WASHINGTON – On Friday, the Supreme Court decided to keep in place new federal regulations on toxic chemical emissions produced by power plants while legal challenges to these rules are underway, marking a triumph for the Biden administration.

In a unanimous decision, the court dismissed an urgent plea from certain states, power generation companies, and mining corporations to suspend the implementation of these rules during the ongoing legal battles.

These regulations, unveiled in April as part of updates to existing pollution measures for fossil fuel plants, aim to cut mercury and other harmful emissions by as much as 70%. Mercury has been linked to severe brain damage in children and can also lead to heart disease in adults. Other metallic pollutants can increase cancer risks.

“Mercury is an incredibly powerful neurotoxin,” stated attorneys general from 14 Democratic-led states in a submission to the Supreme Court, supporting the new regulations. “Ingesting even a small amount of mercury, equivalent to more than 1% of a grain of sugar, is deemed unsafe.”

Opponents of the changes, including various power plants, claim that the new emissions limits would produce no significant health advantages, while imposing costs estimated at $860 million.

“The EPA initially regulated power plants to address health risks posed by their emissions, but these risks are already significantly below any level of concern, and additional reductions will make no difference,” argued lawyers representing NACCP Natural Resources Corporation, which manages coal mines.

Focus on a ‘Few Underperforming Plants’

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicated that most coal-fired power plants are capable of meeting the new stricter limits. The revised standards are expected to mainly impact a “small group of underperformers” that produce a disproportionately high amount of toxic emissions, according to the EPA.

The administration argued that, with at least three years for compliance, there’s no justification for halting the rules amidst legal scrutiny.

Challengers, however, worry about a repeat of past experiences when the EPA first set toxic emissions limits. In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA must consider costs. Nevertheless, since the court did not pause the regulations during challenges, numerous plants began implementing changes.

“The EPA seems to expect the same outcome this time – that plants will either close down or comply regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision,” lawyers for NACCP stated in their submission.

Health Risks from Contaminated Fish

Power plants contribute significantly to mercury and other toxic air pollutants.

Once mercury falls to the earth and enters water sources, it is absorbed by aquatic life, converting it into methyl mercury, which can result in neurological damage even at very low levels. People primarily face risks through their consumption of contaminated fish.

According to the Environmental Defense Fund, which collaborates with various environmental and public health organizations defending these standards, six of the most mercury-polluting plants are located in North Dakota, Texas, Alabama, and Missouri.

Since the Obama administration imposed initial limits in 2012, toxic emissions have fallen by 90%, attributed to both the new regulations and shifts in the power sector.

Opponents claim these regulations have led to the shutdown of coal-fired power plants and job losses in coal mining.

Biden Administration Reverses Trump Policy

The Trump administration had rolled back the EPA’s initial assessment that the health and environmental benefits of the regulations significantly outweighed compliance costs.

President Joe Biden instructed the EPA to reassess that finding. The agency reinstated the regulations, determining that advancements in emission control technologies have made compliance more feasible and economical.

The agency noted it is challenging to quantify the primary benefit, which is the decrease in hazardous emissions, due to a lack of comprehensive epidemiological data on air toxins. Exposure tends to be localized, affecting smaller populations, making it difficult to gather enough data for meaningful conclusions.

“As repeatedly communicated by the EPA, the absence of a quantifiable value does not imply that these benefits are insignificant,” the attorneys for environmental and public health organizations argued before the Supreme Court.

The EPA was able to calculate some secondary benefits, such as the reduction of non-toxic air pollutants. The agency estimated health benefits from cutting smog and other pollutants would be valued at $300 million and climate benefits at $130 million.

Previously, the Supreme Court blocked the Biden administration’s contentious “good neighbor” rule aimed at reducing smog-forming emissions while its legality is examined.

In a 5-4 ruling, Justice Neil Gorsuch stated The challenge is expected to succeed, so it’s advisable to pause the rule for now.