DENVER-
Colorado regulators approved a plan Tuesday to drastically cut mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants earlier than federal rules require.
The state Air Quality Control Commission signed off on a proposal to begin cutting mercury by 80 percent for some plants by 2012 and 90 percent by all mercury-emitting operations by 2018.
The new rules came after weeks of negotiations among utilities, environmentalists and local governments.
“The bottom line is that this proposal will lead to mercury reductions more quickly and more significantly than the federal rule,” said Will Allison, a representative of the state attorney general’s office, who was involved with the negotiations.
Xcel Energy’s Pawnee Power Station in Brush and Platte River Power Authority’s Rawhide plant in Wellington have agreed to cut emissions 80 percent by 2012. All emitters statewide would have to reduce the pollution 80 percent by 2014 before the 90 percent cut takes effect in 2018.
Mercury, a powerful toxin, accumulates in fish and poses the greatest risk of nerve and brain damage to pregnant women and children.
The plan, which needs approval from Gov. Bill Ritter and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, also drops a provision favored by utilities that would have allowed power plants over the emissions limit to trade pollution credits with plants below it.
Environmentalists and local governments feared the provision could increase mercury pollution because the federal cap for Colorado—a total of 1,412 pounds of mercury a year—may be more than existing emissions.
The cap would tighten to 558 pounds a year in 2018.
Nearly two dozen states have adopted tougher standards than the new federal rule.
“All the parties realized that if we could come up with something we all could live with, that was a better outcome,” said Jim Sanderson, an attorney representing a coalition of utilities.
The plan adopted by the commission gives some leeway to utilities worried that their emissions might be greater than they’re allowed or concerned about adding plants. Each plant’s mercury limit would be part of Colorado’s overall cap and would be dictated by the plant’s actual emissions.
That way, plants would have to cut their emissions to the mandated levels rather than bank or sell excess credits to other plants, even though the federal government allows it.
The excess allowances—the gap between Colorado’s overall emissions and the level allowed by the EPA—will go into a state trust that can be used for new facilities.
Power plants that can’t meet their caps despite their best efforts can seek an alternate standard and work with state regulators to come into compliance. The negotiators referred to the provision as a “soft landing.”
Matt Baker, director of Environment Colorado, said he expects all the utilities to be able to meet the standards.
“Mercury is one of the more contentious issues in the state,” Baker said. “This will be a chance for us to depoliticize the debate.”
Faced with four competing proposals in November, including one from staffers, the Air Quality Control Commission postponed a decision, giving the parties time to hash out an agreement.
The standard won’t apply to Xcel Energy’s coal plants in Pueblo. The two units and a third expected to start operation in 2009 are covered by a separate settlement, which is expected to be tougher.
Xcel is the state’s largest electricity supplier.
A small plant in Lamar that has already received its permit won’t be covered, either. Baker said he doesn’t believe the plant will emit much mercury.
“This is a compromise,” Baker said.
Sanderson, the attorney representing the utilities, said the parties met about every other day the past two weeks when they realized they weren’t that far apart.
During the negotiations, the state health department issued advisories warning that elevated levels of mercury were found in large fish in more Colorado reservoirs. Sanderson said the news might have had some impact on the talks, but he doesn’t believe local plants are a major source of the contamination.
Sanderson said he believes the compromise was reached because people felt there were “windows of opportunities.”
———
On the Net: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment:
