Followup: Could the EPA Mandate a National Cap-and-Trade Program?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Quick update: last night I wrote a post about an NRDC proposal on carbon reduction from existing power plants. Basically, they suggest that the EPA should set standards for each state, then allow the states to meet those standards however they want. If they wanted to, states could even trade credits back and forth in order to meet their caps.

My question: If EPA has the authority to do this, why not just mandate a national cap-and-trade plan instead? That would be more efficient, and probably no more politically difficult than the NRDC plan.

Leaving the political issues aside, I’ve gotten some answers—sort of—about EPA’s legal authority, which is based on a combination of (a) a court ruling that CO2 is a pollutant and (b) EPA’s responsibilities under the Clean Air Act. I haven’t dived into this deeply or anything, but apparently NRDC believes its plan is legal because it follows the fundamental structure of the CAA, which generally requires EPA to set out state standards for pollutants. However, some interest groups think that EPA also has the authority to mandate a national cap-and-trade plan.

Long story short, a cap-and-trade mandate might be legal, but also might be risky, especially given the conservative makeup of both the DC Circuit Court and the Supreme Court. So far, there’s no sign that EPA thinks it has the legal authority to create such a mandate. Conversely, the NRDC plan is probably less risky thanks to its state-based structure, though it’s still not a slam dunk either.

If I learn more, I’ll write a followup. I just wanted to pass this along since I mentioned it last night.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate