RICHMOND, Va. – A Supreme Court decision may have cast doubt on controls for mercury and other airborne toxins from power plants – but it didn't throw them out.

The high court decision could delay a permanent implementation of new air pollution rules, which the EPA says will save thousands of lives.

In a five-to-four decision, the court said the EPA should have considered the cost to industry earlier in the process of writing pollution limits.

Jim Pew, an attorney with Earthjustice, says whether or not the regulators documented it, the public will gain benefits of $3 to $9 for every $1 the protections cost. He says industry "propaganda" and legal arguments obscure that.

"Nobody is really disputing that this rule is going to save between 4,000 and 11,000 lives every year," he says. "To me, it really doesn't make sense that EPA would be unpopular for doing something that helps so many people."

The power and coal industries have argued the health-related savings are far less than the cost of compliance with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.

The air pollution rules have the greatest impact on coal-fired power plants. Some conservation groups say most coal plants have already adapted or taken new pollution limits into account, so it's unlikely the Supreme Court ruling will have a significant impact. Pew says the case may have been about the technicalities of the EPA's rule-making process, seen by some as a stall tactic by the energy industry.

"Everyone has known for decades that power plants are the worst toxic-emitters," he says. "The industry has been fighting tooth-and-nail against controlling its pollution, very successfully, for years. Even if they succeed in nothing but delaying these controls, they save a lot of money."

The Supreme Court sent the case back to a lower court for review. The rules went into effect in 2012, and will remain in effect pending action by the lower court.


get more stories like this via email

Conservationists in Maine said reinstated protections of the Endangered Species Act could help wildlife already struggling to adapt to climate change.

Economic impacts will no longer be considered when listing certain species as threatened or endangered but the threat of climate change will be a factor.

Anya Fetcher, federal policy advocate for the Natural Resources Council of Maine, said so-called "blanket rule" protections will also be revived.

"This is basically, while they are considering whether they should become endangered, they're going to continue to protect those species as if they were," Fetcher explained.

The Trump administration removed protections for threatened species along with other key aspects of the law. Fetcher acknowledged the new rules are likely to be challenged by Congress similar to other climate and environmental regulations.

Conservation powers will also be extended to federally recognized tribes, allowing them the same opportunities to protect wildlife, including some of Maine's most iconic species such as the piping plover and Canada lynx, which are losing critical habitat to development and a changing climate.

Fetcher pointed out one-third of Maine's species are vulnerable to climate change, including more than half the state's birds.

"Our wildlife is part of what makes Maine so special," Fetcher asserted. "Protecting critical habitat and the incredible wildlife that we have here is vital to our economy as well."

Fetcher added the Endangered Species Act has been helpful in protecting species such as the bald eagle, once on the brink of extinction but now a common sight in Maine. Nearly 500,000 public comments were considered in the new rule-making process.


get more stories like this via email

PacifiCorp's updated energy roadmap throws a lifeline to Wyoming's coal industry but critics said the new Integrated Resource Plan is a major setback for community health and the climate.

Rob Joyce, director of the Wyoming Chapter of the Sierra Club, said the plan would add 100 million metric tons of climate pollution by 2042. It also slashes near-term investments in cheaper wind and solar, and makes a huge bet on behalf of ratepayers to install unproven and expensive carbon capture devices on existing coal-fired power plants.

"To be increasing emissions, increasing investment in fossil fuels, and putting hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars towards carbon capture when we're not 100 % sure if that is actually even going to work is really dubious," Joyce argued.

PacifiCorp, the parent company of Rocky Mountain Power, plans to extend the life of the Jim Bridger coal-fired power plant in southwestern Wyoming until 2039. The plan also pushes back the retirements of Utah's Hunter plant by at least 10 years, and the Huntington plant by at least four years. PacifiCorp said it should deliver significant near-term cost savings to ratepayers.

The plan also added more natural gas to PacifiCorp's energy portfolio. Joyce worries Wyoming ratepayers, already tapped by state lawmakers to pay millions for a carbon capture compliance surcharge, will end up on the hook.

"We're going to have to cover the costs of the volatility of new gas resources," Joyce pointed out. "The company is saying between $500 million and $1 billion per unit that they put carbon capture on. Those are all things that they pass on to the ratepayers."

Joyce noted with a looming 2030 deadline to significantly reduce fossil fuel pollution in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change, now is the time to invest big in wind and solar. He added by delaying the expansion of clean energy resources, PacifiCorp is leaving billions of dollars in Inflation Reduction Act incentives on the table.

"Right now we know that solar and wind and even battery storage are cheap and getting cheaper," Joyce emphasized. "Those are investments that the rest of the country is making to save ratepayers money."

Connecticut's General Assembly is weighing several climate change bills. It comes after what advocates describe as detrimental inaction on the legislative body's part in the last two years.

This is due to misinformation, Republican filibusters, and committee inaction.

HB 5004 is a major climate bill before lawmakers.

Lori Brown, executive director of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters, said it covers a lot of ground to put action behind the state's 16-year-old climate goals.

"This effort - this session - is all about what can we do that would incentivize businesses, individuals, organizations, companies, entities, institutions," said Brown, "all to start really taking steps towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

The bill received wide support at a public hearing.

Critics say the bill encroaches on their freedoms and eliminates energy supply competition. Others argue climate change isn't caused by greenhouse gases, so this bill is unnecessary.

HB 5004 is expected to be voted on by the House this session.

Some environmental bills haven't faired too well. Brown said she feels they can come back next session since some failed due to time restraints, not lack of interest.

But, she said the new overarching climate bill takes a different approach to prevent it from its predecessors' doomed fate.

"It's more about the incentives and less about the penalties if you do not comply with our existing law," said Brown. "That is why this bill is so important to so many people. We can not have two years in a row with an absolute lack of action on climate."

Advocates are watching SB 191, which addresses food waste.

This bill calls for food scraps to be diverted from solid waste since food waste is responsible for up to 58% of all landfill methane emissions.

Globally, food waste accounts for up to 8% of greenhouse gas emissions.