In theory, it seems like the president should be able to veto any rules or regulations that the EPA proposes.
Likewise, it seems the president should be able to impose his own EPA rules and regulations, as long as they have some basis in empirical fact.
Perhaps I need a 9th grade civics lesson on this?
Any guidance will be appreciated.
It all began in 2007 with the case of Massachusetts vs EPA in which SCOTUS ruled that CO2 was a pollutant and EPA should regulate it with the Clean Air Act.
Then senator Obama, then prez Bush, and everyone else agreed that it would be better for Congress to pre-empt EPA and enact legislation to regulate CO2.
They tried that in 2009/2010 with Cap and Trade but for some reason the GOP walked away from the legislation, so Congress failed.
Then Obama/EPA, in 2010, issued their first CO2 regs for new permits and many lawsuits with many plaintiffs were filed. All of the suits were combined into Utility Air Regulatory Group vs EPA and eventually heard by SCOTUS in Feb 2014. SCOTUS, on June 15, ruled almost entirely for EPA, but they did put some limitations on EPA's permitting process. So all the EPA CO2 regs for new permits are in place.
Just prior to this, on about June 1 2014, Obama/EPA would release the CO2 regs for existing permits, and this would be known as the Clean Power Plan. Since then they have been in the comment period and the above article is about the comments that E&E Legal submitted to EPA.
After the comment period ends, in June or soon after, EPA will issue their final rule, after which many lawsuits with many plaintiffs will be filed and that will have to go all the way to SCOTUS for a ruling.
After all the lawsuits are filed, the plaintiffs will go to the DC Court of Appeals and ask for an injunction to stop EPA/Obama from implementing until all the lawsuits can be heard by the courts. If they can get the injunction, they can string it out for many years.
If they can't get the injunction, the EPA/Obama will begin implementing