EPA's ginormous power grab

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Yes, it's all about you isn't it?

Please review my posts. Look for one instance where I refer to you as left, right, yellow, purple or polka dotted, let alone 'RWN'. Look for any reference from me using the phrase 'RWN' at all. You will not find one. What you will find in my posts is a concern that we have a too-shrill debate that has polarized left/right on issues that really shouldn't be thought of as left/right. How is that an attack just on the right? Or on you? You will find me disagreeing with you about whether or not the EPA is acting within its mandate as enacted by Congress. Surely I'm allowed to disagree with you, without attacking you, yes?

As to Steven, he can speak for himself.

Ok, more Steven than you. I just feel ganged up on for voicing an opinion. I am NOT a RWN.

Edited April 9, 2010 by JohnSmith2007

[JohnSmith2007 353]

You will find me disagreeing with you about whether or not the EPA is acting within its mandate as enacted by Congress.

Back to the topic. I do think that the EPA is acting outside its mandate. It now has the power to change the very way our country is run. It can, in effect, mandate profound changes to our economy without any oversite from congress. Doesn't that bother you at all?

Edited April 9, 2010 by JohnSmith2007

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Back to the topic. I do think that the EPA is acting outside its mandate. It now has the power to change the very way our country is run. It can, in effect, mandate profound changes to our economy without any oversite from congress. Doesn't that bother you at all?

Outside its mandate? Can you specifically site what you are referring to? Who in your opinion should regulate pollutants?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I am NOT a RWN.

So you're saying you're a changed man, Gary?

[Kevin and 10]

So you're saying you're a changed man, Gary?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

After the welcome I got from Steven I must admit that I am a bit apprehensive to voice an opinion.

Quick, somebody get the man a waaaaaaaaaaaahmbulance!

[JohnSmith2007 353]

So you're saying you're a changed man, Gary?

No, I am not him either.

Quick, somebody get the man a waaaaaaaaaaaahmbulance!

Tell you what, GFY.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Outside its mandate? Can you specifically site what you are referring to? Who in your opinion should regulate pollutants?

They do it all the time,

Court shoots down ethanol mandate, says EPA overstepped its authority.

(ethanol mandate for reformulated gasoline, Environmental Protection Agency)

WASHINGTON -- A federal court Friday struck down the ethanol mandate for reformulated gasoline (RFG) issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last year.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed with oil executives that EPA had no authority to require a market share for renewable oxygenates.

EPA had required that 15% of oxygenates for RFG in 1995 come from renewable sources -- essentially ethanol, made from corn. The requirement was to rise to 30% next year.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-16894374.html

Did the EPA Overstep Its Powers?

May 25, 2000|By Gary M. Galles

THE CLEAN AIR ACT directed the EPA to set air pollution standards "requisite to protect the public health." So, in 1997, when the EPA announced tighter ozone standards and created new standards for fine particulate matter, which would have more than tripled the number of U.S. counties (to 411, including all of Southern California) not in compliance, it claimed "compelling new scientific evidence" as its justification.

Those standards were then challenged on both scientific and constitutional grounds. Despite EPA administrator Carol Browner's claim that overturning them would mean "125 million Americans . . . will breathe air that doesn't meet health standards based on modern science," the Washington, D.C., Court of Appeals found that the EPA "failed to state intelligibly" the scientific basis for them.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2000-05-25/opinion/17647444_1_ozone-rules-new-ozone-epa-administrator-carol-browner

COURT RULES EPA OVERSTEPPED ON CLEAN-AIR POLICY

The trucking industry’s biggest association is applauding a federal appeals court ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency’s setting of air pollution rules amounts to an “unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.”

The decision will require the Clean Air Act to be substantially rewritten and EPA’s bounds of authority redrawn.

The ruling was a victory for the American Trucking Assns. and other industry groups that filed suit against EPA new pollution standards the agency set two years ago. The groups said complying with the standards would cost them $45 billion a year.

The decision did not completely set aside the new ozone standards, but said they could not be enforced under the section of the clean-air law. The court set aside the coarse particulate matter standards and told EPA to develop different ones.

“What EPA lacks is any determinate criterion for drawing lines,” the court said. “It has failed to state intelligibly how much [pollution] is too much.”

The panel reinforced the fact that EPA must follow the law as written by Congress and cannot just implement its own open-ended policy preferences, as Section 109 of the act allows. “The maximum stringency would send industry not just to the brink of ruin but hurtling over it, while the minimum stringency may be close to doing nothing at all,” the court said.

EPA said it planned to recommend an appeal to the Justice Department. But if it loses in the courts, EPA said it would then call on Congress to “preserve these protections.”

http://www.heavydutytrucking.com/1999/07/052c9907.asp

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Tell you what, GFY.

Well, aren't we a petulant little whiner.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Court shoots down ethanol mandate, says EPA overstepped its authority.

(ethanol mandate for reformulated gasoline, Environmental Protection Agency)

WASHINGTON -- A federal court Friday struck down the ethanol mandate for reformulated gasoline (RFG) issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last year.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed with oil executives that EPA had no authority to require a market share for renewable oxygenates.

EPA had required that 15% of oxygenates for RFG in 1995 come from renewable sources -- essentially ethanol, made from corn. The requirement was to rise to 30% next year.

http://www.encyclope...1-16894374.html

Can you find other sources that give more details on this ruling? That link is from 1995 and here's more current info on oxygenate mandates from the EPA: (sounds like the EPA's mandate is valid...if not, for sure Gov. Perry would be referring to that court ruling, right?)

(August 2008)

The Environmental Protection Agency has denied a request by officials in Texas to reduce the ethanol requirement for gasoline nationwide. Gov. Rick Perry asked for the temporary reduction to try to bring down the price of corn — a major issue for livestock operations in the state.

link