Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency; Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency; National Mining Association v. Environment Protection Agency
Issues
Is the EPA required to consider costs when determining whether it is appropriate and necessary to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities?
The United States Supreme Court will consider whether the EPA acted reasonably based on the agency’s interpretation of its obligations under the Clean Air Act when it did not consider the costs, during rulemaking, of regulating the emissions of hazardous air pollutants from oil- and coal-fired electric utilities. The Petitioners argue that because the EPA did not consider cost of compliance as a factor in its decision, the EPA’s rule is an incorrect interpretation of the Clean Air Act and is unreasonable. The Respondents counter that the EPA acted reasonably and correctly interpreted the Clean Air Act by not considering cost of compliance as a factor in its decision to regulate hazardous air pollutants from electric utility plants. The Court’s decision will implicate the regulation of hazardous air pollutant emissions from electric utilities, and may have broader implications for the statutory interpretation of similar regulatory mandates to agencies.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
The Clean Air Act treats electric utilities differently from other sources of hazardous air pollutants. Other sources are required to limit their emissions if they exceed quantitative thresholds. 42 U.S.C. § 7412(c)(1) & (d)(1). By contrast, before EPA regulates hazardous air pollutants from electric utilities, it must first conduct a study of the hazards to public health resulting from those emissions even after imposition of all the other requirements of the Clean Air Act, and then decide whether it is "appropriate and necessary" to regulate such residual emissions under § 7412 after considering the results of the study. 42 U.S.C. § 7412(n)(1)(A).
The question for the Court is:
Whether EPA's interpretation of "appropriate" in 42 U.S.C. § 7412(n)(1)(A) is unreasonable because it refused to consider a key factor (costs) when determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities.
THE SUPREME COURT GRANTED CERT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: Whether the Environmental Protection Agency unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities.
Congress enacted the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) in 1970, including what is now § 7412, to address issue of air pollution, focusing on reducing hazardous air pollutants (“HAPs”). See White Stallion Energy Center, LLC v.
Edited by
Additional Resources
- Robert Barnes: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to EPA’s Power-Plant Emissions Rule, The Washington Post (Nov. 25, 2014).
- Environmental Protection Agency: Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for Power Plants.