Regulatory State Wins Big In Court

We'd usually call it a victory when the Supreme Court rules 8-0 against environmentalists. But since the decision that came down Monday does nothing to stop the march of the regulatory state, what's the difference? The court case in question involved a global warming lawsuit by green groups and several states targeting the nation's five top electricity producers. The court said that it's up to the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate pollution, not anyone who can gin up a "nuisance" suit. That's cold comfort since the Environmental Protection Agency is already doing the green lobbies' bidding — no matter what it costs an economy still reeling from the last recession. In fact, two EPA greenhouse gas rules aimed at coal-powered plants would cost 1.4 million jobs and boost household electric bills by 12%, according to a study by NERA Economic Consulting. Another analysis by FBR Capital Markets put industry costs at more than $80 billion and the power loss at coal-fired plants at 45,000 megawatts. Meanwhile, the EPA will soon force power plants out West to install costly pollution-control equipment — at a cost of $1.5 billion a year — to cut haze. And that's to say nothing of the roughly 200 economic and policy rules in the works at that agency...more