{"id":6104,"date":"2019-02-15T22:30:01","date_gmt":"2019-02-15T22:30:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=6104"},"modified":"2020-10-15T14:29:33","modified_gmt":"2020-10-15T14:29:33","slug":"escalating-deregulation-acting-epa-administrator-issues-letter-proposing-ease-on-mercury-rule","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/escalating-deregulation-acting-epa-administrator-issues-letter-proposing-ease-on-mercury-rule\/","title":{"rendered":"Escalating Deregulation: Acting EPA Administrator Issues Letter Proposing Ease on Mercury Rule"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

On\nDecember 28, 2018, the Acting Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)\nAdministrator Andrew R. Wheeler signed\na notice<\/a>, in response to the United States Supreme Court decision in\nMichigan v. EPA, announcing the EPA\u2019s intent to rescind the National Emission\nStandard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for coal-\nand oil-fired electric utility steam generating units (EGUs), commonly referred\nto as the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards (MATS). In formulating this proposed\nrule, the EPA has concluded that\nit is not \u201cappropriate and necessary,\u201d under the language of Michigan\nv. EPA<\/a>, to adopt and\nmaintain MATS. Though the proposed rule goes farther in the anticipated repeal\nof certain NESHAPs, pertaining to other hazardous pollutants emitted by coal-\nand oil-fired EGUs, this recent development will focus on the standard\nfor mercury<\/a>, and the\nallowable emission levels permitted.<\/p>\n\n\n

While the recent government shutdown (and the ensuing delays in publishing of the Federal Register) has pushed the notice and comment period<\/a> further, there is little doubt that the proposed rule will be adopted by the EPA. Interestingly enough, the EPA states that although they are seeking what effectively amounts to a repeal of the MATS rule, they are not interested<\/a> in delisting EGUs or mercury from the enforcements covered by the CAA Amendments of 1990. This has come as a shock to several environmental groups<\/a>, but was expected by those working in the industry. But while the results of the proposed rule may not be as Machiavellian as some fear right out of the gate, long term implications will certainly threaten the interests of environmental protection.<\/p>\n\n\n

While the results of the proposed rule may not be as Machiavellian as some fear right out of the gate, long term implications will certainly threaten the interests of environmental protection.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n

The\nTrump Administration has stated that they have no current interest in removing\nmercury restrictions, but the threats are much more nuanced. One of the reasons\nfor leaving the mercury restrictions in place may come from the lack of\ninterest by the energy industry in scrapping a regulatory scheme they have\nalready spent\nbillions<\/a> of\ndollars to comply with. But that isn\u2019t to say the industry approves. The fight\nlies in the future; environmental groups\u2019 main concern with the MATS repeal is\nthat it opens the door to two<\/a> worrisome situations: (1) that the energy\nindustry will have greater luck when challenging specific provisions of the\nMATS rule in court, and (2) that future potential environmental regulations\nwill be more difficult to pass. These are not unreasonable or even unexpected.\nThe Trump Administration has been very public\nin its disdain<\/a>\nfor many federal environmental protections. The MATS repeal is not the only EPA\nregulation in President Trump\u2019s crosshairs: the administration has already attacked<\/a> provisions of the Clean Water Act,\nEndangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Protection Act, among\nothers.<\/p>\n\n\n

Though these assumed decreases in benefits have the environmental lobby worried, not every faction is disgruntled with the EPA\u2019s shift. The coal industry, long supporters of President Trump and his campaign promises to end \u201cthe war on coal<\/a>\u201d have lauded the move as another one of President Trump\u2019s efforts to ease the burden of an oppressive regulatory scheme that faults businesses<\/a> disproportionately. This new proposed rule, supporters say, will rectify the MATS rule, which some believe \u201cstands as perhaps the largest regulatory accounting fraud<\/a> perpetrated on American consumers.\u201d The near future holds, with almost certainty, the downfall of the Obama-era MATS rule, which could greatly ease the restrictions currently in place for the energy sector\u2019s polluting of HAPs. This action falls in line with President Trump\u2019s goal of dismantling environmental regulations, for his goal of aiding business interests. Were the proposed rule to be enacted, it would continue the Trump Administration\u2019s track record of weakening the underpins of environmental protection, and negatively affecting public health.<\/p>\n\n\n

Cooper Norris, 4 February 2019<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On December 28, 2018, the Acting Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew R. Wheeler signed a notice, in response to the United States Supreme Court decision in Michigan v. EPA, announcing the EPA\u2019s intent to rescind the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units (EGUs), …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":6105,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6104"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6104"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6104\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6856,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6104\/revisions\/6856"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6105"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6104"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6104"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6104"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}