Martin O'Malley Responds to SCOTUS Rejection of EPA Power Plant Regs

Martin O'Malley ?@MartinOMalley 1h1 hour ago
Ending our reliance on fossil fuels would extend the lives of 200,000 Americans each year: http://omly.us/1IGIILD #EPA #SCOTUS

Martin O'Malley ?@MartinOMalley
Failing to limit the mercury, arsenic, and other toxins produced by our dirtiest power plants is a moral failure and a public health crisis.

Martin O'Malley ?@MartinOMalley
Today’s #SCOTUS @EPA decision reinforces the need to transition to clean energy & commit to ending our reliance on fossil fuels w/in 35 yrs.


related:

The Supreme Court Just Stopped the EPA From Making the Earth a Safer Place

On Monday, the Supreme Court struck down sweeping regulations that would limit emissions of mercury and other pollutants from power plants, extending a debate that has started and sputtered for nearly 20 years. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the EPA's refusal to consider costs to energy companies in its decision to regulate emissions was an unreasonable interpretation of the Clean Air Act.

The high court heard Michigan v. EPA with two related cases that pit the EPA against a group of 21 states and trade groups representing the power plant and coal-mining industries. The plaintiffs charged that the EPA had overstepped its regulatory authority while working to obey a 1990 amendment to the CAA, in which Congress ordered the agency to identify the health risks of 189 pollutants, including mercury, found in power plant emissions. If the EPA then deemed oversight of coal- and oil-fueled plants "appropriate and necessary," the amendment required the agency to issue a separate set of emission regulations for power plants. Power plant operators argued that the costs of closing or retrofitting facilities to meet the EPA's proposals would far outweigh potential benefits to public health.

But the debate that the Supreme Court decided Monday hinged on a technicality. While neither side disputed the estimated $9.6 billion price tag for the new rules or questioned the EPA's obligation to consider that cost while issuing regulations, the legal question boiled down to scheduling: Whether the wording of the 1990 CAA amendment required the agency to weigh the cost of new pollution controls against health benefits before or after the agency made its initial decision to regulate the industry.

In this case, the EPA postponed a cost-benefit analysis until after it suggested the new emissions rules in the late '90s and early aughts, and it argued before the Court that it was under no obligations to assess costs at an earlier stage. Additionally, the EPA argued that those costs would be far outweighed by the benefits of new limits on emissions, which it said each year included $37 billion to $90 billion in health savings and the prevention of 11,000 premature deaths due to the effects of exposure to mercury and other pollutants. But the industry argued that, looking at the effects of mercury alone, the health benefits of regulation amount to just $4 million to $6 million annually: "It is not rational," wrote Justice Scalia in his opinion, "to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health and environmental benefits."

read more: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/06/supreme-court-epa-mercury-regulation-power-plants