Court Blocks EPA Effort To Suspend Obama-Era Methane Rule (pbs.org) 214
Michael Biesecker reports via PBS: A federal appeals court in Washington ruled Monday that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency overstepped his authority in trying to delay implementation of a new rule requiring oil and gas companies to monitor and reduce methane leaks. In a split decision, the three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered the EPA to move forward with the Obama-era requirement that aims to reduce planet-warming emissions from oil and gas operations. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced in April that he would delay by 90 days the deadline for oil and gas companies to follow the new rule, so that the agency could reconsider the measure. Last month, Pruitt announced he intended to extend the 90-day stay for two years. In a detailed 31-page ruling, the court disagreed with Pruitt's contention that industry groups had not had sufficient opportunity to comment before the 2016 rule was enacted. The judges also said Pruitt lacked the legal authority to delay the rule from taking effect.
Only in Trump America.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Does the EPA go to court try to make the envirnment worse.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they did it a lot in Bush and Reagan Americas too.
Re:Only in Trump America.. (Score:5, Informative)
Scott Pruitt, Administrator of the EPA, was appointed by President Donald Trump. So yes, in this case POTUS controls the EPA and many other aspects of the U.S. Government.. (this should not come as a surprise, but maybe you're an idiot)
Re:Only in Trump America.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Toxic environments tend to decrease the quality of life of people rather than reduce population. Human beings tend to fill whatever landmass they find. You'd need something like a famine to really impact a population significantly. Toxic environments have costs like disability and childhood learning disorders. The cost for society to deal with an increase in children with mental retardation is much higher than the cost to regulate business. You should be free to do as you wish unless you cause harm to anoth
Re: (Score:2)
But, its true. Nowhere in the previous US of A's was the office whose duty is to protect the environment, actually damaging the environment and cited to court for that.
You can say, it is an overstepping of the court and it is all within the right of the EPA to allow environmental damage to occur, but still, this is a first and this happens under Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Remind me, which republican was in charge when the EPA last poisoned a river?
Completely incompetent is 'close enough' to truth, all the time.
Continuity of Government (Score:4, Insightful)
Imagine if every government threw out everything agreed by the last government, just to score political points.
Really Pruitt needs to be more professional here. Country before party.
Re: (Score:2)
That cannot happen in the current administration which has no new bright ideas of their own. They define themselves by being against anything Obama did. This is the brightest idea EPA have will have in this alleged administration.
Re:Continuity of Government (Score:4, Informative)
The creation of new rules has a well-defined process, outlined in the Constitution. The abolishment of old rules also has a process. The court simply ruled that Pruitt has to follow it.
EPA methane ruling (Score:2, Funny)
Something about this smells really bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Methane is odorless. Perhaps you were thinking of hydrogen sulfide?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
boom, boom!
Re: EPA methane ruling (Score:2)
Actually it's only odorized before it enters the distribution grid. If it has hydrogen sulfide when it comes out of the ground then you can smell that before it undergoes amine treatment. After treatment it passes for hundred or thousands of miles in transmission pipelines usually non-odorized. It gets odorized upon entering the distribution grid or a storage facility.
rule of law (Score:5, Informative)
When a department of the government issues a regulation, it has to do so with public comment, input, and published reasoning. That, by the way, is an admirable aspect of our country, and why we're not some third world banana republic. People would be thankful for this, I'd think.
When some new administration comes in, they can't just overturn something willy nilly because they feel like it. They have to go through the same process of showing why the rule should be overturned, delayed, stayed, etc.
Scott Pruitt of the EPA basically got marching orders from Trump to do anything possible to revoke this rulemaking, and the arguments in court showed how flimsy that was. In order to delay implementation of a regulation (which is tantamount to retracting it, for the amount of time it is delayed), there must be good reason like evidence was ignored, people were not allowed to comment timely, etc.
None of these was found to be the case, and as a result, the EPA cannot just revoke an order it lawfully issued under the proper process. It can change its mind, but it has to go through the same process.
We should be thanking the rule of law for saving us from the administration's madness.
Re:um... pot meet kettle (Score:5, Informative)
Well, Congress has the power to enact laws under the Constitution. This is how Congress allocated their power to unelected bureaucrats to write laws:
1. Congress enacted laws that delegated further rulemaking authority (with some guidance as to how to make those rules) to an agency, generally under the executive branch.
2. Congress enacted a law, the APA - the Administrative Procedure Act, that defines the rules and processes those agencies must follow to exercise their rulemaking authority. It lays out rules and procedures agencies have to follow, and rules that are adopted pursuant to those procedures then have the force of law. 3. Congress has also enacted other laws, allowing Congress to overturn a regulation on a simple majority vote expressing disapproval of that regulation, continuing to reserve the ability to undo those regulations.
So unelected bureaucrats have the power to write rules/regulations that have the force of law because Congress delegated that to them and let them do it.
As for regulators later being able to change the regulations, that's never been the issue. The judges noted that the administration can continue its rulemaking process to revise the methane rule. But what the administration cannot do is stay enforcement of the methane rule in the interim without a legal basis for doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
3. Congress has also enacted other laws, allowing Congress to overturn a regulation on a simple majority vote expressing disapproval of that regulation, continuing to reserve the ability to undo those regulations.
So all the administration has to do is get a simple majority of Congress to vote to overturn the rule.
What's that? Congressmen don't want to go on the record voting to destroy the environment? Pity.
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't write any linkable thoughts on the Obama administration's immigration order, so I can't give you what you want. However, while I thought that action by the administration did fall into the prosecutorial discretion allowance, I thought that was a politically motivated / overly sympathetic gesture that undermined our immigration laws very publicly.
There are two issues that we're talking about now. Interpretation and regu
Re:rule of law (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not certain if you're a troll or not, but on the off chance you're serious:
First, it is possible to think that both Mr. Trump and Mr. Obama have performed or attempted to perform gross over-reaches of executive authority. I didn't vote for Trump, but my greatest hope for the next four years is that Congress realizes that it, not the President, creates policy.
Second, but probably more important, are you seriously going to mount "Well he did it too!" as a counter-argument? I try to refrain from ad hominem attacks, but are you really that stupid? The idea that "they broke the rules so we're justified in breaking the rules" is how rule of law dies. Every time. Read the history of the Roman civil wars and pay close attention to Maurius. If that's too far back in the mists of antiquity, take a survey of the African continent over the last 40 years. When we ignore the rule of law simply to further our own ends, that's how civil government dies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The only problem with anti-environmentalism as a response for bringing industry back is that it won't work.
Coal's biggest problem is the price of natural gas, which is cheaper, easier to use and move, cleaner burning, and less expensive to set up. Any issue with coal starts and ends there - it's just not economically competitive.
The methane rule, which is applicable to oil and natural gas wells, would prevent methane and VOC (volatile organic compound) emission. While methane is largely a greenhouse gas iss
Greenhouse effect (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Methane has a much more powerful greenhouse effect the CO2. This is really bad news.
But, when I've pointed out the massive methane emissions from hydro power lakes, I've had folks here arguing that methane doesn't last long in the atmosphere, therefore is not a significant problem.
Re: Greenhouse effect (Score:2)
You're right that there's a possibility for hydro power lake emissions to be significant. The emissions from the O&G industry are just many time larger, which is why they're a primary target.
There's a similar argument for the livestock/feedlot industry - cows emit a lot of methane. The problem with regulating it is that it's hard to stop. Leaks are a solvable problem with enough investment, stopping cow burps is more complicated...
In terms of lifetime, CO2 has a much longer lifetime, meaning that even i
Re: (Score:2)
You're right that there's a possibility for hydro power lake emissions to be significant. The emissions from the O&G industry are just many time larger, which is why they're a primary target.
Are you certain methane from leaks is many times larger per unit of energy consumed? O&G generates huge amounts of energy, I would think the relative release from leaks is probably pretty low.
Re: Greenhouse effect (Score:2)
Good point, per unit energy, I'm not sure.
If it were to become a significant source of methane (e.g. If it were scaled up so that all energy came from hydro), then the most straightforward way to shut down underwater methane generation is to aerate.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the regulation: 81 Fed. Reg. 35,824. [gpo.gov] Page 35,838.
Methane from oil and natural gas leaks is the largest source of methane emission. It accounts for 32% of all anthropogenic methane emission.
Hydroelectric dams emit only 1.3% of anthropogenic methane emission.
Regardless of whether they are larger per unit of energy consumed, it is in the collection process that they are released.
Re: (Score:2)
stopping cow burps is more complicated
Methane in cows burps depends on the cow's feeding, and it seems methane can be removed by using appropriate seaweed [slashdot.org]. I suspect it will also improve omega 3 / omega 6 balance in the cow's fat, making it more healthy.
Re: Greenhouse effect (Score:2)
Agreed, seaweed diets are a possibility. It's pretty early in that research but an interesting option.
There's also active research into modifying cow gut bacteria to remove the methanogenic capability.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also active research into modifying cow gut bacteria to remove the methanogenic capability
This is obviously what the seaweed diet acheive.
Re: Greenhouse effect (Score:2)
Possibly, I don't know enough about what the seaweed is doing in the gut to say one way or the other. It could be shutting down the methanogenic bacteria completely, or altering their chemistry, or adding methanotrophic bacteria to offset, or changing the way the cow ruminates, to name a few possibilities. Maybe the mechanism is already known, but I don't know it.
The research I'm talking about is identifying the methanogenic bacteria and altering it to stay active in the gut, but specifically shut down th
Re: (Score:2)
Rebublicans are Lawless (Score:2, Interesting)
It is beyond irony that the party that claims to support law and order has no idea what these words actually mean. T
Re: (Score:2)
"why didn't the rule go into effect asap during Obama's tenure?"
Because they wanted to give the industries reasonable time to comply?
Re: (Score:2)
From the court opinion:
"The methane rule took effect on August 2, 2016, and required regulated entities to conduct an “initial monitoring survey” to identify leaks by June 3, 2017..."
They were given over 300 days to ensure compliance. Plenty of time to hire any necessary engineers, iron out any kinks, and make sure nothing was wrong before their first reporting deadline. And even if they still had something wrong, they would have had another 30 days to fix the problem before being subject to any
Re: (Score:2)
The rule went into effect during Obama's tenure, on August 2, 2016. The rule had been under consideration since 2014. Draft regulation was published in 2015. The rule was finalized on June 3, 2016. It went through extensive comment and debate. This was not an economic poison pill. It was well-considered regulation, one that spent years in the rulemaking process. And while Barack Obama lived in Chicago, he was not a part of Chicago machine politics, so calling him a Chicago Democrat is inaccurate as well (an
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has the same authority as Obama did to set enforcement priorities.
He has already done so for DAPA (deferred action for parents of Americas), and ended it.
Trump could also legally deport people currently protected by DACA (deferred action for childhood arrivals).
It would just be evil and cruel. Legal, but evil and cruel.
Which is why I suspect he hasn't done it.
Why not? (Score:2)
If Obama can implement rules on a whim, Trump can suspend them just as easily. I'm not arguing if the EPA rules are correct or not. I'm arguing for consistency.
Re: (Score:2)
And oil and gas companies should be required to minimize methane leaks
Re: (Score:2)
What does that have to do with this?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The question was never should they, but by how much.
As usual, regulations like these are mere Trojan Horses. By setting limits to unreasonably low levels, production could be made too expensive or even brought to a halt. That's the kind of lever it is. A Democrat Administration would undoubtedly be able to use this in the same way Obama used regulations on coal to essentially kill the industry, as he promised.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
A Democrat Administration would undoubtedly be able to use this in the same way Obama used regulations on coal to essentially kill the industry, as he promised.
Well, I sure fucking hope so. The coal industry is literally a cancer upon industrialized society.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you function at your level of stupidity? Coal is dying because it's cheaper to use natural gas, and even renewables in a lot of places. Are you so mindnumbingly stupid to think that if you took all these regulations off the energy sector suddenly coal is cheaper than natural gas?
Re:How can a court argue... (Score:5, Insightful)
When you were a child, did your mother never teach you to clean up after yourself?
Well, companies have to do the same thing. And like you as a child, if they won't do it on their own then parents (government) is forced to intervene and require (regulate) them to do so.
Burning coal dumps megatons of sulfates and and ash and other pollutants into the atmosphere annually. Pollutants that are directly related to acidification of rainfall and as such our streams, rivers, lakes, and groundwater; that directly contribute to asthma and lung cancer and other health related issues; and, of course, to our carbon footprint.
So yes, power plants were required to install scrubbers and generally clean up their act. And yes, that contributes to the cost of doing business. But that is, like it or not, part of those costs, and we don't allow coal plants to indiscriminately pollute any more than we allow chemical companies to freely dump waste into the river upstream from your home.
So yes, when you factor in those costs, it makes coal more expensive. But other means of energy production (like drilling for gas) have their own regulations and corresponding expenses and coal would still be more expensive if all of those regulations were gone. Thus the market has decided to pursue gas-fired plants, in addition to renewables liked solar and wind.
Coal is dirty, dangerous, a nightmare to safely produce, and expensive as heck to ship (daily) from where it's produced to where it's consumed. (After which you have to deal with the byproducts.)
Coal powered America for a long time. So did horses and steam engines. But like the later, we have better solutions now, and its time for it to go.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And oil and gas companies should be required to minimize methane leaks
Reducing leaks is an "easy win". It is cost effective, and can make a substantial difference. Delaying the implementation is stupid. But deciding if a regulation or law is stupid is NOT WHAT COURTS ARE FOR. The job of the judiciary is to rule on the legality. When courts start ruling on the merits, and doing the legislature's job, then the courts become politicized and lose their legitimacy.
Re:How can a court argue... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
He may be head, but the EPA, like other organizations, have rules and regulations and procedures and processes, and the aforementioned regulation has gone through those processes and been approved.
The court is correct in that he doesn't, personally, have the authority to prevent that regulation from taking effect any more than he (or a prior head) could personally ram a rule or regulation through without going through those same processes and procedures.
And I'm done arguing with a Coward.
They are (Score:5, Insightful)
Pruitt is trying to create a DEFACTO status quo bypassing the EPAs rules for review. He's making the decision FIRST, then implementing the process to make that decision SECOND.
He can't do that.
Imagine if an election board could simply decide to suspend an election while it decides how to secure the election from Russian hackers? Or Trump could simply decide to suspend implementation of any Congress passed law while he decides how it should be 'best' implmented.
It's similar to the Visa thing. Trump cannot change the laws beyond the limits Congress has set him. This is why the Supreme Court has done this weird thing of allowing the legal part of Trump's travel ban through while literally making the whole of the Executive branch liable for contempt of court if they follow it the non-legal bit. Normally Supremes would strike down the whole Executive order and President would rewrite it to comply, but Trump would just throw a tantrum, so they enjoined the Executive branch instead. Putting the grownups in charge.
Re: They are (Score:2)
What are you blabbering on about? Election boards can suspend elections in cases of extreme interference because that's their job - making sure the elections run well.
The courts can only interpret the law, although lately courts have been more making the laws, constitutionally they can only say yes or no to the interpretation of a law.
Trumps travel ban is completely legal from a constitutional viewpoint and if the Trump administration steps outside the law, they are indeed liable for that. The courts merely
They ruled on the process to decide the rules (Score:5, Insightful)
Pruitt is trying to delay this for two years while he follows a process to change the rules. Two years. He has his department and its rules, and he has to follow those rules to make that change. Court has ruled correctly, this two year delay is nothing but a defacto cancelling of the rule. It's a Pruitt power grab.
If he wants his department rules to be easier, then he can go to Trump. If Trump tries to ease them beyond Executive branch powers, then courts will strike that down and he has to go to Congress. The court is what stops little emperors like Pruitt making their little empires.
Trump's travel ban is similar. Trump cannot simply ignore the Immigration and Nationality Act/1965 or the Constitution for 90 days while he reviews them. If he wants the law changed, he has to go to Congress, and propose the law change, and they have to get Senate to sign off on it, and it mustn't to violate the Constitution etc. etc. etc...
They have not ruled on the merits of that law change, only that he has to follow the law making processes. Or in fact the way they've done it, means the whole Executive branch is required to follow the law making processes.
moratorium? Yet they call it a ban.
Re: (Score:2)
Turnabout is _always_ fair play. If it was good for Obama, it's good for Trump.
No go back to crying. '17 will be an epic vintage for liberal tears.
Re: (Score:2)
I ignored the fact you ignored Obama's signing statements. I figured the hypocrisy was so obvious I didn't even need to point it out. Thanks for highlighting it.
Re: (Score:2)
Court run methane in Bartertown! No talk! Do!
Re:How can a court argue... (Score:4, Informative)
Because the EPA has to follow the Administrative Procedure Act if it wants to NOT implement a rule it has already adopted. And the EPA didn't do so.
This ruling won't be overturned: not enough votes to overturn en banc, and it's not a case the Supremes will have interest in.
Re:How can a court argue... (Score:4, Informative)
You can't really back that assumption up.
It's not an assumption, it's an estimate based on my previous 10 years of studying the Supreme Court. So I'll back it up.
If the Supreme Court of the United States (not the "Supremes" you idiot) chooses to take this case, will you come back here and admit you didn't know what you were talking about?
If the Supreme Court Justices decide to take an interest in the case, I'll certainly have to reevaluate my opinion, but I don't see 4 votes for granting a cert petition. The opinion relies on settled administrative law. None of it is particularly controversial. And while Chief Justice Roberts has shown an interest in reshaping the Court's administrative law jurisprudence, much of that reshaping has more to do with limiting deference to agency decisions than with the other issues at play in this case. The questions that could be appealed would either be about whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the case, which has been settled law for the past 40 years (delaying a rule's effective date is tantamount to revoking or amending the rule, constituting a final agency action that can be reviewed by the court), or that the stay was lawful - a much harder thing to justify, since the statute the administration cites (42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B)) [cornell.edu] allows only a 90 day stay during reconsideration, and only under certain circumstances, far shorter than the two year stay the Trump administration wanted the put in place.
Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg would not vote to grant cert in this instance, and while Justices Roberts and Kennedy have doubts about the administrative state, it is more along questions of deference to agency decisions, not questions of statutory interpretation or judicial power to review agency action. I am not certain that even Justice Thomas, strict textualist that he is, would vote to grant cert in this case. You need four votes to grant cert, and 5 to overturn. And the justices can count - most won't vote to grant cert unless they think they can get the fifth vote to overturn the lower court decision.
But I could be wrong, and have been in the past. I don't think that's the case here, however.
They have taken up a wide variety of cases that challenge federal law, and this is certainly one that qualifies. On the other hand, if there is enough jurisprudence on the APA already they will let the lower court ruling stand.
There is an entire body of jurisprudence on the APA built up through the past 70 years that makes up most of administrative law.
Unless they find good reason that this rule may be overturned if the EPA overstepped its authority.
Except that wasn't what this case was about. No one in the case argued that the EPA overstepped its authority. The methane rule was promulgated under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, which authorizes the EPA to issue technology based standards which apply to specific categories of stationary sources of air pollution. No one is challenging the methane rule on that basis, because the EPA does have the authority under the Clean Air Act to issue it.
The Clean Air and Clean Water Acts are very clear about what the EPA can do - capriciously adding items that some administrations consider pollutants like CO2 and NG may violate those Acts.
And here, the Clean Air Act was very clear. The oil and natural gas industry is a source category for which the EPA is required to issue standards of performance. Prior standards already in place covered the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The standard was updated to include methane. This was not a capricious addition: methane leaks very often coincide with leaks of VOCs that produce air toxics like benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene, and stopping methane leaks will prevent VOC leaks, and in general,
Re:How can a court argue... (Score:5, Informative)
This is governed by the Administrative Procedures Act [wikipedia.org], which has specific judicially-enforceable rules about the manner in which the agencies can make rules. Among the more mundane requirements of the APA are things like public notice-and-comment periods. More germanely to the instant case, is that if an agency has formally adopted a rule (with all the rigmarole that goes with it, the agency cannot just turn around and repeal it a good reason. And even if it does, it must go through some of the same procedures.
Part of the motivation for this process is practical: regulated industries ought to have stability in the rules and it's needlessly inefficient to be churning them all the time. That is to say, even if the rule is unfavorable to a particular company, it's better to be able to know and plan than to be facing constant uncertainty. At the same time, part of the motivation is political: Congress sought to limit the Executive branch as part of its prerogative -- a President of either party that can either instantly adopt or repeal new rules would upend the balance of power.
So yeah, the EPA doesn't have authority under the APA to start implementing something contrary to the formal rule that they have adopted.
Re: (Score:2)
Chevron deference only applies when the rule is ambiguous. It doesn't let federal agencies create new laws.
Re: (Score:2)
The questions of this case had to do with the Court's jurisdiction to hear the case and the legality of the stay the EPA wanted to impose, neither of which imply any question of agency interpretation, which is where Chevron deference would apply. Chevron deference had nothing to do with this case.
Re:How can a court argue... (Score:4, Insightful)
We really need more civics education in this country.
Federal environmental laws specifically state how the EPA is supposed to regulate. They can't just put in or take out whichever rules they want.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I did. It's bullshit.
Re:Regulation, not law, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the EPA wants to delay enforcement then would not that be within their authority as an executive agency?
Not necessarily. There is a rule-making process which it must legally follow. The process is there to protect citizens from arbitrary enforcement of laws and rules. With all its flaws, the US is still a nation of laws, which even its regulatory agencies must follow. If you don't like the rules, you still have to follow the process to remove them. If you don't like the laws, you still have to follow the law-making process to undo them. Countries that don't follow law- or rule-making process have a name: they are called dictatorships.
I don't know whether delaying enforcement is within the legally required process or not, I'd guess that's why the court is stepping in.
Re:Regulation, not law, right? (Score:5, Informative)
From the decision [uscourts.gov]:
Like you said, there's a process, and the court didn't think that the EPA was following it.
Re: (Score:2)
Courts are much better at stopping you from doing something, it is much harder to get you to do something.
How does the court actually make the EPA enforce this? Just assign one person to it for the whole country and create a two year backlog.
Re: (Score:2)
Just cut off the funds, like Obama did for immigration enforcement.
Not changing the rules, changing the 'enforcement priorities' within the 'executive's discretion'. Absolutely legal when Obama did it. Suck it.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't work for the Clean Air Act.
The Act authorizes citizen suits for when the EPA fails to enforce its own regulations.
Citizens can sue polluters and even the EPA if they don't enforce it.
Cutting off the funds doesn't work - the laws are on the books. The rules have been finalized.
Even choosing not to enforce it won't work due to citizen suits being available to enforce the law.
What were the words you used? Suck it.
Administrative Law, Not Policy (Score:2)
The EPA wants to delay enforcement of a regulation they wrote, correct? If the EPA wants to delay enforcement then would not that be within their authority as an executive agency? I'm confused.
"Follow the procedures and make it happen" is the right answer. Likely the EPA didn't. A regulation is not like an internal company policy--it can only be created and enforced in ways that are authorized by law. The short version is that if an administrative agency exceeds the scope of its Congressional grant of authority, acts in an arbitrary and capricious manner, fails to follow the legal rulemaking process, or takes action which otherwise is contrary to law, then people who are harmed can take them to
Re:Regulation, not law, right? (Score:5, Informative)
The methane rule, along with many other administrative regulations, are governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (the APA, for short). The APA is the law, enacted in 1946, that governs how administrative agencies of the federal government can propose and establish any regulation they are empowered to create. For rulemaking (writing or changing regulations), it requires notice, public participation, agency response and feedback, and a permanent record of the rulemaking activity itself. All of that had to be done for the methane rule to be adopted by the EPA. It was adopted, and Congress had a chance to overturn the regulation, and it decided not to (a vote to overturn the regulation failed in the Senate).
The Trump administration's EPA doesn't want to enforce the methane rule, but they have to now. It is the law. So what the EPA tried to do is stay it (prevent enforcement) while they went through the rulemaking process of trying to get rid of it. And various groups sued because the EPA did not have a legal basis to stay enforcement while the rule is being reconsidered. And the Court agreed. While the EPA could appeal this ruling, their possibility of success is slim. There aren't enough votes on the DC Circuit to overturn the panel opinion and rehear the case en banc, and the odds of the Supreme Court hearing the case are minimal. The opinion is a pretty straightforward application of the APA to the case.
So while the EPA is going through the rulemaking process to get rid of the methane rule, they will have to enforce it in the meanwhile, and it is not entirely clear that the result of a new rulemaking would be repeal of the methane rule, due to the notice, public participation, and comment parts of the rulemaking process.
President Obama would have been happy to enforce the methane rule, as would 51 US Senators in the current Congress, apparently. It's not a dick move to enact laws and regulations you believe in, no matter how misguided they may be. People have sincere differences of opinion on policy, and engaging in the legislative and administrative processes to change those policies are part of our democratic system. The real dick move was by Scott Pruitt, when he tried to stay enforcement of a regulation without having the legal authority to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
After reading the dissenting opinion I think the EPA certainly has a case to do what it did. It's a lot of legalese but this is how I understand the issue, there's three flaws in the majority opinion:
1. The stay was not a "final rule" which means the court did not have jurisdiction to even hear the case. The executive has authority to create temporary pauses in enforcement and the courts can only hear cases of final rulings of the executive. I don't know if this is considered a lack of standing but it se
Re: (Score:2)
The point that Judge Brown was making about finality is that until an agency makes a "final action," a court generally is not authorized by the APA to review the action, that is, a court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. I understand the argument, but it is bogus, because the EPA wasn't authorized in the first place to stay the rule.
Was the EPA authorized to grant a 90 day stay in the first place? The Court answers no. The EPA is only allowed to issue a stay if one of two conditions are satisfied (see 42 [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
What of the EPA authority to define the penalties? Wasn't that part of the regulation? Again, if the EPA is forced to measure methane emissions but has discretion to not impose any penalties then this is not much different then deciding to not even look for violations.
Forgive my ignorance if that is not the case but as I understand it the court can tell the EPA to go out looking but the court cannot tell the EPA to impose penalties if it finds a violation.
It's obvious the EPA is not interested in enforcin
Re: (Score:3)
The EPA does have the authority to define certain penalties, but others are written into the Clean Air Act (CAA) itself. But even if the EPA decides not to enforce the rule itself, once the rule is in place, it can be enforced by others. Why?
Under 1990 amendments to the CAA, any person may file a civil action against any person, including the United States (EPA) for violations of emission standards or limitations, or violation of an order issued by the EPA or a state with respect to such a standard or limit
Re:Regulation, not law, right? (Score:5, Interesting)
Err... there are no senators in congress.
Are you sure about that AC? Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]: The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States consisting of two chambers: the Senate and the House of Representatives. ...
For those who think that Wikipedia is written by left-wing SJW's I will - very reluctantly - quote from Conservapedia [conservapedia.com]: Congress (Congress of the United States) (a word derived from the Latin "congressum", from "congredior", meaning "to come together") is the term for the legislative body of the United States of America, composed of the House of Representatives and Senate. ...
Incidentally, I note with amusement that at the top of that Conservapedia page it says: "This article was last edited in 2014. Some of its information may be outdated" and that immediately following that definition of Congress is: "In the current 112th Congress, the House is controlled by the Republican Party while the Senate is controlled by the Democratic Party." Apparently the contributors to Conservapedia are less interested in updating Conservapedia than in adding news feed items like this currently on the main page: In the News. what the MSM isn't fully covering [conservapedia.com] currently has as a first item "Unplug CNN - and Sesame Street, too. Those two organs are teaming up to spread Islamist propaganda directly to children. linking to ConservativeNewsAndViews [conservati...dviews.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Presidents don't serve more than 8 years. Any rule they (cause to be) enact(ed) will not be a rule they have to enforce. Not for all that long, anyway.
Re:Regulation, not law, right? (Score:5, Informative)
It won't get overturned on appeal. There aren't enough votes at the DC Circuit to overturn this opinion en banc, and I doubt the Supreme Court will want to hear it.
This is a case about the Administrative Procedure Act, about the rule of law. It is not about any lack of democracy. As the Court opinion pointed out, the EPA can engage in the rulemaking process to change or eliminate the rule it adopted. It just can't lawlessly fail to enforce the rule it adopted in the meanwhile.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone should stuff a methane leak up your ass and light it. That would take care of all your problems, and make the world a better place. win/win
Re:Regulation, not law, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong, unless you meant to write "absolute monarchy" instead.
Washington, Jefferson and the rest gave the courts a major role for a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
By getting less votes than the Democrats in the last Presidential AND congressional elections.
Re: Regulation, not law, right? (Score:2)
If Hillary was running to win the popular vote, she was a worse candidate than everyone thought.
Re: Regulation, not law, right? (Score:2)
If only the Dems had gotten it right.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess they should just cut off all enforcement funds. Which is in their discretion.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not what's going on. The EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act to write the rule.
The EPA also has the authority to rewrite the rule without Congress getting involved.
But to do so, the EPA has to follow the rules and procedures that Congress has laid down for rewriting the rule.
That's the problem: Scott Pruitt and the EPA aren't following the rules to do that.
Once a rule is adopted, the EPA has to enforce the rule, even while it is reconsidering or rewriting the rule.
This is to prevent she
Re: (Score:2)
The last thing power plants want is uncertainty in regulations.
Re:Is the rule based on a law? (Score:5, Informative)
And you're completely wrong about this. Agency regulations are, for the most part, governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, the APA. Agencies, like the EPA, have to follow the procedures set out in the APA to write or change regulations they are empowered to create. It isn't at the whim of the current Administration, though administrations do have a lot of control over the process.
The methane rule was adopted by the EPA pursuant to the Clean Air Act, and followed the procedures of the APA for notice, public participation, and comment. It is a validly adopted regulation. It cannot be changed at the will of any administration - a change will require another rulemaking process under the APA, with notice, public participation, and comment. Which the Trump administration has started. That they can do.
But while that rulemaking process is under way, they have no legal basis to delay or stay implementation and enforcement of the rule that was adopted. That's what the case was about. Not about being able to change the rule, but about not enforcing the rule while it is being reconsidered. And the judges did not overstep their bounds at all, since the APA gives them jurisdiction to consider these kinds of disputes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the administration had argued that the EPA had failed to follow the RFA, that would be one thing. But it didn't. It argued that the stay was justified under Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act. And it wasn't. Every administration has to follow the law to change the rules and regulations they do not agree with.
Circuit Court Judges are judges, so Judge Brown's dissent was wrong for a variety of reasons that were detailed in the opinion.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, the Court is ruling on the EPA failing to obey a law called the Administrative Procedure Act. That's the law that lets administrative agencies create regulations under the authority delegated to them by Congress. Those rules/regulations, when properly adopted under the procedures of the APA, then have the force of law, and are essentially laws themselves.
And under the APA, Congress granted jurisdiction to the Courts to review agency action on these rules. So the courts have nowhere overstepped their aut
Re: Time for the judicial to know its place. (Score:2)
That seems very unconstitutional to me. So all Trump would have to do is create the Agency for Laws and Order and whatever rules that agency makes would become law indefinitely without congressional approval?
Re: (Score:2)
The laws under which the EPA issues and enforces rules were created by Congress, and what they can do with those rules is strictly circumscribed by the law. It's not a general lawmaking authority, and Congress has to specifically delegate that rulemaking power to the agency, the President just can't create these agencies completely on his own.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump could not do that, but Congress could. The courts would probably be unhappy about that of course; Congress can delegate their authority (as they do for the EPA, FDA, FCC, and many others), but giving it up wholesale seems sketchy. But Congress could pass that law, and the Trump-boy will sign anything Pence puts in front of him.
Re: Time for the judicial to know its place. (Score:2)
I understand that you can have agencies enforcing laws like the FCC and FAA and they can publish guidelines on how to best follow the existing rules. But it seems the EPA has been given enough leeway to be able to make guidelines that become laws without any oversight. They are using guidelines/rules within their purview to criminalize entire industries which seems a far overreach.
Re: (Score:2)
The EPA has been given plenty of leeway, but also plenty of oversight. Many Supreme Court precedents on the limits of administrative law have had to do with the limits of the authority of the EPA. Congress has had plenty of oversight, and there has been plenty of debate over what the EPA can regulate under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.
If Congress wants to curtail the EPA's abilities, all it has to do is pass legislation and get the President to sign it (or pass over his veto). The EPA's reach extends
Re: (Score:2)
There's actually a Supreme Court doctrine called the nondelegation doctrine that says Congress can't give all of its powers away. Last argued in Mistretta v. United States (1989), the Court's last pronouncement was that "this Court has deemed it "constitutionally sufficient" if Congress clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority."
Re: (Score:2)
Not so easy to make rules.
But Obama blazed the trail, the president can defund enforcement and ignore any rules he doesn't like. They're still 'rules', but nobody cares. 'Enforcement priorities' are within the preview of the executive. Sucked when Obama did it, sucks now, but too late for Ds to complain. They loved this system once.
Re: (Score:2)
President's can't defund enforcement: President Nixon got in trouble for that, and Congress essentially curtailed the President's ability to impound appropriated funds. (See The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974).
Congress can defund enforcement: they have control of the pursestrings.
As for defunding the Clean Air Act rules, it doesn't matter if Congress doesn't fund enforcement. If the EPA doesn't enforce them, citizens can file lawsuits against polluters to enforce the Act. The Clean
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you mourn democracy? Every time you lose your elections you riot and talk about impeachment and murder. Why don't you step out of your hypocrisy and just flat out say that you will never accept the results of an election that doesn't go your way?
Since day 1 of the Trump presidency the sour grapes like you have been "warning us" about fascism and the financial mayhem and the poor people dying in the streets and the world war and the police state, but guess what, so far the only sources of trouble are
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, EVERY single argument you made is demonstrably wrong.
The EPA rulings were not in violation of "the laws on regulations."
This WAS an appeals court. It wasn't the "Ninth Court" (assuming you meant Ninth Circuit).
Re: (Score:2)
He can just cut off all enforcement funds. Like Obama did for rules he didn't like.
Re: Impeach the Judge (Score:2)
Financial consequences are the only reason that the industry stops leaks. It's never out of the goodness of their hearts.
By your logic the methane being leaked that isn't financially worth fixing also must not be that bad for the environment. It doesn't work that way. Even if it doesn't amount to a significant product loss, it still has a major impact on the environment. The financial consequences of the climate change will eventually be enormous, even from leaks that "aren't worth fixing" from a product l
Re: (Score:2)
The financial consequences of the climate change will eventually be enormous, even from leaks that "aren't worth fixing" from a product loss perspective *based on wildly inaccurate climate models that no one believes anymore*. (FTFY) Beyond that, the worst case sea level rise is something like 12 inches. I'm not worried, and you shouldn't be either.
Also, just so you know, it is easily argued that the annual natural methane emission is actually a lot lower since we have a financial use for it and tend to