Tag Archives: “Mercury and Air Toxics Standards”

EPA’s New Approach to Cost Benefit Analysis: Charles Dickens or Alice in Wonderland?

I’ve only now had the opportunity to catch up with EPA’s proposed reconsideration of its approach to cost-benefit analysis for the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.  I don’t know whether I’ve gone down a rabbit hole or it’s just that the law is an ass.  Either way, it’s not good news.

As far as I can tell, EPA today does not really challenge the analysis performed in 2016 in response to Michigan v.… More

Stop the Presses! EPA Still Thinks that the MATS Rule Is a Good Idea

Last week, EPA issued its “Supplemental Finding”, confirming that it still believes that its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards matsare “appropriate and necessary.”  I don’t have much to add to our post at the time of the proposed Supplemental Finding.  In short, the Supplemental Finding isn’t going to change anyone’s mind, but it should be sufficient to withstand judicial review as long as the courts still believe in Chevron deference.… More

EPA Continues to Dismantle Clean Air Act Affirmative Defenses — Blame It On the Judge(s)

On Wednesday, EPA published certain amendments to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards in the Federal Register.  EPA describes most of the changes as “technical corrections,” but there is one important substantive change.  EPA has deleted the affirmative defense for violations caused by equipment malfunctions.

The change follows EPA’s 2015 SIP call requiring states to delete affirmative defenses for violations related to startup, shutdown, or malfunction SSMevents. … More

MATS, Take Two: EPA Still Supports the Rule (And EPA Is Correct)

Late last week, EPA issued a Supplemental Finding, concluding that it is still “appropriate and necessary” to regulate hazardous air pollutants from coal- and oil-fired electric generating units.  The Supplemental Finding was necessary after the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that EPA’s original decision to regulate HAP emissions from EGUs was flawed because EPA did not consider costs in making the decision.  Is the Supplemental Finding enough to ensure that the Mercury and Air Toxics rule mercuryis upheld this time around?  … More