In a major setback for President Obama and for people who like to breathe, the court (in a 5-4 decision split along party lines) struck down a set of recent EPA regulations aimed at limiting pollution from coal-fired power plants.
The justices embraced the arguments from the industry and 21 Republican-led states that the EPA rules were prohibitively expensive and amounted to government overreach.
The decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, ruled that the EPA did not reasonably consider the cost factor when drafting regulation.
The Clean Air Act had directed the EPA to create regulations for power plants that were "appropriate and necessary". The agency did not consider cost when making its decision, the court ruled, but estimated that the cost of its regulation to power plants would be $9.6bn a year.
(Score: 2) by Adamsjas on Tuesday June 30 2015, @04:17PM
If you re-read it, you will see his argument is exactly only part. The US regulations are already the tightest in the world for HG from coal plants, and they are being met.
The rules aren't being watered down, in fact there is no indication of any change at all yet, other than that the EPA must take cost into compliance. The rules still stand. The court case ruled only about costs, and deadlines when fines kick in.
You think industry protests and chalenges are different than any place else?
Maybe look here: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/14/german-backlash-grows-against-coal-power-clampdown [theguardian.com]