2 ms·

Despite my being very far to the “left” of the Biden Admin on environmental preservation, Kagan’s quoted dissent actually convinced me this was a sound legal ru

Despite my being very far to the “left” of the Biden Admin on environmental preservation, Kagan’s quoted dissent actually convinced me this was a sound legal ruling - even if I’m personally unhappy about the issue at hand. The “best system of emission reduction” from Sec. 7411 is in regards to “standards of practices for new stationary sources” - the definition for a “stationary source” is a few paragraphs down and the broadest it gets is “facility/installation”. Even if you buy the argument that the regulatory authority expands to the entire grid because the concept of a multi-sourced power grid didn’t exist in the 1970s (which doesn’t pass the smell test tbh), the rest of Sec. 111 makes it absolutely clear that “best system” was intended to be in reference to technological advances/upgrades that would make individual plants/buildings less pollutant. Forcing a power generation shift from a coal plant to a hydro plant 40 miles away is definitely out of scope for what’s spelled out in the Act and Congress needs to get off their asses if they want the EPA to have that sort of power. And maybe toss in some funding for nuclear while they’re addressing this whole “best system” thing.

specialist 4y ago
As Justice Kagan's dissent spells out, the Roberts Court majority abandoned its "textualist" principles, and invented this decision's "major questions doctrine" to reach the desired outcome. For my part, I cannot fathom how or why any regulatory state would make a distinction between individual power generator and the overall grid. They're inseparable. Further, under the (never implemented) plan, power shifting was incentivized, earning the generators more ROI. Basically a financial life line for utilities. So why are they complaining? The reason isn't financial or environmental. The ideological reason is the dismantling of the administrative state. By inserting itself into the policy review process, the Roberts Court introduces confusion and delay, ultimately yielding inaction.

specialist 4y ago

As Justice Kagan's dissent spells out, the Roberts Court majority abandoned its "textualist" principles, and invented this decision's "major questions doctrine" to reach the desired outcome. For my part, I cannot fathom how or why any regulatory state would make a distinction between individual power generator and the overall grid. They're inseparable. Further, under the (never implemented) plan, power shifting was incentivized, earning the generators more ROI. Basically a financial life line for utilities. So why are they complaining? The reason isn't financial or environmental. The ideological reason is the dismantling of the administrative state. By inserting itself into the policy review process, the Roberts Court introduces confusion and delay, ultimately yielding inaction.