June 25: Energy Risk - Mercury Debate Concentrates on Hot Spots

There's no argument that mercury is a noxious pollutant yet there is widespread disagreement over how or whether to control it. Now the attention is on potential “hot spots,” whereby individual power plants could end up not cutting mercury-related emissions under a free market approach espoused by the Bush administration and others.

Not so says a recently released report by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), noting that many of these facilities burn bituminous coal whose mercury-related emissions are easier to control than other coal types.

The issue has come to light because of the trading system proposed by the Bush team—the same kind used successfully to help control sulfur dioxide emissions. Simply put, power plants that run afoul of the caps can buy credits from those that exceed their targets. That's the cap-and-trade part of it. The other aspect is that the plan sets a limit of 34 tons of mercury deposits by 2010, or a reduction of 30 percent from today's levels—a number that the Energy Information Administration predicts would be more like 40 percent because of the addition of the trading approach.

But, many environmental groups oppose such tactics, noting that while national mercury levels may drop, specific places will suffer from hot spots unless maximum allowable levels are set by individual plants. A cap-and-trade program raises the possibility that any utility could choose to buy credits rather than implement modern pollution controls. Individual communities could therefore suffer harm.

Coal-burning power plants remain the largest unregulated source of mercury air pollution, adding 48 tons of mercury into the air each year, contributing more than 40 percent of all mercury emissions in the United States . The pollutant is released when coal is burned and flows out of facilities' smoke stacks before it falls into the ground and water. Forty-three states and one territory have issued advisories warning people to limit their fish consumption because of mercury contamination. Nationwide, more than 10 million lake acres and 400,000 river miles are under mercury advisories.

Mercury contamination can affect the health and populations of fish and wildlife, as it harms their central nervous and reproductive systems. People who eat fish infected with mercury, especially children, can suffer from a myriad of developmental problems. Mercury is particularly insidious because it stays afloat and it can be spread globally. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that about 50 percent of the mercury deposits in the United States emanate from local sources while another 40 percent come from outside the country's borders, and mostly Asia .

“Once released, mercury persists in the environment where it circulates between air, water, sediments and biota in various forms,” says a study by the United States Environment Program. “Current emissions add to the global pool—mercury that is continuously mobilized, deposited on land and water, and remobilized.”

Increased Awareness

No limits now exist on mercury emissions from power plants. EPA said in December 2000, however, that mercury should be regulated under the Clean Air Act and modern controls should be used to restrict the pollutant at 500 coal plants across the country. The administration, however, put out its own plan that calls for a cap-and-trade system and a 30 percent reduction in mercury deposits by 2010. New rules are due out next March.

Green groups say that the technology currently exists to dramatically reduce mercury pollution from power plants. Some states, such as Connecticut , Massachusetts and New Jersey , are already taking steps to implement caps—a tool, perhaps, to force Midwestern and mid-Atlantic states that rely heavily on coal-fired plants to enact stricter mercury rules. Still, without federal regulation, power plants nationwide won't be compelled to clean up their act, says the World Wildlife Fund. It and other environmental organizations support a proposal by Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vermont, to limit mercury emissions from power facilities to 5 tons by 2009.

Scientists at the EPRI have concluded in a recent paper that mercury emissions from power plants would not result in hot spots under the two-pronged Bush approach. EPRI's research shows that in most areas of the United States , sources other than power plants dominate mercury deposition. The highest such levels here are produced by waste incinerators, it says.

Reductions in mercury levels would vary somewhat by location, with the greatest cuts in some of the mid-Atlantic and Southeastern states. The reason for this is that the proposed rules incorporate greater incentives for power plants in these regions to install mercury controls because they burn bituminous coal. That type of coal emits a specific pollutant that can be captured by today's technologies. “Because it is more cost-effective to reduce mercury emissions at these plants, they are more likely to install controls …,” says EPRI's report. The study also says that the cap-and-trade component of the Bush proposal would have a more dramatic effect on mercury cuts than an ordinary mandate to reduce emissions by a set level.

Two scholars from the Resources for the Future generally agree but go on to say that the cap proposed by the Bush administration could be lowered to produce faster and better results. And, they say that the cap-and-trade plan must be fine-tuned to take into account the nuances related to mercury. Dallas Burtraw and Alan Krupnick add that environmentalists should not confuse those loose targets with what they say could be an effective trading scheme. There are ways to avoid hot spots, they say, noting that each facility could have to meet minimum requirements or states with environmentally sensitive ecosystems could be given the option to opt out of the trading program.

“Through the cost savings in trading, it's possible to seek more ambitious environmental goals than we could otherwise,” write Burtraw and Krupnick. “Setting an aggregate emission cap is the main decision we face on mercury. Emission trading is just a tool that if used properly can help us get there.”

The nation can take credit for having the discussion on mercury, which until recently has evaded tough scrutiny. Now, the focus is on the ways to regulate it and by how much. A rancorous debate will ensue but invariably the public will become more enlightened.