Document 6Rz9oojrdapqmbO6k69q13nqd

TALEN ENERGY NortiNestern EFI('P)Y 3 March 28, 2025 the existing standards were not "necessary." 85 Fed. Reg. 31286 (May 22, 2020). EPA under the Bidcn Administration agreed that the existing standards provide an adequate margin of safety, and further concluded that the Rule will impose far higher costs than quantifiable benefits. Nonetheless, the 2024 MATS Rule required coal-fired power plants to reduce fPM emissions by 66%. 89 Fed. Reg. 38508. Importantly, EPA admitted in the administrative record that almost half of the regulatory burden from the entire 2024 MATS Rule would fall on Colstrip. ki.at 38533 ("42 percent"). Talen Montana and NorthWestern encouraged EPA via the formal regulatory comment process to make changes to the Rule to avoid this outcome for Colstrip, their respective Comments included in this Request as Exhibits 1 and 2. Those calls for reasonable change were ignored by the Biden EPA. Talcn Montana and NorthWestern challenged the Rule. Talen Montana, LIX' v. EPA, No. 24-1190 (D.C. Cir.); NorthWesiern Cotp. v. EPA, No. 24-1217 (D.C. Cir.); see also North Dakota v. EPA, No. 24-1119 (D.C. Cir.) (lead case). Talen Montana and NorthWestern requested the court to judicially stay the 2024 MATS Rule, but the court denied the request. The legal challenges to the 2024 MATS Rule have been held in abeyance in light of the Trump Administration's swift action. But with no judicial stay of the Rule, Colstrip is expected to comply with all emission standards set by the 2024 MATS Rule by July 6, 2027, or one year later if the state provides a statutory extension. Because construction of control technologies takes significant time, power plants such as Colstrip must decide soon whether to make expensive and uncertain investments to comply with the Rule, with no assurance of timely compliance. Colstrip has diligently moved forward with the design of potential control technology, but it has not been able to develop assurance that it can effectively, economically, or in a timely manner comply with the Rule. Meanwhile, the time is soon coming for decisions to be made and expenditures to rise steeply. Moreover, the Colstrip owners face this major investment decision with significant challenges to complying with the Section 111 Greenhouse Gas Rule, 89 Fed. Reg. 39798 (May 9, 2024) (GHG Rule), on the horizon, in just a few short years after the 2024 MATS Rule compliance is due. On March 12, 2025, EPA published the "Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS): Powering the Great American Comeback Fact Sheet" (Fact Sheet). In this Fact Sheet, the Agency stated that it seeks to reconsider the 2024 MATS Rule. The Fact Sheet and EPA's Press Release issued the same day alerted the public and the regulated community to Section 112(i)(4) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), which allows the President of the United States to grant a compliance exemption of up to two years "if the President determines that the technology to implement such standard is not available and that it is in the national security interests of the United States to do so," 42 L.S.C. 7412(i)(4). EPA notified the public in the Fact Sheet that any source interested in such exemption from the 2024 MATS Rule "should provide their recommendations to EPA by March 31, 2025." EPA stated that sources only need to provide why the technology is unavailable and why it is in the national security interest for an exemption. EPA's Press Release further explained that the Agency is considering exemptions via CAA Section 1 12(i)(4) while the Agency goes through the rulemaking process to reconsider the Rule. Sierra Club FOIA 2025-EPA-04883 ED_018388_00000306-00003 SC_EVERSPLIT0006087