Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Businesses Earth Government

Supreme Court Upholds Most EPA Rules On Greenhouse Gases 109

Posted by samzenpus
from the it's-getting-hot-in-here dept.
UnknowingFool writes In Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled against the EPA on some limits to greenhouse gases but also upheld other limits. In a 5-4 partial decision, the high court ruled that EPA overstepped their authority in requiring permits only for greenhouse gases for new and modified facilities using the Clean Air act. Such regulatory action can only be granted by Congress. But in the same case on a 7-2 decision, the court ruled that the EPA can enforce greenhouse gas limits on facilities that already require permits for other air pollutants. This leaves intact most of the new regulations proposed by the Obama administration earlier this month as many coal plants produce other air pollutants that can be regulated by the EPA.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Supreme Court Upholds Most EPA Rules On Greenhouse Gases

Comments Filter:
  • by BaronM (122102) on Monday June 23, 2014 @05:17PM (#47300607)

    What the Supreme Court actually did was to disallow direct regulation of CO2 unless the EPA actually wants to attempt to regulate ALL producers of >250 tons annually, which is impractical.

    What the EPA intended to do was to regulate producers of >100,000 tons annually, with the possibility of reducing that threshold over time as we get handle on the issue.

    What the Supreme Court did leave intact is the ability to regulate CO2 production by producers who are already regulated for other reasons 'anyway'.

    That does happen to match up fairly well with what the EPA intended to do originally, but does not allow the flexibility to regulate CO2 producers who do not produce large amounts of other pollution.

    • Well, no, since the plaintiffs of the case were arguing that they should not be allowed to be regulated at all it's not backwards, so much as not as precise as necessary.

      Which is why we have a summary and article.

    • by jandrese (485)
      The devil is in the details I guess. It wouldn't be practical to regulate every single person who drives a car, but regulation for car companies is something that could make a big difference.
    • According to the analysis I read this morning, restricting regulation to those facilities already otherwise regulated means that EPA can now set limits on CO2 emissions from 83% of all facilities vs. 86% without such restrictions. So really, EPA got much more out of this ruling than plaintiffs did, which is probably a good thing.
  • If a plant managed to find a process to capture all chemicals and have 0 pollutants other than CO2, this would give them a way to also be free of CO2 regulations.
  • The EPA can continue to undermine the economy in pursuit of fairy tales.

    • The EPA can continue to undermine the someone's finance in pursuit of fairy tales.

      There, fixed that for you. By the way, that is a good thing for an actual economy, as it is stopped from drowning, draught, etc. Some of these fairy tales are already fairly convincing.

"The value of marriage is not that adults produce children, but that children produce adults." -- Peter De Vries

Working...