[eDebate] More on mercury: Segal responds

[Christopher Cooper]

THAT's your argument?  "If you choose MACT instead of cap-and-trade we'll
sue you and that takes a lot of time.  If you choose cap-and-trade instead
of MACT, we'll cheerfully comply."  
 
Maybe true.  But far from compelling.  The argument feels less like a
substantive net-benefit to cap-and-trade than a threat that the regulated
community will throw a temper trantrum over any other method.
 
And I'm not convinced that the companies would refrain from going to court
over whatever cap-and-trade protocal was chosen anyway.  The lawsuits are
almost inevitable.  
 
That cap-and-trade worked for acid rain doesn't mean that it is BETTER than
MACT.  Many of the reductions in the major air pollutants that you cite have
been made with MACT, not cap-and-trade.
 
AND, if it's true that the highest emitting facilities had the greatest
reductions under cap-and-trade, it would be equally true under MACT.  (If
all facilities are reduced to a base-line level, then you'd expect the
highest emitting to have the greatest reduction...they HAVE to).  And, if
your argument is that the cap-and-trade program provided economic incentives
for the highest-emitting facilities to adopt better control technology (so
they wouldn't have to pay for emissions credits), wouldn't the economic
incentives created by criminal and civil sanctions imposed for MACT
violations ALSO provide (even stronger) incentives to adopt the best
technology?
 
So if the same outcome is achieved in either case, explain to us what, in
the end, is the incentive for the regulated community to prefer
cap-and-trade to MACT?
 
Coop
PS.  I think you're right about my hair confounding the mercury detectors.
I have enough product in there to refill the SPR. 
 
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Cooper [mailto:ccooper at planning.org]
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 12:08 PM
To: 'edebate at ndtceda.com'
Subject: [eDebate] More on mercury: Segal responds



Scott Segal asked that I post this:

My first post was a rulemaking comment; they have to be measured in

order to be read. If you would prefer, see the following from the

Atlanta Journal Constitution. But, just in case, I think you should get

your hair tested; do you think bleach throws off the mercury detector?

BTW, I think you are missing the point of cap/trade programs: by

creating a financial incentive for substantial early reductions, the

historical record is that c/t get greater reductions sooner than

command/control regulations. Lawsuits, while fun for lawyers (note the

declaration against interest), do not create incentives. In fact, they

are cumbersome, and create delay. 

So, go eat plenty of fish. ss/

EQUAL TIME

Seek best way to limit mercury

By SCOTT SEGAL

Special to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 03/24/2004

Americans have every right to expect both clean air and reliable,

affordable electricity. Power providers agree that mercury emissions

should be controlled. We should be discussing the best way to achieve

the result. Mechanisms based on market principles have shown the best

results in improving air quality.

Back in 1990, the Congress adopted a "cap-and-trade" regime to deal

with emissions associated with acid rain. Under this program, utility

emissions are capped. If companies do better than the cap, they can sell

credits to companies that might have missed the mark. This creates a

strong financial incentive to reduce emissions quickly.

According to an Environmental Protection Agency report in 1999, when

the EPA was under the Clinton administration, cynics opposing

cap-and-trade were wrong about that program. Now the same critics want

us to reject a similar program for mercury.

How do critics' mercury arguments stack up against real-world

experience? Poorly. First, the acid rain experience shows that

substantial incentives are created for reductions well in advance of the

program's mandates, refuting the notion that mercury reductions come too

slowly. Second, the acid rain experience shows that the highest emitting

facilities had the greatest reductions, turning the critics' belief in

so-called "hot spots" on its head.

You would almost think the previous administration actually proposed a

mercury control program that the present EPA has rejected. Wrong. With

eight years to weigh their options, the last administration never did

get around to it. The one mercury finding they made was without any

public notice and comment, but with full knowledge they wouldn't have

time to write any rule. By contrast, the current EPA has proposed two

different ways to make large mercury reductions, and is presently taking

public comments on both.

Power providers have made billions of dollars in investments in

pollution control in recent years that led to improved environmental

performance. EPA reports that since 1970, total emissions of the six

major air pollutants fell 48 percent. Emissions from U.S. electric

utilities represent only about 1 percent of total global mercury

emissions. These air-quality improvements occurred even as the economy

grew by 164 percent and energy consumption by 42 percent. In fact, we

could shut down all the coal plants in Georgia today and in 50 years the

mercury levels in fish in Georgia's rivers and lakes would be at the

same levels as they are today.

Too much hangs in the balance to be inflexible in controlling mercury.

There is great doubt about the feasibility and effectiveness of new

control technologies. If the result of new regulations were to force

ever greater switching from coal to natural gas, the result would be

higher prices for those on fixed incomes and living in poverty, and less

employment in manufacturing sectors dependent on natural gas. By

contrast, building on our past experience can produce substantial

results, faster and at lower cost.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Scott Segal is an attorney and director of the Electric Reliability

Coordinating Council, a group of electric utilities working on clean air

policy. He is a graduate of Emory University.



Find this article at: 

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0304/24equal.html?UrAuth=`N^NUObN
YUbTTUWUXUUUZTZUcUWU_U_UZU]U`UcTYWYWZV



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040716/7ca0dc2b/attachment.html