Representatives for two groups of power generators were sharply divided over the federal government’s plans for reducing emissions of mercury and other toxics from power stations.
At a Philadelphia hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposals for limiting emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants, the spokesmen presented dramatically different views on whether the plans are financially and technically achievable or are the result of flawed analysis that overstates economic benefits and imposes heavy costs on the industry.
Michael Bradley, executive director of the Clean Energy Group, whose members serve about 20% of U.S. electric customers, praised the agency’s plans for complying with the 1990 Clean Air Act; providing the industry with certainty to make capital investments, and allowing enough time for power generators to comply.
Bradley said 60% of U.S. coal-fired capacity has already fitted scrubbers to meet the EPA’s emissions targets. He predicted the “vast majority” of generating units can meet the EPA standards within the three years allowed for compliance.
Bradley played down a correction to mercury emissions data by the EPA, calling it a “minor update” that will not change the overall impact of the rule on plants.
But Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, which represents Southern Co., Progress Energy and six other generators, said the error had overstated removal efficiencies by a factor of 1,000. He accused the EPA of arguing that such calculations are within an acceptable margin of error.
“We are disappointed in this view, and contend that errors of this sort constitute a basis for reproposal,” Segal told the hearing.
Rob Brenner, director of the EPA’s Office of Policy Analysis and Review, and chairman of the hearing, acknowledged a “calculation error with a small amount of the data” but said the correction was not expected to change the type of pollution controls needed to comply with the rule, which is scheduled to be finalized by November.
By 2016, the rule would prevent between 6,800 and 17,000 premature deaths a year from illnesses including cancer, heart attacks, asthma and acute bronchitis resulting from emissions of mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel, and acid gases, EPA argues.
Cost Controversy
Adding the cost of emissions-related illnesses to emergency-room visits and missed work days, the EPA estimates the benefits of the rule at between $59 billion and $140 billion annually, compared with $10.9 billion a year to install the required technology.
The agency estimates 1,350 plants would be affected by the rule, of which 1,200 are coal-fired. The rule would be the first federal standard for these toxic air pollutants although some states already have stricter regulations.
Segal argued that the rule would in fact cost the industry $300 billion over five years to retrofit or retire fossil fuel-burning plants. He said the EPA had calculated the benefits of the mercury-reduction standards at $6.1 million in total, far less than the projected cost of compliance.
“Adaptation to all the proposed rules, with Utility MACT (maximum achievable control technology) being the most immediate challenge, constitutes an extraordinary threat to the power sector, particularly the half of U.S. electricity derived from coal-fired generation,” Segal said.
Other speakers at the hearing included Joy Bergey, executive director of the Center for the Celebration of Creation, one of a number of faith-based and environmental groups represented.
“We hear the claims of those in industry who resist paying for the necessary controls on power plants to stop mercury pollution,” Bergey said. “But we also know that the cumulative health-care costs of treating all the illnesses caused by mercury pollution far outweigh the cost of the controls.”
