EPA’s New Mercury Rule Widely Criticized
On March 15, EPA announced its final rule on mercury
emissions from power plants. The rule has been widely
criticized by state and local air officials, environmental groups, and
EPA’s own inspector general. While this regulation will reduce mercury
emissions from power plants 70 percent by 2026 (as predicted by EPA
modeling), another section of the Clean Air Act would have achieved a 90
percent reduction by 2009. EPA's final regulation, a
cap-and-trade program, sets a cap on total emissions. It then allows the
utilities that can reduce emissions below their allotted level to sell or
"trade" the additional reductions to other companies that can't reduce
their emissions as cost-effectively. This rule calls for an interim cap of
38 tons per year of mercury emissions by 2010 and a second-phase cap
of 15 tons per year by 2018, although EPA's modeling shows that the 15 ton
cap would not be met until 2026 (8 years later). Another concern with
EPA's approach is that utilities that buy additional emissions allowances
will be able to emit more mercury, creating "hot spots" of emissions and
exposing the local population to more mercury emissions.
EPA is rescinding a previous regulatory determination calling for mercury
reductions from power plants under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
Rescinding that regulatory determination allows EPA to employ a program
that will result in emissions increases and mercury "hot spots" regionally
and postpone attainment for nearly a decade. Conversely, the Clean Air Act’s hazardous air pollution
control program would have required each existing coal-fired power plants
to limit mercury emissions by the maximum amount achievable and to comply
with such limits no later than 2009. Cost-effective control technologies
currently exist that can reduce emissions by 90 percent. Thus, the approach
rescinded by EPA would have lowered mercury pollution from coal-fired
power plants by 90 percent as of 2009 versus 70 percent nine years later. In
addition, it also would have rigorously controlled new sources as well as
other hazardous air pollutants (beyond nickel) from utilities.
Although the U.S. Government Accountability Office and EPA’s Inspector
General both recently criticized EPA’s development of the mercury rule,
EPA did not make substantive changes in the final rule to address those
criticisms. It is expected that the rule will be subject to litigation
from various parties.
Related information is available on EPA’s mercury rule website at:
Top of Page
| 
