50 ms·

Supreme Court limits EPA authority to set power plant climate standards

8 points by notRobot 4y ago

manuelabeledo 4y ago
>"A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body,” Roberts added. Isn't that agency the EPA? This ruling makes no sense. If the EPA cannot enforce environmental protection measures, because the consequences might affect other industries, then we may as well dismantle every federal agency out there.
- elmerfud 4y ago
  You're missing the point of a representative democracy. Under your logic congress could create despot agency and invest all of its congressional powers in to it and never bother actually representing its constituencies. This is not about EPA enforcement of a congressional regulation. This is about the EPA both inventing the regulation and then doing the enforcement of it. Specifically about a large scale impacting regulations and then enforcing. If Congress mandated environmental guidelines that must be met in a timetable and enacted those regulations for the EPA to enforce the supreme Court would have held that as okay. The EPA is not acting with clear delegation from the representative body.
  - manuelabeledo 4y ago
    > You're missing the point of a representative democracy. Under your logic congress could create despot agency and invest all of its congressional powers in to it and never bother actually representing its constituencies. This doesn't make much sense either. Agencies administrators are usually appointed by elected representatives as matter experts. Under the assumption that actions cannot be taken by experts chosen by elected representatives, we should gut every single federal agency out there.
    - edmcnulty101 4y ago
      The EPA is under the executive branch. The executive branch exist to enforce the laws not to create them doesn't matter how expert their administrators are. They don't exist to create the law. Separation of powers.
      - manuelabeledo 4y ago
        I guess we should void all executive orders, then.
        edmcnulty101 4y ago
        I mean executive orders are directives to the executive department. They don't make new laws or aren't supposed to.
        freemint 4y ago
        Do you want the legislative branch to be required to pass a new law every time a new dangerous chemical is found in baby food or elsewhere? There is a reason why the legislative branch gave the executive branch the power to regulate that. That is subject matter experts which are not interested in party politics do a better job at keeping up with relevant research.
        db48x 4y ago
        When Congress creates a government agency, they give it a specific list of jobs to do. Deciding which things are safe to put in baby food is the job of the FDA. The FDA is required to do that job, and no one else is allowed to. It would be unconstitutional for another agency to try. In this case, the job of reducing emissions from power plants was given to the EPA. They have been doing that job for some years, but recently they decided to go beyond their authority and require operators of coal plants to produce less electricity. The operators would only be allowed to generate more electricity if they built or bought solar or wind generation capacity instead. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress never gave them the authority to do that. They can require an operator to install filters and scrubbers that reduce the amount of pollution that they produce, but they cannot require them to serve fewer customers. Imagine if the FDA showed up at your favorite restaurant and told them that they were only allowed to serve 70% of their current customers, unless they served Hungarian borsht to the other 30%. Now it might be a good idea to burn less coal. Coal power has killed more people than any other source, iirc. We should replace all the coal plants with nuclear, in my opinion. But Congress never gave the EPA that job. Only Congress can do that job, or decide to delegate it to an agency. The EPA cannot unilaterally decide to take on any task they want merely because it seems like a good idea. They have to do the tasks Congress gave them, and nothing else.
- tomohawk 4y ago
  Just because it is called the EPA, doesn't mean it is invested with all power to do whatever it thinks is right regarding the environment. Congress delegated some powers that were environment related. If it is important for the EPA to act on these matters, then call your Congress critters and have them pass a law granting more power to the EPA. This ruling is a win for democracy and the rule of law. Relying on novel interpretations of law like this is fragile, and short sighted. It's worth it to get everyone on board instead of trying to pull a fast one. In a democracy, getting everyone on board means getting laws passed.
  - alsaaro 4y ago
    It is important to remember that the Clean Power Plan, the subject of this ruling, was never implemented. They took this case to strike a blow to lay low the EPA, no plaintiff had any standing. It is telling that just this particular iteration of the Supreme Court decided that the EPA lacked this regulatory authority; as early as 2007 a conservative Supreme Court ruled CO2 was a pollutant and compelled the Bush Administration to regulate it as such, even though EPA at the time was loathe to do so, leaving no doubt the power of the EPA to regulate. The EPA's regulatory authority was only ever a question worthy of raising when the Supreme Court's composition changed; conservative judicial radicalism was normalized, hence the ruling. There was no deeper principle behind this ruling.
- codefreeordie 4y ago
  The EPA was created with a specific mandate from Congress. It's authority is limited to that which Congress gave it. If the EPA needs more authority, Congress will.have to pass a law amending it's charter.

8 points by notRobot 4y ago

>"A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body,” Roberts added. Isn't that agency the EPA? This ruling makes no sense. If the EPA cannot enforce environmental protection measures, because the consequences might affect other industries, then we may as well dismantle every federal agency out there.

elmerfud 4y ago
You're missing the point of a representative democracy. Under your logic congress could create despot agency and invest all of its congressional powers in to it and never bother actually representing its constituencies. This is not about EPA enforcement of a congressional regulation. This is about the EPA both inventing the regulation and then doing the enforcement of it. Specifically about a large scale impacting regulations and then enforcing. If Congress mandated environmental guidelines that must be met in a timetable and enacted those regulations for the EPA to enforce the supreme Court would have held that as okay. The EPA is not acting with clear delegation from the representative body.
- manuelabeledo 4y ago
  > You're missing the point of a representative democracy. Under your logic congress could create despot agency and invest all of its congressional powers in to it and never bother actually representing its constituencies. This doesn't make much sense either. Agencies administrators are usually appointed by elected representatives as matter experts. Under the assumption that actions cannot be taken by experts chosen by elected representatives, we should gut every single federal agency out there.
  - edmcnulty101 4y ago
    The EPA is under the executive branch. The executive branch exist to enforce the laws not to create them doesn't matter how expert their administrators are. They don't exist to create the law. Separation of powers.
    - manuelabeledo 4y ago
      I guess we should void all executive orders, then.
      - edmcnulty101 4y ago
        I mean executive orders are directives to the executive department. They don't make new laws or aren't supposed to.
        freemint 4y ago
        Do you want the legislative branch to be required to pass a new law every time a new dangerous chemical is found in baby food or elsewhere? There is a reason why the legislative branch gave the executive branch the power to regulate that. That is subject matter experts which are not interested in party politics do a better job at keeping up with relevant research.
        db48x 4y ago
        When Congress creates a government agency, they give it a specific list of jobs to do. Deciding which things are safe to put in baby food is the job of the FDA. The FDA is required to do that job, and no one else is allowed to. It would be unconstitutional for another agency to try. In this case, the job of reducing emissions from power plants was given to the EPA. They have been doing that job for some years, but recently they decided to go beyond their authority and require operators of coal plants to produce less electricity. The operators would only be allowed to generate more electricity if they built or bought solar or wind generation capacity instead. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress never gave them the authority to do that. They can require an operator to install filters and scrubbers that reduce the amount of pollution that they produce, but they cannot require them to serve fewer customers. Imagine if the FDA showed up at your favorite restaurant and told them that they were only allowed to serve 70% of their current customers, unless they served Hungarian borsht to the other 30%. Now it might be a good idea to burn less coal. Coal power has killed more people than any other source, iirc. We should replace all the coal plants with nuclear, in my opinion. But Congress never gave the EPA that job. Only Congress can do that job, or decide to delegate it to an agency. The EPA cannot unilaterally decide to take on any task they want merely because it seems like a good idea. They have to do the tasks Congress gave them, and nothing else.
tomohawk 4y ago
Just because it is called the EPA, doesn't mean it is invested with all power to do whatever it thinks is right regarding the environment. Congress delegated some powers that were environment related. If it is important for the EPA to act on these matters, then call your Congress critters and have them pass a law granting more power to the EPA. This ruling is a win for democracy and the rule of law. Relying on novel interpretations of law like this is fragile, and short sighted. It's worth it to get everyone on board instead of trying to pull a fast one. In a democracy, getting everyone on board means getting laws passed.
- alsaaro 4y ago
  It is important to remember that the Clean Power Plan, the subject of this ruling, was never implemented. They took this case to strike a blow to lay low the EPA, no plaintiff had any standing. It is telling that just this particular iteration of the Supreme Court decided that the EPA lacked this regulatory authority; as early as 2007 a conservative Supreme Court ruled CO2 was a pollutant and compelled the Bush Administration to regulate it as such, even though EPA at the time was loathe to do so, leaving no doubt the power of the EPA to regulate. The EPA's regulatory authority was only ever a question worthy of raising when the Supreme Court's composition changed; conservative judicial radicalism was normalized, hence the ruling. There was no deeper principle behind this ruling.
codefreeordie 4y ago
The EPA was created with a specific mandate from Congress. It's authority is limited to that which Congress gave it. If the EPA needs more authority, Congress will.have to pass a law amending it's charter.