Supreme Court Urged to Block EPA’s Mercury Emissions Standards
Utility providers Talen Montana and NorthWestern Energy have requested an emergency stay of the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for coal-fired power plants, arguing that the new standards impose significant costs without substantial benefits. The new rules, finalized by the EPA in April, aim to reduce mercury emissions by 70% and toxic metal emissions by 67% for all coal plants. Talen Montana and NorthWestern Energy claim that the EPA’s rule lacks a statutory basis and would drive down emissions unnecessarily.
The Colstrip power plant, operated by Talen Montana, is the largest coal-fired power plant in the western United States and plays a critical role in maintaining the stability of the electrical grid in Montana. It provides thousands of jobs and contributes billions of dollars to the economy. The utility companies argue that the Colstrip plant is uniquely impacted by the EPA’s regulations, with nearly half of the regulatory costs falling on this facility. They contend that the EPA failed to demonstrate the necessity of additional emission reductions and that the health benefits are negligible.
To meet the EPA’s emission limits by 2027, the Colstrip power plant would need to invest an estimated $350 million in additional emissions control technology, specifically a new baghouse. However, the utility providers argue that the costs are economically irrational for the facility and pose a high risk of premature retirement. If the plant were to close prematurely, it would have devastating effects on grid reliability and the ability to meet energy demands.
In response to the EPA’s regulations, the agency claims that the new standards would significantly reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants and reduce health risks associated with living near coal-fired power plants. However, Talen Montana and NorthWestern Energy argue that the current cancer risk from the Colstrip plant is already significantly lower than the risk threshold determined by the EPA. They suggest that reducing the risk further would yield negligible public health benefits.
The utility providers assert that the EPA’s regulations not only contravene the Clean Air Act but also prioritize emissions reductions without considering the impacts of those reductions. They are now seeking intervention from the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the future of coal-fired power plants and the debate surrounding environmental regulations.
