I've been keeping an eye on the Supreme Court case of Michigan v. EPA. This case consisted of several states contesting EPA regulatory procedures concerning emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants. The Supreme Court granted a hearing on the case limited to the question of whether the EPA "unreasonably refused to consider costs to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities."
The EPA argued in its written filing that costs do not come into play in the first part of the regulatory process, stating the agency "concluded that costs are not relevant to the decision whether to regulate such emissions, but that costs should instead be taken into account when setting emission standards."
Michigan and 20 other states objected to the wording in the Clean Air Act that states, "The Administrator shall regulate electric utility steam generating units under this section, if the Administrator finds such regulation is appropriate and necessary after considering the results of the study required by this subparagraph." The states argued in their written filings that the word "appropriate" in the sentence is ambiguous and that it renders the EPA "free to find it appropriate to regulate without any regard for the regulations cost."
The Court's decision was released today (June 29) and, by a 5-4 vote, it sided with the states, stating the EPA unreasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act when it set standards.
What does this mean for the Clean Air Act? Really, the only thing it means is the EPA must take one more step and do that much more paperwork in the regulatory process. That means more expense to the taxpayers and that much more time the fossil fuel industry will be allowed to pollute the environment and the public. Of course, the climate is the ultimate loser, which means more damage and suffering by humans, especially the poor.
Will the EPA be back with the regulations? Based on what I read, I believe so. The states, using data from the fossil fuel industry, have stated EPA regulations would achieve $4-6 million worth of health benefits a year by reducing hazardous air pollutants, but would cost the industry $9.6 billion yearly to achieve. But, interestingly, the EPA states the benefits would exceed costs $27 billion to $80 billion (in 2007 dollars). Using the EPA's numbers, regulation would be exceedingly appropriate.
Monday 29 June 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular Posts
-
Climate Change: How Can Wind Energy Help? Wind energy plays an important role in addressing climate change on a global level. Many countrie...
-
[Updated May 7, 2015] Encyclicals. Pope Francis, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, will soon issue a papal encyclical on global wa...
-
One of the false arguments deniers make is that polar ice is increasing, thus negating claims the world is getting warmer. Their line of rea...
-
Your roof (TGW) - Quiet Revolution, a London based small wind turbine maker, has raised $12.5 million in funding for its 6 kilowatt triple ...
-
Earth (TGW) - Online cartographers have taken a different look at how maps are made. Cartographers Danny Dorling and Anna Barford of the Uni...
-
The world will have to reduce emissions more drastically than has been widely predicted, essentially ending the emission of carbon dioxide...
-
Summary : California ’s Global Warming Solutions Act and Executive Order S-3-05 establish the goal of reducing emissions of greenhouse gas...
-
I began a new blog that will serve as a clearing house of articles on Tom Harris, ICSC and is affiliates. I will continue to add references ...
-
Someone left a comment and asked me to take a look at an article appearing on the NoTricksZone website - Why There Is Global Warming . I ag...
-
The weather is getting more extreme. This is a fact, no matter how many times certain people try to deny it. Last year alone, there was abou...
0 comments:
Post a Comment