Court blocks Bush changes to Clean Air Act

CBS MarketWatch.com ^ | 12/24/03 | Tim Rostan

[SierraWasp]

12:59PM Court blocks Bush changes to Clean Air Act by Tim Rostan

CHICAGO (CBS.MW) -- A federal appeals court has temporarily blocked the Bush administration's planned revisions to the Clean Air Act. Critics have argued that revisions to the legislation, which was passed in 1963 and revised several times since, would undercut air-quality protections by allowing increased pollution. The challenge to the administration's revisions was initiated by state attorneys general.

[Hunble]

It is finally time that the Judicial branch of the U.S. Government becomes balanced with the other two branches.

There if a formal and authorized method of implementing changes withing the government. It is called a Constitutional Amendment.

The Executive branch is responsible for the enforcement of the laws. Perhaps it is time that the Executive branch begins to ignore and refuse to implement Judicial branch rulings that are not clearly enumerated in the Constitution.

Perhaps, after the land-slide Republican election results of 2004, we will finally see some changes.

[rintense]

Judicial tyranny is the perfect term, although I would trade tyranny for treason. I am so sick of this. It will only get worse.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Where is the administration breaking a law?"

I don't think the administration has been found guilty of breaking the law, but that there's possibily some provision in the Clean Air Act that says challengers to changes in the Act have recourse to the courts if they can demonstrate that those changes will undermine the effectiveness of the Act. But I'm just guessing, because the article doesn't say what the legal basis of the ruling is except in very vague terms. .

[KC_Conspirator]

The 9th circuit ought to be disbanded.

I am sick and tired of the left using their modern day Roland Freiseler's to enact their agenda.

[Carry_Okie]

Bringing suit were attorneys general for 12 states -- Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin -- and legal officers for New York City, Washington, San Francisco, New Haven and a host of other cities in Connecticut.

It is absolutely laughable that San Francisco would be involved since the prevailing winds there come off the Pacific Ocean. They thus do not get downwind pollution from a plant that would require new source review. Virtually all of the electrical power it uses comes from either natural gas or hydro. Neither is the Bay Area in a state of non attainment. I cannot fathom how the city could therefore demonstrate irreparable harm from the proposed change in rules.

My understanding is that areas in non-attainment would still be subject to new source review. So who gets harmed when a plant installs cleaner equipment without upgrading its emissions abatement equipment?

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[SAJ]

No need for an amendment. Article III, Section 2 expressly grants to the Regress the power to regulate the behaviour of appointed U.S. judges.

The question is whether the assorted cartelista idiots currently infesting the Regress will take any action. I'm betting ''no way''.

[snopercod]

...would undercut air-quality protections by allowing increased pollution

How does not upgrading a plant's pollution control equipment "increase" pollution? Is this the same logic whereby a 5% increase in spending becomes a "cut"?

One other thing. When courts stike down what the EPA is doing, the EPA only honors the decision in the district in which the decision was made.

[SierraWasp]

Yup! See my #9 reply, prior to you correction, which was prior to discussion of this actually be the DC district court, etc.

Merry Judicial Christmas, everybody... NOT!!!

[hsmomx3]

Agreed. The 9th Circus strikes again.

[inquest]

I'm still trying to figure out how the executive branch can unilaterally "change" an act of Congress in the first place.

[microgood]

Bringing suit were attorneys general for 12 states

If I were Bush I would make sure next year's budget has plenty of huge cuts for these states. They are probably even using Federal money to sue the Feds.

[dirtboy]

I'm still trying to figure out how the executive branch can unilaterally "change" an act of Congress in the first place.

I would venture that it lies in the process of converting laws into rules. Congress passes a law, and the executive branch develops rules for interpreting that law. Within that framework, there is a certain degree of latitude for adjustments to policy, depending upon the opinions and biases of a given administration.

[inquest]

Then perhaps it was just bad reporting, but the article said he was making changes to the act itself, not just to the manner in which the act is being implemented.

[rudypoot]

Ah, ok. thanks.

[dirtboy]

From the AP article linked above:

EPA proposed the rule in December, the then-acting administrator signed it in August and it was made final in October. It was due to have gone into effect this week.

So it looks like this was done under the guise of a rule change.

[dirtboy]

I wonder what the legal basis for this ruling is?

It appears that they are issuing an injuction. From the AP article:

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an order that blocks the rules from going into effect until the legal challenge from the states and cities is heard, a process likely to last months.

[inquest]

I wonder if "injunction" is the right word. Usually an injunction is an order to refrain from doing something (such as enforcing a particular law or rule). In this case, this appears to be an order not to refrain from doing something - that is, an order against not enforcing a particular rule. I'm not sure what exactly you'd call it, but you seem to know more about how these things than I do. This is getting to be over my head.

[expatpat]

Fortunately, they don't have any police or armies to back up their putsch.

[!1776!]

So it looks like this was done under the guise of a rule change.

Most changes are, and they are happening constantly. The CAA doesn't precisely describe certain aspects so it is up to the implementing agency (the EPA in this case) to precisely describe within the intent provided by Congress.

The rules at issue here publicly revolve around the precise definition of maintenance. Could be monetary based, capacity based, etc., but it is defining what is routine maintenance.

Crossing the line that defines routine maintenance means a unit has to install control equipment. Basically, a plant would have been previously permitted to run a process (burn coal in a boiler) and emit pollution up to a point.

The plant decides to do some work on the boiler to make it more efficient. If this work goes past the definition of routine maintenance then they would have to install the controls no matter if the pollution emitted actually decreased with the maintenence. So the change could result in less pollution but the plant would still have to install additional controls to reduce emissions even more.

Basically it is a dis-incentive to make moderate changes that could have positive environmental results to avoid the possibility of having to spend more on additional controls that you aren't required to have if you keep using the same (less efficient) process.

That is balanced by the potential of some plants continuing to fix really poor (in this case high emitting) equipment just to keep it running when it probably should be scrapped for multiple reasons.