Time for the Power Sector to Cut Toxics

• Author: Gina McCarthy
• Position: Assistant Administrator in the Office of Air and Radiation at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• Pages: 47-47

MAY/JUNE 2011 ❧ Page 47

Copyright © 2011, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.

Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, May/June 2011

Th e fo r u m

Time for the

Power Sector to

Cut Toxics

G MC

After more than 20 years

of debate, false starts, and

delay, the nation’s coal-

and oil-f‌ired power plants

will f‌inally start catching

up to other industries by cutting

toxic emissions of mercury, arsenic,

acid gases, and other hazardous air

pollutants. On March 16, EPA Ad-

ministrator Lisa P. Jackson signed

the proposed power plant mercury

and air toxics standards, meeting a

court deadline that could not come

soon enough for America’s health

and environment.

Since Congress amended the

Clean Air Act in 1990, more than

50 industrial sectors have complied

with federal standards for air tox-

ics and provided important health

benef‌its. To date, however, power

plants have not been subject to fed-

eral regulations, even though they

are the largest remaining source of

harmful mercury, arsenic, and acid

gas emissions.

And yet there are still voices in

the power sector — though by no

means unanimous — saying this

proposal is too costly or ambitious.

Such claims carry even less

weight now than they did 20 years

ago, however. History shows that

the benef‌its of clean air standards

signif‌icantly outweigh costs. e

same is true for this rule. For every

dollar spent to cut toxic pollution

from power plants, Americans will

receive $5–$13 in return. Starting

in 2016, the total health benef‌its are

projected to be $59 to $140 billion

each year.

But the mercury and air toxics

standards are about more than dol-

lars and cents. ey’re about saving

lives, preventing illness, and protect-

ing communities.

Air toxics are linked to neuro-

logical problems in children, can-

cer, respiratory illnesses, and other

debilitating health ef‌fects. Mercury

is a particular concern for women

of childbearing age, unborn babies,

and young children because it can

damage developing nervous systems,

impairing children’s ability to think

and learn. Mercury and other power

plant emissions also damage the

environment and our lakes, streams,

and f‌ish. e proposed standards

would keep about 91 percent of the

mercury in coal from being released

to the air.

e standards would also signif‌i-

cantly reduce f‌ine particle pollution,

preventing serious illness and health

problems for thousands of Ameri-

cans. EPA estimates the standards

would prevent up to 17,000 prema-

ture deaths, 11,000 heart attacks,

120,000 asthma attacks, and 12,200

hospital admissions and emergency

room visits each year.

Following the same approach

EPA has applied to other major

sources of hazardous air pollutants,

the standards are based on levels

currently achieved by the best-per-

forming coal- and oil-burning power

plants. e rule will lead many pow-

er plants to upgrade their pollution

control equipment — including the

44 percent of the nation’s coal-f‌ired

units that lack advanced pollution

controls for sulfur dioxide or nitro-

gen oxides. is will level the play-

ing f‌ield so that coal- and oil-f‌ired

power plants in every state have to

limit toxic pollution, and it will help

modernize the aging f‌leet of uncon-

trolled power plants, most of which

are over 30 years old.

Too often, industry characterizes

compliance costs as a wasted ex-

pense. But investing in cleaner en-

ergy will benef‌it America’s economy

and workforce. e standards will

put people to work assembling, in-

stalling, operating and maintaining

pollution control equipment. In ad-

dition, demand for raw materials to

construct pollution control equip-

ment will support other high-quality

American jobs in manufacturing

steel, cement, and other industries.

EPA estimates this proposal would

support 31,000 short-term con-

struction jobs and 9,000 long-term

utility jobs.

And what about the claim that

too many Clean Air Act require-

ments will make compliance un-

manageable for power plants? e

law gives af‌fected sources up to four

years to comply, using proven, cost-

ef‌fective technologies such as scrub-

bers, upgraded particle controls, and

mercury-specif‌ic controls. Installing

these controls will also help plants

comply with other clean air rules

to protect air quality. In addition,

EPA plans to take into account

the combined ef‌fects of upcoming

regulations in ways that allow the

power industry to make practical,

integrated compliance decisions that

minimize costs and maximize health

and environmental protections.

Finally, some in the power indus-

try say that plants would shut down

rather than pay to clean up, threat-

ening reliability. But that is far from

the case. EPA’s analysis shows that

less than one percent of power plant

capacity would retire as a result of

the proposal — and much of this

will be the old, more polluting, less

ef‌f‌icient plants.

EPA’s standards will help provide

power companies with the certainty

they need to invest in health and en-

vironmental protection, encourage

innovation, and support job growth.

Despite claims to the contrary,

the standards are af‌fordable, achiev-

able, and absolutely necessary.

Americans have waited long enough.

Gina McCarthy is Assistant Administrator

in the Ofce of Air and Radiation at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency.