SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus MICHIGAN ET AL. v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT*
No. 14–46. Argued March
25, 2015—Decided June 29, 2015
The Clean
Air Act directs the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate emissions of
hazardous air pollutants from certain stationary sources (such as refineries
and factories). 42 U. S. C. §7412. The Agency may regulate power plants under
this program only if it concludes that “regulation is appropriate and
necessary” after studying hazards to public health posed by power-plant
emissions. §7412(n)(1)(A). Here, EPA found power-plant regulation “appropriate”
because the plants’ emissions pose risks to public health and the environment
and because controls capable of reducing these emissions were available. It
found regulation “necessary” because the imposition of other Clean Air Act
requirements did not eliminate those risks. The Agency refused to consider cost
when making its decision. It estimated, however, that the cost of its
regulations to power plants would be $9.6 billion a year, but the quantifiable
benefits from the resulting reduction in hazardous-air-pollutant emissions
would be $4 to $6 million a year. Petitioners (including 23 States) sought
review of EPA’s rule in the D. C. Circuit, which upheld the Agency’s refusal to
consider costs in its decision to regulate.
Held: EPA interpreted
§7412(n)(1)(A) unreasonably when it deemed cost irrelevant to the decision to
regulate power plants. Pp. 5–15.
(a) Agency action is
unlawful if it does not rest “ ‘on a consideration
—————— *Together with No. 14–47, Utility
Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., and
No. 14–49, National Mining Assn.
v. Environmental Protection Agency et al.,
also on certiorari to the same court.
What Should Clean Air Cost?
The Supreme Court’s surprising decision to
hear a challenge by big coal. By Dahlia Lithwick, Slate.com, 3/24/15
In a way, Wednesday’s Supreme Court case about
the EPA’s new mercury legislation is another paradigmatic “Obama’s War on
[Insert Name]” challenge. In this case, the president is being blamed for shameless overreach in an
unjust “War on Coal”—even though the Clean
Air Act, at issue in the challenge, dates back to the days when Obama was just
mastering his two-wheeler, and the EPA’s reading of the act feels less warlike
than workmanlike.
Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970 and after a good deal of lollygagging and
foot-dragging, amended it in 1990 to more aggressively target more than 180
hazardous substances including arsenic, mercury, and various toxic gases. If
these substances were shown to harm human health, according to the rule, the
Environmental Protection Agency “shall regulate” the major sources of these
pollutants where it is “appropriate and necessary.” After studying the issue a
lot, the EPA twice put forth new regulations it believed to be “appropriate and
necessary” for coal and oil-fired power plants to curb the spread of mercury
and other hazardous chemicals, first in 2000 and then again in 2012. (The Bush
administration tried unsuccessfully to undo all this in 2005 but failed in
federal court.) The challengers in this case argue, in short, that the EPA
didn’t properly take costs into account when the agency created its Mercury and
Air Toxics Standards, which set emissions standards for about
600 electric power plants across the nation.
Comments
The Court told the EPA to justify the cost on this piece
of overreach on clean air regulations. It needs to do the same with carbon
capture and water regulations to end the UN influence in the US.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment