The Environmental Protection Agency is about to finalize a rollback on a rule that has cut emissions of mercury and other toxins, but the power industry mostly doesn't want it. Coal executives lobbied for the change, but coal makes up a diminishing share of the energy sector. "The changes could give a boost to struggling coal companies, while hamstringing future efforts to limit mercury emissions from the nation’s power plants," Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis report for The Washington Post.
"Exelon, one of the nation’s largest utilities, told the EPA that its effort to change a rule that has cut emissions of mercury and other toxins is 'an action that is entirely unnecessary, unreasonable, and universally opposed by the power generation sector,'" Eilperin and Dennis report. An environmental policy manager at the company told the Post that the industry had complied with the rule long ago, and that the sector was much cleaner as a result.
"The agency plans to declare that it is not 'appropriate and necessary' for the government to limit harmful pollutants from power plants, even though every utility in America has complied with standards put in place in 2011 under President Barack Obama. While it will technically keep existing restrictions on mercury in place, it means the government would not be able to count collateral benefits — such as reducing soot and smog — when it sets limits on toxic air pollutants."
The rule, known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, aims to reduce exposure to a powerful neurotoxin that can damage the brains of children and fetuses. Emissions of the neurotoxin declined 85 percent between 2006, when states began to curb mercury from coal plants, and 2016, when the MATS rule took full effect, Eilperin and Dennis report.
The Obama administration said the benefits would ultimately outweigh the costs: the industry might spend up to $9.6 billion each year to comply with the regulation, but the U.S. as a whole would save $37 billion to $90 billion by preventing deaths and illnesses. The industry ended up paying about $3 billion annually to implement the rule, but the Trump administration has said the cost-benefit analysis still doesn't justify the rule, and accused the Obama administration of using creative math to pass a burdensome regulation, Eilperin and Dennis report.
Andrew Wheeler, the current EPA Administrator under President Trump, insinuated that the rule's real reason was to hurt the coal industry in a recent interview. "The 2011 requirements did more to hasten the closure of coal-fired power plants than any other regulation adopted under Obama," Eilperin and Dennis report. "Facing the first-ever limits on these pollutants, companies across the country chose to switch to natural gas or renewable energy rather than invest in costly new pollution controls.
"Exelon, one of the nation’s largest utilities, told the EPA that its effort to change a rule that has cut emissions of mercury and other toxins is 'an action that is entirely unnecessary, unreasonable, and universally opposed by the power generation sector,'" Eilperin and Dennis report. An environmental policy manager at the company told the Post that the industry had complied with the rule long ago, and that the sector was much cleaner as a result.
"The agency plans to declare that it is not 'appropriate and necessary' for the government to limit harmful pollutants from power plants, even though every utility in America has complied with standards put in place in 2011 under President Barack Obama. While it will technically keep existing restrictions on mercury in place, it means the government would not be able to count collateral benefits — such as reducing soot and smog — when it sets limits on toxic air pollutants."
The rule, known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, aims to reduce exposure to a powerful neurotoxin that can damage the brains of children and fetuses. Emissions of the neurotoxin declined 85 percent between 2006, when states began to curb mercury from coal plants, and 2016, when the MATS rule took full effect, Eilperin and Dennis report.
The Obama administration said the benefits would ultimately outweigh the costs: the industry might spend up to $9.6 billion each year to comply with the regulation, but the U.S. as a whole would save $37 billion to $90 billion by preventing deaths and illnesses. The industry ended up paying about $3 billion annually to implement the rule, but the Trump administration has said the cost-benefit analysis still doesn't justify the rule, and accused the Obama administration of using creative math to pass a burdensome regulation, Eilperin and Dennis report.
Andrew Wheeler, the current EPA Administrator under President Trump, insinuated that the rule's real reason was to hurt the coal industry in a recent interview. "The 2011 requirements did more to hasten the closure of coal-fired power plants than any other regulation adopted under Obama," Eilperin and Dennis report. "Facing the first-ever limits on these pollutants, companies across the country chose to switch to natural gas or renewable energy rather than invest in costly new pollution controls.
No comments:
Post a Comment