4 ms·

Requiring Congress to precisely enumerating every possible use of authority indefinitely into the future is by definition limiting the scope of authority that C

Requiring Congress to precisely enumerating every possible use of authority indefinitely into the future is by definition limiting the scope of authority that Congress can delegate. Imagine Congress passes an act next year banning abortion, and creates a new agency to enforce that act. The next year, a new method is invented that can induce abortions. Can that agency regulate it? By the logic of the Court, it can't, because Congress never explicitly authorized regulation of that particular form of abortion (because it didn't exist yet).

lolinder 4y ago
You're still assuming that the Court says Congress needs to enumerate powers. I don't see that. I see the Court saying that Congress didn't explicitly grant broad powers. Do you have a citation that shows that the court is saying that Congress cannot grant broad powers?
- scarmig 4y ago
  You can read the particular text granting the authority here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2013-title42/html/USCODE-2013-title42-chap85-subchapI-partA-sec7411.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2013-title42/html... If you think that isn't a broad, explicit grant of authority to regulate air pollution from stationary sources, I don't know what to tell you. The majority on the decision are basically saying, "well, my gut says they didn't mean that much authority, so we're going to shut down this program."
  - rayiner 4y ago
    The specific delegation is the power to set "standards of performance," which is explicitly defined: "term 'standard of performance' means a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction...." The term "system of emissions reduction" means control technology like scrubbers. What the law says is that the EPA can do is look at the state of the art for things like particulate matter scrubbers, and set an emissions standard based on the reduction that can be achieved using those technologies. But it's infeasible using current technology to scrub out CO2 from power plant emissions.
    - scarmig 4y ago
      > The term "system of emissions reduction" means control technology like scrubbers. So the Majority asserts. The law, however, specifies nothing of the sort and intentionally uses broad phrasing. The plain meaning of "system of emissions reduction" is "a set of measures that work together to reduce emissions" (as the EPA itself points out). And this is consistent with usage elsewhere in the Clean Air Act: in it, Congress refers to a cap-and-trade setup as an "emission allocation and transfer system." Systems clearly can be things that aren't just control technology. The Majority is inventing an arbitrary and unsupported narrow definition of system for ideological reasons.
      - rayiner 4y ago
        Sorry, that’s wrong. The word “system” is obviously broad, but the term “system of emissions reduction” is used within the statute to refer to emissions control technology. Apart from being clear from the individual statutory provisions, that’s the premise of the statute as a whole. The whole idea was that the EPA could limit emissions to the point that existing point sources could go out and buy equipment to meet the emissions criteria. The statute thus talks about BACT versus RACT and LEAR and whatnot. (I took a bunch of classes in environmental law in law school.) If you read “system” to be a nonce word that can refer to any possible measure, then the statute makes no sense. The EPA could just pick an arbitrary emissions limit, and demand industry-level restructuring to hit that limit. That’s exactly what Congress was trying to avoid by imposing that requirement.
        scarmig 4y ago
        (cribbing an argument from the dissent) The statute as a whole clearly delineates between when it means to limit authority to technological systems of control. Elsewhere in different provisions, Congress declined to give the EPA broad authority as it does in 111, using phrasing like "reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of technology." "best available retrofit technology" "best available control technology" "maximum achievable control technology" Congress clearly was conscious of the difference between technological systems and more general ones, and it declined to limit the EPA's authority here to technological systems.
kokanator 4y ago
You should read the whole law. It does limit their ability and has checks in balances of which they have over stepped. It is that simple.[0] The court has stated if they want to extend their authority to the level they are enacting then congress must pass laws to expressly denote that intention. States have rights in the original law. They are exercising this right and the court has agreed with them. I think the last sentence in the original article sum's up why people are truly upset. Remember the court didn't say the EPA can't do these things in the future just that Congress would have to give it the authority. From the original article: "It's now clear this court will turn a sceptical eye to agency attempts to cite vague or broad laws to enact any sort of major regulatory changes. That's a significant development, given how difficult it has been for Congress to pass substantive new legislation in recent years. The time when presidents could find unilateral "work-arounds" in existing law may be coming to an end." [0] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2013-title42/html/USCODE-2013-title42-chap85-subchapI-partA-sec7411.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2013-title42/html...
- scarmig 4y ago
  Congress did explicitly grant that authority to the EPA: particularly it gave the EPA the authority to set "a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction." Where, exactly, are you claiming that the EPA ran afoul of the law?
  - kokanator 4y ago
    "The term "standard of performance" means a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact" Note the portion that states "taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction". This is in the very first paragraph. The argument is that they have not adequately done this.
    - 4y ago

lolinder 4y ago

You're still assuming that the Court says Congress needs to enumerate powers. I don't see that. I see the Court saying that Congress didn't explicitly grant broad powers. Do you have a citation that shows that the court is saying that Congress cannot grant broad powers?

scarmig 4y ago
You can read the particular text granting the authority here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2013-title42/html/USCODE-2013-title42-chap85-subchapI-partA-sec7411.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2013-title42/html... If you think that isn't a broad, explicit grant of authority to regulate air pollution from stationary sources, I don't know what to tell you. The majority on the decision are basically saying, "well, my gut says they didn't mean that much authority, so we're going to shut down this program."
- rayiner 4y ago
  The specific delegation is the power to set "standards of performance," which is explicitly defined: "term 'standard of performance' means a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction...." The term "system of emissions reduction" means control technology like scrubbers. What the law says is that the EPA can do is look at the state of the art for things like particulate matter scrubbers, and set an emissions standard based on the reduction that can be achieved using those technologies. But it's infeasible using current technology to scrub out CO2 from power plant emissions.
  - scarmig 4y ago
    > The term "system of emissions reduction" means control technology like scrubbers. So the Majority asserts. The law, however, specifies nothing of the sort and intentionally uses broad phrasing. The plain meaning of "system of emissions reduction" is "a set of measures that work together to reduce emissions" (as the EPA itself points out). And this is consistent with usage elsewhere in the Clean Air Act: in it, Congress refers to a cap-and-trade setup as an "emission allocation and transfer system." Systems clearly can be things that aren't just control technology. The Majority is inventing an arbitrary and unsupported narrow definition of system for ideological reasons.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      Sorry, that’s wrong. The word “system” is obviously broad, but the term “system of emissions reduction” is used within the statute to refer to emissions control technology. Apart from being clear from the individual statutory provisions, that’s the premise of the statute as a whole. The whole idea was that the EPA could limit emissions to the point that existing point sources could go out and buy equipment to meet the emissions criteria. The statute thus talks about BACT versus RACT and LEAR and whatnot. (I took a bunch of classes in environmental law in law school.) If you read “system” to be a nonce word that can refer to any possible measure, then the statute makes no sense. The EPA could just pick an arbitrary emissions limit, and demand industry-level restructuring to hit that limit. That’s exactly what Congress was trying to avoid by imposing that requirement.
      - scarmig 4y ago
        (cribbing an argument from the dissent) The statute as a whole clearly delineates between when it means to limit authority to technological systems of control. Elsewhere in different provisions, Congress declined to give the EPA broad authority as it does in 111, using phrasing like "reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of technology." "best available retrofit technology" "best available control technology" "maximum achievable control technology" Congress clearly was conscious of the difference between technological systems and more general ones, and it declined to limit the EPA's authority here to technological systems.

kokanator 4y ago

You should read the whole law. It does limit their ability and has checks in balances of which they have over stepped. It is that simple.[0] The court has stated if they want to extend their authority to the level they are enacting then congress must pass laws to expressly denote that intention. States have rights in the original law. They are exercising this right and the court has agreed with them. I think the last sentence in the original article sum's up why people are truly upset. Remember the court didn't say the EPA can't do these things in the future just that Congress would have to give it the authority. From the original article: "It's now clear this court will turn a sceptical eye to agency attempts to cite vague or broad laws to enact any sort of major regulatory changes. That's a significant development, given how difficult it has been for Congress to pass substantive new legislation in recent years. The time when presidents could find unilateral "work-arounds" in existing law may be coming to an end." [0] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2013-title42/html/USCODE-2013-title42-chap85-subchapI-partA-sec7411.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2013-title42/html...

scarmig 4y ago
Congress did explicitly grant that authority to the EPA: particularly it gave the EPA the authority to set "a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction." Where, exactly, are you claiming that the EPA ran afoul of the law?
- kokanator 4y ago
  "The term "standard of performance" means a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact" Note the portion that states "taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction". This is in the very first paragraph. The argument is that they have not adequately done this.
  - 4y ago