Mercury Emissions from Electric Power Plants: States Are Setting Stricter Limits

Mercury Emissions from Electric Power Plants:
States Are Setting Stricter Limits
Updated February 22, 2007
James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Mercury Emissions from Electric Power Plants: States
Are Setting Stricter Limits
In March 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated
the first national emission standards for mercury emissions from electric power
plants. EPA studies conclude that about 6% of American women of child-bearing
age have blood mercury levels sufficient to increase the risk of adverse health effects
(especially lower IQs) in children they might bear. Power plants account for 42% of
total U.S. mercury emissions, according to EPA. Thus, there has been great interest
in the agency's power plant regulations.
The regulations established a cap-and-trade program to address power plant
emissions, but the program would have little impact on emissions before 2018. At
that time, the regulations call for a 69% reduction in emissions as compared to the

1999 level.

In setting the limit so far in the future, EPA stated, in part, that mercury control
technologies were not commercially available, and would not be generally available
until after 2010. Many observers disagreed with that conclusion, including a growing
number of states. As of February 2007, 18 states (Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and
Virginia) have established more stringent emission limits, which take effect sooner
than will EPA’s, and four other states are developing regulations that would do so.
The state standards vary in stringency, in effective dates, and in numerous other
details, but a number of generalizations can be made:
!Most of the state programs will require reductions of 80% to 90% in
mercury emissions when fully implemented; by comparison, the
federal program requires a 22% reduction in its first phase and 69%
when fully implemented.
!The effective dates of the state programs range from 2007 at the
earliest to 2015; the federal requirements will not be fully
implemented until at least 2025.
!The state programs generally prohibit interstate trading of mercury
credits, and many also prohibit in-state trading. The trading
prohibitions address the concern that “hot spots” with high
concentrations of mercury might persist if individual plants could
avoid installing controls by buying credits.
This report reviews the state standards for mercury emissions from power plants
and discusses issues raised by the promulgation of such standards. Among these are
whether states can prevent the sale of credits generated by compliance with state
regulations in EPA’s national credit trading program, and the potential impact of
state programs on court challenges to EPA’s national regulations.

Background ..................................................1
Which States Are Setting Standards...............................2
What the Standards Will Require.................................3
Rates, Dates, Compliance, and Trading.........................3
Measurement Issues and Other Complications...................3
Other Aspects of State Laws.................................4
Other, De Facto State Limits.....................................4
Model State Program...........................................5
Conclusions ..................................................6
List of Tables
Table 1. States with Few CAMR Allowances ...........................5
Appendix A. Enacted / Promulgated Mercury Controls....................9
Appendix B. Other State Actions....................................17

Mercury Emissions from Electric Power
Plants: States Are Setting Stricter Limits
On May 18, 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
promulgated the first national standards for mercury emissions from coal-fired
electric power plants.1 Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can cause adverse health
effects (principally delayed development, neurological defects, and lower IQ in
fetuses and children) at very low concentrations.2
The principal route of exposure to mercury is through consumption of fish.
Mercury enters water bodies, often through air emissions, and is taken up through the
food chain, ultimately affecting humans as a result of fish consumption. According
to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as of December 2004, 44 states had
issued fish consumption advisories due to mercury.3 Twenty-one states (primarily
in the Midwest and Northeast) have issued advisories for mercury in all their
freshwater lakes and/or rivers. Twelve states in the Southeast and New England,
have advisories for mercury statewide in their coastal waters, and Hawaii has a
statewide advisory for mercury in marine fish.
Mercury reaches water bodies from many sources, including combustion of fuels
containing the substance in trace amounts. In the United States, coal-fired power
plants are the largest emission source, accounting for 42% of total mercury emissions
according to EPA. EPA’s 2005 regulations, referred to as the Clean Air Mercury
Rule (CAMR), establish a cap-and-trade program for power plant mercury that will
take effect in 2010. CAMR will have little impact on emissions before 2018,

1 70 Federal Register 28606.
2 For a discussion of mercury’s health effects, see CRS Report RL32868, Mercury
Emissions from Electric Power Plants: An Analysis of EPA’s Cap-and-Trade Regulations,
by James E. McCarthy, or CRS Report RL32420, Mercury in the Environment: Sources and
Health Risks, by Linda-Jo Schierow.
3 U.S. EPA, Office of Water, “2004 National Listing of Fish Advisories,” Fact Sheet,
September 2005, p. 4, at [].

however.4 At that time, the regulations call for a 69% reduction in emissions as
compared to the 1999 level.
In setting the limit so far in the future, EPA stated, in part, that mercury control
technologies are not commercially available, and will not be generally available until
after 2010. Many observers disagree with that conclusion, including a growing
number of states. This report describes what those states that have chosen alternative
forms of regulation are requiring.
Which States Are Setting Standards
As of February 2007, 18 states have established more stringent emission limits
that will take effect sooner than will EPA’s, and four other states are developing
regulations that would do so. The states with regulations already promulgated (or
laws enacted) represent a broad cross-section of states, including Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia. 5 Together, these states have 177 coal-fired power
plants, with a total of 414 electric generating units. The combined generation
capacity of these units is estimated at 97,138 megawatts (Mw), 32% of total U.S.
coal-fired electric generation.
The four states that have proposed but not yet finalized mercury standards
(Georgia, Michigan, Washington, and Wisconsin) have an additional 51 plants. Their
combined generation capacity is estimated at 33,986 Mw, an additional 11% of total
U.S. coal-fired generation.

4 The conclusion regarding the rule’s lack of impact is based on EPA’s analysis. The rule
establishes a cap of 38 tons of emissions from affected units between 2010 and 2017, but
the agency estimates that actual emissions will be reduced to 31 tons in 2010 as the result
of pollution controls installed under other (non-mercury) regulatory programs. Emissions
will continue to decline, according to EPA, reaching 28 tons in 2015, while the cap remains
at 38 tons. Thus, the CAMR rule’s cap in the period 2010-2017 serves primarily to generate
credits that will be used to delay full compliance with the 69% reduction otherwise required
beginning in 2018. Full compliance with the 69% reduction, according to EPA’s analysis,
will not occur until after 2025. For additional information, see CRS Report RL32868,
Mercury Emissions from Electric Power Plants: An Analysis of EPA’s Cap-and-Trade
5 Many earlier discussions of state mercury requirements, including previous CRS reports,
list Wisconsin as being among the states requiring more stringent limits. Wisconsin adopted
regulations in 2004 to require a 40% reduction in emissions by 2010, and a 75% reduction
by 2015. The regulations required, however, that if a federal standard limiting mercury
emissions from utilities were promulgated under Section 111 or 112 of the Clean Air Act,
Wisconsin would adopt it. Wisconsin has, therefore, adopted the CAMR rule’s budget and
is no longer to be counted among those states with more stringent limits. In August 2006,
however, the state’s Governor directed his Department of Natural Resources to develop
regulations to achieve a 90% reduction in utility mercury emissions as soon as possible.

What the Standards Will Require
Rates, Dates, Compliance, and Trading. As shown in Appendices A and
B, the specifics of the state standards vary in stringency, in effective dates, and in
numerous other details. Nevertheless, at least four generalizations, regarding rates,
dates, compliance measurement, and allowance trading, can be made.
First, at least 15 of the state programs will require reductions of 80% to 90% in
mercury emissions when fully implemented. Second, the effective dates range from
2007 at the earliest to 2015, with a majority of the programs imposing at least a first
phase reduction by 2010. [The CAMR rule, as noted earlier, also imposes a cap in
2010, but it calls for a 22% reduction in that year, whereas most of the state
requirements call for 80% to 90% reductions by then.] Third, in general, the
programs provide some flexibility by measuring compliance as a rolling 12-month
average of emissions, rather than setting an emission limit to be met at all times.
CAMR, of course, is even more flexible, allowing utilities to exceed the standard at
individual facilities and even company-wide, provided that they obtain allowances
for each pound of mercury emitted. Fourth, unlike the CAMR program, a key feature
of which is the trading of emission allowances, the state programs generally prohibit
interstate trading of mercury credits; many prohibit in-state trading, as well. These
prohibitions address the concern that mercury hot spots might persist if individual
plants could avoid installing controls by buying credits. Also, the states that prohibit
interstate trading are insuring that emission reductions within their state not generate
credits that could be used to delay reductions by plants in other states (i.e., states
participating in the CAMR program).
Measurement Issues and Other Complications. Beyond the four
generalizations, there are a number of aspects to the state mercury control programs
that vary from state to state. For one, there are varying forms in which the emission
limits are expressed, the most commonly used being: 1) as a percentage reduction
from the amount of “inlet” mercury; or 2) as a fixed emission limit (either pounds per
gigawatt-hour of electricity produced or pounds per trillion Btu of energy consumed).
At least one state (Montana) plans to vary the emission limit depending on the type
of coal used (allowing substantially higher emissions for lignite). Others set different
limits depending on the size of the plant or of the company that owns it. Thus, it can
be difficult to compare the stringency of various state requirements. The common
rule of thumb in press accounts describing these programs seems to be the percentage
emissions reduction that they would require, but it is important to ask, first, compared
to what, and, second, whether there is an alternate fixed limit or alternate method of
compliance that provides a less stringent standard.
Further complicating the emission reduction math are two other factors: first,
the mercury content of coal varies (making it difficult to estimate inlet mercury); and
second, many power plants are already achieving substantial emission reductions as
a result of their existing emission control equipment. EPA estimates that existing
controls are already reducing mercury emissions (as compared to inlet amounts of
mercury) by about one-third nation-wide, with substantially greater reductions at
some plants. Thus, to achieve a 90% reduction of inlet mercury does not require a

reduction of 90% in current emission levels. In some cases, particularly at plants
with baghouses (fabric filters), a 90% reduction may require little additional control.6
Data on current mercury emission levels are not generally available in any
comprehensive fashion, either. The best national data come from a survey conducted
by EPA in 1998, which relied on sampling at 80 of the nation’s more than 1,000 coal-
fired units rather than continuous emissions monitoring at them all.7 The mercury
content of coal is known to vary even within a given coal seam. Until better
monitoring equipment is installed (which will be an effect of the state and federal
programs), it will be difficult to establish with any precision both current emission
levels and the exact reductions one can expect from emission control programs.
Other Aspects of State Laws. Other complicating features unique to some
of the states laws and regulations are worth noting. New Jersey, for example, which
has the earliest compliance deadline (December 15, 2007) would extend its deadline
to 2012 for half of a company’s capacity if the plants also make major reductions in
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. Virginia has different requirements
for the state’s largest utility (which controls 63% of the state’s coal-fired generating
capacity) than it has for others. Minnesota’s law only applies to facilities with
capacity above 500 Mw; most other states apply requirements to units 25 Mw or
larger. Pennsylvania would presume that units with specific combinations of control
technology are in compliance with the regulations’ emission limitations.
Other, De Facto State Limits
States with No Allowances. In addition to the states that have enacted laws
or are developing regulations to control mercury, three other states and the District
of Columbia have de facto limits of zero for mercury emissions as a result of the
federal CAMR rule. An irony of the federal rule is that, because it grants allowances
to each state based on current emissions of mercury from power plants larger than 25
Mw in that state, states that have no coal-fired power plants or that only have plants
smaller than 25 Mw are given no allowances. The District of Columbia and the
states of Idaho, Rhode Island, and Vermont fall into this category and, thus, have a
limit of zero for power plant mercury emissions.
Under CAMR, states are not required to adopt the federal cap-and-trade
program, but, if they do not do so, they are required to show that state regulations are
at least as stringent as the federal. If D.C., Idaho, Rhode Island, and Vermont do not
join the federal program, they have to demonstrate that they have limited emissions
through in-state controls to zero; this would effectively prohibit the siting of new
coal-fired power plants in these jurisdictions.

6 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, “Control of Mercury Emissions from
Coal-Fired Electric Utility Boilers,” undated, posted March 2, 2004, available at [http://
www.epa.go v/ttn/atw/utility/hgwhitepaperfinal.pdf].
7 For a discussion of EPA’s data collection on mercury emissions, see CRS Report
RL32744, Mercury Emissions from Electric Generating Units: A Review of EPA Analysis
and MACT Determination, by Dana A. Shea, Larry Parker, James E. McCarthy, and Thomas

Table 1. States with Few CAMR Allowances
State2018 Allowance (tons)2018 Allowance (pounds)
California 0.016 32
South Dakota0.02958
Source: U.S. EPA, Clean Air Mercury Rule, 40 CFR 60.4140, as revised May 31, 2006,
available at [].
Total allowances in 2018 are 15 tons (30,000 lbs.). States shown have allowances of less
than 0.1 ton (200 lbs.). In addition, 7 other states (Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington) have allowances below 0.1 ton, but,
as shown in Appendices A and B, are opting out of the CAMR program.
By joining the federal program, on the other hand, these states (and D.C.) would
become part of the federal allowance trading program; new coal-fired power plants
would be able to operate in these jurisdictions by buying emission allowances from
facilities outside the state that have reduced emissions sooner or to a greater extent
than CAMR requires. As of February 2007, Idaho, Rhode Island, and Vermont had
all decided not to participate in the CAMR program, effectively prohibiting the
construction of new coal-fired power plants in their jurisdictions.
States with Few Allowances. Five additional states (Alaska, California,
Hawaii, Maine, and South Dakota) have so little coal-fired generation that their
combined 2018 allowances under CAMR are 118 pounds, substantially less than 1%
of the national total. Table 1 shows the 2018 allowances under CAMR for each of
these states. For these states also, there would be little alternative to joining the
CAMR program if the state wished to preserve the option of coal-fired power plants,
since a state program would have to show that it would limit emissions to as little as

2 pounds in the case of Maine, or 32 pounds in the case of California. Thus, Alaska,

Hawaii, and South Dakota have decided to participate in the CAMR program. Maine
has decided to let EPA administer the program. California, however, is reported to
be considering a state program, and is unlikely to consider participating in CAMR.8
Model State Program
In addition to the programs developed by individual states, the State and
Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and Association of
Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO) developed a model rule in 2005 to
encourage more stringent controls on power plant mercury emissions. (STAPPA and

8 See National Association of Clean Air Agencies, “State Mercury Programs for Utilities,”
December 7, 2006, at [].

ALAPCO are now known collectively as the National Association of Clean Air
Agencies, NACAA.) The model, which was publicly released November 14, 2005,
offers two options. The first option calls for an average 80% capture of inlet mercury
from existing units (or an equivalent output-based emission standard of 0.010
lbs./Gwh) based on a 12-month rolling average, beginning December 31, 2008.
During this phase, owners or operators could comply by averaging emissions from
all their existing units within the state. A second phase, beginning December 31,
2012, would require a 90-95% capture of inlet mercury or an output-based emission
standard of 0.0060-0.0025 lbs./Gwh. During this phase, averaging would be limited
to units located at a single electric generating plant. The rule would prohibit
interstate trading of allowances.
A second option in the STAPPA/ALAPCO model rule, like a provision in New
Jersey’s law, would provide more flexibility to electric generating units in return for
the installation of control technologies designed to capture additional pollutants.
Under this option, an owner or operator could delay compliance with the mercury
emission limits for four years at up to 50% of its generating capacity if it agreed to
meet stringent standards for emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and
particulate matter, in addition to mercury by the end of 2012.
While no state has adopted the STAPPA/ALAPCO model intact, the model
serves as a window on what state and local officials closely involved in regulating
power plant emissions believe is feasible. Nineteen of the 22 states that have
proposed or adopted programs more stringent than the federal CAMR rule have done
so since the model rule’s unveiling.
With a few exceptions, it is a general precept of federal environmental laws that
more stringent state standards are not preempted. Relying on this authority, some
states (particularly, California and a number of Northeastern states) have adopted
various environmental requirements that address problems that are judged to be
unique to their state or more severe in their state than elsewhere. Thus, state actions
to set more stringent limits on mercury emissions are not considered unprecedented
or unusual. Nevertheless, the degree to which states are opting out of the federal
program and the speed with which they are doing so appear noteworthy.
In part, the development of these state programs reflects a judgment by state
regulators or legislators that the CAMR rule is not sufficiently stringent.9 In part, it
reflects a judgment that EPA’s assessment of the availability and cost of technology
to control mercury emissions are unduly pessimistic.10

9 For example, see statement of Eddie Terrill, Director of the Oklahoma Air Quality
Division and President of STAPPA: “EPA’s approach would allow too much mercury for
too long.” “State Local Government Officials Unveil ‘Model’ Rule to Clean Up Toxic
Mercury,” STAPPA/ALAPCO Press Release, November 14, 2005.
10 For example, New Jersey’s regulatory package, written in late 2004, stated: “USDOE has
been studying mercury control on coal-fired boilers for more than a decade. Technologies

State actions were also dictated by a looming deadline for submission of
programs for EPA approval. Under the CAMR rule, states had until November 17,
2006 to submit their programs (either programs adopting CAMR or programs at least
as stringent) to EPA. Failure to submit can leave states liable to imposition of a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), which would impose the CAMR rule’s
requirements on a state through an EPA-run program.
EPA officials have aggressively promoted CAMR and the threat of FIPs,
testifying before state legislatures against the adoption of more stringent state
programs, and questioning the authority of states to prohibit interstate trading of
allowances. At the same time, many of the states adopting more stringent
requirements are pursuing legal action to overturn EPA’s rule and force the agency
itself to adopt more stringent requirements.11
It may be some time before these issues are resolved. In the meantime, if state
programs with stringent control requirements are successfully implemented, it will
become more difficult for EPA to argue that technology is unavailable to more
aggressively control power plant mercury emissions. Conversely, if the technology
fails to do its job or proves to be more expensive than emissions control industry

10 (...continued)
like ACI [activated carbon injection] are available now. USDOE has a goal to get costs of
ACI down to 1/4th current costs. However, the current costs of activated carbon injection
are justified now. ... There is over a decade of successful use of Activated Carbon Injection
for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) combustion. In New Jersey, MSW incinerators with
baghouse control and ACI have achieved 99 percent mercury control. Transfer of such
technology is clearly feasible from an engineering and cost perspective. The USDOE cost
analyses indicate that retrofitting the coal-fired boilers with activated carbon injection (ACI)
and baghouses (or polishing baghouses) can achieve 90 percent mercury emission reduction.
ACI has a low capitol (sic) cost. It also has low operating costs if baghouse technology is
used.” See New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Summary of Public
Comments and Agency Responses, Control and Prohibition of Mercury Emissions,
December 6, 2004 New Jersey Register, pp. 83-84, available at
[http://www.nj .gov/dep/rules/adoptions/mercury_rule7-27.pdf].
11 “EPA Fighting State Adoption of Strict Mercury Control Regulations,” Inside EPA Clean
Air Report, May 4, 2006. The question of whether states may prohibit interstate trading of
allowances is an interesting one. In the only case law on the question (Clean Air Markets
Group v. Pataki, 338 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2003)), the Second Circuit held that New York State’s
Air Pollution Mitigation Law, which restricted in-state electrical generating units’ abilities
to transfer emission allowances to upwind states under Title IV of the Clean Air Act, was
preempted by the federal Clean Air Act. The court explained that federal preemption results
when, notwithstanding that the federal and state law have the same goal, the state law
interferes with the methods by which the federal law was designed to reach that goal. By
effectively prohibiting the transfer of allowances to electric generating units in other states,
the New York law interfered with the nationwide allowance transfer system contemplated
by the Clean Air Act. Whether Clean Air Markets provides a basis for arguing that state
prohibitions on trading mercury allowances are preempted is a slightly different question,
however: the wording of the CAMR rule and its preamble leave some uncertainty as to
whether states can retire excess allowances or whether they revert to EPA. In the latter case,
allowances generated by more stringent state standards could be sold to electric generating
units in other states, effectively negating state efforts to prohibit trading of their allowances.

spokespersons have asserted, EPA’s hand will be strengthened. Since the earliest
state requirements take effect at the end of 2007 and early in 2008, these questions
may continue to merit congressional oversight at least through that period.

Appendix A. Enacted / Promulgated Mercury Controls
Effective Date% ReductionCoal-fired PlantsAdditional Information
ona201390% or 0.00875 plants3,086Compliance will be measured on a rolling 12-month basis. a
lbs. of(11 units)Regulation is effective 1/29/07.
mercury per
iki/CRS-RL33535January 1, 201280% or 0.017412 plants4,784Colorado is participating in the federal program with state-
s.orlbs./Gwh at 2(22 units)specific provisions designed to achieve early significant
leakplants (5 units)reductions. Two plants must achieve an 80% reduction of
inlet mercury (or a specific output-based limit) in 2012, with
://wikiJanuary 1, 201480% or 0.0174all other plants meeting this standard in 2014. Plants
httplbs./Gwh at allemitting less than 29 lbs. of mercury are exempt as low
other plantsemitters. More stringent (90%) limit takes effect in 2018.
(except lowCompliance generally determined on a 12-month rolling
emitters)average. Allows trading. Provides for Best Available
Control Technology Alternative Standard if a company
December 31, 201890% or 0.0087operates appropriate controls but can’t meet the limit. Rule
lbs./Gwhadopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commissionr

February 6, 2007.

Effective Date% ReductionCoal-fired PlantsAdditional Information
July 1, 200890% or 0.62 plants 553If the technology designed to achieve the law’s
lbs. of(2 units)requirements fails to reduce emissions sufficiently, a plant
mercury permay request an alternative emissions rate. Law enacted
trillion BtuJune 3, 2003.b
January 1, 200980% or 1.02 plants1,021Compliance measured at each unit, based on quarterly
lbs./TBtu(6 units)average emissions. No trading or facility-wide averaging.
iki/CRS-RL33535Department will review standards, available technology, and
g/wJanuary 1, 201390% or 0.6cost-effectiveness by 1/11/10. Regulations effective
s.or lbs./TBt u 12/11/06. c
://wiki201230% belowCAMR15 plants(32 units)11,867Florida has adopted a modified version of the CAMR rulethat will allocate only 70% of the emission allowances
httpprovided by CAMR for the years 2012-2017. No change in
compliance dates. Under CAMR, Florida’s Phase 1 cap is
2,466 lbs. of mercury. EPA estimates that 1999 emissions
were only 1,923 lbs., and these will be further reduced as a
result of the co-benefits of the Clean Air Interstate Rule.
Thus, Florida DEP proposes a limit of 1,761 lbs., a 30%
reduction, beginning in 2012. Even this cap would generate
a large number of allowances, as actual Phase 1 emissions
are estimated at 1,033 lbs. The state’s Environmental
Regulation Commission approved the rules at a June 29,d

2006 public hearing.

Effective Date% ReductionCoal-fired PlantsAdditional Information
July 1, 200990% or 0.008021 plants14,880Compliance measured on a rolling 12-month basis. No
lb/GWh(59 units)trading, but allows system-wide and plant-wide averaging
through December 31, 2013, and plant-wide averaging
thereafter. Until 12/31/13, individual plants using system-
wide averaging must meet a standard of 0.020 lb/GWh or a
75% reduction. The state’s second and third largest utilities
have reached agreements that give them additional time to
iki/CRS-RL33535meet the mercury reduction requirement in return for morestringent controls than otherwise required on SO and NOx.
g/w2Final order adopted December 21, 2006.e
leaklandJanuary 1, 201080%6 plants4,603Emission reductions measured as a rolling 12-month
://wikiJanuary 1, 201390%(13 units)average. Law affects state’s 6 largest plants. Two units at a7th facility may be subject to alternative regulations. Allows
httptrading among facilities owned or operated by the same
company. Law enacted April 6, 2006.f
January 1, 200885% or 0.00756 plants1,741Emission reductions measured as a rolling 12-month
lbs./GWh(12 units)average. Regulations promulgated May 2004.g

January 1, 201295% or 0.0025

Effective Date% ReductionCoal-fired PlantsAdditional Information
December 31, 201090%3 plants1,807 byPlants with dry scrubbers must install equipment designed
and December 31,(6 units)2010to reduce emissions 90% by 12/31/2010. Plants with wet
2014.scrubbers must install equipment designed to reduce
1,847emissions 90% by 12/31/2014. Allows performance-based
more byincentives such as increased rates of return for reductions

2014above 90%. Applies to facilities with capacity aboveh

500Mw. Law enacted May 11, 2006.

iki/CRS-RL33535January 1, 201080% (0.93 plants2,300Compliance measured on a 12-month rolling average.
g/wlbs./TBtu)(6 units)Provides for Alternate Emission Limits if a company
s.orexcept foroperates appropriate controls but can’t meet the limit.
leaklignite (1.5Mercury-specific control technology review every 10 years.
://wikilbs./TBtu)Rule adopted October 16, 2006.
httpvadaSame as CAMR.Same as3 plants2,657Nevada adopted the federal program, but it reserved 63% of
CAMR, but(8 units)its emissions allowances for new units, low emitting units,
withor to be placed in a special account that could be retired.j

incentives for
low emissions
and new

Effective Date% ReductionCoal-fired PlantsAdditional Information
pshireJuly 1, 2013at least 80%2 plants 575Prior to July 1, 2013, the owner is required to test and
(5 units)implement, as practicable, mercury reduction control
technologies or methods to achieve early reductions. If
mercury reductions greater than 80% are achieved, they
shall be required by permit. Facility owners will also
generate early reduction credits if they reduce emissions
prior to 2013. Plants may be allowed to emit additional
iki/CRS-RL33535sulfur dioxide in return for lower mercury emissions. Lawenacted May 9, 2006.k
s.orw JerseyDecember 15, 200790%7 plants2,171Allows facility-wide averaging. Deadline can be extended
leak(10 units)to 2012 for half of a company’s capacity if the plants also
://wikimake major reductions in sulfur dioxide, NOx, and fineparticulate emissions. Regulations promulgated November
http4, 2004.l

Effective Date% ReductionCoal-fired PlantsAdditional Information
January 1, 2010EPA Phase 118 plants4,216Compliance to be measured on a 30-day rolling average.
emission caps(48 units)No trading. No banking after 2018. New York State
(50% reduc-Environmental Board approved regulations December 18,
tion) for 2010-2006. Regulations take effect 1/27/07.m
January 1, 20150.6 lbs./TBtu
iki/CRS-RL33535beginning in2015 (a 90%
g/wreduction from
leakthe statewide
://wiki emissions
http estimate)
rth CarolinaDecember 31, 201374%20 plants12,75514 plants (49 units) operated by Duke Energy and Progress
(62 units)Energy must install controls for NOx and SO2 by 12/31/13.
201888%These controls will have a cobenefit of reducing state-wide
mercury emissions by 74%. Other coal-fired plants (6
plants, 13 units) must install similar controls by 2018,
resulting in an estimated state-wide mercury emission
reduction of 88%. Trading allowed, but all units mustn

install controls. Rules adopted Nov. 9, 2006.

Effective Date% ReductionCoal-fired PlantsAdditional Information
onJuly 1, 201290% (or 0.61 plant 556Allows up to a 1-year compliance extension if it is not
lbs./TBtu)(1 unit)practical to install control equipment due to supply
limitations or other extenuating circumstances. Also allows
alternative limits if technology is unable to achieve the
required limits. Limited interstate trading until 2018; noo
trading thereafter. Regulation adopted 12/15/06.
lvaniaJanuary 1, 2010at least 80%35 plants20,000Emission reductions measured on a rolling 12-month basis.
iki/CRS-RL33535(or 0.024(73 units)Stricter limits for new units. Compliance may be
g/wlbs./Gwh)demonstrated on a unit-by-unit basis, facility-wide emission
s.oraveraging, or system-wide compliance. Units that utilize
leakJanuary 1, 2015at least 90%specific combinations of control technology would be
://wiki(or 0.012lbs./Gwh)presumed to be in compliance with the emission limitations.Adopted by the PA Environmental Quality Board 10/17/06.
httpEffective February 17, 2007.p
irginiaJanuary 1, 2015 for64%16 plants5,719Legislation adopted by Virginia in 2006q adopts the federal
Dominion Virginia(38 units)emission limits but requires compliance 3 years early at
Power plants (63%plants owned by the state’s largest utility. It also prohibits
of total statethe purchase of allowances by most facilities: owners of
generating capacity)facilities whose combined emissions of mercury exceeded
200 pounds in 1999 are limited to their own allowances
(these facilities represent at least 80% of total generating
capacity in the state.) Virginia generators may, however,
bank and sell allowances.

Compiled by the Congressional Research Service, largely from state information sources. If not reported by the state, the generating capacity of coal-fired
mer capacity, as of January 1, 2005, as reported by Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-860, "Annual Electric Generator Report."
ht t p: / / publ i c _ser vi ces/ Regi s t e r / 2006/ 51/ f i nal .pdf ]
ht t p: / / www.cga.ct .gov/ 2003/ act / Pa/ m]
ht t p: / / www.awm.del a war e .gov/ NR/ r donl yr es/ 3B571C5A-080A-43D7-A3F2-032AE9748BD7/ 1312/ Reg1146f i n al .pdf ] CAMR_Allowa nce_Allocations_Rule_with_DEP_Substitute_Language_6-29-06.pdf]
ht t p: / / www.i a t e .i l .us/ c ool / e xt er nal / CaseV i e w2.asp?r ef er er =cool sear ch&case=R2006-025]]
ht t p: / / dep/ i mages/ hgr eg.pdf ]
iki/CRS-RL33535www.revi &s ession=ls84]
g/ ry.pdf]]
leakht t p: / / ncour t .st at l e gi sl at i on/ 2006/ ml ]
.gov/dep/rules /adoptions/mercury_rule7-27.pdf]
:// #recent]
https/pr/2006/hg_r ule_11092006.shtml ]
/secu re/data/vol37/37-7/37-7.pdf] -bin/legp504.exe?061+ful+HB1055ER+ pdf]

t t p: / / a t e a p/ r e g6/ CAMRf i nal .pdf ]

Appendix B. Other State Actions
ActionDate / %Coal-fired PlantsDetailsStatus
iaGeorgia has proposed toAs described in the10 plants14,369The state’s proposed optionProposal dateds
adopt the CAMR ruleAction column,(32 units)would not allow interstate tradingDecember 21, 2006.
with some additions. 62% of the state’sof mercury allowances, but wouldHearings have been
The Scherer powercoal-fired capacityallow trading within the state.held and the state is
plant, 4 units with awould be requiredconducting
iki/CRS-RL33535combined capacity ofto install specificnegotiations with
g/w3,430 Mw, would becontrol technologystakeholders.

s.orrequired to installby 2010 or earlier,
leaksorbent injection (ACI)making it likely
and a baghouse forthat reductions
://wikimercury controlwould be greater
httpbetween 12/ 31/08 andand would occur
4/30/10. Other unitssooner than under
with a combinedthe CAMR
capacity of 5,510 Mw,program.
would have to install
scrubbers and SCR
technology by 2010 or
earlier. New units
would be required to
install best available
control technology.

ActionDate / %Coal-fired PlantsDetailsStatus
an4/17/06 letter from90% reduction of23 plants11,295Compliance measured on aRegulations
Governor directedinput mercury or an(55 units)calendar year basis. Interstateproposed 1/30/07.t
Michigan Department ofoutput limit oftrading would not be allowed, nor
Environmental Qualitye0.008 lbs. ofwould banking of allowances.
to develop a rule.mercury per GwhCould allow utility system-wide
by 2015. approach if it does not result in
hot spots. Could allow additional
iki/CRS-RL33535time for technical or cost reasons.
g/wtonDepartment of EcologyPossibilities under1 plant1,405State is considering opting out ofDepartment of
s.orinitiated rulemakingconsideration(2 units)the federal trading program afterEcology produced an
leakJune 5, 2006. State isinclude 0.6 lb2012, with the possibility ofemissions standard
://wikiconsidering opting outof the federal mercurymercury/TBtu,0.0087 lb/Gwh, orallowing intrastate trading.discussion paper anda draft rule for a
httptrading program after0.0088 lb/Gwh by10/26/06 stakeholder

2012 and may adopt2013. Thesemeeting.u

more stringent emissionrepresent
reduction requirements.reductions of 85%-
90% of input

ActionDate / %Coal-fired PlantsDetailsStatus
Wisconsin adoptedSame as federal.17 plants6,917On August 25, 2006,
regulations in 2004 to(49 units)Governor Doyle
require a 40% reductiondirected the
in emissions by 2010,vWisconsin
and 75% by 2015. TheDepartment of
regulations required,Natural Resources to
however, that if adevelop a rule
iki/CRS-RL33535federal standard limitingmercury emissions fromachieving a 90%reduction of mercury
g/wutilities wereemissions from coal-
leakpromulgated underfired power plants
Section 111 or 112 of“as soon as
://wikithe Clean Air Act,possible.”w In a
httpWisconsin would adoptpresentation,
it. Wisconsin has,December 15, 2006,
therefore, adopted theDNR staff proposed
CAMR rule’s sunset interstate
mercury trading
1/1/18, and require

90% emissionx

reductions 1/1/20.
Compiled by the Congressional Research Service, largely from state information sources. If not reported by the state, the generating capacity of coal-fired
mer capacity, as of January 1, 2005, as reported by Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-860, "Annual Electric Generator Report."

www.air.dnr.s ]
t t p: / / www.mi chi deq/ 0,1607,7-135-3310-142890--, ml ]
ht t p: / / l a ws-r ul es/ act i vi t y/ ml ] .
ov/ org/ aw/air/reg/mercury/nr446.pdf]
ernor’s press release at []. org/ aw/air/pdf/hg1206caatf.pdf]