3 ms·

The EPA was following the statute when it made its carbon ruling. Past actions of the EPA have been similar, though you phrase it as "delegate an entire sector

The EPA was following the statute when it made its carbon ruling. Past actions of the EPA have been similar, though you phrase it as "delegate an entire sector over to an administrative agency," it's exactly what's been done in the past. The only difference this time is that it's CO2 as the pollutant, and fossil fuel interests are extremely politically powerful, and don't like the science that shows that CO2 is a pollutant. That's it. Remember when the ruling happened, and all sorts of people were like "CO2 can't be a pollutant"? This is the outcome of that thought. If EPA did not have this authority, by law, then this would have been challenged on much easier grounds far before. In order for the EPA's actions to be overturned, the court had to overturn the very law itself.

rayiner 4y ago
This ruling has nothing to do with whether CO2 is a “pollutant.” Congress cannot delegate a sector to an agency, because agencies are executive branch entities and the executive branch can’t make laws. Executive branch agencies operate under the fiction that they are merely enforcing laws Congress has created. That’s why Congress can’t delegate agencies the power to make rules with the force of law in an entire sector. It has to be more specific, so that the agency is simply “filling in the details.” And the Clean Air Act is specific. It allows the EPA to fill in the details about pollutants and emissions levels. But it doesn’t give the EPA blanket authority to do whatever is necessary to achieve those targets. It has a detailed menu of measures, such as requiring particular types of emissions control technology on individual plants. In this case the EPA told the entire energy sector to switch away from coal to renewables. That wasn’t on the list of measures available under the Clean Air Act.
- epistasis 4y ago
  > That wasn’t on the list of measures available under the Clean Air Act. There's a whole bunch of wrong rolled up here. The regulations were about how to stop CO2 from polluting the atmosphere. From there, you try to play Senator CS to shift this into some sort of weird "delegating an industry" language. But in the end it was all about regulating CO2. If the EPA had acted outside its authority, in what you term "delegating an industry," lower courts would have said that. Instead, in order to stop the EPA's actions, the Supreme Court had to change the scope of the law that was passed.
  - laverya 4y ago
    > There's a whole bunch of wrong rolled up here. The regulations were about how to stop CO2 from polluting the atmosphere. From there, you try to play Senator CS to shift this into some sort of weird "delegating an industry" language. > But in the end it was all about regulating CO2. The regulations were about how to stop things OTHER than CO2 from polluting the atmosphere without destroying the US economy. Things like Sulfur Dioxide and fly ash. CO2 may fall under the language as written, and it may be appropriate for the EPA to regulate it, but that was not the central example of an airborne pollutant back in the 70s when this was written (Or 90s, when it was amended).

rayiner 4y ago

This ruling has nothing to do with whether CO2 is a “pollutant.” Congress cannot delegate a sector to an agency, because agencies are executive branch entities and the executive branch can’t make laws. Executive branch agencies operate under the fiction that they are merely enforcing laws Congress has created. That’s why Congress can’t delegate agencies the power to make rules with the force of law in an entire sector. It has to be more specific, so that the agency is simply “filling in the details.” And the Clean Air Act is specific. It allows the EPA to fill in the details about pollutants and emissions levels. But it doesn’t give the EPA blanket authority to do whatever is necessary to achieve those targets. It has a detailed menu of measures, such as requiring particular types of emissions control technology on individual plants. In this case the EPA told the entire energy sector to switch away from coal to renewables. That wasn’t on the list of measures available under the Clean Air Act.

epistasis 4y ago
> That wasn’t on the list of measures available under the Clean Air Act. There's a whole bunch of wrong rolled up here. The regulations were about how to stop CO2 from polluting the atmosphere. From there, you try to play Senator CS to shift this into some sort of weird "delegating an industry" language. But in the end it was all about regulating CO2. If the EPA had acted outside its authority, in what you term "delegating an industry," lower courts would have said that. Instead, in order to stop the EPA's actions, the Supreme Court had to change the scope of the law that was passed.
- laverya 4y ago
  > There's a whole bunch of wrong rolled up here. The regulations were about how to stop CO2 from polluting the atmosphere. From there, you try to play Senator CS to shift this into some sort of weird "delegating an industry" language. > But in the end it was all about regulating CO2. The regulations were about how to stop things OTHER than CO2 from polluting the atmosphere without destroying the US economy. Things like Sulfur Dioxide and fly ash. CO2 may fall under the language as written, and it may be appropriate for the EPA to regulate it, but that was not the central example of an airborne pollutant back in the 70s when this was written (Or 90s, when it was amended).