Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future (PennFuture) this week filed its response to the Department of Environmental Protection asking DEP to adopt regulations to reduce mercury emissions from the state’s power plants by 90 percent.

This filing is part of PennFuture’s August, 2004 request for rulemaking on mercury, which DEP agreed to in principle in a letter issued on May 18, the same day the state joined with other states in suing the federal government for its failure to protect the public's health from mercury.

“DEP should not be timid,” said Jan Jarrett, vice-president of PennFuture. “The lives and health of our children are at stake. We want specific policies that will reduce toxic mercury by 90 percent from our power plants. If New Jersey can do it, so can Pennsylvania.”

"The first step to recovery is admitting that Pennsylvania has a problem, and DEP agrees with us about that," said Charles McPhedran, senior attorney at PennFuture. “The technology is available to cut mercury pollution and protect our children from mercury poisoning. Now, we need DEP to tell our power plants to take it off the shelf and put it on their smokestacks."

PennFuture’s June 16 response said while DEP accurately described the health and environmental problems, it disagreed with the agency’s rejection of New Jersey recommendations as a model for a Pennsylvania rule.

Instead, PennFuture recommended a rule based on these five principles—

· applies to coal-fired boilers as defined in the suggested regulatory language submitted with the petition, not having less stringent standards for existing coal-fired and coal waste fired power plants;

· requires at least 90 percent mercury control efficiency from all subject new and existing sources, including maximum possible reductions from existing plants, consistent with the standards in the suggested regulatory language;

· does not allow trading between plants (where PennFuture agrees with DEP);

· focuses on emission reductions without promoting any specific type of coal; and

· requires 90 percent control efficiency by three years from issuance of the final DEP rule.

In 2001, the Keystone plant in Shelocta (Armstrong County) had the highest releases of mercury and mercury compounds to the air of any electric utility plant in the country. In 2002, Pennsylvania utilities were third in the nation with 6,986 pounds of mercury and mercury compounds emitted into the air.

In addition to its health and environmental effects, mercury contamination of Pennsylvania fish also has negative impacts for our fishing industry, which a report by the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources estimates has a direct economic impact of $800 million each year.

In August, 2004, PennFuture was joined by health care professionals, other environmental organizations and labor, sporting and women’s rights groups in filing a petition with DEP asking the state to require power plants to reduce their mercury emissions by 90 percent by 2007. Since that time, the list of co-petitioners has grown to 50 including a number of faith-based organizations.

Documents from both DEP and PennFuture are available online.

Electric generators, business, coal and labor groups have made several points in response to the proposal that Pennsylvania go on its own to adopt a mercury rule, rather than being part of a national mercury reduction program the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is adopting—

Level Playing Field: Electricity generation now operates in a competitive market. Subjecting generators in Pennsylvania to a different system for regulating mercury would increase their costs not only resulting in higher electricity prices, but putting them at a competitive disadvantage to other generators in the region.

One standard covering all generators with a cap and trade program to help achieve compliance at the lowest possible cost would eliminate the competitive disadvantage of a Pennsylvania-only standard.

Electric Reliability: A Pennsylvania-only standard on a plant by plant basis would mean older, smaller coal-fired generating plants would have to be closed resulting in a loss of generating capacity, jobs and potentially creating reliability problems. One estimate is up to 25 percent of the coal-fired generating capacity in Pennsylvania would have to close.

Impact on Coal Industry: While there is a concern that a uniform federal mercury standard would benefit coal from the western U.S. more than eastern coal, that impact is orders of magnitude smaller than the impact of a Pennsylvania-only mercury standard on the coal industry and related power plant jobs. Closing 25 percent of the coal-fired generating capacity would mean losing a market for millions of tons of Pennsylvania coal.

Mercury Is a Worldwide Problem: 70 percent of mercury emissions from U.S. generating facilities are not deposited within the continental United States, but are dispersed globally. 75 percent of the mercury deposited in the U.S. is from other countries and continents. Only 7 percent of mercury depositions are known to be from air deposition.

No “Hot-spots:” There is no evidence that power plant mercury emissions create “hotspots” around the facilities. EPA and independent researchers have looked extensively at the data on this issue and could find no substantiation for this claim.

No Cap and Trade a Disadvantage: The cap and trade system for controlling nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions resulted in achieving compliance with tough standards at the minimum possible cost. Without the ability to create and sell mercury emission credits, financing the controls needed to meet a plant specific mercury standard would be very expensive. In fact, some utilities already have made plans to generate credits and these investments would be in jeopardy.

DEP has not yet indicated how it will develop its own mercury proposal—through existing advisory committees or a special stakeholder group.

For more information visit the Electric Power Generation Association webpage.

6/17/2005