Administrative Law – Cost-benefit analysis

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//June 29, 2015//

Listen to this article

U.S. Supreme Court

Civil

Administrative Law – Cost-benefit analysis

EPA interpreted sec. 7412(n)(1)(A) unreasonably when it deemed cost irrelevant to the decision to regulate power plants.

“Appropriate and necessary” is a capacious phrase. Read naturally against the backdrop of established administrative law, this phrase plainly encompasses cost. It is not rational, never mind “appropriate,” to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits. Statutory context supports this reading. Section 7412(n)(1) required the EPA to conduct three studies, including one that reflects concern about cost, see §7412(n)(1)(B); and the Agency agrees that the term “appropriate and necessary” must be interpreted in light of all three studies.

748 F. 3d 1222, reversed and remanded.

Scalia, J.; Thomas, J., concurring; Kagan, J., dissenting.

14-46 Michigan v. EPA

Full Text

Select Region or Brand

Upcoming Event