EPA Rules Against EPA Power Plant Rule

Chalk one up for the good guys, even if the media is trying to portray the rule as being all about “pollution”

(The Hill)  The Supreme Court overturned the Obama administration’s landmark air quality rule on Monday, ruling the Environmental Protection Agency did not properly consider the costs of the regulation.

In a 5-4 ruling, the justices ruled that the EPA should have taken into account the costs to utilities and others in the power sector before even deciding whether to set limits for the toxic air pollutants it regulated in 2011.

The case, Michigan v. EPA, centers on the EPA’s first limits on mercury, arsenic and acid gases emitted by coal-fired power plants, known as mercury and air toxics (MATS). Opponents, including the National Federation of Independent Business, say it’s among the costliest regulations ever issued.

The EPA estimated its rule, which took effect for some plants in April, would cost $9.6 billion, produce between $37 billion and $90 billion in benefits and prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 asthma cases annually.

But the agency concluded that its regulatory impact analysis should have “no bearing on” the determination of whether regulations are appropriate, as set forth in the Clean Air Act.

In the majority ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia concluded that the EPA “unreasonably” interpreted the Clean Air Act when it decided not to consider industry compliance costs and whether regulating the pollutants is “appropriate and necessary.”

While the agency is afforded a certain level of power to interpret the law, the court wrote, “EPA strayed well beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation in concluding that cost is not a factor relevant to the appropriateness of regulating power plants.”

The reality of the EPA regulation is that it was about reigning in, and eliminating, coal power plants and stopping “climate change”, not any sort of real protection from real pollutants (funny thing is, these same Warmists aren’t concerned with mercury poisoning from Compact Fluorescent Lighbulbs). The EPA has become an advocacy group for the Cult of Climastrology, and is more interested in accumulating, and using, power for their narrow agenda, rather than any real concern over the environment. The pollutants are important to remove, but, the EPA has to follow the law in designing them, so, this SCOTUS ruling gives the EPA a chance to come up with the rules in a proper manner, rather than a targeted political one.

There’s some serious liberal hand-wringing and insanity going on at the Washington Post, as well as other leftist outlets. See, they are allowed to get upset over a ruling they disagree with. Conservatives, on the other hand, are just supposed to accept ruling not in our favor as “settled.” Wait till the Warmists lose when the 30% reduction in greenhouse gases rules are knocked down. Then they’ll really be upset.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “EPA Rules Against EPA Power Plant Rule”

  1. john says:

    CFLs and mercury ? Teach are you serious? One can of tuna fish exposes a person to about 7 times the amount of mercury that a modern CFL that one would buy in a store releases if broken and then properly cleaned up with a broom (not a HazMat team in moonsuits) http://earthtechling.com/2011/10/the-mercury-myth-how-much-mercury-do-cfls-actually-contain/

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    Thanks to retarded johnny’s comment this thread should be dead.
    But wait, little jeffy will be along soon.

  3. drowningpuppies says:

    While waiting for lil’ jeffy…

    Hillary Clinton withheld Benghazi-related emails from the State Department that detailed her knowledge of the scramble for oil contracts in Libya and the shortcomings of the NATO-led military intervention for which she advocated.

    Clinton removed specific portions of other emails she sent to State, suggesting the messages were screened closely enough to determine which paragraphs were unfit to be seen by the public.


  4. john says:

    so that 9 billion that would increase the cost about 15%
    My boy drowning puppy seems to be really upset that Hillary is a 2-1 fav to be the next POTUS

  5. john says:

    coal is a Victorian era energy source it is time to begin phasing it out. Thankfully no one is willing to risk their money building new ones

  6. john says:

    I suppose I should have said no politician running for a national election, no doubt in some crackerville place it might be mandatory

  7. Liam Thomas says:

    Actually Fracking could save the Coal industry. In North Dakota they have built infrastructure to take the pollution and co2 and pipe it to the oil fields which is then pumped underground as fracking material.

    Two benefits….More oil and sequestration of pollution and Co2.

    Get back to me John when you have figured out how to rid the world of fossil fuels and still power tractors, semi’s, Boats, Planes, Trains, Tanks, Bombers, Nukalar Missiles, Cruise Missiles, combines, Cars, trucks, Motorcycles and the like.

    Yeah, Yeah I know about batteries….the real question have you nitwits even considered how many trillion batteries using co2 producing methods it will take to power even a third of the transportation and farming sections…….let alone do it all?

    Then have you figured out how to recycle all those batteries using lead……which going into landfills will be as bad as any co2 ever thought about being….

Pirate's Cove