- ScotusBlog: Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency.
- Oyez: Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency.
- Click here for the decision.
Here is the issue presented to the court from ScotusBlog:
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.
And the facts of the case according to Oyez:
The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act require that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate electric utility steam generating units (EGUs) if it finds that such regulation was “appropriate and necessary” after conducting a utility study. In December 2000, the EPA issued a notice that such regulation was necessary based on the results of the utility study, which showed that the mercury emissions from EGUs were a threat to public health. In 2005, the EPA reversed its findings and determined that it was not “appropriate and necessary” to regulate coal- and oil-fired EGUs. States and other groups petitioned for review, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the EPA’s attempt to reverse its findings was unlawful because it could not remove pollutant sources from the regulation list once they were on it. In 2012, the EPA confirmed that EGU regulation was necessary and promulgated emission standards. State, industry, and labor groups petitioned the appellate court for review of the EPA’s interpretation of the “appropriate and necessary” requirement with respect to these regulations. The appellate court denied the petition.
For media coverage:
- NYT: Supreme Court Blocks Obama’s Limits on Power Plants.
- The Hill: Supreme Court overturns landmark EPA air pollution rule.
- WaPo: Supreme Court: EPA erred in rule on toxic emissions from power plants.
