The Environmental Protection Agency this week released a list that details 47 facilities granted the Clean Air Act Section 112 Presidential Exemption, temporarily halting the compliance requirements for these facilities from the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units for two years.
The standards are also known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards or MATS Rule.
In releasing the list, EPA did not provide the exact grounds each facility used in its justification for an extension.
The compliance extension lasts for two years beyond the MATS Rule compliance date, July 8, 2027, and ending July 8, 2029.
In the interim, facilities must comply with the requirements in place prior to the promulgation of the 2024 MATS Rule. The exemption may be extended to two additional years and can be renewed, though further details of the process were not provided.
This action follows President Trump’s April 8, 2025, proclamation, “Regulatory Relief for Certain Stationary Sources to Promote American Energy,” which exempted certain stationary sources identified in Annex I from compliance with the 2024 MATS Rule due to national security concerns and a lack of technological availability.
On March 12, 2025, EPA set up an electronic mailbox to allow the regulated community to request a Presidential Exemption under section 112(i)(4) of the CAA in efforts to “power the great American comeback.”
Under the CAA, the President can exempt stationary sources of air pollution from compliance with any standard or limitation under section 112 for up to two years if the technology to implement the standard is not available and it is in the national security interests of the United States.
Submissions to request a Presidential Exemption were due by March 31, 2025.
Whether the Presidential exemption has precedent remains unknown. The extensions will likely face legal challenges with significant hurdles to overcome. Courts typically offer the President a large amount of deference on judicial review of presidential actions that are explicitly authorized by Congress, particularly for presidential actions affecting foreign relations and related national security issues.
In addition, presidential exemptions are not eligible for review under the Administrative Procedures Act. However, challenges may still argue that the President acted outside his authority under the CAA. A court would examine the CAA to determine the level of deference Congress conferred to the President.
