Skip to main content

View Diary: In Major Decision to Benefit Climate Change Mitigation;SCOTUS Rejects Challenge to EPA Authority (73 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Any pro-EPA court decision (4+ / 0-)

    is a big deal and the diary deserves a rec for pointing those rare decisions out.  This decision protects any person near a highway from excessive levels of NOx.

    While the cited NOx decision is only indirectly about greenhouse gasses, it is directly about the reach of the EPA's authority.  

    We may not get many pro-EPA court decisions. I'm still choking on an 6th Circuit Court decision from Michigan (Summit Petroleum) that rules the EPA cannot aggregate pollution from gas wells with the nearby plants that process that gas.

    That means the EPA must look at all of these medium-sized pollution sources (each well, pipeline, storage tank, processing plant, pumping station) as a single unconnected source, and each are below the regulatory threshold, and so none get adequately get controlled.

    Formerly the EPA could lump these sources together and requiring meaningful pollution controls on the whole operation.

    Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

    by 6412093 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:55:33 AM PDT

    •  You said: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      6412093
      "We may not get many pro-EPA court decisions. I'm still choking on an 6th Circuit Court decision from Michigan (Summit Petroleum) that rules the EPA cannot aggregate pollution from gas wells with the nearby plants that process that gas."
      The Summit Petroleum did not do what you said it did.   The Summit Deicision only reached a declaration against EPA's longstanding policy of how it defines "adjacent"   While aspects of that address the aggregation issue, the Sixth Circuit only struck EPA's policy on the determination of adjacency.
      •  You are correct that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior

        the court decision's language only affected the definition of "adjacent." But the actual impact of that re-definition is to make it harder to require a company to effectively control pollution from its clustered operations, unless they're next door to each other.

        Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

        by 6412093 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:03:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site