Supreme Court likely to discard Chevron

Someone has never dealt with trying to get approvals for a project through one of these agencies.

And you’ve never heard me say that y’all lawyers are brilliant.

 

That's what this opinion will do, take decisions out of the hands of scientists, engineers, etc. and put them in the hands of lawyers. If you want that, you must think we're brilliant. And I thank you for the compliment. But we do have our limitations.

 

That’s not how I see this. I have been involved in dozens of expansions requiring various environmental approvals. I see this as an additional opportunity for other scientists and engineers (often more credentialed) to counter claims by agency scientists and engineers by presenting their data to an objective third party, rather than the guy or gal down the hall from the guy who denied you. While there is technically the “ability” to do so, the expense involved in fighting the government is prohibitive. We have cancelled many excellent projects that would have had minimal, if any negative environmental impact because the additional cost and time to fight these rulings increases risk and drive ROI down to an unacceptable level. We do not do our analyses in house with our own staff. We hire environment consulting firms with highly qualified staff to conduct the studies. This cost, plus y’all lawyers to file the appeals and suits gets pretty damn expensive.

As an attorney, you have to know how expensive and often fruitless it is to fight government in a court.

 

That is certainly true.

 

We do surveys along the beaches from marco island to captiva. It's been an interesting process with Ian and the restoration. Most every lot down here has changed hands multiple times so lots of surveys on file. We are in year 10 of a project with the regulatory agencies, and yes, it isn’t cheap, and people wonder why houses cost so much.

 

In many cases, congress creates laws that REQUIRE agencies to create regulations. The laws create a framework of what the agency is supposed to regulate and how they are supposed to do it. The agencies then create regulations within the framework of the law.

The EPA is a great example of how that works. Congress created the Clean Air Act that tells EPA what to regulate, how to develop those regulations, and how those regulations will be reviewed and enforced. Same is true of the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, etc. etc. etc.

The laws not only give the EPA the Authority to create those regulations, it also gives them the REQUIREMENT to create those regulations.

If EPA goes to far in a regulation, industry can (and does) sue to get the regulation reconsidered. If it doesn't go far enough, environmental groups can (and do) sue to get it reconsidered.

 

Those scientists and engineers already have chances to contribute to the regulations. The regs are all proposed first with a public comment period. The agencies are required to address those comments when/if they finalize the reg. Then the public has another bite at the apple in that they can petition to reconsider (ie, sue).

If it is a major rule, Congress also gets a chance to review it thanks to the Congressional Review Act.

 

Your ignorance is staggering.

 

Some one tells you how things actually work, and you call them ignorant. Too funny!

 

They don’t work that way. If you think that there is an ounce of practicality in your statement you are a lost cause.

 

Dude... that is exactly how regulations are developed.

 

Technically, you are correct,

Practically, you could not be more wrong. See above to my post to Gator lawyer on this topic and his reply.

Good god man, are you in Davos with Kerry? Get some reality into your life.

 

You should have stopped there and apologized for calling me ignorant earlier. But you didn't. And for the record, I'm not "technically correct". I'm correct.

You are most likely conflating the development of regulations with the permitting process. The two are two very different things.

This thread has nothing to do with the permitting process, it is about the regulatory process.

 

Yea and no GL. . both sides know the deck is stacked against one side. Of course the litigators will litigate and bill their respective client. As it stands now they know they are going to lose but they exhaust resources and time to the fullest extend of futility which is exactly what bureaucrats do best. It’s an absurd dance that exemplifies exactly what drives most us private sector peeps crazy. Ridiculously cumbersome and inefficient. I’m all for shaking that up and putting burden back on gov vs the people

 

Stop quibbling.

What drives and controls the permitting process? Oh, let’s see. Yea, it’s the regulations. The two are intertwined and cannot be separated, particularly for the purpose of saving your ass in debate.

It is not only possible but quite frequent for something to be technically correct but practically wrong. In cases where this occurs the reasonable people in the room acknowledge the technically correct side must cede to the practically correct side. Obviously(and we’re not just learning this in the current thread) you are not a reasonable person.

 

this has been my experience as well which is what led to my original post and follow up. Of course the GLs support the current system. They can bill and make it rain, bask in their ideology and know they don’t reallly have to try. Their side will prevail almost every time and simultaneously exhausted both the finances and willpower of private sector(and ideological foe) trying to do What they do.

 

I'll stop quibbling when you stop being wrong.

 

I’m not wrong. I’ve been through this ringer too many times. How many projects have you tried to get environmental approval to do.

 

He who has the most money to buy things wins.

 

Yes, you are wrong.

This thread is about the Supreme court potentially overturning a long standing ruling on ... wait for it ... regulatory development. You came trotting in and mixed up rule making with permitting. So you wrong there.

Then when I told you how reg development works, you called me ignorant on the topic. After my reply, you should have recognized that I have a background in reg development, but you were too quick to dismiss me. So you were wrong about me being ignorant on the topic.

When I pointed out you were wrong about my knowledge on the topic you tried to say I was only technically right, but practically wrong. But fact is, I was just right, and you were the one wrong because you didn't know the difference between reg development and permitting and how the two relate to what the SC case coming up.

To answer your question, during my career as an environmental engineer I have successfully permitted multiple new power plants, expansions of pulp and paper mills, and numerous other industrial projects.