As Brian said in comments about the US Court of Appeals hearing on EPA's CO2 emission rule making
I haven't looked at this too closely, but the Bloomberg link correctly identifies the tailoring rule as the most vulnerable aspect of the law.The forces of evil (and this includes Ken Cuccenelli) are trying to get tailoring overturned. Well they are trying to get the whole regulation thrown out to be honest, but not having much success at this level. As to the bought and sold 5 on the US Supreme Court, who knows. Reuters was there
The irony is that tailoring limits the reach of EPA regulation. The denialists are trying to forcibly extend the reach so far that Congress comes in and kills it under President Romney.
Mitchell told the three-judge panel that the court should remand the tailoring rule to send a strong message to the EPA that it has overstepped its boundaries.
"We are asking the court to hold the EPA's feet to the fire and force them, if they are going to regulate stationary source greenhouse gas emissions, to do so based on what the statue says," he said.
But Chief Judge David Sentelle interrupted Mitchell, and said that the petitioners did not have the standing to challenge the rule because they did not demonstrate the harm it would cause states and industry.
"The harm you allege is a regulatory burden. The remedy you seek is a heavier regulatory burden. That doesn't even make good nonsense,"Carrot Eater points out, the comments on this blog are degenerating. Raise your game bunnies.
The scenario I imagine is that tailoring's thrown out and the reg is extended to small sources who start screaming to Congress. Republicans refuse to pass a legislative fix that brings back tailoring - the only "fix" they'll pass is one that kills EPA regulation of GHGs.
ReplyDeleteInteresting point Sentelle has about standing. The concept of standing was almost wholly invented by conservative lawyers in the last 40 years to keep enviros from being able to enforce environmental law. It would be fantastic to have standing come back and hit the bad guys in the butt.
> standing
ReplyDeleteWorth a look:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22should+trees+have+standing%22
(anything but Google as of March 1, but OpenID isn't being recognized, and captcha wants Google Analytics; the walls, they're closing in ...)
"That doesn't even make good nonsense." is a classic line that deserved wider application.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteAgreed--right up there with Pauli's "This is so bad it's not even wrong!"
There is wrong, bad, and then there is nonsense.
ReplyDelete