> Congress can still pass a law empowering EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Congress gave the EPA broad discretion that it could have revoked -- using your argument -- at any moment. This issue has been bouncing around for over a decade, and Congress has systematically declined to do so.
>Congress didn't pass a law and disappear. If Congress felt that the EPA was misinterpreting the language of the Clean Air Act it could have passed a law limiting the agency's powers.
It is not congresses job to enforce the law by writing new laws.
> A perfectly legitimate case can be made to modify some EPA regulations, but when that reasonable position is characterized as "eviscerating the EPA", well then we have another problem
> Does this lead to a constitutional crisis over the EPA's ability to govern?
No; it may add to the stack of legal disputes about the Trump Administration’s administrative actions allegedly exceeding statutory bounds and procedural requirements (including the requirement not to be arbitrary and capricious), but that's such a big stack already...
> I feel like this is a move to destroy the EPA and make California pay the legal fees to do it.
It's not about destroying the EPA, just its purpose of protecting the environment.
The Obama administration + Congress did that. Trump had nothing to do with it.
From the 3rd paragraph of the article:
> The funding was approved by Congress in December and signed into law by President Barack Obama, but the EPA had to review and approve a formal request from state officials detailing how the city intends to use the grant money.
> EPA enforcement has been drastically relaxed to allow a bit more freedom
EPA enforcement has been relaxed because the toxic sludge dumpers with influence in the Trump Administration have always wanted to gut environmental regulations and avoid legal liability for giving their neighbors cancer, but now they have a convenient excuse.
> The gist of that doctrine is that an agency can't stretch some pre-existing grant of Congressional authority to create sweeping regulations addressing a major new problem.
But it's not a major new problem. The Congress that established the EPA granted the "stretching" along with it, otherwise it would take an act of Congress to determine the color of the Post-its.
The new rulings are farcical zealotry. Apparently, the only people capable of making decisions died 100 years ago and anything we've learned after the Civil War doesn't matter.
> Congress should be updating these laws to address new types of issues, but it’s not. It’s not because Republicans don’t care about these issues, and Democrats aren’t willing to spend the political capital to make these issues a priority. Whatever the reason, however, that doesn’t mean it’s okay for agencies like the EPA to creatively interpret statutes to expand their powers into new areas.
I read the GP's post as "It's not (updating laws) because Republicans don't care about these issues", which I have to agree with. (though with the caveat that Democrats don't care much, either)
>Congress hasn't abdicated anything, they've delegated it, and they retain the power to overrule the EPA
Maybe the congress should do this with everything. The president can just make any rule he wants. Or maybe congress should just do their job instead of just delegating away all of their responsibility.
> You use “sweeping” twice to describe EPA’s rules, which makes them sound unreasonable and over-reaching.
This is what the alternative interpretation would allow.
> The plan will require individual states to meet specific standards with respect to reduction of carbon dioxide emissions.[22] States are free to reduce emissions by various means, and must submit emissions reductions plans by September 2016, or, with an extension approval, by September 2018.[23] If a state has not submitted a plan by then, the EPA will impose its own plan on that state.[23]
The comment in question was "EPA regulations are way out of control." That's not a Trump thing, the sentiment has been around for decades in mainstream American politics. And the entire EPA has a decent handle on the regulations, so they are obviously in control, even if they're extremely bad. So I'm not sure it's meant as a statement of fact. It's meant as a statement of principle. That's what I meant when I said the audience for the statement isn't saying "I'm personally disappointed in EPA regulation #N", they're saying "The EPA is doing it totally wrong".
I was going to post this exact same quote. It is in my clipboard.
Controversial note: When politicians talk about defunding the EPA, people get upset. When the EPA pulls stunts like this, it makes you question their purpose. Seriously, why have regulators that "tip off" the very companies that they are supposed to be regulating?
Irrelevant. The quote I provided is from the current administrator of the EPA who was appointed by Trump.
reply