The Supreme Court issued a ruling that largely upheld the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory powers, thought the decision was complex and has been portrayed in different ways. This applies to aspects of both 2305 and 2306. Especially the sections on federalism, the bureaucracy and the Supreme Court'
- Click here for the actual decision: Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency.
- Click here for ScotusBlog's coverage of the case.
The case stems from a lawsuit from Texas - specifically Attorney General (and gubernatorial candidate) Greg Abbott. It is the latest in a long line of such cases, given Texas being home to oil and gas and petrochemical production and manufacturing, and given the political clout these groups have in the state.
Texas' environmental agencies are considered to be largely weak - so any muscle comes from the national level. This helps explain the tension between the two levels of government. Much of this has played out in the federal courts where the Texas government - and/or interests within the state - sue the national government for overstepping its bounds and regulating matters that should be fully up to the states.
Recently the EPA has used its pre-existing authority to regulate conventional pollution to also regulate greenhouse gases. Texas has argued that since the Clean Air Act does not explicitly mention greenhouse gases - which at low levels aren't pollutants - the EPA cannot deny permits to new plants on the basis that they will produce more of them.
The court disagreed - but only partially.
Here's coverage:
- Everyone Declares Victory After Supreme Court's EPA Ruling.
- Another Loss for Texas in Its Challenge of EPA Regulations.
