Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    5:21 PM

GasBuddy News Article

72
votes
Court strikes down EPA rule on coal pollution

Reuters -- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said in a 2-1 decision that the Environmental Protection Agency had exceeded its mandate with the rule, which was to limit sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants in 28 mostly Eastern states and Texas.

In the latest setback for the EPA, the court sent the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule back for revision, telling the agency to administer its existing Clean Air Interstate Rule in the interim.

"The Obama-EPA continues to demonstrate that it will stop at nothing in its determination to kill coal," said Republican Senator James Inhofe, one of the Senate's most vocal EPA opponents. "With so much economic pain in store, it is fortunate that EPA was sent back to the drawing board."

Coal company stocks... soared. Peabody Energy


Read the Full Article

Submitted Aug 22, 2012 By: DellDude2
Category: Daily News Article Discussions > Topics Add to favorite topics  
Author Topic: Court strikes down EPA rule on coal pollution Back to Topics
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
honda0105
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:21,418
Points:1,939,065
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2012 4:32:01 AM

interesting comments.
Profile Pic
A2J
Champion Author Richmond

Posts:4,672
Points:921,425
Joined:Aug 2011
Message Posted: Aug 24, 2012 10:36:41 AM

below the belt ?
Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:16,352
Points:2,413,640
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2012 9:45:50 PM

nsdp from San Antonio posted...

"Interesting that this court said to do what a different panel from the DC circuit said NOT to do in North Carolina vs EPA. NC vs EPA was the prior appeal of this set of rules. Since a second panel of a Circuit Court Of Appeals cannot over rule or veto a prior panel "Stare Decisis" when the case has previously been denied review by the Supreme Court, today's decision means only that the matter will be referred to an "En Banc" hearing by the DC Circuit. The order denying Cert in NC Vs EPA gives the first opinion and advantage since the Supreme Court saw nothing wrong with the first decision. It was also a unanimous decision while this one is a split decision. So we basically have 4 judges voting against today's decision and only two voting for it. Of the five remaining Circuit judges, four are either Clinton or Obama appointments. I really doubt that today's decision will survive given the odds against it. Unlike the NC panel which issued a mandate (court order) which EPA must obey, today's court cannot issue a mandate due to the split decision and the prior ruling contrary.

Our level of literacy continues to decline."

-----

The true irony in this, is that it was the State of Massachusetts that was the intervenor...

To piggy-back on what nsdp posted.

First, this will be over-turned.

Additional reasons "Why"?

Because it was the prior Supreme Court ruling in 2007 that REQUIRED the EPA to enforce "pollutants" the Clean Air Act.

In its prior ruling, the Supreme Court directed the EPA to enforce pollution standards under the Clean Air Act by identifying whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants, as well as to set standards according to the Act. The NAS and NIH have both identified sulfur dioxide and Nitrous oxide as pollutants - sulfur dioxide contributing to acid rain and Nitrous oxide to ozone/smog pollution.

Second, this Appeallate ruling does not affect the "MATS for power plants" emissions standards, that also covers arsenic, mercury, and Carbon Dioxide emissions. This is largely a matter of semantics by the coal and power utilities industries.

Realize that the EPA only wrote the emissions standards. Determinations of pollutants and toxicity information came from research by the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) and NIH (National Institutes of Health). The EPA used peer review literature in determining which emissions particulates were hazardous to human health, and thus defined as "pollutants", as well as at what levels the pollutants constitute a public health hazard. It then set emissions standards in accordance with those findings.

-----

MASSACHUSETTS et al. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al.

"Based on respected scientific opinion that a well-documented rise in global temperatures and attendant climatological and environmental changes have resulted from a significant increase in the atmospheric concentration of “greenhouse gases,” a group of private organizations petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin regulating the emissions of four such gases, including carbon dioxide, under §202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, which requires that the EPA “shall by regulation prescribe ... standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class... of new motor vehicles... which in [the EPA Administrator’s] judgment cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution ... reasonably ... anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” 42 U. S. C. §7521(a)(1). The Act defines “air pollutant” to include “any air pollution agent ... , including any physical, chemical ... substance ... emitted into ... the ambient air.” §7602(g). EPA ultimately denied the petition, reasoning that (1) the Act does not authorize it to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change, and (2) even if it had the authority to set greenhouse gas emission standards, it would have been unwise to do so at that time because a causal link between greenhouse gases and the increase in global surface air temperatures was not unequivocally established. The agency further characterized any EPA regulation of motor-vehicle emissions as a piecemeal approach to climate change that would conflict with the President’s comprehensive approach involving additional support for technological innovation, the creation of nonregulatory programs to encourage voluntary private-sector reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and further research on climate change, and might hamper the President’s ability to persuade key developing nations to reduce emissions.

Petitioners, now joined by intervenor Massachusetts and other state and local governments, sought review in the D. C. Circuit. Although each of the three judges on the panel wrote separately, two of them agreed that the EPA Administrator properly exercised his discretion in denying the rulemaking petition. One judge concluded that the Administrator’s exercise of “judgment” as to whether a pollutant could “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” §7521(a)(1), could be based on scientific uncertainty as well as other factors, including the concern that unilateral U. S. regulation of motor-vehicle emissions could weaken efforts to reduce other countries’ greenhouse gas emissions. The second judge opined that petitioners had failed to demonstrate the particularized injury to them that is necessary to establish standing under Article III, but accepted the contrary view as the law of the case and joined the judgment on the merits as the closest to that which he preferred. The court therefore denied review...."

.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,533
Points:1,079,100
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2012 9:36:01 PM

President Richard Nixon transmitted Reorganization Plan No. 3 to the United States Congress by executive order and creating the EPA. The order of the wording is the key.
Profile Pic
Martinman
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:16,352
Points:2,413,640
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2012 9:04:19 PM

If you've not dealt with drpeppertx before, he is an ardent supporter of revisionist history...

Practices it every day!

[Edited by: Martinman at 8/24/2012 12:06:37 AM EST]
Profile Pic
gravityhurts
Champion Author North Carolina

Posts:5,597
Points:1,256,335
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2012 3:13:48 PM

already commented about this, I unlike our repeating Gas Buddy, will not repeat myself.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,747
Points:2,534,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2012 12:04:27 PM

drpepperTX - "EPA was created by Executive Order in 1970. Executive order power is only granted to the Executive Branch of government."

The executive order was a reorganization plan that was submitted to Congress in accordance with chapter 9 of Title 5 USC and ratified by committee hearings in the House and Senate.
Profile Pic
sparky808
Champion Author Honolulu

Posts:4,567
Points:912,395
Joined:Sep 2011
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2012 10:20:56 AM

Thank you for posting.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,533
Points:1,079,100
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2012 6:06:14 AM

EPA was created by Executive Order in 1970. Executive order power is only granted to the Executive Branch of government.

[Edited by: drpepperTX at 8/23/2012 9:10:25 AM EST]
Profile Pic
GOBUTLER
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:1,557
Points:627,800
Joined:Dec 2011
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2012 5:56:45 AM

Interesting...
Profile Pic
DrCashFlow
Champion Author Massachusetts

Posts:8,662
Points:1,950,275
Joined:Jun 2008
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 11:54:32 PM

good
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,747
Points:2,534,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 10:48:26 PM

SammyAdams - "The EPA is a lawless agency out of control and with hardly any accountability. It was created by Executive Order (Similar to a mandate by a dictator) and should be abolished altogether."

Actually, it was created with the consent and authorization of Congress and it enforces laws passed by Congress.
Profile Pic
OWENALOTT
Champion Author Appleton

Posts:2,182
Points:500,095
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 10:31:24 PM

Great ruling!
Profile Pic
SammyAdams
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:4,777
Points:1,120,870
Joined:Nov 2010
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 9:16:53 PM

The EPA is a lawless agency out of control and with hardly any accountability. It was created by Executive Order (Similar to a mandate by a dictator) and should be abolished altogether. We do not need an opinion from the Courts at any level. Congress just needs to A-B-O-L-I-S-H this unconstitutional agency.
Profile Pic
Zonk
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:8,101
Points:2,425,365
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 9:11:41 PM

Great ruling!
Profile Pic
rahcat
Champion Author Grand Rapids

Posts:4,315
Points:992,150
Joined:Jan 2010
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 9:04:38 PM

OUTSTANDING!!!!!!!!! Now, defund and ban the EPA!
Profile Pic
pastorpaulcg
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:3,615
Points:776,235
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 9:04:05 PM

Epa overreached? Shocking
Profile Pic
MAC48
Champion Author Dallas

Posts:2,528
Points:1,060,025
Joined:Dec 2006
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 9:03:27 PM

It would be quite appropriate and indeed a wonderful event for the this country and its economy if all EPA rulings since 1990 were repealed.
Profile Pic
jrschl
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:4,619
Points:1,010,265
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 9:02:35 PM

When is the EPA itself going to be struck down?
Profile Pic
EmperorsFinest
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:1,624
Points:383,595
Joined:Jul 2011
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 9:02:06 PM

tubular
Profile Pic
VanIsleLes
All-Star Author British Columbia

Posts:898
Points:329,795
Joined:Jun 2012
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:55:32 PM

Never a dull moment.
Profile Pic
SavALot
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:10,086
Points:2,038,185
Joined:Apr 2005
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:54:04 PM

Keep the skies blue not brown
Profile Pic
nvlkoala
All-Star Author Maryland

Posts:524
Points:445,950
Joined:Jul 2011
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:53:51 PM

cheeper coal to export to india
Profile Pic
bby
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:7,275
Points:1,344,775
Joined:Nov 2009
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:53:26 PM

Ok
Profile Pic
letterchunker
Champion Author Texas

Posts:3,880
Points:975,775
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:52:42 PM

Two things we really need to get rid of soon (November). Obama-EPA
Profile Pic
Chris46
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:31,264
Points:2,402,395
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:52:39 PM

About time somebody did something.
Profile Pic
Alaydown
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:6,596
Points:1,077,485
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:52:01 PM

Hopefully we can change presidents in January too.
Profile Pic
REVLAW
Champion Author San Antonio

Posts:12,101
Points:2,335,735
Joined:Jul 2007
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:51:50 PM

Well, at least one judge had the balls to tell Obama to pound sand. Chief Justice Roberts should take lessons.
Profile Pic
tidalwave3
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:2,081
Points:1,767,590
Joined:Jun 2008
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:45:20 PM

And people still want him for 4 more years, really?
Profile Pic
alchulito
All-Star Author New York

Posts:863
Points:504,705
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:44:32 PM

Alright
Profile Pic
mstearno
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:9,277
Points:2,029,535
Joined:Jan 2008
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:43:15 PM

bout time
Profile Pic
g747
Champion Author Mobile

Posts:6,108
Points:1,245,885
Joined:Jul 2009
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:43:12 PM

About time the brakes be put on the E.P.A.
Profile Pic
NedW
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:7,153
Points:1,443,390
Joined:Mar 2008
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:41:26 PM

There's a sane court in the land!
Profile Pic
WIPACKERFAN
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:10,449
Points:2,171,555
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:40:09 PM

EPA is too big for its britches.
Profile Pic
big_mac64
Champion Author Tennessee

Posts:10,746
Points:1,538,800
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:39:16 PM

EPA is one gov't entity that I wouldn't miss...plus ousting them will save taxpayers lots of $$$$$
Profile Pic
nru
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:4,293
Points:1,310,425
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:38:43 PM

why is it referred to as the Obama EPA - started by Nixon
Profile Pic
phinsup67
Champion Author North Carolina

Posts:5,536
Points:1,294,055
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:37:38 PM

Blah Blah Blah
Profile Pic
suzmar
Champion Author Texas

Posts:3,142
Points:1,177,640
Joined:Jun 2006
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:36:04 PM

The EPA has exceeded its mandate in many areas.
Profile Pic
PetroScopper
Champion Author Houston

Posts:8,252
Points:1,876,540
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:28:07 PM

I guess its back to the drawing board... there will still have to be some changes, its inevitable!
Profile Pic
firefly09
Champion Author San Diego

Posts:3,461
Points:904,870
Joined:Mar 2009
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:26:17 PM

As nspd said, "Our level of literacy continues to decline."
Profile Pic
nsdp
Champion Author San Antonio

Posts:1,118
Points:77,285
Joined:Jun 2012
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:26:10 PM

wayoung56, interesting for the number of mistakes in it.
Profile Pic
mcmonsta
Champion Author Honolulu

Posts:4,720
Points:1,140,305
Joined:Sep 2009
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:24:27 PM

EPA without controls...what a monster
Profile Pic
wayoung56
Champion Author Alabama

Posts:4,345
Points:1,133,960
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:22:18 PM

Interesting article...
Profile Pic
nsdp
Champion Author San Antonio

Posts:1,118
Points:77,285
Joined:Jun 2012
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:18:37 PM

Interesting that this court said to do what a different panel from the DC circuit said NOT to do in North Carolina vs EPA. NC vs EPA was the prior appeal of this set of rules. Since a second panel of a Circuit Court Of Appeals cannot over rule or veto a prior panel "Stare Decisis" when the case has previously been denied review by the Supreme Court, today's decision means only that the matter will be referred to an "En Banc" hearing by the DC Circuit. The order denying Cert in NC Vs EPA gives the first opinion and advantage since the Supreme Court saw nothing wrong with the first decision. It was also a unanimous decision while this one is a split decision. So we basically have 4 judges voting against today's decision and only two voting for it. Of the five remaining Circuit judges, four are either Clinton or Obama appointments. I really doubt that today's decision will survive given the odds against it. Unlike the NC panel which issued a mandate (court order) which EPA must obey, today's court cannot issue a mandate due to the split decision and the prior ruling contrary.

Our level of literacy continues to decline.

[Edited by: nsdp at 8/22/2012 11:24:01 PM EST]
Profile Pic
evey315
Sophomore Author Ohio

Posts:219
Points:230,460
Joined:Feb 2012
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:10:02 PM

rein in the EPA before they get totally out of control
Profile Pic
MJIOWA
Champion Author Iowa

Posts:6,441
Points:1,401,175
Joined:Nov 2009
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:09:45 PM

ok
Profile Pic
itsjustme719
Champion Author Hamilton

Posts:1,691
Points:884,710
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:09:29 PM

Coal shouldn't be used anywhere anymore.
Profile Pic
MG_Sputnik
Champion Author Philadelphia

Posts:8,859
Points:2,285,770
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:09:10 PM

Cool beans.
Profile Pic
Blue48
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,961
Points:1,967,920
Joined:Feb 2007
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:09:06 PM

BANG!
Profile Pic
ratones1
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:3,252
Points:988,360
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:09:01 PM

OKAY...
Post a reply Back to Topics