International President of the United Mine Workers of America Cecil E. Roberts wrote to Gov. Rendell last Friday expressing his support for state legislation reducing mercury emissions from power plants, and in opposition to a mercury rule proposed by the Department of Environmental Protection.

The UMWA has joined with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Pennsylvania Coal Association and a coalition of business groups to support Senate Bill 1201 and House Bill 2610 that will reduce mercury emissions from power plants by 86 percent.

The text of the letter follows.

April 21, 2006

Honorable Edward G. Rendell

225 Main Capitol Building

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120

Dear Governor Rendell:

I am writing to explain the UMWA’s opposition to DEP’s proposed rule to control mercury emissions from powerplants in the Commonwealth. As you know, the UMWA has joined with the IBEW in support of legislation before the General Assembly (SB 1201, HB 2610) that seeks to require Pennsylvania’s participation in EPA’s national mercury control program.

EPA’s rule requires a 64% reduction of mercury emissions from Pennsylvania generating units by 2010, and an 86% reduction from 1999 emission levels by 2018. this level of control is equivalent to a 94% reduction of mercury contained in the coals burned by Pennsylvania generating units.

The UMWA participated in stakeholder meetings convened by the Pennsylvania DEP to explore a potential Pennsylvania mercury rule more stringent than the EPA rule. In the process, we expressed our support for implementation of the EPA mercury rule, including its national trading program, and our opposition to a more stringent state rule that would prohibit trading.

Our concerns with the DEP’s proposed rule relate mainly to its prohibitions on trading, as these would penalize utilities that invest in pollution controls able to exceed regulatory limits. Utilities that over-control their emissions should be able to sell the excess emission allowances resulting from their pollution control investments, as a means to encourage these investments.

We also are concerned that the rule’s system of preferences and priorities for plants burning 100% bituminous coal may be vulnerable to legal challenges. While we appreciate DEP’s intention to provide a degree of compliance assurance for bituminous coals, we also know from hard experience in the acid rain program that state laws I intended to benefit local coal production can be challenged successfully under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. We thus cannot rule out the possibility that DEP’s rule could fall victim to such a challenge, leaving a regulation that commands 90% controls on a plant-specific basis, with no opportunity for emissions trading.

Meeting a 90 percent mercury reduction requirement on a plant-by-plant basis can be done in two ways: by installing an expensive scrubber and selective catalytic reduction system at a plant burning bituminous coal, or by using relatively low-cost activated carbon injection technology with western subbituminous coals. In the restructured Pennsylvania utility environment, we are frankly concerned that the DEP rule could backfire in practice, and promote fuel-switching away from Pennsylvania bituminous coals at plants that would use activated carbon injection with subbituminous coals.

In 2004, the UMWA joined the Pennsylvania Coal Association in support of DEP’s position opposing EPA’s generous allocation of mercury allowances to subbituminous and lignite coals. We viewed EPA’s method for allocating additional mercury allowances to these coals as unfair, because they discriminated against Pennsylvania and other bituminous coals. We have maintained this opposition by filing suit against EPA, in litigation pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. If successful, our action would provide Pennsylvania with additional mercury allowances, lessening the burden of the EPA rule on Pennsylvania consumers.

We remain of the view, however, that the mercury allowance trading program offers one of the most effective means to “level the playing field” among different coals, and to prevent the premature shutdown of smaller and older powerplants that may not be economical to retrofit with scrubbers.

Based on U.S. EPA’s mercury deposition modeling studies, we are not able to determine any material environmental benefit from a state mercury rule that prohibits trading. We understand that DEP has not performed any modeling of its own to support its proposed rule.

For these reasons, the UMWA hopes that you will take appropriate action to ensure that Pennsylvania coal miners do not suffer at the expense of a well-intentioned, but potentially counterproductive state mercury rule.

Fraternally,

Cecil E. Roberts

The Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee this week held the first of two hearings on the issue of mercury emissions reduction from coal-fired power plants. A second hearing is set for May 2.

Testimony from the hearing is available on the Committee webpage.

Links: UMWA – DEP Statements “Outrageous, Misleading and Offensive”

Pennsylvania Coal Association sets record straight; Calls DEP Testimony Untrue

4/28/2006