State of Michigan, et al. v. EPA

Case Updates

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the EPA unlawfully refused to consider the costs of its regulation of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities. The Court agreed with the challengers and rejected the EPA’s argument that its hands were tied, explaining, “[o]ne would not say that it is even rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.” The case is reversed and remanded.

In its brief, the U.S. Chamber asked the U.S. Supreme Court reverse a D.C. Circuit decision which upheld EPA’s $9.6 billion per year “Utility MACT” or “MATS” rulemaking, a federal regulation promulgated under § 112 of the Clean Air Act that established stringent controls for mercury and other emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from electric utilities.

The brief argues that under the Clean Air Act, Congress intended to focus regulation on the most serious air pollution problems. Moreover, except where prohibited by Congress, good governance requires consideration of costs to guard against irrational regulation and misallocation of resources. The brief asserts that the EPA has been allowed to pick and choose when it considers costs to promote its own policy objectives, rather than the intent of Congress. Furthermore, the brief points out that this case exemplifies EPA’s inconsistent use of cost-benefit analyses to expand its authority and impose overly stringent requirements on industry.

Sandra P. Franco, and Bryan M. Killian, and David B. Salmons of Bingham McCutchen LLP served the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as co-counsel to the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.

In its brief, the U.S. Chamber asked the U.S. Supreme Court review a D.C. Circuit decision which upheld EPA's $9.6 billion per year “Utility MACT” or “MATS” rulemaking, a federal regulation promulgated under § 112 of the Clean Air Act that established stringent controls for mercury and other emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from electric utilities. The question presented for review is whether EPA unreasonably refused to weigh the costs imposed by the Utility MACT.

The brief argues that under the Clean Air Act, Congress intended to focus regulation on the most serious air pollution problems. Moreover, except where prohibited by Congress, good governance requires consideration of costs to guard against irrational regulation and misallocation of resources. The brief asserts that certiorari is warranted here because EPA has been allowed to pick and choose when it considers costs to promote its own policy objectives, rather than the intent of Congress. Furthermore, the brief points out that this case exemplifies EPA’s inconsistent use of cost-benefit analyses to expand its authority and impose overly stringent requirements on industry.

Sandra P. Franco and Bryan M. Killian of Bingham McCutchen LLP served the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as co-counsel to the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.