Mercury, which damages the brains and nervous systems of children from the time they're in the womb, is just one of the toxic pollutants from coal-fired power plants. New EPA regulations would require high-tech scrubbers to limit emissions. Arguments before the US Supreme Court today pitted the coal industry against the Environmental Protection Agency. Twenty states joined the opposition to power-plant regulation, while 17 other states said it's needed. But does the Clean Air Act require the agency to balance the potential health benefits against the cost of the technology? Did the justices provide any clues about rulings to come on Obamacare and actions against climate change?
Coal, Clean Air and Presidential Power
More
- Savage on Court conservatives being skeptical about EPA mercury rule
- Cato's amicus brief in Michigan v. EPA
- Earthjustice on EPA case
- Mitch McConnell's letter to nation's governors on implementing EPA's new regulations
- California Governor Jerry Brown responds to McConnell's coal letter
- Sheppard on McConnell's crusade against EPA rules, Kentucky's reaction
- The Hill on Tribe's fight over the EPA climate rule on power plants
Credits
Guests:
- David Savage - Supreme Court reporter for the Los Angeles Times - @davidgsavage
- Andrew M. Grossman - Baker Hostetler - @andrewmgrossman
- Lisa Garcia - Earthjustice - @Earthjustice
- Kate Sheppard - Huffington Post - @kate_sheppard