XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.government.abuse, sac.politics
XPost: talk.politics.guns
When the EPA bans environmentally harmful imports from China and Mexico,
maybe it will have credibility. Until then it can go fuck itself.
WASHINGTON � The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a Biden
administration environmental regulation aimed at curbing harmful air
pollution that crosses from one state to another and contributes to the formation of smog.
In doing so, the court on a 5-4 vote granted requests from three
Republican-led states � Indiana, Ohio and West Virginia � and various
affected industries, including natural gas pipeline operators. The
decision is a provisional one, with litigation continuing.
The Environmental Protection Agency regulation applied to 23 states,
although lower court rulings meant it was already blocked in a dozen of
them.
Environmental groups that had joined together to defend the rule,
including the Sierra Club and Environmental Defense Fund, decried the
decision.
"Today�s decision is deeply disappointing. It will result almost
immediately in pollution that endangers the health of millions of
people," the groups said in a statement.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, among those challenging
the regulation, said in a statement the litigated rule would put
additional stress on the power grid.
"This decision by the Supreme Court is correct but the EPA will keep
trying to legislate and bypass Congress�s authority," he added.
In the majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the EPA's
decision to implement the rule even though it was partially blocked was
part of the problem, as the agency did not address how effective the
regulation would be if only partly in effect.
The government failed to show "whether the cost-effectiveness analysis
it performed collectively for 23 states would yield the same results and command the same emission-control measures if conduct for, say, just one state," Gorsuch wrote.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the court�s three
liberals in disagreeing with the outcome.
She wrote that the court had blocked a major air pollution rule "based
on an undeveloped theory that is unlikely to succeed on the merits" when
the legal question is finally adjudicated.
The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is skeptical
of broad exertions of federal power on regulatory issues, including the environment.
As a result, it is receptive to legal challenges mounted by Republican attorneys general and industry groups that have long griped about the
EPA�s aggressive use of its regulatory powers.
The EPA�s �good neighbor plan� was announced last year in a bid to curb nitrogen oxide pollution from industrial facilities. If implemented in
full, it would apply to 23 �upwind� states whose emissions can
contribute to pollution in �downwind� states.
The EPA said the plan, based on a requirement in the Clean Air Act,
would help prevent premature deaths, reduce emergency room visits and
cut asthma symptoms by limiting the amount of smog.
Typically, states get a chance to draw up their own pollution control
plans. Each state is required under the Clean Air Act to be a �good
neighbor,� meaning that it should address pollution that can contribute
to other states not meeting their own obligations.
The EPA can step in to adopt its own plan, which is what happened last
year. The three states complained about the federal government�s
approach, saying in part that they didn�t have enough time to come up
with their own plans.
In two other important recent environmental cases at the Supreme Court,
the EPA lost both times.
In 2022, the court limited the ability of the agency to use the Clean
Air Act to combat emissions that contribute to climate change. Last
year, the court weakened the landmark Clean Water Act by limiting the
EPA�s regulatory oversight over wetlands.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-blocks-epas- interstate-air-pollution-reg-rcna141387
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)