EPA had no legal basis for disapproving Texas standards

Business Week:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had “no legal basis” to disapprove a Texas plan for implementing federal air-quality standards, a court said.
The U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans ordered the agency to reconsider the Texas regulations and “limit its review” to ensuring that they meet the “minimal” Clean Air Act requirements that govern state implementation plans.
“If Texas’s regulations satisfy those basic requirements, the EPA must approve them,” the court said in its 22-page March 26 ruling.
The EPA rejected Texas’s rules on minor new-source review permits in September 2010, contending they didn’t meet Clean Air Act requirements. The Texas attorney general, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and businesses sued the EPA, challenging the ruling.
The EPA failed to identify any provisions of the law that the Texas program violated, the appeals court said. The agency also missed a deadline to rule on the Texas permit plan, the court said.
“The EPA unlawfully disapproved a commonsense Texas air permitting program that fully complied with the federal Clean Air Act and reduced harmful emissions,” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said in a statement today.
“The EPA disregarded the limited authority it was granted under federal law and incorrectly alleged that Texas would not act sensibly and in accordance with its own laws,” Abbott said. “This victory marks the second time in the last three months that Texas has successfully obtained relief from the courts after an unlawful overreach by the EPA.”
The decision could be relevant to a case brought by states including Texas against EPA regulations to cut interstate pollution from power plants, according to Christine Tezak, senior policy analyst at Robert W. Baird & Co. in McLean, Virginia.
...
The EPA is on a real losing streak because of its regulatory over reach.  The court's ruling suggest a level of misconduct that is stunning.  The EPA's inability to identify any provision of the law that the Texas program violated suggest an agency that is acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner.  It puts some of their other recent rulings in jeopardy.  The agency appears to be losing its war against Texas.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t...
Read more

Is the F-35 obsolete?

Headline USA: Pentagon Fires Back after Musk Calls Its Most Expensive Project ‘Obsolete’ 'Yeah, as I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Musk is, currently, a private citizen, I'm not going to make any comments about what a private citizen may have to say about the F-35....'   ... ... Drones appear to be replacing jets for many operations.  The Russia-Ukraine war is an example of that.  Drones are often hard to detect and can be used for intelligence operations as well as for attacking enemy targets.  It would not surprise me to see drones engaging other drones in combat.  They also cost much less than manned fighters.  
Read more