The Colorado Story Continues

As Fort Collins and Colorado debate what to do regarding mercury emissions in the State this comprehensive article from the Fort Collins Weekly is one of the best articles I have read to date on this subject. An excerpt follows and a link to the full article is at the bottom of this post.

Even the EPA is rethinking the wisdom of allowing cap and trade for mercury. Last May, the EPA’s inspector general released a report noting that the agency had adopted its Clean Air Mercury Rule before any widespread research into hotspots was published, and that cap and trade policies for mercury may not be appropriate.

“Although EPA indicated in CAMR that it would monitor the impact of the cap-and-trade rule on mercury deposition, the Agency has not yet developed a monitoring plan for this purpose,” the report states in its executive summary. “Without field data from an improved monitoring network, EPA’s ability to advance mercury science will be limited and ‘utility-attributable’ hotspots that pose health risks may occur and go undetected.”

It remains to be seen if Colorado will follow suit and eliminate cap and trade for mercury. The state health department was poised to hear proposals for mercury emissions requirements in November. Hearings have been postponed twice since, with negotiations on three proposals now scheduled for Feb. 6 . The strongest is brought by a coalition of local governments, calling for a 90 percent reduction in mercury emissions statewide by 2015 with no provision for cap and trade.

Just a few years ago, industry would have argued—and some still do—that this requirement is prohibitively expensive. But in recent years, new technology using activated charcoal injection into flue gases has proven to be 90 percent effective at removing mercury in a manner that manufacturers say is cost-effective to the utility. One of the leaders in this new technology is located in Denver.

The other two proposals are variations on a cap and trade policy and the most lenient is being advocated by the utility companies, including Platte River Power Authority. Bleem says that Platter River appreciates the flexibility provided by such policies.

“Our issue is the certainty of operation of the plant,” he says. “Loads continue to grow every year. Cap and trade programs mean the ability to have sufficient regulatory flexibility that we can run the plant.”

There is so much more to this story here. I want to thank Greg Campbell for his excellent post.