Image: Scott Butner
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
(Reuters) - The Obama administration on Wednesday unveiled the first-ever standards to slash mercury emissions from coal-fired plants, a move aimed at protecting public health that critics say will kill jobs as plants shut down.
Facing fierce opposition from industry groups and lawmakers from coal-intensive states, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said the benefits of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, or MATS, will greatly outweigh the costs.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson revealed the rules, which have been about 20 years in the making, at a Washington, D.C., children's hospital. Mercury can harm the nervous systems of developing fetuses and infants and can enter the food stream through contaminated fish.
"By cutting emissions that are linked to developmental disorders and respiratory illnesses like asthma, these standards represent a major victory for clean air and public health," said Jackson, whose agency hopes to start enforcing the rules over the next several years.
While the rule mostly adhered to the tough proposal on mercury, arsenic, chromium and other pollutants made earlier in the year, there were some differences.
The rules will cost utilities about $9.6 billion annually, down more than $1 billion from the EPA's earlier estimate due to "flexibilities" that were added to the final regulation, the agency said.
The EPA also said it will push permitting authorities in the states and cities to make "broadly available" a fourth year for polluters to invest in technology needed to cut the emissions.
One of a raft of clean air standards the agency is launching, the mercury standards have divided the power industry.
Companies including Exelon and NextEra that generate most of their power with "clean" fuel sources such as nuclear, natural gas and renewables have supported the mercury standards, while those that get most of their power from coal, including American Electric Power and Southern have vigorously fought them.
The standards pleased environmentalists and public health advocates, an important part of President Barack Obama's voter base, who slammed his decision in September to delay a landmark rule on smog emissions.
Driving plant closings
While the EPA stressed the flexibility of the final rules, power industry lobbyists said the agency still did not allow enough time for compliance.
Scott Segal, a lobbyist at Bracewell & Giuliani, said the rules will result in the loss of more than 1.4 million jobs by 2020 as utilities are forced to shut old coal-fired power plants. He estimated that for every temporary job created in technologies to clean up power plants four higher paying jobs, often union ones, will be lost.
"The bottom line: this rule is the most expensive air rule that EPA has ever proposed in terms of direct costs," Segal said. "It is certainly the most extensive intervention into the power market and job market that EPA has ever attempted to implement."
Rob Patrylak, a managing director of Black & Veatch, a consulting, engineering and construction company, said of all the EPA clean air rules, the MATS rule will force the largest number of coal-plant retirements. Unlike other recent clean air standards, such the Cross State Air Pollution Rule that seeks to cut emissions that move downwind from power plants, the MATS rule does not allow utilities to trade pollution credits to comply.
See what we're tweeting about
38 Comments
Add CommentPlease, someone do something about this mess!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a conservative, Republican-type voter, I say THANK GOD this finally happened. A 21st century superpower country allowing such high levels of mercury emission is inexcusable. I beg Republicans in congress to let this go through. It may be a tough, painful transition for some, but I think all would agree that 20 years from now this will have been a good thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople come before pollution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe people in congress that don't understand that should get the ax!
In general it's a positve but with some well thought out planning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA less efficient economy (as opposed to China and India that have dramatically increased coal use) means less growth, 'real' job losses. Otherwise, less revenue available for education and health care.
The US economy is part of a global economy. the USA needs to staty competitive in the 'real' world and not in some pollyanish 'ideal' world in which most competitors don't give a hoot.
Agreed, we stay competitive by not having as much mercury and other coal power pollutants entering our bodies and making us sick. We're more competitive by spending $9B on pollution control technology instead of $60B on the damages this pollution causes. (The benefits actually only incorporate avoided lower I.Q. due to lower mercury exposure, so the $60B is WAAAAY too low).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe're more efficient when ALL costs are included in the price signal of an economic activity so that market actors can make the best decisions. This is better than letting the coal power companies offload the true cost of using their product onto society as a whole and allowing them to pocket the difference.
now if we could just ban those stupid CFL light bulbs BEFORE we end up with tons of mercury in landfills and where ever else it ends up as people throw those stupid things away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe worst-case mercury exposure from a broken CFL is much smaller than the mercury in a can of tuna. (Also, look up the difference between metallic mercury in the CFL and methyl mercury that's in the tuna). In addition, the electricity saved by switching out an incandescent bulb with a CFL (or better yet, LED) reduces the mercury going into the environment many, many times over compared to the small amount of mercury in the bulb itself. This is why the efficiency standards for light bulbs made so much sense, but SOME lawmakers disregard the evidence and think efficient light bulbs are a Socialist plot to umm...decrease our freedom to choose inefficient lightbulbs...yeah!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The rules will save $90 billion in healthcare costs by 2016" Pure BS; however, it well get Obama votes!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRichard Carlson
Where's you're proof refuting the EPA's estimates?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sorry, but the country's rulers will not allow these new rules.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat? The Koch brothers, of course.
They're trying as hard as they can, but the majority of the country's utilities are well-prepared to implement these rules. It doesn't help that the media constantly frames issues like this as environment vs. jobs when it's really people's health vs. profits for the few. However, even the corporate noise machine's spin prowess will have a hard time making people think that ingesting mercury isn't bad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is really good to hear the republicans being so vocally stupid about putting the bottom line above human health and life. It is also going to be interesting to see how many idiots will actually vote for a republican in this upcoming election and how many seats they will loose in the houses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would rather loose 10 million jobs than one human life to pollution that is caused by these greedy axes of evil republicans and their filthy fossil fuel companies. They could care less if mercury poisoned every child's mind in this country and plunge their IQ to 28. In the republicans way of thinking, "The more retarded these worker bees are the better for us upper 1%. A smart bee is not a working bee and we need working bees.". The republicans had no problem and said nothing when Bush outsourced and shut down 15 million jobs so he could plunge us into a third-world economy of, death, war, and poverty. Now all they can do is cry about the loss of one of their fossil fuel job. What pathetic evil people they are!
James: "I would rather loose 10 million jobs than one human life to pollution that is caused by these greedy axes of evil republicans and their filthy fossil fuel companies"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do you care more for ideology than for for human life? 10 million job losses would collapse the US economy and would mean the close of just about every health related facility. No money for vaccines, sanitation, etc. Why do you have such a callous attitude towards the most vunerable in society?
I would generally fall under the catagory defined as a 'warmist' by another poster. However, on the light bulb issue I am torn. I agree, to some degree, with priddseren that it doesn't make sense to use mercury bulbs, no matter how low the content of Hg. It doesn't go away and stays in the environment. To affect any real change we need to make some serious changes in how we live and use resources. Low wattage bulbs in a 5000 square foot house might make the owner feel that he/she is being a good steward of the environment, but does not address the underlying problem of overconsumption of resources by a very small minority of the planet's occupants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the switch is in the off position it will use less energy and emit less mercury. Perspective!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou environmentalist wackos kill me. There is enough mercury in a single CFL to contaminate 5000 gallons of water. And who cares, the point being you people are so whacked out in your beliefs you are willing to spread a known toxin all over the place in the name of reducing CO2 which is not a toxin at all. It has nothing to do with evil conspiracies. It is you people being stupid. If you are going to ban something, replace it with something else that works and doesn't cause some other kind of even worse problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is exactly what I mean by you nuts and your solutions. We are better off having global warming and CO2 than whatever scheme you people come up with because that scheme is definitely going to be more damaging than anything global warming is doing. You people did it with DDT bans, You are doing it with CFLs, you did it with various mandated gasoline additives that are carcinogens, the list goes on and on.
Finally. I don't care if you agree with Global Warming or not, mercury and other serious pollutants need to be controlled (and have not been).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've a modest amount of inside knowledge on the workings of the EPA, that Nixon organization. I worked as a part time engineer for an APCD while working on a masters in environmental health). The prevailing concern was power - holding & increasing it (of course, that is the case with many governmental agencies; however, two other diversions of government I worked for were not even close to this bunch).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, I don't need inside information to make this call, common sense is quite adequate. "The rules will save $90 billion in healthcare costs by 2016..." is utter nonsense! But, it is worse than that, this false claim is a gross attempt to mislead a gullible public, by people who know it is untrue.
Richard Carlson
I am all for cledaning up the air in the United States. I have troble breathing as I have COPD. but, this country cannot let the environmentalist push these absoultely ridiculous laws that will do nothing but kill jobs and cause more problems for the citizens of this country. This country need jobs for our citizens. Pushing this now is not thr right thing to do. The current administration has one thing on their minds. That is getting their way in any manor they can use. These politicians, especially our president has to pay his buddies back for the campaingn fund he received. Folks get your heads on straight and wake up before this country goes to hell in a hand basket. Those of us who sacrificed our time to fight to keep this country free are not happy with the way things are going in this country. We fought to keep this country free but we are losing it to radical groups like the EPA. It has to stop!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf 21,000 deaths may be avoided by preventing the dispersion into the nations air of 44 tonnes of mercury, why is Ms. Browner so cavalier about the impregnation of the nation's teeth with a greater tonnage by its dentists?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, I get it...you HATE environmentalists. ANYTHING they say and do just has to be wrong because they're horrible people in your mind. Forget the facts, forget the merits of their arguments...they are 100% always wrong. That's pretty much your thought process, am I right? Sounds just like James Davis' hate-filled political rants and it does WONDERS to foster logical debate around here...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI mean, if you aren't even going to challenge my point that CFLs keep WAY more mercury out of the environment by saving energy than they contain, then I'm just going to assume that you're running away from that debate to take shelter in political vitriol. Seriously, if you're THAT concerned about mercury, you should want to close these coal plants even FASTER than the NRDC!
And I still am unsure whether you know the difference between methyl-mercury and metallic mercury. A cursory understanding of this important difference would mean that you're at least TRYING to be even just a little informed on the actual facts of this debate. But if you want everyone to keep thinking that you don't need facts to argue what you just KNOW to be true, then I'm not going to stop you.
How does common sense disprove the $60B in savings? I guess if you've already made up your mind and you don't think the EPA is trying to clean up the environment, you'd probably jump to that conclusion. However, what if dirty industry and its bought politicians were trying to gut the EPA during your tenure and the agency was merely trying to do its job in the face of massive political interference?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook, it's very troubling that everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, railing against these mercury standards just KNOWS they're wrong without presenting any proof. And the annual savings from having less mercury in our environment? Well, to you guys, they don't exist because...well, because they're wrong...and they're wrong because...well, they're just wrong. Sure, don't lift a finger to even try and present any proof backing up your claims. A detailed analysis by experts in the field can be dismissed out of hand because you disagree with their conclusion.
I hope you don't show the same cavalier attitude if you ever have health problems and your doctor gives you an inconvenient diagnosis / treatment program.
Please keep the politics out of a scientific discussion. If you had proof of your accusations, that might be an interesting side discussion, but since your is just another of the fact-free political rants around here, I'm inclined to think you don't have ANY proof.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, what's your plan to reduce mercury emissions then? How would you clean up the environment? If you are merely trying to delay action as long as possible for economic reasons, you're wasting $81B a year in healthcare costs vs. compliance costs. Just think how many jobs you could create with $81B a year in infrastructure spending and education! If you spent it on energy efficiency and clean energy too, you'd generate even MORE benefits as the environment gets cleaner and you save even MORE money! Think about it.
I find it shocking how many commenters unashamedly announce they are republicans. In the current climate and recent history, conservatism (the extreme consolidation of wealth) is untenable and indefensible in the US. Given the recent workings of Congress, less than 35% of registered voters(the foolish sheep, and the elite) should still remain registered as repubublican.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the power companies choose to shut down a power plant rather than invest in the upgrades, they are making an economic decision in their own best interests. These are probably ancient and inefficient plants that needed to be replaced for other reasons, and the new rule will just be the impetus to act.
When an old, outdated, inefficient and grossly polluting power plant is shut down, it is highly likely that the lost capacity will be replaced with new facilities and equipment. This means new construction jobs, and I imagine, half of the old lost operating jobs will be replaced with new operating jobs. So the job loss numbers are probably short term or dishonest, not long term. Often the implementation of EPA and FDA protections create jobs and save lives.
This is an example of Obama's administration doing what it can to stimulate the economy with private investment and construction and new jobs in the face of a gridlocked Congress. It is most certainly beneficial to 99%'ers.
As to global competitiveness, the purpose of tariffs are to equalize the labor atrocities and rampant pollution of 3rd world countries with socially conscious nations. We used to be the latter, but tariffs were eliminated as we became the former. In Europe, a company must prove a new chemical or product is safe before they have access to the 450 million person markets there (public health care). Here, we say companies must make a buck first, then after people become ill, we say you can't prove a link, and 22 years go by till an agency such as the EPA acts in defense of our citizens and children (profit motivated health care).
When the clean air act was passed (back in the 60's?) there were fools saying we could not afford it, that it would kill jobs, that it would close factories, that we would not be able to compete internationally, and that we could not have an effect on such a large scale as the air over an entire nation. But the air was cleaned up, and no one said the nay-sayers were idiots. It appears either the com mentors have not learned, or greed and selfishness motivate, or ideology precludes adequate concern for the health and safety of millions of Americans.
We always should include all the costs and benefits when doing analysis like this. Unfortunately the damages to future generations and to environmental factors that do not directly affect the business involved are ignored in the financial equations. This is the downside of free-enterprise capitalism. BEFORE we embark on any type of business all the costs need to be forced into the market by our governemnts so that the corporate accountants can get their equations right and will make the correct decisions that not only favour their bottom line but also society.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe whole idea that this is going to cost jobs makes me laugh. While we are making some strides in conservation...the demand will only increase. The plants will be either modified or built from scratch to satisfy the demands. Just don't see the lost jobs....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRepeat after me..."There is no such thing as 'clean coal.'"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcept maybe in the mines or at the light socket.
Free market zelots may weep about the nation's worst functioning power plants being closed down when those plants should have been retired decades ago, but people who know that trickle down economics was a farct perpetrated on Regan and the public, know that demand drives production; not the other way round.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere there are market demands, corporate kings who recognize there is un-met demand will see a potiential for profit and bring together capital for constructing the means of production to meet that demand.
This will happen with power generation just as it has in the past, just as it happened when the US was industrialized. Supply siders have been proven wrong for 30 years now. How is it they persist? Trickle, trickle, trickle. (UP.)
IF USA IS SERIOUS ABOUT AIR QUALITY, THEY SHOULD JOIN HANDS WITH THE EU ON THE ISSUE OF INCLUDING AVIATION INDUSTRY IN THE CARBON MARKET.THAT IS THE ACID TEST FOR USA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUDAY
As David Kreutzer reported, only a small fraction of the supposed benefits come from Mercury reductions ( only about $6 million dollars) The real target is CO2 emissions. The benefits of CO2 reduction are grossly exaggerated. The harm caused by brownouts or rolling black-outs caused by elimination of a significant portion of our power generation ability are not considered. Certainly the regulations will
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRaise energy costs
Reduce America's standard of living
Stifle economic growth
Increase Government bureaucracy.
Add to the huge list of government programs that don't work and stifle initiative.
Solomon,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow much will the costs of energy increase?
What standard of living? (America does not have a standard of living people do have a standard of living)
What economic growth? (currently non-existing)
Which bureaucracy?
Please provide the list of programs that work AND the list of programs that do not work.
Who's initiative will be stifled?
That will be better than just uttering generalities that do not make sense.
When will government mandate stuffing potatoes down the exhaust pipes of coal trucks that roar through town, spewing soot all over sidewalks, pedestrians, houses, etc., morning to night? (Morgantown, WV)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDidn't we have similar arguments [long ago now] about allowing 9 year old to work in factories? Stopping that was going to cause economic pain too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor years our Government has been putting chemicals in the air and land and water to see what the effects would be. Its too late too reverse the damage the intelligent idiots have made thru their research! Now for the last decade it is prevalent that we are on a self distruct mode and although any attempt to reduce these emissions, however they are introduced, will be defeated by those who can buy enough lobbiest to save our corporations bonuses. The "Corporations" who used to be the job creators for "Americans" have been paid thru tax credits to set up companies across the seas in countries where there is no regulations, so when we reduce our damaging emissions here, Our American Corporations have invested in continueing the support of increasingly damaging emmissions elsewhere. GREED without remorse. I thank this administration for making the attempt but realize the "PARTY OF NO" will not be in favor of ANY proposal Obama suggests. Again it's the Haves against the Have-nots and the Have-nots continue to increase in numbers. Americans must get those who got us into the mess we are in out of WASHINGTON so that those who have the interest of Americans can have a chance. The homeless, unemployed and underemployed cannot afford Lobbiest and their rights will be taken away; including the right to eat, drink and breathe safely ; if we continue down this "PATH OF DESTRUCTION". VOTE 2012 !!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho needs proof? Like a good religious fanatic, he has faith.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDumping 30 tons of neurotoxic metal into our air and water annually is a boon for those who sell antidepressants and treatments for ADD.
We need coal fired power plants in order to survive. Research and developement is the answer. We have 900 years supply of coal. Gutting the economy and eliminating the opportunity to imporve coal generation is not the answer. A more realistic approach is needed. Sure, there are some bad plants out there, and they need to be shut down, but there are many modern units that are similar in emissions to gas plants. We need more research, not wholesale write off of one of our best resources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we scrub the exhaust of burning coal so it is clean we then end up with all of those chemicals that need to be dealt with. Some of them can be repurposed because they actually have an economic demand for them. Others must be disposed of because they are not used for anything of sufficient value to make marketing them feasible. Previously they were just put into the air. Now they will be added to rivers or buried in landfills instead.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting side note - fly ash from burning coal gets added to concrete. This is why some concrete is radioactive.
No doubt the US will continue importing consumer goods manufactured using china's coal-powered energy. Private Coal mining in china has no protection for miners against silicosis. Just More US Whitewashing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this