Do global warmers care that the Clean Power Plan is illegal? Or is global warming too much of a threat for them to worry about legal nicety?
As it appears in the U.S. Code, CAA §111(d)(1)(A) puts two kinds of pollutants off limits to ESPS regulation: pollutants already regulated under the NAAQS program, and pollutants emitted by source categories already regulated under §112. Existing power plants have been subject to §112 regulation ever since EPA finalized its Mercury Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Rule in December 2011. Therefore, EPA may not promulgate a §111(d) rule for existing power plants.
In AEP v. Connecticut (2010), the Supreme Court affirmed that §112 regulation precludes §111(d) regulation of existing stationary sources:
EPA may not employ §111(d) if existing stationary sources of the pollutant in question are regulated under the national ambient air quality standard program, §§108–110, or the “hazardous air pollutants” program, §112. See §111(d)(1). (Slip op., p. 10, fn. 7)
EPA is trying to argue that there was a drafting error in the Clean Air Act, and there are actually two Clean Air Acts out there and they get to pick and choose which parts they will follow from each one.
Reposted due to malicious movement.
At least one commenter, Jim, said he didn't care.
- JimZLv 72 years agoBest Answer
I would say generally they don't. If Jim says he doesn't, that would probably be a good indication that the even more radical alarmists don't care about it either. They care about saving the planet. I'm sure they wouldn't let the minutia of EPA regulations get in their way.
- J MLv 72 years ago
Where did you get your law degree? Oh that's right, you don't have one.
- Anonymous2 years ago
What court has found it illegal?
- Filled with GodLv 62 years ago