LogFAQs > #914895715

So, regulation-wise, nothing is changed as of yet. The rules are still in place.

These rules, specifically:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2012/01/25/obama-gives-green-light-to-new-mercury-rules/#1d3c061e5eca

What has "changed" is the cost-benefit analysis. Basically Wheeler and whatever toadies he's paid have "re-crunched" the numbers. What that means is that coal monkeys can sue in court to get the regulation overturned.

Mercury on its own is a pretty nasty exposure. Attacks the brain and can cause some serious issues, birth defects, etc.

The methods the Obama rule put into place reduced that exposure by 90 percent, AND also cut down on a serious amount of particulate matter (dust, smoke, etc.) that gets kicked up. Basically a nice side benefit. That particulate matter is responsible for heart disease, lung problems, etc. Y'know, the usual stuff that comes with burning coal all the time. The savings that were calculated in the original cost-benefit analysis said that, yes, even though it's not directly mercury related, it's kind of nice to not give your workers (and people living around the plants) heart disease and lung problems, so they called it a savings in the analysis.

This new ruling says, nah, we don't care that people aren't being exposed to as much dust. In fact, we don't care that people aren't being exposed to as much mercury, because these methods cost tooooo damn much (when we ignore everything but the mercury directly). Wheeler and the coal monkeys are basically saying that their coal workers are worth killing if it means they won't have to pay as much.

And as was already said, every coal plant had to be compliant by the end of 2016, so they're already compliant. This just says that now they can spend money to sue so that they're allowed to be noncompliant again.

EDIT: As was said in the article, this will be posted on the EPA site for comment, and believe you me, there will be some commenting.
---

CyricZ