Source: http://progressivereform.org/printBlog.cfm?idBlog=AAB09B4F-CBF6-0F5F-DF120E1DF1A52F14
Timestamp: 2018-01-21 23:56:25
Document Index: 630953861

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 172', '§ 111', '§ 165', '§ 111', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 171', '§ 173']

The Precarious Legality of Cost-Benefit Analysis
Standard: Applies to: Statute §: Impact:
Existing sources in nonattainment areas § 172(c)(1) Requires all such sources to use average existing technology (not cutting-edge “best” technology)
Stationary sources under NSPS (New Source Performance Standards) § 111(a)(1) Specifically considers cost, but can require matching reductions of best-controlled similar source
New major sources in PSD (prevention of significant deterioration) areas § 165(a)(4) Requires maximum feasible pollution reduction, considering cost and other factors on case-by-case basis; must be at least as stringent as NSPS under § 111
Major sources of hazardous air pollutants § 112(d)(2)
§ 112(d)(3) Requires existing major sources to match best 12% of industry; new major sources to match best-controlled similar source
New or modified major stationary sources in nonattainment areas § 171(3)
§ 173(a)(2) Requires most stringent existing emissions limit, whether achieved in practice or included in any SIP, for the applicable source category