20 Years in the Making - National Standards for Mercury Pollution from Power Plants

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Today, after 2 decades of controversy, the U.S. EPA released a final version of its new standards to limit toxic emissions from power plants. Under the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) and the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for fossil-fired power plants, the EPA will be able to regulate the emission of:

  1. Heavy metals – including mercury*, arsenic, chromium, and nickel

  2. Acid gases including hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid

  3. Particulate matter

  4. Sulfur dioxide (SO2)

  5. Nitrogen oxides (NOx)

As a result of this rule, the EPA estimates that 17,000 premature deaths and hundreds of thousands of illnesses will be prevented each year. In a statement issued by the EPA today, Administrator Lisa Jackson stated that:


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


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– and especially for the health of our children. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards will protect millions of families and children from harmful and costly air pollution and provide the American people with health benefits that far outweigh the costs of compliance.”

The EPA also released a brief video that outlines the motivations behind the new set of standards:

Opponents of these standards have voiced concerns regarding its impact on the nation’s older coal-fired power plants, which would require costly retrofits in order to meet the new emissions standards. In response to these concerns, a Presidential Memorandum was also issued today. In this memo, President Obama reiterated findings by the EPA and DOE, stating that:

“The EPA has concluded that four years should generally be sufficient to install the necessary emission control equipment, and DOE has issues analysis consistent with that conclusion. While more time is generally not expected to be needed, the Clear Air Act provides the EPA with flexibility to bring [power plants] into compliance over the course of an additional year, should unusual circumstances arise that warrant such flexibility”

The President also spoke about the standards in a video posted on the White House blog, where he encouraged the nation to celebrate this accomplishment.

Senate Republicans, led by Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), have already announced plans to introduce a “disapproval resolution” under the Congressional Review Act. But, for now, this action seems like a stall tactic instead of a legitimate protest regarding the legality of the new standards. And, it appears that the nation is on track to significantly reduce its emissions of many toxic materials by 2016.

*Half of the mercury emissions in the United States currently come from the nation’s fossil-fuel power plants

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe