The Daily Sentinel - Coal Ruling Throws "Monkey Wrench" into Agency's Plans

News Article

By Gary Harmon

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling could benefit northwest Colorado's beleaguered coal and electricity-generating industries, but environmental organizations said the ruling threatens human health.

The high court ruled Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency failed to appropriately consider the costs associated with regulations intended to reduce mercury emissions from burning coal to generate electricity.

"This throws a significant monkey wrench into the Obama administration's plans and could portend what considerations might influence a court's decision" on pending rules intended to reduce carbon emissions from coal plants, said Stuart Sanderson, executive director of the Colorado Mining Association.

Environment Colorado, however, contended that the ruling "lets polluters off the hook" by setting aside first-ever standards that would have affected about 600 electricity-generating stations.

The standards were expected to reduce mercury emissions by up to 90 percent. Mercury, released by the burning of coal, oil and other fuels, is a neurotoxin linked to developmental disorders in newborns.

Mining coal and burning it to generate electricity, however, is a mainstay of the northwest Colorado economy, which has been rattled by the threat of mine closures.

"Clean air and affordable electricity are not mutually exclusive -- we see it done right here in Colorado, in Craig, where blue skies, affordable electricity production and good paying jobs exist together," U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Colo., said from Craig on Monday. "Unfortunately, the EPA can go back and attempt to rewrite this rule, which has little to no impact on cleaner air overall, as well as force through more just like it without a permanent legislative solution in place."

Tipton cited the Ratepayer Protection Act of 2015, H.R. 2042, which passed the House last week, as a bastion against new regulation by giving states the opportunity for judicial review before carrying out federal mandates that could have severe impacts on ratepayers.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the decision that the EPA was unreasonable in refusing to consider costs as it began considering regulations. The agency factored in costs later.

"The agency must consider cost -- including, most importantly, cost of compliance -- before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary," Scalia wrote.

While the ruling doesn't take away any pressure on Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, which owns the Colowyo mine near Craig, from another federal lawsuit, "it should serve as a reminder to regulators of the importance of evaluating costs when considering regulations," said Lee Boughey, spokesman for the association.

Source