4 ms·
> The move largely gives states the authority to decide how far to scale back emissions, or not to do it all, and significantly reduces the federal government’s
by bcheung 7y ago
> The move largely gives states the authority to decide how far to scale back emissions, or not to do it all, and significantly reduces the federal government’s role in setting standards.
> immediately drew a flurry of challenges, with attorneys general in California, Oregon, Washington State, Iowa, Colorado and New York saying they intended to sue to block the measure.
I'm a bit confused here by these 2 statements. Why would states sue, or even have the authority to, when the Federal government is delegating control to the states?
- ethbro 7y agoThere are multiple grounds. A popular approach so far has been to argue the proper process for rule changes hasn't been followed. I'm not sure that applies here, but in many cases there are legal steps to changing regulation. You can't just wake up Tuesday and say "I think stop signs are going to be green." Separately and more applicable in this case, states can argue they're being harmed by this particular set of federal rules. This can further be tied to already-existing law, essentially arguing that a new regulation is incompatible with a law passed by Congress. As an example, the EPA can't simply approve dumping industrial waste chemicals into waterways, because the Clean Water Act says otherwise.