Reducing Mercury Emissions From Coal-Fired Power Plants: Yes We Can (And Could Have, Years Ago)

By Catherine O'Neill, Center for Progressive Reform. Posted October 30, 2009.

Three recent developments in the saga of efforts to regulate mercury emissions from coal-fired utilities are significant. Early last week, Michigan became the twenty-third state to require coal-fired utilities within its jurisdiction to reduce their mercury emissions. Michigan's regulation requires these sources to cut mercury emissions by 90% by 2015. Then, on Thursday, the EPA reached a settlement with environmental groups who had sued the agency for failing to act to regulate mercury emissions. In the agreement (see NYTimes also), the EPA pledged to set standards for mercury and a number of other toxics by late 2011.

The EPA and Michigan announcements come on the heels of a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released early this month indicating that coal-fired power plants across the nation have achieved substantial reductions in emissions of this toxic air pollutant. The GAO report, Clean Air Act: Mercury Control Technologies at Coal-Fired Power Plants Have Achieved Substantial Emissions Reductions, found that these sources were able to reduce mercury emissions by as much as 99% using currently available technologies. It found, moreover, that these reductions "have been achieved at a relatively low cost."

But wait -- didn't we hear from the Bush Administration and the utilities that control technologies capable of reducing mercury emissions on this order were still years away from commercial viability? And that this reality warranted a federal regulation that sought only modest emissions reductions (70%) and delayed for years the date by which these reductions would be achieved? (The Bush Administration's regulation, never implemented, would have set the deadline for 2018 – although structural features of the program meant that actual reductions wouldn't approach 70% until some time in the 2020s or even the 2030s).

What happened?

Among other things, what happened was that states and tribes tired of the Bush Administration's efforts to thwart meaningful regulation of coal-fired utilities -- the largest remaining category of mercury emitters within the United States. Mercury, they recognized, is a potent neurotoxin. Exposure to even small amounts of methylmercury in utero or during childhood can lead to irreversible neurological damage. Studies suggest that methylmercury may have other adverse impacts as well, including effects on the cardiovascular health of adult men and on the health of numerous non-human species. Mercury that is emitted to the air eventually bioaccumulates in fish as methylmercury; as a consequence, mercury contamination disproportionately affects many American Indian tribes, as well as other groups that depend on fish.

So when the EPA finally issued a regulation, the "Clean Air Mercury Rule" (CAMR), that enlisted a questionable interpretation of the Clean Air Act in support of a cap-and-trade program with the lenient caps and timelines outlined above, several states and tribes took EPA to task. The D.C. Circuit agreed with them and vacated the CAMR in New Jersey v. EPA. And, in the meantime, several states issued their own mercury regulations for coal-fired power plants. The specifics vary from state to state, but in every case the emissions reductions are substantial. New Jersey mandated 90% reductions by 2007. Massachusetts required 85% reductions by 2008 and 95 % reductions by 2012. Illinois required 90% reductions by 2009

See more stories tagged with: coal

Catherine O'Neill is a member scholar of the Center for Progressive Regulation and an associate professor of law at Seattle University School of Law.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »