3 ms·

TL;DR? My best attempt: The federal law did not give authority to EPA to control the type of energy (fuel) used. It only had authority to set emission guidelin

TL;DR? My best attempt: The federal law did not give authority to EPA to control the type of energy (fuel) used. It only had authority to set emission guidelines.

User23 4y ago
That’s not false, but it really misses some important detail: namely, that generation shifting cannot be a “system of emission re- duction” under Section 111. 985 F. 3d 914, 995. In other words, telling a coal plant operator to reduce their plants emissions by switching some energy production to other sources is beyond the EPA’s legal authority. However, given that you evidently prefer a single (technocratic?) world government I suppose you might welcome the further erosion of the US republic? In that case damn-the-consequences-do-what-I-want is an understandable position to take, even if it’s inimical to the long term health of the republic.
jeffbee 4y ago
That's the gist of it but imagine the logical consequences. What the court is saying is that the EPA has no authority to stop the burning of anything, it only has the authority to apply the best-known commercially viable technology to make the emissions of that burning as clean as can be. So, for example, if you wanted to incinerate lead ingots - and let's just ignore the reasons you'd want to do this for debate purposes - the EPA cannot stop you, because there is no commercially viable (i.e. profitable) technology that would make the emissions any cleaner. Now you may think this is a crazy example but there's an Alcoa facility in Texas that originally burned lignite but long since ran out of the good stuff and has just been burning dirt for decades. It is one of the largest point sources of air pollution in the world, and what the court is saying here is the EPA has not been empowered by Congress to stop that. If Alcoa wants to burn dirt, then fine.
- jschveibinz 4y ago
  The federal government probably sees it like this: one person’s problem is another person’s benefit. Also, the air doesn’t vote.

TL;DR? My best attempt: The federal law did not give authority to EPA to control the type of energy (fuel) used. It only had authority to set emission guidelines.

User23 4y ago

That’s not false, but it really misses some important detail: namely, that generation shifting cannot be a “system of emission re- duction” under Section 111. 985 F. 3d 914, 995. In other words, telling a coal plant operator to reduce their plants emissions by switching some energy production to other sources is beyond the EPA’s legal authority. However, given that you evidently prefer a single (technocratic?) world government I suppose you might welcome the further erosion of the US republic? In that case damn-the-consequences-do-what-I-want is an understandable position to take, even if it’s inimical to the long term health of the republic.

jeffbee 4y ago

That's the gist of it but imagine the logical consequences. What the court is saying is that the EPA has no authority to stop the burning of anything, it only has the authority to apply the best-known commercially viable technology to make the emissions of that burning as clean as can be. So, for example, if you wanted to incinerate lead ingots - and let's just ignore the reasons you'd want to do this for debate purposes - the EPA cannot stop you, because there is no commercially viable (i.e. profitable) technology that would make the emissions any cleaner. Now you may think this is a crazy example but there's an Alcoa facility in Texas that originally burned lignite but long since ran out of the good stuff and has just been burning dirt for decades. It is one of the largest point sources of air pollution in the world, and what the court is saying here is the EPA has not been empowered by Congress to stop that. If Alcoa wants to burn dirt, then fine.

jschveibinz 4y ago
The federal government probably sees it like this: one person’s problem is another person’s benefit. Also, the air doesn’t vote.