{"id":4023,"date":"2015-06-30T14:57:00","date_gmt":"2015-06-30T20:57:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/valleywatch.net\/?p=4023"},"modified":"2015-06-30T14:57:00","modified_gmt":"2015-06-30T20:57:00","slug":"in-perspective-epa-responds-to-the-supreme-courts-mercury-and-air-toxics-rule-decision","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/valleywatch.net\/?p=4023","title":{"rendered":"In Perspective: EPA responds to the Supreme Court\u2019s Mercury and Air Toxics Rule Decision"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"EPA\"<\/a>June 30, 2015 – by Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Commissioner for the Office of Air and Radiation, USEPA.<\/strong> Editor’s note: Ms. McCabe was a member of Valley Watch prior to accepting her position with USEPA but after her stint as IDEM’s Deputy Commissioner for the Office of Air Quality.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

\"Unknown\"<\/a>The Supreme Court\u2019s decision on EPA\u2019s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) was disappointing to everyone working to protect public health by reducing emissions of mercury and other toxic air pollutants from coal- and oil-fired power plants.\u00a0 But as we take stock of what this decision means, there are some important factors that make me confident we are still on track to reduce this dangerous pollution and better protect America\u2019s children, families and communities.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Most notably<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 the Administration remains committed to finalizing the Clean Power Plan this summer and yesterday\u2019s ruling will have no bearing on the effort to reduce carbon pollution from the largest sources of emissions.<\/span><\/p>\n

Second<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 this decision is very narrow.\u00a0 It did not invalidate the rule, which remains in effect today.\u00a0 In fact, the majority of power plants are already in compliance or well on their way to compliance.\u00a0 The Court found that EPA should have considered costs at an earlier step in the rulemaking process than it did.\u00a0 The court did not question EPA\u2019s authority to control toxic air pollution from power plants provided it considers cost in that step.\u00a0 It also did not question our conclusions on human health that supported the agency\u2019s finding that regulation is needed.\u00a0 And its narrow ruling does not disturb the remainder of the D.C. Circuit decision which unanimously upheld all other aspects of the MATS rule and rejected numerous challenges to the standards themselves.<\/span><\/p>\n

Third<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 this decision does not affect other Clean Air Act programs that address other sources and types of air pollution. It hinged on a very specific section of the Act that applies exclusively to the regulation of air toxics from power plants.\u00a0 This is important to understand because it means that rules and programs that reduce other types of pollutants under other sections of the Clean Air Act\u2014like ozone and fine particles (smog and soot) can continue without interruption or delay.<\/span><\/p>\n

The decision does not affect the Clean Power Plan, which EPA will be finalizing later this summer and which will chart the course for this country to reduce harmful carbon from its fleet of existing power plants.\u00a0\u00a0 That\u2019s worth repeating: The Court\u2019s conclusion that EPA must consider cost when determining whether it is \u201cappropriate\u201d to regulate toxic air emissions from utilities under section 112 of the Act will not impact the development of the Clean Power Plan under section 111.\u00a0 Cost is among the factors the Agency has long explicitly considered in setting standards under section 111 of the Act.<\/span><\/p>\n

Fourth<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 America\u2019s power sector is getting cleaner year after year by investing in more modern technologies.\u00a0 \u00a0Since President Obama took office, wind energy has tripled and solar has grown ten-fold. The Clean Power Plan will build on these current positive trends.\u00a0 That means cleaner air in communities across the country, as well as a boost to our economy as we build the clean energy system of the future.<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 What\u2019s next for MATS?\u00a0\u00a0 From the moment we learned of this decision, we were committed to ensuring that standards remain in place to protect the public from toxic emissions from coal and oil-fired electric utilities.\u00a0 We will continue to work to make that happen.\u00a0 There are questions that will need to be answered over the next several weeks and months as we review the decision and determine the appropriate next steps once that review is complete.\u00a0 But as I\u2019ve already noted, MATS is still in place and many plants have already installed controls and technologies to reduce their mercury emissions.<\/span><\/p>\n

After nearly 45 years of the implementing the Clean Air Act, there have been many more victories than defeats as we\u2019ve worked together to clean the air and raise healthier children and families.\u00a0 Despite the Supreme Court\u2019s MATS decision, the agency remains confident that the progress we\u2019ve made so far in improving air quality and protecting public health will continue.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n

Editor’s Note:<\/em>\u00a0The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone’s rights or obligations.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Please share this post. However, please don’t change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don’t attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

June 30, 2015 – by Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Commissioner for the Office of Air and Radiation, USEPA. Editor’s note: Ms. McCabe was a member of Valley Watch prior to accepting her position with USEPA but after her stint as … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[385,285,284,386,58,387,388,389],"class_list":["post-4023","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-air","tag-clean-air-act","tag-clean-power-plan","tag-emissions","tag-mercury","tag-power-plants","tag-toxic-emissions","tag-toxics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/valleywatch.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4023","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/valleywatch.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/valleywatch.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/valleywatch.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/valleywatch.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4023"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/valleywatch.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4023\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4025,"href":"http:\/\/valleywatch.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4023\/revisions\/4025"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/valleywatch.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4023"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/valleywatch.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4023"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/valleywatch.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4023"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}