EPA PROPOSES TECHNICAL FIXES TO MERCURY RULE

Tamar Hallerman
GHG Monitor
11/30/12

The Environmental Protection Agency recently proposed easing some compliance requirements for mercury and other emissions from new coal- and oil-fired power plants under a partial reconsideration of its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). EPA on Nov. 16 proposed slightly loosening limits for the emissions of pollutants such as mercury, particulate matter, acid gases and some individual metals from new plants. It also revised emissions requirements for plant startups and shutdowns. The updates were part of a partial reconsideration process EPA announced earlier this summer after the agency received 20 petitions for reconsideration pointing out discrepancies between the MATS rule published in the Federal Register in February and what is technically achievable. The largely technical corrections do not affect existing coal and oil-fired units, which are still covered under the original MATS rule finalized late last year, EPA said.

The agency said it calculated the revised standards based on data from the industry’s best-performing units. Utilities will be able to use the same types of pollution control technologies to meet the updated standards as required under the previously finalized rule, according to EPA. The agency said it does not expect the revisions to significantly change cost estimates, emissions reductions or health benefits generated from MATS. “The proposed update continues to ensure that the rules will protect all Americans from dangerous pollutants such as mercury,” EPA said in a factsheet. “The proposed limits are achievable and are consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act.” The public now has 30 days to respond to the proposal. EPA said that it plans on finalizing the updates in March.

MATS One of EPA’s More Controversial Rulemakings

Finalized last December, MATS is the first federal rule to limit mercury and air toxics like arsenic, nickel and cyanide, which can cause respiratory and other illnesses particularly in children, from coal and oil-fired power plants. The standards, which EPA estimated will cost industry $9.6 billion annually to comply, require utilities to install pollution-control technology like scrubbers, baghouses, dry sorbent injection technology or electrostatic precipitators to all new and existing coal and oil-fired units within the next three to five years, depending on the unit. EPA has touted MATS for its health benefits—the agency has estimated that it will ultimately help prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths and save up to $90 billion in annual healthcare costs. But industry has fought back vehemently against the rule, saying that it is costly, unreasonable and would shutter tens of gigawatts of electric generating capacity. Opponents in Congress have organized—but have failed to pass—several legislative challenges to the rule. Meanwhile, others have taken the standards to federal court, where a legal challenge is ongoing.

Perhaps most notably, in April a group of pollution control technology providers wrote a letter to EPA arguing that the standards were too stringent and that its members could not commercially guarantee the technology required by the rule for new plants. “This standard will make it nearly impossible to construct a new coal-fired [electric generating unit] because financing of such units requires guarantees from equipment suppliers that all emission limits can be met,” the Institute for Clean Air Companies said. ICAC did not respond to a request for comment following the proposed updates from EPA.

Early reactions to the technical fixes from industry and environmental groups appeared positive. “I think as long as the final rule is consistent with the proposal, this largely fixes the problem for new sources and reflects what actually can be achieved with state-of-the-art technology,” Jeff Holmstead, an attorney at the D.C. law firm Bracewell & Giuliani who previously served as an EPA assistant administrator during the Bush Administration, said in an interview. “I think it became clear to EPA that they had just made a mistake in setting the new source standards.” Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, said that the changes are “relatively minor.” “It does, however, undercut the industry narrative of an alleged war on coal, since this would potentially permit several coal plants—now in limbo—to move forward,” he said.