Dive Brief:
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit appears unlikely to strike down the federal government's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards based on the content of oral arguments last week and questions that focused on the real-world implications of eliminating the rule, Greenwire reports.
- The Supreme Court struck down the law in June, sending it back to the D.C. Circuit after finding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should have considered costs before implementing the emissions limits.
- EPA officials have said they can fix the law and intend to provide cost analysis by next year. Greenwire reports that based on last week's proceeding, it appears the court is inclined to allow the agency that chance.
Dive Insight:
A panel of judges for the D.C. Circuit appears to be siding with the EPA, as the agency pleads for time to fix its MATS rule by mid-April. Greenwire reported on oral arguments, noting the judges were skeptical of the practical implications of eliminating the mercury standard.
The rules were issued in 2011 and require coal plants to reduce emissions of certain pollutants such as mercury, lead, arsenic and other air pollutants. The Supreme Court ruled this summer that the EPA erred in not considering the costs of the new rules, and remanded the rule to the circuit court. But in its deliberations, the court noted they had dealt with similar situations before and were able to direct agencies to improve on incomplete rules without having to strike them down entirely.
The EPA has said it will justify the regulations by spring 2016, which is the deadline for power plants given a one-year extension to comply with the rules. Some observers have questioned the impact of removing the rule, as many utilities have already invested in pollution-scrubbing equipment.
Chief Judge Merrick Garland told the rule's opponents: "In four months, you may be back under the rule again."
While the Supreme Court rejected the MATS rule based on cost concerns, the EPA there is no question the emissions limits provide substantial benefits. The court's June ruling focused on how the agency determined that the regulations on mercury were “appropriate and necessary,” an initial finding that begins the process of writing a regulation. EPA has found a roughly 10-1 health benefit-to-cost ratio, but came up with those numbers after deciding to regulate mercury and other harmful pollutants.