Bloomberg Business reports:
“The Supreme Court has been by-and-large supportive of the EPA in upholding their actions,” said William Bumpers, a lawyer who heads the climate-change practice at Baker Botts in Washington. “So there has been a lot of discussion about whether this conservative court will begin challenging the EPA.”
The case heading to the Supreme Court is a challenge to EPA’s MATS, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule, which takes effect today. Does the EPA have discretion to propose rules that are “appropriate and necessary”?
And not too costly? If the argument turns on cost, it might well be a loser. It isn’t easy to put a price on future lives lost, on the health of future generations compromised. The direct benefit estimated by EPA is a fraction of the cost to implement.
Generators are already anticipating that the price to pollute is unsustainable long-term, and they are shutting down. Other commentators suggest the market is too sanguine about the impact, and that energy prices will pop when traders assess the new generation stack.