Copyright © 2007, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org. Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, January/February 2007
A RO U N D
By John Pendergrass
States Rolling Out Mercury Cut Plans
A
new study concludes that mercury deposition levels in the Northeast and Canada are four to six times higher than they were in 1900 and identified five hotspots. One is the Merrimack River watershed in New Hampshire. The researchers found that blood mercury levels in loons declined after emissions from nearby sources declined. The authors also conclude that coal-fired power plants likely are the source of a large portion of the toxic substance. Modeling showed that emissions reductions would reduce local deposition, with the greatest effect occurring within 20 kilometers. This study appears to validate actions recently taken by a number of states to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired plants that are more stringent than an EPA rule that became final last May. The federal rule required states to act by November 17 if they intended to implement a more stringent emissions reduction program. It requires emissions reductions of about 35 percent by 2010 and 70 percent by 2018. The state plans generally require greater reductions, and on a faster timeline. According to Robert King, deputy commissioner of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, and president of ECOS, 21 states met the deadline and petitioned EPA for approval to implement more stringent programs. King notes that these states
Page 10
❧
TH E
S TAT E S
come from all regions. Among them intrastate trading but with limitations. were significant coal producers such as In Illinois, for example, a single owner Illinois, Montana, and Pennsylvania as or operator of multiple plants may well as many that rely heavily on in- average its reductions to achieve the state coal-fired plants. state’s initial (2009) 90 percent reducThe above study is particularly rel- tion on a system-wide basis, but with evant to states like those three plus an additional requirement that every Michigan, New Hampshire, and New plant must achieve at least a 75 perYork that have prohibited interstate, cent reduction. The option to average or in some cases all, trading of emis- reductions is eliminated and all plants sions reductions credits for mercury. must reach the 90 percent standard by As Kathleen McGinty, secretary of 2013. Montana instituted a compliPennsylvania’s Department of Envi- cated system designed to both reward ronmental Protection, has said, “Un- the plants that clean up the most and like other air contaminants that dis- allow for construction of new plants perse broadly, mercury — especially that install the cleanest technology. from bituminous coal-fired power One issue that the states that limit plants— deposits locally and tends to or prohibit trading appear not to have concentrate, creating dealt with is the pohot spots.” McGinty tential for electricity This study appears to be generated out of notes that she, and many other state comto validate actions state and imported, missioners, have long thus avoiding a state’s by states to reduce stringent rules. Some supported trading programs as effective mercury from coal- of these states already tools of environmental import large shares of fired plants that policy, but argues that their electricity. There allowing trading for are more stringent does not seem to be a toxic pollutant that anything in these than EPA’s new can be deposited localplans to prevent elecly is inappropriate and tricity providers from rule. could discredit trading relying on coal-fired among the public. power plants in states At least some in the generating that opted for the less stringent fedindustry dispute the study and Mc- eral rule, including allowing trading of Ginty’s arguments. Scott Segal, an emission reduction credits. Of course, industry spokesperson, contested the the hotspots created by such higherresearchers’ methods and conclusions, emitting plants would be less likely citing the sulfur dioxide cap-and-trade to extend into the state importing the program as demonstrating that trading power, so the importing state’s citizens does not create hotspots. Apparently would likely be spared the health connot all members of the industry think sequences of mercury deposition. To a national trading program is critical, their credit many of these same states since utilities in states like Michigan opposed the federal rule, both as not and Illinois were active in the process requiring sufficient emissions reducof setting the standards that restricted tions and for allowing trading, which trading. suggests that, once again, a nationwide The number of states that have pro- solution would be preferable. 1 hibited trading altogether is significant. John Pendergrass is Director of ELI’s These include New Hampshire, New Center for State, Local, and Regional York, and Pennsylvania, while others, Environmental Programs. He can be including Illinois and Montana, allow reached at
[email protected].
T H E E N V I RO N M E N TA L F O RU M
“
”
