Bill Lets Power Plants Off the Hook for Their Mercury Emissions

How a Loophole in the ‘Clear Skies’ Bill Lets Power Plants Off the Hook for their Mercury Emissions

The Fine Print

How a Loophole in the ‘Clear Skies’ Bill Lets Power Plants Off the Hook for Their Mercury Emissions

April 2005

The Fine Print 1 Acknowledgements

Written by Supryia Ray, Clean Air Advocate with PennEnvironment.

Cover photos of smokestack and little boy courtesy of clipart.com. Photo of pregnant woman courtesy of Ken Hammond, USDA.

Thanks to Martha Keating, Senior Scientist at the Clean Air Task Force; Alison Cassady, Research Director at PennEnvironment; and Emily Figdor, Clean Air Advocate at PennEnvironment, for their assistance with this report.

To obtain a copy of this report, visit our website at www.PennEnvironment.org or contact us at:

PennEnvironment 1334 Walnut Street, 6th floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 732-5897

The Fine Print 2 Table of Contents

Executive Summary...... 4

Background: Reducing Toxic Mercury Emissions from Power Plants...... 5

The ‘Clear Skies’ Mercury Loophole ...... 8

Findings: More Toxic Mercury Pollution ...... 10

A Loophole Without Limits? ...... 12

Conclusion...... 13

Methodology ...... 13

Appendix A...... 14

Notes ...... 29

The Fine Print 3

Executive Summary

Power plants are the largest source of U.S. EPA emissions data to examine the scope of the emissions of mercury, a bioaccumulative loophole. Key findings include the following: neurotoxin that poses serious health hazards even in minute amounts. Mercury is particularly • The loophole could exempt 39 percent (441 of harmful to the developing brains of infants and 1,120) of the nation’s mercury-emitting power young children; mercury exposure can cause plant units from regulation. These 441 units vision and hearing difficulties, developmental collectively emitted 4,971 pounds of mercury delays, lowered IQ, problems with memory, and into the air in 1999. attention deficits. While current law requires steep and swift reductions in power plant • The loophole could affect power plants in 36 of mercury emissions, the Bush administration’s the 47 states with mercury-emitting power “Clear Skies” bill would give power companies plants. In 16 states, total emissions from the until 2018 before requiring specific action to exempt units could exceed 100 pounds per reduce their mercury emissions. Even worse, a year. The loophole could exempt the most loophole in the fine print of the bill would mercury emissions in Indiana (532 pounds), exempt many of the nation’s power plant units Pennsylvania (356 pounds), Kentucky (333 from ever having to reduce their mercury pounds), New York (321 pounds), South emissions. This report uses Environmental Carolina (316 pounds), and North Carolina Protection Agency (EPA) data to examine the (311 pounds). scope of this loophole and finds that it would allow many of the nation’s power plant units to • The loophole could have a profound impact on continue releasing mercury into the air unabated. certain states. For instance, 64 percent of the mercury-emitting power plant units in New Specifically, the “Clear Skies” bill (S.131) would York could be exempt from reducing their exclude from regulation power plant units that mercury emissions under the bill. In 1999, emit 30 pounds or less of mercury per year, these units collectively emitted 321 pounds of including units that are part of a multi-unit power mercury into the air, or 31 percent of the plant that collectively emits more than 30 pounds state’s total power plant mercury emissions. of mercury per year. Moreover, the loophole could create a perverse incentive for power • In some cases, the loophole could let entire plants to reduce mercury emissions at individual plants off the hook for cleaning up their units just enough for those units to fall under the mercury emissions. For instance, Virginia’s threshold – and thus off the regulatory radar Potomac River plant has five units that emitted screen. Under the Clean Air Act, every power a total of 83.5 pounds of mercury into the air in plant is obligated to cut its mercury emissions 1999, yet the entire plant could get a free pass within three years to the level achieved by the because none of its units individually emitted best performing plants, about a 90 percent more than 30 pounds of mercury. emissions reduction. Rather than let many of the nation’s power plant Since EPA has performed no analyses to date on units continue to emit or even increase their the effects of this loophole on public health or the emissions of toxic mercury, Congress should environment, this report uses the most recent reject the “Clear Skies” bill.

The Fine Print 4 Background: Reducing Toxic Mercury Emissions from Power Plants

When power plants burn coal or wastes regulation.10 Mercury exposure also is associated containing mercury, their smokestacks emit with an increased risk of heart attacks.11 mercury, a persistent bioaccumulative toxin that builds up in body tissue. Rain, snow, and dust Even minute amounts of mercury are significant particles “wash” mercury out of the air onto land and go a long way. At Wisconsin’s Little Rock and into waterways, where some of it is Lake, for instance, researchers found that a single converted to methylmercury, a form that is gram of mercury deposition in a single year was especially toxic to humans and wildlife.1 enough to account for all of the mercury in the lake’s estimated fish population.12 Moreover, The primary way that people in the U.S. are because mercury is a bioaccumulative toxin that exposed to methylmercury is by eating is taken in faster than it is eliminated, it contaminated fish,2 which absorb mercury from biomagnifies up the food chain and builds up in water through their gills and from eating plants, body tissue over time.13 Fish at the top of the organisms, and other fish.3 In addition, mercury aquatic food chain can have mercury levels can pass through the human placenta to approximately one to ten million times greater developing fetuses and through breast milk to than the levels in surrounding waters.14 nursing infants.4 Forty-four states have active mercury-related fish A potent neurotoxin, mercury poses significant consumption advisories.15 Half of these advisories human health hazards. Mercury can affect are statewide advisories covering all of the state’s multiple organ systems, including the nervous, inland lakes and/or rivers.16 In addition, in cardiovascular, and immune systems, throughout 2004, the Food and Drug Administration and an individual’s lifetime.5 Infants and children are EPA issued a joint national advisory warning at higher risk of problems associated with women who might become pregnant, women mercury exposure because their nervous systems who are pregnant, nursing mothers, and young continue to develop until about age 14.6 children to avoid or limit their consumption of Exposure to mercury affects the developing certain fish and shellfish, including shark, brain, causing vision and hearing difficulties, swordfish, and tuna.17 delays in the development of motor skills and language acquisition, lowered IQ, problems with According to EPA, 60 percent of the mercury memory, and attention deficits; these deposited in the U.S. comes from man-made, developmental deficits may translate into a wide U.S.-based sources.18 Deposition rates differ by range of learning difficulties once children are in region and locale. For instance, in the southeast, school, resulting in lifelong consequences.7 EPA EPA estimates that U.S.-based sources account scientists estimate that one in six women of for 37 percent of total mercury deposition in childbearing age has enough mercury in her body Georgia, 58 percent in North Carolina, 62 to put her child at risk, should she become percent in South Carolina, and 68 percent in pregnant.8 Florida.19

Adults exposed to mercury may experience Power plants are the largest source of mercury neurocognitive defects similar to those seen in emissions in the U.S., releasing 48 tons of children exposed prenatally9 as well as adverse mercury, or 41 percent of the national total, per effects on fertility and blood pressure year.20 According to EPA, about 29 percent of

The Fine Print 5 the mercury deposited in the U.S. comes from Florida, EPA, and the U.S. Geological Survey U.S. power plants; mercury deposition can be recently issued a study concluding that the levels much higher near individual sources.21 For of mercury found in largemouth bass and other instance, a 2003 analysis of EPA data found that wildlife in the Everglades have declined by 80 in-state sources of mercury can account for 50 to percent since state and federal agencies required 80 percent of mercury deposition at hotspots,22 municipal and medical-waste incinerators to cut areas within the state with the highest level of their mercury emissions.23 Similarly, in mercury deposition. Wisconsin, a decrease in mercury deposition of 10 percent per year was accompanied by a five Fortunately, studies show that reducing industrial percent per year decline in mercury levels in mercury emissions leads to rapid, substantial yellow perch.24 reductions of mercury in wildlife. The state of

The Fine Print 6

The Long Road to Reducing Mercury Emissions from Power Plants

In 1990, Congress amended the Clean Air Act’s air toxics provisions. With regard to power plants, Congress required EPA to complete a study on the health hazards from power plant emissions of hazardous air pollutants.25 Congress directed EPA, after considering the results of the study, to determine whether regulation of utilities was “appropriate and necessary” under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, which governs hazardous air pollutants.26 EPA released the study in 1998, finding mercury to be the hazardous air pollutant emitted by utilities of greatest concern.27 Later that year, EPA agreed to a consent decree setting several deadlines for regulatory action.28

In December 2000, EPA issued a regulatory determination, finding that power plants were a major source of hazardous air pollutants and that it was appropriate and necessary to regulate mercury and other air toxics from utilities.29 The agency noted in announcing its decision that “mercury emissions from power plants pose significant hazards to public health and must be reduced.”30

EPA’s determination triggered the regulatory process for setting stringent limits on mercury emissions. Under the Clean Air Act, hazardous air pollutants, including mercury,31 are regulated using a maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard, and controls are required no later than three years after EPA finalizes the applicable MACT standard by regulation.32

In 2001, during a presentation to the Edison Electric Institute, the trade association for electric utilities, EPA informed industry that a MACT standard – depending on how the standard was designed – would require national reductions in mercury emissions of 89, 90, or 98 percent by December 2007.33 Such a rule would reduce national power plant mercury emissions to about five tons per year34 – consistent with reductions achieved in other industries, such as medical and municipal waste incinerators. These industrial sources reduced their mercury emissions by about 90 percent following issuance of MACT standards in the mid-1990s.35

In 2004, EPA backpedaled and proposed reversing its prior determination in order to establish a national “cap-and-trade” system that treats mercury like a conventional air pollutant rather than a hazardous air pollutant.36 Press reports revealed that entire sections of the proposed rule were lifted from memos written by utility representatives37 and also exposed White House manipulation of the rulemaking process.38 EPA’s own Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee warned that the proposal “does not sufficiently protect our nation’s children,”39 and both the EPA Inspector General40 and the Government Accountability Office41 sharply criticized the proposal.

Despite these criticisms and a record of more than 600,000 public comments against the proposed rule,42 EPA issued a final rule on March 15, 2005 that discarded the MACT approach43 and embraced a “cap-and- trade” system even weaker than the proposed one. The rule establishes a two-phase, nationwide cap on mercury emissions – 38 tons per year in 2010, then 15 tons in 2018 – and permits mercury emissions trading among power plants.44 The 15-ton cap is illusory, however, for EPA’s projections show that U.S. power plants will emit 24 tons of mercury in 2020 and that the 15-ton “cap” will not be met even in 2026.45 On March 29, nine states filed a lawsuit challenging EPA’s mercury rule.46

The Fine Print 7 The ‘Clear Skies’ Mercury Loophole

This year’s version of the Bush administration’s administration’s own analysis shows that the “Clear Skies” bill (S.131), introduced by Senators “caps” would not actually be achieved until 2013 James Inhofe and George Voinovich in January and some unspecified time after 2025, 2005, is even weaker than previous versions of respectively, because of the structure of the the bill. S.131 would eliminate cornerstones of trading program.48 the Clean Air Act that have worked to reduce air pollution for decades. In place of these Moreover, as introduced, the bill contained a protections, the bill establishes pollution caps that loophole that would exclude power plant units take effect many years in the future and are emitting 50 pounds or less of mercury annually inadequate to protect public health. from regulation – a so-called “de minimis” exclusion. In early March 2005, the Senate Specifically, “Clear Skies” would delay until well Environment and Public Works Committee after 2018 reductions in power plant sulfur amended the bill to limit the exemption to power dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions that the plant units emitting 30 pounds or less of mercury Clean Air Act calls for by the end of the decade; per year.a,b repeal the New Source Review program, which requires the oldest and dirtiest plants to Under this loophole, any power plant unit eventually meet modern pollution standards; emitting 30 pounds or less of mercury per year prohibit states from taking action to crack down would be exempt from having to take action to on pollution from out-of-state sources; and force reduce its mercury emissions. Indeed, the residents of heavily-polluted areas to wait longer loophole covers even units that are part of a for clean air than under current law, among other multi-unit power plant that, as a whole, emits harmful things. more than 30 pounds of mercury per year. It also could create a perverse incentive for power With respect to mercury, the bill attempts to plants to reduce mercury emissions of individual codify virtually the same mercury regulation for power plants embodied in EPA’s March 15 a rulemaking (see box on page 7). Specifically, the The provision reads: (B) EXCLUSION—Notwithstanding paragraphs (A) (sic), the term “affected EGU” does not bill would repeal requirements that every power include…(iii) a unit that commenced commercial operation plant reduce mercury and other toxic air before January 1, 2006, and has de minimis mercury pollutants to levels achieved by the best emissions equal to or less than 30 pounds on an average performing plants – about a 90 percent mercury annual basis, calculated by the Administrator as follows— reduction – within three years. In place of these (I) to determine the exclusion status of a unit for 2010, the Administrator shall calculate the average of annual requirements, the “Clear Skies” bill would emissions for 2005 through 2007; and (II) to determine the institute a two-phase “cap-and-trade” system, exclusion status of a unit for a year after 2010, the with national caps of 34 tons of mercury per year Administrator shall calculate, before each such year, the in 2010 and 15 tons in 2018,47 and allow some average of annual emissions for the fourth, third and second power plants to continue to emit high levels of year before such year, and if the average of annual emissions for such 3-year period exceeds 30 pounds, the mercury by buying pollution “credits” from unit shall become an affected unit as of January 1 of the cleaner facilities. Power plants would comply year for which the exclusion status if (sic) being determined with the 2010 mercury cap simply by meeting and remain an affected unit each year thereafter. Clear requirements to reduce smog- and soot-forming Skies Act of 2005, S.131, §471(2)(B)(iii) (as amended March 9, 2005). pollutants; the accompanying mercury reductions b would be purely incidental. In addition, the Bush The Committee also amended the bill to move the second phase of the mercury cap to 2016 instead of 2018.

The Fine Print 8 units just enough for those units to qualify for the had allowed facilities to disregard small loophole. EPA has performed no analyses to date concentrations of mercury when making on the effects of this loophole on public health or threshold determinations and certain other the environment. calculations.50 As EPA explained, “These PBT chemicals are of particular concern not only Notably, EPA rejected a proposed exclusion for because they are toxic but also because they power plant units emitting less than 25 pounds of remain in the environment for long periods of mercury per year in its March 2005 final rule time, are not readily destroyed, and build up or regulating power plant mercury emissions.49 In accumulate in body tissue. Relatively small addition, in 2000 EPA lowered the reporting releases of PBT chemicals can pose human and threshold for mercury and other persistent environmental health threats and consequently bioaccumulative toxins (PBTs) under the Toxics releases of these chemicals warrant recognition Release Inventory program to 10 pounds per year by communities.”51 and also eliminated a de minimis exemption that

The Fine Print 9 Findings: More Toxic Mercury Pollution

This report uses EPA data on power plant mercury-emitting power plant units in New York mercury emissions in 1999 to examine the could be exempt from reducing their mercury potential effects of the mercury loophole in the emissions (see box). Similarly, 62 percent of the “Clear Skies” bill. The 1999 data is based on mercury-emitting power plant units in South mercury emission tests and is considered the best Carolina could be exempt; these units released estimate of power plant mercury emissions. We 316 pounds – 30 percent – of the state’s total determined which mercury-emitting power plant power plant mercury emissions in 1999. units could qualify for the loophole and thus be exempt from reducing their mercury emissions In some cases, the loophole could let entire plants under the bill. off the hook for cleaning up their mercury emissions. For instance, Virginia’s Potomac Specifically, the loophole could exempt 39 River plant contains five units that collectively percent (441 of 1,120) of the nation’s mercury- emitted 83.5 pounds of mercury into the air in emitting power plant units from regulation (see 1999, yet the entire plant could get a free pass on Appendix A for a complete list). These 441 units mercury controls because none of its units collectively emitted 4,971 pounds of mercury individually emitted more than 30 pounds of into the air in 1999. mercury.

The loophole could affect power plants in 36 of the 47 states with mercury-emitting power plants New York: A Case Study (see Table 1). In 16 of the 36 states, total emissions from the exempt units could exceed In 1999, 23 of New York’s 36 mercury-emitting 100 pounds per year. In 27 of the 36 states, total power plant units (64 percent) individually emissions from the exempt units could exceed 30 emitted 30 pounds or less of mercury and thus pounds per year, the de minimis threshold set by could be exempt from having to reduce their the “Clear Skies” bill. The loophole could mercury emissions. Collectively, these units exempt the most mercury emissions in Indiana emitted 321 pounds of mercury in 1999, or 31 (532 pounds), Pennsylvania (356 pounds), percent of the state’s total power plant mercury Kentucky (333 pounds), New York (321 emissions. pounds), South Carolina (316 pounds), and North Carolina (311 pounds). In some cases, the loophole could let entire plants off the hook for cleaning up their mercury In 17 of the affected states, at least 10 units could emissions, since eligibility for the exemption is qualify for the loophole. In North Carolina, 38 determined by unit rather than by plant. For units would qualify, which is more than 58 example, although the Rochester 7 power plant percent of the state’s mercury-emitting power has four units that collectively emitted more than plant units. About 62 percent of Wisconsin’s 79 pounds of mercury in 1999, the plant could mercury-emitting power plant units could qualify get a free pass because none of its units for the loophole; similarly, almost two-thirds of individually emitted more than 30 pounds of Minnesota’s mercury-emitting power plant units mercury. Similarly, the C.R. Huntley plant could benefit from the exemption. could only have to take action on two of its six units – the other four fall under the 30-pound The loophole could have a profound impact on threshold. certain states. For instance, 64 percent of the

The Fine Print 10 Table 1. Mercury-Emitting Power Plant Units That Could Be Exempt Under the ‘Clear Skies’ Loophole

Number of % of Mercury- 1999 Mercury % of Total Units That Emitting Units Emissions from Mercury Could Be That Could Be Units That Could Emissions That State Exempt Exempt Be Exempt (lbs.) Could Be Exempt AK 1 100% 15 100% AL 5 13% 135 3% AZ 2 14% 16 1% CA 6 100% 9 100% CO 17 68% 77 15% DE 2 33% 16 8% FL 10 28% 85 4% GA 17 46% 180 6% HI 2 100% 16 100% IA 14 50% 154 8% IL 22 37% 236 4% IN 30 42% 532 11% KS 6 38% 93 6% KY 26 49% 333 10% MA 4 50% 11 4% MD 4 22% 66 4% ME 1 100% 4 100% MI 30 51% 282 9% MN 15 65% 167 13% MO 11 32% 175 6% MT 2 29% 40 4% NC 38 58% 311 10% ND 1 8% 30 1% NE 3 23% 64 8% NH 5 100% 37 100% NJ 7 78% 35 18% NV 5 63% 64 19% NY 23 64% 321 31% OH 23 29% 208 3% PA 34 49% 356 4% SC 16 62% 316 30% TX 2 6% 27 0.3% UT 7 64% 57 20% VA 18 50% 126 10% WI 24 62% 295 13% WV 8 22% 86 2% Total 441 39% 4,971 5%

The Fine Print 11 A Loophole Without Limits?

Significantly, the mercury loophole in the “Clear For example, one large plant, the Widows Creek Skies” bill may be even larger than the figures Fossil Plant in Alabama, has eight units that above suggest. The bill does not limit either the collectively emitted 405 pounds of mercury in total number of units that may qualify for the 1999. Two of the plant’s units emitted 29 exemption or the total amount of mercury that pounds of mercury and thus could qualify for the may be released pursuant to it. Thus, mercury loophole, and four others emitted between 30 emissions under the loophole could increase and 34 pounds of mercury and could be subject significantly over the 4,971 pounds estimated in to regulation. Were this plant to reduce its this report. Nor does the bill require that units mercury emissions to 30 pounds for each of the subject to mercury controls make compensatory four units just over the threshold – a total reductions that would offset any exempted reduction of less than 10 pounds – it would not emissions. With approximately 39 percent of the have to take any further action to reduce mercury nation’s mercury-emitting power plant units emissions from any of these units even though qualifying for the loophole, only the remaining 61 they could emit 120 pounds of mercury per year. percent would have to take any action with Indeed, the plant could have six units collectively regard to mercury emissions, and they would emitting almost 180 pounds of mercury per year, have no obligation to reduce their emissions to yet all six of these units could be exempt because compensate for the added emissions of exempt all would individually qualify for the loophole. units. In addition, the units emitting less than 30 pounds of mercury per year could increase their By comparison, under the Clean Air Act, all mercury emissions to as much as 30 pounds per power plants are subject to the same standard, year without triggering any regulation. and every power plant must take responsibility for reducing its mercury emissions by the The loophole also could give power plants a maximum achievable amount. Compliance with perverse incentive to reduce mercury emissions existing law would result in mercury emissions of individual units just enough for those units to reductions from power plants on the order of 90 fall under the 30-pound threshold – and thus off percent nationally within three years. It is long the regulatory radar screen. Take, for example, past time for power plants to join in reducing plants with units close to the 30-pound threshold, their mercury emissions to MACT levels, just as which might have an especially strong incentive other major sources of mercury have already to make only the minimum reductions needed to done. qualify for the loophole. In 1999, 45 units in 24 states emitted between 30 and 35 pounds of mercury.

The Fine Print 12 Conclusion

The Bush administration’s “Clear Skies” bill is rife mercury pose a serious threat to public health. with provisions that weaken or eliminate critical Rather than let many of the nation’s power plant protections in the Clean Air Act, including the units continue to emit or even increase their mercury loophole. Given its persistent, emissions of toxic mercury, Congress should bioaccumulative nature, even small amounts of reject the “Clear Skies” bill.

Methodology

To estimate the power plant units that would units from our calculations. The 1999 dataset is qualify for the “Clear Skies” mercury loophole as based on mercury emission tests and is well as how much mercury such units emit, we considered the best estimate of power plant used data from EPA’s 1999 Information mercury emissions. EPA uses the 1999 dataset as Collection Request, which is available at “baseline emissions” against which future http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/combust/utiltox reductions are compared. /utoxpg.html#TECR. We excluded inactive

The Fine Print 13 Appendix A.

Power Plant Unit Mercury Emissions, 1999

(Units Qualifying for the Mercury Loophole Are Shaded)

Mercury Mercury Emissions, Emissions, State Plant Unit Pounds State Plant Unit Pounds AK Healy 2 14.9 AL Widows Creek Fossil Plant 4 31.4 AL Barry 2 52.4 AL Widows Creek Fossil Plant 2 33.5 AL Barry 1 52.9 AL Widows Creek Fossil Plant 6 34.0 AL Barry 3 64.8 AL Widows Creek Fossil Plant 7 44.8 AL Barry 4 105.4 AL Widows Creek Fossil Plant 8 171.9 AL Barry 5 190.3 AR Flint Creek 1 139.9 AL Charles R. Lowman 1 21.5 AR Independence 1 154.8 AL Charles R. Lowman 2 61.9 AR Independence 2 219.8 AL Charles R. Lowman 3 69.3 AR White Bluff 2 242.5 AL Colbert Fossil Plant 4 25.0 AR White Bluff 1 254.9 AL Colbert Fossil Plant 3 29.8 AZ Apache Station 2 55.9 AL Colbert Fossil Plant 1 32.6 AZ Apache Station 3 64.9 AL Colbert Fossil Plant 2 33.2 AZ Cholla 1 13.2 AL Colbert Fossil Plant 5 109.0 AZ Cholla 3 66.8 AL Gadsden 1 48.9 AZ Cholla 2 74.1 AL Gadsden 2 49.6 AZ Cholla 4 101.9 AL Gaston 2 101.6 AZ Coronado U2B 111.2 AL Gaston 4 121.5 AZ Coronado U1B 138.9 AL Gaston 3 128.5 AZ Irvington 4 2.6 AL Gaston 1 136.1 AZ Navajo 1 89.1 AL Gaston 5 391.3 AZ Navajo 3 95.0 AL Gorgas 7 90.3 AZ Navajo 2 119.4 AL Gorgas 6 92.5 AZ Springerville 2 154.6 AL Gorgas 8 161.4 AZ Springerville 1 167.0 AL Gorgas 9 179.3 CA ACE Cogeneration Plant 10002 1.7 AL Gorgas 10 383.0 Mt. Poso Cogeneration 27805- CA Plant 89 2.7 AL Greene County 1 95.9 Port of Stockton District AL Greene County 2 109.3 CA Energy Facility STG 1.1 AL Miller 1 339.8 CA Rio Bravo Jasmin Gen 1 0.9 AL Miller 2 362.2 CA Rio Bravo Poso Gen 1 0.9 AL Miller 3 437.4 CA Stockton Cogen Company GEN1 1.4 AL Miller 4 449.6 CO Arapahoe 2 2.9 AL Widows Creek Fossil Plant 1 29.2 CO Arapahoe 3 4.7 AL Widows Creek Fossil Plant 5 29.3 CO Arapahoe 1 15.0 AL Widows Creek Fossil Plant 3 30.8

The Fine Print 14 Mercury Mercury Emissions, Emissions, State Plant Unit Pounds State Plant Unit Pounds CO Arapahoe 4 30.3 FL Central Power and Lime GEN 1 0.5 CO Cameo 2 2.0 FL Crist 5 13.0 CO Cherokee 1 0.2 FL Crist 4 16.6 CO Cherokee 4 0.7 FL Crist 6 68.6 CO Cherokee 2 2.0 FL Crist 7 121.6 CO Cherokee 3 2.9 FL Crystal River 1 76.2 CO Comanche 2 42.0 FL Crystal River 2 124.6 CO Comanche 1 42.0 FL Crystal River 4 153.8 CO Craig C3 36.0 FL Crystal River 3 197.1 CO Craig C1 60.2 FL Deerhaven B2 25.7 CO Craig C2 63.4 FL F.J. Gannon GB01 30.4 H2 after FL F.J. Gannon GB02 30.9 CO Hayden 5/99 0.5 FL F.J. Gannon GB04 42.3 CO Hayden H1 0.5 FL F.J. Gannon GB03 45.7 H2 FL F.J. Gannon GB05 65.9 before CO Hayden 6/99 7.8 FL F.J. Gannon GB06 84.9 Indiantown Cogeneration CO Martin Drake 5 1.6 FL Facility GEN 1 1.3 CO Martin Drake 6 3.1 FL Lansing Smith 1 58.0 CO Martin Drake 7 4.3 FL Lansing Smith 2 89.2 CO Nucla 1 20.0 FL Polk Power 1 92.5 CO Pawnee 1 97.5 FL Scholz 1 6.6 CO Rawhide 101 62.3 FL Scholz 2 7.7 CO Ray D. Nixon 1 6.4 FL Seminole 1 57.0 CO Valmont 5 2.3 FL Seminole 2 57.4 Gen 1 St. Johns River Power CT AES Thames, Inc. Unit A 34.3 FL Park 1 59.6 Gen 1 St. Johns River Power CT AES Thames, Inc. Unit B 36.8 FL Park 2 68.6 DE Edge Moor 3 0.4 FL Stanton Energy 1 52.8 DE Edge Moor 4 62.1 FL Stanton Energy 2 56.0 DE Indian River 3 15.5 GA Arkwright 2 0.1 DE Indian River 2 31.1 GA Arkwright 3 6.2 DE Indian River 1 32.3 GA Arkwright 4 6.9 DE Indian River 4 65.6 GA Bowen 1BLR 147.6 FL Big Bend BB03 36.8 GA Bowen 3BLR 169.5 FL Big Bend BB02 42.2 GA Bowen 2BLR 170.0 FL Big Bend BB01 42.3 GA Bowen 4BLR 195.6 FL Big Bend BB04 43.6 GA Hammond 3 9.5 FL C.D. McIntosh Jr. 3 37.7 GA Hammond 2 11.0 FL Cedar Bay Generating Co 1B 4.7 GA Hammond 1 12.3 FL Cedar Bay Generating Co 1C 4.8 GA Hammond 4 61.3 FL Cedar Bay Generating Co 1A 4.8

The Fine Print 15 Mercury Mercury Emissions, Emissions, State Plant Unit Pounds State Plant Unit Pounds GA Harllee Branch 2 55.8 IA George Neal South 4 290.1 GA Harllee Branch 1 57.4 IA Lansing 3 9.1 GA Harllee Branch 3 91.0 IA Lansing 4 118.7 GA Harllee Branch 4 96.8 IA Louisa 101 280.6 GA Jack McDonough MB1 32.6 IA Milton L. Kapp 2 53.3 GA Jack McDonough MB2 34.1 IA Muscatine 8 30.1 GA Kraft 1 7.0 IA Muscatine 9 111.6 GA Kraft 2 8.9 IA Ottumwa 1 116.3 GA Kraft 3 17.5 IA Prairie Creek 3 13.7 GA McIntosh 1 40.2 IA Prairie Creek 4 46.0 GA Mitchell (GA) 2 2.9 IA Riverside 9 33.1 GA Mitchell (GA) 1 3.6 IA Streeter Station 7 3.2 GA Mitchell (GA) 3 19.8 IA Sutherland 2 8.5 GA Scherer 1 116.3 IA Sutherland 1 8.8 GA Scherer 2 135.1 IA Sutherland 3 16.7 GA Scherer 3 475.3 IL Baldwin 1 90.6 GA Scherer 4 476.5 IL Baldwin 3 103.9 GA Wansley 2 167.8 IL Baldwin 2 117.9 GA Wansley 1 183.6 IL Coffeen 1 51.2 GA Yates Y1BR 4.6 IL Coffeen 2 81.7 GA Yates Y3BR 13.9 IL Crawford 8 101.9 GA Yates Y2BR 17.6 IL Crawford 7 117.7 GA Yates Y4BR 17.8 IL Dallman 33 14.6 GA Yates Y5BR 20.1 IL Dallman 32 19.5 GA Yates Y6BR 39.5 IL Dallman 31 21.8 GA Yates Y7BR 51.6 IL Duck Creek 1 34.7 HI AES Hawaii, Inc. B 7.7 IL E. D. Edwards 1 28.1 HI AES Hawaii, Inc. A 7.8 IL E. D. Edwards 2 54.1 IA Ames 7 3.3 IL E. D. Edwards 3 68.5 IA Ames 8 14.6 IL Fisk 19 164.0 IA Burlington 1 51.7 IL Grand Tower 8 7.3 IA Council Bluffs 1 13.7 IL Grand Tower 7 7.3 IA Council Bluffs 2 27.9 IL Grand Tower 9 17.6 IA Council Bluffs 3 261.4 IL Havana 6 59.4 IA Dubuque 5 7.9 IL Hennepin 1 14.3 IA Dubuque 1 13.0 IL Hennepin 2 41.7 IA Earl F. Wisdom Unit 1 1.3 IL Hutsonville 6 11.9 IA Fair Station #2 11.9 IL Hutsonville 5 11.9 IA George Neal North 1 58.8 IL Joliet 29 71, 72 414.1 IA George Neal North 2 121.8 IL Joliet 29 81, 82 450.7 IA George Neal North 3 222.3 IL Joliet 9 5 280.4

The Fine Print 16 Mercury Mercury Emissions, Emissions, State Plant Unit Pounds State Plant Unit Pounds IL Joppa Steam 1 89.7 IN Cayuga (IN) 2 119.0 IL Joppa Steam 4 98.8 IN Clifty Creek 6 75.5 IL Joppa Steam 3 99.4 IN Clifty Creek 2 84.5 IL Joppa Steam 2 101.4 IN Clifty Creek 3 88.8 IL Joppa Steam 5 101.7 IN Clifty Creek 1 89.7 IL Joppa Steam 6 101.8 IN Clifty Creek 5 93.3 IL Kincaid Generation 2 146.3 IN Clifty Creek 4 95.6 IL Kincaid Generation 1 188.4 IN Dean H. Mitchell 4 9.1 IL Lakeside 7 4.5 IN Dean H. Mitchell 5 28.4 IL Lakeside 8 4.5 IN Dean H. Mitchell 11 32.2 IL Meredosia 4 2.5 IN Dean H. Mitchell 6 38.9 IL Meredosia 3 2.5 IN E. W. Stout 60 24.1 IL Meredosia 2 2.5 IN E. W. Stout 50 27.1 IL Meredosia 1 2.5 IN E. W. Stout 70 105.4 IL Meredosia 5 41.9 IN Edwardsport 8 5.7 IL Newton 2 111.7 IN Edwardsport 7*1 8.1 IL Newton 1 149.4 IN Edwardsport 7*2 9.0 IL Powerton 61 & 62 482.6 IN F. B. Culley 2 9.8 IL Powerton 51 & 52 644.7 IN F. B. Culley 1 14.9 Southern Illinois Power IN F. B. Culley 3 26.9 IL Cooperative 2 6.8 IN Frank E. Ratts 1SG1 22.4 Southern Illinois Power IL Cooperative 3 7.4 IN Frank E. Ratts 2SG1 39.2 Southern Illinois Power IN Gibson Generating Station 5 51.9 IL Cooperative 1 8.0 IN Gibson Generating Station 4 59.7 Southern Illinois Power IN Gibson Generating Station 2 157.2 IL Cooperative 4 43.7 IN Gibson Generating Station 3 162.6 IL Vermilion 1 8.7 IN Gibson Generating Station 1 165.3 IL Vermilion 2 15.3 IN H.T. Pritchard 3 9.9 IL Waukegan 17 93.9 IN H.T. Pritchard 5 11.3 IL Waukegan 8 239.9 IN H.T. Pritchard 4 11.5 IL Waukegan 7 274.5 IN H.T. Pritchard 6 20.4 IL Will County 1 75.5 IN Merom 2SG1 56.1 IL Will County 2 75.7 IN Merom 1SG1 61.1 IL Will County 3 105.4 IN Michigan City 12 113.1 IL Will County 4 201.7 IN Noblesville 2 5.2 IL Wood River 4 16.3 IN Noblesville 3 5.4 IL Wood River 5 53.1 IN Noblesville 1 5.5 IN A. B. Brown 1 21.3 IN Petersburg 1 28.1 IN A. B. Brown 2 24.8 IN Petersburg 2 53.3 IN Bailly 7 23.4 IN Petersburg 3 70.9 IN Bailly 8 42.0 IN Petersburg 4 73.4 IN Cayuga (IN) 1 92.2

The Fine Print 17 Mercury Mercury Emissions, Emissions, State Plant Unit Pounds State Plant Unit Pounds IN R. Gallagher Station 3 52.2 KS Riverton 40 11.5 IN R. Gallagher Station 4 60.9 KS Tecumseh 9 19.0 IN R. Gallagher Station 2 62.3 KS Tecumseh 10 45.2 IN R. Gallagher Station 1 66.1 KY Big Sandy BSU1 151.2 IN R.M. Schahfer 17 29.2 KY Big Sandy BSU2 407.8 IN R.M. Schahfer 18 30.7 KY Cane Run 4 11.3 IN R.M. Schahfer 14 120.5 KY Cane Run 5 14.2 IN R.M. Schahfer 15 233.6 KY Cane Run 6 16.8 IN Rockport MB1 473.4 KY Coleman C1 75.3 IN Rockport MB2 547.1 KY Coleman C3 87.1 IN State Line 3 24.2 KY Coleman C2 89.0 IN State Line 4 106.5 KY Cooper 1 48.2 IN Tanners Creek U1 45.1 KY Cooper 2 92.7 IN Tanners Creek U2 45.6 KY D. B. Wilson W1 29.7 IN Tanners Creek U3 52.6 KY Dale 3 17.5 IN Tanners Creek U4 152.1 KY Dale 4 20.1 Wabash River Generating KY E. W. Brown 1 28.7 IN Stn 3 14.2 Wabash River Generating KY E. W. Brown 2 51.9 IN Stn 5 20.5 KY E. W. Brown 3 135.8 Wabash River Generating KY East Bend Station 2 252.3 IN Stn 2 23.3 KY Elmer Smith 2 34.4 Wabash River Generating KY Elmer Smith 1 38.1 IN Stn 4 27.3 Wabash River Generating KY Ghent 1 41.9 IN Stn 1 + 1A 45.6 KY Ghent 2 138.2 Wabash River Generating KY Ghent 4 141.1 IN Stn 6 68.8 KY Ghent 3 147.2 IN Warrick Power Plant 4 167.3 KY Green River 4 22.9 IN Whitewater Valley 1 14.0 KY Green River 5 32.0 IN Whitewater Valley 2 27.4 KY H.L. Spurlock 1 122.2 KS Holcomb SGU1 63.1 KY H.L. Spurlock 2 210.3 KS Jeffrey Energy Center 1 278.4 KY Henderson 1 6 1.6 KS Jeffrey Energy Center 2 284.6 KY HMP&L Station 2 H1 14.7 KS Jeffrey Energy Center 3 287.4 KY HMP&L Station 2 H2 16.9 KS La Cygne 2 193.9 KY Mill Creek 1 41.0 KS La Cygne 1 219.9 KY Mill Creek 2 41.4 KS Lawrence 3 12.4 KY Mill Creek 3 45.3 KS Lawrence 4 33.8 KY Mill Creek 4 50.7 KS Lawrence 5 100.3 KY Paradise Fossil Plant 2 69.6 KS Nearman Creek N1 50.2 KY Paradise Fossil Plant 1 84.9 KS Quindaro 1 19.9 KY Paradise Fossil Plant 3 420.6 KS Quindaro 2 23.2 KY Pineville 3 3.8 KS Riverton 39 7.2

The Fine Print 18 Mercury Mercury Emissions, Emissions, State Plant Unit Pounds State Plant Unit Pounds KY R. D. Green Unit 1 20.6 MD H.A. Wagner 2 44.9 KY R. D. Green Unit 2 22.2 MD H.A. Wagner 3 85.1 KY Robert Reid R1 19.3 MD Morgantown 2 173.3 KY Shawnee Fossil Plant 6 5.1 MD Morgantown 1 213.0 KY Shawnee Fossil Plant 7 5.1 MD R. Paul Smith 9 1.4 KY Shawnee Fossil Plant 8 5.2 MD R. Paul Smith 11 27.9 KY Shawnee Fossil Plant 2 5.3 ME S.D. Warren Company #2 #21 4.1 KY Shawnee Fossil Plant 5 5.4 MI B.C. Cobb 5 60.1 KY Shawnee Fossil Plant 4 5.4 MI B.C. Cobb 4 60.5 KY Shawnee Fossil Plant 3 5.8 MI Belle River Power Plant 1 112.6 KY Shawnee Fossil Plant 9 5.8 MI Belle River Power Plant 2 130.2 KY Shawnee Fossil Plant 10 9.2 MI Dan E. Karn 2 101.7 KY Shawnee Fossil Plant 1 12.0 MI Dan E. Karn 1 112.4 KY Trimble County 1 97.0 MI Eckert Station 1 4.9 KY Tyrone 5 7.9 MI Eckert Station 3 8.9 LA Big Cajun 2 2B2 164.7 MI Eckert Station 2 14.2 LA Big Cajun 2 2B3 168.9 MI Eckert Station 5 40.7 LA Big Cajun 2 2B1 202.7 MI Eckert Station 6 42.6 LA Dolet Hills Power Station 1 159.4 MI Eckert Station 4 44.5 LA R.S. Nelson 6 213.1 MI Endicott 1 6.4 Rodemacher Power MI Erikcson 1 50.7 LA Station Unit #2 2 97.9 MI Harbor Beach Power Plant 1 9.0 MA Brayton Point 2 54.9 MI J. B. Sims 3 6.0 MA Brayton Point 1 57.9 MI J.C. Weadock 7 51.8 MA Brayton Point 3 130.9 MI J.C. Weadock 8 70.2 MA Mount Tom 1 37.5 MI J.H. Campbell 1 93.1 MA Salem Harbor 1 2.1 MI J.H. Campbell 2 122.5 MA Salem Harbor 2 2.5 MI J.H. Campbell 3 294.5 MA Salem Harbor 3 4.5 MI J.R. Whiting 1 38.0 MA Somerset 8 2.0 MI J.R. Whiting 2 41.1 MD Brandon Shores 2 265.5 MI J.R. Whiting 3 48.3 MD Brandon Shores 1 267.6 MI James De Young 5 6.9 MD C.P. Crane 1 11.3 MI Marysville Power Plant 12 0.6 MD C.P. Crane 2 25.7 MI Marysville Power Plant 11 1.1 MD Chalk Point 2 195.4 MI Marysville Power Plant 9 1.3 MD Chalk Point 1 201.7 MI Marysville Power Plant 10 1.4 MD Dickerson 3S 45.6 MI Monroe Power Plant 2 160.5 MD Dickerson 3 48.1 MI Monroe Power Plant 1 203.6 MD Dickerson 2S 48.5 MI Monroe Power Plant 3 211.4 MD Dickerson 2 51.2 MI Monroe Power Plant 4 235.0 MD Dickerson 1S 55.3 2 after MD Dickerson 1 58.4 MI Presque Isle 5/99 0.1

The Fine Print 19 Mercury Mercury Emissions, Emissions, State Plant Unit Pounds State Plant Unit Pounds 2 before MN High Bridge Generating #6 24.3 MI Presque Isle 6/99 0.3 MN Hoot Lake 2 20.1 4 after MI Presque Isle 5/99 0.4 MN Hoot Lake 3 23.6 3 after MN Laskin Energy Center 1 11.1 MI Presque Isle 5/99 0.4 MN Laskin Energy Center 2 11.5 4 before MN Minnesota Valley #4 0.1 MI Presque Isle 6/99 1.3 3 before MN NE Station NEPP 9.4 MI Presque Isle 6/99 1.4 MN Riverside Generating Plant #7 4.9 MI Presque Isle 6 4.7 MN Riverside Generating Plant #6 4.9 MI Presque Isle 5 4.8 MN Riverside Generating Plant #8 57.0 MI Presque Isle 8 24.1 Sherburne County MN Generating Plant #1 179.2 MI Presque Isle 7 25.0 Sherburne County MI Presque Isle 9 25.9 MN Generating Plant #3 184.9 MI River Rouge Power Plant 2 62.4 Sherburne County MI River Rouge Power Plant 3 77.2 MN Generating Plant #2 217.1 MI Shiras 3 20.2 MN Silver Lake 4 5.4 MI St Clair Power Plant 1 17.0 MO Asbury 1 63.4 MI St Clair Power Plant 2 24.2 MO Blue Valley 3 8.7 MI St Clair Power Plant 3 30.5 MO Chamois 2 3.4 MI St Clair Power Plant 4 30.7 MO Hawthorn 5 17.8 MI St Clair Power Plant 6 58.9 MO Iatan 1 191.1 MI St Clair Power Plant 7 84.8 MO James River Power Station 3 11.8 MI TES Filer City Station GEN 1 2.3 MO James River Power Station 4 16.7 Trenton Channel Power MO James River Power Station 5 24.9 MI Plant 17 12.1 MO Labadie 4 137.3 Trenton Channel Power MO Labadie 3 150.6 MI Plant 16 17.7 MO Labadie 1 177.7 Trenton Channel Power MI Plant 19 19.8 MO Labadie 2 194.1 Trenton Channel Power MO Lake Road Plant 6 15.8 MI Plant 18 20.1 MO Meramec 2 24.9 Trenton Channel Power MO Meramec 1 25.7 MI Plant 9 128.4 Allen S. King Generating MO Meramec 3 37.8 MN Plant #1 102.5 MO Meramec 4 38.2 MN Black Dog Generating Plt #2 0.1 MO Montrose 1 31.5 MN Black Dog Generating Plt #3 21.2 MO Montrose 3 34.0 MN Black Dog Generating Plt #4 32.3 MO Montrose 2 38.5 MN Clay Boswell 1 6.5 MO New Madrid 2 108.2 MN Clay Boswell 2 7.1 MO New Madrid 1 145.6 MN Clay Boswell 3 131.4 MO Rush Island 1 249.0 MN Clay Boswell 4 192.9 MO Rush Island 2 269.1 MN High Bridge Generating #5 17.4 MO Sibley 1 12.4

The Fine Print 20 Mercury Mercury Emissions, Emissions, State Plant Unit Pounds State Plant Unit Pounds MO Sibley 2 12.7 NC Cogentrix of Richmond 4A 0.6 MO Sibley 3 85.7 NC Cogentrix of Richmond 3A 0.6 MO Sikeston 1 87.6 NC Cogentrix of Richmond 1B 0.8 MO Sioux 2 86.4 NC Cogentrix of Richmond 1A 0.9 MO Sioux 1 116.6 NC Cogentrix of Richmond 2A 0.9 MO Southwest Power Station 1 49.4 NC Cogentrix of Richmond 2B 0.9 MO Thomas Hill MB1 42.9 NC Dan River 1 8.2 MO Thomas Hill MB2 67.7 NC Dan River 2 8.4 MO Thomas Hill MB3 166.8 NC Dan River 3 15.8 MS Jack Watson 4 90.3 Dwayne Collier Battle MS Jack Watson 5 185.9 NC Cogeneration Facility 1B 0.9 R. D. Morrow Sr. Dwayne Collier Battle MS Generating plant 2 93.9 NC Cogeneration Facility 2A 0.9 R. D. Morrow Sr. Dwayne Collier Battle MS Generating plant 1 106.4 NC Cogeneration Facility 2B 0.9 MS Victor J. Daniel 2 93.6 Dwayne Collier Battle MS Victor J. Daniel 1 109.0 NC Cogeneration Facility 1A 0.9 MT Colstrip 1 109.4 NC G.G. Allen 2 14.2 MT Colstrip 2 119.9 NC G.G. Allen 1 30.8 MT Colstrip 3 289.2 NC G.G. Allen 3 56.4 MT Colstrip 4 353.0 NC G.G. Allen 5 58.2 MT Colstrip Energy GEN 1 21.5 NC G.G. Allen 4 58.4 MT J.E. Corette 2 30.9 NC L V Sutton 2 27.7 MT Lewis & Clark B1 18.0 NC L V Sutton 1 29.5 NC Asheville 1 64.7 NC L V Sutton 3 107.8 NC Asheville 2 74.0 NC Lee 1 17.9 NC Belews Creek 2 222.2 NC Lee 2 21.1 NC Belews Creek 1 297.7 NC Lee 3 62.9 NC Buck 6 5.2 NC Marshall 1 84.1 NC Buck 5 5.2 NC Marshall 2 93.2 NC Buck 7 6.3 NC Marshall 3 122.2 NC Buck 8 38.0 NC Marshall 4 155.2 NC Buck 9 38.7 NC Mayo 1B 114.6 NC Cape Fear 5 37.7 NC Mayo 1A 114.6 NC Cape Fear 6 51.4 NC Riverbend 7 9.9 NC Cliffside 1 2.9 NC Riverbend 8 10.2 NC Cliffside 2 3.0 NC Riverbend 9 27.1 NC Cliffside 3 5.8 NC Riverbend 10 28.3 NC Cliffside 4 6.5 NC Roxboro 3B 115.3 NC Cliffside 5 85.7 NC Roxboro 3A 115.3 NC Cogentrix of Richmond 4B 0.6 NC Roxboro 4B 117.9 NC Roxboro 4A 117.9 NC Cogentrix of Richmond 3B 0.6 NC Roxboro 1 121.2

The Fine Print 21 Mercury Mercury Emissions, Emissions, State Plant Unit Pounds State Plant Unit Pounds NC Roxboro 2 209.5 Carneys Point Generating NJ Plt 2001 0.9 NC Tobaccoville Utility Plant GEN 2 4.7 Carneys Point Generating NC Tobaccoville Utility Plant GEN 1 4.7 NJ Plt 1001 1.1 NC W H Weatherspoon 1 10.7 NJ Deepwater 8 3.9 NC W H Weatherspoon 2 10.8 NJ Hudson 2 107.5 NC W H Weatherspoon 3 16.0 NJ Logan Generating Plant Gen 1 3.2 Westmoreland-LG&E NJ Mercer 1 7.1 NC Partners Roanoke Valley I GEN 1 0.9 Westmoreland-LG&E NJ Mercer 2 8.1 NC Partners Roanoke Valley II GEN 2 0.3 NM Escalante 1 86.9 ND Antelope Valley Station B1 175.3 NM Four Corners 2 99.3 ND Antelope Valley Station B2 200.7 NM Four Corners 1 102.7 ND Coal Creek 2 256.2 NM Four Corners 3 139.6 ND Coal Creek 1 256.2 NM Four Corners 5 347.4 ND Coyote 1 260.3 NM Four Corners 4 362.6 ND Leland Olds Station 1 110.8 NM San Juan 2 196.9 ND Leland Olds Station 2 199.2 NM San Juan 1 207.9 ND Milton R. Young B1 214.3 NM San Juan 4 293.5 ND Milton R. Young B2 233.1 NM San Juan 3 343.3 ND R.M. Heskett Station B2 29.5 NV Mohave 2 110.6 ND Stanton Station 10 30.3 NV Mohave 1 118.7 ND Stanton Station 1 82.6 North Valmy Generating NV Stn 2 0.8 NE Gerald Gentlemen Station 2 146.5 North Valmy Generating NE Gerald Gentlemen Station 1 159.3 NV Stn 1 7.8 NE Lon Wright 8 13.0 NV Reid Gardner 4 2.5 NE Nebraska City 1 210.8 NV Reid Gardner 2 26.2 NE North Omaha 1 26.1 NV Reid Gardner 1 26.3 NE North Omaha 3 32.5 NV Reid Gardner 3 36.6 NE North Omaha 2 34.1 NY AES Cayuga 2 50.4 NE North Omaha 5 42.6 NY AES Cayuga 1 50.4 NE North Omaha 4 43.9 NY AES Greenidge 5 10.4 NE Platte 1 31.7 NY AES Greenidge 4 10.4 NE Sheldon 1 32.5 NY AES Greenidge 6 40.8 NE Sheldon 2 35.6 NY AES Hickling 1 6.2 NE Whelan Energy Center 1 24.7 NY AES Hickling 2 6.7 NH Merrimack 1 4.7 NY AES Hickling 3 20.4 NH Merrimack 2 11.1 NY AES Hickling 4 21.0 NH Schiller 6 6.9 NY AES Jennison 2 2.9 NH Schiller 4 7.0 NY AES Jennison 1 3.1 NH Schiller 5 7.3 NY AES Jennison 3 6.5 NJ B L England 1 10.8 NY AES Jennison 4 8.1 NJ B L England 2 53.3 NY AES Sommerset 1 75.3

The Fine Print 22 Mercury Mercury Emissions, Emissions, State Plant Unit Pounds State Plant Unit Pounds NY AES Westover 11,12 13.9 OH Eastlake 1 54.5 NY AES Westover 13 34.6 OH Eastlake 2 63.9 NY C. R. Huntley 63 8.8 OH Eastlake 3 66.3 NY C. R. Huntley 64 12.3 OH Eastlake 4 110.2 NY C. R. Huntley 66 18.9 OH Eastlake 5 286.0 NY C. R. Huntley 65 19.7 OH Gen J. M. Gavin 2 210.4 NY C. R. Huntley 68 57.1 OH Gen J. M. Gavin 1 290.5 NY C. R. Huntley 67 67.5 OH Hamilton 9 1.6 NY Danskammer 3 45.3 OH J. M. Stuart 2 146.0 NY Danskammer 4 77.2 OH J. M. Stuart 1 152.8 NY Dunkirk 1 32.6 OH J. M. Stuart 3 167.4 NY Dunkirk 2 37.0 OH J. M. Stuart 4 188.5 NY Dunkirk 3 67.6 OH Killen 2 191.0 NY Dunkirk 4 71.0 OH Kyger Creek 3 94.8 Fort Drum H.T.W. OH Kyger Creek 4 100.4 NY Cogeneration Facility Gen 1 5.8 OH Kyger Creek 2 103.5 NY Lovett 5 18.0 OH Kyger Creek 5 104.2 NY Lovett 4 22.5 OH Kyger Creek 1 109.5 NY Rochester 3 12 25.5 OH Lake Shore 18 6.1 NY Rochester 7 1 12.5 OH Miami Fort Station 5*2 9.0 NY Rochester 7 2 18.3 OH Miami Fort Station 5*1 9.0 NY Rochester 7 3 21.8 OH Miami Fort Station 6 9.3 NY Rochester 7 4 26.9 OH Miami Fort Station 8 173.9 OH Ashtabula 8 3.6 OH Miami Fort Station 7 191.8 OH Ashtabula 11 6.0 OH Muskingum River 1 19.6 OH Ashtabula 10 7.1 OH Muskingum River 4 25.6 OH Ashtabula 7 96.0 OH Muskingum River 2 36.3 OH Avon Lake 10 20.8 OH Muskingum River 3 42.7 OH Avon Lake 12 388.8 OH Muskingum River 5 192.1 OH Bay Shore 2 40.1 OH Niles 1 77.2 OH Bay Shore 1 58.1 OH Niles 2 82.6 OH Bay Shore 3 66.1 OH O. H. Hutchings H-1 2.0 OH Bay Shore 4 98.0 OH O. H. Hutchings H-2 2.2 OH Cardinal 1 175.3 OH O. H. Hutchings H-3 7.7 OH Cardinal 2 186.9 OH O. H. Hutchings H-5 8.3 OH Cardinal 3 267.3 OH O. H. Hutchings H-6 8.6 OH Conesville 3 69.6 OH O. H. Hutchings H-4 9.0 OH Conesville 1 82.9 OH Picway 9 58.8 OH Conesville 5 85.3 OH R. E. Burger 6 4.3 OH Conesville 6 92.9 OH R. E. Burger 5 5.2 OH Conesville 2 94.4 OH R. E. Burger 7 54.6 OH Conesville 4 474.2

The Fine Print 23 Mercury Mercury Emissions, Emissions, State Plant Unit Pounds State Plant Unit Pounds OH R. E. Burger 8 61.4 PA Bruce Mansfield 1 321.0 OH Richard H. Gorsuch 1 32.8 PA Bruce Mansfield 2 381.5 OH Richard H. Gorsuch 2 32.9 PA Brunner Island 1 16.5 OH Richard H. Gorsuch 3 33.8 PA Brunner Island 2 139.2 OH Richard H. Gorsuch 4 34.2 PA Brunner Island 3 280.7 OH W. H. Sammis 2 9.7 PA Cambria CoGen GEN1 70.0 OH W. H. Sammis 1 10.6 PA Cheswick 1 237.2 OH W. H. Sammis 3 11.2 PA Colver Power Project COLV 69.2 OH W. H. Sammis 4 11.7 PA Conemaugh 2 214.6 OH W. H. Sammis 5 90.5 PA Conemaugh 1 280.0 OH W. H. Sammis 7 188.1 Cromby Generating PA Station #1 1.7 OH W. H. Sammis 6 230.2 Ebensburg Power OH W. H. Zimmer Station 1 175.3 PA Company GEN1 0.6 OH Walter C. Beckjord 1 37.5 PA Eddystone 1 20.2 OH Walter C. Beckjord 2 38.5 PA Eddystone 2 24.4 OH Walter C. Beckjord 3 46.6 PA Elrama 3 7.5 OH Walter C. Beckjord 4 62.1 PA Elrama 2 12.6 OH Walter C. Beckjord 5 76.4 PA Elrama 1 13.0 OH Walter C. Beckjord 6 134.2 PA Elrama 4 24.9 OK AES Shady Point, Inc. Gen 2 201.5 Foster Wheeler Mt. OK AES Shady Point, Inc. Gen 1 209.1 PA Carmel TG1 0.4 OK GRDA 1 136.2 PA Hatfield's Ferry 2 106.4 OK GRDA 2 146.7 PA Hatfield's Ferry 1 147.5 OK Hugo 1 154.9 PA Hatfield's Ferry 3 160.1 OK Muskogee 4 119.3 PA Homer City 3 475.6 OK Muskogee 5 137.4 PA Homer City 2 665.4 OK Muskogee 6 142.4 PA Homer City 1 711.1 OK Northeastern 3313 82.5 PA Hunlock Power Station 6 51.6 OK Northeastern 3314 105.6 John B. Rich Memorial OK Sooner 1 131.3 PA Power Station GEN 1 0.6 OK Sooner 2 155.1 PA Johnsonburg Mill 54638 93.6 OR Boardman 1SG 168.3 PA Keystone 1 823.2 AES BV Partners Beaver PA Keystone 2 1028.3 PA Valley 35 4.5 Kline Township Cogen AES BV Partners Beaver PA Facility GEN 1 0.5 PA Valley 33 8.0 PA Martins Creek 2 25.5 AES BV Partners Beaver PA Martins Creek 1 26.6 PA Valley 34 8.1 PA Mitchell (PA) 33 30.3 AES BV Partners Beaver PA Valley 32 9.3 PA Montour 1 566.9 PA Armstrong 1 143.3 PA Montour 2 651.6 PA Armstrong 2 163.4 PA New Castle 3 59.6 PA Bruce Mansfield 3 305.5 PA New Castle 4 68.4

The Fine Print 24 Mercury Mercury Emissions, Emissions, State Plant Unit Pounds State Plant Unit Pounds PA New Castle 5 80.6 SC McMeekin 1 7.0 Northampton Generating SC McMeekin 2 7.4 PA Co. GEN 1 1.0 SC Urquhart 2 25.1 Panther Creek Energy PA Facility GEN 1 0.5 SC Urquhart 1 25.3 PA Piney Creek Project GEN 1 0.2 SC Urquhart 3 28.7 PA Portland 1 55.7 SC W. S. Lee 1 13.4 PA Portland 2 75.9 SC W. S. Lee 2 18.3 PA Scrubgrass Generating Co. GEN1 0.9 SC W. S. Lee 3 34.3 PA Seward* 12 16.1 SC Wateree 1 121.2 PA Seward* 14 16.9 SC Wateree 2 123.1 PA Seward* 15 19.6 SC Williams 1 107.3 PA Shawville 1 182.5 SC Winyah Generating Station 2 22.9 PA Shawville 2 206.0 SC Winyah Generating Station 4 27.3 PA Shawville 4 251.9 SC Winyah Generating Station 3 28.8 PA Shawville 3 287.5 SC Winyah Generating Station 1 98.9 St. Nicholas Cogeneration SD Big Stone 1 111.3 PA Project SNCP 0.6 TN Allen Fossil Plant 2 34.4 PA Sunbury 2A 4.4 TN Allen Fossil Plant 1 38.8 PA Sunbury 1B 4.5 TN Allen Fossil Plant 3 40.4 PA Sunbury 1A 4.6 TN Bull Run Fossil Plant 1 267.0 PA Sunbury 2B 4.8 TN Cumberland Fossil Plant 1 120.2 PA Sunbury 3 95.9 TN Cumberland Fossil Plant 2 146.4 PA Sunbury 4 122.0 TN Gallatin Fossil Plant 2 81.1 PA Titus 1 24.3 TN Gallatin Fossil Plant 1 91.8 PA Titus 3 24.9 TN Gallatin Fossil Plant 4 98.3 PA Titus 2 27.2 TN Gallatin Fossil Plant 3 103.1 Wheelabrator Frackville TN John Sevier Fossil Plant 1 62.1 PA Energy Co. GEN 1 0.4 TN John Sevier Fossil Plant 3 65.2 SC Canadys Steam 1 12.4 TN John Sevier Fossil Plant 2 65.4 SC Canadys Steam 2 13.8 TN John Sevier Fossil Plant 4 67.4 SC Canadys Steam 3 28.0 TN Johnsonville Fossil Plant 3 34.3 SC Cope 1 2.4 TN Johnsonville Fossil Plant 2 39.5 SC Cross Generating Station 2 44.9 TN Johnsonville Fossil Plant 8 40.0 SC Cross Generating Station 1 60.4 TN Johnsonville Fossil Plant 4 41.0 Grainger Generating TN Johnsonville Fossil Plant 5 41.3 SC Station 2 27.6 TN Johnsonville Fossil Plant 1 41.7 Grainger Generating SC Station 1 28.2 TN Johnsonville Fossil Plant 6 41.9 SC H B Robinson 1 54.2 TN Johnsonville Fossil Plant 10 42.2 Jefferies Generating TN Johnsonville Fossil Plant 7 52.7 SC Station 3 46.7 TN Johnsonville Fossil Plant 9 59.5 SC Jefferies Generating TN Kingston Fossil Plant 3 45.6 Station 4 60.4 * Reliant Energy closed this plant in 2003 and built a new 521- megawatt power plant on the same site. The new plant burns waste coal; data on the new plant’s mercury emissions are not available. The Fine Print 25 Mercury Mercury Emissions, Emissions, State Plant Unit Pounds State Plant Unit Pounds TN Kingston Fossil Plant 1 50.3 TX Welsh 3 141.8 TN Kingston Fossil Plant 4 52.9 TX Welsh 2 168.5 TN Kingston Fossil Plant 2 53.8 UT Bonanza 1*1 3.1 TN Kingston Fossil Plant 8 57.2 UT Carbon 1 17.6 TN Kingston Fossil Plant 7 60.3 UT Carbon 2 22.0 TN Kingston Fossil Plant 9 69.4 UT Hunter 3 4.6 TN Kingston Fossil Plant 6 71.0 UT Hunter 1 36.2 TN Kingston Fossil Plant 5 73.6 UT Hunter 2 41.8 TX Big Brown 1 392.0 UT Huntington 1 35.4 TX Big Brown 2 477.1 UT Huntington 2 113.3 TX Coleto Creek 1 143.9 UT Intermountain 1SGA 4.1 TX Gibbons Creek 1 264.2 UT Intermountain 2SGA 4.9 TX Harrington Station 062B 46.2 Sunnyside Cogeneration TX Harrington Station 063B 54.1 UT Associates GEN 1 0.1 TX Harrington Station 061B 183.5 VA AES Warrior Run GN1 1.6 TX J.K. Spruce BLR1 240.9 VA Bremo Power Station 3 37.7 TX J.T. Deely 2 247.5 VA Bremo Power Station 4 89.3 TX J.T. Deely 1 254.4 VA Chesapeake Energy Center 2 36.2 TX Limestone LIM1 480.7 VA Chesapeake Energy Center 1 36.3 TX Limestone LIM2 485.4 VA Chesapeake Energy Center 3 40.3 TX Martin Lake 1 422.3 VA Chesapeake Energy Center 4 70.1 TX Martin Lake 3 468.3 VA Chesterfield Power Station 3 37.7 TX Martin Lake 2 475.0 VA Chesterfield Power Station 4 59.3 TX Monticello 3 536.4 VA Chesterfield Power Station 5 110.6 TX Monticello 2 697.1 VA Chesterfield Power Station 6 160.0 TX Monticello 1 864.0 VA Clinch River 3 49.8 TX Oklaunion 1 176.8 VA Clinch River 2 50.6 TX Pirkey 1 812.5 VA Clinch River 1 56.5 TX Sam Seymour 3 200.2 VA Clover Power Station 1 5.6 TX Sam Seymour 2 275.5 VA Clover Power Station 2 5.8 TX Sam Seymour 1 297.2 VA Glen Lyn 51 12.4 TX San Miguel 1 133.9 VA Glen Lyn 52 13.2 TX Sandow 4 289.4 VA Glen Lyn 6 61.4 TX TNP-One U2 12.7 LG&E - Westmoreland TX TNP-One U1 13.9 VA Altavista GEN 1B 0.1 LG&E - Westmoreland TX Tolk Station 172B 76.7 VA Altavista GEN 1A 0.1 TX Tolk Station 171B 83.3 LG&E - Westmoreland TX W A Parish WAP7 69.1 VA Hopewell GEN 1 0.1 TX W A Parish WAP6 95.8 LG&E - Westmoreland TX W A Parish WAP5 103.3 VA Southampton GEN 1A 0.1 LG&E - Westmoreland TX W A Parish WAP8 233.4 VA Southampton GEN 1B 0.1 TX Welsh 1 128.5

The Fine Print 26 Mercury Mercury Emissions, Emissions, State Plant Unit Pounds State Plant Unit Pounds Mecklenburg WI Pulliam 7 14.7 VA Cogeneration Facility GEN 1 0.3 WI Pulliam 6 15.8 Mecklenburg VA Cogeneration Facility GEN 2 0.3 WI Pulliam 8 27.4 Possum Point Power WI Rock River 1 9.1 VA Station 3 40.8 WI Rock River 2 11.1 Possum Point Power WI South Oak Creek 6 56.4 VA Station 4 88.8 WI South Oak Creek 5 59.4 VA Potomac River 1 11.2 WI South Oak Creek 7 71.4 VA Potomac River 2 13.7 WI South Oak Creek 8 83.6 VA Potomac River 5 18.7 WI Valley 2 13.2 VA Potomac River 4 19.8 WI Valley 1 13.2 VA Potomac River 3 20.1 WI Valley 4 14.4 SEI - Birchwood Power VA Facility 1 2.9 WI Valley 3 14.4 VA Yorktown Power Station 1 48.8 WI Weston 1 19.6 VA Yorktown Power Station 2 65.9 WI Weston 2 27.1 WA Centralia BW 22 260.1 WI Weston 3 112.6 WA Centralia BW 21 269.6 WV Albright 1 18.5 WI Alma B4 7.0 WV Albright 2 19.0 WI Alma B5 8.6 WV Albright 3 81.2 Bay Front Plant WV Fort Martin 1 223.6 WI Generating 5 2.8 WV Fort Martin 2 226.5 WI Blount Street 9 2.9 WV Grant Town Power Plant GEN1 0.3 WI Blount Street 8 3.5 WV Harrison 2 95.9 WI Columbia 1 154.8 WV Harrison 3 102.4 WI Columbia 2 167.8 WV Harrison 1 105.4 WI Edgewater (WI) 3 15.3 WV John E Amos 1 238.9 WI Edgewater (WI) 4 73.8 WV John E Amos 2 289.1 WI Edgewater (WI) 5 117.2 WV John E Amos 3 437.5 WI Genoa 1 64.6 WV Kammer 1 83.1 WI J P Madgett B1 117.6 WV Kammer 3 90.1 WI Nelson Dewey 2 35.9 WV Kammer 2 104.8 WI Nelson Dewey 1 37.2 WV Kanawha River 1 58.9 WI Pleasant Prairie 2 390.8 WV Kanawha River 2 70.7 WI Pleasant Prairie 1 426.1 WV Mitchell (WV) 1 221.5 WI Port Washington 4 9.6 WV Mitchell (WV) 2 228.3 WI Port Washington 1 11.5 Morgantown Energy WI Port Washington 2 16.9 WV Facility GEN1 17.5 WI Port Washington 3 17.6 WV Mountaineer 1 413.8 WI Pulliam 3 3.8 WV Mt. Storm Power Station 3 129.2 WV Mt. Storm Power Station 2 410.6 WI Pulliam 4 4.2 WV Mt. Storm Power Station 1 436.7 WI Pulliam 5 11.1 WV North Branch Power Stn 1B 0.0

The Fine Print 27 Mercury Mercury Emissions, Emissions, State Plant Unit Pounds State Plant Unit Pounds WV North Branch Power Stn 1A 0.1 WY Dave Johnston BW 43 78.9 WV Philip Sporn 31 74.9 WY Dave Johnston BW 44 134.9 WV Philip Sporn 21 86.5 WY Jim Bridger BW 73 144.6 WV Philip Sporn 11 89.4 WY Jim Bridger BW 74 145.9 WV Philip Sporn 41 91.1 WY Jim Bridger BW 72 162.6 WV Philip Sporn 51 209.1 WY Jim Bridger BW 71 162.9 WV Pleasants 1 62.9 WY Laramie River Station 3 159.0 WV Pleasants 2 79.2 WY Laramie River Station 1 166.5 WV Rivesville 7 5.6 WY Laramie River Station 2 170.3 WV Rivesville 8 30.6 WY Naughton 1 48.7 WV Willow Island 1 24.8 WY Naughton 2 61.1 WV Willow Island 2 74.2 WY Naughton 3 68.0 WY Dave Johnston BW 41 46.4 WY Neil Simpson 2 2 48.2 WY Dave Johnston BW 42 47.7 WY Wyodak BW 91 182.3

The Fine Print 28

Notes

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Mercury Study Report to Congress, December 1997. 2 EPA, Mercury Study Report to Congress, December 1997. 3 EPA, Mercury Study Report to Congress, December 1997. 4 EPA, Mercury Study Report to Congress, December 1997. 5 National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000); U.S. EPA, Mercury Study Report to Congress, December 1997. 6 EPA, Mercury Study Report to Congress, December 1997. 7 National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000); U.S. EPA, Mercury Study Report to Congress, December 1997. 8 Kathryn Mahaffey, Robert P. Cliffner, and Catherine Bodurow, “Blood Organic Mercury and Dietary Mercury Intake: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999 and 2000,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 112(5) 562-570, April 2004; Kathryn R. Mahaffey, U.S. EPA, “Methylmercury Epidemiology Update,” Slide #9 of presentation given at the National Forum on Contaminants in Fish, San Diego, January 2004, available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/forum/2004/presentations/monday/mahaffey.pdf. 9 Ellen K. Silbergeld, Department of Environmental Health Sciences and Epidemiology, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, testimony presented at EPA hearing on the regulation of utility mercury emissions, Philadelphia, 25 February 2004; Edna M. Yokoo et al., “Low Level Methylmercury Exposure Affects Neuropsychological Function in Adults,” Environmental Health, 2(8), June 2003. 10 National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000). 11 Eliseo Guallar et al., “Mercury, Fish Oils, and the Risk of Myocardial Infarction,” New England Journal of Medicine, 347(22), 1747-1754, 28 November 2002. 12 J.G. Weiner et al, “Partitioning and Bioavailability of Mercury in an Experimentally Acidified Wisconsin Lake,” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 9:909-918, 1990. 13 EPA, “Mercury Update: Impact on Fish Advisories” (fact sheet), June 2001, available at http://www.epa.gov/ost/fishadvice/mercupd.pdf. 14 EPA, “Mercury Update: Impact on Fish Advisories” (fact sheet), June 2001, available at http://www.epa.gov/ost/fishadvice/mercupd.pdf. 15 Zachary Corrigan, U.S. PIRG Education Fund, Fishing for Trouble, October 2004 (analyzing all active fish consumption advisories issued by states in 2003 for local waterways due to mercury contamination and finding 44 states with such advisories). 16 Zachary Corrigan, U.S. PIRG Education Fund, Fishing for Trouble, October 2004 (finding 21 states in 2003 with statewide advisories for their inland lakes and/or rivers. Since Fishing for Trouble was issued, another state—West Virginia—has issued a statewide mercury-related fish consumption advisory, bringing the total to 22 states. Brian Farkas, “Statewide Fish Consumption Advisory Issued for Mercury,” Associated Press Newswires, 13 December 2004. 17 EPA and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), What You Need to Know about Mercury Levels in Fish and Shellfish, 2004, available at http://www.epa.gov/ost/fishadvice/advice.html. 18 EPA, Mercury Study Report to Congress, December 1997, Vol. 3, page 5-1. 19 EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Benefits of Reducing Mercury in Saltwater Ecosystems: A Case Study, January 2004, 17. 20 Emily Figdor, U.S. PIRG Education Fund, Reel Danger: Power Plant Mercury Pollution and the Fish We Eat, August 2004, 4 (analyzing U.S. EPA’s 1999 National Emissions Inventory for Hazardous Air Pollutants as cited in Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, Mercury Emissions for Coal-Fired Power Plants: The Case for Regulatory Action, October 2003), available at http://www.uspirg.org/reports/ReelDanger7_04.pdf. 21 EPA, Mercury Study Report to Congress, December 1997, Vol. 3, pages 5-1 and 5-2. 22 Environmental Defense, Out of Control and Close to Home: Mercury Pollution from Power Plants, 2003. 23 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, “Integrating Atmospheric Mercury Deposition with Aquatic Cycling in South Florida: An Approach for Conducting Total Maximum Daily Load Analysis for an Atmospherically Derived Pollutant,” November 2003. 24 T.R. Hrabik and C.J. Watras, “Recent Declines in Mercury Concentration in a Freshwater Fishery: Isolating the Effects of De- Acidification and Decreased Atmospheric Mercury Deposition in Little Rock Lake,” The Science of the Total Environment, 297: 229- 237, 2002.

The Fine Print 29

25 Clean Air Act § 112(n)(1)(A). 26 Clean Air Act § 112(n)(1)(A). 27 EPA, Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, February 1998. 28 Felice Stadler, National Wildlife Federation, “Mercury and Power Plants: EPA’s 14-Year Effort to Regulate” (timeline). 29 62 Fed. Reg. 79825, 20 December 2000. 30 EPA, “EPA Decides Mercury Emissions from Power Plants Must Be Reduced” (press release), 14 December 2000. 31 Mercury is listed as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act, §112(b)(1). 32 Clean Air Act, § 112(d). 33 EPA, Presentation to the Edison Electric Institute, 18 September 2001, available at http://cta.policy.net/epamercury/pdf. 34 Reducing annual mercury emissions of 48 tons by 89%, 90%, and 98% would result in approximately 5.3, 4.8, and 1.0 tons, respectively. 35 60 Fed. Reg. 65387, 19 December 1995 (municipal waste combusters); 62 Fed. Reg. 48348, 15 September 1997 (medical waste incinerators). 36 69 Fed. Reg. 4652, 30 January 2004; 69 Fed. Reg. 12398, 16 March 2004 (supplemental proposal). 37 Eric Pianin, “Proposed Mercury Rules Bear Industry Mark,” Washington Post, 31 January 2004; Darren Samuelsohn, “More Industry Materials Found Duplicated in EPA’s Mercury Rule,” Greenwire, 26 February 2004 (reporting that sections of EPA’s proposed rule were taken verbatim from memos written by Latham & Watkins, a law firm representing large electric utilities, and West Associates, a group representing 20 power and transmission companies). 38 See, e.g., Tom Hamburger and Alan C. Miller, “Mercury Emissions Rule Geared to Benefit Industry, Staffers Say,” Los Angeles Times, 16 March 2004 (reporting that “[p]olitical appointees in the Environmental Protection Agency bypassed agency professional staff and a federal advisory panel last year to craft a rule on mercury emissions preferred by the industry and the White House, several longtime EPA officials say. The EPA staffers say they were told not to undertake the normal scientific and economic studies called for under a standing executive order.”); Jennifer Lee, “White House Minimized the Risks of Mercury in Proposed Rules, Scientists Say,” New York Times, 7 April 2004 (reporting that White House officials scrubbed language in the proposal to downplay the scientific evidence regarding the hazards of mercury pollution). 39 Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee letter to EPA Administrator Michael Leavitt, 26 January 2004, downloaded from http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/20040126/$file/20040126.pdf, 5 July 2004. 40 EPA, Office of Inspector General, Evaluation Report: Additional Analyses of Mercury Emissions Needed Before EPA Finalizes Rules for Coal-Fired Electric Utilities, Report No. 2005-P-00003, 3 February 2005 (finding, among other things, that “[e]vidence indicates that EPA senior management instructed EPA staff to develop a Maximum Achievable Control technology (MACT) standard for mercury that would result in national emissions of 34 tons annually, instead of basing the standard on an unbiased determination of what the top performing units were achieving in practice”). 41 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Clean Air Act: Observations on EPA’s Cost-Benefit Analysis of Its Mercury Control Options, GAO-05-252, February 2005 (identifying “four major shortcomings in the economic analysis underlying EPA’s proposed mercury control options that limit its usefulness for informing decision makers about the economic trade-offs of the different policy options”). 42 Statement of Emily Figdor, Clean Air Advocate, U.S. PIRG, “Protect Children’s Health: Stop Mercury Pollution,” 30 June 2004, available at www.uspirg.org. 43 To avoid issuing a MACT standard for mercury, EPA reversed its prior determination that power plant mercury emissions should be regulated as a hazardous air pollutant in a separate rule available at http://www.epa.gov/air/mercuryrule/pdfs/camr_final_regfinding.pdf. 44 Clean Air Mercury Rule, available at http://www.epa.gov/air/mercuryrule/pdfs/camr_final_preamble.pdf (preamble) and http://www.epa.gov/air/mercuryrule/pdfs/camr_final_regtext.pdf (regulatory text). 45 Darren Samuelson, “N.Y. AG, Enviro Group Prepare Lawsuits over Mercury Rule,” Greenwire, 16 March 2005. 46 New Jersey Attorney General Peter C. Harvey et al, “Nine States File Suit Challenging EPA Mercury Rule,” press release, 29 March 2005. 47 Clear Skies Act of 2005, S.131, §473. This section allocates 1,088,000 and 480,000 mercury allowances for the years 2010- 2017 and 2018 and thereafter, respectively. Given that one mercury allowance is needed for each ounce of mercury, the allocated allowances would result in emissions of 34 tons annually from 2010-2017 (1,088,000 ÷ 16 oz./lb. ÷ 2000 lbs./ton) and 15 tons annually in 2018 and beyond (480,000 ÷ 16 oz./ton ÷2000 lbs./ton). 48 Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Analysis of S. 1844, the Clear Skies Act of 2003; S. 843, the Clean Air Planning Act of 2003; and S. 366, the Clean power Act of 2003, May 2004. While the EIA analyzed a 2003 version of the “Clear Skies” initiative, its analysis is also applicable to S.131, the 2005 bill.

The Fine Print 30

49 Clean Air Mercury Rule Preamble, at http://www.epa.gov/air/mercuryrule/pdfs/camr_final_preamble.pdf; see also EPA, Response to Significant Public Comments on the Proposed Clean Air Mercury Rule, pp. 202-04, available at www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/utiltoxpg.html#TECH. 50 69 Fed. Reg. 58666. See also EPA, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act—Section 313: Guidance for Reporting Toxic Chemicals: Mercury and Mercury-Related Compounds, August 2001. 51 EPA, “Fact Sheet on EPCRA Section 313 Rulemaking: Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic Chemicals,” available at http://www.epa.gov/tri/lawsandregs/pbt/pbtrule-fs.pdf.

The Fine Print 31