Supreme Court limits EPA in curbing power plant emissions

[SuperDS77]

The SCOTUS continues its roll. Basically ruling, correctly, that CO2 is not a "pollutant" that can be regulated.

Supreme Court limits EPA in curbing power plant emissions

In a blow to the fight against climate change, the Supreme Court on Thursday limited how the nation’s main anti-air pollution law can be used.

www.detroitnews.com

Associated Press
Published 10:11am E.T. June 30 2022

"
Washington – In a blow to the fight against climate change, the Supreme Court on Thursday limited how the nation’s main anti-air pollution law can be used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

By a 6-3 vote, with conservatives in the majority, the court said that the Clean Air Act does not give the Environmental Protection Agency broad authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that contribute to global warming.

The court’s ruling could complicate the administration’s plans to combat climate change. Its proposal to regulate power plant emissions is expected by the end of the year.

President Joe Biden aims to cut the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions in half by the end of the decade and to have an emissions-free power sector by 2035. Power plants account for roughly 30% of carbon dioxide output."

 

[Higgins86]

Why though?

Just seems like an absurd ruling from the supreme court. Petty almost.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Why though?

Just seems like an absurd ruling from the supreme court. Petty almost.

What they said was Congress must make laws and the EPA must follow those, not the other way around.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Of course the Supreme Court would rule in the worst possible way. That's sort of the expectation from them now it seems.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Why though?

Just seems like an absurd ruling from the supreme court. Petty almost.

Because it was a regulatory interpretation rather than a legislative act.

 

[Higgins86]

What they said was Congress must make laws and the EPA must follow those, not the other way around.

Which seems wild since 90% of your politicians are bought and paid for.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Why though?

Just seems like an absurd ruling from the supreme court. Petty almost.

Probably because carbon dioxide is not legally a pollutant under the law that grants the EPA their authority. And the United States is obstensibly supposed to be a democracy, so therefore unelected bureaucrats cannot form a supreme junta And override the Congress

 

[Napoleon]

Why though?

Just seems like an absurd ruling from the supreme court. Petty almost.

1) “Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan.”

2) “EPA claimed to discover an unheralded power representing a transformative expansion of its regulatory authority in the vague language of a longextant, but rarely used, statute designed as a gap filler. That discovery allowed it to adopt a regulatory program that Congress had conspicuously declined to enact itself. Given these circumstances, there is every reason to “hesitate before concluding that Congress” meant to confer on EPA the authority it claims under Section 111(d). Brown & Williamson, 529 U. S., at 160.”

In short, Congress never granted the EPA authority to do what it was doing and the EPA doesn’t get to just decide it has it.

 

[SuperDS77]

Which seems wild since 90% of your politicians are bought and paid for.

EPA administrators have their biases as well. Except they don't have to run for reelection.


This is indicative of the power of what many call the "administrative state" which has become a de-facto fourth branch of government.

 

[Higgins86]

In summation:

1) “Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan.”

2) “EPA claimed to discover an unheralded power representing a transformative expansion of its regulatory authority in the vague language of a longextant, but rarely used, statute designed as a gap filler. That discovery allowed it to adopt a regulatory program that Congress had conspicuously declined to enact itself. Given these circumstances, there is every reason to “hesitate before concluding that Congress” meant to confer on EPA the authority it claims under Section 111(d). Brown & Williamson, 529 U. S., at 160.”

But congress has always rejected the EPA's carbon limiting programs?

Lets call this what it is, a win for the big US coal companies who were the ones to bring this case forward alongside 19 republican led states.

 

[Crovax]

Why though?

Just seems like an absurd ruling from the supreme court. Petty almost.

Well you would have to the the opinion on the case, which might be a little difficult since the article on the ruling of the case doesn't even bother to mention the name of the case.

Basically it comes down to this. The EPA has the authority to regulate pollutants in the air. Carbon dioxide has not been labeled an air pollutant. Therefore the EPA does not have the authority to regulate it.

 

[Napoleon]

But congress has always rejected the EPA's carbon limiting programs?

Lets call this what it is, a win for the big US coal companies who were the ones to bring this case forward alongside 19 republican led states.

OR Congress can get off it’s ass and legislate instead of relying on agencies to just decide they have authority to do things.

 

[Geoist]

Probably because carbon dioxide is not legally a pollutant under the law that grants the EPA their authority.

SCOTUS had ruled before that CO2 emissions fit under the definition of pollutant so it was legal under this SCOTUS overturned that earlier decision.

And the United States is obstensibly supposed to be a democracy, so therefore unelected bureaucrats cannot form a supreme junta And override the Congress

The irony. It's too much.

 

[Higgins86]

OR Congress can get off it’s ass and legislate instead of relying on agencies to just decide they have authority to do things.

But historically they haven't and the coal industry etc has a deep reach into the US government.

 

[Integrityrespec]

But congress has always rejected the EPA's carbon limiting programs?

Lets call this what it is, a win for the big US coal companies who were the ones to bring this case forward alongside 19 republican led states.

Lets call it what it is. The court says Congress has to make laws and the regulatory agencies then follow and enforce those. The EPA doesn't have the law making authority that congress has. This forces congress to make these decisions and be answerable to the people for their decisions.

 

[Napoleon]

But historically they haven't and the coal industry etc has a deep reach into the US government.

But nothing. We’re not supposed to have a fourth branch of government that just gives powers to itself whenever it feels like it. It is Congress’ job to decide what the regulations are and who can enforce them.

 

[Taylor]

Basically, the Obama administration tried this as a workaround for Congressional intransigence and the gamble didn't pay off. It's back to trying to convince enough legislators (or people to elect sympathetic legislators) to codify this the right way.

 

[Mach]

Lets call it what it is. The court says Congress has to make laws and the regulatory agencies then follow and enforce those. The EPA doesn't have the law making authority that congress has. This forces congress to make these decisions and be answerable to the people for their decisions.

... And since Republicans oppose any/all regulations for cleaner air, water, etc., and we have a filibuster, we won't see regulations for decade at best.

Why do Republicans hate the world they live in? Are they really shitting on the U.S./world because they think they will go to heaven or something?

 

[Napoleon]

... And since Republicans oppose any/all regulations for cleaner air, water, etc., and we have a filibuster, we won't see regulations for decade at best.

Why do Republicans hate the world they live in? Are they really shitting on the U.S./world because they think they will go to heaven or something?

As opposed to what exactly. This ‘let them buy Teslas’ approach the Democrats and Joe Antoinette are taking?

 

[Higgins86]

... And since Republicans oppose any/all regulations for cleaner air, water, etc., and we have a filibuster, we won't see regulations for decade at best.

Why do Republicans hate the world they live in? Are they really shitting on the U.S./world because they think they will go to heaven or something?

Its unbelievably selfish. Basically tying the EPA's hands behind their back and stopping them fighting climate change all while trying to claim its "stopping a forth branch of government" or whatever nonsense they are spouting in this thread.
It was a bill put forward by Americas biggest coal companies.... its so transparent regardless on how you want to dress it up.

 

[Helix]

Besides voting out Republicans, the response I see to this should include creating a public sector energy production competitor. This court has been carefully designed to enact an extreme right wing agenda. The legislative and executive branches must not be allowed to fall to right wing control.

 

[SuperDS77]

... And since Republicans oppose any/all regulations for cleaner air, water, etc., and we have a filibuster, we won't see regulations for decade at best.

Do you REALLY believe that? That Republicans "oppose ANY/ALL regulations" for clean air water etc.? That is pure fallacy.

Why do Republicans hate the world they live in? Are they really shitting on the U.S./world because they think they will go to heaven or something?

More fallacious bovine scat.

 

[Renae]

Why though?

Just seems like an absurd ruling from the supreme court. Petty almost.

It's actually reasonable, they are countering not the intent of the restrictions, but the blind "hand off to an agency to make nationwide impact rules without congressional oversight and structure" Basically this is a shot fired against the Byzantium expansion of government.

 

[aociswundumho]

... And since Republicans oppose any/all regulations for cleaner air, water, etc., and we have a filibuster, we won't see regulations for decade at best.

Isn't your position against the whole democracy thing? How is it "democratic" to have unelected bureaucrats making laws?

 

[SuperDS77]

the response I see to this should include creating a public sector energy production competitor.

You can't be serious. Besides being blatantly unconstitutional, the results of such a misguided idea would be counter-productive to the ostensible goals.