9 ms·

How did that act give carte blanche to the federal government to basically completely commandeer the electricity sector in each state? https://en.wikipedia.org

How did that act give carte blanche to the federal government to basically completely commandeer the electricity sector in each state? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Power_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Power_Plan > The plan will require individual states to meet specific standards with respect to reduction of carbon dioxide emissions.[22] States are free to reduce emissions by various means, and must submit emissions reductions plans by September 2016, or, with an extension approval, by September 2018.[23] If a state has not submitted a plan by then, the EPA will impose its own plan on that state.[23]

epistasis 4y ago
It's not commandeering the electricity sector, it's regulating air pollution. This is not carte Blanche, it was laid out in great detail through the executive authority and extensively documented to be within the authority of the EPA. However, some politicians didn't like this outcome. They didn't have the votes, so they are legislating from the bench. There's no other way to view this. What you call "commandeering" is exactly the same as all the other regulations, like sulphuric oxide for acid rain. It's just that some people have politics that takes precedence over the possible scientific outcomes.
rayiner 4y ago
The Clean Air Act embodies a very specific mechanism. It gives the EPA the power to set emissions limits, but provides that those limits must be based on the capabilities of emissions reduction systems, mainly scrubbers of various sorts. And there’s different levels for new versus preexisting sources. So for a new source, the, EPA can set the limit at a level that can only be achieved with BACT (best available control technology). For an existing source, it can only set the limit at a level achievable by lesser control technology. The thing about CO2 is that there is no control technology you can install on a plant to scrub out the CO2. That would ordinarily preclude the EPA from setting an emissions limit—because it can only set those limits based on what control technologies can achieve. So what the EPA did was say that states could meet the emissions targets by switching from coal to renewable sources, and justified setting an emissions limit on the theory that this was an “emissions reduction system” under the statute.

epistasis 4y ago

It's not commandeering the electricity sector, it's regulating air pollution. This is not carte Blanche, it was laid out in great detail through the executive authority and extensively documented to be within the authority of the EPA. However, some politicians didn't like this outcome. They didn't have the votes, so they are legislating from the bench. There's no other way to view this. What you call "commandeering" is exactly the same as all the other regulations, like sulphuric oxide for acid rain. It's just that some people have politics that takes precedence over the possible scientific outcomes.

rayiner 4y ago

The Clean Air Act embodies a very specific mechanism. It gives the EPA the power to set emissions limits, but provides that those limits must be based on the capabilities of emissions reduction systems, mainly scrubbers of various sorts. And there’s different levels for new versus preexisting sources. So for a new source, the, EPA can set the limit at a level that can only be achieved with BACT (best available control technology). For an existing source, it can only set the limit at a level achievable by lesser control technology. The thing about CO2 is that there is no control technology you can install on a plant to scrub out the CO2. That would ordinarily preclude the EPA from setting an emissions limit—because it can only set those limits based on what control technologies can achieve. So what the EPA did was say that states could meet the emissions targets by switching from coal to renewable sources, and justified setting an emissions limit on the theory that this was an “emissions reduction system” under the statute.