Supreme Court Backs EPA on Mercury Air Toxics Standards
On Wednesday, March 2, the US Supreme Court chose not to hear a petition to block EPA rules to limit mercury and other toxic air pollutants emitted from coal-burning power plants—the Mercury Air Toxics Standards (MATS).
Clean Air Act Section 112 Authority
Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act authorizes US EPA to set national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants, or NESHAPs, from major sources. In February 2012, EPA sought to include coal- and oil-fired electricity generating units (EGUs) on the list of major sources of air pollution.
Clean Air Act and Michigan v. EPA
In June 2015, the Supreme Court, in Michigan v. EPA, ruled that US EPA unreasonably interpreted Federal law when it set the MATS Final Rule, citing the Agency’s failure to consider costs to industry. This returned the case to the lower court for further argument.
After this decision, twenty US states joined together to challenge the rule, claiming that because EPA overstepped its authority and did not adequately consider costs to industry during the rulemaking process, the Supreme Court should “stay” the rule pending the outcome of litigation.
EPA released a supplemental finding in December 2015 to present and defend its cost-benefit analysis of new mercury air standards. This week’s Supreme Court decision rejects the states’ petition for a stay.
What Happens Now?
Because the Supreme Court declined to hear the petition to stay EPA's Final Rule, implementation of the new air standards will continue while EPA again presents its case, including the cost-benefit analysis, in the lower courts. The DC Court of Appeals already declined to block the rule, and a re-do of this case may signal the end of challengers’ options to stop the new air requirements.
Another Clean Air Act Case to Watch
This is just one of the Supreme Court cases in recent memory devoted to EPA’s Clean Air Act rules for power plants. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to stay EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which sought to create new air quality standards for carbon dioxide (CO2) from power plants.
New Clean Air Act Training for EHS Pros
Keep your facility in compliance with all the US EPA’s Clean Air Act programs! The Clean Air Act Regulations will guide you through compliance with permit requirements, emissions and pollution controls, annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting, Risk Management Planning (RMP) responsibilities, and more.
Build the expertise needed to make informed on-the-job decisions that help your site control pollution and maintain compliance. Interactive, easy to use, and available 24/7, the new online course will help you get up to speed with new and changing EPA clean air rules and protect your facility from costly EPA enforcement.
Clean Air Act Section 112 Authority
Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act authorizes US EPA to set national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants, or NESHAPs, from major sources. In February 2012, EPA sought to include coal- and oil-fired electricity generating units (EGUs) on the list of major sources of air pollution.
Clean Air Act and Michigan v. EPA
In June 2015, the Supreme Court, in Michigan v. EPA, ruled that US EPA unreasonably interpreted Federal law when it set the MATS Final Rule, citing the Agency’s failure to consider costs to industry. This returned the case to the lower court for further argument.
After this decision, twenty US states joined together to challenge the rule, claiming that because EPA overstepped its authority and did not adequately consider costs to industry during the rulemaking process, the Supreme Court should “stay” the rule pending the outcome of litigation.
EPA released a supplemental finding in December 2015 to present and defend its cost-benefit analysis of new mercury air standards. This week’s Supreme Court decision rejects the states’ petition for a stay.
What Happens Now?
Because the Supreme Court declined to hear the petition to stay EPA's Final Rule, implementation of the new air standards will continue while EPA again presents its case, including the cost-benefit analysis, in the lower courts. The DC Court of Appeals already declined to block the rule, and a re-do of this case may signal the end of challengers’ options to stop the new air requirements.
Another Clean Air Act Case to Watch
This is just one of the Supreme Court cases in recent memory devoted to EPA’s Clean Air Act rules for power plants. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to stay EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which sought to create new air quality standards for carbon dioxide (CO2) from power plants.
New Clean Air Act Training for EHS Pros
Keep your facility in compliance with all the US EPA’s Clean Air Act programs! The Clean Air Act Regulations will guide you through compliance with permit requirements, emissions and pollution controls, annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting, Risk Management Planning (RMP) responsibilities, and more.
Build the expertise needed to make informed on-the-job decisions that help your site control pollution and maintain compliance. Interactive, easy to use, and available 24/7, the new online course will help you get up to speed with new and changing EPA clean air rules and protect your facility from costly EPA enforcement.
Find a Post
Recent Posts
Compliance Archives
Download Our Latest Whitepaper
In most cases, injuries that occur at work are work-related and must be recorded to maintain compliance with OSHA regulations. This report shows you the 9 types of injuries you don’t record.
By submitting your phone number, you agree to receive recurring marketing and training text messages. Consent to receive text messages is not required for any purchases. Text STOP at any time to cancel. Message and data rates may apply. View our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.