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 ...
Dear liberal thinking minds:
You do realize that these environmental scientists that you whole heartedly ascribe to are no different than the early Christian church bishops, with you being the same as those ancient church members?
You are handed a set of wild conclusions you have no ability to back-check prove but ORDERED to believe them just because they have this holy title of “scientist”.
Where is the chain of custody documentation of the data?
Where is the chain of custody of the calibration records for each and every sensor from which the reading are taken?
Where is the proven documentation that the sensors readers are trained and qualified to do so?
What are the qualification documents for public examination of those manipulating the numbers into statistics?
All of REAL science is about questioning the other scientists findings and processes to further advance the science. Notice I did not say that there is an end to the process.
” - - - - “the best available control technology” (also known as BACT) - - - “
WOW! Now we have a fancy name for what Hitler did in the 1930’s to control Germany!
B. Hussein’s “best available control technology” are the four Gals on the NINE SUPREMRES and their boss Traitor John Roberts.
There were dozens of coal fire plants shut down due to the growing EPA regulations.
Does this Supreme Court ruling prevent a large chunk of our generating capacity from being turned off?
No, I was trying to illustrate there are four ideologues who are clueless on the Supremes. One more Obama appointment, and they can do EVEN MORE damage.
It’s bad enough w/ the 4/5+ that can’t read, nor understand, the common English of our Constitution. (O’Care being the latest/worst....legislating from the bench, never questioning the authority of D.C., etc.)...Most ‘arguments’ begin ~1910, never on any Founders basis.
Like the old adage...pick the names from the phone book, I’d have more trust in.
You are absolutely correct w/r/t negative economic consequences but no real change in actual emissions as just makes the coal more available to India, China and other developing countries while making power use in this country so expensive as to kill domestic manufacturing. But this is the socialists / communists goal - nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with handicapping the U.S. to the advantage of China in particular and others that might also benefit.
Barrack Hussein Obama is a true believer in cutting the US down to size. I have talked to one of his supporters who believes it, too. He just doesn't realize it affects him, his family and friends.
I wouldn't use the Boston, New York City, Washington DC or San Francisco phone book, though... Or Utica, NY.
You’re right. 5-4 the other way destroys one of the few remaining “checks” we have to keep it from going too far.
Not true. In 2007 SCOTUS ruled that CO2 was a pollutant and told EPA to regulate CO2 with the Clean Air Act. EPA is acting on authority of SCOTUS.
This latest decision settles a detail about the permitting process.
As for Congress, they tried to pass Cap and Trade in 2009 that would have pre-empted EPA but failed.
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.