The Daily Caller reports on the federal court's decision to uphold the EPA's regulation on mercury emissions from power plants, even though the costs far outweigh the benefits. The article quotes William Yeatman on the decision of this case.
"While today’s unfortunate decision keeps the rule in place for now, EPA is not yet off the hook,” William Yeatman, a senior fellow at the free market Competitive Enterprise Institute, said in an emailed statement. “The agency still must perform a cost benefit analysis on the mercury rule, and this analysis will be subject to judicial review, which will be no cakewalk for the EPA.”
“These benefits are so miniscule because they are based on a population that almost assuredly doesn’t exist,” Yeatman said. “According to the EPA, the MATS rule is necessary in order to protect a supposed population of pregnant subsistence fisherwomen, who during their pregnancies eat hundreds of pounds of self-caught fish from America’s most polluted bodies of fresh inland water.”
“EPA’s has produced no evidence these voracious pregnant anglers actually exist; rather, they are modeled to exist,” Yeatman added. “I suggest these ‘victims’ don’t exist, and that the putative mercury benefits are much closer to zero. Although the courts afford agencies a great deal of discretion in their decision-making, EPA’s ridiculous cost benefits ratio for the mercury rule will strongly tempt rejection during judicial review.”
Read the full article at the Daily Caller.