<?xml version="1.0"?>
<oembed><version>1.0</version><provider_name>Climate Change Dispatch</provider_name><provider_url>https://climatechangedispatch.com</provider_url><author_name>Thomas Richard</author_name><author_url>https://climatechangedispatch.com/author/ccdeditor/</author_url><title>Supreme Court to EPA: power plant regs do 'more harm than good'</title><type>rich</type><width>600</width><height>338</height><html>&lt;blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="csGgaBYRIf"&gt;&lt;a href="https://climatechangedispatch.com/supreme-court-to-epa-power-plant-regs-do-more-harm-than-good/"&gt;Supreme Court to EPA: power plant regs do &#x2018;more harm than good&#x2019;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;iframe sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" src="https://climatechangedispatch.com/supreme-court-to-epa-power-plant-regs-do-more-harm-than-good/embed/#?secret=csGgaBYRIf" width="600" height="338" title="&#x201C;Supreme Court to EPA: power plant regs do &#x2018;more harm than good&#x2019;&#x201D; &#x2014; Climate Change Dispatch" data-secret="csGgaBYRIf" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" class="wp-embedded-content"&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;&lt;script type="text/javascript"&gt;
/* &lt;![CDATA[ */
/*! This file is auto-generated */
!function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&amp;&amp;d.addEventListener&amp;&amp;"undefined"!=typeof URL&amp;&amp;(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&amp;&amp;!/[^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&lt;o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i&lt;a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&amp;&amp;(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3&lt;(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r&lt;200&amp;&amp;(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&amp;&amp;(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&amp;&amp;n.host===r.host&amp;&amp;l.activeElement===s&amp;&amp;(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&lt;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);
/* ]]&gt; */
&lt;/script&gt;
</html><description>In a stinging rebuke to the climate legacy Obama is desperately seeking to create, the Supreme Court ruled today that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failed to consider the costs of certain regulations, which actually did 'more harm than good.' In its 5-4 vote ruling, the Court said the EPA failed to take costs into account when it imposed new regulations curbing the emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants, which forced the closure of hundreds of coal fired power plants due to costly new standards. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said it was not appropriate to impose billions of dollars of economic costs in return for a negligible return in health or environmental benefits. "No regulation is 'appropriate' if it does significantly more harm than good," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion. "The Agency must consider cost&#x2014;including, most importantly, cost of compliance&#x2014;before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary. We need not and do not hold that the law unambiguously required the Agency, when making this preliminary estimate, to conduct a formal cost-benefit analysis in which each advantage and disadvantage is assigned a monetary value."</description><thumbnail_url>https://climatechangedispatch.com/wp-content/uploads/images_pics8_scalia.jpg</thumbnail_url></oembed>
