The rule in question was/is an example of Obama having balls. The Obama EPA made a rule to limit mercury emissions that could only be legally justified if the

The rule in question was/is an example of Obama having balls. The Obama EPA made a rule to limit mercury emissions that could only be legally justified if the benefits of particulate reduction associated with reducing mercury emissions were included as an economic benefit of mercury emission reduction. Using the economic benefit of particulate reduction to justify mercury reduction was bold and ballsy rule-making. Especially because the economic benefit of particulate reduction dwarfed the benefits of the mercury reduction itself. People, including myself, may enjoy or appreciate the results of the Obama mercury emission rule (less pollution) but the rule subverted the point of the economic balancing tests that the EPA is supposed to use. The EPA could have targeted particulate emission directly but I imagine that would be politically impractical. Also, reducing particulate emissions does not target the coal industry which was what Obama was going after in those days.