FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 06/23/2014 9:07:31 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The EPA cannot require that power plants and other facilities seek building or operating permits based solely on the fact of their greenhouse gas emissions, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today. But it ruled 7-2 that any plant (or other stationary source) that already emits impermissibly high levels of other, traditional pollutants can be required to also obtain permits related to greenhouse gas emissions.
The ruling does not affect President Obama’s latest proposed rules for greenhouse gas emissions that would require states to reduce their total emissions by 30 percent. Those rules are still in draft form and are subject to comments and revisions over the next several months.
The Court today held that EPA can require facilities that are already under its permitting authority for other pollutants make use of so-called “the best available control technology” (also known as BACT) to reduce greenhouse gases. but Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, warned the EPA that it should tread carefully in seeking to impose restrictions on such facilities.
“We acknowledge the potential for greenhouse-gas BACT to lead to an unreasonable and unanticipated degree of regulation, and our decision should not be taken as an endorsement of all aspects of EPA’s current approach, nor as a free rein for any future regulatory application of BACT in this distinct context,” Scalia wrote. “Our narrow holding is thatnothing in the statute categorically prohibits EPA frominterpreting the BACT provision to apply to greenhousegases emitted by ‘anyway’ sources.” (By ‘anyway’ sources, he means sources that already are required to seek permits from the EPA due to the emission of other pollutants.)
The divided ruling today amounts to a substantial rebuttal to the EPA’s aggressive move to regulate greenhouse gases, but does little to ease the burden on facilities that emit greenhouse gases.
(Excerpt) Read more at bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com ...
And as if you could not guess....
Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kegan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined in a partial dissent written by Justice Breyer.
It argued that the EPA was right to target sources of greenhouse gas emissions, even if they did not emit traditional pollutants to the extent that they fell under the purview of the Clean Air Act.
Breyer also argued that the EPA was within its authority to tailor the language of its permitting thresholds to make them reasonable for greenhouse gas emissions.
Scalia and the majority rejected that, writing that the changes amounted to given the EPA authority to rewrite the statute.
LOL I love slanted headline writers. SO funny.
Yeah. “struck down part”. If you read numerous articles the EPA will now only regular 83% of emissions instead of 86%.
“Struck down part” Riiiiight I suppose that is technically true.
The EPA needs to stay within the laws as passed by the people through their representatives just like everybody else.
This is a democratic republic, not an oligarchy. See my book at the website in my tagline!
Has no one addressed the fact that the EPA, a non-elected body is passing LAWS? Regulations for which you can be fined or arrested are laws. This, in effect, makes the EPA the equal of Congress. (The same goes for all the other alphabet agencies. They should be required to get Congress to pass and the president to sign new laws.)
Hmmmm. I’m not a stationary source so I guess I’m free to release ghg’s all day long, including, but not limited to, CuhO2. ;>}
All it would take is one heart attack, stroke, cancerous tumor or bus accident to any of the other five to see these four above become the new majority.
What a perilous a time we live in!
So I guess the EPA makes those justices irrelevant.
In other words, due to the man made global warming hoax, the coal fired electric generating industry narrowly escaped, by a vote of 5-4, being shut down in the US. Would have affected the US very negatively economically. Would not have affected greenhouse gas emissions at all, since the plants would have been built and the coal burned, in India, China and developing countries.
Sheer lunacy! Escaped the consequences by a narrow vote!
so “green house gasses “ are not causing any damage and are not pollutants
government and the media created a hoax called global warming and they are shutting down the economy because of it
this proves government and the media are a cancer
abolish the stupid EPA,fda, nasa, gov schools for starters
I sincerely wish that all electric power to Washington DC and in particular to the Supreme Court building would fail due to the stupid decisions by Obama, the EPA and Supreme Court.
May a massive power failure afflict them all in the near future.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
The EPA needs to be undone. It’s rule making authority is unconstitutional.
That’s the way it’s supposed to work.
But I think it's going to be some time before that's going to happen considering the clowns that we have running the show have done nothing to disband one out of control federal agency .
“to dump the Republican party and strike out on the road to bringing forth a new Conservative party”
We need to make the R party more conservative instead.
thin, fragile line?? Can you point me to a point in just the recent past where D.C. has followed our Constitutional Republic bedrock?
Borders wide open, TSA/NSA/EPA/etc., Common Core, Exec. Orders, Welfare/O’Care/SS/etc.
Let alone the SCotUS doing the same? Kelo, O’Care, Affirmative Action....
No Smoking Hot Spot (The Australian)
Those two articles take Greenhouse Theory at face value and by the criterion set up in the theory itself finds no evidence of warming on the basis of greenhouse effect.
Sky-high hole blown in AGW theory?
"Forbes reports on a peer-reviewed study that uses NASA data to show that the effects of carbon-based warming have been significantly exaggerated. In fact, much of the heat goes out into space rather than stay trapped in the atmosphere, an outcome that started long before AGW alarmists predicted:"
That article explains why no Hot Spot has been found.
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Harvard astrophysicist dismisses AGW theory, challenges peers to 'take back climate science'
It Is Impossible For A 100 ppm Increase In Atmospheric CO2 Concentration To Cause Global Warming
Simple Chemistry and the Real Greenhouse Effect.
Those five articles each show that Greenhouse Theory has no basis in reality due to a direct conflict with the known laws of physics. No wonder the smoking gun "hotspot" can't be found.
Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud
That article kills any thought of planetary warming from any cause. Think about it. If there is absolutely no sign of rising sea levels how could the planet be warming? The rise in sea level in the last 100 years is far less than the average over the last 40,000 years caused by the inter-glacial period we are in.
Yeah, you sure got a point there! LOL!!
Still, imagine how bad it would be if we lost Alito, Scalia or Thomas and Obama or Hillary would get to name a replacement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.