EPA proposal to find MATS “not cost justified” may establish precedent of how future cost-benefit proposals are performed.

January 31, 2019

On December 28, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a pre-publication version of a proposal revising the cost analysis underlying the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS Rule) for coal and oil fired electric generating units (EGUs) and conducting the residual risk and technology review required by the Clean Air Act according to a January 14, 2019 report from Energy and Environmental Law.

The Proposal would reverse a previous finding issued by EPA under the Obama Administration, that regulation of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from EGUs under the MATS Rule was “appropriate and necessary” but would nonetheless leave the rule in effect. The Proposal also concludes that more stringent HAP emission limits are not warranted by the required risk and technology reviews.

The MATS Rule was finalized in 2012 and was based on an EPA finding that regulation of HAP emissions from EGUs was “appropriate and necessary.” But, in making its finding, EPA did not consider the cost of regulation. This decision was challenged by numerous petitioners and ultimately was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in Michigan v. EPA.

In 2015, just two months after the compliance deadline, the Court ruled that EPA had acted unreasonably by concluding that the cost of regulation need not be considered in determining whether it is appropriate to regulate EGU HAPs emissions.

In response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Michigan, EPA issued a supplemental finding in 2016 concluding that even after considering cost, it remained appropriate to regulate EGU HAP emissions. One of the theories EPA used to justify its 2016 Supplemental Finding was that the co-benefits of regulating EGU HAP emissions outweighed the costs of regulation.

EPA’s current rulemaking proposes to rescind and replace the 2016 Supplemental Finding.

In the Proposal, EPA concludes its 2016 Supplemental Finding was flawed, in part due to its reliance on co-benefits to justify MATS. Instead, EPA now says the previous finding should not have relied on co-benefit reductions as a primary justification for MATS.

Despite proposing to find the regulation of EGU HAP emission is not appropriate and necessary, EPA is not proposing to rescind MATS or delist EGUs from the list of sources regulated because EPA was previously precluded from delisting EGUs by the D.C. Circuit in New Jersey v EPA decided in 2008.

Nevertheless, the EPA does ask for comment on whether it is authorized to rescind MATS or may even be compelled to do so if it finalizes the Proposal as currently drafted. However, if the EPA finalizes the rule as proposed, the main impact of the Proposal would be to establish precedent for how cost-benefit analyses should be performed in the future and would not impact MATS itself.

EPA concludes that the residual risk from EGU HAP emissions does not warrant making the MATS emission limits more stringent and that no new technologies have been developed since the MATS Rule was finalized that would support more stringent standards.

Although the shutdown of the federal government delayed publication of the Proposal in the Federal Register, the comment period will be open for 60 days once the Proposal is published.

What this means to you
If the EPA finalizes the MATS rule as proposed, the main impact of the Proposal would be to establish precedent for how cost-benefit analyses should be performed in the future and would not impact MATS itself.

Contact MIRATECH for stationary engine emission compliance solutions.