The Obama administration originally found that forcing coal-fired plants to use the mercury control technology would cost an estimated $9.6 billion a year — the most expensive clean air regulation. This cost was far higher than the expected annual health savings of $6 million. However, the administration was able to rack up these health saving numbers by enabling the MATS Rule, with co-benefits adding another $80 billion, according to The New York Times.
Once again, the EPA has overreached in its attempt to regulate entire industries out of business. The new mercury rules, for example, which is facing Supreme Court scrutiny right now, would be the most expensive ever, disrupt U.S. energy supply, and provide miniscule real-world health benefits. The EPA, however, has concocted a scenario that claims huge benefits and low costs -- based on "science" it will not share with Congress, let alone the public. Perhaps the Court will take a hard look at this "science" and decide it is insufficient to justify such draconian measures, perhaps not.
CFACT advisor Larry Bell talks about ObamaCare and the EPA -- and how the Supreme Court, to the surprise of many, is going to listen to pleas that the EPA must consider the economic impact of its rules as part of an overall package.
Is it surprising that EPA continues to tell big fat lies about anything it wants to ban, but is reluctant to show the “science” on which the bans are based?
The EPA is a regulatory agency that appears to be consumed by its own lust for increased political power. Take the EPA demand that New York City replace 1,300 fire hydrants because of their lead content. Or their declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant equivalent to sulfur and nitrogen oxides. Or their mercury and air toxics rule, that seeks to purge a portion of the 0.5% of atmospheric mercury and in the process shut down nearly half of the nation's electric power generation.