Michigan v. EPA: Policymaking in the Guise of Statutory Interpretation
In Michigan v. EPA, the majority followed its own policy views, not those in the statute.
The majority opinion by Justice Scalia has gotten most of the attention. Most notably, he wrote that "[o]ne would not say that it is even rational, never mind "appropriate", to impose billions of dollars in economic costs for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits." Indeed, "[n]o regulation is 'appropriate' if it does significantly more harm than good." Later in the opinion, Justice Scalia again faulted the agency's failure to "ensure that the costs are no...
CONTINUE READINGInjecting Earthquakes
The scientific evidence shows a clear link between injection wells and earthquakes. The legal consequences are less clear.
A recent study of injection wells and earthquakes got a lot of press, but the reports missed an important nuance. The study, published in the June 19 edition of Science, found a definite connection between well injection and earthquakes. But there was an interesting wrinkle: "The scientists found that disposal wells were 1.5 times more likely to be associated with earthquakes, although the region contains far more enhanced recovery wells. The link was strongest ...
CONTINUE READINGSaving California’s Beaches
New expert report offers recommendations for shoreline armoring management
As California’s beach goers and residents well know, erosion and climate change are already impacting the California coastline. Eighty percent of California’s coast is actively eroding, and the latest science projects that sea levels may rise up to 5 additional feet along much of the coast by the end of this century. Higher sea levels threaten coastal communities with increased risk of flooding, inundation, storm damage, and erosion. With 85 percent of Calif...
CONTINUE READINGInterpreting Michigan v. EPA
The opinion seems likely to have very limited repercussions.
In bringing the mercury rule to the Supreme Court, industry was hoping for a ruling that EPA had to balance costs and benefits (and could only include benefits relating to mercury). What they got was far less than that. Here, I'd like to address some key questions about the opinion. 1. When does EPA have to consider costs? The Court relied heavily on the "capaciousness" of the word appropriate and its ability to encompass all relevant factors. The broades...
CONTINUE READINGMATS Rules Declared Invalid in Michigan v. EPA, 5-4
Opinion by Scalia Based on Meaning of "Appropriate"
The U.S. Supreme Court today struck down EPA's rules governing toxic emissions from power plants. My first take on the opinion, by Justice Scalia, is that while the outcome is bad for the agency, the reasoning appears not to be a radical departure from existing doctrine, with one worrisome tidbit thrown in. Justice Scalia used the traditional two-step Chevron doctrine to hold that EPA should have used cost to determine whether to regulate power plant toxic emissions ...
CONTINUE READINGMercury Rising: The Court Reverses EPA’s Regulation
This was not a great decision for EPA, but it could have been much worse.
The Court has just now decided the Michigan case, involving EPA's mercury regulation. As Ann Carlson explained in an earlier post, a lot was at stake in the case. The Court ruled 5-4 against EPA. This passage seems to be key to the Court's reasoning: One would not say that it is even rational, never mind “appropriate,” to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits. In addition, “cost” inc...
CONTINUE READINGWill Obama Get a Fourth Major Victory Tomorrow in Michigan v. EPA?
Decision Expected Tomorrow, Written by Someone Other than Scalia
Though the monumental decisions on health care and marriage equality are behind us, tomorrow remains another big day in the Supreme Court. Three cases remain undecided: Glossip v. Gross (whether Oklahoma's execution methods are unconstitutional); Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (whether a state commission can draw Congressional electoral lines) and Michigan v. EPA (whether EPA's rules governing hazardous air emissions from po...
CONTINUE READINGJustice Roberts Relied on Utility Air Regulatory Group in Upholding Obama Subsidies
The Chief Uses Scalia's Words Against Him and I Can't Resist Saying "I Told You So"
Today's opinion in King v. Burwell is a victory for common sense, not to mention for the millions of people who get subsidies under the Affordable Care Act to pay for health insurance. In determining that the subsidies for health insurance extend not only to states that established their own exchanges but also to individuals served by the federal exchange, the Court relied on the overall structure of the statute. It also used language from one of last term's envir...
CONTINUE READINGWhat’s at Stake in Michigan v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court Hazardous Air Pollutant Case?
Decision expected in next few days
Although King v. Burwell (the Affordable Care Act case) and Obergefell v. Hodges (the same sex marriage case) are garnering more attention, sometime between tomorrow and Monday the Supreme Court will also hand down its decision in Michigan v. EPA. In the Michigan case, the Court will decide whether EPA's Clean Air Act rules to regulate hazardous air pollutants from power plants are valid. Observers are speculating that EPA will lose the case because Justice S...
CONTINUE READINGThe Horse Manifesto
"The Law of the Horse" is a disparaging term for a legal field. We should embrace it.
It’s fairly common to refer to environmental law or energy law as being like the Law of the Horse – implying that they are somewhat ersatz legal fields. For those who are not familiar with the reference, The Law of the Horse was apparently the title of a legal treatise that collected all the cases having to do in some way with horses. Given that the cases had nothing else in common except their subject matter, this was an enterprise without much intellectual content....
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
