GasBuddy Blog

GasBuddy News Article

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

Back To News

Category: Daily News Article Discussions > Topics	Add to favorite topics

Author	Topic: Court strikes down EPA rule on coal pollution	Post a Reply Back to Topics

REPLIES (newest first)Ignore Short Messages

First

Next Last

honda0105 Champion Author Tallahassee Posts:18,643 Points:1,611,470 Joined:Nov 2008	Message Posted: Aug 26, 2012 4:32:01 AM Ignore honda0105 Report Abuse interesting comments.
A2J Champion Author Richmond Posts:3,085 Points:604,900 Joined:Aug 2011	Message Posted: Aug 24, 2012 10:36:41 AM Ignore A2J Report Abuse below the belt ?
Martinman Champion Author Mississippi Posts:14,744 Points:2,094,805 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Aug 23, 2012 9:45:50 PM Ignore Martinman Report Abuse 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...." .
drpepperTX Champion Author Texas Posts:8,953 Points:754,120 Joined:Apr 2011	Message Posted: Aug 23, 2012 9:36:01 PM Ignore drpepperTX Report Abuse 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.
Martinman Champion Author Mississippi Posts:14,744 Points:2,094,805 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Aug 23, 2012 9:04:19 PM Ignore Martinman Report Abuse 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]
gravityhurts Champion Author North Carolina Posts:4,103 Points:939,455 Joined:Sep 2008	Message Posted: Aug 23, 2012 3:13:48 PM Ignore gravityhurts Report Abuse already commented about this, I unlike our repeating Gas Buddy, will not repeat myself.
rjhenn Champion Author Des Moines Posts:22,459 Points:2,231,875 Joined:Aug 2005	Message Posted: Aug 23, 2012 12:04:27 PM Ignore rjhenn Report Abuse 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.
sparky808 Champion Author Honolulu Posts:3,013 Points:600,660 Joined:Sep 2011	Message Posted: Aug 23, 2012 10:20:56 AM Ignore sparky808 Report Abuse Thank you for posting.
drpepperTX Champion Author Texas Posts:8,953 Points:754,120 Joined:Apr 2011	Message Posted: Aug 23, 2012 6:06:14 AM Ignore drpepperTX Report Abuse 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]
GOBUTLER Champion Author Indianapolis Posts:1,425 Points:391,035 Joined:Dec 2011	Message Posted: Aug 23, 2012 5:56:45 AM Ignore GOBUTLER Report Abuse Interesting...
DrCashFlow Champion Author Massachusetts Posts:7,075 Points:1,629,095 Joined:Jun 2008	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 11:54:32 PM Ignore DrCashFlow Report Abuse good
rjhenn Champion Author Des Moines Posts:22,459 Points:2,231,875 Joined:Aug 2005	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 10:48:26 PM Ignore rjhenn Report Abuse 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.
OWENALOTT Champion Author Appleton Posts:2,182 Points:500,095 Joined:Apr 2011	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 10:31:24 PM Ignore OWENALOTT Report Abuse Great ruling!
SammyAdams Champion Author Tallahassee Posts:3,061 Points:794,535 Joined:Nov 2010	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 9:16:53 PM Ignore SammyAdams Report Abuse 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.
Zonk Champion Author Michigan Posts:6,491 Points:2,104,715 Joined:Oct 2005	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 9:11:41 PM Ignore Zonk Report Abuse Great ruling!
rahcat Champion Author Grand Rapids Posts:2,478 Points:664,900 Joined:Jan 2010	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 9:04:38 PM Ignore rahcat Report Abuse OUTSTANDING!!!!!!!!! Now, defund and ban the EPA!
pastorpaulcg Champion Author Virginia Posts:3,615 Points:775,785 Joined:Dec 2010	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 9:04:05 PM Ignore pastorpaulcg Report Abuse Epa overreached? Shocking
MAC48 Champion Author Dallas Posts:1,550 Points:768,650 Joined:Dec 2006	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 9:03:27 PM Ignore MAC48 Report Abuse 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.
jrschl Champion Author Louisville Posts:2,977 Points:683,015 Joined:Jun 2011	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 9:02:35 PM Ignore jrschl Report Abuse When is the EPA itself going to be struck down?
EmperorsFinest Champion Author Chicago Posts:1,564 Points:340,870 Joined:Jul 2011	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 9:02:06 PM Ignore EmperorsFinest Report Abuse tubular
VanIsleLes All-Star Author British Columbia Posts:898 Points:278,495 Joined:Jun 2012	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:55:32 PM Ignore VanIsleLes Report Abuse Never a dull moment.
SavALot Champion Author Virginia Beach Posts:8,479 Points:1,713,560 Joined:Apr 2005	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:54:04 PM Ignore SavALot Report Abuse Keep the skies blue not brown
nvlkoala Sophomore Author Maryland Posts:198 Points:249,900 Joined:Jul 2011	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:53:51 PM Ignore nvlkoala Report Abuse cheeper coal to export to india
bby Champion Author Twin Cities Posts:5,734 Points:1,023,870 Joined:Nov 2009	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:53:26 PM Ignore bby Report Abuse Ok
letterchunker Champion Author Texas Posts:2,245 Points:667,675 Joined:Aug 2008	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:52:42 PM Ignore letterchunker Report Abuse Two things we really need to get rid of soon (November). Obama-EPA
Chris46 Champion Author Dayton Posts:23,705 Points:2,083,515 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:52:39 PM Ignore Chris46 Report Abuse About time somebody did something.
Alaydown Champion Author Los Angeles Posts:5,126 Points:824,595 Joined:May 2007	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:52:01 PM Ignore Alaydown Report Abuse Hopefully we can change presidents in January too.
REVLAW Champion Author San Antonio Posts:10,445 Points:2,009,195 Joined:Jul 2007	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:51:50 PM Ignore REVLAW Report Abuse Well, at least one judge had the balls to tell Obama to pound sand. Chief Justice Roberts should take lessons.
tidalwave3 Champion Author Tallahassee Posts:1,308 Points:1,465,580 Joined:Jun 2008	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:45:20 PM Ignore tidalwave3 Report Abuse And people still want him for 4 more years, really?
alchulito All-Star Author New York Posts:863 Points:504,705 Joined:Dec 2010	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:44:32 PM Ignore alchulito Report Abuse Alright
mstearno Champion Author Dayton Posts:8,075 Points:1,733,165 Joined:Jan 2008	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:43:15 PM Ignore mstearno Report Abuse bout time
g747 Champion Author Mobile Posts:4,551 Points:935,620 Joined:Jul 2009	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:43:12 PM Ignore g747 Report Abuse About time the brakes be put on the E.P.A.
NedW Champion Author Indianapolis Posts:5,625 Points:1,144,195 Joined:Mar 2008	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:41:26 PM Ignore NedW Report Abuse There's a sane court in the land!
WIPACKERFAN Champion Author Chicago Posts:8,814 Points:1,845,400 Joined:Aug 2005	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:40:09 PM Ignore WIPACKERFAN Report Abuse EPA is too big for its britches.
big_mac64 Champion Author Tennessee Posts:10,593 Points:1,485,690 Joined:May 2005	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:39:16 PM Ignore big_mac64 Report Abuse EPA is one gov't entity that I wouldn't miss...plus ousting them will save taxpayers lots of $$$$$
nru Champion Author Twin Cities Posts:1,758 Points:985,105 Joined:Feb 2006	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:38:43 PM Ignore nru Report Abuse why is it referred to as the Obama EPA - started by Nixon
phinsup67 Champion Author North Carolina Posts:5,365 Points:1,179,880 Joined:Oct 2005	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:37:38 PM Ignore phinsup67 Report Abuse Blah Blah Blah
suzmar Champion Author Texas Posts:2,213 Points:873,785 Joined:Jun 2006	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:36:04 PM Ignore suzmar Report Abuse The EPA has exceeded its mandate in many areas.
PetroScopper Champion Author Houston Posts:6,632 Points:1,551,925 Joined:Aug 2008	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:28:07 PM Ignore PetroScopper Report Abuse I guess its back to the drawing board... there will still have to be some changes, its inevitable!
firefly09 Champion Author San Diego Posts:2,497 Points:716,700 Joined:Mar 2009	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:26:17 PM Ignore firefly09 Report Abuse As nspd said, "Our level of literacy continues to decline."
nsdp Champion Author San Antonio Posts:1,117 Points:47,340 Joined:Jun 2012	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:26:10 PM Ignore nsdp Report Abuse wayoung56, interesting for the number of mistakes in it.
mcmonsta Champion Author Honolulu Posts:3,232 Points:820,270 Joined:Sep 2009	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:24:27 PM Ignore mcmonsta Report Abuse EPA without controls...what a monster
wayoung56 Champion Author Alabama Posts:2,815 Points:821,260 Joined:Oct 2006	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:22:18 PM Ignore wayoung56 Report Abuse Interesting article...
nsdp Champion Author San Antonio Posts:1,117 Points:47,340 Joined:Jun 2012	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:18:37 PM Ignore nsdp Report Abuse 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]
evey315 Sophomore Author Ohio Posts:219 Points:210,810 Joined:Feb 2012	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:10:02 PM Ignore evey315 Report Abuse rein in the EPA before they get totally out of control
MJIOWA Champion Author Iowa Posts:4,833 Points:1,079,895 Joined:Nov 2009	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:09:45 PM Ignore MJIOWA Report Abuse ok
itsjustme719 All-Star Author Hamilton Posts:612 Points:599,770 Joined:Dec 2010	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:09:29 PM Ignore itsjustme719 Report Abuse Coal shouldn't be used anywhere anymore.
MG_Sputnik Champion Author Philadelphia Posts:7,320 Points:1,962,580 Joined:Apr 2006	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:09:10 PM Ignore MG_Sputnik Report Abuse Cool beans.
Blue48 Champion Author Illinois Posts:7,320 Points:1,640,870 Joined:Feb 2007	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:09:06 PM Ignore Blue48 Report Abuse BANG!
ratones1 Champion Author Los Angeles Posts:2,917 Points:733,705 Joined:Mar 2011	Message Posted: Aug 22, 2012 8:09:01 PM Ignore ratones1 Report Abuse OKAY...