Page:Michigan v. EPA.pdf/23

 Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015)

1

KAGAN, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________

Nos. 14–46, 14–47, and 14–49 _________________

MICHIGAN, ET AL., PETITIONERS 14–46 v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL. UTILITY AIR REGULATORY GROUP, PETITIONER 14–47 v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL. NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER 14–49 v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL. ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT [June 29, 2015]

JUSTICE KAGAN, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE BREYER, and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR join, dissenting. The Environmental Protection Agency placed emissions limits on coal and oil power plants following a lengthy regulatory process during which the Agency carefully considered costs. At the outset, EPA determined that regulating plants’ emissions of hazardous air pollutants is “appropriate and necessary” given the harm they cause, and explained that it would take costs into account in developing suitable emissions standards. Next, EPA divided power plants into groups based on technological and other characteristics bearing significantly on their cost structures. It required plants in each group to match