Supreme Court hands major EPA victory to Obama administration
Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS
The ruling marks an important step to reducing power plant pollution. Scalia and Thomas (predictably) dissented
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court has given the Environmental Protection Agency an important victory in its effort to reduce power plant pollution that contributes to unhealthy air in neighboring states.
The courts 6-2 decision Tuesday means that a rule adopted by EPA in 2011 to limit emissions from plants in more than two-dozen Midwestern and Southern states can take effect. The pollution drifts into the air above states along the Atlantic Coast and the EPA has struggled to devise a way to control it.
Power companies and several states sued to block the rule from taking effect, and a federal appeals court in Washington agreed with them in 2012.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the courts majority opinion. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
###
Read more: http://www.salon.com/2014/04/29/supreme_court_hands_major_epa_victory_to_obama_administration/
Stuart G
(38,436 posts)rwsanders
(2,606 posts)will congress fund the EPA so that enforcement is viable?
or pass it to the states who shield polluters?
http://grist.org/cities/decades-old-pollution-loophole-still-burns-the-poor-people-of-color/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Daily%2520April%252028&utm_campaign=daily
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Scalia and Thomas are the dissenters, Alito did not participate in the decision,
eppur_se_muova
(36,269 posts)it makes no sense to have lenient pollution laws in one state when the pollution is free to wander across borders into other states -- or countries.
Whatever anyone dumps, everyone breathes or drinks.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)There were several items in this appeal, but only two of the three items the court ruled on were is dispute.
1. They is no dispute between the Majority and the Dissent over that this case was ripe for a decision.
2. The Second issue was the use of "Cost Benefit" analysis by the EPA to set up the "Transport rule" as to which upstate polluter was to reduce pollution that drifts into another state. The Majority found this was permissible for HOW the EPA was to handle muliti-state pollution since such situation was NOT address in the Clean Air Act and thus the EPA thus had the right to adopt a "Cost Benefit" analysis when it came to which up state polluter was to cut back pollution. The Dissent said this was WRONG, the ACC has its own provision and that is one or proportion of pollution that drift into another state and thus the use of "Cost Benefit" analysis was improper (Yes, Scalia was advocating that "Cost Benefit" analysis NOT be used when it comes to Pollution).
3. Was it an abuse of discretion by the EPA when it adopted a rule that once a State plan had been rejected, the EPA could issue its own rule as to such interstate pollution. Here the Majority said, not, such a rule was within the powers of the EPA under the Clean Air Act (ACC). the Dissent's position was it was an abuse of discretion for the Clean Air Act (ACC) clearly makes the primary controller of pollution the State and Local Government, not the Federal Government and as such great discretion must be given to the States when it comes to plans to reduce pollution within their state.
The Majority position:
In sum, we hold that the CAA does not command that States be given a second opportunity to file a SIP after EPA has quantified the States interstate pollution obligations. We further conclude that the Good Neighbor Provision does not require EPA to disregard costs and consider exclusively each upwind States physically proportionate responsibility for each downwind air quality problem. EPAs cost-effective allocation of emission reductions among upwind States, we hold, is a permissible, workable, and equitable interpretation of the Good Neighbor Provision.
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The Dissents position:
calimary
(81,322 posts)Pleasantly surprised, but surprised nonetheless. Considering THIS kangaroo court. Too lowlife even to be called a kangaroo court. How 'bout a stinkbug court?
With apologies to stinkbugs everywhere, of course.
Maybe cow-pie court would be more fitting?