Justices limit existing EPA global warming rules
MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court today placed limits on the sole Obama administration program already in place to deal with power plant and factory emissions of gases blamed for global warming.
The justices said that the Environmental Protection Agency lacks authority in some cases to force companies to evaluate ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This rule applies when a company needs a permit to expand facilities or build new ones that would increase overall pollution. Carbon dioxide is the chief gas linked to global warming.
The decision does not affect EPA proposals for first-time national standards for new and existing power plants. The most recent proposal aims at a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, but won’t take effect for at least another two years.
The outcome also preserves EPA’s authority over facilities that already emit pollutants that the agency regulates other than greenhouse gases. EPA called the decision “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.”
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, said “EPA is getting almost everything it wanted in this case.” Scalia said the agency wanted to regulate 86 percent of all greenhouse gases emitted from plants nationwide. The agency will be able to regulate 83 percent of the emissions under the ruling, Scalia said. The court voted 7-2 in this portion of the decision, with Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas saying they would bar all regulation of greenhouse gases under the permitting program.
Full story: http://www.chicoer.com/breakingnews/ci_26016656/justices-limit-existing-epa-global-warming-rules
Not so much “putting the brakes on” as a speed bump. From 86% to 83% is not exactly a resounding victory.
REPLY: it is a start – A
Whoopty-doo — A whole 3% reduction from those previously proposed.
“Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, said “EPA is getting almost everything it wanted in this case.” Scalia said the agency wanted to regulate 86 percent of all greenhouse gases emitted from plants nationwide. The agency will be able to regulate 83 percent of the emissions under the ruling, Scalia said.”
Anthiony: Unfortunately instead of a start, it’s more like a Supreme Validation of 95% of the regs. You and I both know that once these are in, they are almost impossible to overturn.
REPLY: Well the new Obama EPA stuff hasn’t even reached the court yet, we’ll see. Don’t be such a pessimist. Otherwise just give up. -A
^^speeling……
I think this Jonathan Adler story is a more helpful discussion of the ruling. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/23/scotus-rejects-epas-rewrite-of-the-clean-air-act-but-ghg-regulation-will-go-forward/
we are not willing to stand on the dock and wave goodbye as EPA embarks on this multiyear voyage of discovery. (pg. 23 paragraph 3, decision) Scalia
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, said “EPA is getting almost everything it wanted in this case”.
————
Almost aint good enough – obama’s rule must be ABSOLUTE!
As a Canadian, our Prime Minister does not have imperial power of this magnitude. Parliament is the only body that can make such rulings. Can anyone tell me how does a US president acquire such absolute power like in the days of monarchs Americans supposedly overthrew to become a republic? This is hard for me to understand.
On June 23, 2014 the US Supreme Court issued an important decision regarding the regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The Supreme Court decided that:
1. EPA improperly concluded that it was mandated to require Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V permits for sources based on their GHG emissions. Sources that are only major sources by virtue of GHG emissions cannot be drawn into the PSD or Title V programs. The Court also rejected the Tailoring Rule, in which EPA tried to ameliorate the effect of its GHG regulation, and to reduce the number of sources for which permits are required, by unilaterally increasing the major source limits in the Clean Air Act.
2. Most large sources of GHGs are already regulated under PSD because of emissions of other pollutants, and these sources, referred to by the Court as “anyway” sources, must comply with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for GHG emissions. However, the Court went out of its way to note existing limitations on BACT application, and pointedly did not rule out allowing EPA to continue to use a 75,000 ton de minimis exception for GHG BACT if EPA could justify that level.
Maybe the biggest point the Supreme Court made was rejecting the Tailoring Rule, a blatant attempt by the EPA to sidestep an inconvenient portion of the Clean Air Act. It didn’t affect the final decision, but it told EPA that it can’t do whatever it pleases. It doesn’t change everything overnight, but as Anthony said, it’s a start
Here is the decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1146_4g18.pdf
It doesn’t really slow down the GHG regulation juggernaut. That will continue as long as the Endangerment Finding is on the books. So from that standpoint, it doesn’t do that much good.
However, the reversal of the Tailoring Rule is a very important vindication of limited government and separation of powers. If it had been affirmed there would essentially be no limit to any regulatory ambition a federal agency might have. They would be completely untethered by any statutory limitations – if they didn’t like the statutory limits on their authority they would be able to ignore them or rewrite them. Thankfully, the Supreme Court rebuked them on this, but it was only a 5-4 decision, which is a strong testament to how screwed up our legal culture is. Four votes on the Supreme Court to uphold EPA’s lawlessness is a threat to the Republic.
You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you.
the solution is simple but politicians lack any guts to implement. Just make EPA congressional funding contingent on the EPA no longer having legislatice authority to regulate CO2.
“REPLY: Well the new Obama EPA stuff hasn’t even reached the court yet, we’ll see. Don’t be such a pessimist. Otherwise just give up. -A”
Anthony, Couldn’t agree more. Way too many defeatist cry babies around here.
“….regulate 86% of all greenhouse gasses emitted from plants nationwide …..”.
When I read that I had this bizarre vision of the Mann standing beside a tree instructing it that he had the authority to stop it producing CO2.
Josh?
I am optimistic that the EPA will circumvent the court rulings for at least 2 more years. 😉
From the Wall Street Journal.
“In 2009 the agency issued a finding that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are responsible for a warming planet and pose a danger to public health. That conclusion provided the foundation for the EPA’s vehicle emissions standards that have been upheld in court and are now in effect.”
Like Quinn the Eskimo said it is about the endangerment ruling.
Time to get the endangerment ruling reversed.
I think Anthony is right, three and a half percent of the apple is better than no apple at all. Anyway, the Justices aren’t who is going to save us from the scam, mother nature is the one who’s going to put a stop to it. And the harder the progressive jurists push it, the worse they will look when it shakes out.
Even at stringent 5% = significance
it’s complete defeat.
97% loss is complete.
In a horse race its a complete defeat.
In a business venture it’s a complete defeat.
In a military adventure it’s a complete defeat.
In a political seats contest it’s a complete defeat.
I’m a scientist not a wannabe one so reality actually matters in my business.
Anybody who can’t face that and discuss it like an adult probably believed it was all real, in the first place. The gullible clowns who believed in it, are the ones responsible for us all watching the integrity of science be flushed along with their reputations.
Robin: I think this Jonathan Adler story is a more helpful discussion of the ruling. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/23/scotus-rejects-epas-rewrite-of-the-clean-air-act-but-ghg-regulation-will-go-forward/
Agreed, and thank you for the link.
Dave Yaussey: Maybe the biggest point the Supreme Court made was rejecting the Tailoring Rule, a blatant attempt by the EPA to sidestep an inconvenient portion of the Clean Air Act. It didn’t affect the final decision, but it told EPA that it can’t do whatever it pleases. It doesn’t change everything overnight, but as Anthony said, it’s a start
This looks important for future cases.
Box of Rocks says:
June 23, 2014 at 12:42 pm
Like Quinn the Eskimo said it is about the endangerment ruling.
Time to get the endangerment ruling reversed.
That is exactly right, and it was the subject of a law review article I just did for the West Virginia University Law School Law Review: “Unringing the Bell: Time for EPA to Reconsider Its Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding”
But as a practical matter, this will have to wait for a new administration
To be quantitative about it, EPA is getting 83/86ths of what it wanted in this case.
83/86 = 97% … Coincidence or conspiracy?
🙂
Lesson learned by EPA: aim ridiculously high with rewrites of Congressional mandate and settle for ridiculous.
The entire issue has morphed into institutional insanity.
Carbon dioxide is not pollution.
We need to recall where it all started – http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pdf/GHGEndangermentProposal.pdf
Please use your word search function and review PDF this for references to source documents – try “IPCC” – and you will be enlightened. This is where any effort toward discrediting or to eventually have the finding reverse must start – with the course documents supporting the finding.
Then look at the requirements for such findings (or at least senator Inhofe’s view on this issue)http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=d09e09b0-802a-23ad-4108-e0a7c183b09f:
This is the way to go to chip away at the edifice of EPA GHG rules – expose the shoddy conclusions based upon science that does not live up to the scientific method…….
@William Howard at 12:33 pm
the solution is simple but politicians lack any guts to implement. Just make EPA congressional funding contingent on the EPA no longer having legislatice authority to regulate CO2.
I agree 100%. The Republican House could have stopped the EPA “Carbon Pollution under CAA” strategy in its tracks by putting a rider in the EPA’s budget that it had to bring Carbon Pollution Regulations as an amendment to the CAA that Congress must pass as law. The Administration could not have sustained a government shutdown standing against such a constitutional demand.
Instead the Republican House leadership surrendered all control over the budget and debt ceiling until March 2015. A complete abdication of duty. For that reason alone, Eric Cantor deserved to lose. I’m glad to see such strategic ineptitude given the heave-ho.