Order Code RL33535
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Mercury Emissions from Electric Power Plants:
States Are Setting Stricter Limits
July 11, 2006
James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Mercury Emissions from Electric Power Plants: States
Are Setting Stricter Limits
Summary
In March 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated
the first national emission standards for mercury emissions from electric power
plants. EPA studies conclude that about 6% of American women of child-bearing
age have blood mercury levels sufficient to increase the risk of adverse health effects
(especially lower IQs) in children they might bear. Power plants account for 42% of
total U.S. mercury emissions, according to EPA. Thus, there has been great interest
in the agency's power plant regulations.
The regulations established a cap-and-trade program to address power plant
emissions, but the program would have little impact on emissions before 2018. At
that time, the regulations call for 69% reduction in emissions as compared to the
1999 level.
In setting the limit so far in the future, EPA stated, in part, that mercury control
technologies were not commercially available, and would not be generally available
until after 2010. Many observers disagreed with that conclusion, including a growing
number of states. As of June 2006, seven states (Connecticut, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Virginia) have
established more stringent emission limits, which take effect sooner than will EPA’s,
and ten other states are developing regulations that would do so.
The state standards vary in stringency, in effective dates, and in numerous other
details, but a number of generalizations can be made:
! Most of the state programs will require reductions of 80% to 90% in
mercury emissions when fully implemented; by comparison, the
federal program requires a 22% reduction in its first phase and 69%
when fully implemented.
! The effective dates of the state programs range from 2007 at the
earliest to 2015; the federal requirements will not be fully
implemented until at least 2025.
! The state programs generally prohibit interstate trading of mercury
credits, and many also prohibit in-state trading. The trading
prohibitions address the concern that “hot spots” with high
concentrations of mercury might persist if individual plants could
avoid installing controls by buying credits.
This report reviews the state standards for mercury emissions from power plants
and discusses issues raised by the promulgation of such standards. Among these are
whether states can prevent the sale of credits generated by compliance with state
regulations in EPA’s national credit trading program, and the potential impact of
state programs on court challenges to EPA’s national regulations. The report will be
updated periodically.

---

Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Which States Are Setting Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
What the Standards Will Require . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Rates, Dates, Compliance, and Trading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Measurement Issues and Other Complications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Other Aspects of State Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Other, De Facto State Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Model State Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
List of Tables
Table 1. States with Few CAMR Allowances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Appendix A. Enacted / Promulgated Mercury Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix B. Other State Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

---

Mercury Emissions from Electric Power
Plants: States Are Setting Stricter Limits
Background
On May 18, 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
promulgated the first national standards for mercury emissions from coal-fired
electric power plants.1 Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can cause adverse health
effects (principally delayed development, neurological defects, and lower IQ in
fetuses and children) at very low concentrations.2
The principal route of exposure to mercury is through consumption of fish.
Mercury enters water bodies, often through air emissions, and is taken up through the
food chain, ultimately affecting humans as a result of fish consumption. According
to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as of December 2004, 44 states had
issued fish consumption advisories due to mercury.3 Twenty-one states (primarily
in the Midwest and Northeast) have issued advisories for mercury in all their
freshwater lakes and/or rivers. Twelve states in the Southeast and New England,
have advisories for mercury statewide in their coastal waters, and Hawaii has a
statewide advisory for mercury in marine fish.
Mercury reaches water bodies from many sources, including combustion of fuels
containing the substance in trace amounts. In the United States, coal-fired power
plants are the largest emission source, accounting for 42% of total mercury emissions
according to EPA. EPA’s 2005 regulations, referred to as Clean Air Mercury Rule
(CAMR), establish a cap-and-trade program for power plant mercury that will take
effect in 2010. CAMR will have little impact on emissions before 2018, however.4
1 70 Federal Register 28606.
2 For a discussion of mercury’s health effects, see CRS Report RL32868, Mercury
Emissions from Electric Power Plants: An Analysis of EPA’s Cap-and-Trade Regulations,
by James E. McCarthey, or CRS Report RL32420, Mercury in the Environment: Sources
and Health Risks, by Linda-Jo Schierow.
3 U.S. EPA, Office of Water, “2004 National Listing of Fish Advisories,” Fact Sheet,
September 2005, p. 4, at [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisories/fs2004.pdf].
4 The conclusion regarding the rule’s lack of impact is based on EPA’s analysis. The rule
establishes a cap of 38 tons of emissions from affected units between 2010 and 2017, but
the agency estimates that actual emissions will be reduced to 31 tons in 2010 as the result
of pollution controls installed under other (non-mercury) regulatory programs. Emissions
will continue to decline, according to EPA, reaching 28 tons in 2015, while the cap remains
at 38 tons. Thus, the CAMR rule’s cap in the period 2010-2017 serves primarily to generate
credits that will be used to delay full compliance with the 69% reduction otherwise required
beginning in 2018. Full compliance with the 69% reduction, according to EPA’s analysis,
(continued...)

---

CRS-2
At that time, the regulations call for a 69% reduction in emissions as compared to the
1999 level.
In setting the limit so far in the future, EPA stated, in part, that mercury control
technologies are not now commercially available, and will not be generally available
until after 2010. Many observers disagree with that conclusion, including a growing
number of states. This report describes what those states that have chosen alternative
forms of regulation are requiring.
Which States Are Setting Standards
As of June 2006, seven states have established more stringent emission limits
that will take effect sooner than will EPA’s, and ten other states are developing
regulations that would do so. The states with regulations already promulgated (or
laws enacted) are generally small and/or have few coal-fired power plants. As shown
in Table 1, they are Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, and Virginia.5 Together, these states have 42 coal-fired
power plants, with a total of 86 electric generating units. The combined generation
capacity of these units is estimated at 19,016 megawatts (Mw), 6% of total U.S. coal-
fired electric generation.
The states that have proposed but not yet finalized mercury standards, on the
other hand, are generally larger and/or have a significant share of the nation’s coal-
fired generation capacity. As shown in Table 2, these ten states (Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Montana, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and
Washington) have 149 plants, with a total of 380 units. Their combined generation
capacity is estimated at 94,008 Mw, about 31% of total U.S. coal-fired generation.
What the Standards Will Require
Rates, Dates, Compliance, and Trading. As shown in Appendices A and
B, the specifics of the state standards vary in stringency, in effective dates, and in
numerous other details. Nevertheless, at least four generalizations, regarding rates,
dates, compliance measurement, and allowance trading, can be made.
4 (...continued)
will not occur until after 2025. For additional information, see CRS Report RL32868,
Mercury Emissions from Electric Power Plants: An Analysis of EPA’s Cap-and-Trade
Regulations.
5 Many earlier discussions of state mercury requirements, including previous CRS reports,
list Wisconsin as being among the states requiring more stringent limits. Wisconsin adopted
regulations in 2004 to require a 40% reduction in emissions by 2010, and a 75% reduction
by 2015. The regulations required, however, that if a federal standard limiting mercury
emissions from utilities were promulgated under Section 111 or 112 of the Clean Air Act,
Wisconsin would adopt it. Wisconsin has, therefore, adopted the CAMR rule’s budget and
is no longer to be counted among those states with more stringent limits. As of this writing
(June 2006), it is not clear, however, whether the state will allow trading of allowances.

---

CRS-3
First, at least 13 of the 17 state programs will require reductions of 80% to 90%
in mercury emissions when fully implemented. Second, the effective dates range
from 2007 at the earliest to 2015, with most of the programs imposing at least a first
phase reduction by 2010. [The CAMR rule, as noted earlier, also imposes a cap in
2010, but it calls for a 22% reduction in that year, whereas most of the state
requirements call for 80% to 90% reductions by then.] Third, in general, the
programs provide some flexibility by measuring compliance as a rolling 12-month
average of emissions, rather than setting an emission limit to be met at all times.
CAMR, of course, is even more flexible, allowing utilities to exceed the standard at
individual facilities and even company-wide, provided that they obtain allowances
for each pound of mercury emitted. Fourth, unlike the CAMR program, a key feature
of which is the trading of emission allowances, the state programs generally prohibit
interstate trading of mercury credits; many prohibit in-state trading, as well. These
prohibitions address the concern that mercury hot spots might persist if individual
plants could avoid installing controls by buying credits. Also, the states that prohibit
interstate trading are insuring that emission reductions within their state not generate
credits that could be used to delay reductions by plants in other states (i.e., states
participating in the CAMR program).
Measurement Issues and Other Complications. Beyond the four
generalizations, there are a number of aspects to the state mercury control programs
that vary from state to state. For one, there are varying forms in which the emission
limits are expressed, the most commonly used being: 1) as a percentage reduction
from the amount of “inlet” mercury; or 2) as a fixed emission limit (either pounds per
gigawatt-hour of electricity produced or pounds per trillion Btu of energy consumed).
At least one state (Montana) plans to vary the emission limit depending on the type
of coal used (allowing substantially higher emissions for lignite). Others set different
limits depending on the size of the plant or of the company that owns it. Thus, it can
be difficult to compare the stringency of various state requirements. The common
rule of thumb in press accounts describing these programs seems to be the percentage
emissions reduction that they would require, but it is important to ask, first, compared
to what, and, second, whether there is an alternate fixed limit or alternate method of
compliance that provides a less stringent standard.
Further complicating the emission reduction math are two other factors: first,
the mercury content of coal varies (making it difficult to estimate inlet mercury); and
second, many power plants are already achieving substantial emission reductions as
a result of their existing emission control equipment. EPA estimates that existing
controls are already reducing mercury emissions (as compared to inlet amounts of
mercury) by about one-third nation-wide, with substantially greater reductions at
some plants. Thus, to achieve a 90% reduction of inlet mercury does not require a
reduction of 90% in current emission levels. In some cases, particularly at plants
with baghouses (fabric filters), a 90% reduction may require little additional control.6
6 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, “Control of Mercury Emissions from
Coal-Fired Electric Utility Boilers,” undated, posted March 2, 2004, available at [http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/hgwhitepaperfinal.pdf].

---

CRS-4
Data on current mercury emission levels are not generally available in any
comprehensive fashion, either. The best national data come from a survey conducted
by EPA in 1998, which relied on sampling at 80 of the nation’s more than 1,000 coal-
fired units rather than continuous emissions monitoring at them all.7 The mercury
content of coal is known to vary even within a given coal seam. Until better
monitoring equipment is installed (which will be an effect of the state programs), it
will be difficult to establish with any precision both current emission levels and the
exact reductions one can expect from emission control programs.
Other Aspects of State Laws. Other complicating features unique to some
of the states laws and regulations are worth noting. New Jersey, for example, which
has the earliest compliance deadline (December 15, 2007) would extend its deadline
to 2012 for half of a company’s capacity if the plants also make major reductions in
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. Virginia has different requirements
for the state’s largest utility (which controls 63% of the state’s coal-fired generating
capacity) than it has for others. Minnesota’s law only applies to facilities with
capacity above 500 Mw; most other states apply requirements to units 25 Mw or
larger. Pennsylvania, in its draft regulations, would presume that units with specific
combinations of control technology are in compliance with the regulations’ emission
limitations.
Other, De Facto State Limits
States with No Allowances. In addition to the states that have enacted laws
or are developing regulations to control mercury, three other states and the District
of Columbia have de facto limits of zero for mercury emissions as a result of the
federal CAMR rule. An irony of the federal rule is that, because it grants allowances
to each state based on current emissions of mercury from power plants larger than 25
Mw in that state, states that have no coal-fired power plants or that only have plants
smaller than 25 Mw are given no allowances. The District of Columbia and the
states of Idaho, Rhode Island, and Vermont fall into this category and, thus, have a
limit of zero for power plant mercury emissions.
Under CAMR, states are not required to adopt the federal cap-and-trade
program, but, if they do not do so,8 they are required to show that state regulations
are at least as stringent as the federal. If D.C., Idaho, Rhode Island, and Vermont do
not join the federal program, they would have to demonstrate that they have limited
emissions through in-state controls to zero; this would effectively prohibit the siting
of new coal-fired power plants in these jurisdictions.
By joining the federal program, on the other hand, these states (and D.C.) would
become part of the federal allowance trading program; new coal-fired power plants
7 For a discussion of EPA’s data collection on mercury emissions, see CRS Report
RL32744, Mercury Emissions from Electric Generating Units: A Review of EPA Analysis
and MACT Determination, by Dana A. Shea, Larry Parker, James E. McCarthy, and Thomas
Chapman.
8 As of this writing, it appears that about 20 states will not adopt the federal program. See
“State Dropout Rate High for Bush Mercury Plan,” CQ Weekly, May 29, 2006, p. 1456.

---

CRS-5
would be able to operate in these jurisdictions in that case by buying emission
allowances from facilities outside the state that have reduced emissions sooner or to
a greater extent than CAMR requires.
States with Few Allowances. Six additional states (Alaska, California,
Hawaii, Maine, Oregon, and South Dakota) have so little coal-fired generation that
their combined 2018 allowances under CAMR are 178 pounds, substantially less than
1% of the national total. For these states also, there is little alternative to joining the
CAMR program if the state wishes to preserve the option of coal-fired power plants,
since a state program would have to show that it would limit emissions to as little as
2 pounds in the case of Maine, or 32 pounds in the case of California. Table 1 shows
the 2018 allowances under CAMR for these states.
Model State Program
In addition to the programs developed by individual states, the State and
Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and Association of
Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO) have developed a model rule to
encourage more stringent controls on power plant mercury emissions. The model,
which was publicly released November 14, 2005, offers two options. The first option
calls for an average 80% capture of inlet mercury from existing units (or an
equivalent output-based emission standard of 0.010 lbs/Gwh) based on a 12-month
rolling average, beginning December 31, 2008. During this phase, owners or
operators could comply by averaging emissions from all their existing units within
the state. A second phase, beginning December 31, 2012, would require a 90-95%
capture of inlet mercury or an output-based emission standard of 0.0060-0.0025
lbs/Gwh. During this phase, averaging would be limited to units located at a single
electric generating plant. The rule would prohibit interstate trading of allowances.
Table 1. States with Few CAMR Allowances
State
2018 Allowance (tons)
2018 Allowance (pounds)
Alaska
0.004
8
California
0.016
32
Hawaii
0.009
18
Maine
0.001
2
Oregon
0.030
60
South Dakota
0.029
58
Source: U.S. EPA, Clean Air Mercury Rule, 40 CFR 60.4140, as revised May 31, 2006,
available at [http://www.epa.gov/air/mercuryrule/pdfs/camr_recon_fr_final_053106.pdf].
Total allowances in 2018 are 15 tons (30,000 lbs.). States shown have allowances of less
than 0.1 ton (200 lbs.). In addition, 6 other states (Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Washington) have allowances below 0.1 ton, but, as
shown in Appendices A and B, are opting out of the CAMR program.

---

CRS-6
A second option in the STAPPA/ALAPCO model rule, like a provision in New
Jersey’s law, would provide more flexibility to electric generating units in return for
the installation of control technologies designed to capture additional pollutants.
Under this option, an owner or operator could delay compliance with the mercury
emission limits for four years at up to 50% of its generating capacity if it agreed to
meet stringent standards for emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and
particulate matter, in addition to mercury by the end of 2012.
While no state has adopted the STAPPA/ALAPCO model intact, the model
serves as a window on what state and local officials closely involved in regulating
power plant emissions believe is feasible. Fourteen of the 17 states that have
proposed or adopted programs more stringent than the federal CAMR rule have done
so since the model rule’s unveiling.

Conclusions
With a few exceptions, it is a general precept of federal environmental laws that
more stringent state standards are not preempted. Relying on this authority, some
states (particularly, California and a number of Northeastern states) have adopted
various environmental requirements that address problems that are judged to be
unique to their state or more severe in their state than elsewhere. Thus, state actions
to set more stringent limits on mercury emissions are not considered unprecedented
or unusual. Nevertheless, the degree to which states are opting out of the federal
program and the speed with which they are doing so appear noteworthy.
In part, the development of these state programs reflects a judgment by state
regulators or legislators that the CAMR rule is not sufficiently stringent.9 In part, it
reflects a judgment that EPA’s assessment of the availability and cost of technology
to control mercury emissions are unduly pessimistic.10
9 For example, see statement of Eddie Terrill, Director of the Oklahoma Air Quality
Division and President of STAPPA: “EPA’s approach would allow too much mercury for
too long.” “State Local Government Officials Unveil ‘Model’ Rule to Clean Up Toxic
Mercury,” STAPPA/ALAPCO Press Release, November 14, 2005.
10 For example, New Jersey’s regulatory package, written in late 2004, stated: “USDOE has
been studying mercury control on coal-fired boilers for more than a decade. Technologies
like ACI [activated carbon injection] are available now. USDOE has a goal to get costs of
ACI down to 1/4th current costs. However, the current costs of activated carbon injection
are justified now. ... There is over a decade of successful use of Activated Carbon Injection
for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) combustion. In New Jersey, MSW incinerators with
baghouse control and ACI have achieved 99 percent mercury control. Transfer of such
technology is clearly feasible from an engineering and cost perspective. The USDOE cost
analyses indicate that retrofitting the coal-fired boilers with activated carbon injection (ACI)
and baghouses (or polishing baghouses) can achieve 90 percent mercury emission reduction.
ACI has a low capitol (sic) cost. It also has low operating costs if baghouse technology is
used.” See New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Summary of Public
Comments and Agency Responses, Control and Prohibition of Mercury Emissions,
December 6, 2004 New Jersey Register, pp. 83-84, available at
[http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/adoptions/mercury_rule7-27.pdf].

---

CRS-7
State actions are also being dictated by a looming deadline for submission of
programs for EPA approval. Under the CAMR rule, states have until November 17,
2006 to submit their programs (either programs adopting CAMR or programs at least
as stringent) to EPA. Failure to submit can leave states liable to imposition of a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), which would impose the CAMR rule’s
requirements on a state through an EPA-run program.
EPA officials have aggressively promoted CAMR and the threat of FIPs,
testifying before state legislatures against the adoption of more stringent state
programs, and questioning the authority of states to prohibit interstate trading of
allowances. At the same time, many of the states adopting more stringent
requirements are pursuing legal action to overturn EPA’s rule and force the agency
itself to adopt more stringent requirements.11
It may be some time before these issues are resolved. In the meantime, if state
programs with stringent control requirements are successfully implemented, it will
become more difficult for EPA to argue that technology is unavailable to more
aggressively control power plant mercury emissions. Conversely, if the technology
fails to do its job or proves to be more expensive than emissions control industry
spokespersons have asserted, EPA’s hand will be strengthened. Since the earliest
state requirements take effect at the end of 2007 and early in 2008, these questions
may continue to merit congressional oversight at least through that period.
11 “EPA Fighting State Adoption of Strict Mercury Control Regulations,” Inside EPA Clean
Air Report, May 4, 2006. The question of whether states may prohibit interstate trading of
allowances is an interesting one. In the only case law on the question (Clean Air Markets
Group v. Pataki, 338 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2003)), the Second Circuit held that New York State’s
Air Pollution Mitigation Law, which restricted in-state electrical generating units’ abilities
to transfer emission allowances to upwind states under Title IV of the Clean Air Act, was
preempted by the federal Clean Air Act. The court explained that federal preemption results
when, notwithstanding that the federal and state law have the same goal, the state law
interferes with the methods by which the federal law was designed to reach that goal. By
effectively prohibiting the transfer of allowances to electric generating units in other states,
the New York law interfered with the nationwide allowance transfer system contemplated
by the Clean Air Act. Whether Clean Air Markets provides a basis for arguing that state
prohibitions on trading mercury allowances are preempted is a slightly different question,
however: the wording of the CAMR rule and its preamble leave some uncertainty as to
whether states can retire excess allowances or whether they revert to EPA. In the latter case,
allowances generated by more stringent state standards could be sold to electric generating
units in other states, effectively negating state efforts to prohibit trading of their allowances.

---

CRS-8
Appendix A. Enacted / Promulgated Mercury Controls
State
Effective Date
% Reduction
Coal-fired Plants
Additional Information
Number
Mw
Connecticut
July 1, 2008
either an
2 plants
553
If the technology designed to achieve the law’s
emission
(2 units)
requirements fails to reduce emissions sufficiently, a plant
standard of 0.6
may request an alternative emissions rate. Law enacted
lbs. of
June 3, 2003.a
mercury per
trillion Btu
(TBtu) or a
90% reduction
Maryland
January 1, 2010
80%
6 plants
4,603
Emission reductions measured as a rolling 12-month
January 1, 2013
90%
(13 units)
average. Law affects state’s 6 largest plants. Two units at a
7th facility may be subject to alternative regulations. Allows
trading among facilities owned or operated by the same
company. Law enacted April 6, 2006.b
Massachusetts
January 1, 2008
85% or 0.0075
6 plants
1,741
Emission reductions measured as a rolling 12-month
lbs per giga-
(12 units)
average. Regulations promulgated May 2004.c
watt-hour
(GWh)
95% or 0.0025
lbs/GWh
January 1, 2012

---

CRS-9
State
Effective Date
% Reduction
Coal-fired Plants
Additional Information
Number
Mw
Minnesota
December 31, 2010
90%
3 plants
1,807 by
Plants with dry scrubbers must install equipment designed
and December 31,
(6 units)
2010
to reduce emissions 90% by 12/31/2010. Plants with wet
2014.
scrubbers must install equipment designed to reduce
1,847
emissions 90% by 12/31/2014. Allows performance-based
more by
incentives such as increased rates of return for reductions
2014
above 90%. Law enacted May 11, 2006. Applies to
facilities with capacity above 500Mw.d
New Hampshire
July 1, 2013
at least 80%
2 plants
575
Prior to July 1, 2013, the owner is required to test and
(5 units)
implement, as practicable, mercury reduction control
technologies or methods to achieve early reductions. If
mercury reductions greater than 80% are achieved, they
shall be required by permit. Facility owners will also
generate early reduction credits if they reduce emissions
prior to 2013. Plants may be allowed to emit additional
sulfur dioxide in return for lower mercury emissions. Law
enacted May 9, 2006.e
New Jersey
December 15, 2007
90%
7 plants
2,171
Allows facility-wide averaging. Deadline can be extended
(10 units)
to 2012 for half of a company’s capacity if the plants also
make major reductions in sulfur dioxide, NOx, and fine
particulate emissions. Regulations promulgated November
4, 2004.f

---

CRS-10
State
Effective Date
% Reduction
Coal-fired Plants
Additional Information
Number
Mw
Virginia
January 1, 2015 for
64%
16 plants
5,719
Legislation adopted by Virginia in 2006g adopts the federal
Dominion Virginia
(38 units)
emission limits but requires compliance 3 years early at
Power plants (63%
plants owned by the state’s largest utility. It also prohibits
of total state
the purchase of allowances by most facilities: owners of
generating capacity).
facilities whose combined emissions of mercury exceeded
200 pounds in 1999 are limited to their own allowances
(these facilities represent at least 80% of total generating
capacity in the state.) Virginia generators may, however,
bank and sell allowances.
Source: Compiled by the Congressional Research Service, largely from state information sources. If not reported by the state, the generating capacity of coal-fired
plants is summer capacity, as of January 1, 2005, as reported by Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-860, "Annual Electric Generator Report."
a. [http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/act/Pa/2003PA-00072-R00HB-06048-PA.htm]
b. [http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/bills/sb/sb0154e.pdf]
c. [http://www.mass.gov/dep/images/hgreg.pdf]
d. [http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H3712.3.html&session=ls84]
e. [http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2006/HB1673.html]
f. [http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/adoptions/mercury_rule7-27.pdf]
g. [http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?061+ful+HB1055ER+pdf]

---

CRS-11
Appendix B. Other State Actions
State
Action
Date / %
Coal-fired Plants
Details
Status
Reduction
Number
Mw
Delaware
Department of Natural
Current draft would
2 plants
1,021
Quarterly averaging. No
DNREC expects to
Resources and
require reduction of
(6 units)
interstate trading or averaging.
formally propose
Environmental Control
at least 80% of inlet
regulations 9/1/06,
began development of
mercury or
with an effective
regulations November
emissions not to
date of 11/11/06.
7, 2005, and has held
exceed 1.0 lb/TBtu
five workgroup
by January 1, 2009;
meetings.
90% or 0.6 lb.
limits by January 1,
2013.

---

CRS-12
State
Action
Date / %
Coal-fired Plants
Details
Status
Reduction
Number
Mw
Florida
On May 26, 2006,
Current draft would
15 plants
11,867
Under CAMR, Florida’s Phase 1
The state’s
Florida Department of
allocate only 70%
(32 units)
cap is 2,466 lbs. of mercury.
Environmental
Environmental
of the emission
EPA estimates that 1999
Regulation
Protection proposed
allowances
emissions were only 1,923 lbs.,
Commission
modifications to the
provided by the
and these will be further reduced
approved the
CAMR rule.a
CAMR rule for the
as a result of the co-benefits of
proposed rules at a
years 2012-2017.
the Clean Air Interstate Rule.
June 29, 2006 public
No change in
Thus, DEP proposes a limit of
hearing.
compliance dates.
1,761 lbs., a 30% reduction,
beginning in 2012. Even this cap
would generate a large number of
allowances, as actual Phase 1
emissions are estimated at 1,033
lbs.

---

CRS-13
State
Action
Date / %
Coal-fired Plants
Details
Status
Reduction
Number
Mw
Georgia
In a notice issued
Phase I of the state
10 plants
14,369
EPD’s state option would not
Hearings have been
2/22/06, Ga.
plan would require
(32 units)
allow interstate trading of
held and the state is
Environmental
an average mercury
mercury allowances, but would
conducting
Protection Division said
capture efficiency
allow trading within the state.
negotiations with
it would accept public
of 80% or 85% by
stakeholders.
comments on both the
1/1/2010. Phase II
state and federal
would require a
mercury reduction
90% capture
plans. According to
efficiency by 2012
EPD, the state proposal
or 2015.c New
"would reliably reduce
units would be
emissions sooner and
subject to Best
more deeply than
Available Control
CAMR to accelerate and
Technology.
enhance protection of
public health, at an
affordable cost and
without jeopardizing
electric reliability."b

---

CRS-14
State
Action
Date / %
Coal-fired Plants
Details
Status
Reduction
Number
Mw
Illinois
Governor proposed
90% reduc-tion of
21 plants
14,880
Applies to units with a nameplate
Rule has been
regulations 1/05/06.d
input mercury or an
(59 units)
capacity greater than 25Mw.
submitted to the
output limit of
Compliance measured as a 12-
Illinois Pollution
0.0080 lbs. of
month rolling average. No
Control Board. Final
mercury per Gwh
trading, but allows system-wide
decision expected by
by July 1, 2009.
and plant-wide averaging through
fall 2006.
Allows system-
December 31, 2013, and plant-
wide averaging
wide averaging thereafter.
through December
31, 2013, provided
that each plant
meets a 75%
reduction or output
limit of 0.020
lbs./Gwh.
Michigan
4/17/06 letter from
90% by 2015
23 plants
11,295
Interstate trading would not be
Regulations under
Governor directed
(55 units)
allowed. Could allow utility
development.
Michigan Department of
system-wide approach if it does
Environmental Quality
not result in hot spots. Could
to develop a rule.e
allow additional time for
technical or cost reasons.

---

CRS-15
State
Action
Date / %
Coal-fired Plants
Details
Status
Reduction
Number
Mw
Montana
Department of
2.16 lbs/TBtu for
3 plants
2,300
Would allow trading, but
Public hearings were
Environmental Quality
lignite (77%
(6 units)
Montana facilities could not meet
held May 31 and
initiated rulemaking
control); 0.9
limits by purchasing allowances.
June 1, 2006.
March 23, 2006 and
lbs/TBtu for all
Each facility would be required to
proposed regulations
other coal (80%
install pollution control
May 26, 2006.f
control) in 2010,
equipment designed to meet the
with some
limit.
flexibility until
2018. State would
also reserve 28% of
its allowances for
new sources.
New York
Governor announced
50% by 2010
18 plants
4,216
No trading.
details May 25, 2006.g
90% by 2015
(48 units)
New York Department
of Environmental
Conservation is drafting
regulations.

---

CRS-16
State
Action
Date / %
Coal-fired Plants
Details
Status
Reduction
Number
Mw
North Carolina
Environmental
Regulations under
20 plants
12,755
Trading allowed.
The 2010 reductions
Management
NC’s Clean
(62 units)
are all co-benefits of
Commission proposed
Smokestacks Act
the installation of
regulations May 11,
are estimated to
SO and NOx
2
2006.h
result in a 37%
controls required by
reduc-tion of
the state’s Clean
mercury emissions
Smoke-stacks Act.
by 2010.
The proposed
Emissions will be
regulations also
439 pounds (20%)
require that 8 units
less than required
operated by Duke
by federal
Energy and 4 units
requirements. New
operated by Progress
sources would be
Energy install by
required to install
12/31/2017 mercury
Best Available
control technology to
Control
be determined by the
Technology or meet
Commission. 12
stringent
additional units
requirements of up
operated by the two
to 90% emissions
companies would be
reduction.
required to install
controls by 2022.

---

CRS-17
State
Action
Date / %
Coal-fired Plants
Details
Status
Reduction
Number
Mw
Pennsylvania
Proposed rule has been
Varies by type of
36 plants
20,000
No trading. Units that utilize
Public comment
submitted to the
unit: at least 80%
(78 units)
specific combinations of control
period to begin in
Environmental Quality
by 2010; at least
technology would be presumed to
June 2006. Final
Board and approved for
90% by 2015
be in compliance with the
rule expected in fall
public comment.i
emission limitations.
2006.
Washington
Department of Ecology
1 plant
1,405
State intends to
initiated rulemaking
(2 units)
submit rules for
June 5, 2006. State
approval by EPA by
plans to opt out of the
mid-February 2007.
federal mercury trading
(Washington, like
program and may adopt
some other states,
more stringent
has indicated that it
requirements.j
will not be able to
complete its
rulemaking by
EPA’s November 17,
2006 deadline.)

---

CRS-18
State
Action
Date / %
Coal-fired Plants
Details
Status
Reduction
Number
Mw
Wisconsin
Wisconsin adopted
Same as federal,
17 plants
6,917
Wisconsin is still in
regulations in 2004 to
but with no
(49 units)
the process of
require a 40% reduction
interstate trading.
developing the
in emissions by 2010,
specific
and 75% by 2015.k The
requirements of its
regulations required,
program for
however, that if a
submission to EPA.
federal standard limiting
Among the issues to
mercury emissions from
be addressed is
utilities were
whether intrastate
promulgated under
trading of credits
Section 111 or 112 of
will be allowed.
the Clean Air Act,
Wisconsin would adopt
it. Wisconsin has,
therefore, adopted the
CAMR rule’s budget.
Source: Compiled by the Congressional Research Service, largely from state information sources. If not reported by the state, the generating capacity of coal-fired
plants is summer capacity, as of January 1, 2005, as reported by Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-860, "Annual Electric Generator Report."
a. [http://www.dep.state.fl.us/Air/rules/regulatory.htm]
b. “Mercury: Georgia proposes 80 percent emissions cut by 2010,” Greenwire, 2/23/06. The proposal is at [http://www.air.dnr.state.ga.us/airpermit/cair/downloads
/mercury_rule_options.pdf]

---

CRS-19
c. Average capture efficiency as compared to either the mercury content of coal or the inlet mercury concentration prior to application of any air pollution control
device. In comparison to current emissions, the Phase I reductions would be 73% or 80%, and those of Phase II would be 86%.
d. [http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=3&RecNum=4565]. The proposed regulations are at [http://www.epa.state.il.us
/air/cair/documents/031406/final-rule-225.pdf].
e. [http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Mercury_letter001_156319_7.pdf]
f. [http://www.deq.state.mt.us/ber/index.asp]
g. [http://www.ny.gov/governor/press/06/0525063.html]
h. [http://daq.state.nc.us/rules/hearing/]
i. [http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/pubpartcenter/lib/pubpartcenter/Proposed_Hg_Annex_A_3-22-2006.pdf] has the text of the proposed Pennsylvania rule.
[http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/pubpartcenter/lib/pubpartcenter/HgEXEC_SUMMARYrev1.pdf] contains an executive summary.
j. Washington Department of Ecology “Preproposal Statement of Inquiry,” available at [http://www.ecy.wa.gov/laws-rules/wac173406/d0609.pdf].
k. [http://dnr.wi.gov/org/aw/air/reg/mercury/nr446.pdf]

---