In the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) Ruling, number 14-46, Michigan ET AL. v. Environmental Protection Agency ET AL., (2015) Argued on March 25th, 2015 and decided on June 29th, 2015, The almost 3 months of deliberation yielded the following:
It held that the EPA interpeted 7412(n)(1)(A) incorrectly, the law which allows the agency to regulate power plants if it concludes that "regulation is appropriate and necessary" after studying hazards to public health posed by power-plant emissions. "EPA interpreted 7412(n)(1)(A) unreasonably when it deemed cost irrelevant to the decision to regulate power plants. Pp. 5-15."
You see, the regulations the EPA attempted to reach for would impose a $9.6 BILLION per year cost, whereas the quantifiable benefits from the resulting reduction in hazardous-air-pollutant emissions would be anywhere from $4 to $6 million a year. I think someone in government allowed their righteous battle against pollution of our atmosphere to get in the way of common sense.
The question I have is - Instead of fighting to ask for a win that would make these cornerstone power generation companies fight for any reasonable way to remain in business, why did then active administrator for the Environment Protection Agency not work more closely with the companies to come up with win-win solutions? What is stopping the current or future administrations from attempting the same?
This decision supports the importance of our power generation utilities in the United States but also underscores the problem with reaching across the aisle to find solutions to these issues without wasting the resources of both the Supreme Court and the Congress of the United States of America on "unreasonable" regulations - their word, not mine.