United States Supreme Court Rules EPA Unreasonably Interpreted the Clean Air Act

The United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency et al, 576 U.S. ____ (2015) dealt a major blow to the EPA’s efforts to regulate the emission of mercury and other pollutants from power plants.  The Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, that the EPA unreasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act without first considering the costs on industry to do so. 

The Clean Air Act directs the EPA to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants from certain sources such as refineries and factories.  The Act states that the Agency may regulate power plants only if it concludes that “regulation is appropriate and necessary” after studying hazards to public health.  The EPA found that it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate power plants.  The Agency, however, refused to consider costs to industry when making its decision.  It was estimated that the regulations would cost power plants $9.6 billion per year, with a quantifiable benefit of on $4 to $6 million per year.  The Supreme Court held that the EPA acted unreasonably when it failed to consider costs in its decision to regulate. 

The full text of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency et al, 576 U.S. ____ (2015) is available here.