The Supreme Court Just Stopped the EPA From Making the Earth a Safer Place

[Bill USA]

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/06/supreme-court-epa-mercury-regulation-power-plants

On Monday, the Supreme Court struck down sweeping regulations that would limit emissions of mercury and other pollutants from power plants, extending a debate that has started and sputtered for nearly 20 years. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the EPA's refusal to consider costs to energy companies in its decision to regulate emissions was an unreasonable interpretation of the Clean Air Act.

"The agency gave cost no thought at all," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, who penned the majority opinion joined by the Court's more conservative justices, adding that the EPA had strayed far beyond its bounds to interpret the language of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The ruling reversed a 2-1 decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit and remanded the cases for further legal proceedings.

The high court heard Michigan v. EPA with two related cases that pit the EPA against a group of 23 states and trade groups representing the power plant and coal-mining industries*. The plaintiffs charged that the EPA had overstepped its regulatory authority while working to obey a 1990 amendment to the CAA, in which Congress ordered the agency to identify the health risks of 189 pollutants, including mercury, found in power plant emissions. If the EPA then deemed oversight of coal- and oil-fueled plants "appropriate and necessary," the amendment required the agency to issue a separate set of emission regulations for power plants. Power plant operators argued that the costs of closing or retrofitting facilities to meet the EPA's proposals would far outweigh potential benefits to public health.

But the debate that the Supreme Court decided Monday hinged on a technicality. While neither side disputed the estimated $9.6 billion price tag for the new rules or questioned the EPA's obligation to consider that cost while issuing regulations, the legal question boiled down to scheduling: Whether the wording of the 1990 CAA amendment required the agency to weigh the cost of new pollution controls against health benefits before or after the agency made its initial decision to regulate the industry.
(more)

[AuntPatsy]

1. Who benefits monetarily because that's who bought the decision

[elleng]

2. Not really, 100%,

more to it, or maybe less, as it's largely procedural. http://www.democraticunderground.com/112787598

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. They all plan to be dead before it gets too bad. nt

[truebluegreen]

4. Personally, I don't think the younger ones will make it. nt