Supreme Court agrees to hear arguments over Obama's "war on coal"

Susan Phillips

Recent Stories

Susan Phillips tells stories about the consequences of political decisions on people's every day lives. She has worked as a reporter for WHYY since 2004. Susan's coverage of the 2008 Presidential election resulted in a story on the front page of the New York Times. In 2010 she traveled to Haiti to cover the earthquake. That same year she produced an award-winning series on Pennsylvania's natural gas rush called "The Shale Game." She received a 2013 Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Journalism Award for her work covering natural gas drilling in Pennsylvania. She has also won several Edward R. Murrow awards for her work with StateImpact. In 2013/14 she spent a year at MIT as a Knight Science Journalism Fellow. She has also been a Metcalf Fellow, an MBL Logan Science Journalism Fellow and reported from Marrakech on the 2016 climate talks as an International Reporting Project Fellow. A graduate of Columbia School of Journalism, she earned her Bachelor's degree in International Relations from George Washington University.

November 26, 2014 | 11:18 AM

Keith Srakocic / AP Photo

The Homer City Generating Station, Homer City, Pa.

The Supreme Court will consider a challenge to the Obama Administration’s new rules on mercury emissions from power plants. Tuesday’s decision by the high court came just a day before the EPA announced new rules to control smog. The mercury rules were first imposed by the Clinton Administration, and then reversed under President Bush. The rules were revived by Obama in 2012. The coal industry has pointed to the limits on mercury, along with other regulations aimed at reducing smog, ozone and other air pollutants as a “war on coal.” Industry, utilities and 21 states, including Pennsylvania, have sued to stop the mercury rules, which will cause some coal burning plants to shut down. The issue is over costs. More from USA Today:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld that action last year, ruling that the government did not have to consider costs until it sets specific emission levels, and that it did not have to decide on each air pollutant separately. The regulation sweeps in other pollutants, such as acid gases, that are not considered as dangerous as mercury.
But that 2-1 ruling came with a dissent from Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who said the EPA should have considered the estimated $9.6 billion annual cost. Industry briefs claim the potential benefit from reduced pollution is roughly half that amount.
“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 wrote in their appeal. The EPA had estimated that the regulations would raise the average consumer’s monthly electricity bill by $3 to $4.