According to recent reports, Trump administration together with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stated that they are reconsidering part of the Obama-era rule imposed on the emissions of mercury from coal driven plants. According to Trump administration, this adoption of part of Obama’s rule was a strategy by Trump to ease regulations which are imposed on industries. This however was a method to Trumps political era.
However, under 2011 MATS standard rule, coal plants needs to eliminate emissions of mercury. Mercury being a pollutant which causes dangers to pregnant women and more so may put unborn children and grown children at the risk of mental and physical development. More so, Molly Block, the EPA spokeswoman said that the firm has issued a full draft proposal on the regulations and rule that will govern the adopted rule which will be sent to White House Management and Budget office for approval as it is still a review process on the entire plan.
Molly Block however, said that the interagency process in the White House normally takes 30 to 90 days after which EPA expects are called in for review and to finally issue a proposed rule which will give a public comment concerning the matter. Nevertheless, MATS rule have driven many coal driven firms and companies to shut down or install pollution controls equipments and this had been a major catastrophe among the companies. Installation of pollution controls is expensive and hence over past years, most companies had to be shut down due to this.
However, Trump administration has taken initial steps to ease this new regulations on the coal plants by replacing Clean Power Plan which was initiated by former President Barack Obama by introducing a weaker plan. More so, the administration has halted the coal leasing which occurs on the federal lands and adapted to the Paris Climate Agreement. In 2015 however, the industries confronted MATS rule and this case was pushed to Supreme Court where the verdict of the case stayed intact since then. This led to the industries carting the case to a lower court where the EPA was asked to cater for compliance costs.