Welcome to the
MIRATECH Solutions Guide

MIRATECH is the expert in providing fully integrated, proven exhaust compliance solutions for anyone using industrial engines in a Power Generation, Gas Compression and Mechanical Drives.

Review
Your Solution
Contact us for
Pricing & Details
continue

Tell us about your needs

Your selction did not return any results.
Please adjust your selection and try again.

Applications

  1. Gas Compression
  2. Power Generation
  3. Rail
  4. NESHAP Regulations
  5. Industrial
  6. Air Compression
  7. Liquids Pumping
  8. Bio-Gas
  9. Greenhouse CO2 Enrichment
  10. Industrial Marine

Engine Type

  1. Bi-Fuel Diesel and Natural Gas
  2. Diesel
  3. Natural Gas Lean Burn
  4. Natural Gas Rich Burn

Noise Control

  1. Yes
  2. No

Engine Size

  1. 20 to 200 hp
  2. 200 to 1350 hp
  3. 1350 to 10,000 hp
  4. 10,000 hp and above

Regulated Pollutants

  1. NOx
  2. NO2
  3. CO
  4. VOC (NMNEHC)
  5. HAP's
  6. Particulate Matter (PM)
RESET
 
continue

Submit your Request for Pricing and Details

Your Solution(s):

Contact Information

Error: Please complete form.


Thank You!
back
submit

U.S. Supreme Court blocks EPA’s limits on coal-fired power plants.

August 1, 2015

On June 29, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court blocked one of the Obama administration’s most ambitious environmental initiatives, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation meant to limit emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from coal-fired power plants, according to a New York Times report.Supreme Court

Industry groups and about 20 states had challenged the EPA’s decision to regulate the emissions, saying the agency had failed to take into account the punishing costs its rule would impose.

The Clean Air Act required the regulation to be “appropriate and necessary.” The challengers said the agency had run afoul of that law by deciding to regulate the emissions without first undertaking a cost-benefit analysis.

Writing for the majority, in the 5-to-4 decision, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: “It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits. Statutory context supports this reading.”

The EPA had argued that it was not required to take costs into account when it made the initial determination to regulate. But the agency added that it had done so later in setting emissions standards and that, in any event, the benefits far outweighed the costs.

The two sides had very different understandings of the costs and benefits involved. Industry groups said the government had imposed annual costs of $9.6 billion to achieve about $6 million in benefits. The agency said the costs yielded tens of billions of dollars in benefits.

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote: “The agency acted well within its authority in declining to consider costs at the opening bell of the regulatory process given that it would do so in every round thereafter — and given that the emissions limits finally issued would depend crucially on those accountings.”

The decision, Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 14-46, does not strike down the rule, but it means the EPA will have to review and rewrite it, taking costs into consideration.

What this means to you
In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the EPA had run afoul of the Clean Air Act by deciding to regulate power plant emissions without first undertaking a cost-benefit analysis.

MIRATECH can help
Contact MIRATECH to learn about emissions solutions for your stationary engines.