EPA’s Clean Air Act (“CAA”) rulemakings directed at power plants are often the target of regulatory challenges in federal court.  EPA’s latest rulemaking regulating Hazardous Air Pollutant (“HAP”) emissions from coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units (“EGUs”) is unlikely to be an exception. 88 Fed. Reg. 13956 (Mar. 6, 2023).  In the now final rule, EPA has revoked an earlier action taken in 2020, in which the agency declined to regulate HAP emissions from EGUs after comparing the costs of compliance relative to the benefits of regulation, relying at the time on the Supreme Court’s decision in Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743 (2015).  Id. at 13957; see also 85 Fed. Reg. 31286. Now, just three years later under a new administration, the agency has backtracked, finding that it is appropriate and necessary to regulate HAP emissions from EGUs based on new data regarding the costs and benefits of regulating HAP emissions.  EPA claims that its latest decision is actually more in line with the statutory factors identified in Michigan for determining whether it is “appropriate and necessary” to regulate HAP emissions from EGUs under the CAA. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Clean Air Act, EPA, HAPs, Hazardous Air Pollutants, Rulemaking

Last Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit published two decisions in cases involving environmental groups’ challenges to EPA’s efforts to regulate certain classes of hazardous air pollutants (“HAPs”).  Both cases concerned Section 112(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act, a provision enacted by Congress in 1990 that requires EPA to (1) complete a list of sources of seven specified HAPs that accounts for at least ninety percent of the total emissions of each of the seven HAPs and (2) subject these listed sources to emissions standards.  42 U.S.C. § 7412(c)(6).  Section 112(c)(6) gives EPA a choice among two emission standards:  (1) a stringent standard known as “maximum achievable control technology” (“MACT”) or (2) a standard based on health thresholds.  See § 112(c)(6), (d)(2) and (d)(4).  The cases decided last Friday highlight both procedural and substantive aspects of regulating air pollution. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Procedures Act, Air, Clean Air Act, D.C. Circuit, Decisions of Note, HAPs, Hazardous Air Pollutants, Mercury, Rulemaking