Second time seen today… first from Media Matters, then the UPI.
The UPI reports:
He said he has directed the Environmental Protection Agency “to put an end to the limitless dumping of carbon pollution from our power plants and complete new pollution standards for both new and existing power plants.”
A 2007 Supreme Court decision affirmed the EPA’s mandate to regulate greenhouse gases.
[Emphasis added]
The Supreme Court ruled that EPA may, NOT must regulate greenhouse gases. IN the 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA, the Court held:
Under the Act’s clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do.
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS decision confirms the EPA’s discretion to do what they can show is reasonable.
If Republicans take both houses in 2014, Congress could withhold funding from the EPA. Cut the funding and the EPA cannot proceed to prepare regulations. Alternatively Congress could just operate stop and go funding of the entire executive branch.
These devices exist to prevent the executive branch from overstepping its power. Control of the money has always been the way to hobble the king and what is the US president but an elected king.
Which is it? May not, or must regulate?