SCOTUS ~ EPA Lacks Authority to Change Emissions Threshold…Kinda

Posted by Tina

The Supreme Court ruled (slightly) in favor of the people and our Constitution today in a ruling that found only Congress has the authority to change Emissions thresholds…in some cases. Huh? Yeah, that’s what I said, too.

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court blocked the Obama administration Monday from requiring permits for greenhouse gas emissions from new or modified industrial facilities, but the ruling won’t prohibit other means of regulating the pollutant that causes global warming.

The court’s conservative wing ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency exceeded its authority by changing the emissions threshold for greenhouse gases in the Clean Air Act to regulate more stationary sources. That action can only be taken by Congress, Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion said.

The 5-4 ruling, which partially reverses a 2012 federal appeals court decision, represents a moral but somewhat hollow victory for industry and state government opponents of the federal regulations. They have complained that the rules could cost billions of dollars to implement and threaten thousands of jobs.

But the court said the EPA can regulate greenhouse gas emissions from industries already required to get permits for other air pollutants. Those generally are the largest power plants, refineries and other industrial facilities responsible for most such emissions.

“Today is a good day for all supporters of clean air and public health and those concerned with creating a better environment for future generations,” the EPA said in a release. “The Supreme Court’s decision is a win for our efforts to reduce carbon pollution, because it allows EPA, states and other permitting authorities to continue to require carbon pollution limits in permits for the largest pollution sources.”

It’s a small victory but one that will help hold down the cost of energy to consumers.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to SCOTUS ~ EPA Lacks Authority to Change Emissions Threshold…Kinda

  1. Libby says:

    “It’s a small victory but one that will help hold down the cost of energy to consumers.”

    There are costs other than financial ones, you know.

    Or do you?

  2. D Smith says:

    Jack, you better study the privatization of our water, energy, ect to foreign corporations. Detroit is shutting down delinquent water customers to drive up the cost of selling their water system. If you think a foreign company owning our systems will drive costs down…think again

    for profit means profit before customer

  3. Pie Guevara says:

    He can’t stay away. Post Scripts owns him.

  4. Tina says:

    Libby: “There are costs other than financial ones, you know. Or do you?”

    Of course I do which is why I applaud the hurculean efforts that industries and individuals have taken over the past thirty to forty years to clean up our air and water and prevent pollution!

    Quit acting like we’re still at square one!

    And quit supporting the jack boot policies that are preventing economic and job growth!

    Institute for Energy Research:

    On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) quietly released their annual report on air quality trends. You would never know it from picking up a newspaper or reading news websites, but the report contains great news. Air quality in the United States has dramatically improved and, according to all indicators, it will continue to improve.

    The Good News—the Air is Getting Cleaner (see EPA graph)

    Also try to keep in mind that business owners are people too and they care about the environment. they also deal in the realities of being able to pay for improvements and keep people working.

    What the President has done to the coal industry and the people that work in that industry is criminal and totally unnecessary because the demands are not reasonable. Coal provides about 40% of our nations electricity. Wind and solar at 2% are not ready (nor will they ever be) to take on that load.Unreasonable demands that prevent coal production and cost jobs are just stupid.

  5. Tina says:

    Regarding the D. man’s concern:

    Abstract:
    Whether water systems should be owned and operated by governments or private firms is intensely controversial, and little empirical research sheds light on the issue. In this paper we use a panel dataset that includes every community water system in the U.S. from 1997-2003 to test the effects of ownership and benchmark competition on regulatory compliance and household water expenditures. We find that when controlling for water source, location fixed effects, county income, urbanization, and year, there is little difference between public and private systems. Public systems are somewhat more likely to violate the maximum levels of health-based contaminants allowed under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), while private systems are somewhat more likely to violate monitoring and reporting regulations. The results are reversed for systems that serve more than 100,000 people. Household expenditures on water at the county level decrease slightly as the share of private ownership increases, contradicting fears that private ownership brings higher prices. While direct competition among piped water systems is practically nonexistent, we find that benchmark competition among water systems within counties is associated with fewer SDWA violations and, when combined with private ownership, lower household expenditures. Overall, the results suggest that absent competition, whether water systems are owned by private firms or governments may, on average, simply not matter much.

    Dewey believes he lives on air and water alone…no need for work or profit!

  6. Pie Guevara says:

    More like hot air and swamp water.

  7. Pie Guevara says:

    Well, it’s something. I generally approve the wisdom of the founding fathers tripartite concept which includes a Judicial Branch. But when a lifetime, unimpeachable position results in the anti-science, totally ignorant lunacy of declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant I have to wonder just how deep does corruption in our society go?

    Perhaps there should be judicial term limits. It would take a Constitutional convention, of course, but why not let judges serve 10 years and then go back to their farms or ambulance chasing practices, or whatever the case may be?

    Just a thought.

  8. Pie Guevara says:

    I’m off to listen to the late night IRS hearings stream on CSPAN. Invite all to join me, except the usual gang of dopes who prefer to bury their heads in the sand. @PieGuevara on Twitter if you care to comment.

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?320097-1/irs-targeting-investigation

  9. Pie Guevara says:

    Regarding the IRS scandal: A special prosecutor should be appointed and committee participant Democratic Ranking Member Elijah Cummings should indicted as a co-conspirator.

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/04/09/new-emaisl-show-lois-lerner-fed-information-about-true-the-vote-to-democrat-elijah-cummings-n1822247

  10. Tina says:

    Pie: ” But when a lifetime, unimpeachable position results in the anti-science, totally ignorant lunacy of declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant I have to wonder…”

    It’s only the staff of life!

  11. Tina says:

    Pie @ #10 Yes, and yes!

Comments are closed.