Posted on 06/29/2015 10:22:22 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The Supreme Court overturned the Obama administration’s landmark air quality rule on Monday, ruling the Environmental Protection Agency did not properly consider the costs of the regulation.
In a 5-4 ruling, the justices ruled that the EPA should have taken into account the costs to utilities and others in the power sector before even deciding whether to set limits for the toxic air pollutants it regulated in 2011.
The case, Michigan v. EPA, centers on the EPA’s first limits on mercury, arsenic and acid gases emitted by coal-fired power plants, known as mercury and air toxics (MATS). Opponents, including the National Federation of Independent Business, say it's among the costliest regulations ever issued.
The EPA estimated its rule, which took effect for some plants in April, would cost $9.6 billion, produce between $37 billion and $90 billion in benefits and prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 asthma cases annually.
But the agency concluded that its regulatory impact analysis should have “no bearing on” the determination of whether regulations are appropriate, as set forth in the Clean Air Act.
In the majority ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia concluded that the EPA “unreasonably” interpreted the Clean Air Act when it decided not to consider industry compliance costs and whether regulating the pollutants is “appropriate and necessary.”
While the agency is afforded a certain level of power to interpret the law, the court wrote, “EPA strayed well beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation in concluding that cost is not a factor relevant to the appropriateness of regulating power plants.”
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy joined Scalia in overturning the rule, while Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg sided with the EPA.
Writing for the minority, Kagan said the EPA properly considered costs at a later stage in the regulation, something that it has done in other rules and that the courts have allowed.
“The majority’s decision that EPA cannot take the same approach here — its micromanagement of EPA’s rulemaking, based on little more than the word ‘appropriate’ — runs counter to Congress’s allocation of authority between the Agency and the courts,” she said.
The EPA said it is reviewing the decision and will decide any next steps — including re-doing the regulation — once that process is complete.
“EPA is disappointed that the Court did not uphold the rule, but this rule was issued more than three years ago, investments have been made and most plants are already well on their way to compliance,” EPA spokeswoman Melissa Harrison said in a statement.
She said the agency “remains committed to ensuring that appropriate standards are in place to protect the public from the significant amount of toxic emissions from coal and oil-fired electric utilities and continue reducing the toxic pollution from these facilities.”
Opponents of the regulation immediately cheered the ruling, while environmentalists expressed disappointment.
“The mere fact that the EPA wished to ignore the costs of its rules demonstrates how little the agency is concerned about the effects it has on the American people,” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said in a statement.
“The Supreme Court’s decision today vindicates the House’s legislative actions to rein in bureaucratic overreach and institute some common sense in rulemaking,” McCarthy said.
National Mining Association President Hal Quinn called the ruling a “vindication of common sense that is missing in much of the administration’s regulatory actions.”
“The decision effectively puts EPA on notice: reckless rulemaking that ignores the cost to consumers is unreasonable and won’t be tolerated,” he said.
Vickie Patton, general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, called the ruling “unfortunate” and said it puts communities and families at risk.
“While today’s decision is a setback, EPA has ample information to swiftly address the Court’s concerns,” she said.
“The court’s decision to let polluters off the hook is a huge setback for our kids' health,” Anna Aurilio, director of Environment America’s Washington office, said in a statement.
Since the ruling only concerns the cost-benefit analysis, the EPA can try writing the rule again if it considers costs.
While Monday's ruling struck down a major environmental priority for President Obama, it is not a complete loss.
Most power plant operators have already either complied by shutting plants down or retrofitting them, or have made firm plans to comply.
On a Friday appearance on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” EPA head Gina McCarthy said she was confident the Supreme Court would rule in the EPA’s favor.
But she was not too concerned about what would happen if the ruling went against the EPA.
“This is a rule that actually regulates toxic pollution emissions from primarily coal facilities, and we think we’re going to win because we did a great job on it,” she said.
“But even if we don’t, it was three years ago. Most of them are already in compliance, investments have been made, and we’ll catch up. And we’re still going to get at the toxic pollution from these facilities,” she continued.
Furthermore, the EPA’s carbon limits for power plants are expected to shut down more than half of the nation’s coal-fired power plants, which would also reduce the other air pollutants.
“It is possible that, if the court strikes down the rule, some utilities might not be willing to pay the cost of running the control equipment as much as they would have to under the rule,” Jody Freeman, an environmental law professor at Harvard Law School, said before the ruling
“But generally the bottom line is that that utilities are already headed in the direction of putting more controls on this pollution, whether because of this rule, or to comply with the cross-state pollution rule the Supreme Court already upheld in the Homer case last term, or in anticipation of the carbon rule for power plants,” she said, referring to a case decided last year that upheld the EPA’s regulation on air pollution that crosses state lines.
The ruling also could help the EPA defend its carbon limits in court.
Opponents of the rule, including energy companies, utilities and some states, say the Clean Air Act prohibits the EPA from regulating power plants’ carbon output if other pollution from the plants is also regulated under another section of the law.
While the EPA and its allies disagree, striking down the MATS rule largely neutralizes the problem.
— This report was updated at 11:30 a.m.
A stopped clock is right twice a day.
Robespierre’s Roberts and Kennedy must want to be able to go to even the lower ranked parties in DC, those of the Business interests. As they have already managed to have permanent seats at all the State and “love in” events on the Calder.
Yes. I don’t really care what they do from now on. They are illegitimate no matter what.
The court has increasingly become about the all-powerful Kennedy.
Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi sued the Obama administration Monday to stop a new regulation asserting federal authority over minor waterways like streams and wetlands.
The rule from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is one of the most controversial regulations from the Obama administration, redefining how the EPA enforces the water pollution protections of the Clean Water Act.
In the lawsuit, filed in a Houston-based federal court, the states argue that the rule “is an unconstitutional and impermissible expansion of federal power over the states and their citizens and property owners.”
The states’ attorneys general — all Republican — said the “waters of the United States” rule violates the clear language of the Clean Water Act that drew a line between federal authority and that of states or private landowners over waterways.
“Whereas Congress defined the limits of its commerce power through the Clean Water Act to protect the quality of American waters, the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers, through the Final Rule, are attempting to expand their authority to regulate water and land use by the states and their citizens,” they wrote.
The case appears to be the first lawsuit against the rule, though it’s unlikely to be the last. Apart from many states, farmers, developers, business groups and others oppose rule, which they said could give the EPA power over almost any piece of land.
The administration wrote the rule and made it final last month in an attempt to clarify its jurisdiction after two Supreme Court cases made it murky. While about 3 percent more area is now covered by the Clean Water Act than before, the protections are still smaller than they were during President Bill Clinton’s administration.
The Clean Water Act gives federal officials jurisdiction over “navigable” water, but they also must regulate a certain distance upstream to protect the main waterways.
If a waterway is under federal jurisdiction, landowners might need permits for anything that harms or pollutes it.
“We’re finalizing a clean water rule to protect the streams and the wetlands that one in three Americans rely on for drinking water,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said when rolling out the rule. “And we’re doing that without creating any new permitting requirements and maintaining all previous exemptions and exclusions.”
Brian Deese, a top adviser to President Obama, said “the only people with reason to oppose the rule are polluters who want to threaten our clean water.”
The agency made a point when it unveiled the rule to explain what is not covered, including standard agricultural practices and isolated ponds.
The House has voted to overturn the rule, and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has passed a bill to overturn it while giving the EPA specific instructions to re-write it.
We’ll probably never hear pro-unconstitutionally big federal government activist justices admit that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate environmental issues.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and activist justices along with it.
Kennedy is back to being a “conservative” today?
The liberals on that court are pure and simply locked step in every way. They’re like robots.
Bump for later.
and then just rewrite the pollution rules?
-PJ
EVERY executive regulation should face an up/down vote from congress.
SCOTUS is made up of globalists.
On a 24-hour stuck clock, they can only be right once a day.
I just retired from 30 years of running a public water supply. You can remove 99% of something from that water, but the last 1% is the cost killer! A gallon of water might cost as much as a gallon of gas. And that final 1/10 of a percent? A bit exaggerated, but you get the point.
So, we have 4 morons who will always vote against the Constitution, 3 that always support the Constitution, and 2 who have to wait for either instructions or check the wind outside before voting.
What the hell is a “landmark rule?”
With this ruling, we are going to see a demonstration of the concept that the court only gives opinies, it doesn’t make law ot policy. Funny how that only happens when it is a topic that lefists don;t agree with. Every reader knows just as well as I do that the leviathan will ignore the court, becasue it’s ruling does not follow the script of feeding the beast more power. Sure, there will be a kabuki threater for the 6 oclock news, eventually, though the cogs that run the machinery willonce again start turning and our freedoms will be at risk.
I hope that when we get a Congress with some guts, the EPA can be defunded entirely!
If we ever get another Conservative president, I hope he says that man-made Climate Change is a Scam.
I am very much ready to hear some truth out of our politicians.
Vote out those with forked tongues...which means almost all of them
I’m shocked. They actually based an opinion on the rule of law? It still doesn’t change my very low opinion of the Supreme Court, its for moronic robotic radical leftists plus its super-moron Kenney and its chief moron Roberts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.