Justices block EPA mercury rule for coal-fired power plants

Interns for news outlets run Monday with a decision across the plaza of the Supreme Court in Washington. The court ruled against an Environmental Protection Agency regulation that would force old coal plants to close or clean up emissions.
Interns for news outlets run Monday with a decision across the plaza of the Supreme Court in Washington. The court ruled against an Environmental Protection Agency regulation that would force old coal plants to close or clean up emissions.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled against the Obama administration's effort to limit toxic pollution from the nation's coal-fired power plants, leaving the future of environmental regulation in doubt.

The 5-4 decision Monday went against an Environmental Protection Agency mercury rule that forces utilities to close old coal plants or invest billions of dollars in equipment to clean up the emissions from their smokestacks. The court said the EPA should have considered the costs and benefits before deciding whether to impose those limits on the toxic emissions.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

"The agency must consider cost -- including, most importantly, cost of compliance -- before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary," Scalia wrote. "Reasonable regulation ordinarily requires paying attention to the advantages and the disadvantages of agency decisions."

The decision to send the regulation back to a lower court to decide what happens next leaves open the possibility that the 2011 rule, called the mercury and air toxics regulation, could be left on the books while the agency does the analysis that the high court said it should have done long ago. It could take a few months for that lower-court decision.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

"The agency acted well within its authority in declining to consider costs at the opening bell of the regulatory process given that it would do so in every round thereafter," Kagan wrote.

Utilities such as American Electric Power Co. and Southern Co. already have invested billions of dollars to install scrubbers or switch to natural-gas generation, as the initial deadline for the rule was early this year. Any changes to their plans would be limited because of other state or federal rules.

In Arkansas, one coal plant is being retrofitted for scrubbers related to the mercury rule: the 528-megawatt Flint Creek plant in Gentry.

An Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp. spokesman said Monday that the Flint Creek project is a "done deal," regardless of what the Supreme Court ruled, although it won't be complete until the spring. The cost is being split 50-50 by the company and Southwestern Electric Power Co. for $408 million.

Two other coal plants -- the 1,678-megawatt Independence plant in Newark and the 1,659-megawatt White Bluff plant in Redfield -- have not been retrofitted for emissions controls. The plants have been the subject of Arkansas Public Service Commission filings since March related to the mercury rule. Entergy Arkansas, the principal owner of the two plants, was seeking permission to pass down the cost of adding scrubbers to ratepayers through electric bills.

Because the Supreme Court ruling doesn't specifically strike down the law, an official with the Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp. -- which owns a 35 percent share of the two plants -- said it was too early to make a decision on whether to pursue the scrubbers.

Arizona Redistricting

In other business Monday, the Supreme Court upheld an independent commission set up by Arizona voters to draw congressional districts.

The 5-4 ruling rejected contentions that the Arizona law, approved in a 2000 ballot initiative, strips state lawmakers of power reserved to them by the U.S. Constitution.

The decision opens a new path for efforts to limit gerrymandering -- the practice of drawing irregular district lines to gain a political advantage. The Supreme Court previously has refused to put constitutional limits on partisan districts.

Republicans in Arizona had argued the commission violates the Constitution's elections clause.

Also Monday, the court decided to consider putting new limits on the use of racial preferences in college admissions, agreeing to scrutinize an affirmative-action policy at the University of Texas for the second time.

The justices agreed to hear an appeal from Abigail Fisher, a white woman who said she suffered unconstitutional discrimination when she was rejected by the school in 2008. The case will test a policy that Texas says is crucial for ensuring a diverse campus.

The appeal gives the court's conservative wing a second chance at a case that produced a compromise two years ago. The court will take up the case during the nine-month term that starts in October.

Information for this article was contributed by Mark Drajem, Greg Stohr, Tim Loh, Jonathan N. Crawford and Greg Giroux of Bloomberg News and by Emily Walkenhorst of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

A Section on 06/30/2015

Upcoming Events