Coal, Mercury, Regulation, and Why the Election Matters

image
Published: 25 Oct, 2012
Updated: 13 Oct, 2022
3 min read

The Obama Administration has proposed a new regulation of mercury pollution from power plants.  Romney has singled out this regulation as an example of regulation gone wild.  Who is right, and why does it matter?

When coal is burned, mercury contained in the coal is released into the atmosphere, where it can be inhaled or fall into water bodies where it ends up in fish. The EPA rule deals with emissions of mercury from utilities; a separate rule covers industrial boilers, which are used by cement plants, paper mills, and other large facilities.  The rule would cut mercury air pollution in half. EPA estimates that the rule will prevent 4,200 - 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 asthma attacks each year.  EPA also indicated that the rule would eliminate 5,700 hospital admissions and emergency room visits; 2,800 cases of chronic bronchitis; and 3.2 million days when people must restrict their activities each year.

Romney has forcefully criticized the regulation.  He stresses that “the EPA estimates that the rule will cost $10 billion to reduce mercury pollution by only $6 million.” Instead, he says, the benefits come from making the rule “so expensive that it will bankrupt the coal industry, and then claiming that the elimination of that industry (and its hundreds of thousands of jobs) would have significant benefits.”

The impacts of mercury pollution are hard to determine because of the complicated ways that it enters the environment.  It’s also hard to put a dollar sign on some of the harms caused by mercury, such as children losing IQ points. Thus, Romney is right that the benefits of reducing mercury weren’t central to EPA’s cost-benefit analysis.  But he is wrong in claiming that the projected benefits were based on eliminating coal.

In fact, EPA estimated that less than half a percent of U.S. power plants (measured by generating capacity) would close.  The big gains come from making old plants use up-to-date pollution controls, which will greatly reduce particulate pollution.  Microscopic particulates (call PM2.5) have serious health impacts, and the additional pollution equipment will sharply cut their levels.  The particulate reduction is the basis for EPA’s estimate that the rule will have annual monetized benefits of $37-90 billion and costs of $9.6 billion.

The split between Obama and Romney over these regulations is mirrored by other participants in the regulatory debate.  The American Lung Association hails the rule as “a huge step towards cleaning up the air we depend on and giving us back the air we deserve.” In contrast, the Chamber of Commerce says that the rule is “unprecedented in its size and scope and could literally leave our nation’s economy in the dark.”

Most of us aren’t economists or public health experts, so it’s difficult to form independent judgments.  (And even an expert would need to do a lot of research into this particular situation before forming a judgment.)  Maybe it comes down to whether you’re inclined to believe the American Lung Association or the Chamber of Commerce.  The one thing that’s clear is the regulation matters a lot, and the identity of the next President will determine its fate.

Latest articles

CA capitol building dome with flags.
Why is CA Senator Mike McGuire Trying to Kill the Legal Cannabis Industry?
California’s legal cannabis industry is under mounting pressure, and in early June, state lawmakers and the governor appeared poised to help. A bill to freeze the state’s cannabis excise tax at 15% sailed through the State Assembly with a unanimous 74-0 vote. The governor’s office backed the plan. And legal cannabis businesses, still struggling to compete with unregulated sellers and mounting operating costs, saw a glimmer of hope....
03 Jul, 2025
-
7 min read
I voted buttons
After First RCV Election, Charlottesville Voters Back the Reform: 'They Get It, They Like It, They Want to Do It Again'
A new survey out of Charlottesville, Virginia, shows overwhelming support for ranked choice voting (RCV) following the city’s first use of the system in its June Democratic primary for City Council. Conducted one week after the election, the results found that nearly 90% of respondents support continued use of RCV....
03 Jul, 2025
-
3 min read
Crowd in Time Square.
NYC Exit Survey: 96% of Voters Understood Their Ranked Choice Ballots
An exit poll conducted by SurveyUSA on behalf of the nonprofit better elections group FairVote finds that ranked choice voting (RCV) continues to be supported by a vast majority of voters who find it simple, fair, and easy to use. The findings come in the wake of the city’s third use of RCV in its June 2025 primary elections....
01 Jul, 2025
-
6 min read