The EPA imposed regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants due to their links to global warming. Industry groups sued the EPA, arguing the regulations' compliance costs were too high. The Supreme Court heard two cases from industry groups challenging EPA regulations on power plant emissions and greenhouse gases. The industry groups won the first case and prevailed in the second as well. The ruling exerted greater authority over EPA regulations and will impact whether the EPA must consider regulation costs.

1. Surname1
Name
Tutor
Course
Date
Article summary and course book analysis
This article highlights the conflicts of interests witnessed by the fact that the Environment
Protection Authority (EPA) has imposed regulations on industries that emit mercury and other
greenhouse gases that cause global warming by depleting the ozone layer. Major issues arising
from this article involve the huge costs attributed to adhering to the authority’s regulation.
On the other hand, the industry stakeholders feel that the limits imposed by the Obama
administration are too costly for coal-fired power plants. In this case, the industry stakeholders
have filled a court suit as a move to ensure that the Supreme Court provides restrictions on the
type of regulations the agency should consider appropriate and necessary. Their main interests are
cutting down the huge costs associated with adhering to the set regulations. The case threatened to
undermine the Obama administration which signified its significant victories. On the other hand,
the industry groups claimed that the E.P.A was overstepping its authority under the Clean Air Act
by issuing a series of regulations that affect the operational costs of their businesses.
Moreover, republicans had attacked the rules by terming them as a war on coal and as a
move by the executive to overreach various issues. The basic question that motivated this case was
meant to explain whether the E.P.A should take the costs attributed to those regulations into
consideration before issuing such regulations. The industry groups felt that the agency ignored the
costs arising from those regulations. However, the Clean Air Act requires the regulations to be
appropriate and necessary, and the question of whether the regulations were appropriate and

2. Surname 2
necessary was not answered the agency. The article also highlights a case where the Supreme Court
heard two cases filed against two regulations by the industry groups. One of these regulations
aimed at limiting power plant emissions while the other regulation aimed at reducing greenhouse
gas emissions. As per the article, the groups won the first case and even prevailed on the other one.
The industry groups had significant confidence in the mercury emissions case based on a previous
favorable ruling by the Supreme Court. However, the E.P.A is likely to face similar court cases
because of its intention to release regulations meant to cut down ozone pollution. However, the
agency viewed the Supreme Court ruling as a move meant to exert greater authority over its
regulations. A divided panel of judges in our country’s Court of Appeals for Columbia District
ruled that the agency’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act was reasonable because the agency was
considering the health hazards posed by emissions.
On the contrary, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh who opposed the agency’s interpretation,
highlighted that the statue had an obligation to address the costs attributed to such regulations. The
agency confirmed that such costs were taken into considerations but quantifiable benefits such as
preventing 11,000 premature death per year as well as preventing I.Q loss to children whose
mothers consumed fish caught in the modeled watershed was more important than the revenues
generated by coal-fired power plants. On the other hand, the Supreme Court consolidated all cases
related to environmental protection regulations to identify issues it would consider in providing a
ruling on whether the agency unreasonably refused to consider the costs of the regulations while
issuing those regulations.
Relevance of the article to the course book
This article relates to the coursebook because it addresses the Supreme Court’s role in
making policies concerning mercury emissions and E.P.A’s regulations. The court is a

3. Surname 3
policymaker because it settles disputes concerning various issues that affect our society. It's ruling
on whether the E.P.A refused to consider the costs of the regulations while issuing regulations to
the industry groups will serve as a key policy because both parties will embrace the ruling. If it
rules that the agency acted reasonably, the industry group will have an obligation to comply with
the new policy while the agency will be required to reevaluate its regulation if the court rules
otherwise. In this case, the Supreme Court will play the role of a policymaker.
Additionally, the court will also settle a dispute concerning environmental regulations,
which is a contentious issue within the society. In this case, the article is related to the coursebook
because the Supreme Court has a role in laying in providing directions in all contentious issues.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court has the mandate to interpret the constitution, and providing
a ruling in the case will serve as a clear interpretation of the constitution. Additionally, the court
will prove itself as the highest judicial tribunal in settling policy conflicts that are presented in this
article (Greenberg, Edward, and Benjamin, p. 62). According to Greenberg, Edward, and
Benjamin, it will also serve as part of judicial activism because its ruling will either advocate for
environmental conservation or undermine conservation because both parties will operate
according to its ruling (69).
Additionally, the case concerning the mercury emissions regulations is a perfect example
of historic rulings by the Supreme Court, where a case involving national power and property
rights was determined (Greenberg, Edward, and Benjamin, p. 64). Both cases represent parties
with genuine and viable claims. Both scenarios serve as important aspects of our country’s judicial
history because exceptional constitutional interpretations will be made.

4. Surname 4
Works cited
Greenberg, Edward S, and Benjamin I. Page. The Struggle for Democracy. , 2016. Print.