General Discussion

elleng

(130,865 posts) Mon Jun 23, 2014, 12:14 PM Jun 2014

Justices, With Limits, Let E.P.A. Curb Power-Plant Gases.

The Supreme Court on Monday handed President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency a victory in its efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources like power plants.

“E.P.A. is getting almost everything it wanted in this case,” Justice Antonin Scalia said in summarizing the decision from the bench. “It sought to regulate sources it said were responsible for 86 percent of all the greenhouse gases emitted from stationary sources nationwide. Under our holdings, E.P.A. will be able to regulate sources responsible for 83 percent of those emissions.”

The decision did reject the agency’s primary rationale for the regulations. It did not seem to directly affect the administration’s recently announced plans to cut carbon pollution under a different set of regulations.

The regulations challenged in Monday’s decision built on the Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 decision in 2007 in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, which required the agency to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles if it found that they endangered public health or welfare.

----------------------------------------

Headlines can SO skew people's view of the news. Have seen 3 different headlines on this story, in 5 minutes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/us/justices-with-limits-let-epa-curb-power-plant-gases.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=LedeSum&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

2 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Justices, With Limits, Let E.P.A. Curb Power-Plant Gases. (Original Post) elleng Jun 2014 OP

Wait an oil stained minute? The business media is agog at their victory...proving no one in the Fred Sanders Jun 2014 #1

Complex 'decision,' elleng Jun 2014 #2

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)

1. Wait an oil stained minute? The business media is agog at their victory...proving no one in the

Reply to elleng (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 02:05 PM

Jun 2014

media has a clue as to what the ruling means.

I have a crazy idea, what do the experts in the legal field say? What do the actual protagonist say, the ones who have the hired legal experts who were actually in court and actually wrote the massive legal briefs and actually know exactly what it means, shall we:

"The agency expressed satisfaction with the ruling.

“The Supreme Court’s decision is a win for our efforts to reduce carbon pollution because it allows E.P.A., states and other permitting authorities to continue to require carbon pollution limits in permits for the largest pollution sources,” the agency said in a statement.

Another part of the decision rejected, in harsh terms, the agency’s primary rationale for the regulations. The agency had contended it would interpret the Clean Air Act to require regulation of far fewer stationary sources of pollution than the law seemed to require."

elleng

(130,865 posts)

2. Complex 'decision,'

Reply to Fred Sanders (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 05:34 PM

Jun 2014

I understand, as so many 'separate expressions.' NOT a crazy idea, of course, to hear what the 'experts' in the field say. I expect the 'final' answer(s) will be mixed, but at least its good that the agency 'expressed satisfaction.'

Reply to this discussion