Advocacy News – March 13, 2025
What’s new: In a setback to litigation surrounding drinking water standards for PFAS, the Michigan Supreme Court remanded a previous decision by the Court of Appeals (COA) for reconsideration.
- The COA had originally ruled that the State violated the rules process by not properly accounting for compliance costs when developing the rule. In lieu of granting the state agency’s request for leave to appeal, Michigan’s highest court vacated the judgment of the COA and remanded the case for that court to address mootness, exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies and justiciability issues.
Why it matters: Rules created by state agencies have the de factor effect of law. These can sometimes lead to unintended consequences and significant costs for the business community by creating new standards around areas like environmental compliance that are created by bureaucrats, not elected officials.
What we’re saying: The Michigan Chamber joined the US Chamber of Commerce in arguing the Michigan Department of the Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) must comply with the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by creating and publicly releasing a regulatory impact statement that includes an “estimate of the actual statewide compliance costs of the proposed rule on businesses and other groups.” MCL 24.245(3)(l).2
In particular, the APA requires that the agency estimates — and publicly discloses in its regulatory impact statement — the proposed drinking-water rule’s actual statewide compliance costs.
- EGLE does not dispute, and knew during the rulemaking, that the proposed rule, by operation of law, would have an immediate effect on groundwater cleanup compliance costs.
- Yet it chose not to mention those compliance costs in its regulatory impact statement, much less attempt to estimate those costs.
For more information, contact Mike Alaimo.