This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/28/climate/mercury-coal-pollution-regulations.html

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
E.P.A. Proposes Rule Change That Would Let Power Plants Release More Toxic Pollution E.P.A. Proposes Rule Change That Would Let Power Plants Release More Toxic Pollution
(about 5 hours later)
Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up here for Climate Fwd:, our email newsletter.Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up here for Climate Fwd:, our email newsletter.
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration announced on Friday a plan designed to make it easier for coal-fired power plants, after nearly a decade of restrictions, to release into the atmosphere more mercury and other pollutants linked to developmental disorders and respiratory illnesses. WASHINGTON — The Trump administration proposed on Friday major changes to the way the federal government calculates the benefits, in human health and safety, of restricting mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants.
The limits on mercury, set in 2011, were the first federal standards to restrict some of the most hazardous pollutants emitted by coal plants and were considered one of former President Barack Obama’s signature environmental achievements. Since then, scientists have said, mercury pollution from power plants has declined more than 80 percent nationwide. In the proposal, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a finding declaring that federal rules imposed on mercury by the Obama administration are too costly to justify.
President Trump’s new proposal does not repeal the regulation, known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, but it would lay the groundwork for doing so by weakening a key legal justification for the measure. The long-term impact would be significant: It would weaken the ability of the E.P.A. to impose new regulations in the future by adjusting the way the agency measures the benefits of curbing pollutants, giving less weight to the potential health gains. It dramatically changed the formula the government uses in its required cost-benefit analysis of the regulation by taking into account only certain effects that can be measured in dollars, while ignoring or downplaying other health benefits.
In announcing the proposed rule, the Environmental Protection Agency said in a statement that the cost of cutting mercury from power plants “dwarfs” the monetary benefits. The proposal, which the acting E.P.A. administrator, Andrew Wheeler, signed on Thursday, is expected to appear in the federal register in the coming weeks. The public will have 60 days to comment on it before a final rule is issued. The result could set a precedent reaching far beyond mercury rules. “It will make it much more difficult for the government to justify environmental regulations in many cases,” said Robert N. Stavins, a professor of environmental economics at Harvard University.
During his first year in office, President Trump signed executive orders declaring his intention to dismantle environmental rules. As his second year comes to a close, agencies have set the regulatory wheels in motion to weaken or repeal nearly a dozen Obama-era restrictions on air and water pollution or planet-warming emissions of carbon dioxide, including a plan to reduce the number of waterways that are protected from pollutants and another making it easier for utilities to build new coal plants. While the proposal technically leaves the mercury restrictions in place, by revising the underlying justifications for them the administration has opened the door for coal mining companies, which have long opposed the rules, to challenge them in court. The rules, issued in 2011, were the first to restrict some of the most hazardous pollutants emitted by coal plants and are considered one of former President Barack Obama’s signature environmental achievements.
Reworking the mercury rule, which the E.P.A. considers the priciest clean air regulation ever put forth in terms of annual cost to industry, would represent a victory for the coal industry, and in particular for Robert E. Murray, an important former client of Mr. Wheeler’s from his days as a lobbyist. Mr. Murray, the chief executive of Murray Energy Corporation, personally requested the rollback of the mercury rule soon after Mr. Trump took office. In announcing the proposed rule, the E.P.A. said that the costs to industry in installing pollution controls ranged from $7.4 billion to $9.6 billion annually, while the health benefits of cutting mercury ranged from $4 to 6 million annually. In other words, it said that the costs of the rule outweigh the benefits.
Yet the E.P.A. move also had its detractors within the industry. The vast majority of utility companies, which estimate they have already spent about $18 billion installing clean-air technology since the rule was imposed, have said the proposed changes are now of little benefit to them and have urged the Trump administration to leave the measure in place. By contrast, the Obama administration in its calculations had cited an additional $80 billion in health benefits a year.
“There is nobody who operates power plants who is asking for the rule to go away,” said Jeffrey R. Holmstead, a partner at the law firm Bracewell who served as E.P.A. air chief under the second President George Bush. On Friday, Mr. Holmstead said the agency “managed to walk a very fine line” by revising a justification for the rule while leaving pollution protections in place. Among other things, the Obama administration calculations estimated that the rules would prevent 11,000 premature deaths not from curbing mercury itself, but from what is known as a co-benefit, the reduction in particulate matter linked to heart and lung disease that also occur when a plant reduces its mercury emissions. The Trump administration’s revised procedures would essentially ignore co-benefits and count only the direct potential benefits of cutting mercury.
The original rule required power plants to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants by more than 90 percent over five years. Mercury is a neurotoxin that can damage the brain and nervous system in young children, leading to lower I.Q. and impaired motor skills. The Obama administration estimated that the measure would prevent as many as 11,000 premature deaths from asthma, other respiratory diseases or heart attacks. In a statement, the E.P.A. said the cost of cutting mercury from power plants “dwarfs” the monetary benefits and argued that the current limits can no longer be justified as “appropriate and necessary” under the law.
Estimates like that, however, are at the heart of the current dispute. The federal government is required to take into account both the costs and health benefits when considering pollution regulations. Trump administration officials say the Obama E.P.A. inflated benefits and underestimated costs. The proposal, which the acting E.P.A. administrator, Andrew Wheeler, signed on Thursday, is expected to appear in the federal register in the coming weeks. The public will have 60 days to comment on it before a final rule is issued.
The Obama administration found up to $6 million annually in health benefits directly from curbing mercury. But it further justified the regulation by citing an additional $80 billion in health benefits a year by, among other things, preventing the 11,000 premature deaths. That came not from curbing mercury itself but from the reduction in particulate matter linked to heart and lung disease that also occurs when cutting mercury emissions. During his first year in office, President Trump signed executive orders declaring his intention to dismantle environmental rules. As his second year comes to a close, agencies have set the wheels in motion to weaken or repeal nearly a dozen restrictions on air and water pollution or planet-warming emissions of carbon dioxide, including a plan to reduce the number of waterways that are protected from pollutants and another making it easier for utilities to build new coal plants.
The Obama administration also broadly accepted that it’s difficult to put a specific dollar-figure on some health benefits — for instance, avoiding lost I.Q. points in infants (or other fetal harm), which has been linked to pregnant women eating mercury-contaminated fish. For that reason, the original rule argued against using a strict cost-benefit analysis to decide whether the regulation should be imposed, said Joseph Goffman, the executive director of Harvard Law School’s Environmental and Energy Law Program. Reworking the mercury rule, which the E.P.A. considers the priciest clean-air regulation ever put forth in terms of annual cost to industry, would represent a victory for the coal industry and in particular for Robert E. Murray, an important former client of Mr. Wheeler’s from his days as a lobbyist. Mr. Murray, the chief executive of Murray Energy Corporation, personally requested the rollback of the mercury rule soon after Mr. Trump took office.
The new proposal fundamentally changes that approach. It would consider only the benefits that can be directly translated into dollars and cents. In a statement on Friday, Hal Quinn, president of the National Mining Association, praised the new rule, calling the mercury limits “perhaps the largest regulatory accounting fraud perpetrated on American consumers.”
The proposed rule recognizes that difficult-to-quantify benefits exist, but said “the administrator has concluded that the identification of these benefits is not sufficient, in light of the gross imbalance of monetized costs.” Yet the E.P.A. move also had its detractors within the industry. The vast majority of utility companies have said the proposed changes are now of little benefit to them, because they have already spent the billions of dollars needed to come into compliance, and have urged the Trump administration to leave the mercury measure in place.
The original rule required power plants to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants by more than 90 percent over five years. Mercury is a neurotoxin that can damage the brain and nervous system in young children, leading to lower I.Q. and impaired motor skills. The Obama administration estimated that the measure would prevent 4,700 heart attacks and 130,000 asthma attacks as well as 11,000 premature deaths by also eliminating fine particulate matter linked to those ailments.
Estimates like that, however, are at the heart of the current dispute. Business groups like the Chamber of Commerce and others argue the earlier numbers inflated the benefits of the rule, underestimated costs and improperly justified cutting mercury by relying largely on the benefits of reduced particulate matter.
“For a lot of folks, this was just another example of Obama regulatory overreach,” said Jeffrey R. Holmstead, a partner at the law firm Bracewell who served as E.P.A. air chief under the second President George Bush.
The Obama administration itself had broadly accepted that it is difficult to put a specific dollar-figure on some health benefits, for instance, avoiding lost I.Q. points in infants or other fetal harm that has been linked to pregnant women eating mercury-contaminated fish. For that reason, the original rule argued against using a strict cost-benefit analysis to decide whether the regulation should be imposed, said Joseph Goffman, the executive director of Harvard Law School’s Environmental and Energy Law Program.
The new proposal fundamentally changes that approach. It recognizes that difficult-to-quantify benefits exist, but said the administrator “has concluded that the identification of these benefits is not sufficient, in light of the gross imbalance of monetized costs.”
Ann Weeks, senior counsel for the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group, criticized the rule as “bean counting,” and said, “This is not tax law. This is public health benefits. It’s a very different calculus.”Ann Weeks, senior counsel for the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group, criticized the rule as “bean counting,” and said, “This is not tax law. This is public health benefits. It’s a very different calculus.”
Business groups also maintain the rule should count only the direct benefits of curbing the main pollutant in question, and not what are termed co-benefits, when considering the economic impact of a regulation. Co-benefits refers, for instance, to the fact that reducing mercury emissions also reduces emissions of unrelated pollutants, such as small particulate matter, that also come with a measurable health benefit. Environmental activists said they intend to challenge the new finding in court. If it survives those challenges, observers say it would set a precedent that could make it tougher for the government to justify any number of future regulations.
The new proposal directs the E.P.A. to do just that. Should that plan ultimately go into effect, the cost to curb mercury would be calculated in a way that shows the costs outweighing the health benefits.
With the legal justification for the regulation thus weakened, experts said, the rule could more easily be overturned if challenged in court. Moreover, it could make it more difficult for future regulations to go into effect.
“There is a likelihood that this rule-making will be the administration’s flagship effort to permanently change the way the federal government considers health benefits,” said Janet McCabe, who ran the E.P.A.’s air office under Mr. Obama.“There is a likelihood that this rule-making will be the administration’s flagship effort to permanently change the way the federal government considers health benefits,” said Janet McCabe, who ran the E.P.A.’s air office under Mr. Obama.
She said an overhaul of the mercury rule could result in utilities opting to no longer run pollution controls, despite having already installed them, because costs that are not federally mandated can no longer be passed on to ratepayers. “If that’s the case, we will see higher emissions of mercury, arsenic, acid gases and the particulate matters that are also captured along with those pollution controls,” Ms. McCabe said.
Mr. Wheeler, in a recent interview, dismissed the idea that utilities, having spent billions of dollars on pollution controls, would stop using them. “It’s not like people are going to start taking off their equipment and start putting mercury into the atmosphere,” he said.Mr. Wheeler, in a recent interview, dismissed the idea that utilities, having spent billions of dollars on pollution controls, would stop using them. “It’s not like people are going to start taking off their equipment and start putting mercury into the atmosphere,” he said.
He described the E.P.A.’s action as simply a response to a Supreme Court’s 2015 decision that said the Obama administration had failed to properly consider economic costs when they imposed the mercury rule and ordered a new cost-benefit analysis. The Obama administration complied and the rule was reinstated, but the coal industry again challenged the rule.He described the E.P.A.’s action as simply a response to a Supreme Court’s 2015 decision that said the Obama administration had failed to properly consider economic costs when they imposed the mercury rule and ordered a new cost-benefit analysis. The Obama administration complied and the rule was reinstated, but the coal industry again challenged the rule.
When the Trump administration came into office, the agency said it would no longer defend the Obama administration’s cost-benefit finding and would seek to rework the rule entirely. Mr. Wheeler described the E.P.A.’s plan to reopen the mercury rule as an answer to the court and said he was not concerned by either the utility industry’s disinterest in seeing the rule reworked or the views of his former client, Mr. Murray.
Mr. Wheeler described the E.P.A.’s plan to reopen the mercury rule as an answer to the court and said he was not concerned by either the utility industry’s disinterest in seeing the rule reworked or the views of his former client, Mr. Murray. “We don’t answer to the utility industry,” he said. “We don’t answer to the coal industry. We answer to Congress and the courts, and the Supreme Court told us we didn’t get it right. We have to redo it. I’m going to follow the law, and I’m going to follow the Supreme Court.” “We don’t answer to the utility industry,” Mr. Wheeler said. “We don’t answer to the coal industry. We answer to Congress and the courts, and the Supreme Court told us we didn’t get it right. We have to redo it. I’m going to follow the law, and I’m going to follow the Supreme Court.”
For more news on climate and the environment, follow @NYTClimate on Twitter.For more news on climate and the environment, follow @NYTClimate on Twitter.