Senator Ray Musto

In mid-May, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) acknowledged that it was recommending to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) the development and adoption of regulations to control the emissions of mercury from coal-fired power plants. The department’s regulations would include not only electric generating units but also other sources of mercury; a method for assessing mercury “hotspots”; the development of clean coal technologies and an approach that considers the capacity and reliability of our electric grid infrastructure.

Many environmental groups and other organizations have urged the state’s EQB to back DEP’s effort to adopt Pennsylvania specific mercury controls. However, as a long-time member of the EQB, I have serious concerns regarding the department’s proposed action on mercury. Other legislative members of the EQB have also joined me in expressing anxiety regarding this activity.

Unfortunately, the concerns that my colleagues and I share over efforts to craft a Pennsylvania-specific mercury reduction rule have been misrepresented. Some groups have erroneously argued that my colleagues and I have urged that no action be taken to protect the health of Pennsylvanians from the dangers of mercury. My motives for offering a different perspective on this issue have also been questioned by those more interested in a sound bite rather than sound policy.

Let me be crystal clear, I have never requested that Pennsylvania be idle on the issue of controlling mercury. And, it goes without saying that I am concerned about children’s health.

What I am in support of is the adoption of a strong mercury reduction rule at the national level. Earlier this year for example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted a federal rule that would slash mercury emissions by as much as 70 percent--perhaps as high as 86 percent in Pennsylvania. It is worth noting that the federal rule requires a 64 percent reduction in mercury emissions in Pennsylvania by 2010.

By law, the federal mercury rule is already incorporated into Pennsylvania’s Air Pollution Control Act. As the prime sponsor of Pennsylvania’s Air Pollution Control Act amendments in 1992, I strongly supported language stipulating that Pennsylvania should not adopt air quality standards more stringent than applicable federal standards, except in limited circumstances.

There are valid reasons for federal air quality standards. Some air pollutants are national in scope and effect. Federal air quality standards provide uniformity and prevent economic dislocation. Research shows that mercury can circulate in the atmosphere for long periods of time and be transported thousands of miles before it gets deposited. For these reasons, it is difficult to link mercury accumulation in the food chain with individual emission sources.

As a state policymaker, I have to be not only concerned about the state’s environment but also its economy and resource usage. Pennsylvania’s electric generators compete in one of the most competitive power markets in the world. In my view, a Pennsylvania specific mercury emission standard could place Pennsylvania’s electric generating units, industries, and consumers at an economic disadvantage with little environmental benefit. Energy policy is environmental policy that should be delicately balanced.

Mercury is a toxic element that poses health threats and must be controlled. After many years of study and analysis, coal-fired power plants, for the first time, will have their mercury emissions controlled under a federal regulation.

My question has always been whether it is necessary and advantageous for Pennsylvania to do something more stringent than required under federal law. This is a complex, costly, and important issue. It is only prudent and reasonable to ask questions now.

Sen. Ray Musto is Democratic Chairman of the Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee and represents parts of Carbon, Luzerne and Monroe counties. For more information, visit Senator Musto’s website.

8/19/2005