Supreme Court rules against EPA on power plant regs
Jun 29, 2015 13:01:24 #
Finally ONE good ruling out of this left-wing America destroying court!
In a major win for the energy industry, the Supreme Court ruled Monday against the Environmental Protection Agency's effort to limit certain power plant emissions -- saying the agency "unreasonably" failed to consider the cost of the regulations.
The rules curbing emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants began to take effect in April. But the court said by a 5-4 v**e Monday that the EPA failed to take their cost into account when the agency first decided to regulate the toxic emissions from coal- and oil-fired plants.
The challenge was brought by industry groups and 21 Republican-led states.
Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said it is not appropriate to impose billions of dollars of economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.
"EPA must consider cost -- including cost of compliance -- before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary," the court said.
The case now goes back to lower courts for the EPA to decide how to account for costs.
The decision is a blow to the Obama administration, just days after the court delivered President Obama a major win by upholding his signature health care overhaul. The White House also celebrated Friday's historic ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide.
In the majority opinion on Monday, Scalia wrote that while the EPA decided to regulate power plants to improve public health and the environment, even the agency estimated it would cost power plants nearly $10 billion a year. "EPA refused to consider whether the costs of its decision outweighed the benefits. The Agency gave cost no thought at all, because it considered cost irrelevant to its initial decision to regulate," Scalia wrote.
In this, he wrote that the EPA over-reached.
The EPA did factor in costs at a later stage when it wrote standards that are expected to reduce the toxic emissions by 90 percent. They were supposed to be fully in place next year. The issue was whether health risks are the only consideration under the Clean Air Act.
The EPA said in a statement it would review the decision and take "any appropriate next steps" when the review 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 Press Secretary Melissa J. Harrison said.
She said that since the decision pertained to cost considerations -- and not the agency's overall Clean Air Act authority -- "EPA remains committed to ensuring that appropriate standards are in place" to curb air pollution.
"The Court's decision focuses on EPA's initial finding that it was appropriate and necessary to regulate these emissions and not on the substance of the standards themselves," she said, adding that for every dollar spent on reducing pollution under these rules, "the American public would see up to $9 in health benefits."
But Republicans cheered the decision. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement she hopes the opinion leads to some "balance" in these environmental standards. "It is heartening to hear that the court has reined in the EPA, especially on the issue of the costs of regulation," she said.
Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said it was enough that the EPA considered costs at later stages of the process.
"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.
She was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
The case is the latest in a string of attacks against the administration's actions to use the Clean Air Act to rein in pollution from coal-burning power plants.
EPA is readying rules expected to be released sometime this summer aimed at curbing pollution from the plants that is linked to g****l w*****g. States have already challenged those rules even before they are final, and Congress is working on a bill that would allow states to opt out of any rules clamping down on heat-trapping carbon dioxide.
The legal and political challenges ahead could undermine U.S. efforts to inspire other countries to control their emissions, as they head into negotiations in Paris on a new international treaty later this year.
In the case of mercury, the costs of installing and operating equipment to remove the pollutants before they are dispersed into the air are hefty -- $9.6 billion a year, the EPA found.
But the benefits are much greater, $37 billion to $90 billion annually, the agency said. The savings stem from the prevention of up to 11,000 deaths, 4,700 nonfatal heart attacks and 540,000 lost days of work, the EPA said. Mercury accumulates in fish and is especially dangerous to pregnant or breastfeeding women, and young children, because of concern that too much could harm a developing brain.
A disproportionate share of the 600 affected power plants, most of which burn coal, are in the South and upper Midwest.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/29/supreme-court-rules-against-epa-on-power-plant-rules/
In a major win for the energy industry, the Supreme Court ruled Monday against the Environmental Protection Agency's effort to limit certain power plant emissions -- saying the agency "unreasonably" failed to consider the cost of the regulations.
The rules curbing emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants began to take effect in April. But the court said by a 5-4 v**e Monday that the EPA failed to take their cost into account when the agency first decided to regulate the toxic emissions from coal- and oil-fired plants.
The challenge was brought by industry groups and 21 Republican-led states.
Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said it is not appropriate to impose billions of dollars of economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.
"EPA must consider cost -- including cost of compliance -- before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary," the court said.
The case now goes back to lower courts for the EPA to decide how to account for costs.
The decision is a blow to the Obama administration, just days after the court delivered President Obama a major win by upholding his signature health care overhaul. The White House also celebrated Friday's historic ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide.
In the majority opinion on Monday, Scalia wrote that while the EPA decided to regulate power plants to improve public health and the environment, even the agency estimated it would cost power plants nearly $10 billion a year. "EPA refused to consider whether the costs of its decision outweighed the benefits. The Agency gave cost no thought at all, because it considered cost irrelevant to its initial decision to regulate," Scalia wrote.
In this, he wrote that the EPA over-reached.
The EPA did factor in costs at a later stage when it wrote standards that are expected to reduce the toxic emissions by 90 percent. They were supposed to be fully in place next year. The issue was whether health risks are the only consideration under the Clean Air Act.
The EPA said in a statement it would review the decision and take "any appropriate next steps" when the review 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 Press Secretary Melissa J. Harrison said.
She said that since the decision pertained to cost considerations -- and not the agency's overall Clean Air Act authority -- "EPA remains committed to ensuring that appropriate standards are in place" to curb air pollution.
"The Court's decision focuses on EPA's initial finding that it was appropriate and necessary to regulate these emissions and not on the substance of the standards themselves," she said, adding that for every dollar spent on reducing pollution under these rules, "the American public would see up to $9 in health benefits."
But Republicans cheered the decision. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement she hopes the opinion leads to some "balance" in these environmental standards. "It is heartening to hear that the court has reined in the EPA, especially on the issue of the costs of regulation," she said.
Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said it was enough that the EPA considered costs at later stages of the process.
"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.
She was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
The case is the latest in a string of attacks against the administration's actions to use the Clean Air Act to rein in pollution from coal-burning power plants.
EPA is readying rules expected to be released sometime this summer aimed at curbing pollution from the plants that is linked to g****l w*****g. States have already challenged those rules even before they are final, and Congress is working on a bill that would allow states to opt out of any rules clamping down on heat-trapping carbon dioxide.
The legal and political challenges ahead could undermine U.S. efforts to inspire other countries to control their emissions, as they head into negotiations in Paris on a new international treaty later this year.
In the case of mercury, the costs of installing and operating equipment to remove the pollutants before they are dispersed into the air are hefty -- $9.6 billion a year, the EPA found.
But the benefits are much greater, $37 billion to $90 billion annually, the agency said. The savings stem from the prevention of up to 11,000 deaths, 4,700 nonfatal heart attacks and 540,000 lost days of work, the EPA said. Mercury accumulates in fish and is especially dangerous to pregnant or breastfeeding women, and young children, because of concern that too much could harm a developing brain.
A disproportionate share of the 600 affected power plants, most of which burn coal, are in the South and upper Midwest.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/29/supreme-court-rules-against-epa-on-power-plant-rules/
Jun 29, 2015 13:11:47 #
5-4 ruling means the left has 4 v**es still. Guess the left didn't factor in the cost of this.
JMHO wrote:
Finally a good ruling out of this left-wing America destroying court!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/29/supreme-court-rules-against-epa-on-power-plant-rules/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/29/supreme-court-rules-against-epa-on-power-plant-rules/
Jun 29, 2015 13:13:10 #
Unclet
Loc: Amarillo, Tx
bmac32 wrote:
5-4 ruling means the left has 4 v**es still. Guess the left didn't factor in the cost of this.
They never do. As long as it is someone else's money they are happy to spend it.
Jun 29, 2015 13:47:41 #
I have to agree after Solyndra and 123 cost this country $750 million. The left is quick to point out 123 recovered but the US tax payer recovered nothing, China recovered that money.
Unclet wrote:
They never do. As long as it is someone else's money they are happy to spend it.
Jun 29, 2015 14:07:34 #
oldroy
Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)
bmac32 wrote:
5-4 ruling means the left has 4 v**es still. Guess the left didn't factor in the cost of this.
That number tells me that they do for sure have 4 v**es on anything that they think they have to have to push the Obama way. It is too bad that those two right leaners failed to lean right last week, twice.
It does make me very happy to see a majority of them tell any regulating agency where to get off, especially the EPA.
Jun 29, 2015 14:42:07 #
It would seem that none of you read the last paragraphs of the article. From Fox news, yet not worthy of a full reading? I suggest you use a moment before your celebration carries you away..
I would also ask, if the 9 to 1 return on control costs to health cost are not good enough for you. The what is the value you place on the children of your own and others? Those you must be saved from a******n.
K*****g 10000 children a year must not be much to you. Makes you a hypocrite of the worst kind in my estimation.
What of the illness and development impairment which is also part of the pollution price.
Never have the coal and oil industry been required to consider these costs on a spread sheet. If they did, the cost to you, the ultimate payer, and all who pay subsides to the energy conglomerates would be very different.
I urge you once more to read all of the original post and consider those facts which are made clear in the last paragraphs..
I would also ask, if the 9 to 1 return on control costs to health cost are not good enough for you. The what is the value you place on the children of your own and others? Those you must be saved from a******n.
K*****g 10000 children a year must not be much to you. Makes you a hypocrite of the worst kind in my estimation.
What of the illness and development impairment which is also part of the pollution price.
Never have the coal and oil industry been required to consider these costs on a spread sheet. If they did, the cost to you, the ultimate payer, and all who pay subsides to the energy conglomerates would be very different.
I urge you once more to read all of the original post and consider those facts which are made clear in the last paragraphs..
Jun 29, 2015 15:39:04 #
EPA chief suggests c*****e c****e skeptics aren't normal!
She's batted her head against the wall too many times, so who's not normal?
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4319354369001/epa-chief-suggests-c*****e-c****e-skeptics-arent-normal/?intcmp=related#sp=show-clips
Sounds like Chicken Little!!!
She's batted her head against the wall too many times, so who's not normal?
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4319354369001/epa-chief-suggests-c*****e-c****e-skeptics-arent-normal/?intcmp=related#sp=show-clips
Sounds like Chicken Little!!!
permafrost wrote:
It would seem that none of you read the last parag... (show quote)
Jun 29, 2015 19:39:10 #
Unclet
Loc: Amarillo, Tx
oldroy wrote:
That number tells me that they do for sure have 4 v**es on anything that they think they have to have to push the Obama way. It is too bad that those two right leaners failed to lean right last week, twice.
It does make me very happy to see a majority of them tell any regulating agency where to get off, especially the EPA.
It does make me very happy to see a majority of them tell any regulating agency where to get off, especially the EPA.
Now we need to be observant of the old "end around" that Obama is famous for.
Jun 29, 2015 20:08:44 #
Unclet
Loc: Amarillo, Tx
permafrost wrote:
It would seem that none of you read the last parag... (show quote)
I wouldn't trust the EPA numbers if they were tattooed on the presidents ass. They have lied, deflected and intruded in so many ways they would not know how to tell the t***h if the environment depended on it, and it does. The EPA is nothing more that a power structure, to give the Gov't a means to grab land and resources. Reeds fiasco in Utah is one the most obvious. C*****e c****e is another. Now don't get your bowels in a uproar, c*****e c****e is happening, don't deny it, can't refute it. But mankind is not causing it, c*****e c****e is as natural as the changes that occur on most of the planet. Again another power grab, and a really good money maker as well.
Stop defending the indefensible, 9 billion is chump change to this administration. How much have all the bailouts cost and failed government investments like Solyndra. How about all the coal miners, and their families, what do they do. Let me tell you, they die of starve, freeze and die. How about all of the payouts to the wind farms, there is a real investiment. Failure rate at more than 20 percent, according to the repairmen who take care of the ones in our area. Been there 4 years, and our electric bill has not been reduce by one penny, in fact it has increase 8% overall. Oh, and how about all of the birds, Sage Grouse comes to mind, blades are k*****g them by the 100's, gets an occasional hawk, owl, and this year at least 1 eagle that we know of. EPA just sucks, should be done away with. We took care of the land for ourselves, we live on it, we will probably be buried under it, don't a city dwelling, desk driver to tell me how to do it.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.