The EPA’s power plant regulation overreach just got the thumbs down from the US Supreme Court. I’m formatting Justice Scalia’s decision for the majority (complete EPA decision on MICHIGAN ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL. here) to post for the wonky folks who like to get into the weeds, but for now I’ll leave you with this.
Turning to the mechanics of the hazardous-air-pollutants program, EPA argues that it need not consider cost when first deciding whether to regulate power plants because it can consider cost later when deciding how much to regulate them. The question before us, however, is the meaning of the “appropriate and necessary” standard that governs the initial decision to regulate. And as we have discussed, context establishes that this expansive standard encompasses cost. Cost may become relevant again at a later stage of the regulatory process, but that possibility does not establish its irrelevance at this stage. In addition, once the Agency decides to regulate power plants, it must promulgate certain minimum or floor standards no matter the cost (here, nearly $10 billion a year); the Agency may consider cost only when imposing regulations beyond these minimum standards. By EPA’s logic, someone could decide whether it is “appropriate” to buy a Ferrari without thinking about cost, because he plans to think about cost later when deciding whether to upgrade the sound system.
If you’d like to listen to a podcast on the case Glenn Woods at Bold Republic Radio has that covered here.
