 |
| EPA Head McCarthy response to SCOTUS decision: "... since the regulations have been in place for three years, most plants are already in compliance." |
"In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court blocked the Environmental Protection Agency's mercury and air toxics standards, charging that the administration failed to adequately consider the estimated $10 billion it would cost utilities to dramatically cut power plant pollution to comply with the measure.
"The high court's decision does not necessarily stop the EPA from implementing the standards in the future, but it does establish something of a precedent, with the justices making clear the administration must consider the economic consequences of its climate change agenda." . . .
"The EPA essentially has achieved its central goal even though its regulations have temporarily been tossed.
"'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 making emissions reductions,' the agency said in a statement. 'Since the decision was about how and when the agency considered costs in its decision that mercury and air toxic emissions from power plants threaten public health and the environment, and not EPA's Clean Air Act authority to limit hazardous air pollutants, EPA 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.'
"Other pieces of Mr. Obama's climate change agenda, such as the Clean Power Plan, which will restrict carbon emissions from power plants, also face an uncertain legal future." . . .
The New York Times adds, "The Supreme Court on Monday blocked one of the Obama administration's most ambitious environmental initiatives, one meant to limit emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from coal-fired power plants.
"Industry groups and some 20 states challenged the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to regulate the emissions, saying the agency had failed to take into account the punishing costs its regulations would impose.
"The Clean Air Act required the regulations to be 'appropriate and necessary.' The challengers said the agency had run afoul of that law by deciding to regulate the emissions without first undertaking a cost-benefit analysis.
"The agency responded that it was not required to take costs into account when it made the initial determination to regulate."
Reuters adds, ". . . the court ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency must consider costs before deciding whether regulation is 'appropriate and necessary.' Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority decision. . . . The court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which will then ask the EPA to reconsider its rule-making. . . .
"The 2012 mercury regulation, which covers oil-fired plants as well as coal-burning ones, was targeted by Michigan and other states in addition to various industry groups, including the National Mining Association.
"The question was whether the EPA should have considered the cost of compliance when deciding to regulate pollutants. Industry groups and some states challenged the regulation to limit emissions of mercury and other hazardous pollutants, claiming costs of up to $9.6 billion.
"The regulation could help prompt utility companies to shut down some coal-fired plants due to the costs of compliance. The EPA says the rule, due to go into effect this year, applies to about 1,400 electricity-generating units at 600 power plants."
Today, after yesterday's Supreme Court Mercury ruling, scrutiny of President Obama's climate rules grows
The AP writes, "Sweeping pollution limits at the center of President Barack Obama's climate change plan are facing increased scrutiny in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling that showed that the justices aren't afraid to thwart perceived overreach by Obama or his Environmental Protection Agency.
"The high court's ruling undermined Obama administration regulations targeting mercury and other hazardous air pollutants — a different set of regulations from the greenhouse gas limits that Obama is counting on to slow the effects of global warming. . . . the court had finally woken up to what they call the haphazard and costly nature of the environmental regulations that Obama has put forth.
"Mike Duncan, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, which lobbies for the coal industry, said he hoped that following Monday's ruling, the EPA would withdraw its pending greenhouse gas rules out of recognition of the limits of its own authority. 'If they don't, I'm sure we'll be seeing them in court again very soon,' Duncan said."
AP notes that the Supreme Court's ruling on the mercury regulation could have an impact on the administration's costly overreach on regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. "[T]he mercury rules, while an important part of Obama's environmental legacy, pale in comparison to the unprecedented carbon dioxide limits for power plants that the White House is expected to finalize in August. . . . [T]hose rules face a bevy of other legal challenges, including claims that the technology needed for power plants to comply isn't yet commercially available or affordable. Opponents in Congress and the energy industry argue the administration has failed to prove that such technology has been 'adequately demonstrated' and therefore can't require its use. . . .
"Monday's ruling on mercury . . . offered hope to Obama's opponents that the court was finally willing to block the EPA from exceeding its authority. 'This case signals that you've got at least five justices on the Supreme Court that are not going to just go along with anything the EPA wants to do,' said Jeffrey Holmstead, the EPA's former air and radiation chief under President George W. Bush. 'They're not going to be bashful in striking down EPA rules.'
"That affirmation from the court provided fodder for Republicans in Congress who have encouraged states to simply ignore Obama's climate change rules. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ... said the mercury ruling was a 'critical reminder' for governors that Obama's regulations would inflict pain on the middle class. McConnell's office said he had conveyed to the governors that there would be no consequences to waiting to see whether the regulations even survive in the courts."
And it seems like waiting might be a more sensible approach for another reason: if the EPA makes a legally questionable rule and states rush to comply, the damage in costs to businesses and job losses all come right away without even knowing if the rule will survive a legal challenge.
As the AP explains, ". . . the EPA failed to account properly for the costs to industry when it first decided to regulate mercury and other toxic emissions from coal- and oil-fired plants. The decision sends the case back to a lower court while leaving the rules in place, but industry advocates say it's largely too late. That's because many power plants shuttered while others installed costly upgrades in order to comply with the rule, which took effect in April. . . .
"Since the mercury rules had already gone into effect before the Supreme Court ruled against them on Monday, industry groups said the damage had already been done. Going forward, Holmstead said, the court may be more likely to put a temporary block — known as a 'stay' — on the carbon dioxide rules out of recognition that they may eventually be overturned.
"Such a move would indefinitely delay Obama's carbon dioxide limits, a key element of his legacy . . . . Already, Obama is on a short timeline; if the rules aren't firmly in place by the time Obama leaves office in 2017, his successor could do away with them much more easily."
Yesterday, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said, "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 [and] the EPA continued to burden the public with more and more costs even as so many are still struggling to get by and improve their lives in this economy. Today's decision firmly rejects the Obama administration's circumvention of the democratic process and restores a dose of accountability to the increasingly unaccountable executive branch."
Tags: Supreme Court Ruling, EPA, Mercury Rules impact on industry, States To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
No comments:
Post a Comment