Today, the Supreme Court sided with the State of Michigan and overturned the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Mercury and Air Toxics rule. The regulatory scheme is more commonly referred to as the Utility MACT Rule, short for “Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology” Rule.
Issued in December 2011, the Utility MACT Rule standards for coal-powered electricity plant emissions were practically impossible to achieve, dooming many coal-fired plants to closure and preventing construction of new plants. Between the cost of compliance and the loss of affordable electricity generators, the rule would have caused significantly higher energy costs and fewer jobs.
In June 2012, NTU supported a joint resolution disapproving of the plan, explaining:
This rule threatens to lead to sky-high energy costs and a massive loss of jobs. Done in the name of a so-far elusive population of pregnant women in fishing villages, the Utility MACT Rule’s massive $9.6 billion price tag far outweighs the EPA’s own estimate of $0.5 million to $6 million in direct annual benefits. In addition, the mercury reductions the EPA claims the rule accomplishes would be one-third below levels detectable by the EPA’s own compliance tools.
The rule’s unattainable emission standards effectively prevent the construction of new coal-fired power plants. Further it is already forcing coal-powered electricity producers to shut down, or plan to shut down, current plants due to a short time frame for compliance and enormous associated costs. Because the U.S. depends on these providers for almost 50 percent of our electricity, experts are anticipating a 40-60 percent spike in the price of power. It also means a great loss of jobs in economically depressed coal producing regions from West Virginia and Kentucky, to parts of Pennsylvania. National Economic Research Associates estimates a net average loss of 183,000 jobs per year through 2020 as a result of the EPA’s overzealous agenda.
Today, the Court delivered a massive win for taxpayers by agreeing with the plaintiff that the EPA “refused to consider cost when making its decision” and acted “unreasonably” by deeming “cost irrelevant.”
As the EPA goes back to the drawing-board on the Utility MACT Rule, today’s ruling should give taxpayers hope that similarly costly regulations, such as the Clean Power Plan rule will be struck down or wither on the vine. In addition, taxpayers now have firm grounding to insist that new regulations and legislation adhere to commonsense cost-benefit analysis.