Clean Air Act Case Study

Congress argued that the Clean Air Act (CAA) use of its broad, authoritative statement made the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) obligation to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs). Congress amended the CAA so states cannot fail to attain the air quality standards established by the EPA. Since following new regulations it’s not an easy phase in the environmental business, the EPA has found themselves with a lot of lawsuits by states and industries. Since states and industries dispute the EPA’s policy decision, Justice Scalia will most certainly be involved in this discussion. Justice Scalia believes that at the executive level, there should some kind of policymaking involving a decision to perform a public liability. Since the EPA interpret environmental statutes, Justice Scalia will comment that the EPA was not well informed of its limits. If Justice Scalia knew that the EPA though that they had authority to design their own “climate-change program, “ then Justice Scalia will argue that the CAA should specifically their goals and this brings “reasonable efforts” to the

The EPA’s environmental statutes did not have an internal regulation of the administration that describe the long-term goals of the CAA. Meaning that the EPA needed to establish several strategic plan that will emphasiz the goals of the CAA, such as trying to accommodating progress in reducing air pollution with economic growth. In addition, goals that mention on figuring out which plants are designed to maintain clean air. Since the EPA’s manual did not “give fuller effect to the foregoing,” it gives the impression that modifying regulations is not an easy task (Dimock,1980). The EPA decisions on how to use their carbon dioxide emissions did not satisfied the states and the industries and this implies that their use of rules on carbon dioxide emissions needs improvements for the future of the public