And here is another one. CNN SCOTUS Limits EPA
"EPA unreasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act when it decided to set limits on the emissions of toxic pollutants from power plants without first considering the costs of the industry to do so."
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Yes, the EPA should (and according to the ruling, must) do a thorough cost-benefit analysis before ruling. I believe they are completely incapable of doing it honestly.
The EPA does do a cost-benefit analysis. The question in the case was related to when that analysis needs to be performed.
In the current process, the EPA first has to determine if regulating (in this case) mercury is "necessary and appropriate". Then, it develops its regulations and does a cost-benefit analysis on those regulations.
The Court ruled that the cost-benefit analysis has to be done as part of the "necessary and appropriate" determination. So the case now goes back to the Circuit Court which has two options -- require the EPA to do additional analysis, or toss out the rules and force the EPA to start over.
...because our air, water, and environment should be subject to cost-benefit analyses.
Makes sense, if you don't care about any of those things.
I can care about clean air, etc. and still be unwilling to spend $300 billion to possibly prevent one case of cancer. That's why it's called an "analysis" rather than a "wacko environmentalist pipedream."
Since I was / am an Engineer, I am actual happy when the EPA goes overboard. It means that society is going to be paying us very well for a long time to make that miracle happen. The diesel engine emission rules kept engine suppliers and mobile equipment manufacturers busy for ~20 years and significantly increased vehicle costs.
Look at chart comparing Tier 0 to Tier 4
As long as people don't mind paying a lot more for their energy / products, let the EPA keep forcing the changes. Us engineers will appreciate the work.
What was interesting here is that the State of Michigan disagreed with the EPA... And those were the people that would be affected by the pollution and rate hikes.
Interesting article today saying that the total mercury from US power plants is about 0.5% of the total, and that the $7 billion cost to reduce (not eliminate) that gets us $4 million in health benefits. No wonder it was ruled "unreasonable."
Likewise, an EPA-mandated 50% reduction of US CO2 emissions will reduce atmospheric CO2 from something like 401 ppm to 400 ppm, for ZERO provable benefit.
Post a Comment