Questions presented
SCOTUS records, cert granted 25 Nov 2014
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.
Opinion summary
Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion
In the case of Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA must consider costs before deciding whether regulation is "appropriate and necessary." The dispute arose from a 2012 regulation aimed at limiting power plants' emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants, which was challenged by industry groups and several states. They argued that EPA had failed to conduct a proper cost-benefit analysis in its decision-making process. In a 5-4 ruling, the court agreed with this argument stating that it was unreasonable for EPA to ignore cost considerations when determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities. This decision did not strike down the regulations but sent them back to EPA for further consideration.
Dissent summary
Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions
In the dissenting opinion for Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor argued that the EPA had acted reasonably in interpreting the Clean Air Act to allow it to decline to consider costs at the initial stage of determining whether regulation is appropriate and necessary. They contended that cost consideration was not required at every stage of devising regulations under this act but could be deferred until later stages when standards are set. The dissenters also pointed out that even though EPA did not factor in costs at first step, they were considered extensively in subsequent steps which led them to adopt less stringent controls for power plants than initially proposed thereby saving industry billions of dollars annually compared with original proposal while still achieving significant reduction in hazardous air pollutants.