Paul Gosar: “The EPA's announcement in late December intended to revise the cost-benefit findings behind the MATS aspects and…”

“The EPA's announcement in late December intended to revise the cost-benefit findings behind the MATS aspects and benefits. The Obama-era EPA's own estimate of the cost implementing MATS exceeded its estimate of benefits by 1,233 to 2,400 times, an absurdity papered over by the accounting trick of double counting as co-benefits reductions in non-mercury emissions as though these reductions were already achieved under other regulations. The financial costs of this implementation are between $4 to $5 million annually--no, I am sorry--$9.5 billion annually. Once again, the rule hasn't even been put out yet. Don't you think we ought to be waiting to find out what the actual rule is before we say no go? Because we don't even know where it goes. We also want to take a look at catastrophic wildfires. Catastrophic wildfires are the largest aspect in regard to contaminants into the air as we witnessed in hazardous breathing times, particularly in Montana and California. So from that standpoint, I urge a ``no'' vote against this one because it is premature to actually what the rule is coming out. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.”