Mercury Emissions from Electric Power Plants: States Are Setting Stricter Limits

Congressional research reportFeb 22, 2007

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Mercury Emissions from Electric Power

Plants: States Are Setting Stricter Limits

/name redacted/

Specialist in Environmental Policy

February 22, 2007

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

RL33535

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Mercury Emissions from Electric Power Plants: States Are Setting Stricter Limits

Summary

In March 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the first national

emission standards for mercury emissions from electric power plants. EPA studies conclude that

about 6% of American women of child-bearing age have blood mercury levels sufficient to

increase the risk of adverse health effects (especially lower IQs) in children they might bear.

Power plants account for 42% of total U.S. mercury emissions, according to EPA. Thus, there has

been great interest in the agency’s power plant regulations.

The regulations established a cap-and-trade program to address power plant emissions, but the

program would have little impact on emissions before 2018. At that time, the regulations call for a

69% reduction in emissions as compared to the 1999 level.

In setting the limit so far in the future, EPA stated, in part, that mercury control technologies were

not commercially available, and would not be generally available until after 2010. Many

observers disagreed with that conclusion, including a growing number of states. As of February

2007, 18 states (Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland,

Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North

Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) have established more stringent emission limits,

which take effect sooner than will EPA’s, and four other states are developing regulations that

would do so.

The state standards vary in stringency, in effective dates, and in numerous other details, but a

number of generalizations can be made:

•

Most of the state programs will require reductions of 80% to 90% in mercury

emissions when fully implemented; by comparison, the federal program requires

a 22% reduction in its first phase and 69% when fully implemented.

•

The effective dates of the state programs range from 2007 at the earliest to 2015;

the federal requirements will not be fully implemented until at least 2025.

•

The state programs generally prohibit interstate trading of mercury credits, and

many also prohibit in-state trading. The trading prohibitions address the concern

that “hot spots” with high concentrations of mercury might persist if individual

plants could avoid installing controls by buying credits.

This report reviews the state standards for mercury emissions from power plants and discusses

issues raised by the promulgation of such standards. Among these are whether states can prevent

the sale of credits generated by compliance with state regulations in EPA’s national credit trading

program, and the potential impact of state programs on court challenges to EPA’s national

regulations.

Congressional Research Service

Mercury Emissions from Electric Power Plants: States Are Setting Stricter Limits

Contents

Background ..........................................................................................................................1

Which States Are Setting Standards.......................................................................................1

What the Standards Will Require...........................................................................................2

Rates, Dates, Compliance, and Trading ...........................................................................2

Measurement Issues and Other Complications.................................................................2

Other Aspects of State Laws............................................................................................3

Other, De Facto State Limits .................................................................................................3

Model State Program.............................................................................................................5

Conclusions ..........................................................................................................................5

Tables

Table 1. States with Few CAMR Allowances...............................................................................4

Appendixes

Appendix A. Enacted / Promulgated Mercury Controls................................................................7

Appendix B. Other State Actions............................................................................................... 11

Contacts

Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 13

Congressional Research Service

Mercury Emissions from Electric Power Plants: States Are Setting Stricter Limits

Background

On May 18, 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the first

national standards for mercury emissions from coal-fired electric power plants.1 Mercury is a

potent neurotoxin that can cause adverse health effects (principally delayed development,

neurological defects, and lower IQ in fetuses and children) at very low concentrations.2

The principal route of exposure to mercury is through consumption of fish. Mercury enters water

bodies, often through air emissions, and is taken up through the food chain, ultimately affecting

humans as a result of fish consumption. According to the EPA, as of December 2004, 44 states

had issued fish consumption advisories due to mercury.3 Twenty-one states (primarily in the

Midwest and Northeast) have issued advisories for mercury in all their freshwater lakes and/or

rivers. Twelve states in the Southeast and New England, have advisories for mercury statewide in

their coastal waters, and Hawaii has a statewide advisory for mercury in marine fish.

Mercury reaches water bodies from many sources, including combustion of fuels containing the

substance in trace amounts. In the United States, coal-fired power plants are the largest emission

source, accounting for 42% of total mercury emissions according to EPA. EPA’s 2005 regulations,

referred to as the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), establish a cap-and-trade program for power

plant mercury that will take effect in 2010. CAMR will have little impact on emissions before

2018, however.4 At that time, the regulations call for a 69% reduction in emissions as compared

to the 1999 level.

In setting the limit so far in the future, EPA stated, in part, that mercury control technologies are

not commercially available, and will not be generally available until after 2010. Many observers

disagree with that conclusion, including a growing number of states. This report describes what

those states that have chosen alternative forms of regulation are requiring.

Which States Are Setting Standards

As of February 2007, 18 states have established more stringent emission limits that will take

effect sooner than will EPA’s, and four other states are developing regulations that would do so.

The states with regulations already promulgated (or laws enacted) represent a broad cross-section

of states, including Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland,

70 Federal Register 28606.

For a discussion of mercury’s health effects, see CRS Report RL32868, Mercury Emissions from Electric Power

Plants: An Analysis of EPA’s Cap-and-Trade Regulations, by (name redacted), or CRS Report RL32420,

Mercury

in the Environment: Sources and Health Risks, by (name redacted).

U.S. EPA, Office of Water, “2004 National Listing of Fish Advisories,” Fact Sheet, September 2005, p. 4, at

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisories/fs2004.pdf.

The conclusion regarding the rule’s lack of impact is based on EPA’s analysis. The rule establishes a cap of 38 tons of

emissions from affected units between 2010 and 2017, but the agency estimates that actual emissions will be reduced to

31 tons in 2010 as the result of pollution controls installed under other (non-mercury) regulatory programs. Emissions

will continue to decline, according to EPA, reaching 28 tons in 2015, while the cap remains at 38 tons. Thus, the

CAMR rule’s cap in the period 2010-2017 serves primarily to generate credits that will be used to delay full

compliance with the 69% reduction otherwise required beginning in 2018. Full compliance with the 69% reduction,

according to EPA’s analysis, will not occur until after 2025. For additional information, see CRS Report RL32868,

Mercury Emissions from Electric Power Plants: An Analysis of EPA’s Cap-and-Trade Regulations, by (name red

acted).

Congressional Research Service

Mercury Emissions from Electric Power Plants: States Are Setting Stricter Limits

Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North

Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.5 Together, these states have 177 coal-fired power

plants, with a total of 414 electric generating units. The combined generation capacity of these

units is estimated at 97,138 megawatts (Mw), 32% of total U.S. coal-fired electric generation.

The four states that have proposed but not yet finalized mercury standards (Georgia, Michigan,

Washington, and Wisconsin) have an additional 51 plants. Their combined generation capacity is

estimated at 33,986 Mw, an additional 11% of total U.S. coal-fired generation.

What the Standards Will Require

Rates, Dates, Compliance, and Trading

As shown in Appendixes A and B, the specifics of the state standards vary in stringency, in

effective dates, and in numerous other details. Nevertheless, at least four generalizations,

regarding rates, dates, compliance measurement, and allowance trading, can be made.

First, at least 15 of the state programs will require reductions of 80% to 90% in mercury

emissions when fully implemented. Second, the effective dates range from 2007 at the earliest to

2015, with a majority of the programs imposing at least a first phase reduction by 2010. [The

CAMR rule, as noted earlier, also imposes a cap in 2010, but it calls for a 22% reduction in that

year, whereas most of the state requirements call for 80% to 90% reductions by then.] Third, in

general, the programs provide some flexibility by measuring compliance as a rolling 12-month

average of emissions, rather than setting an emission limit to be met at all times. CAMR, of

course, is even more flexible, allowing utilities to exceed the standard at individual facilities and

even company-wide, provided that they obtain allowances for each pound of mercury emitted.

Fourth, unlike the CAMR program, a key feature of which is the trading of emission allowances,

the state programs generally prohibit interstate trading of mercury credits; many prohibit in-state

trading, as well. These prohibitions address the concern that mercury hot spots might persist if

individual plants could avoid installing controls by buying credits. Also, the states that prohibit

interstate trading are insuring that emission reductions within their state not generate credits that

could be used to delay reductions by plants in other states (i.e., states participating in the CAMR

program).

Measurement Issues and Other Complications

Beyond the four generalizations, there are a number of aspects to the state mercury control

programs that vary from state to state. For one, there are varying forms in which the emission

limits are expressed, the most commonly used being: 1) as a percentage reduction from the

amount of “inlet” mercury; or 2) as a fixed emission limit (either pounds per gigawatt-hour of

electricity produced or pounds per trillion Btu of energy consumed). At least one state (Montana)

Many earlier discussions of state mercury requirements, including previous CRS reports, list Wisconsin as being

among the states requiring more stringent limits. Wisconsin adopted regulations in 2004 to require a 40% reduction in

emissions by 2010, and a 75% reduction by 2015. The regulations required, however, that if a federal standard limiting

mercury emissions from utilities were promulgated under Section 111 or 112 of the Clean Air Act, Wisconsin would

adopt it. Wisconsin has, therefore, adopted the CAMR rule’s budget and is no longer to be counted among those states

with more stringent limits. In August 2006, however, the state’s Governor directed his Department of Natural

Resources to develop regulations to achieve a 90% reduction in utility mercury emissions as soon as possible.

Congressional Research Service

Mercury Emissions from Electric Power Plants: States Are Setting Stricter Limits

plans to vary the emission limit depending on the type of coal used (allowing substantially higher

emissions for lignite). Others set different limits depending on the size of the plant or of the

company that owns it. Thus, it can be difficult to compare the stringency of various state

requirements. The common rule of thumb in press accounts describing these programs seems to

be the percentage emissions reduction that they would require, but it is important to ask, first,

compared to what, and, second, whether there is an alternate fixed limit or alternate method of

compliance that provides a less stringent standard.

Further complicating the emission reduction math are two other factors: first, the mercury content

of coal varies (making it difficult to estimate inlet mercury); and second, many power plants are

already achieving substantial emission reductions as a result of their existing emission control

equipment. EPA estimates that existing controls are already reducing mercury emissions (as

compared to inlet amounts of mercury) by about one-third nation-wide, with substantially greater

reductions at some plants. Thus, to achieve a 90% reduction of inlet mercury does not require a

reduction of 90% in current emission levels. In some cases, particularly at plants with baghouses

(fabric filters), a 90% reduction may require little additional control. 6

Data on current mercury emission levels are not generally available in any comprehensive

fashion, either. The best national data come from a survey conducted by EPA in 1998, which

relied on sampling at 80 of the nation’s more than 1,000 coal-fired units rather than continuous

emissions monitoring at them all.7 The mercury content of coal is known to vary even within a

given coal seam. Until better monitoring equipment is installed (which will be an effect of the

state and federal programs), it will be difficult to establish with any precision both current

emission levels and the exact reductions one can expect from emission control programs.

Other Aspects of State Laws

Other complicating features unique to some of the states laws and regulations are worth noting.

New Jersey, for example, which has the earliest compliance deadline (December 15, 2007) would

extend its deadline to 2012 for half of a company’s capacity if the plants also make major

reductions in sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. Virginia has different requirements

for the state’s largest utility (which controls 63% of the state’s coal-fired generating capacity)

than it has for others. Minnesota’s law only applies to facilities with capacity above 500 Mw;

most other states apply requirements to units 25 Mw or larger. Pennsylvania would presume that

units with specific combinations of control technology are in compliance with the regulations’

emission limitations.

Other, De Facto State Limits

States with No Allowances

In addition to the states that have enacted laws or are developing regulations to control mercury,

three other states and the District of Columbia have de facto limits of zero for mercury emissions

U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, “Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Electric Utility

Boilers,” undated, posted March 2, 2004, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/hgwhitepaperfinal.pdf.

For a discussion of EPA’s data collection on mercury emissions, see CRS Report RL32744, Mercury Emissions from

Electric Generating Units: A Review of EPA Analysis and MACT Determination, by (name redacted) et al.

Congressional Research Service

Mercury Emissions from Electric Power Plants: States Are Setting Stricter Limits

as a result of the federal CAMR rule. An irony of the federal rule is that, because it grants

allowances to each state based on current emissions of mercury from power plants larger than 25

Mw in that state, states that have no coal-fired power plants or that only have plants smaller than

25 Mw are given no allowances. The District of Columbia and the states of Idaho, Rhode Island,

and Vermont fall into this category and, thus, have a limit of zero for power plant mercury

emissions.

Under CAMR, states are not required to adopt the federal cap-and-trade program, but, if they do

not do so, they are required to show that state regulations are at least as stringent as the federal. If

D.C., Idaho, Rhode Island, and Vermont do not join the federal program, they have to

demonstrate that they have limited emissions through in-state controls to zero; this would

effectively prohibit the siting of new coal-fired power plants in these jurisdictions.

Table 1. States with Few CAMR Allowances

State

2018 Allowance (tons)

2018 Allowance (pounds)

Alaska

0.004

California

0.016

Hawaii

0.009

Maine

0.001

South Dakota

0.029

Source: U.S. EPA, Clean Air Mercury Rule, 40 CFR 60.4140, as revised May 31, 2006, available at

http://www.epa.gov/air/mercuryrule/pdfs/camr_recon_fr_final_053106.pdf. Total allowances in 2018 are 15 tons

(30,000 lbs.). States shown have allowances of less than 0.1 ton (200 lbs.). In addition, 7 other states

(Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington) have

allowances below 0.1 ton, but, as shown in Appendices A and B, are opting out of the CAMR program.

By joining the federal program, on the other hand, these states (and D.C.) would become part of

the federal allowance trading program; new coal-fired power plants would be able to operate in

these jurisdictions by buying emission allowances from facilities outside the state that have

reduced emissions sooner or to a greater extent than CAMR requires. As of February 2007, Idaho,

Rhode Island, and Vermont had all decided not to participate in the CAMR program, effectively

prohibiting the construction of new coal-fired power plants in their jurisdictions.

States with Few Allowances

Five additional states (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Maine, and South Dakota) have so little coalfired generation that their combined 2018 allowances under CAMR are 118 pounds, substantially

less than 1% of the national total. Table 1 shows the 2018 allowances under CAMR for each of

these states. For these states also, there would be little alternative to joining the CAMR program

if the state wished to preserve the option of coal-fired power plants, since a state program would

have to show that it would limit emissions to as little as 2 pounds in the case of Maine, or 32

pounds in the case of California. Thus, Alaska, Hawaii, and South Dakota have decided to

participate in the CAMR program. Maine has decided to let EPA administer the program.

Congressional Research Service

Mercury Emissions from Electric Power Plants: States Are Setting Stricter Limits

California, however, is reported to be considering a state program, and is unlikely to consider

participating in CAMR.8

Model State Program

In addition to the programs developed by individual states, the State and Territorial Air Pollution

Program Administrators (STAPPA) and Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials

(ALAPCO) developed a model rule in 2005 to encourage more stringent controls on power plant

mercury emissions. (STAPPA and ALAPCO are now known collectively as the National

Association of Clean Air Agencies, NACAA.) The model, which was publicly released

November 14, 2005, offers two options. The first option calls for an average 80% capture of inlet

mercury from existing units (or an equivalent output-based emission standard of 0.010 lbs./Gwh)

based on a 12-month rolling average, beginning December 31, 2008. During this phase, owners or

operators could comply by averaging emissions from all their existing units within the state. A

second phase, beginning December 31, 2012, would require a 90-95% capture of inlet mercury or

an output-based emission standard of 0.0060-0.0025 lbs./Gwh. During this phase, averaging

would be limited to units located at a single electric generating plant. The rule would prohibit

interstate trading of allowances.

A second option in the STAPPA/ALAPCO model rule, like a provision in New Jersey’s law,

would provide more flexibility to electric generating units in return for the installation of control

technologies designed to capture additional pollutants. Under this option, an owner or operator

could delay compliance with the mercury emission limits for four years at up to 50% of its

generating capacity if it agreed to meet stringent standards for emissions of sulfur dioxide,

nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter, in addition to mercury by the end of 2012.

While no state has adopted the STAPPA/ALAPCO model intact, the model serves as a window on

what state and local officials closely involved in regulating power plant emissions believe is

feasible. Nineteen of the 22 states that have proposed or adopted programs more stringent than

the federal CAMR rule have done so since the model rule’s unveiling.

Conclusions

With a few exceptions, it is a general precept of federal environmental laws that more stringent

state standards are not preempted. Relying on this authority, some states (particularly, California

and a number of Northeastern states) have adopted various environmental requirements that

address problems that are judged to be unique to their state or more severe in their state than

elsewhere. Thus, state actions to set more stringent limits on mercury emissions are not

considered unprecedented or unusual. Nevertheless, the degree to which states are opting out of

the federal program and the speed with which they are doing so appear noteworthy.

In part, the development of these state programs reflects a judgment by state regulators or

legislators that the CAMR rule is not sufficiently stringent.9 In part, it reflects a judgment that

See National Association of Clean Air Agencies, “State Mercury Programs for Utilities,” December 7, 2006, at

http://www.4cleanair.org/Documents/StateTable.doc.

For example, see statement of Eddie Terrill, Director of the Oklahoma Air Quality Division and President of

STAPPA: “EPA’s approach would allow too much mercury for too long.” “State Local Government Officials Unveil

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Mercury Emissions from Electric Power Plants: States Are Setting Stricter Limits

EPA’s assessment of the availability and cost of technology to control mercury emissions are

unduly pessimistic. 10

State actions were also dictated by a looming deadline for submission of programs for EPA

approval. Under the CAMR rule, states had until November 17, 2006 to submit their programs

(either programs adopting CAMR or programs at least as stringent) to EPA. Failure to submit can

leave states liable to imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), which would impose the

CAMR rule’s requirements on a state through an EPA-run program.

EPA officials have aggressively promoted CAMR and the threat of FIPs, testifying before state

legislatures against the adoption of more stringent state programs, and questioning the authority

of states to prohibit interstate trading of allowances. At the same time, many of the states adopting

more stringent requirements are pursuing legal action to overturn EPA’s rule and force the agency

itself to adopt more stringent requirements. 11

It may be some time before these issues are resolved. In the meantime, if state programs with

stringent control requirements are successfully implemented, it will become more difficult for

EPA to argue that technology is unavailable to more aggressively control power plant mercury

emissions. Conversely, if the technology fails to do its job or proves to be more expensive than

emissions control industry spokespersons have asserted, EPA’s hand will be strengthened. Since

the earliest state requirements take effect at the end of 2007 and early in 2008, these questions

may continue to merit congressional oversight at least through that period.

(...continued)

‘Model’ Rule to Clean Up Toxic Mercury,” STAPPA/ALAPCO Press Release, November 14, 2005.

For example, New Jersey’s regulatory package, written in late 2004, stated: “USDOE has been studying mercury

control on coal-fired boilers for more than a decade. Technologies like ACI [activated carbon injection] are available

now. USDOE has a goal to get costs of ACI down to 1/4th current costs. However, the current costs of activated carbon

injection are justified now. ... There is over a decade of successful use of Activated Carbon Injection for Municipal

Solid Waste (MSW) combustion. In New Jersey, MSW incinerators with baghouse control and ACI have achieved 99

percent mercury control. Transfer of such technology is clearly feasible from an engineering and cost perspective. The

USDOE cost analyses indicate that retrofitting the coal-fired boilers with activated carbon injection (ACI) and

baghouses (or polishing baghouses) can achieve 90 percent mercury emission reduction. ACI has a low capitol (sic)

cost. It also has low operating costs if baghouse technology is used.” See New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection, Summary of Public Comments and Agency Responses, Control and Prohibition of Mercury Emissions,

December 6, 2004 New Jersey Register, pp. 83-84, available at http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/adoptions/mercury_rule727.pdf.

“EPA Fighting State Adoption of Strict Mercury Control Regulations,” Inside EPA Clean Air Report, May 4, 2006.

The question of whether states may prohibit interstate trading of allowances is an interesting one. In the only case law

on the question (Clean Air Markets Group v. Pataki, 338 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2003)), the Second Circuit held that New

York State’s Air Pollution Mitigation Law, which restricted in-state electrical generating units’ abilities to transfer

emission allowances to upwind states under Title IV of the Clean Air Act, was preempted by the federal Clean Air Act.

The court explained that federal preemption results when, notwithstanding that the federal and state law have the same

goal, the state law interferes with the methods by which the federal law was designed to reach that goal. By effectively

prohibiting the transfer of allowances to electric generating units in other states, the New York law interfered with the

nationwide allowance transfer system contemplated by the Clean Air Act. Whether Clean Air Markets provides a basis

for arguing that state prohibitions on trading mercury allowances are preempted is a slightly different question,

however: the wording of the CAMR rule and its preamble leave some uncertainty as to whether states can retire excess

allowances or whether they revert to EPA. In the latter case, allowances generated by more stringent state standards

could be sold to electric generating units in other states, effectively negating state efforts to prohibit trading of their

allowances.

Congressional Research Service

Appendix A. Enacted / Promulgated Mercury Controls

State

Effective Date

% Reduction

Coal-fired Plants

Number

Additional Information

Arizona

2013

90% or 0.0087 lbs. of

mercury per gigawatthour (Gwh)

5 plants

(11 units)

3,086

Compliance will be measured on a rolling 12-month basis. Regulation is

effective 1/29/07.a

Colorado

January 1, 2012

80% or 0.0174 lbs./Gwh

at 2 plants (5 units)

12 plants

(22 units)

4,784

Colorado is participating in the federal program with state-specific provisions

designed to achieve early significant reductions. Two plants must achieve an

80% reduction of inlet mercury (or a specific output-based limit) in 2012, with

all other plants meeting this standard in 2014. Plants emitting less than 29 lbs.

of mercury are exempt as low emitters. More stringent (90%) limit takes effect

in 2018. Compliance generally determined on a 12-month rolling average.

Allows trading. Provides for Best Available Control Technology Alternative

Standard if a company operates appropriate controls but can’t meet the limit.

Rule adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission February 6,

2007.r

90% or 0.6 lbs. of

mercury per trillion Btu

(TBtu)

2 plants

553

If the technology designed to achieve the law’s requirements fails to reduce

emissions sufficiently, a plant may request an alternative emissions rate. Law

enacted June 3, 2003.b

January 1, 2009

80% or 1.0 lbs./TBtu

2 plants

1,021

January 1, 2013

90% or 0.6 lbs./TBtu

(6 units)

Compliance measured at each unit, based on quarterly average emissions. No

trading or facility-wide averaging. Department will review standards, available

technology, and cost-effectiveness by 1/11/10. Regulations effective 12/11/06.c

Florida

2012

30% below CAMR

15 plants

(32 units)

11,867

Florida has adopted a modified version of the CAMR rule that will allocate only

70% of the emission allowances provided by CAMR for the years 2012-2017.

No change in compliance dates. Under CAMR, Florida’s Phase 1 cap is 2,466

lbs. of mercury. EPA estimates that 1999 emissions were only 1,923 lbs., and

these will be further reduced as a result of the co-benefits of the Clean Air

Interstate Rule. Thus, Florida DEP proposes a limit of 1,761 lbs., a 30%

reduction, beginning in 2012. Even this cap would generate a large number of

allowances, as actual Phase 1 emissions are estimated at 1,033 lbs. The state’s

Environmental Regulation Commission approved the rules at a June 29, 2006

public hearing.d

Illinois

July 1, 2009

90% or 0.0080 lb/GWh

21 plants

(59 units)

14,880

Compliance measured on a rolling 12-month basis. No trading, but allows

system-wide and plant-wide averaging through December 31, 2013, and plantwide averaging thereafter. Until 12/31/13, individual plants using system-wide

averaging must meet a standard of 0.020 lb/GWh or a 75% reduction. The

state’s second and third largest utilities have reached agreements that give

January 1, 2014

December 31, 2018

80% or 0.0174 lbs./Gwh

at all other plants

(except low emitters)

90% or 0.0087 lbs./Gwh

Connecticut

Delaware

CRS-7

July 1, 2008

(2 units)

State

Effective Date

% Reduction

Coal-fired Plants

Number

Additional Information

them additional time to meet the mercury reduction requirement in return for

more stringent controls than otherwise required on SO2 and NOx. Final order

adopted December 21, 2006.e

Maryland

Massachusetts

January 1, 2010

80%

6 plants

January 1, 2013

90%

(13 units)

January 1, 2008

85% or 0.0075

lbs./GWh

6 plants

January 1, 2012

Minnesota

95% or 0.0025

lbs./GWh

4,603

Emission reductions measured as a rolling 12-month average. Law affects

state’s 6 largest plants. Two units at a 7th facility may be subject to alternative

regulations. Allows trading among facilities owned or operated by the same

company. Law enacted April 6, 2006.f

1,741

Emission reductions measured as a rolling 12-month average. Regulations

promulgated May 2004.g

1,807 by

2010

Plants with dry scrubbers must install equipment designed to reduce emissions

90% by 12/31/2010. Plants with wet scrubbers must install equipment designed

to reduce emissions 90% by 12/31/2014. Allows performance-based incentives

such as increased rates of return for reductions above 90%. Applies to facilities

with capacity above 500Mw. Law enacted May 11, 2006.h

(12 units)

December 31, 2010

and December 31,

2014.

90%

3 plants

Montana

January 1, 2010

80% (0.9 lbs./TBtu)

except for lignite (1.5

lbs./TBtu)

3 plants (6

units)

2,300

Compliance measured on a 12-month rolling average. Provides for Alternate

Emission Limits if a company operates appropriate controls but can’t meet the

limit. Mercury-specific control technology review every 10 years. Rule adopted

October 16, 2006.i

Nevada

Same as CAMR.

Same as CAMR, but

with incentives for low

emissions and new

technology.

3 plants (8

units)

2,657

Nevada adopted the federal program, but it reserved 63% of its emissions

allowances for new units, low emitting units, or to be placed in a special

account that could be retired.j

New

Hampshire

July 1, 2013

at least 80%

2 plants

575

Prior to July 1, 2013, the owner is required to test and implement, as

practicable, mercury reduction control technologies or methods to achieve

early reductions. If mercury reductions greater than 80% are achieved, they

shall be required by permit. Facility owners will also generate early reduction

credits if they reduce emissions prior to 2013. Plants may be allowed to emit

additional sulfur dioxide in return for lower mercury emissions. Law enacted

May 9, 2006.k

New Jersey

December 15, 2007

2,171

Allows facility-wide averaging. Deadline can be extended to 2012 for half of a

company’s capacity if the plants also make major reductions in sulfur dioxide,

NOx, and fine particulate emissions. Regulations promulgated November 4,

2004.l

(6 units)

(5 units)

90%

7 plants

(10 units)

CRS-8

1,847

more by

2014

State

Effective Date

New York

January 1, 2010

January 1, 2015

% Reduction

EPA Phase 1 emission

caps (50% reduc-tion)

for 2010-2014

Coal-fired Plants

Additional Information

Number

18 plants

4,216

Compliance to be measured on a 30-day rolling average. No trading. No

banking after 2018. New York State Environmental Board approved regulations

December 18, 2006. Regulations take effect 1/27/07.m

20 plants

(62 units)

12,755

14 plants (49 units) operated by Duke Energy and Progress Energy must install

controls for NOx and SO2 by 12/31/13. These controls will have a cobenefit of

reducing state-wide mercury emissions by 74%. Other coal-fired plants (6

plants, 13 units) must install similar controls by 2018, resulting in an estimated

state-wide mercury emission reduction of 88%. Trading allowed, but all units

must install controls. Rules adopted Nov. 9, 2006.n

1 plant

556

Allows up to a 1-year compliance extension if it is not practical to install

control equipment due to supply limitations or other extenuating

circumstances. Also allows alternative limits if technology is unable to achieve

the required limits. Limited interstate trading until 2018; no trading thereafter.

Regulation adopted 12/15/06.o

35 plants

(73 units)

20,000

Emission reductions measured on a rolling 12-month basis. Stricter limits for

new units. Compliance may be demonstrated on a unit-by-unit basis, facilitywide emission averaging, or system-wide compliance. Units that utilize specific

combinations of control technology would be presumed to be in compliance

with the emission limitations. Adopted by the PA Environmental Quality Board

10/17/06. Effective February 17, 2007.p

16 plants

5,719

Legislation adopted by Virginia in 2006q adopts the federal emission limits but

requires compliance 3 years early at plants owned by the state’s largest utility.

It also prohibits the purchase of allowances by most facilities: owners of

facilities whose combined emissions of mercury exceeded 200 pounds in 1999

are limited to their own allowances (these facilities represent at least 80% of

total generating capacity in the state.) Virginia generators may, however, bank

and sell allowances.

(48 units)

0.6 lbs./TBtu beginning

in 2015 (a 90%

reduction from the

statewide 1999

emissions estimate)

North

Carolina

December 31, 2013

74%

2018

88%

Oregon

July 1, 2012

90% (or 0.6 lbs./TBtu)

(1 unit)

Pennsylvania

January 1, 2010

January 1, 2015

Virginia

January 1, 2015 for

Dominion Virginia

Power plants (63% of

total state generating

capacity)

at least 80% (or 0.024

lbs./Gwh)

at least 90% (or 0.012

lbs./Gwh)

64%

(38 units)

Source: Compiled by the Congressional Research Service, largely from state information sources. If not reported by the state, the generating capacity of coal-fired plants is

summer capacity, as of January 1, 2005, as reported by Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-860, “Annual Electric Generator Report.”

CRS-9

http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Register/2006/51/final.pdf

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/act/Pa/2003PA-00072-R00HB-06048-PA.htm

http://www.awm.delaware.gov/NR/rdonlyres/3B571C5A-080A-43D7-A3F2-032AE9748BD7/1312/Reg1146final.pdf

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/Air/rules/regulatory/CAMR_Allowance_Allocations_Rule_with_DEP_Substitute_Language_6-29-06.pdf

http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/cool/external/CaseView2.asp?referer=coolsearch&case=R2006-025

http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/bills/sb/sb0154e.pdf

http://www.mass.gov/dep/images/hgreg.pdf

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H3712.3.html&session=ls84

http://www.deq.state.mt.us/ber/MercuryRuleSummary.pdf

http://ndep.nv.gov/mercury/camr06/camr_state_plan06.pdf

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2006/HB1673.html

http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/adoptions/mercury_rule7-27.pdf

m. http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dar/air_regs.html#recent

http://daq.state.nc.us/news/pr/2006/hg_rule_11092006.shtml

http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/mercury/index.htm

http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol37/37-7/37-7.pdf

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?061+ful+HB1055ER+pdf

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/ap/reg6/CAMRfinal.pdf

CRS-10

Appendix B. Other State Actions

State

Georgia

Michigan

Action

Date / % Reduction

Coal-fired Plants

Wisconsin

CRS-11

Status

Number

14,369

The state’s proposed

option would not allow

interstate trading of

mercury allowances, but

would allow trading within

the state.

Proposal dated December 21,

2006.a Hearings have been held

and the state is conducting

negotiations with stakeholders.

11,295

Compliance measured on

a calendar year basis.

Interstate trading would

not be allowed, nor would

banking of allowances.

Could allow utility

system-wide approach if it

does not result in hot

spots. Could allow

additional time for

technical or cost reasons.

Regulations proposed 1/30/07.b

1,405

State is considering opting

out of the federal trading

program after 2012, with

the possibility of allowing

intrastate trading.

Department of Ecology produced

an emissions standard discussion

paper and a draft rule for a

10/26/06 stakeholder meeting.c

Georgia has proposed to adopt the

CAMR rule with some additions. The

Scherer power plant, 4 units with a

combined capacity of 3,430 Mw, would

be required to install sorbent injection

(ACI) and a baghouse for mercury

control between 12/ 31/08 and

4/30/10. Other units with a combined

capacity of 5,510 Mw, would have to

install scrubbers and SCR technology

by 2010 or earlier. New units would be

required to install best available

control technology.

As described in the Action

column, 62% of the state’s

coal-fired capacity would be

required to install specific

control technology by 2010

or earlier, making it likely

that reductions would be

greater and would occur

sooner than under the

CAMR program.

10 plants

4/17/06 letter from Governor directed

Michigan Department of Environmental

Quality to develop a rule.e

90% reduction of input

mercury or an output limit

of 0.008 lbs. of mercury per

Gwh

23 plants

(32 units)

(55 units)

by 2015.

Washington

Details

Department of Ecology initiated

rulemaking June 5, 2006. State is

considering opting out of the federal

mercury trading program after 2012

and may adopt more stringent emission

reduction requirements.

Possibilities under

consideration include 0.6 lb

mercury/TBtu, 0.0087

lb/Gwh, or 0.0088 lb/Gwh

by 2013. These represent

reductions of 85%-90% of

input mercury.

1 plant

Wisconsin adopted regulations in 2004

to require a 40% reduction in

Same as federal.

17 plants

(2 units)

6,917

On August 25, 2006, Governor

Doyle directed the Wisconsin

State

Action

Date / % Reduction

Coal-fired Plants

Number

emissions by 2010, and 75% by 2015.d

The regulations required, however,

that if a federal standard limiting

mercury emissions from utilities were

promulgated under Section 111 or 112

of the Clean Air Act, Wisconsin would

adopt it. Wisconsin has, therefore,

adopted the CAMR rule’s budget.

Details

Status

(49 units)

Department of Natural Resources

to develop a rule achieving a 90%

reduction of mercury emissions

from coal-fired power plants “as

soon as possible.”e In a

presentation, December 15, 2006,

DNR staff proposed to sunset

interstate mercury trading 1/1/18,

and require 90% emission

reductions 1/1/20.f

Source: Compiled by the Congressional Research Service, largely from state information sources. If not reported by the state, the generating capacity of coal-fired plants is

summer capacity, as of January 1, 2005, as reported by Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-860, “Annual Electric Generator Report.”

http://www.air.dnr.state.ga.us/airpermit/cair/CAMR.html

http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3310-142890—,00.html

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/laws-rules/activity/wac173406.html.

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/aw/air/reg/mercury/nr446.pdf

Governor’s press release at http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us/journal_media_detail.asp?locid=19&prid=2278.

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/aw/air/pdf/hg1206caatf.pdf

CRS-12

Mercury Emissions from Electric Power Plants: States Are Setting Stricter Limits

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Specialist in Environmental Policy

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.