From the Outdoors page of the Pittsburg Post-Gazette (Fishing: mercury ...):
Pennsylvania has been given the green light from an oversight panel to develop its own regulations for power plant mercury emissions, while it sues the federal government over pollution standards* it believes fail to adequately address the public health risk.
...
While the move has been hailed by conservation and outdoors groups, which have been pressing the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] to do something about mercury, some air quality experts question the economic and environmental benefits of a state-specific approach in the face of a global problem.
Who's right?
Over a month ago, Rich Woodward commented:
The folks in Pennsylvania seem to have caught on:
Unlike some pollutants that quickly disperse, mercury is more prone to settle around the pollution source, Knaus said. Though so-called hot spots are a topic of debate among air quality experts, Knaus cites EPA data indicating that 50 to 80 percent of the mercury plaguing Pennsylvania waters is from plants located within the state, and that mercury deposits are typically found within a 90-mile radius of power plants.
...
[DEP spokesman Kurt ] Knaus said a cost-benefit analysis would be part of DEP's final proposal. He also said that Pennsylvania still advocates for a federal approach to ensure equity and reductions on a broad scale. "But the current federal rule isn't strong," he said. "We had the option of making a stronger one on our own and that's the one we took."
Environmental groups have applauded the move. "We'll be at the table advocating for a 90 percent reduction in emissions, and the technology is there for plants to do that," said Jan Jarrett, vice president of PennFuture, a public interest and environmental advocacy group that has led the push for state-specific regulations.
Once a draft proposal is written, DEP will need approval from the Environmental Quality Board and the Independent Regulatory Review Commission.
The proposal will be put out for public comment before a final plan is adopted.
Wanted: Env-Econ PA correspondent to keep us posted on this issue.
*Note: Here is the EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule.
Sure trading works fine in theory, but the reality is that it is not right in all situations. Trading across polluters is unambiguously welfare improving only if there is no effect on environmental quality. Mercury is anything but a uniformly dispersed pollutant -- it's all about local concentrations. If polluter #2 is in an area where concentrations are a problem, and polluter #1 is in a area where local concentrations are not a problem, then trading between them can have serious environmental consequences.
That's why the mercury trading program is not even supported by Environmental Defense, which was one of the organizations that was responsible for pushing forward the Clean Air Act revisions that lead to the SO2 trading program.
Bottom line: trading can work, but when it's applied inappropriately, it's bad for the environment and bad economics.