SCOTUS has released its opinion in West Virginia v. EPA - 6-3 in favor of striking down a bunch of EPA’s regulations on energy generation and carbon emissions as exceeding their authority under the Clean Air Act:
Possibly a very good decision for the fortunes of utilities that rely on fossil fuels - although the specific regulations being debated weren’t actually in force at the time, the Court is pretty clear that the existing statutory language of the CAA doesn’t give EPA as broad authority to regulation the energy sector as they have previously tried to do.
This is bad news for the climate. But worse, a friend believes the way this was ruled could have very far reaching consequences (on purpose) well beyond the EPA. “The real impact of this ruling is the biggest of all. Maybe it’s why they saved it for last. This basically says the federal legislature can’t delegate to any other authority. Thus EVERY federal agency is now impotent.” I think he is exaggerating (he usually does not however). But I fear this is going to cascade in ways we don’t know yet.
This basically says the federal legislature can’t delegate to any other authority. Thus EVERY federal agency is now impotent.
It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. In this case, for example, Congress could pass legislation that gives the EPA the authority to devise regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
This is bad news for the climate. But worse, a friend believes the way this was ruled could have very far reaching consequences (on purpose) well beyond the EPA. “The real impact of this ruling is the biggest of all. Maybe it’s why they saved it for last. This basically says the federal legislature can’t delegate to any other authority. Thus EVERY federal agency is now impotent.” I think he is exaggerating (he usually does not however). But I fear this is going to cascade in ways we don’t know yet.
I think it’s certainly true that this decision has implications beyond just EPA’s authority under the CAA. But I also think it’s an exaggeration to say that every federal agency is now impotent. Congress can still task agencies with drafting rules to more specifically implement statutory provisions. However, SCOTUS is going to look with a gimlet eye whether the agencies are going beyond what Congress’ enactments authorize them to do.
Congress can still task agencies with drafting rules to more specifically implement statutory provisions. However, SCOTUS is going to look with a gimlet eye whether the agencies are going beyond what Congress’ enactments authorize them to do.
The problem is that 60% of Congress has to agree as to what is to be allowed. Regardless of which party is in power, the likelihood that any major initiative will garner this sort of supermajority is becoming ever more doubtful as political polarization continues.
The current demographic make-up of the Supreme Court does not proportionally match our nation’s from the standpoint of religion, race, sex or political affiliation. It’s recent interpretation of the law has differed significantly from the courts in the past to the extent that they are writing their own legislation. This is not an original idea, but they are “delegislation” both the decisions of previous Courts as well as those of Congress.
The problem is that 60% of Congress has to agree as to what is to be allowed. Regardless of which party is in power, the likelihood that any major initiative will garner this sort of supermajority is becoming ever more doubtful as political polarization continues.
Regardless of whether that’s true, SCOTUS is clearly signaling that the Executive isn’t going to be able to use past legislative enactments as an authorization for major initiatives that can’t get through Congress. From a larger level, that may involve some retrenchment in areas where a lot of substantive rules have been adopted through regulation, rather than being grounded on specific legislation. Adjust your expectations for economic and business impacts accordingly.
The problem is that 60% of Congress has to agree as to what is to be allowed.
Ahh. Limited to what a lot of the elected officials want.
The current demographic make-up of the Supreme Court does not proportionally match our nation’s from the standpoint of religion, race, sex or political affiliation.
There is no quota system for jurists.
It’s recent interpretation of the law has differed significantly from the courts in the past…
“The current demographic make-up of the Supreme Court does not proportionally match our nation’s from the standpoint of religion, race, sex or political affiliation.”
Nor is there any reason why it should be.
You want jurists who will determine if a law (or regulation) has a Constitutional basis.
If people want to change the Constitution they do that through the Amendment process - where 3/4 of the states must each agree to ratify it.
Our government is a Constitutional Republic…not a ‘democracy’ where the mob rules and the rights of the minorities can be eliminated (or those folks voted off the island, literally - deport them).
What powers specifically NOT given to the Federal government is reserved for the states. After all, we are the UNITED STATES of America. Each state has it’s own Constitution (or equivalent) and own laws. Issues it’s own drivers licenses, hunting licenses, car registrations, boat registrations, etc.
There has been a debate for years. CO2 is naturally occurring, so is it a pollutant within the remit of the CAA and EPA? Yes, it can be added to the EPA’s remit, by act of Congress, but, would such legislation stand a chance against the wave of “protected free speech” arrayed against it?
Why does Shinyland have vehicle fuel economy standards?
The agency projects the final standards will save consumers nearly $1,400 in total fuel expenses over the lifetimes of vehicles produced in these model years and avoid the consumption of about 234 billion gallons of gas between model years 2030 to 2050. The agency also projects the standards will cut greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, reduce air pollution, and reduce the country’s dependence on oil.
If NHTSA does not have authority to regulate GHGs, and there no real oil “shortage”, the only reasons are more a matter of consumer choice. If consumers want to spend more on fuel, they want to burn more oil, is it within the NHTSA’s remit to deny them “freeedom” without “due process of law”?
Note: I am not advocating for this viewpoint, only observing what is possible.
Possibly a very good decision for the fortunes of utilities that rely on fossil fuels - although the specific regulations being debated weren’t actually in force at the time, the Court is pretty clear that the existing statutory language of the CAA doesn’t give EPA as broad authority to regulation the energy sector as they have previously tried to do.
That is the wrong conclusion for the rest of America and the world. The Supremes have made three horrible decisions in last few weeks. Their decisions have not been based on science or the betterment of human conditions based on known dangers. They are obviously in the pockets of fossil fuel industry, religious groups, and gun groups.
It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. In this case, for example, Congress could pass legislation that gives the EPA the authority to devise regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
But that is not as easy as you say. The Republicans are adamant that agencies like the EPA, NRC, FDA, ATF, SSA and all the others federal agencies should not be given so much authority to devise regulations and enforce them. They are demanding that regulations must come from Congress. Yes it sounds ridiculous but it is true.
They are demanding that regulations must come from Congress.
Congress makes the laws but they are not set up to do all the regulation making that is needed to implement those laws. That’s a ridiculous idea. But if you are a libertarian who believes the best government is no government, then maybe that is an idea you like. But like most things libertarians espouse, it would be a disaster for a modern democracy.
There has been a debate for years. CO2 is naturally occurring, so is it a pollutant within the remit of the CAA and EPA?
This case didn’t involve that question. The decision isn’t based on whether EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, but rather whether the specific regulatory framework they created under the Clean Power Plan fell within the ambit of the type of regulations that Congress authorized them to adopt.
As an aside, many pollutants (like arsenic, for example) are “naturally occurring.” That doesn’t mean they’re not pollutants.
Why does Shinyland have vehicle fuel economy standards?
I’ve seen you use that term before, without explanation What is “Shinyland”?
There has been a debate for years. CO2 is naturally occurring, so is it a pollutant within the remit of the CAA and EPA? Yes, it can be added to the EPA’s remit, by act of Congress, but, would such legislation stand a chance against the wave of “protected free speech” arrayed against it?
The Supreme Court has previously ruled that CO2 is a pollutant and can be regulated under the CAA. My understanding is the issue was with how EPA proposed to regulate it, which in the court’s opinion exceeded EPA’s authority under the CAA. I’ve read a couple explanations about the nuances, but I don’t fully understand them.
Jaak:“That is the wrong conclusion for the rest of America and the world. The Supremes have made three horrible decisions in last few weeks. Their decisions have not been based on science or the betterment of human conditions based on known dangers. They are obviously in the pockets of fossil fuel industry, religious groups, and gun groups.”
The Supreme Court doesn’t deal with ‘science’ or ‘betterment of human condition’. That is up to Congress to make the appropriate laws that contain specific rules that delegate specific power to the ‘regulatory’ agencies which are part of the Executive Branch.
The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA cannot use powers that were not specifically given to them by the legislation. They can’t ‘expand’ their mission.
No, they are in no one’s pockets.
If you don’t like the laws, let your Congress person know and if there is enough consensus there to pass SPECIFIC legislation that doesn’t violate the Constitution, great.
It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. In this case, for example, Congress could pass legislation that gives the EPA the authority to devise regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions. — But that is not as easy as you say.
Not sure I said it was easy, but rather it wasn’t all or nothing.
The Republicans are adamant that agencies like the EPA, NRC, FDA, ATF, SSA and all the others federal agencies should not be given so much authority to devise regulations and enforce them. They are demanding that regulations must come from Congress.
The court was saying the EPA had overstepped its limits. In an earlier case it also said the CDC and executive branch had overstepped when it put in place an eviction moratorium. The regulations and details are left to the agencies; the scope is determined by Congress.
For example, the EPA can limit the various emissions from a power plant. It can’t, however, instigate a cap-and-trade system. California has a cap-and-trade system. It was authorized in 2017 through legislation by the state legislature and signed into law by the governor. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/cap-and-trade-progr…
No such equivalent law exists at the national level.
Congress makes the laws but they are not set up to do all the regulation making that is needed to implement those laws. That’s a ridiculous idea.
So how about the regulatory agencies draft the regulations and see if they can find some Congressfolk willing to sponsor them so Congress can vote on them?
(Can we please also have an office comparable to the CBO, but focused on how laws & regulations can be abused?)
But if you are a libertarian who believes the best government is no government
But if you are a libertarian who believes the best government is no government
That’s an anarchist, not a libertarian.
In the beginning anarchists were to the right of libertarians wanting no government but to the left believing in collective economics. The very early anarchists had an individualist philosophy quite similar to Ayn Rand but in the end the movement was taken over by Karl Marx. If it worked I would be an anarchist but it does not work in practice. The extremes aren’t practical, they aren’t pragmatic.
To find out about Anarchism I recommend
No Gods No Masters: An Anthology of Anarchism Paperback – Unabridged, July 1, 2005
The first English translation of Guérin’s monumental anthology of anarchism, published here in one volume. It details a vast array of unpublished documents, letters, debates, manifestos, reports, impassioned calls-to-arms and reasoned analysis; the history, organization and practice of the movement—its theorists, advocates and activists; the great names and the obscure, towering legends and unsung heroes.
This definitive anthology portrays anarchism as a sophisticated ideology whose nuances and complexities highlight the natural desire for freedom in all of us. The classical texts will re-establish anarchism as both an intellectual and practical force to be reckoned with. Includes writings by Emma Goldman, Kropotkin, Berkman, Bakunin, Proudhon, and Malatesta.
I’ve seen you use that term before, without explanation What is “Shinyland”?
“Shinyland”, like “JC” is shorthand. It grew from the narratives of “American exceptionalism” and “The shining city on a hill”, with generous servings of sarcasm. The narratives don’t seem to fit with a country where corporations are people, where it is officially legal to bribe elected officials, and where the PE business model of bleeding a company into bankruptcy for personal profit is not fraud, to name a few. Therefore, I poke at the Orwellian nature of the narratives that are used to endorse how things work here. Corrupt government is “shiny”. Corrupt business practices are “shiny”. And the cesspool where these are acceptable practices is “Shinyland”.