Advertisement

Supreme Court agrees to consider EPA regulations on mercury

U.S. states are divided on EPA regulations on mercury emissions, with some backing a utility industry challenge and others the agency.

By Frances Burns
A power plant in Morro Bay, California. The EPA describes power plants as the major source of mercury pollution. UPI/File
A power plant in Morro Bay, California. The EPA describes power plants as the major source of mercury pollution. UPI/File | License Photo

WASHINGTON, Nov. 25 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to consider whether the cost of federal limits on mercury emissions outweigh the benefits.

The regulations set by the Environmental Protection Administration in emissions from oil- and coal-fired electrical generating plants have been challenged by a group of states and industry groups. Sixteen other states support the federal action, arguing that air-born pollutants cross state lines and that regulation at the federal level is needed.

Advertisement

A federal appeals court in Washington upheld the limits in a 2-1 ruling.

In their appeal, industry groups put the cost of installing scrubbers and other equipment needed to cut mercury emissions could cost $9.6 billion.

"The extraordinary costs of EPA's rule will be borne by consumers of electricity -- i.e. everyone in the nation -- causing a significant nationwide economic impact in exchange for relatively little public health benefit," the states said in an appellate brief.

The EPA put the regulations in place in 2000 as the administration of President Bill Clinton drew to a close. They were reversed in 2005 and then reinstated in 2012.

Advertisement

EPA officials say that mercury in the environment is especially dangerous for pregnant women with about 7 percent of them exposed to it. The cost of dealing with children born prematurely or with brain damage because of prenatal exposure to mercury has been put at $37 billion to $90 billion a year.

The EPA describes power plants as the major source of mercury pollution.

The high court is expected to make a decision by the end of June after hearing oral arguments in March.

Latest Headlines