« Indiana Law - Judicial Disciplinary Charges Filed Against Lake County Judge | Main | Farewell, Governor Orr »

Tuesday, March 16, 2004

Environment - Mercury Emissions; Coal-Fired Power Plants; Varying Views

This lengthy story in the LA Times today is headed: "Mercury Emissions Rule Geared to Benefit Industry, Staffers Say: Buffeted by complaints, EPA Administrator Michael Leavitt calls for additional analysis." Some quotes:

WASHINGTON — Political appointees in the Environmental Protection Agency bypassed agency professional staff and a federal advisory panel last year to craft a rule on mercury emissions preferred by the industry and the White House, several longtime EPA officials say.

The EPA staffers say they were told not to undertake the normal scientific and economic studies called for under a standing executive order. At the same time, the proposal to regulate mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants was written using key language provided by utility lobbyists.

The Bush administration has said that the proposed rule would cut mercury emissions by 70% in the next 15 years, and is tied to the president's "Clear Skies" initiative. Critics say it would delay reductions in mercury levels for decades at a risk to public health, while saving the power and coal industries billions of dollars.

And here are quotes from three Opinion Pieces that have appeared in the Indianapolis Star over the past three Sundays. First, from Feb. 29, 2004, "My View" by James Rogers, CEO of Cinergy:
As CEO of an energy company that burns 30 million tons of coal annually and which has invested nearly $2 billion since 1990 to reduce emissions, I follow environmental issues with great interest. Recently, mercury has been in the news. An Indianapolis Star editorial (Feb. 17) advocated that the state strengthen mercury rules over what the federal government has proposed. Indiana has a big stake in this debate -- health and environmental impacts, use of Indiana coal, electric rate competitiveness and economic development.

If Indiana sets its own mercury regulations, it should take a comprehensive, multi-pollutant approach. In other words, we shouldn't just focus on mercury. Recently, Indiana determined that many counties are out of compliance with new federal standards for fine particle emissions. The state must therefore focus on strategies that address other types of emissions (including sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide) rather than reacting solely to mercury.

Next, from the following Sunday, March 7, 2004, "My View" by Jim Merritt, Merritt is chairman of the Indiana Senate Committee on Utility and Regulatory Affairs.
So, like it or not, coal is the practical fuel of choice for Indiana's future.

The good news is that we have lots of it. The bad news is that its combustion produces nasty black clouds full of unhealthy compounds if the burning process is uncontrolled. That's why our government requires anyone who burns coal to control the resulting emissions. Since 1970, coal-produced electricity for the U.S. has gone up three times, while emissions from coal-fired power plants have decreased 35 percent.

Electric utilities in Indiana now spend about $1 billion to sharply limit the emission of a single pollutant: nitrogen oxide. They estimate they'll soon spend at least that much to limit mercury. That's on top of the hundreds of millions already spent to limit sulfur dioxide emissions.

I want reliable electric service and cleaner air, so I'm willing to pay the price. I think most Hoosiers are. But we have to understand the economics at work here. Utility customers incur a cost every time their utility properly recovers the costs of cleaner emissions. Indiana has the eighth-lowest statewide electrical rates in the country.

Finally, from last Sunday, March 14, 2004, some quotes from "My View" by Ann D. Murtlow, CEO of Indianapolis Power & Light.
All desire further improvements in air quality, and the successes of the past give us plenty of room to be optimistic. However, the fractured regulatory and legislative initiatives currently on the table are troubling. Separate initiatives have been proposed to deal with different types of air emissions from the same power stations. For example, one proposal would require mercury reductions as early as 2007, while another would require sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide reductions in 2010 and 2015, respectively. Given that the technologies used to control one pollutant can, and often do, affect the emission of others, a coordinated approach and timetable is clearly superior to an incremental approach that could easily lead to an inefficient technical and economic investment.

IPL advocates a single, federal legislative initiative, like Clear Skies, that provides sufficient clarity to the utility industry to enable careful planning and investment for the future. Such legislation should be based on solid scientific research, provide a coordinated multi-pollutant plan, and provide a realistic timetable for implementation. A cap and trade system is also beneficial as it provides an incentive to the industry to make the most cost effective improvements first -- something that was demonstrated as a highly effective component of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Contrary to the position taken by The Star on Feb. 17, we believe that the state of Indiana should resist the temptation to further confuse and fracture the current situation by regulating to different standards and timetables than the federal government. Not only would this further frustrate the process, it could also significantly hurt our prospects for economic development as compared to neighboring states. Rather, we would encourage state legislators and IDEM officials to continue to work closely with federal officials to promote a workable, multi-pollutant approach that will bring benefits to the citizens of Indiana for years to come.

The Feb. 17 Indianapolis Star editorial referred to in several of the "My View" pieces is available here (but will be gone soon, as the Star has a one-month archive policy). Here is the beginning:
Our position is: Indiana should follow the example of states that are not waiting for a federal solution to mercury poisoning.

Anational policy is needed to combat the menace of mercury pollution, but states should not hesitate to attack the problem in their back yards, especially when the national framework is slow in coming and may not be tough enough for the worst cases.

Indiana is one of those worst cases, ranking fourth in the amount of mercury emissions, thanks mainly to its reliance on coal-fired power plants for generating electricity.

Yet the Indiana Department of Environmental Management says it will content itself with contributing to the Bush administration's development of a national policy. Now in its proposal stages, that policy has been criticized by environmental groups and some states as taking too long to reduce a toxic chemical linked to brain, kidney and fetal damage. Even when finalized, it is expected to be delayed in implementation by legal challenges.

Also of interest in seeing all points of view may be the no longer freely available NY Times story from March 7, 2004, which is quoted in this Indiana Law Blog entry from that date, titled "Behind-the-scenes look at Admiistration's Development of Energy Policy."

[Update 6:06 pm] Here is a story I've just read, from the NY Times today, titled "E.P.A. May Tighten Its Proposal on Mercury." The lead:

The Bush administration says it is rethinking its proposed rules limiting mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants and as a result may tighten the proposal. Administration officials, who have been under pressure on the issue from states and environmental groups, are now uncomfortable with analyses indicating that if the proposal is adopted, the Environmental Protection Agency could miss, perhaps by more than a decade, its own 2018 target for reducing those emissions by 70 percent.

Michael O. Leavitt, who took the helm of the environmental agency only weeks before the proposed regulations were announced, was largely uninvolved in their initial development. But in the last several weeks, E.P.A. employees say, he has immersed himself in briefings about the rules, which have provoked criticism from scientists, state officials and environmental advocates.

"I've spent hours in briefings," Mr. Leavitt said in an interview on Monday. "I've been crawling through the blueprints of power plants. I've been meeting with people on technology, both engineers and scientists." On Friday, Mr. Leavitt briefed the White House, where, administration officials say, he indicated that his agency would consider exploring tougher alternatives or adjustments to the proposal.

[Update 3/17/04]Stories today from the LA Times: "A bipartisan group says the Bush proposal is slanted toward industry and is too weak to protect public health" and the Washington Post: "Concerned that the administration may not meet its target for reducing mercury emissions by 2018, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Mike Leavitt has ordered additional studies to see how it might tighten the proposed rule."

Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 16, 2004 03:44 PM
Posted to Environmental Issues