Would you play a game without knowing the rules? Or jump into a lake without knowing how deep the water is? Likewise, you wouldn’t attempt to comply with a law without understanding its requirements. Because laws and regulations should be clear, comprehensible and unambiguous, right? However, when it comes to the regulation of hazardous air pollutants emissions emitted by electric utilities under the Clean Air Act, the current situation is anything but clear.
seemingly trivial act of delisting EGUs from Section 112 actually invalidated regulating them under Section 111. The court’s decision has no legal effect until the court’s mandate has been issued, further heightening the regulatory uncertainty for mercury emissions.
In March 2005, EPA promulgated CAMR in an attempt to permanently cap and reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. CAMR established “standards of performance” limiting mercury emissions from new coal-fired power plants. It also created a market-based cap-and-trade program for new and existing plants. These measures would reduce nationwide utility emissions of mercury in two distinct phases. The first-phase cap
State plan trading
State not trading Federal plan trading No clear indication of st ate”s plans for response State specific rules in a ddition to tradin g Zero budget, evaluating how new sources are treated * Also has state-specific requirement s
Map represents best available information as of October 2007.
Source: U.S. EPA
The utility industry was recently thrown into the dark regarding mercury emission regulation. Mercury is a neurotoxin that, in the form known as methyl mercury, contaminates fish. Exposure by eating contaminated fish can lead to nervous system disorders and birth defects in humans.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) in a case decided February 8, 2008. Here’s what happened. In 2005, EPA removed electric generating units (EGUs) from the list of regulated industries listed in Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. EPA then adopted CAMR under Section 111 to control only one hazardous air pollutant, mercury, which is emitted from coal-fired EGUs. The court found that in adopting CAMR, EPA had unlawfully removed EGUs from regulation under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
was 38 tons (nationwide). Emissions would have been reduced
by taking advantage of “co-benefit” reductions—that is, mercury
reductions achieved by reducing sulfur dioxide (SO ) and nitrogen
2
oxides (NO ) emissions attributable to existing emission control
X
technologies and to technologies installed as a result of the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). In the second phase, due in 2018, coal-
fired power plants would have reduced emissions to 1 5 tons upon
full implementation.
The impact of the court’s decision to vacate CAMR differs by state. This is because CAMR was implemented through a regulatory and not a legislative action. The distinction is that each state was required to use its State Implementation Plan (SIP) to enact mercury regulation. EPA provided a “model” rule which states could follow. However, many states decided to be different
References:
Archives