The Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to the EPA’s mercury emissions regulations, as Republican-led states and energy companies push back against stringent new limits on coal-fired power plants.
At a Glance
- 23 Republican-led states and energy companies are challenging EPA’s mercury and air toxics standards
- Petitioners argue the rule threatens electric grid reliability and exceeds EPA’s authority
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit has already denied stay requests
- Supreme Court decision could impact future environmental regulations
- EPA maintains the benefits of reduced emissions far outweigh the costs
States and Industry Groups Challenge EPA Rule
A coalition of 23 Republican-led states and multiple energy companies has brought their fight against the Environmental Protection Agency’s mercury emissions regulations to the Supreme Court. The group is seeking to halt the implementation of new standards that would require coal-fired power plants to significantly reduce their mercury and air toxics emissions. This latest move comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied their requests for a stay.
The petitioners, led by North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley and West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, argue that the EPA’s rule, known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), poses an imminent threat to the nation’s electric grid reliability and represents an overreach of the agency’s authority. They contend that without immediate intervention, power plant operators will be forced to make irreversible decisions that could have far-reaching consequences.
A group of red states and coal companies have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the D.C. Circuit's decision allowing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to implement a mercury air pollution rule while their legal challenges play out. https://t.co/hPRhhdHcfs pic.twitter.com/jX5ssUXJEP
— Law360 (@Law360) August 20, 2024
Cost-Benefit Analysis at the Heart of the Dispute
Central to this legal battle is the question of whether the EPA properly considered the costs of compliance when formulating the MATS rule. This issue has been a point of contention since the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Michigan v. EPA, which challenged the agency’s initial approach to cost considerations.
“The agency must consider cost — including, most importantly, cost of compliance — before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority.
The EPA argues that the benefits of reduced mercury emissions, particularly in terms of public health improvements, far outweigh the costs of implementation. The agency estimates annual benefits between $37 billion and $90 billion, compared to the $9.6 billion annual cost cited by industry groups.
Potential Implications for Future Regulations
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for future environmental regulations, particularly as the EPA seeks to implement ambitious climate change policies. Industry groups and conservative states view this as an opportunity to rein in what they perceive as regulatory overreach.
“This EPA rule is unlawful, unworkable and poses a serious threat to electric reliability,” NRECA CEO Jim Matheson said. “Absent a stay, it will force plant operators to install expensive, excessive and unjustified equipment that provides marginal benefit at their power plants or shut down. In many cases, this will push essential always-available generation off the grid, just as Americans are increasing their reliance on electricity.”
Supporters of the EPA’s position, however, emphasize the critical nature of these regulations in protecting public health and the environment. They argue that many power plants have already taken steps to comply with the standards, making a reversal both unnecessary and potentially disruptive.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear this case, the energy industry, environmental advocates, and policymakers alike will be watching closely. The decision could shape the landscape of environmental regulation for years to come, balancing the pressing need for cleaner air against concerns over economic impact and regulatory authority.
