If Mercury Rule Returns, Trump Could Reorganize How Government Appreciates Human Health

The Environmental Protection Agency has sent the White House a proposal that would weaken existing restrictions on mercury emissions from power plants, a potent neurotoxin, by altering how it calculates the cost and benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. hazardous air pollutants.

The proposed rule, according to two senior administration officials who reviewed the document but spoke of anonymity because it was not finalized, would overturn a decision by the Obama administration in 2011 that the agency must take into account toxic pollutants from coal-fired power plants when evaluating the costs and benefits of the rule. These "associated benefits", which include the pollutants that cause soot and smog, contribute to the rationale for the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) published by the United States. EPA seven years ago.

If enacted, the deletion – which was sent to the White House Management and Budget Office on Friday – would not completely eliminate current mercury limits. But this could seriously weaken the underlying public health rationale that the previous administration had used to limit the release of this pollutant and other harmful pollutants into the air.

The details of the rule were first reported by the New York Times on Sunday.

Coal-fired power plants are the largest emitter of mercury, which can cause brain damage in young children. Over time, these emissions accumulate in fish, whose high levels of mercury are absorbed by the people who eat them.

In an e-mail on Sunday, EPA spokesman John Konkus said the administration was seeking to address flaws in the previous administration's approach to calculating the burden of federal regulation on the environment. 'industry.

"The MATS rule was a blatant example of the Obama administration's indifference to the cost-benefit analysis required," said Konkus. "The EPA knows that these issues are important to the regulated community and the general public and is committed to taking thoughtful and transparent regulatory measures to resolve them."

Konkus declined to discuss the details of the rule, adding, "Any proposal remains under review internally."

Although the industry is now fully compliant with the federal mercury standards, which have been litigated for years, the coal companies have been lobbying the Trump administration to revisit the issue to create a precedent for future rules on pollution. Murray Energy Corp. Managing Director Robert E. Murray, who hired EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler as a lobbyist for years, requested a return to the Secretary at Energy, Rick Perry.

John Walke, a clean air lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in an email that Wheeler and EPA's Bureau Chief Bill Wehrum were seeking to exclude the health benefits of the reduction of atmospheric toxins.

"What Wheeler and Wehrum are pursuing – the fraudulent denial of real benefits from air and climate protection measures – has been the grail of EPA supporters and polluting industry lobbyists for decades." -he declares.

Congress gave the EPA the power, in the 1990s, to regulate toxic metals from burning coal – a list that also includes arsenic, nickel and selenium – but it has It took years of agency to develop a standard. At the time of publication, the EPA estimated that it would prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths and 4,700 heart attacks a year when fully implemented and cost the industry $ 9.6 billion in compliance that year. According to its forecasts, reducing these emissions would save $ 37 billion to $ 90 billion in 2016 in annual health costs and lost workdays.

Although the Supreme Court initially asked the EPA to conduct a more in-depth cost-benefit analysis of the measure, it allowed the new standards to take effect in 2012, as litigation continues. Under the rule, coal and oil companies had to put in place pollution control systems that placed them among the cleanest facilities in their sector.

In 2015, the Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the Obama administration's efforts to regulate the mercury of power plants, saying US officials did not consider economic costs by imposing costly pollution controls on power plants. coal plants.

In a decision of 5 to 4, the court put an end to the implementation of the rule. But the judges refused to remove it completely and left open the possibility that the regulations could be changed and re-established.

In response, the EPA developed an analysis that took into account the costs of the regulation and issued a final conclusion in April 2016 which showed that the benefits of the rule were greater than its costs. This finding itself is the subject of litigation.

The Supreme Court's decision in 2015 to require the EPA to evaluate the costs and benefits of the rule came after Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, current presidential candidate for President Trump's Supreme Court, had presented the same argument the previous year.

In 2014, Kavanaugh disagreed with his colleagues at the US Court of Appeals at the Columbia District Circuit, saying it was "unreasonable" for the EPA to ignore the economic impact. of the Regulation before continuing.

"Suppose you are the administrator of the EPA. You have to decide whether to adopt a proposed air quality by-law, "wrote Kavanaugh at the time. "Before making this decision, what information would you like to know? You would certainly want to understand the benefits of regulation. And you would surely ask how much the regulation would cost. … It's just common sense and good government practice.

Last spring, the EPA asked a federal court to delay a plea in a case challenging the rule. Although the electricity sector has already largely complied with regulations by modernizing pollution controls, several companies and 15 states have tried to overturn it.

At the time, the Trump administration stated that it would ask for the delay "to allow time for a complete review" of the case "after the change of administration". In its court decision on Tuesday, officials argued that the delay was justified, in part because "The agencies have the inherent power to reconsider past decisions and to revise, replace or repeal a decision to the extent permitted by law and supported by a reasoned explanation. "

Industrial groups such as the National Mining Association have long opposed the rule, saying it was responsible for shutting down many coal-fired power plants and eliminating jobs.

"The standards on mercury and toxic substances in the air have already had significant and costly repercussions not only on our industry, but also on many states and their citizens who have had doubts about the reliability of the system. "Electricity supply". . "The EPA rule reflects a surprisingly unbalanced regulatory approach. The agency has decided to impose expensive standards for certain emissions that it has never found and that pose a threat to public health. "