Utility Lawyer: If there were a truth-in-advertising rule for EPA, agency would constantly be in front of the FTC

From the ongoing Energy and Power Subcommittee hearing. None of the benefits (or only very little, $500,000?) estimated for EPA’s “Mercury Air Toxics Standard” (costing $10 billion) came from mercury reduction.

Watch the hearing live 9:30am ET.

One thought on “Utility Lawyer: If there were a truth-in-advertising rule for EPA, agency would constantly be in front of the FTC”

  1. None of the (alleged, likely chimerical) savings come from mercury abatement, but then none of the laws proposed after Newtown would have changed the situation in Newtown either. Almost no policies under the Obama administration have done what they said they would or were likely to; the major exception is the drone activity that Obama learned from GW Bush and has expanded. His only real foreign-policy success, in fact.

Comments are closed.