Comment by kokanator | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kokanator | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You should read the whole law. It does limit their ability and has checks in balances of which they have over stepped. It is that simple.[0]

The court has stated if they want to extend their authority to the level they are enacting then congress must pass laws to expressly denote that intention.

States have rights in the original law. They are exercising this right and the court has agreed with them.

I think the last sentence in the original article sum's up why people are truly upset. Remember the court didn't say the EPA can't do these things in the future just that Congress would have to give it the authority.

From the original article:

"It's now clear this court will turn a sceptical eye to agency attempts to cite vague or broad laws to enact any sort of major regulatory changes. That's a significant development, given how difficult it has been for Congress to pass substantive new legislation in recent years. The time when presidents could find unilateral "work-arounds" in existing law may be coming to an end."

[0] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2013-title42/html...

Congress did explicitly grant that authority to the EPA: particularly it gave the EPA the authority to set "a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction."

Where, exactly, are you claiming that the EPA ran afoul of the law?

"The term "standard of performance" means a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact"

Note the portion that states "taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction". This is in the very first paragraph. The argument is that they have not adequately done this.

The ruling doesn't claim the EPA didn't take into the cost of achieving the reduction in pollutants; it claims that Congress didn't appropriately delegate to the EPA the authority to implement systems to reduce the pollutants.

>The time when presidents could find unilateral "work-arounds" in existing law may be coming to an end."

It's about damn time if you ask me. As a country we need to hold our elected representatives accountable. We send legislators to congress to legislate not to simply be talking heads who pass the buck.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com