SCOTUS rules against EPA regarding power plant emmisions

[dank69]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/29/supreme-court-rules-against-epa-on-power-plant-rules/

Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said it is not appropriate to impose billions of dollars of economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.

Don't really like Scalia saying the health costs are only a few dollars, but we will have to see how the EPA responds.

 

[TheSlamma]

We can just print off new water and trees, but cash is finite. What's the problem?

I'm actually kind of pro mercury too, it makes the world seem a little less crazy when you are also crazy.

Also, why was this up to the SCOTUS?

 

[Matthiasa]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/29/supreme-court-rules-against-epa-on-power-plant-rules/



Don't really like Scalia saying the health costs are only a few dollars, but we will have to see how the EPA responds.

It reads like he thought the cost saved for one person was the entirety of the costs saved rather then having aggregated that number across the entirety of the US population. I guess it hits two large industries with one stone though with it both supporting energy as well healthcare while completely ignoring both short and long term effects of such actions.

 

[K1052]

The ruling will have little practical effect now. Most plants that were non-compliant have closed, have emissions controls now or are in the process of installing them. Sustained low NG prices have made reopening any closed coal generators (which are usually old and marginal operations to begin with) unattractive.

Anyway all the EPA has to do is include a cost benefit analysis from the outset. I do find it hilarious that Scalia embraced the industry line that the new mercury limits only benefit people and the environment a few million dollars a year in total. Jiggery-pokery indeed.

 

[brycejones]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/29/supreme-court-rules-against-epa-on-power-plant-rules/



Don't really like Scalia saying the health costs are only a few dollars, but we will have to see how the EPA responds.

Unfortunately that is the kind of intellectual dishonesty I've come to expect from Scalia.

 

[theeedude]

Anyone surprised? The 5 Corporatists vote for corporations as expected.

 

[cabri]

The EPA overreached it's authority

 

[theeedude]

Enjoy particulate matter in your air and mercury in your water.

 

[dank69]

The EPA overreached it's authority

That doesn't seem to be the case. I think they are just being forced to clarify their numbers.

 

[thraashman]

Again we see the Republicans caring only about the "self" and the "now" when they need to consider the future and the public.

 

[hal2kilo]

Hopefully, the EPA can go back and do a cost benefit analysis.

Got to beat them over the head with the abacus. It's all about the DO REY ME.

 

[Phynaz]

We can just print off new water and trees, but cash is finite. What's the problem?

I'm actually kind of pro mercury too, it makes the world seem a little less crazy when you are also crazy.

Also, why was this up to the SCOTUS?

You have no idea what the case was about but chose to comment :\

 

[realibrad]

When I heard this, I thought it was stupid. The fact that the EPA does not know the full costs is the problem. We know that pollution impacts 3rd parties, and the burden should be on them to establish some research. The burden of proof should be on the industry to show it is worth allowing, not the EPA to fully quantify all costs before regulation.

I am a Libertarian at heart, so maybe I am biased, but freedom does not mean freedom to do what you want to others. If a company wants to quantify the costs of its pollution, and pay the parties impacted then fine. A company should not be able to pollute and then tell everyone else to prove pollution is bad.

 

[werepossum]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/29/supreme-court-rules-against-epa-on-power-plant-rules/



Don't really like Scalia saying the health costs are only a few dollars, but we will have to see how the EPA responds.

That's not his point. His point was that the cost MIGHT be only a few dollars, since the EPA isn't bothering to figure it out.

Biggest problem I see is that the environment does not easily scale to dollars. How for instance does one assign a dollar value to, say, the smoky madtom?

 

[fskimospy]

That's not his point. His point was that the cost MIGHT be only a few dollars, since the EPA isn't bothering to figure it out.

That's not correct. The EPA did bother to figure it out, just at a different stage of the process.

Basically the way the EPA did things was a 2 stage process:
Stage 1: Make a determination on whether or not something should be regulated. At this stage they don't consider costs, they just determine if something is a threat to health.

Stage 2: Make regulations. When actually deciding how to regulate something they most certainly do consider costs, which they also did in this case.

Functionally though, this ruling is pointless. Almost all power plants have already implemented these regulations, and the likely outcome is that the lower court will make the EPA do a cost analysis on the decision to regulate...which they will do and come to the decision that they need to regulate.

Biggest problem I see is that the environment does not easily scale to dollars. How for instance does one assign a dollar value to, say, the smoky madtom?

Some things like the life of fish may be hard to quantify, but mercury emissions have demonstrable negative effects on human health. You can quantify those.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Don't really like Scalia saying the health costs are only a few dollars, but we will have to see how the EPA responds.

This appears to be his way of making his point...and a good one at that imo.

 

[K1052]

This appears to be his way of making his point...and a good one at that imo.

That the life of an average American isn't worth $9K? :hmm:

 

[TheSlamma]

You have no idea what the case was about but chose to comment :\

Ugh.. no my point was I thought congress was supposed to work with the EPA to pass these types regulations. I don't really see the link between the supreme court having to get involved just to tell the EPA they have to consider the economics of their regulations.

 

[soulcougher73]

Is this like the 2 weeks of the year SCOTUS works? Lots of SCOTUS rulings recently.

 

[Brainonska511]

Is this like the 2 weeks of the year SCOTUS works? Lots of SCOTUS rulings recently.

They've been hearing cases since October and releasing opinions nearly every month. It's just that they tend to leave the opinions for the big cases to the end of the term.

But on average, they hear between 70-100 cases/year

 

[werepossum]

That's not correct. The EPA did bother to figure it out, just at a different stage of the process.

Basically the way the EPA did things was a 2 stage process:
Stage 1: Make a determination on whether or not something should be regulated. At this stage they don't consider costs, they just determine if something is a threat to health.

Stage 2: Make regulations. When actually deciding how to regulate something they most certainly do consider costs, which they also did in this case.

Functionally though, this ruling is pointless. Almost all power plants have already implemented these regulations, and the likely outcome is that the lower court will make the EPA do a cost analysis on the decision to regulate...which they will do and come to the decision that they need to regulate.



Some things like the life of fish may be hard to quantify, but mercury emissions have demonstrable negative effects on human health. You can quantify those.

Agreed, but my point was that things other than humans have value. Even where something affects humans, its effects are not necessarily quantifiable in dollars. A man on disability may die early and save society money, yet his death still crush his loved ones.

 

[cubby1223]

The ruling sounds weird, but I'm sure the situation cannot be completely described within a single sentence. But from the wording given, the case can be made that people should be treated equally under the laws, and uneven burdens are not allowed.

I will say this, knowing some details of past EPA regulations, the situation Scalia mentions very well could be true. Water treatment plant regulations, for example, not only place specifications on the quality of the outgoing water, but also performance demands on the difference between the incoming and outgoing water. If the incoming water into a treatment plant is clean, it costs a shit-ton to make the quality gains demanded by regulations, in return for extremely little benefit on the outgoing end. That applies to only a small fraction of plants, but those who do, this is a colossal waste of money that is better used elsewhere.

For power plants? I'd need to know exactly what the issues are to form an appropriate opinion, rather than the knee-jerk "Environment good, Republicans evil" stance many take 😛 😉

 

[werepossum]

They've been hearing cases since October and releasing opinions nearly every month. It's just that they tend to leave the opinions for the big cases to the end of the term.

But on average, they hear between 70-100 cases/year

Also takes more time to write opinions on contentious issues, which by custom are usually released near the end of the term. I get the sense that opinions may be as contentious as the debate itself.

 

[cubby1223]

Is this like the 2 weeks of the year SCOTUS works? Lots of SCOTUS rulings recently.

Just coincidence that many recent items hit the major news outlets.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That the life of an average American isn't worth $9K? :hmm:

Looks like it's time to stop biomass burning and throw out all those CFL bulbs...but damn, what are we going to do about the oceans?

Natural sources account for about 70% of the world’s total mercury emissions.