1.0Climate Change Dispatchhttps://climatechangedispatch.comThomas Richardhttps://climatechangedispatch.com/author/ccdeditor/rich600338<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="rFFbvrb0lV"><a href="https://climatechangedispatch.com/justices-split-should-epa-consider-costs-when-making-new-rules/">Justices split: should EPA consider costs when making new rules?</a></blockquote><iframe sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" src="https://climatechangedispatch.com/justices-split-should-epa-consider-costs-when-making-new-rules/embed/#?secret=rFFbvrb0lV" width="600" height="338" title="“Justices split: should EPA consider costs when making new rules?” — Climate Change Dispatch" data-secret="rFFbvrb0lV" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" class="wp-embedded-content"></iframe><script type="text/javascript"> /* <![CDATA[ */ /*! This file is auto-generated */ !function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&"undefined"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document); /* ]]> */ </script> The Associated Press is reporting that the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a landmark case that challenges whether the EPA "unreasonably refused to consider the costs of new pollution rules" that have already forced some power plants to close, drove up electricity prices, and "threaten grid reliability." Twenty-one states and industry groups who are challenging the EPA said in their briefs that the EPA was wrong to not consider the costs before instituting new regulations. After the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled last April that the EPA could refuse to assess the costs of its rules, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The two groups are "adamant that EPA's interpretation of the law is wrong, and asked the Supreme Court" to settle the matter.https://climatechangedispatch.com/wp-content/uploads/images_pics7_power_lines.jpg