Supreme Court limits EPA in curbing power plant emissions

[Athanasius68]

And the way that they said that was to say that an agency's "statutory authority" extended ONLY to those specific things that were actually included in the actual legislation REGARDLESS of any other factor. If something didn't exist at the time the legislation was enacted, then the agency has no power (according to the "logic" that the Supreme Court applied) to regulate it. That would mean that the FCC had no power to regulate FM broadcasting until specific legislation that specifically placed FM broadcasting within its ambit was passed and that it had no power to regulate TV broadcasting until specific legislation that specifically placed TV broadcasting within its ambit and that it had no power to regulate "digital" broadcasting until specific legislation that specifically placed "digital" broadcasting within its ambit.

It would also mean that the FAA had no power to regulate "jet powered" flight because there was no such thing as "jet powered" flight when the FAA was created.

that is not quite what scotus is saying.

Its saying that the courts should not presume that Congress has delegated authority to an agency on a particular topic if that authority is not explicit and the topic is a big, contentious national debate. It will not presume that Congress hides “elephants in mouseholes”: Big grants of power on controversial issues are not to be magically discovered in vague or offhand language.

 

[jaeger19]

It was this case that represented a serious blow to energy providers. I wasn't talking about the past. The past is in my rear view mirror.

In other words you claimed the EPA did something that it actually hadn't done. You have no idea whether it would have been a serious blow to energy providers anyway. .. In fact.. when it comes to coal. Market forces have already driven energy providers away from coal.

 

[iguanaman]

scotus said that the epa doesnt have the aithority to set policy

Yet that is all they have been doing for 50 years and America is cleaner and healthier for it. The current SC belongs in 1822 not 2022.

 

[iguanaman]

that is not quite what scotus is saying.

Its saying that the courts should not presume that Congress has delegated authority to an agency on a particular topic if that authority is not explicit and the topic is a big, contentious national debate. It will not presume that Congress hides “elephants in mouseholes”: Big grants of power on controversial issues are not to be magically discovered in vague or offhand language.

Stop *****footing around the issue. It is clear that the majority on the court have decided not to believe in AGW and are stopping the EPA from implementing reductions in fossil carbon as a national policy. They think they know better than the world's scientists and are going to make what they believe law. My question is what credentials do those justices have on such an important scientific issue? And BTW before you say the court does not make laws they certainly have outlawed restrictions on CO2 production by the EPA. That is a law just as much as prohibition was a law prohibiting the consumption and production of alcoholic beverages only this law is even stupider and more dangerous to the health of Americans in the future.

 

[Athanasius68]

Stop *****footing around the issue. It is clear that the majority on the court have decided not to believe in AGW and are stopping the EPA from implementing reductions in fossil carbon as a national policy. They think they know better than the world's scientists and are going to make what they believe law. My question is what credentials do those justices have on such an important scientific issue? And BTW before you say the court does not make laws they certainly have outlawed restrictions on CO2 production by the EPA. That is a law just as much as prohibition was a law prohibiting the consumption and production of alcoholic beverages only this law is even stupider and more dangerous to the health of Americans in the future.

see the problem-- a regulation issued by an unelected body is the same as a constitutional amendment passed by Congress and ratified by the states.
it isn't. the epa can't do an end run around congress.

 

[iguanaman]

see the problem-- a regulation issued by an unelected body is the same as a constitutional amendment passed by Congress and ratified by the states.
it isn't. the epa can't do an end run around congress.

Yet making regulations for companies emitting hazardous gases was Congress's stated purpose for the EPA and that is what they have done for 50 years unmolested by the courts. This reactionary Supreme Court has a difference of opinion about whether fossil CO2 is a hazardous gas and what they say goes. They are asking for is Congress to rule on AGW and like everything else there is no agreement there either. We have a bunch of politicians with many special interests who are supposed to rule impartially on a scientifically proven phenomena that is threatening the entire world and they have no clue about it. What could be wrong about that? Can you imagine if we needed a Constitutional amendment to ban DDT or Freon? With this court we would have. We need to leave the science to the scientists and stop trying to act like we know better. Do you do your own brain surgery too?

 

[fmw]

In other words you claimed the EPA did something that it actually hadn't done. You have no idea whether it would have been a serious blow to energy providers anyway.

[/QUOTE]
Common sense says it would and the supreme court thought so. I'm on decent ground. I understand that EPA regulates. The issue is that there is a point at which it needs legislative support. That point is defined in the decision.

.. In fact.. when it comes to coal. Market forces have already driven energy providers away from coal.

Market forces? Government promised to put coal out of business just as they are now promising to put oil and gas out of business. They have come close to fulfilling the promise with coal. Not so much yet for petroleum.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

that is not quite what scotus is saying.

Its saying that the courts should not presume that Congress has delegated authority to an agency on a particular topic if that authority is not explicit

Right, what the courts "should" do is to presume that Congress did NOT delegate the authority - REGARDLESS of what the members of Congress say - UNLESS the original legislation SPECIFICALLY contains the words "DELEGATES THE AUTHORITY TO" and SPECIFICALLY lists EXACTLY what may be regulated and how it may be regulated. In cases which are not EXACTLY IDENTICAL to the situation which prevailed at the time the legislation was passed, the only "logical' conclusion to draw is that Congress could not possibly have delegated any authority over something that it didn't know existed when it passed the legislation.

and the topic is a big, contentious national debate.

Strangely enough the topic only became a "big, contentious national debate" when it started affecting the bank balances of some very rich people.

It will not presume that Congress hides “elephants in mouseholes”: Big grants of power on controversial issues are not to be magically discovered in vague or offhand language.

<SARC>Quite right. The courts should do everything possible (no matter how tortuous and specious the necessary reasoning) to ensure that Congress has as little power to do anything (especially doing something "in advance of need") that it can possibly do. It is completely obvious that the Founding Fathers had the Original Intent to place the control of the US government into the hands of _[fill in the blank_ people who were appointed in the basis of partisan politics and held office for life.</SARC>

 

[jaeger19]

Common sense says it would and the supreme court thought so. I'm on decent ground. I understand that EPA regulates. The issue is that there is a point at which it needs legislative support. That point is defined in the decision.

Market forces? Government promised to put coal out of business just as they are now promising to put oil and gas out of business. They have come close to fulfilling the promise with coal. Not so much yet for petroleum.

Yes.. the issue is at point that it needs legislative support. The EPA was already given legislative support in Section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
The Supreme court went out of its way to declare that despite there being clear regulatory power to regulate power plant emissions.. t“"may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. "
Greenhouse gases fit under the description.

The supreme court basically disagrees with any reduction in greenhouse gases and any prevention of climate change due to human activity.
So.. they basically came at this with a predetermined conclusion and made their decisions fit that.

In doing doing so.. by stating that despite clear regulatory power given by congress... that regulatory power wasn't specific enough.. the supreme court opened the flood gates to companies challenging the regulation by any regulatory agency.. unless the power to regulate that specific entity.. like say a covid vaccine.. or a certain car.. etc.. was clearly specified by Congress.

YEs market forces. The fracking revolution has made natural gas a much better alternative to the cost of coal for power plants. Thats what has hurt the coal industry.

The CLEAN POWER PLAN.. issued by the EPA. which is what the lawsuit was about. was never put into effect . The decline in coal is due to coal becoming more expensive than alternatives.

For several decades prior to 2008, the price of crude oil and natural gas in the U.S. have tracked each other very closely. But something unusual happened in 2009.

As the price of oil began to recover from the Great Recession, the price of gas continued to drop. In April 2012, oil was selling for $103 per barrel, while the price of gas was $11 per barrel-energy-equivalent, and coal was delivered at an average price of $13 per barrel-energy-equivalent.[7]

Prices have fluctuated since then, but gas has continued to be plentiful and cheap. This has had two effects on coal. One is that cheap gas displaces coal in existing power systems. Secondly, cheap gas increases the incentives to finally retire old coal-fired plants from the 1940s and 1950s. Figure 5 shows the expansion of natural gas in electricity generation, in parallel with the decline of coal. The figure also shows the expansion of renewables such as wind and solar, likewise at the expense of coal.

Facts over fear.

 

[Athanasius68]

Right, what the courts "should" do is to presume that Congress did NOT delegate the authority - REGARDLESS of what the members of Congress say - UNLESS the original legislation SPECIFICALLY contains the words "DELEGATES THE AUTHORITY TO" and SPECIFICALLY lists EXACTLY what may be regulated and how it may be regulated. In cases which are not EXACTLY IDENTICAL to the situation which prevailed at the time the legislation was passed, the only "logical' conclusion to draw is that Congress could not possibly have delegated any authority over something that it didn't know existed when it passed the legislation.

when the objective is to transform energy production.
when congress has specifically has declined to move in that direction.
then yes, the courts should make no presumption.

Strangely enough the topic only became a "big, contentious national debate" when it started affecting the bank balances of some very rich people.

regulatory agency ought not have the power to circumvent the wishes of congress.

<SARC>Quite right. The courts should do everything possible (no matter how tortuous and specious the necessary reasoning) to ensure that Congress has as little power to do anything (especially doing something "in advance of need") that it can possibly do. It is completely obvious that the Founding Fathers had the Original Intent to place the control of the US government into the hands of _[fill in the blank_ people who were appointed in the basis of partisan politics and held office for life.</SARC>

the court said that congress did not grant the epa the power to transform industry. that power, the court said, resides with congress.
its not clear why insisting that congress has that power, weakens congress.