Please disable your adblock and script blockers to view this page

EPA says incidental benefits of pollution rules don?t count


EPA
the Clinton Administration
the Supreme Court
Trump
the Ars Orbital Transmission
CNMN Collection WIRED Media Group
Condé Nast


John Timmer
Bush
Obama
Ars

No matching tags

No matching tags

No matching tags


US

No matching tags

Positivity     31.00%   
   Negativity   69.00%
The New York Times
SOURCE: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/04/epa-keeps-mercury-limits-in-place-but-undercuts-their-foundation/
Write a review: Ars Technica
Summary

A few lawsuits added further complications over the course of this history, but a key one was decided by the Supreme Court, which ruled that the Obama administration had erred by not performing an economic analysis before formulating emissions rules.The Obama-era EPA went back and redid the rulemaking process, and the result was one of the more costly set of rules in US history. Instead, the process of removing mercury from exhaust streams would also eliminate a lot of particulate emissions, and their absence drove many of the health benefits.The rules were put in place during the Obama administration, which was promptly sued. This is substantially more than the cost of the pollution controls.While Clean Air Act regulations do not require that the financial benefits outweigh the costs, having the cost-benefit analysis indicate that they do generally leaves a rule less vulnerable to lawsuits.The new EPA decision, however, indicates that it has determined that regulatory decisions should not consider co-benefits—at all, for this or any future rules.

As said here by John Timmer