this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
199 points (98.1% liked)

News

23296 readers
3642 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Coal-fired power plants would be forced to capture smokestack emissions or shut down under a rule issued Thursday by the Environmental Protection Agency.

New limits on greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-fired electric plants are the Biden administration’s most ambitious effort yet to roll back planet-warming pollution from the power sector, the nation’s second-largest contributor to climate change. The rules are a key part of President Joe Biden’s pledge to eliminate carbon pollution from the electricity sector by 2035 and economy-wide by 2050.

The rule was among four separate measures targeting coal and natural gas plants that the EPA said would provide “regular certainty” to the power industry and encourage them to make investments to transition “to a clean energy economy.” They also include requirements to reduce toxic wastewater pollutants from coal-fired plants and to safely manage so-called coal ash in unlined storage ponds.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 42 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Can't wait for the Supreme Court ruling to take this authority away from the EPA in general. Chevron deference is on the chopping block, and most people don't even know what that means.

[–] apocalypticat@lemmy.world 19 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I am still struggling to understand it. It seems a company can defy laws that are broad, within reason, if they were not explicitly named in the law? Chevron deference (Cornell Law)

Sounds to me like it gives power to corporations to be exempt from regulations. Is that the gist of it?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago (4 children)

That's exactly it. It guts the power of agencies like the EPA.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That's the exact opposite of what Chevron Deference does!

In a nutshell Chevron Deference means that when a law is silent or ambiguous on a technical matter that the court will defer to the responsible agencies interpretation of that law instead of substituting their own.

For example Chevron Deference is what empowered the EPA to even try and regulate CO2 emissions since the laws they operate under don't specifically address it. Without Chevron they couldn't even have started.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That's what I was saying. SCOTUS getting rid of Chevron will gut the power of the EPA.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Your response was unclear, at least to me, since it looked like you were replying to the other persons question about what Chevron does, not what removing it would do.

I recognize your username and you're generally pretty well informed so I was surprised at how off the mark you seemed to be on this.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

My apologies for being unclear.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I'm not sure you were unclear, it could just be me reading it wrong.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

It doesn't matter either way, it got cleared up and we're on the same page.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago

No, I read it wrong too. I honestly think they should edit their comment to clarify.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

“Just trust us to do the right thing.” -Chevron Inc.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

To be clear (because I'd say this comment is a bit ambiguous), removing Chevron deference guts the power of agencies like the EPA.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Thanks. That is what I meant.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Sounds to me like it gives power to corporations to be exempt from regulations.

No.

What it does is instruct Federal Courts to defer to a controlling agencies interpretation of a Law, when reasonable, instead of the Court creating their own interpretation. Chevron Deference is what empowers the EPA to say "The Law didn't address it but our opinion on this technical matter is that CO2 is a pollutant and we believe that gives us the authority to regulate it.". A Federal Court will then test the reasonableness of that opinion and say "Yeah, that interpretation sounds reasonable to us." or "Nah, your interpretation is clearly outside the boundaries of what Congress intended. You need to come up with a better opinion."

Without Chevron when the EPA shows up in Court and says "The Law didn't address it but our opinion on this technical matter is that CO2 is a pollutant and we believe that gives us the authority to regulate it." one Court may agree while 5 more say "The law didn't directly address this therefore we aren't going to allow this lawsuit to proceed." or individual Courts may get farther into the weeds with things like "Well, the law didn't address it but we feel that under X,Y, & Z circumstances you may have some ability to regulate this."

The idea behind this was actually a damn good one as it puts the Agency charged with regulating something, who should be EXPERTS in that thing, the ability to decide what should / shouldn't be happening instead of a Judge who is almost certainly ignorant of that technical specialty.

Ballotpedia has a write up for this that may be easier to understand than the Cornell one you linked to. I'll quote part of it here.

"Chevron deference, or Chevron doctrine, is an administrative law principle that compels federal courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute that Congress delegated to the agency to administer. "

In most cases most people WANT Chevron to exist because we WANT the specialty agencies, who should be filled with subject matter experts, making decisions related their specialty.

There are a few instances, most spectacularly with the BATFE, where this has gone off the rails, but there's little question that Chevron is a Net Good.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 2 points 6 months ago

Chevron deference is on the chopping block, and most people don’t even know what that means.

You aren't kidding. There's at least two people in these comments who think it gives Corporations the ability exempt themselves from regulation!