POWER February 2012 - 22

Debate Heats Up over New
Mercury and Air Toxics Rule
T
he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) new Mercury
and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule for power plants
has critics' tempers flaring. Not surprisingly, a number of
electric power representatives, industry groups, and elected officials
oppose the rule, which was released on Dec. 21, 2011.
The MATS rule, also known as the Utility Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) Rule, applies to electric generating
facilities that burn coal or oil and are larger than 25 MW.
All existing sources will have at least three years to attain the
standards, and state permitting authorities could grant sources
an additional year (which the EPA expects states typically will
grant), as needed for technology installation.
The new rule contains a number of major provisions. For example,
it sets numerical emission limits for mercury, filterable
particulate matter (as a surrogate for toxic nonmercury metals),
and hydrochloric acid (as a surrogate for all toxic acid gases).
The regulation also implements several important changes, such
as setting work practice standards during startup and shutdown
that require units to minimize toxic emissions during these times
by burning " clean fuels. "
Opponents Open Fire on MATS's Financial Impact
As far as the new regulation's economic ramifications go, the
EPA predicts that it could cost the electric power industry $9.6
billion annually and raise U.S. electricity prices by an average of
3.1% in 2015.
However, the EPA also emphasizes the financial benefits of the
new rule. The agency issued a statement in December in which it
declared that the new standards ensure " public health and economic
benefits that far outweigh costs of implementation. " The
agency estimates that for every dollar spent to reduce pollution
from power plants, the American public will see up to $9 in health
benefits. The EPA projects that the total health and economic benefits
of the MATS rule will be as much as $90 billion annually.
In contrast, many critics of the new rule argue that it is too
expensive and will trigger the premature closure of a large number
of coal-fired power plants.
Scott H. Segal, an attorney and director of the Electric Reliability
Coordinating Council, commented in December about the
new rule. " The bottom line: this rule is the most expensive air
rule that EPA has ever proposed in terms of direct costs, " he
said. " It is certainly the most extensive intervention into the
power market and job market that EPA has ever attempted to
implement. "
Likewise, Steve Miller, CEO of the American Coalition for Clean
Coal Electricity (ACCCE), complained about the rule's impact on
U.S. jobs. " The EPA is out of touch with the hard reality facing
American families and businesses, " he commented. " This latest
rule will destroy jobs, raise the cost of energy, and could even
make electricity less reliable. "
An analysis prepared for ACCCE by National Economic Research
Associates (NERA) found that the proposed MATS rule and other
22
pending EPA regulations would destroy an average of 183,000
jobs every year from 2012 through 2020 and increase electricity
and other energy prices by $170 billion. The NERA analysis also
Many critics of the new rule argue
that it is too expensive and
will trigger the premature closure
of coal-fired power plants.
found that the average American household would have $270 less
to spend each year because of new EPA regulations.
Facing an Uncertain Future
The regulation of mercury emissions from power plants has been
on a rollercoaster ride in recent years. For example, in February
2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned
the EPA's Bush-era Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), which was
enacted in 2005. After the appeals court's ruling went into effect,
the 2000 Clinton-era EPA determination, which mandated
that utility emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants
be regulated under the more-stringent MACT standard, was
reinstated pending the EPA developing a new MACT standard. In
February 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider the
appeal brought by the Bush EPA to overturn the U.S. Court of
Appeals' 2008 ruling that vacated CAMR.
The proposed MATS rule is scheduled to become effective 60
days after the date of its publication in the Federal Register.
Based on the recent heated comments from critics, it looks as
if the new rule might be headed for a bumpy ride reminiscent
of CAMR's experience. It could be challenged both in court
and in Congress.
For example, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member
of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, announced
in December his intention to block the new regulation
by filing a joint resolution of disapproval of the new rule under
the Congressional Review Act.
" Sadly, this rule isn't about public health, " Inhofe said. " It is
a thinly veiled electricity tax that continues the Obama administration's
war on affordable energy and is the latest in an unprecedented
barrage of regulations that make up EPA's job-killing
regulatory agenda. "
In the past, a number of power companies planning to build
new coal-fired power plants had to put their projects on hold waiting
for certainty in the mercury standards. As it stands now, with
all the controversy surrounding the new MATS rule, the electric
power sector may have to wait a while longer until a sensible air
quality policy is implemented that successfully balances economic
and reliability demands with the protection of human health. ■
-Angela Neville, JD, is POWER's senior editor.
www.powermag.com
POWER | February 2012
http://www.powermag.com
POWER February 2012

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of POWER February 2012
