Environmental regulations have consistently emerged
as a point of controversy in the United States. Following growing criticism of
the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) emissions regulations for mercury
and other toxic pollutants, the Supreme Court announced it will review the
ability of the EPA to establish such regulations. The case was narrowed down to
a singular question: “whether the Environmental
Protection Agency unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether
it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electrical
utilities.”[1]
The EPA's new emissions regulations have turned
into a political case, after their adoption in 2012 was seen as a victory for
the Obama administration. [2]
A challenge to these regulations could potentially hamper the White House's
ability to act in environmental cases. Furthermore, this case could be a
precursor to future Supreme Court intervention in EPA oversight cases, echoing
the message of Justice Scalia, following a June 2012 case, that "the court
remained prepared to impose limits on the agency's regulatory authority.”[3]
The basis of the case is the interpretation of the
Clean Air Act.[4]
The Clean Air Act states, "Emissions standards... shall require the
maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the hazardous air pollutants
subject to this section... taking into consideration the cost of achieving such
emission reduction."[5]
Twenty-one states and multiple energy industry companies have filed
complaints against the EPA, arguing the agency neglected to consider the
cost of regulations in the early stages of the regulatory process, a cost which
could be over $9 billion.[6]
In April 2012, the issue was brought before the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case, White
Stallion Energy Center, LLC v. Environmental Protection
Agency; American Academy of Pediatrics. In a 2-1 decision,
the right of the EPA to apply the disputed regulations was upheld. Judge Judith
W. Rogers, writing for the majority, stated, "For the EPA to focus its
'appropriate and necessary' determination on factors relating to public health
hazards, and not industry's objections that emission controls are costly,
properly puts the horse before the cart".[7]
In the upcoming hearing, the Supreme Court has
agreed to hear three separate cases against the regulations during a one
session hearing in March 2015. These cases are Michigan
v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 14-46, Utility Air Regulator
Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 14-47; and National Mining Association v. Environmental Protection
Agency, No. 14-49.
In order to justify the regulations, the
Environmental Protection Agency will need to demonstrate that it appropriately
considered the costs of the regulations on the affected utility companies,
and, therefore, that the benefits of the regulations outweigh the costs. While
not impossible, this task will prove difficult for the EPA. The agency
estimates benefits to range from $35 billion to $90 billion (2007)[8].
These estimates, however, contain non-quantifiable components, such as
prevention of premature deaths and prevention of lowered IQ rates.[9]
Whereas the plaintiffs are able to provide a clear citations to where
their losses emerge, the EPA will rely on fewer tangible examples.
[1] Liptak,
Adam, and Coral Davenport. "Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Rules on
Mercury From Power Plants." New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-case-on-costs-of-clean-air-act.html?_r=2.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Liptak,
Adam. "Supreme Court to Hear Case on Costs of Clean Air Act." Boston
Globe via New York Times.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/11/25/supreme-court-hear-case-costs-clean-air-act/BsaBZkkd8KJKVGqH3cTQAL/story.html.
[4] Liptak,
Adam, and Coral Davenport. "Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Rules on
Mercury From Power Plants." New York Times.
[5] Clean Air Act, Section 112(d)1, 42 U.S. Code
7412(d)(1)
[6] Barnes, Robert. "Supreme Court to hear
challenge to EPA’s power-plant emissions rule." The Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-hear-challenge-to-epa-power-plant-mercury-pollution-rule/2014/11/25/3086fad8-74d9-11e4-a755-e32227229e7b_story.html.
[7] White Stallion Energy Center, LLC
v. Environmental Protection Agency; American Academy of
Pediatrics, 44 ELR 20088, No. 12-1100, (D.C. Cir., 04/15/2014)
[8] Barnes,
Robert. "Supreme Court to hear challenge to EPA’s power-plant emissions
rule." The Washington Post.
No comments:
Post a Comment