Rather, it simply requires the EPA to reconsider costs to power plants before deciding whether the regulations are “appropriate and necessary”. The EPA, however, said that it was not pleased by the court’s decision. “The issue ought to be the balance between clean air and cost of electricity”.
Advertisement
The ruling does not affect a separate EPA plan for reducing power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions, the leading source of greenhouse gases contributing to global warming. The EPA rule was set to take effect in April.
Coal industry officials say it’s the right choice for North Dakota.
“The phrase “appropriate and necessary” requires at least some attention to cost”, said the court opinion, delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia.
Conservation Law Foundation Vermont Vice President and Senior Attorney Chris Killian is disappointed.
Liberals who were planning a victory lap after the Supreme Court rulings last week for Obamacare and same sex marriage just ran into a brick wall. Because the Court remanded the Rule, rather than vacating it, EPA will have another chance to bolster the reasoning behind the currently-proposed regulations or perhaps to come up with a different rule and different reasoning.
Other industries that have invested billions of dollars installing emission controls were aligned with the government, along with 16 states and several major cities, including New York and Chicago.
“The ruling is not about clean air, it’s about shutting down coal plants”, Compton said. “The protections already are rolling forward and utilities are making decisions accordingly”. “EPA refused to consider whether the costs of its decision outweighed the benefits”.
“It’s not like we’re going to suddenly turn off our emissions controls as a result of something like this”, he said. Weeks says it’s possible the EPA will have to do another cost analysis.
Supporters of the MATS rule point to what they contend are the significant health benefits from limiting the emissions, but those numbers are highly suspect. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.
Massachusetts took the lead among states filing briefs to support the EPAs case in the Supreme Court. We still find mercury in our fish in the middle of these areas, including drinking water reservoirs, because of power plants in the West. Every time it rains, the mercury comes down from the sky, affecting our fisheries. In 1990, Congress advised EPA to use the Clean Air Act to limit mercury. They said the EPA should not decide to adopt expensive new regulations without first considering what it will cost us. That argument may be called into question with the uncertain status of the MATS Rule after the Court’s decision. Environmental observers say the rules will stay in place until a lower court can determine how business costs should be accounted for.
Most plant operators already have started or completed work needed to comply with the rule.
ANN WEEKS: The horse is out of the barn. But the court said that was too late.
Advertisement
The city estimated that sticking with coal and upgrading to comply with the mercury rule could cost upward of $70 million.
