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.

Louisiana Chlorine Plant to Eliminate Mercury Emissions

Another one bites the dust. In a continuing drive to eliminate mercury emissions from Chlor-Alkali plants, Pioneer Companies, in St.Gabriel, LA is expanding and modernizing its chlorine plant. The expansion includes the total elimination of mercury from its processes and will be a significant boost to the overall well being of the area.

From KATC-3

Houston-based Pioneer Companies Inc. will stop using mercury-membrane technology by the end of 2008, the plant said. The technology is outdated and it has been blamed for adding significant amounts of mercury into the environment.

There are five plants left in the nation that use the mercury-membrane technology, said Jackie Savitz, a campaign director for Oceana, a national ocean advocacy group that has led the fight to get chlorine makers to stop using the old technology.

You can read this good news story here.

Fort Collins, CO - A City At Odds With Itself - They Strive for Consensus

From The Coloradoan

The city of Fort Collins has a stake in both sides of a debate over mercury pollution.

While the city is part of a coalition of cities and counties advocating one set of proposed rules for state mercury regulations, it is also an owner of Platte River Power Authority, the operator of Rawhide Energy Station north of Fort Collins, which advocates a different proposal.
(...)
The local government coalition has pushed for a 90 percent reduction without a cap and trade program, while other proposals have included lesser reductions and the trading program.

A group of utilities and power providers, including PRPA, said there are other ways to achieve mercury reductions.

I like this article because it shows how compromise must come about.

Why Do Some States Get It & Others Don't?

As I have followed the progress of the mercury emission legislation as it rolls out across the nation it strikes me how differently States, and organizations within, differ on what is possible, affordable, and necessary.

Where one state like my home State of Illinois has passed some of the strictest mercury legislation in the country, and has negotiated successfully with each major coal burning power company in the State to achieve these strict standards (albeit with some hedging on the dates while best efforts are made). Another state like Alabama will just go along with the Federal CAMR without much debate at all. And others like Pennsylvania and Michigan continue to fight over this issue.

How can technology be OK for one state and not for others? How can strict standards be met in one state and shunned in another? Industry groups fight tougher standards and say they are too costly, or unacheivable. Environmental groups push for strict standards and point out the technology that exists and the relative low cost to consumer. Hotspots, health effects, exposure limits, toxicology; all these issues are argued over.

I have tried to remain neutral in my reporting, and will continue to do so, but some of this just doesn't make sense.

Idaho Looking To Opt Out of Cap and Trade

From the Idaho Mountain Express

The House Environment, Energy and Technology Committee voted Wednesday to recommend approval of a rule that would keep Idaho out of the federal mercury cap and trade program.

Idaho has a zero cap for mercury emissions. If that cap stays in place, and if Idaho doesn't join the pollution-credit trading system, coal-fired power plants will not be able to operate here because such plants can't operate with zero mercury emissions.

The issue moves to the full House for their consideration, then to the Senate.

To explain this a little more. Idaho has no coal fired plants burning today and thus they have a zero mercury emission limit in the Federal CAMR. If they stay out of the cap and trade program they will not be able to build any coal burning power plants becasue there is no way to offset the mercury emissions. If they were to opt into the cap and trade program they could buy credits to offset any plant emissions that would be built.

The whole article is shown above but the link to it is here too.

Hot Topic

From Energy biz Insider

The debate over mercury emissions is once again reaching a feverish pitch.
(...)
"Trading has the potential to lead to static or increased emissions in some areas of the United States," scientists write in the new BioDiversity Research Institute report published in BioScience.
(...)
"I have long-argued that EPA used faulty science in order to justify an insufficient mercury rule, and these studies prove it," says Senator Collins [(R-ME)]. "EPA misrepresented the mercury problem based on computer data which had not been peer-reviewed, and then put out a rule which does not account for mercury hotspots ..."

Read the full article here.

Wisconsin Groups Push For, and Colorado Delays Decisions On, Tougher Mercury Emission Rules

From The Wisconsin State Journal

More than two dozen organizations - including Clean Wisconsin, the Sierra Club and the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation - presented a petition to the state Department of Natural Resources asking for a rule that would require a 90 percent cut in mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants by 2012.
(...)
"We're installing state-of-the- art emission-control technologies at a number of generating stations where we're able to reduce these emissions in a cost- effective manner," Smith said. An Alliant subsidiary, Wisconsin Power & Light, owns or co-owns coal-fired power plants near Portage, Cassville and Sheboygan.

You can read the full WI State Journal article here.

Meanwhile in Colorado,
From CBS 4 in Denver

Government and industry representatives and environmentalists were working on a compromise Tuesday on new mercury emissions standards, leading state officials to postpone a hearing on four competing proposals.

The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission was set to consider the proposals Wednesday but tentatively rescheduled the hearing for Feb. 15.

"All the parties agree they would like more time to work," said Christopher Dann, spokesman for the state air pollution control division.
(...)
Several local governments and environmentalists oppose the trading provision, saying mercury is a powerful toxin...

You can read the full broadcast transcript here.

Raesemann Blogs Live From EUEC - Mercury CEMS Session

In what was supposed to be warm and sunny Tucson, AZ, now apparently snow covered, the EUEC conference convened this week. Robert Raesemann of Raesemann Enterprizes is there covering the proceedings live and blogging daily. I have picked up on his first report and have linked it here. As most of you know I have been covering the mercury emissions legislation for quite a while and his reports emphasize a lot of what Hg-ATME has been discussing lately. Thank you Robert, I will continue to refer my readers to your posts. Did you bring your skis?

Dr. Driscoll from Syracuse University and HBRF Discusses Mercury Hotspots on NPR

National Public Radio interviews Dr. Charles Driscoll of Syracuse University one of the research scientists from the recently released Hubbard Brook Research Foundation studies looking into mercury emissions and the potential "hotspots" they can create. This interview is a good primer for those unfamiliar with mercury emissions and their effects on our environment. Follow this link to the NPR site and then click on the "Listen" button.

Cement Industry Meets with OMB and Fights Tougher Mercury Emissions Rules

From Downwinders at Risk - Excerpts follow;

Industry representatives asked the Bush administration yesterday to forego tighter restrictions on mercury and hydrogen chloride (HCI) emissions from cement kilns, saying new regulation was not needed.

"It's deplorable that the cement industry would spend its resources lobbying the White House rather than cleaning up the toxic mess it makes," Frank O'Donnell, director of the nonprofit group Clean Air Watch, said in an e-mail.

But Andrew O'Hare, vice president for regulatory affairs at the Portland Cement Association, said the meeting was to update regulators on what steps the industry had taken to address outstanding concerns. He described mercury as "a more difficult nut to crack for our industry because it's so tied to our raw materials."

You can read this well written article here.