The legal reasoning behind the endangerment rescission
This deserves loud pushback.
Highlighting a few key takeaways from one of the better explainers I've seen:
Rather than a frontal assault on the science, EPA relies on legal reasoning in the final rule. It argues that under its new interpretation of Clean Air Act section 202(a), EPA lacks the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles because such emissions do not contribute to “air pollution.”
First, it argues that “air pollution” applies only to pollution with local or regional effects. Second, EPA contends that greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles do not “in any material way” affect public health and welfare. Third, EPA asserts that regulation is “costly and futile” and would not meaningfully address the underlying harm.
Overall, this is an incredibly messy area with a long history. It's almost certain this will end up at SCOTUS in the near future given the messy legal history stemming from Massachusetts v. EPA, WV v. EPA, Loper Bright and complicated language in the Inflation Reduction Act. The Trump administration may not be reducing greenhouse gasses but they will certainly be increasing billable hours from environmental and industry group's counsel.
This deserves loud pushback.
Highlighting a few key takeaways from one of the better explainers I've seen:
Rather than a frontal assault on the science, EPA relies on legal reasoning in the final rule. It argues that under its new interpretation of Clean Air Act section 202(a), EPA lacks the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles because such emissions do not contribute to “air pollution.”
First, it argues that “air pollution” applies only to pollution with local or regional effects. Second, EPA contends that greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles do not “in any material way” affect public health and welfare. Third, EPA asserts that regulation is “costly and futile” and would not meaningfully address the underlying harm.
Overall, this is an incredibly messy area with a long history. It's almost certain this will end up at SCOTUS in the near future given the messy legal history stemming from Massachusetts v. EPA, WV v. EPA, Loper Bright and complicated language in the Inflation Reduction Act. The Trump administration may not be reducing greenhouse gasses but they will certainly be increasing billable hours from environmental and industry group's counsel.
The legal reasoning behind the endangerment rescission
This deserves loud pushback.
Highlighting a few key takeaways from one of the better explainers I've seen:
Rather than a frontal assault on the science, EPA relies on legal reasoning in the final rule. It argues that under its new interpretation of Clean Air Act section 202(a), EPA lacks the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles because such emissions do not contribute to “air pollution.”
First, it argues that “air pollution” applies only to pollution with local or regional effects. Second, EPA contends that greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles do not “in any material way” affect public health and welfare. Third, EPA asserts that regulation is “costly and futile” and would not meaningfully address the underlying harm.
Overall, this is an incredibly messy area with a long history. It's almost certain this will end up at SCOTUS in the near future given the messy legal history stemming from Massachusetts v. EPA, WV v. EPA, Loper Bright and complicated language in the Inflation Reduction Act. The Trump administration may not be reducing greenhouse gasses but they will certainly be increasing billable hours from environmental and industry group's counsel.
0 Comments
0 Shares
45 Views
0 Reviews
