After coal win, states seek similar relief for farms

The justices struck down an Environmental Protection Agency regulation on coal-plant emissions on the grounds that the EPA failed to consider whether the costs outweighed the benefits.

The court’s finding does not directly impact other EPA rules that affect the Cholla plant, including regional haze rules that were upheld by the Supreme Court previous year, or the pending carbon emission rules that will eventually either close the plant or force a conversion to natural gas.

Monday’s Supreme Court decision to reject the Environmental Protection Agency’s air pollution rules won’t have any immediate effect on Northwest power plants, and its long-term effects are still unclear.

Earthjustice’s Vice President of Litigation for Healthy Communities Lisa Garcia said, “The Supreme Court’s decision does not change the importance of EPA’s role in protecting our families and communities from toxic air pollution”. He was a leader in addressing acid rain in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. At best, then, the regulations yielded benefits valuing more than 9 times their cost.

For now, Kom said the power plant conversion remains on track to be completed before the April 2016 deadline, regardless of whether the mercury rule still exists by that time.

The challenge was brought by industry groups and 21 Republican-led states, which argued that the regulations were too costly for coal miners, businesses and consumers. The EPA in the fall is expected to alter its standard for what constitutes unhealthy ground-level ozone pollution, which would require significant, economy-wide investment in ozone-pollution control measures.

“Over more than a decade, EPA took costs into account at multiple stages and through multiple means as it set emissions limits for power plants”, Kagan said.

The regulations have already been adopted at many power plants, officials said, but threatened to put others out of business. He said it “serves as a critical reminder” to state governors, who are awaiting more EPA rules this summer aimed at curbing pollution from coal-fired power plants that is linked to global warming.

Because EPA has now evaluated the costs and benefits of the rule, the agency should be able to provide the cost analysis required by the Court in short order.

Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said the EPA was unreasonable in refusing to consider costs at the outset.

Between October 2003 and September 2013, the EPA issued 34 “major rules” with estimated annual benefits of up to $900 billion and estimated costs up to $60 billion, according to the Office of Management and Budget (“Draft Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations”, 2014).

Scalia’s opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts as well as the reliably conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito and the court’s swing voter Justice Anthony Kennedy, repeatedly comes back to this disparity. It’s inevitable they’ll overdo it – regulation is their business. It may, however, open the door to additional challenges to the EPA’s authority and potentially delay enforcement of those regulations.

The public will receive $3 to $9 in health benefits for every $1 that the protections cost the power industry.

There are some signs, however, the majority may be starting to nibble away at the Chevron standard and take a stricter line in scrutinizing agency decisions.

The Supreme Court is strongly suggesting that conversation take place.

This article was from Reuters and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network.