In Monday's ruling, The Supreme Court decided to limit the EPA's program dealing with greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and factories.
This ruling doesn't affect the recent and controversial EPA proposal which calls for a 30% emissions reduction from power plants and factories by 2030, but the Court says the EPA lacks authority to force companies that are building new facilities to evaluate ways to reduce carbon emissions.
Under the ruling, the EPA can still require permits for greenhouse gas emissions for the facilities that already needed a permit for other pollutants that are regulated by the EPA, but Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said the EPA can not require a permit solely on greenhouse gas emissions.
"The EPA is getting almost everything it wanted in this case," Justice Scalia said in a statement regarding the ruling.
Justice Scalia says with this ruling, the EPA will be regulating 83% of all greenhouse gas emissions nationwide.
In a statement, the EPA says:
"Today is a good day for all supporters of clean air and public health and those concerned with creating a better environment for future generations. Today, the Supreme Court largely upheld EPA's approach to focusing Clean Air Act permits on only the largest stationary sources of greenhouse gases such as power plants, refineries, and other types of industrial facilities. The Supreme Court's decision is a win for our efforts to reduce carbon pollution because it allows EPA, states and other permitting authorities to continue to require carbon pollution limits in permits for the largest pollution sources. We are pleased that the Court's decision is consistent with our approach to focus on other Clean Air Act tools like the Clean Power Plan to limit carbon pollution as part of the President's Climate Action Plan.
The President of the West Virginia Coal Association, Bill Raney, says the EPA is continuing a war on coal, which is not a good thing for The Mountain State.
"I think it does limit the EPA as it regards how far reaching they can be when they get into this permitting system. As it regards emissions, we do not see it affecting directly the power plants or the regulations that have come out recently from the EPA," said Raney.
Raney says this ruling restricts the EPA a little bit in regards to emission regulations, but shouldn't affect our area's coal industry on a grand scale.
Hearings for the proposal made a few weeks ago for emissions to be reduced by 30% by 2030 will continue over the next few months.
Jun 25, 2014 at 12:16 PMAbout that EPA:
Issa and other Republicans have pressed the EPA for the last several months on oversight matters such as the EPA official who pretended to be a CIA agent, and bilked the agency of thousands of dollars. McCarty said Wednesday that there is an ongoing criminal investigation against this official, John Beale, and said EPA is still trying to limit the retirement benefits of that official. Republicans have also investigated an EPA official who received a discount for a new Mercedes from a lobbyist, and an EPA official who watched two to six hours of pornography on the job. In May, Deputy EPA Administrator Bob Perciasepe testified about the pornography case.
Jun 25, 2014 at 11:55 AMWeird science; weird scientists. Global warming. LOL! They're still hoping against all odds that the average person is dumber than they are.
Jun 23, 2014 at 11:34 PMI still want an answer to when is the average Earth temperature going to rise 3 to 4 degrees, to the normal naturally occurring high temperatures of ALL interglacial warmups of the past 340,000 years according to the chart on the NOAA web site? (The consensus science data from the Dome Fuji ice core samples) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data2.html Also how do the global warming alarmists expect us to stop the next 2 degrees of warming? Do they really think we can stop mother nature? Finally, since science has no clue how the 100,000 year glacial cycle over powers the 41,000 orbital cycle, how can they claim to be able to predict the future when they were unable to predict or scientifically explain the fact that global warming stopped in 1997? They now offer us anecdotes since their science failed, their data was flawed, and they have no clue.