidentally, I note with amusement that at the top of that Conservapedia page it says: "This article was last edited in 2014. Some of its information may be outdated" and that immediately following that definition of Congress is: "In the current 112th Congress, the House is controlled by the Republican Party while the Senate is controlled by the Democratic Party." Apparently the contributors to Conservapedia are less interested in updating Conservapedia than in adding news feed items like this currently on the main page: In the News. what the MSM isn't fully covering currently has as a first item "Unplug CNN - and Sesame Street, too. Those two organs are teaming up to spread Islamist propaganda directly to children. linking to ConservativeNewsAndViews
A Democrat Administration would undoubtedly be able to use this in the same way Obama used regulations on coal to essentially kill the industry, as he promised.
Well, I sure fucking hope so. The coal industry is literally a cancer upon industrialized society.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
We really need more civics education in this country.
Federal environmental laws specifically state how the EPA is supposed to regulate. They can't just put in or take out whichever rules they want.
and it's not a case the Supremes will have interest in.
You can't really back that assumption up. If the Supreme Court of the United States (not the "Supremes" you idiot) chooses to take this case, will you come back here and admit you didn't know what you were talking about? They have taken up a wide variety of cases that challenge federal law, and this is certainly one that qualifies. On the other hand, if there is enough jurisprudence on the APA already they will let the lower court ruling stand. Unless they find good reason that this rule may be overturned if the EPA overstepped its authority. The Clean Air and Clean Water Acts are very clear about what the EPA can do - capriciously adding items that some administrations consider pollutants like CO2 and NG may violate those Acts.
What is clear is that Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump have attempted to use rule making and executive orders to sidestep Congress based on their ideology and petty grievances, and this has done a great amount of damage to our Republic and the rule of law. It's about time the Supreme Court of the United States step in and end this power grab by the executive branch once and for all.
Chevron deference only applies when the rule is ambiguous. It doesn't let federal agencies create new laws.
Wow, EVERY single argument you made is demonstrably wrong.
The EPA rulings were not in violation of "the laws on regulations."
This WAS an appeals court. It wasn't the "Ninth Court" (assuming you meant Ninth Circuit).
By getting less votes than the Democrats in the last Presidential AND congressional elections.
Agreed. Courts are there to interpret the laws not set the laws. The laws are clear in this case.
So many judges are overstepping their boundaries, we need to replace them with machines (same with the lawyers) ASAP.
Lawyers are the scum of the earth.
How do you function at your level of stupidity? Coal is dying because it's cheaper to use natural gas, and even renewables in a lot of places. Are you so mindnumbingly stupid to think that if you took all these regulations off the energy sector suddenly coal is cheaper than natural gas?
Yes, the 1946 APA. Of course, the 1980 RFA (Regulatory Flexibility Act) allows agencies to halt pending regulatory implementation to further research new regulations that can impact small entities. Meaning - it's OK to put a 90 day halt on regulations implemented at the last second by the previous Administration to make sure they still make sense. Justice Brown got the ruling right; the other two justices got it wrong.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Courts are much better at stopping you from doing something, it is much harder to get you to do something.
How does the court actually make the EPA enforce this? Just assign one person to it for the whole country and create a two year backlog.
When you were a child, did your mother never teach you to clean up after yourself?
Well, companies have to do the same thing. And like you as a child, if they won't do it on their own then parents (government) is forced to intervene and require (regulate) them to do so.
Burning coal dumps megatons of sulfates and and ash and other pollutants into the atmosphere annually. Pollutants that are directly related to acidification of rainfall and as such our streams, rivers, lakes, and groundwater; that directly contribute to asthma and lung cancer and other health related issues; and, of course, to our carbon footprint.
So yes, power plants were required to install scrubbers and generally clean up their act. And yes, that contributes to the cost of doing business. But that is, like it or not, part of those costs, and we don't allow coal plants to indiscriminately pollute any more than we allow chemical companies to freely dump waste into the river upstream from your home.
So yes, when you factor in those costs, it makes coal more expensive. But other means of energy production (like drilling for gas) have their own regulations and corresponding expenses and coal would still be more expensive if all of those regulations were gone. Thus the market has decided to pursue gas-fired plants, in addition to renewables liked solar and wind.
Coal is dirty, dangerous, a nightmare to safely produce, and expensive as heck to ship (daily) from where it's produced to where it's consumed. (After which you have to deal with the byproducts.)
Coal powered America for a long time. So did horses and steam engines. But like the later, we have better solutions now, and its time for it to go.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Just cut off the funds, like Obama did for immigration enforcement.
Not changing the rules, changing the 'enforcement priorities' within the 'executive's discretion'. Absolutely legal when Obama did it. Suck it.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Guess they should just cut off all enforcement funds. Which is in their discretion.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
He can just cut off all enforcement funds. Like Obama did for rules he didn't like.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If Obama can implement rules on a whim, Trump can suspend them just as easily. I'm not arguing if the EPA rules are correct or not. I'm arguing for consistency.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Financial consequences are the only reason that the industry stops leaks. It's never out of the goodness of their hearts.
By your logic the methane being leaked that isn't financially worth fixing also must not be that bad for the environment. It doesn't work that way. Even if it doesn't amount to a significant product loss, it still has a major impact on the environment. The financial consequences of the climate change will eventually be enormous, even from leaks that "aren't worth fixing" from a product loss perspective.
Almost a third of all methane emitted in the US is from oil and gas. The amount emitted from cows is competitive, but from human biology is negligible.
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
You can't really back that assumption up.
It's not an assumption, it's an estimate based on my previous 10 years of studying the Supreme Court. So I'll back it up.
If the Supreme Court of the United States (not the "Supremes" you idiot) chooses to take this case, will you come back here and admit you didn't know what you were talking about?
If the Supreme Court Justices decide to take an interest in the case, I'll certainly have to reevaluate my opinion, but I don't see 4 votes for granting a cert petition. The opinion relies on settled administrative law. None of it is particularly controversial. And while Chief Justice Roberts has shown an interest in reshaping the Court's administrative law jurisprudence, much of that reshaping has more to do with limiting deference to agency decisions than with the other issues at play in this case. The questions that could be appealed would either be about whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the case, which has been settled law for the past 40 years (delaying a rule's effective date is tantamount to revoking or amending the rule, constituting a final agency action that can be reviewed by the court), or that the stay was lawful - a much harder thing to justify, since the statute the administration cites (42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B)) allows only a 90 day stay during reconsideration, and only under certain circumstances, far shorter than the two year stay the Trump administration wanted the put in place.
Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg would not vote to grant cert in this instance, and while Justices Roberts and Kennedy have doubts about the administrative state, it is more along questions of deference to agency decisions, not questions of statutory interpretation or judicial power to review agency action. I am not certain that even Justice Thomas, strict textualist that he is, would vote to grant cert in this case. You need four votes to grant cert, and 5 to overturn. And the justices can count - most won't vote to grant cert unless they think they can get the fifth vote to overturn the lower court decision.
But I could be wrong, and have been in the past. I don't think that's the case here, however.
They have taken up a wide variety of cases that challenge federal law, and this is certainly one that qualifies. On the other hand, if there is enough jurisprudence on the APA already they will let the lower court ruling stand.
There is an entire body of jurisprudence on the APA built up through the past 70 years that makes up most of administrative law.
Unless they find good reason that this rule may be overturned if the EPA overstepped its authority.
Except that wasn't what this case was about. No one in the case argued that the EPA overstepped its authority. The methane rule was promulgated under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, which authorizes the EPA to issue technology based standards which apply to specific categories of stationary sources of air pollution. No one is challenging the methane rule on that basis, because the EPA does have the authority under the Clean Air Act to issue it.
The Clean Air and Clean Water Acts are very clear about what the EPA can do - capriciously adding items that some administrations consider pollutants like CO2 and NG may violate those Acts.
And here, the Clean Air Act was very clear. The oil and natural gas industry is a source category for which the EPA is required to issue standards of performance. Prior standards already in place covered the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The standard was updated to include methane. This was not a capricious addition: methane leaks very often coincide with leaks of VOCs that produce air toxics like benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene, and stopping methane leaks will prevent VOC leaks, and in general,
The questions of this case had to do with the Court's jurisdiction to hear the case and the legality of the stay the EPA wanted to impose, neither of which imply any question of agency interpretation, which is where Chevron deference would apply. Chevron deference had nothing to do with this case.
I don't see anywhere where the court ruled on whether the law was stupid or not, only that Pruitt lacked the legal authority to delay the rule from taking effect.
The point that Judge Brown was making about finality is that until an agency makes a "final action," a court generally is not authorized by the APA to review the action, that is, a court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. I understand the argument, but it is bogus, because the EPA wasn't authorized in the first place to stay the rule.
Was the EPA authorized to grant a 90 day stay in the first place? The Court answers no. The EPA is only allowed to issue a stay if one of two conditions are satisfied (see 42 USC 7607(d)(7)(B):
1. "If the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within such time or"
2. "if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule."
And the Court looks through the previous rulemaking process, and sees that the objections were previously raised in the last rulemaking, so it concludes that the grant of the stay was in excess of it statutory authority.
As the opinion makes clear, the EPA intended to stay the action for two years, as long as the rulemaking process continued. That, the opinion argues, turns the stay into a revocation, an amendment without the proper process. Either way, that makes the agency action sufficiently final to grant the court jurisdiction to review.
Is it? The rules allow for some "wiggle room" in things like enforcement and unusual circumstances. Seems silly for the courts to order the EPA to send out enforcement agents to measure methane emissions when there is a very high probability these rules won't even exist 90 days later and no punishment for violations would be imposed.
Actually, the rules in this instance don't allow for "wiggle room." The APA was designed to curb was the discretion that agencies had with regards to the regulations that Congress allowed them to create. They couldn't decide one thing one day, and then completely switch to something else another day. To change rules, there are procedures and processes that must be followed. If an agency doesn't do that, it is acting outside the law.
This wasn't an unusual circumstance, or an issue of prosecutorial discretion. It was a wholesale decision to overturn the law without following the proper procedure. The rulemaking process to enact the methane rule took over 2 years, starting in 2014. The rulemaking process to rewrite them will likely take as long, and the authority which allows the stay does not allow the rule to be ignored while it is reconsidered ("Such reconsideration shall not postpone the effectiveness of the rule."). So after the 90 days, the EPA would have to enforce the rule, which it stated it did not intend to do in the notice of proposed rulemaking for the methane rule revision. Which itself would violate the law, because even while the rule is being reconsidered, it is still effective.
So while there are issues of discretion, extenuating circumstances, "wiggle room," this was not one of them.
If the administration had argued that the EPA had failed to follow the RFA, that would be one thing. But it didn't. It argued that the stay was justified under Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act. And it wasn't. Every administration has to follow the law to change the rules and regulations they do not agree with.
Circuit Court Judges are judges, so Judge Brown's dissent was wrong for a variety of reasons that were detailed in the opinion.
What of the EPA authority to define the penalties? Wasn't that part of the regulation? Again, if the EPA is forced to measure methane emissions but has discretion to not impose any penalties then this is not much different then deciding to not even look for violations.
Forgive my ignorance if that is not the case but as I understand it the court can tell the EPA to go out looking but the court cannot tell the EPA to impose penalties if it finds a violation.
It's obvious the EPA is not interested in enforcing this rule. It's obvious the rule will go away one way or another. If Obama wanted this rule to last beyond his term then he should have got Congress involved and made it law. Obama seemed real happy to make law through regulation and executive order. It should be no surprise if Trump is more than happy to make it all disappear.
This sounds like a badly written regulation, and the courts are just making it worse by forcing it through when they didn't have to.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
No, that's not what's going on. The EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act to write the rule.
The EPA also has the authority to rewrite the rule without Congress getting involved.
But to do so, the EPA has to follow the rules and procedures that Congress has laid down for rewriting the rule.
That's the problem: Scott Pruitt and the EPA aren't following the rules to do that.
Once a rule is adopted, the EPA has to enforce the rule, even while it is reconsidering or rewriting the rule.
This is to prevent shenanigans where an agency might begin a rewriting process, nullify the old rule, and never finish writing the new one.
If they did that, it would effectively rewrite the old rule without giving people involved a chance to challenge the new rule.
And the EPA is not granted any statutory authority to stay enforcement of a rule while it reconsiders it, except in certain circumstances that the court said didn't apply, and even then, only for 90 days.
The EPA does have the authority to define certain penalties, but others are written into the Clean Air Act (CAA) itself. But even if the EPA decides not to enforce the rule itself, once the rule is in place, it can be enforced by others. Why?
Under 1990 amendments to the CAA, any person may file a civil action against any person, including the United States (EPA) for violations of emission standards or limitations, or violation of an order issued by the EPA or a state with respect to such a standard or limitation. Citizens may also file a civil action against the EPA Administrator for failing to perform its duties under the CAA, as well as intervene in an action led by the EPA or a state or local regulatory authority. Even I was not aware of this, so you are forgiven for your ignorance.
So even if the EPA doesn't want to enforce it, tough. If it doesn't, violators can still be sued, the EPA and the EPA administrator can be sued, and enforcement penalties can still be required under court order. A court can order the EPA to impose penalties, or as would likely be the case, the court would impose the appropriate penalties itself as part of its order. That's why the stay was important - without the stay, even if the EPA doesn't enforce it, others can.
It's not obvious to me that the rule will go away: that's the thing about the rulemaking process under the APA - you can influence the process, but it cannot be arbitrary and capricious. An agency can be swayed or not swayed by the comments presented, but it has to actually respond to them, and if it fails to do so, upon review, courts can say whether or not the rule adopted was reasonable or not. Whether the regulation is good or bad, it survived the rulemaking process, which means that to change it, the change has to go through the rulemaking process. A rewritten rule may be weaker, but I'm not certain that it would go away. Methane is really bad as a greenhouse gas, and much of the leak detection and prevention would already be required for VOC emission prevention.
President Obama was my state Senator before he was my State's Senator, before he became President. I have met the man (at our then local coffee and donut shop). I know that he would have preferred to enact more legislation. He knew the limits of executive orders and regulations, and it wasn't any surprise that executive orders were rescinded and that regulations were overturned. He did the same to his predecessor. But with a hostile Congress uninterested in working with him for 6 years of his presidency, he did what he thought he could through executive action and regulation, even though it might not last. And if President Trump faces a hostile Congress, he should do the same. A President should do what they think is right, and if that tests the limits of their constitutional authority, the other branches should slap the executive down. That's part of the design of our great system.
If only the Dems had gotten it right.
If Hillary was running to win the popular vote, she was a worse candidate than everyone thought.
He may be head, but the EPA, like other organizations, have rules and regulations and procedures and processes, and the aforementioned regulation has gone through those processes and been approved.
The court is correct in that he doesn't, personally, have the authority to prevent that regulation from taking effect any more than he (or a prior head) could personally ram a rule or regulation through without going through those same processes and procedures.
And I'm done arguing with a Coward.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
The only problem with anti-environmentalism as a response for bringing industry back is that it won't work.
Coal's biggest problem is the price of natural gas, which is cheaper, easier to use and move, cleaner burning, and less expensive to set up. Any issue with coal starts and ends there - it's just not economically competitive.
The methane rule, which is applicable to oil and natural gas wells, would prevent methane and VOC (volatile organic compound) emission. While methane is largely a greenhouse gas issue, VOCs do cause increased ozone, which causes smog, which has its own health costs, in addition to the toxic effects of VOCs. Even if the costs on those industries were reduced, the resulting increased health costs on individuals would swamp whatever gains to industry might be had. In addition to the fact that methane emission reduction also leads to increased natural gas recapture, and it is unclear that under a true cost-benefit analysis that the methane rule would still impose net costs. And that's true of most environmental regulation. They have had the effect of shifting jobs and industries from one place to another, but they don't kill industries. New jobs are often created in helping to comply with new environmental rules and regulations.
For other industry, and I'm guessing you mean manufacturing here, the biggest cost component is labor. Unless the price of labor is drastically lower, certain kinds of manufacturing will be done where it is cheaper. Where the biggest cost component of manufacturing industries isn't labor, it is technology, which leads to massively increased productivity per worker, and fewer jobs in manufacturing overall. Wages would have to drastically drop (or the US dollar would have to be drastically devalued) for labor to be priced more competitively on the international market. Manufacturing is turning out like agriculture in the U.S. -- requiring fewer and fewer workers for greater and greater productivity.
Changing environmental regulations will do little to bring industry back to America that has left. That isn't why they left in the first place.
That doesn't work for the Clean Air Act.
The Act authorizes citizen suits for when the EPA fails to enforce its own regulations.
Citizens can sue polluters and even the EPA if they don't enforce it.
Cutting off the funds doesn't work - the laws are on the books. The rules have been finalized.
Even choosing not to enforce it won't work due to citizen suits being available to enforce the law.
What were the words you used? Suck it.
The financial consequences of the climate change will eventually be enormous, even from leaks that "aren't worth fixing" from a product loss perspective *based on wildly inaccurate climate models that no one believes anymore*. (FTFY) Beyond that, the worst case sea level rise is something like 12 inches. I'm not worried, and you shouldn't be either.
Also, just so you know, it is easily argued that the annual natural methane emission is actually a lot lower since we have a financial use for it and tend to capture it when it leaks to the surface (which does happen, though demand outstrips these natural ventings, leading to drilling for methane). Most sources that naturally find their way to the surface are capped and harvested rather than leaking out into the environment, making the human footprint on overall methane annual atmospheric venting potentially lower than the natural levels that existed prior to human intervention.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
3. Congress has also enacted other laws, allowing Congress to overturn a regulation on a simple majority vote expressing disapproval of that regulation, continuing to reserve the ability to undo those regulations.
So all the administration has to do is get a simple majority of Congress to vote to overturn the rule.
What's that? Congressmen don't want to go on the record voting to destroy the environment? Pity.
Nope, no sig
Coal will still be more expensive in the long run because of the higher costs of mitigating the environmental impact of coal. Even putting aside any climate change costs to consider from CO2, you still have sulfur, mercury, and lead to deal with, as well as the direct environmental impacts of coal mining, such as the increased mud and rock slides and flash flooding caused by mountaintop removal. Then you have the health effects of mining to consider, and those costs to workers and the public fisc continue to increase as they age and increased incidence of diseases like black lung, lung cancer, and other terminal illnesses cause them to die.
Even in terns of energy generation, coal is slower to heat up and to cool down, so you can't easily start or stop a coal fired energy plant, the same way you can with a natural gas fueled energy plant.
Coal is a dirty and expensive fuel, and the only thing cheap about it is the price you think you're paying. Because there are all kinds of costs hidden behind that.
Ridiculous. You're just making shit up. There are no health effects of methane leakage.
Re-read what I wrote. Methane leakage isn't just about methane itself: it's also about the VOCs that are also emitted with it. The VOCs have known health effects. Methane leakage is about more than just the methane itself.
But methane can have its own health effects. Ask the people of Porter Ranch, California if they would agree with you that there are no health effects of methane leakage. Most would disagree with you. That's because methane is an asphyxiant, which in high enough concentrations can cause headaches, dizziness, weakness, nausea, vomiting, loss of coordination, and loss of consciousness.
So how come America ever became a manufacturing powerhouse in the first place, if it's natural for manufacturing to always move to wherever the lowest-value labor can be found?
America became a manufacturing powerhouse because the cost of goods and labor was cheap, and the dollar was a weaker currency in comparison to other world currencies. America also had the legal and regulatory frameworks which encouraged innovation, as well as immigration policies that brought in productive workers from other countries to become citizens. But manufacturing's share of the economy has been in decline since 1953, hitting real declines in the late 1970s, going from over 28% of the economy to 11%. A large part of that is because of the increasing productivity of the American manufacturer, which has sextupled over the same period of time. Given the same inputs, a worker in the manufacturing sector today is six times more productive than their 1940's counterpart.
I didn't say that the lowest-value labor will win. I said, "certain kinds of manufacturing will be done where it is cheaper." And those kinds of manufacturing are where the additional costs of transportation and lengthening the supply line can be mitigated, such as low-added-value manufacturing, and manufacturing where there are returns to scale due to other factors (such as affiliated industries or natural resources being present). There are reasons why tech is still made in Silicon Valley and carpets are still made in Dalton, Georgia that have everything to do with geographic influences and nothing to do with the cost of labor.
Who was talking about jobs? I was talking about industry. It's a bad situation for America to depend on foreign industry. If the future of manufacturing is factories full of robots, do you think it's good for America for those factories to be built in China first?
I don't think it's good for America for those factories to be built in China first. But the fact is that many of those factories are being built in America first. Then they are being built in China. Because of spies and stealing of technology. I don't think it's a good idea for America to depend on foreign industry, no matter where they are located. But that does no
Damn. Accidentally hit send there. The most recent research published last week as well outlines economic impacts:
http://science.sciencemag.org/...
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
We were talking about "democracy," not the weirdly weighted system the US has.
The exact argument ,with the same exact agency has ALREADY been argued in 1984. The appeals court is going to get bitched slapped Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc, it's the exact case.
Almost the EXACT same case was tried in 1984, you are just flat out wrong and know nothing of law. The appeals court will get bitched slapped for being so idiotic . Christ sakes there is Chevron test that ever 1st year law student learns about. See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Just because you are judge and you don't like the president doesn't mean you get to throw out 200+ years of legal precedent. Judges acting like 2 year olds, NO NO NO NO NO NO.
I know it is hard to stop talking out your ass when your head has been stuck up there since Nov 8,2016. Utterly wrong in every way,there is even a legal test called the Chevron test, which was dealing, you guessed it the EPA .Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Just stop, you don't know what you are talking about. Almost the exact same thing happened from Carter to Reagan, where the EPA rolled back some of their rules, guess what? The EPA won in the end. The appeals court is going to get slapped down hard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....