May 19--Calling the Bush administration's approach "inadequate and illegal," Gov. Rendell's environmental regulators said yesterday Pennsylvania would issue its own restrictions on mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants -- the first big coal state to do so.

Along with New Jersey and nine other states, Pennsylvania also sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency yesterday as promised, saying the federal mercury rule -- announced in March -- does not do enough to protect the public health.

"The rule falls far short of what is required to protect vulnerable young lives," Kathleen A. McGinty, secretary of Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection, said in a statement.

EPA officials countered that the federal rule was the first effort by any nation to address the problem, and vowed to defend the rule "vigorously" in court.

Mercury occurs naturally in coal and, once emitted from smokestacks, can build up in tissues of freshwater fish, potentially leading to health problems in those who eat a lot of seafood. Scientists believe the biggest threat is brain damage in fetuses and young children.

The DEP gave no specifics on how much or by when it would require Pennsylvania's power plants to reduce mercury emissions. A formal proposal is expected by late summer, agency spokesman Kurt Knaus said.

The state's power plants are the nation's third-largest emitters of mercury, after those in Texas and Ohio.

A variety of environmental, labor, health and sporting groups filed a petition in August seeking a Pennsylvania mercury rule. Yesterday's DEP announcement, contained in a 13-page response, was prompted by that petition.

Officials at PennFuture, a Harrisburg-based environmental group that led the petition, were guarded in their praise.

"We are disappointed that they were vague as to the contents" of the rule, said John Hanger, the group's president.

Knaus countered that the state was not legally required to issue al rule yesterday; it was bound only to determine whether a rule was necessary.

"We decided yes, we need to move forward," Knaus said.

Pennsylvania power plants, on the other hand, warned that the rule would place them at a competitive disadvantage. It would force them to spend more money on pollution control than big energy producers in nearby states, such as Ohio and Indiana, said Douglas Biden, president of the Harrisburg-based Electric Power Generation Association.

The four states that already have tougher rules than the federal government -- New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Wisconsin - - burn much less coal than Pennsylvania.

The EPA mercury rule sets a 15-ton limit on total mercury emissions by 2018, a reduction of 70 percent from current levels. But some plants would get extra time to meet their target if they make partial reductions earlier than required. The EPA projects that the 70 percent goal might not be achieved until after 2026.

New Jersey's rule, on the other hand, requires a 90 percent reduction by 2007.

Critics say the federal rule accomplishes too little, too late, and they also fault the EPA for allowing mercury to be "traded" -- which would cause mercury emissions to be higher in some areas than in others. Instead of installing pollution controls, individual power plants would be able to purchase pollution allowances from competitors that have reduced their emissions more than required.

The trading approach has worked well in reducing pollution from acid rain, and EPA officials say it is the most efficient way to tackle mercury.

"It will dramatically reduce mercury emissions by 70 percent," agency spokeswoman Eryn Witcher said in a statement.

Visit http://www.powermarketers.com/index.shtml for excellent coverage on your energy news front.