UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Proposed National Emissions Docket Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0794, Standards for Hazardous Air EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234, Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0056, Electric Utility Steam Generating & Docket No. A–92–55 Units—Reconsideration of Supplemental Finding and Residual Via regulations.gov Risk and Technology Review, 84 Fed. April 17, 2019 Reg. 2670 (Feb. 7, 2019) COMMENTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL, PUBLIC HEALTH, AND CIVIL RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS The undersigned organizations1 respectfully submit these comments in opposition to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal, 84 Fed. Reg. 2670 (Feb. 7, 2019) (“Proposal”), to find under section 112(n)(1) of the Clean Air Act that regulation of emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from coal- and oil-fired electric utility generating units (“EGUs”) is not “appropriate,” and to reverse its prior, contrary finding, Supplemental Finding that it is Appropriate and Necessary to Regulate Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, 81 Fed. Reg. 24,420 (April 25, 2016) (“Supplemental Finding”).2 Undersigned organizations also oppose EPA’s unwarranted proposal to create a new sub-category that would allow certain waste-coal plants to emit greater quantities of acid gases. 1 Air Alliance Houston, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future, Clean Air Council, Clean Air Task Force, Clean Wisconsin, Conservation Law Foundation, Downwinders at Risk, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Integrity Project, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Natural Resources Council of Maine, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, The Ohio Environmental Council, and Waterkeeper Alliance. 2 In addition to these joint comments, various of the undersigned organizations are separately submitting comments on specific issues. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. is submitting Comments of Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. concerning the benefits to the Chesapeake Bay of HAPs reductions under MATS; Environmental Law & Policy Center, et al. is submitting region-specific Midwest Environmental Organizations’ Comments, and the Southern Environmental Law Center is submitting comments on behalf of numerous local, state, and regional advocacy groups active in six southeastern states – Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. The Residual Risk and Technology Review component of the Proposal is addressed in separate comments of Earthjustice, et al. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction And Overview ......................................................................................................... 6 I. The proposal rests upon fundamental legal errors and hopelessly flawed reasoning. .. 9 A. The Michigan decision does not support the proposed revised finding (Comment C- 2). .................................................................................................................................. 9 1. The Proposal’s claims that the 2016 Supplemental Finding violates Michigan’s holdings or rationale are incorrect. .......................................................................... 10 2. The proposed approach is contrary to Michigan’s core teaching. ........................... 14 B. The Proposal unreasonably fails to address the concern at the heart of Section 112: the health effects of uncontrolled air toxics emissions from power plants (Comment C-2). ............................................................................................................................ 15 C. EPA unlawfully proposes to find that regulation is not “appropriate” without sufficient explanation and consideration of the relevant factors (Comment C-2). ..... 18 D. The Proposal’s reliance on portions of the MATS Regulatory Impact Analysis is arbitrary and capricious (Comment C-2). ................................................................... 22 E. The Proposal’s myopic focus on a subset of monetized health benefits is arbitrary and unlawful (Comment C-2). ........................................................................................... 25 II. The proposed rule’s negative appropriate and necessary finding is an unauthorized exercise; under the Clean Air Act, and on the record before it, EPA can neither reverse its earlier finding, de-list egus, nor rescind MATS. ........................................... 28 A. The Clean Air Act and court precedent make clear that EPA cannot, on the record before it, de-list or de-regulate EGUs (Comments C-1, C-3, C-6). ............................ 28 B. EPA also cannot revise the appropriate and necessary finding (Comments C-1, C-3). ..................................................................................................................................... 30 1. The appropriate and necessary finding is a threshold determination. .................... 30 2. Court decisions confirm that EPA may not administratively revise the appropriate and necessary determination under the circumstances presented here. .................. 31 C. Even if EPA was not statutorily barred from administratively reversing its appropriate and necessary finding, EPA presents no reasoned basis for doing so (Comment C-1). ..................................................................................................................................... 31 D. The Proposal’s alternative interpretations are unlawful and unreasonable (Comments C-1, C-4, C-6, C-7, C-8). ............................................................................................ 33 2 III. The proposal’s estimate of the benefits of reducing air toxics contradicts the statute, EPA’s 2012 record, and the current record. ................................................................... 35 A. EPA fails to acknowledge Congress’ determination in Section 112 that reductions in emissions and associated public health harms of mercury and other HAPs are of great value (Comment C-2). ................................................................................................ 35 1. EPA has unlawfully ignored the core purposes of Section 112. ............................ 36 2. EPA has unlawfully ignored its own record. .......................................................... 44 B. EPA’s 2012 record demonstrates that its 2012 $4-$6 million monetized benefits figure dramatically under-counts even the subset of monetizable benefits of mercury reductions under the MATS Rule (Comment C-2). .................................................... 45 C. Available information post-2012 indicates much higher value for HAP reductions, including benefits from reducing mercury that alone exceed the total cost of the Rule (Comment C-2). .......................................................................................................... 49 1. Current scientific evidence supports mercury emissions reductions benefits far in excess of those monetized by the Agency in 2011. ................................................ 50 2. Recent work also shows that the adverse public health impacts of non-mercury HAPs are more significant, and that the benefits of reducing them are greater, than EPA’s RIA suggests. .............................................................................................. 52 3. The Proposal unreasonably ascribes no value to reducing massive contamination of waters throughout most of the United States and related limitations on the safe consumption of fish. ............................................................................................... 53 D. EPA’s proposed analysis fails to address distributional issues at the heart of Section 112’s purpose and requirements (Comment C-2). ...................................................... 53 IV. EPA’s analysis of costs and benefits for the section 112 appropriate and necessary finding must include all benefits resulting from regulation, including benefits from particulate matter reductions (Comment C-2). ............................................................... 55 A. There is a bipartisan history of considering co-benefits and indirect costs (Comment C-2). ............................................................................................................................ 57 1. Bipartisan federal regulatory history over the course of several decades has consistently accounted for both co-benefits and indirect costs as part of comprehensive and balanced cost-benefit analyses. .............................................. 57 2. EPA’s own cost-benefit guidelines direct the agency to consider indirect costs and benefits. .................................................................................................................. 59 3. Legislative history supports full consideration of indirect costs and benefits. ...... 59 4. Case law supports comprehensive consideration of indirect benefits and costs. ... 61 B. There is no legal basis for, and EPA fails to provide a reasoned analysis or explanation for, proposing to treat avoided public health effects differently from industry compliance costs (Comment C-2)................................................................. 62 3 1. The statutory language of Section 112 contradicts EPA’s position that particulate matter benefits should be treated differently