EPA Cites Discretion To Avoid Cost-Benefit Review In Utility MACT Finding

摘要

EPA is citing discretion under the Clean Air Act to avoid a comprehensive new cost-benefit analysis for whether its utility air toxics rule is "appropriate and necessary," saying a more limited assessment of implementation costs released Nov. 20 satisfies a Supreme Court mandate to factor costs into the appropriate and necessary finding. In a package of documents published on its website, EPA says that nothing in the air law mandates that it conduct a sweeping new analysis of the costs and benefits of regulating power plants with its maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule. Instead, EPA finds it is still appropriate and necessary to regulate utilities with a MACT, based on analysis conducted for its original regulatory impact assessment for the rule. Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA.com. See page 2 for details. (Doc. ID: 186737) But EPA's statement that it has deference on the scope of the cost review could prompt push-back from utilities that sued over the initial lack of a cost consideration in the agency's finding that regulating power plants with a MACT air toxics rule is "appropriate and necessary" under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court in June ruled 5-4 that EPA should have factored costs into that finding.