Aviation implications of W. VA vs EPA

Status
Not open for further replies.
In our world, it might kick the 100LL can down the road some more (which keeps on getting kicked).

I recall seeing some efficiency requirements recently for bizjets that may not become an issue, or not be as much of one. Market forces are enough to make airlines want to push for more and more efficiency anyway, so I don’t see much change there. Maybe some regarding emissions standards for new airliner engines but a lot of that does go hand in hand with efficiency.
 
One of the allegations on another forum was that this could be more broad than just the EPA...
Basically what Va. v. EPA boils down to is the bureaucratic offices in the federal government has no right to make up it's own laws, that is left to Congress.
Click to expand...
 
The basis for the decision was something called the "major questions" doctrine, or rather, when does a situation get so fubar that Congress can no longer delegate the authority to agencies it created to address the problem and must itself act.

What could possibly go wrong.
 
I think it is more of a case where the agency was set up for one goal, but then later the agency created additional goals that were greater in scope than the original goal.
The way I read the decision is that an agency may refine, and even move the goal posts some, but when the goal posts are no longer in the stadium, then they have gone too far. Congress is the only one authorized to create a bigger stadium.

I am not sure that the FAA has moved the goal posts out of the stadium like the EPA. And, in my opinion, the ATF and ICC.

But, to keep the conversation on aviation, maybe the FAA has exceeded it's authorization as it relates to space flight. Does anybody know if space flight has been delegated to the FAA, or did they just grab it.
 
Ted said:
In our world, it might kick the 100LL can down the road some more (which keeps on getting kicked).
Click to expand...
Which is a pretty big problem considering proponents of closing airports are now latching onto the 'lead is bad' argument. The fact that GA is the only lead burning fuel seems to be more pertinent in the public's eye than ever before.
 
Ted said:
In our world, it might kick the 100LL can down the road some more (which keeps on getting kicked).

I recall seeing some efficiency requirements recently for bizjets that may not become an issue, or not be as much of one. Market forces are enough to make airlines want to push for more and more efficiency anyway, so I don’t see much change there. Maybe some regarding emissions standards for new airliner engines but a lot of that does go hand in hand with efficiency.
Click to expand...
In the last couple of years I've processed a lot of certification reports for emissions on large turbofans. We go for every percent of efficiency; the things burn so clean that the only way to really lower the emissions is to burn less fuel. A 10% improvement will sell a lot of new planes.
 
Ted said:
In our world, it might kick the 100LL can down the road some more (which keeps on getting kicked).

I recall seeing some efficiency requirements recently for bizjets that may not become an issue, or not be as much of one. Market forces are enough to make airlines want to push for more and more efficiency anyway, so I don’t see much change there. Maybe some regarding emissions standards for new airliner engines but a lot of that does go hand in hand with efficiency.
Click to expand...

I hope this doesn’t kick 100LL down the road. I have been wanting an unleaded alternative for the last 20 years.
 
Just did a quick scan and read the replies here. So what it sounds like is Congress may have to Micro Manage all agencies/departments etc via Legislation?
 
Chip Sylverne said:
the "major questions" doctrine, or rather, when does a situation get so fubar that Congress can no longer delegate the authority to agencies it created to address the problem and must itself act.
Click to expand...
The EPA has been regulating lead in gasoline for over 40 years… doesn’t seem like a big step out.

Paul
 
luvflyin said:
Just did a quick scan and read the replies here. So what it sounds like is Congress may have to Micro Manage all agencies/departments etc via Legislation?
Click to expand...
There is a lot less bureaucratic effort to write a regulation than there is for Congress to pass legislation. There is a lot less need for compromise writing a regulation than there is for Congress to pass legislation. I support compromise in the legislative process. I support the checks and balances that the legislative process entails. I think that the scotus decision is a step back to the original intent of the founders.
 
luvflyin said:
Just did a quick scan and read the replies here. So what it sounds like is Congress may have to Micro Manage all agencies/departments etc via Legislation?
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that. Agencies are run by unelected bureaucrats. I’d rather have Congress provide the laws that the agencies should regulate. This way, if I don’t like laws, I can hold someone accountable. If an agency, i.e. the shadow government oversteps their granted Authority, then law suits are brought and eventually SCOTUS steps in to hammer the agency back into shape. Congressional oversight of agencies as authorized by the Constitution, and as it should be. With checks and balances by SCOTUS.
 
Morgan3820 said:
There is a lot less bureaucratic effort to write a regulation than there is for Congress to pass legislation. There is a lot less need for compromise writing a regulation than there is for Congress to pass legislation. I support compromise in the legislative process. I support the checks and balances that the legislative process entails. I think that the scotus decision is a step back to the original intent of the founders.
Click to expand...
Ok. Three branch Government with the system of checks and balances is absolutely at the core of the Constitution. It is vital to not having Autocracy. The establishment of the EPA went through the process. The Legislative Branch made the Law establishing the EPA. It contained the authorities the EPA would have. But it's not Law yet. The Executive Branch concurred with the Law via the President signing it. Now it's Law. Subject to oversight by the Judicial Branch. The Legislative and Executive have broad powers. But they still have to abide by the Constitution. At the end of the day, SCOTUS can tell both Congress and the Prez to go pound sand.
So it kinda sounds like this West Virginia vs EPA thing is like saying Congress might have to start micro-managing agencies/departments etc. In other words, they can make no rules. Congress will have to make each and every rule and have it either approved by the Executive or enacted via Veto Override. Take raw sewage for instance. The EPA would not be able to make a rule that says untreated sewage cannot be discharged into rivers/streams/lakes/oceans etc unless Congress makes a Law saying so, and the President signs it.
Anyway, like I said, I just did a quick scan of the Decision and read the posts here about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
In a nut shell the decision said that really screwing up the country is the purview of Congress.

Agencies don't get to make laws and that is what many of them have been doing. In the case of the EPA to forward an agenda they have literally closed down whole segments of the economy. The ATF, FAA, FCC and others have done the same thing.
 
DFH65 said:
In a nut shell the decision said that really screwing up the country is the purview of Congress.
Click to expand...

Seems to me the Court has assumed that mantle, as they will be the ones to be the arbiter of what is a "Major Question". What qualifies as an economic major question? A social policy major question?

I didn't see any objective standard. I guess they'll know it when they see it.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
In the last couple of years I've processed a lot of certification reports for emissions on large turbofans. We go for every percent of efficiency; the things burn so clean that the only way to really lower the emissions is to burn less fuel. A 10% improvement will sell a lot of new planes.
Click to expand...

Remember, I lived in that would too for the same company. :)

I’m 7 years out of the loop on where technology has gone, but unless the air is coming out of those engines cleaner than it went in (which is physically impossible), the EPA has historically tried to make it cleaner and just keep on moving the decimal point further. Look at diesels - when I was in college the folks from Cummins would come and say how ridiculous the upcoming standards were - so clean that equipment didn’t even exist that could measure those levels. I know the tech my former employer was working on kept moving things cleaner, but I’m sure there’s further that could be regulated.

I do agree that fuel efficiency is the biggest thing though, and that sells lots of planes as the cost of fuel continues to rise.
 
Yup, that's their job....Congress does act as an overseer of the "gummint". They can and do investigations on the legislative branch. We got three legs on this stool and they check each other.

luvflyin said:
Just did a quick scan and read the replies here. So what it sounds like is Congress may have to Micro Manage all agencies/departments etc via Legislation?
Click to expand...
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Seems to me the Court has assumed that mantle, as they will be the ones to be the arbiter of what is a "Major Question". What qualifies as an economic major question? A social policy major question?

I didn't see any objective standard. I guess they'll know it when they see it.
Click to expand...

Then please take a look at this short, 3 page InFocus report from CRS on Major Questions.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12077
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top