{
  "id": "RL32868",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL32868",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 311383,
      "date": "2006-01-13",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:21:17.644029",
      "title": "Mercury Emissions from Electric Power Plants: An Analysis of EPA's Cap-and-Trade Regulations",
      "summary": "EPA studies conclude that about 6% of American women of child-bearing age have blood\nmercury\nlevels sufficient to increase the risk of adverse health effects (especially lower IQs) in children they\nmight bear. Thus, there was great interest in the agency\u2019s March 15, 2005, announcement\nthat it was\nfinalizing new regulations to control mercury (Hg) emissions from coal-fired electric power plants\n-- power plants account for 42% of total U.S. mercury emissions, according to EPA. \n \n In announcing the regulations, however, EPA stated that most mercury in the atmosphere comes\nfrom non-U.S. global sources. Even if regulations could reduce power plant mercury emissions to\nzero, the agency concluded, there would be little change in the mercury health effects it has\nidentified. (This point is contested; many argue that power plants make significant contributions to\nmercury emissions in local hot spots, and that reducing power plant emissions would significantly\nreduce risks.)\n \n Instead of stringent, plant-specific requirements, EPA promulgated\n\u201ccap-and-trade\u201d standards\nthat rely heavily on co-benefits from sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide controls installed under a\nseparate agency rule, the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). This approach minimizes costs for\nelectric utilities: by 2015, less than 1% of coal-fired power plants will have installed equipment\nspecifically designed to control mercury under the Hg rule, according to EPA. By 2020, only 4%\nof plants will have such equipment. Sixteen states have filed suit to overturn the agency\u2019s\naction,\narguing that EPA is required by the Clean Air Act to impose more stringent Maximum Achievable\nControl Technology standards at each individual plant.\n \n Beginning in 2010, the cap-and-trade rule limits total power plant mercury emissions to 38 tons\nannually (a 21% reduction vs. 1999 levels). A second phase caps annual emissions at 15 tons,\nstarting in 2018. According to the agency, trading and banking of emission allowances will result\nin lower than required emissions in the early years, but will delay achievement of the 15-ton cap to\nat least 2025. \n \n EPA has sent contradictory signals regarding the importance of controlling mercury emissions. \nIts January 2004 analysis estimated that the indirect benefits of proposed regulations would be $15\nbillion annually, outweighing compliance costs by a factor of at least 16 to 1. Direct benefits\n(although unquantifiable) were said to be \u201clarge enough to justify substantial investment in\nHg\ncontrol.\u201d The analysis of the final rule, by contrast, concludes that quantifiable direct and\nindirect\nbenefits of mercury control are just $43 million per year. EPA\u2019s calculations did not include\nconsideration of an academic study that it had funded, a factor contributing to the calculation of\nsmaller benefits. This decision was one of several irregularities in the regulatory process alleged by\nthe agency\u2019s Inspector General, GAO, and others.\n   In addition to EPA\u2019s regulatory effort, at least six bills that would regulate these\nemissions have\nbeen introduced so far in the 109th Congress, with more expected.  S. 131 , the Clear\nSkies Act, has many points in common with the EPA regulatory approach. This report will be\nupdated if developments warrant.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL32868",
          "sha1": "4c234e025cd9130191fa703524c59eb9ded6f436",
          "filename": "files/20060113_RL32868_4c234e025cd9130191fa703524c59eb9ded6f436.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32868",
          "sha1": "5d611775375f0d83ddbd3027076b6549aed933c7",
          "filename": "files/20060113_RL32868_5d611775375f0d83ddbd3027076b6549aed933c7.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc821311/",
      "id": "RL32868_2005Apr15",
      "date": "2005-04-15",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "Mercury Emissions from Electric Power Plants: An Analysis of EPA\u2019s Cap-and-Trade Regulations",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20050415_RL32868_63d3ab0341bd69dff7a7c6e52b14cf72d7f29bf0.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20050415_RL32868_63d3ab0341bd69dff7a7c6e52b14cf72d7f29bf0.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}