Why EPA Pressured States Over Mercury Emissions

Environmental Defense recently obtained internal EPA documents showing a pattern of pressure and arm twisting the EPA used to get individual States to play along with the Fed's plan for mercury emissions control. The Federal CAMR was based on a cap-and-trade scheme much like the ones used for SO2 and NOx emissions. An excerpt from an AP article over the weekend follows;

"There was an extraordinary degree of aggressiveness by EPA in pressing states to abandon a more protective mercury program. EPA devoted enormous effort to preventing states from doing more," said Vickie Patton, a lawyer for Environmental Defense. The group obtained the documents through a Freedom of Information Act filing.

The push to rein in uncooperative states continued until the eve of the Feb. 8 appeals court decision that struck down the EPA's program. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the agency did not adequately address the health impact of its plan.

The administration was poised to take even tougher measures against maverick states. A day before the ruling, the White House Office of Management and Budget approved a draft regulation to impose a "federal implementation plan" for mercury reduction in states whose mercury control measures did not meet EPA approval.

It would have required power plants to comply with the national cap-and-trade provisions, even it that meant ignoring state restrictions.

Both the emissions trading approach and any further requirement on states have been put on hold after the court ruling, EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar. He denied that the agency was pressuring states.

"Our goal is to have a federal rule. ... Our job is not to pressure states," he said.

It is my opinion that the reason the EPA became so determined to push States into the trading program was simply because if enough States opted out of the trading program there would not be enough credits to run a successful cap-and-trade program. The market would not be big enough to sustain the plan. So, as many States began to opt out and create plans stricter than CAMR, EPA got concerned and tried to "steer" States into the program.

Of course it all became moot with the Feb 8 ruling.