Skip to main content

View Diary: Huge: SCOTUS upholds EPA efforts to regulate greenhouse gases (131 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm afraid the Title is Indisputably Incorrect (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    6412093, grollen

    the ruling as to which the Court just denied discretionary review -- while important, and a minor victory (though no one really thought Court would take this case) -- had nothing to do with EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases qua greenhouse gases.  All this was was a downward adjustment of the decades old National Ambient Air Quality Standard for sulfur dioxide -- which has been regulated for decades under the Clean Air Act as a local air pollutant.

    A real Supreme Court test of EPA's greenhouse gas rules will come later this year in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, No. 09-1322 (D.C. Cir.), in which the fossil fuel industry and many red states will challenge the Obama EPA's important early efforts to regulate GHGs under the act.  The petitions for certiorari will not be filed until late March, and the Court won't decide whether to take the case until June or late.

    "Save it for 2050." -- Mark Penn (on Obama's electability)

    by throughaglassdarkly on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:00:19 PM PST

    •  Will the "Coalition" (0+ / 0-)

      court case challenge the New Source Performance  Standard for CO2 emissions from power plants?

      Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

      by 6412093 on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:41:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not NSPS (EPA hasn't (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        beach babe in fl

        finalized those yet, and then there will be length litigation in the DC Circuit before any possibility of SCt involvement).

        The CRR case involves a suite of EPA actions -- including the 2009 "endangerment finding" concerning GHGs from motor vehicles (the direct follow-on to Massachusetts v. EPA); as well as the actual vehicle GHG emissions standards themselves; as well as steps EPA took to "tailor" the application of one of the Clean Air Act's stationary source programs ("PSD") to GHG sources, based on EPA's finding that immediate application of the Act to all GHG sources at the low statutory coverage thresholds would be infeasible (a position the environmental community supported because it allowed EPA to apply the Act to larger sources that account for the vast majority of emissions).  A three-judge panel of the DC Circuit unanimously upheld all these EPA actions; and now the huge business/Republican governor/AG coalition will try their luck with SCt.

        "Save it for 2050." -- Mark Penn (on Obama's electability)

        by throughaglassdarkly on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:48:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  OK (0+ / 0-)

          I've been enduring some "tailored" PSD public comment periods for GHG on large sources.  EPA hasn't been too picky about companies' claims their processes are efficient and the best GHG controls available. I hadn't realized the whole regulatory scheme was also under court appeal.

          Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

          by 6412093 on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 12:00:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site