07-23-2025

Regulatory Relief for Certain Stationary Sources To Promote American Iron Ore Processing Security

ProclamationView the Original .pdf
View the Original .pdf

The 1-Minute Brief

What: A presidential proclamation issued on July 17, 2025, that exempts eight specific taconite iron ore processing facilities in Minnesota and Michigan from complying with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) "Taconite Rule" for two years. The rule, finalized on March 6, 2024, sets new, stricter limits on hazardous air pollutants, including mercury, hydrogen chloride, and hydrogen fluoride.

Money: The EPA's economic analysis of the Taconite Rule projected that the total annualized cost for compliance for U.S. Steel would be about $14 million (0.06% of its annual sales) and for Cleveland-Cliffs would be $54 million (0.24% of its annual sales). The presidential proclamation delays these costs for two years, arguing that the rule imposes "significant burdens" and that the technology for compliance is not commercially available.

Your Impact: For residents near the affected plants, particularly in Minnesota's Iron Range and parts of Michigan, this action delays a potential reduction in air pollutants linked to serious health problems. For workers and local economies dependent on these plants, it provides a two-year reprieve from what the industry calls "onerous regulation" that they claim threatens jobs.

Status: The presidential proclamation was issued on July 17, 2025, and is in effect. The underlying EPA Taconite Rule, however, is being legally challenged by the affected companies.

What's Actually in the Bill

This presidential proclamation uses a specific provision of the Clean Air Act to grant a two-year exemption to eight taconite processing plants from a new EPA regulation. The proclamation states this action is necessary for national security, arguing the EPA rule could force plant shutdowns and undermine the domestic steel supply chain.

Core Provisions:

  • Delayed Compliance: The eight listed facilities, owned by United States Steel Corporation and Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., are exempt from all compliance deadlines in the EPA's Taconite Rule for a period of 2 years.
  • Reverts to a Previous Standard: During this two-year period, the facilities will operate under the less-stringent emissions standards that were in place before the March 6, 2024, Taconite Rule.
  • Justification: The proclamation makes two key determinations:
    1. The technology required to meet the new standards is "not available" in a commercially viable form.
    2. It is in the "national security interests" of the U.S. to grant the exemption to ensure a stable domestic supply of materials for defense and critical infrastructure.

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The proclamation asserts that the preservation of domestic taconite processing is vital for U.S. steel production and national security.

  1. The authors claim the EPA's Taconite Rule mandates compliance with technologies that are untested and not reasonably achievable, risking facility shutdowns.
  2. The stated goal is to prevent "inflexible regulatory deadlines" from jeopardizing a critical material for the nation's industrial base and economic resilience.

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: Mining, Steel Manufacturing, National Defense.
Timeline: The exemption took effect on July 17, 2025, and extends each compliance deadline in the Taconite Rule by two years. The original compliance date was 2027, which is now pushed to 2029.
Scope: The exemption is limited to eight specific facilities operated by U.S. Steel and Cleveland-Cliffs in Minnesota and Michigan.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

The Long Road to Regulation (2003-2024):

The effort to regulate hazardous air pollutants from taconite plants has been a multi-decade process. Taconite processing, which creates iron ore pellets for steelmaking, releases pollutants like mercury, acid gases, and arsenic. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can cause damage to the brain, nervous system, and developing fetuses.

In 2003, the EPA issued standards for taconite plants but failed to regulate mercury emissions. Environmental groups sued, and in 2004, the EPA acknowledged its failure and committed to addressing the issue. However, for the next 20 years, no specific mercury limits were put in place. A 2020 court ruling in Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA finally compelled the agency to act, holding that the EPA must address all unregulated hazardous air pollutants from major source categories. This led the EPA to finalize the new Taconite Rule on March 6, 2024, establishing the first-ever limits on mercury for these facilities and strengthening limits on acid gases.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

  • Industry Pushback: The two companies affected, U.S. Steel and Cleveland-Cliffs, immediately challenged the 2024 Taconite Rule, filing lawsuits and arguing the standards were technologically unachievable and prohibitively expensive.
  • A Shift in Executive Strategy: In early 2025, the Trump administration signaled a broad deregulatory push, inviting companies to request presidential exemptions from various EPA rules via a dedicated email address, which critics dubbed a "polluters' portal."
  • National Security Rationale: The proclamation's timing aligns with a series of similar actions granting exemptions to other industries, including coal-fired power plants and chemical manufacturers, all under the banner of national security and economic resilience. This move prioritizes industrial production capacity over the implementation of new environmental regulations enacted by the previous administration.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This directly affects people living near the eight taconite facilities in Minnesota and Michigan and has indirect effects on the U.S. steel and manufacturing industries.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

  • For the thousands of workers in the taconite industry, this exemption provides job security for at least two years by delaying costly regulations that companies claim could lead to shutdowns.
  • It may prevent potential price increases for steel and manufactured goods by avoiding new compliance costs for the producers of raw materials.
  • The U.S. military and critical infrastructure sectors are assured a stable domestic supply of a key component for steel.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (2025-2029):

  • Communities near the exempted plants will continue to be exposed to higher levels of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants than would have been allowed under the 2024 rule. The EPA had estimated the rule would reduce mercury emissions by about 33%, hydrochloric acid by 72%, and hydrofluoric acid by 29%.
  • The delay undermines efforts to clean up the Great Lakes region, where mercury contamination in fish is a significant public health concern, particularly for children and women of childbearing age.

Long-term:

  • The proclamation sets a precedent for using national security arguments to bypass environmental regulations, potentially impacting future public health and environmental protections across various industries.
  • Continued emissions could exacerbate long-term health risks associated with taconite dust and pollutants, which studies have linked to increased rates of mesothelioma, lung cancer, and heart disease among workers.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups: Taconite industry workers and their families; residents of Minnesota's Iron Range and Michigan's Upper Peninsula, including several Tribal Nations concerned with water and fish contamination.
Secondary Groups: The U.S. steel industry, manufacturers reliant on steel, and environmental and public health advocacy groups.
Regional Impact: The impact is highly concentrated in the Great Lakes region, specifically the areas around the eight named plants in Minnesota and Michigan.

Bottom Line: The proclamation prioritizes short-term economic stability and national security for the domestic steel industry over immediate reductions in hazardous air pollution for communities in the Great Lakes region.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "Promoting American Security and Industry"

Core Stance: Generally supports the proclamation as necessary regulatory relief to protect vital American industries and jobs from burdensome, costly, and technologically unfeasible environmental rules.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ The EPA's rule threatens national security by potentially crippling the domestic supply of taconite, a critical component for steel used in defense and infrastructure.
  • ✓ The compliance technologies mandated by the EPA are not proven to work at a commercial scale in the taconite industry.
  • ✗ They oppose the EPA's recent wave of regulations, viewing them as an overreach that harms the economy.

Legislative Strategy: Utilize executive authority, such as the presidential exemption under the Clean Air Act, to provide immediate relief to industries. The broader strategy involves reconsidering and likely rescinding or relaxing the underlying EPA regulations.

Democratic Position: "Defending Public Health and the Environment"

Core Stance: Generally opposes the proclamation, viewing it as a dangerous move that circumvents the law to benefit corporate polluters at the expense of public health and the environment.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ The EPA's Taconite Rule is a long-overdue measure to control dangerous neurotoxins and other pollutants that harm communities, especially in the Great Lakes region.
  • ⚠️ They are concerned that the "national security" justification is a loophole being exploited to undermine the Clean Air Act.
  • ✗ They strongly oppose the use of an "electronic mailbox" to allow companies to request exemptions from public health laws, seeing it as an anti-democratic process.

Legislative Strategy: Use oversight authority to challenge the exemptions and potentially deploy the Congressional Review Act to try and repeal the administration's regulatory decisions. They advocate for enforcing existing environmental laws as passed by Congress and finalized through the standard regulatory process.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ⚠️ Questionable

Basis of Authority:

The proclamation explicitly cites Section 112(i)(4) of the Clean Air Act as its legal foundation.

Relevant Portion of the Constitution]: The legal authority stems from a law passed by Congress (the Clean Air Act), not directly from an enumerated power in the Constitution itself. The Commerce Clause is the typical constitutional basis for federal environmental laws like the Clean Air Act.
Clean Air Act, Section 112(i)(4): "the President may exempt any stationary source from compliance with any standard or limitation under this section for a period of not more than 2 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."

Constitutional Implications:

[Legal Principle]: The law grants the President specific, but limited, discretionary authority. The core legal questions are whether the President's determinations—that the technology is unavailable and that a national security interest exists—are valid and how much deference courts must give to these presidential findings.
[Precedent]: This provision of the Clean Air Act has been used rarely. The current administration's use of it for a wide range of industries is largely unprecedented, creating new legal territory. While courts typically give the President significant deference on national security matters, a legal challenge could argue that the rationale here is a pretext to achieve a purely economic or deregulatory goal, which is not what the law intended.
[Federalism]: This action directly impacts state-level environmental goals. For example, Minnesota has a statewide plan to reduce mercury, and taconite plants are a major source of those emissions. The federal exemption complicates the state's ability to enforce its own environmental and public health targets.

Potential Legal Challenges:

Legal challenges from environmental groups and potentially affected states are highly likely. Lawsuits would likely argue that the President's findings are "arbitrary and capricious." They would challenge the claim that technology is unavailable, pointing to EPA analysis suggesting otherwise, and dispute whether this specific issue truly rises to the level of a national security threat sufficient to waive a public health law.

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to support the President's Proclamation 10958, which provides necessary regulatory relief for the taconite industry."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Detailed Email: Contact members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to express your support for protecting the domestic steel supply chain and jobs.
  • Join an Organization: Groups like the American Iron and Steel Institute or local chambers of commerce in mining regions may have active campaigns.

TO OPPOSE THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to oppose Proclamation 10958 and support the full implementation of the EPA's Taconite Rule to protect public health."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper explaining the public health risks of delaying the reduction of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants.
  • Join an Organization: National environmental groups like Earthjustice or regional ones like the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and Save Lake Superior Association are actively fighting this measure.