I am confused by the responses here.
This lawsuit, if allowed to continue, would have established that individual States can sue “carbon emitters” (i.e. energy production) in other States based upon a rather dubious claim of harm to the citizens of their State.
Striking down this case is the right thing to do.
Acknowledging the EPA isn’t, but as a mechanism Congress has put in place to regulate interstate commerce such that State A cannot sue to halt energy production in State B, it seems to fit the bill.
This lawsuit, if allowed to continue, would have established that individual States can sue “carbon emitters” (i.e. energy production) in other States based upon a rather dubious claim of harm to the citizens of their State.
Striking down this case is the right thing to do.
Acknowledging the EPA isn’t, but as a mechanism Congress has put in place to regulate interstate commerce such that State A cannot sue to halt energy production in State B, it seems to fit the bill.
That's the way I read it as well. I don't understand the responses on this thread either. As you said, striking down this case seems to be the correct course of action. Either people didn't read the article, or I am missing something.
Sounds about right. Commentors on this thread above you seem to think that this gives more power to the EPA, but that is an entirely different problem. We certainly do not want Massachusetts dictating how we produce power in Virginia.
“I am confused by the responses here.”
“This lawsuit, if allowed to continue, would have established that individual States can sue “carbon emitters” (i.e. energy production) in other States based upon a rather dubious claim of harm to the citizens of their State.
Striking down this case is the right thing to do.”