SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
mercury
Supreme Court Issues Rare—Temporary—Wins for EPA With Methane, Mercury Rulings
"The Supreme Court has sensibly rejected two efforts by industry to halt critical safeguards," an advocate said.
Oct 04, 2024
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday rejected two industry-backed petitions to issue injunctions on new Biden administration rules for methane and mercury in a rare, if temporary, victory for the environment at the nation's top court, which normally rules in favor of industry interests.
The two cases deal with rules issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—one to limit methane gas emitted by oil and gas companies, and the other to limit mercury emissions at coal-fired power plants.
Friday's rulings, which emerged from the court's emergency or "shadow" docket, mean the rules remain in place for now and the emergency applications to block them have failed. However, the cases remain active in lower courts, still to be heard in full, and could eventually return to the Supreme Court.
The justices didn't detail their reasoning and there were no noted dissents in either case. The court didn't yet act on a separate petition to block an EPA rule on power plants' carbon dioxide emissions.
"The Supreme Court has sensibly rejected two efforts by industry to halt critical safeguards," David Doniger, a lawyer at the Natural Resources Defense Council, toldNBC News. "The court should do the same with the effort to block EPA's power plant carbon pollution standards."
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to pause new EPA rules on mercury and methane emissions, allowing stricter limits on toxic pollution from coal plants and methane from oil and gas. A rare win for environmental regulation amid ongoing challenges. #ClimateAction #EPA #CleanAir pic.twitter.com/j4heO0sqFq
— SustainableSphere (@Sphere__X) October 4, 2024
The EPA finalized the methane rule in March, saying it will cut emissions of the gas by up to 80% over 14 years. Methane is a climate "super pollutant"—a greenhouse gas far worse than carbon dioxide in the short run, as it traps heat far more effectively. Methane leaks are common in natural gas production.
A group of more than a dozen Republican-controlled states, led by Oklahoma's attorney general, and fossil fuel industry interests filed suit and then asked for an injunction at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit while the case was ongoing. The D.C. circuit court rejected the emergency bid in July, leading the group to bring it to the Supreme Court. The group called the rule an "authoritarian national command from the EPA" in a court filing.
The EPA announced the mercury rule—which also deals with other toxic metals—in April as part of a broader package of regulations. Mercury is a neurotoxin especially dangerous to children. Coal has higher mercury concentrations than other fossil fuels. The rule requires coal-fired power plants to reduce toxic metal emissions by 67%, with slightly different rules set for those fired by lignite coal.
A group of similar legal challengers, also led by Oklahoma's attorney general, went through the same effort at the D.C. circuit as with the methane rule—with what for them was the same negative result.
Whether the rules will hold up in court over the long term remains unclear. Right-wing justices hold a 6-3 advantage on the Supreme Court and have an issued numerous significant pro-industry, anti-environment rulings in recent years, cutting away at the power of the EPA.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Don't Have Time for This': New Biden Power Sector Rules Spare Existing Gas Plants
"EPA must tackle carbon emissions from existing gas-fired power plants—soon to be the largest source of power sector carbon emissions," one campaigner said.
Apr 25, 2024
President Joe Biden's Environmental Protection Agency announced a final quartet of rules on Thursday to limit climate-warming emissions from existing coal and new gas-powered plants, as well as reduce mercury, wastewater, and coal ash pollution from coal facilities.
While several environmental groups and climate advocates praised the new rules, others pointed out that they still exclude emissions from existing gas-powered plants, which are currently the nation's leading source of electricity. A rule on these plants has been pushed into the future, likely until after the November election, which means they may not be regulated for years if pro-fossil fuel Republican Donald Trump retakes the White House.
"We don't have time for this half-assed BS, EPA!" Genevieve Guenther, founding director of End Climate Silence, wrote on social media. "Later is too late."
"As critical as these carbon rules are, the agency's job is not yet done."
The carbon dioxide rule is the first federal rule to limit climate pollution from currently running coal plants, according toThe Associated Press. It mandates that coal plants that intend to operate past 2039 and new gas-powered plants must cut their carbon dioxide emissions by 90% by that date. The EPA calculates that this would cut CO2 emissions by 1.38 billion metric tons by 2047, which is equal to taking 328 million gas-powered cars off the road or cancelling power sector emissions for almost a year. By the same date, it would cost the industry $19 billion to comply, but generate a net $370 billion in economic benefits due to reduced costs from healthcare and extreme weather. It would also prevent as many as 1,200 early deaths and 1,900 new asthma cases in 2035 alone.
The effect of the rule would be to force coal plants to either cease operations or find a way to remove their emissions with carbon, capture, and storage technology, according to the AP.
"The EPA's new rulemaking once again claims that carbon capture is an effective means of reducing climate pollution, even though it has never worked in the real world," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. "The Biden administration must take aggressive actions outside of this rulemaking to rein in fossil fuels—primarily by using existing federal authority to halt new drilling and fracking, and stop new fossil fuel infrastructure like power plants, pipelines, and export terminals. Pretending that carbon capture can dramatically reduce climate pollution is nothing but a dangerous fantasy."
The New York Times reported that the rules "could deliver a death blow" to coal, which has already declined from producing 52% of U.S. electricity in 1990 to 16.2% in 2023.
"EPA's new carbon standards for coal-fired power plants, coupled with parallel rulemakings cracking down on mercury and air toxics, coal ash, and toxic power plant wastewater discharge, rightly force the hand of all coal plants that remain: clean up or make an exit plan," Julie McNamara, a senior analyst and deputy policy director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' (UCS) Climate and Energy Program, said in a statement.
Sunrise Movement communications director Stevie O'Hanlon called the regulations a "game-changer."
"These regulations are the kind of bold action that young people have been fighting for," O'Hanlon added. "President Biden must continue moving us toward ending the fossil fuel era: It's what science demands and what young people want to see from him."
The Biden administration has promised to eliminate power sector emissions by 2035; the new regulations, along with the Inflation Reduction Act, put the U.S. on course to slash those emissions by 75% by that date, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"The age of unbridled climate pollution from power plants is over," NRDC president and CEO Manish Bapna said in a statement. "These standards cut carbon emissions, at last, from the single largest industrial source. They fit hand-in-glove with the clean energy incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act to make sure we cut our carbon footprint. They will reduce other dangerous pollutants that foul the air we breathe and threaten our health."
"Congressional Republicans are already parroting the oil and gas lobby's talking points criticizing the rules."
Beyond fossil fuel control, the other three rules would strengthen toxic metals standards by 67% and mercury standards by 70%, cut coal wastewater pollution by more than 660 million pounds per year, and establish for the first time regulations on the disposal of coal ash in certain areas.
"The suite of power plant rules announced by EPA Administrator Regan represents a significant step forward in the fight for ambitious climate action and environmental justice," Chitra Kumar, the managing director of UCS' Climate and Energy Program, said in a statement. "Together, these rules help address a long-standing legacy of public health and environmental harms stemming from coal-fired power plants that scientific studies show have disproportionately hurt communities of color and low-income communities."
However, the groups also said the administration must move to regulate existing gas plants.
UCS' McNamara said that "as critical as these carbon rules are, the agency's job is not yet done."
"EPA must tackle carbon emissions from existing gas-fired power plants—soon to be the largest source of power sector carbon emissions—and it must look beyond carbon to reckon with the full suite of health-harming pollution these plants disproportionately and inequitably force on the communities that surround them," McNamara added. "When all the heavy costs of fossil fuel-fired power plants are tallied, it's unequivocally clear that clean energy presents the just and necessary path ahead."
NRDC's Bapna agreed, saying, "Existing gas-fired power plants are massive carbon emitters. They kick out other dangerous pollution that most hurts low-income communities and people of color. The EPA must cut all of that pollution—and soon—in a way that confronts the climate crisis and protects frontline communities."
At the same time, climate campaigners are already mobilizing to defend the new rules from Republican lawmakers who want to reverse them. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said she would introduce a Congressional Review Act resolution to "overturn the EPA's job-killing regulations announced today."
"Congressional Republicans are already parroting the oil and gas lobby's talking points criticizing the rules," Sunrise's O'Hanlon said. "They're making clear whose side they are on. They'd rather please the oil and gas CEOs who back their campaign than save tens of thousands of lives."
"The regulations are clear eyed about the science: To stop the climate crisis and save lives, we must move off fossil fuels," O'Hanlon continued. "Biden can keep building trust with young people by declaring a climate emergency and rejecting new fossil fuel projects in the coming months."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden EPA Announces Power Plant Rules to Curb Mercury, Other Toxins
"While MATS has driven enormous benefits to date, the fact remains that coal- and oil-fired power plants still release pollution that hurts people and the environment, and it is incumbent on EPA to act," said one group.
Apr 05, 2023
A new proposal by the Biden administration to strengthen standards limiting emissions of mercury and other toxins could save lives in disproportionately low-income communities that lie near coal- and oil-fired power plants, said public health advocates on Wednesday as they urged the Environmental Protection Agency to quickly implement the rule.
EPA Administrator Michael Regan unveiled the administration's proposal to strengthen its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which took effect under former President Barack Obama in 2012.
The 2012 rule reduced mercury emissions by 90%—saving 11,000 lives per year, according to environmental legal firm Earthjustice—and the updated standards would require power plants to reduce emissions of mercury that have persisted over the past 11 years by 70%, as well as taking action to reduce lead, arsenic, and chromium emissions.
Mercury can cause developmental problems in infants and children and high levels of emissions pose a danger to the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs, and immune system of anyone exposed.
The other pollutants targeted by the rule have been linked to heart attacks, cancer, and developmental delays, and the EPA noted that compliance with the updated MATS "would also result in emissions reductions of fine particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide nationwide," further improving public health.
"To safeguard public health and reduce the environmental injustice caused by previous administrations' failure to require adequate controls on power plants' pollution, EPA needs to do more."
For people who live close to coal- and oil-fired power plants, Regan said the rule will offer "historic protections."
"America is leading the way in innovation, and our work to protect public health is no different," said Regan. "By leveraging proven, emissions-reduction measures available at reasonable costs and encouraging new, advanced control technologies, we can reduce hazardous pollution from coal-fired power plants, protecting our planet and improving public health for all."
\u201cBREAKING: @EPA is proposing tightening standards on mercury and toxic emissions from power plants.\n\nFamilies want to protect their kids from harmful pollution.\n\nThis is an important step toward that goal \u2014 and EPA should finalize an even tougher standard. #MATS\u201d— LCV \u2013 League of Conservation Voters \ud83c\udf0e (@LCV \u2013 League of Conservation Voters \ud83c\udf0e) 1680710586
The EPA said the rule would result in public health benefits including preventing deaths and hospitalizations for respiratory and cardiovascular conditions, saving $2.4 billion to $3 billion from 2028-37.
Julie McNamara, deputy policy director for the Union of Concerned Scientists' Climate and Energy Program, welcomed the agency's proposed rule and urged the Biden administration to impose it promptly.
"Despite years of industry protestations, MATS yielded rapid and dramatic reductions of mercury pollution and other air toxics from coal-fired power plants when it finally entered into full effect in 2016," said McNamara. "These pollution reductions have saved lives that would have otherwise been cut short and improved lives that would have otherwise been permanently harmed—including harm to babies even before birth. But for all the good that MATS has brought, we must also reckon with the fact that all these towering benefits could and should have happened sooner, and lives were harmed in the time between."
"EPA cannot repeat that same delay today," McNamara added. "While MATS has driven enormous benefits to date, the fact remains that coal- and oil-fired power plants still release pollution that hurts people and the environment, and it is incumbent on EPA to act."
The EPA is accepting public comments on the proposed rule for 60 days and plans to hold a public hearing on the updated MATS before the final rule is set to take effect, likely in 2024.
Earthjustice pointed out that Regan acknowledged in his announcement the fact that a majority of power plants "are already achieving even lower emission levels than the proposed limits require."
"This shows that far greater reductions in power plants' toxic emissions are achievable," said the group. "To safeguard public health and reduce the environmental injustice caused by previous administrations' failure to require adequate controls on power plants' pollution, EPA needs to do more. The Biden administration should finalize the strongest possible updates to these vital protections.
The rule was announced a day after 150 environmental justice groups marched in Washington, D.C. to demand that President Joe Biden stop delaying rules to curb toxic pollution.
Updated MATS were among the coalition's demands, and lead rally organizer Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) said Wednesday that "the EPA has really felt the pressure in the days leading up to the event," noting that the agency also acted recently to approve strong truck emissions standards in California.
"These steps are huge. But our work isn't done yet," said the CCAN. "EPA still needs to move forward on several more key pollution rules."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular