On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator announced a series of nearly three dozen deregulatory proposals intended to revitalize the U.S. economy by removing what were described as overly burdensome regulations on various industries. Many of these changes would affect significant environmental laws focused on maintaining clean air and water. Industry leaders generally welcomed these potential rollbacks, whereas environmental advocates raised concerns about the historical impact of such deregulations if implemented.
One notable proposal involved reevaluating the emissions standards set for power plants under the previous administration. The administration had implemented strict limits on emissions from coal and gas plants as part of a larger strategy to curb greenhouse gases from the energy sector. The new proposal calls for a reassessment of these standards, which have been challenged by certain same state governments as costly and prohibitively strict.
Another area of proposed change involves the stringent controls on toxic emissions from coal plants. The important regulation was originally put in place to limit hazardous pollutants like mercury. Critics claim the rules impose high costs, particularly on coal plants, and argue that industry should have more time to comply while these rules are reconsidered.
Similarly, the proscribed regulations governing wastewater from steam-powered plants are to be reviewed. Current rules impose limits on toxic substances such as mercury and arsenic found in this wastewater, citing health risks like increased cancer rates. Revisiting these regulations is intended to lessen the financial burden on industries while assessing the rules’ impact on residential energy costs.
The possibility of the broader use of treated wastewater from oil and gas drilling is under consideration. Presently, the wastewater can be utilized in a limited fashion on certain lands for purposes like agriculture. However, environmentalists argue there is a wide variety of unknown contaminants, raising safety concerns. The EPA plans to explore new applications for this treated water, reflecting advancements in treatment technologies.
Moreover, the EPA intends to reconsider regulatory measures surrounding petrochemical emergency planning. Previously, new requirements were set to bolster accident preparedness near industrial sites, following incidents such as a massive explosion in Texas. However, current perspectives suggest these rules might not adequately consider national security recommendations.
Changes are also proposed for the greenhouse gas reporting requirements system, which mandates extensive emissions reporting by major polluters. Though this reporting mechanism previously facilitated industry improvements, it’s now described as a costly and bureaucratic program by the EPA.
Vehicle emission standards are also under review, addressing assessments of emission limits for light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles. The current administration’s efforts to promote electric vehicle development are criticized for indirectly influencing manufacturers, though many have already made moves to increase efficiency voluntarily.
One critical scientific pillar, the 2009 Endangerment Finding regarding greenhouse gases, is under review for its standing under the Clean Air Act. This finding forms the base of much climate policy in the U.S., and re-evaluating its legality might have significant implications, highlighted by concerns from experts about ramifications for climate change action.
Technology transition rules curtailing hazardous hydrofluorocarbon use in devices such as refrigerators and air conditioners are also getting another look. While these gases significantly impact climate change, the EPA’s potential rollback reflects international shifts and industry capabilities.
The “Good Neighbor Plan,” aimed at reducing emissions that affect air quality across state lines, is facing suspension, which might leave communities affected by pollution more vulnerable.
Furthermore, the composition of significant advisory committees like the Science Advisory Board is slated for restructuring, with mandates to provide scientific guidance to the EPA’s decision-makers. The advisory board’s role has historically been pivotal for policy formulation.
Current particulate matter standards governing soot emissions, tightened under the previous administration due to health concerns, are now being reconsidered amid claims they hinder economic activity, despite scientific evidence supporting stricter controls to save lives.
Standards covering emissions of hazardous pollutants from industrial sources, which are crucial for public health protection, face possible exemptions to ease compliance burdens for industries.
The existing Regional Haze Program, designed to protect visibility in national parks, is also being scrutinized for its economic implications on industrial operations. Likewise, the broader perceived economic price of carbon emissions could be reevaluated, potentially reshaping climate regulation benefit analyses.
Finally, the rules surrounding coal ash disposal, historically a concern due to pollutants like arsenic, are being scrutinized for quicker state-level handling, raising fears over weakened federal oversight.
