LANSING - The Michigan Environmental Council, representing 65 Michigan organizations, today criticized the Bush Administration's decision to propose power plant pollution reduction rules that are much weaker than what is required by faithful implementation of the Clean Air Act. In response to a court ordered deadline to propose power plant mercury controls, the Administration proposed three separate rule packages - two competing proposals to address mercury pollution, and one proposal that would reduce fine particulate pollution that contributes to failing air quality standards in Michigan.

"This is another example of how the Bush Administration is weakening the Clean Air Act and then calling it a victory for clean air," said David Gard, Energy Policy Specialist. "The fact that they're announcing all these proposals at the same time suggests that they would like to catch the public off-guard."

The Michigan Environmental Council was particularly critical of the mercury rule packages. The Administration was under a court ordered deadline to propose mercury regulations from coal-fired power plants. Under one proposal, the Administration proposed a 30% cut in emissions from coal-fired power plants. This is reduction level is far less than the 90% cut in mercury emissions required from other sources such as municipal waste incinerators, even though the same control technology used with incinerators is commercially available for power plants.

The administration also proposed a second competing rule that would reverse EPA's earlier finding that mercury is toxic enough to be reduced at every plant and would instead propose a pollution credit trading program for mercury. Under this scheme, a company could buy credits rather than install pollution controls. The plan would require a total emission cut of 70%, but these cuts wouldn't be required by 2018, ten years later than if the Clean Air Act were faithfully implemented. This plan has also been advocated for by the utility industry, as part of the Administration Clear Skies Initiative.

Gard emphasized, "Instead of doing what the law requires and safeguarding our environment, the Administration is taking it easy on polluters that are contaminating our fish, our waterways, and potentially our children with toxic mercury."

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that interferes with the development and function of the central nervous system. Mercury exposure to pregnant women and women of childbearing age can cause permanent brain damage to the fetus, infant and young children. In 2002, mercury contamination forced 41 states to issue a total of 2,242 fish advisories, warning anglers and the public not to eat certain fish and to limit consumption of others. According to the Centers for Disease Control's 1999-2000 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, eight percent of the women of childbearing age (1 out of every 12) that were tested had mercury levels in their tissue that are considered unsafe by the EPA.

Particulate Emissions

The Michigan Environmental Council acknowledged the proposed rule to reduce fine particulate pollution from power plants was step in the right direction, but still fell far short of what would be achieved if the Clean Air Act were faithfully implemented. In addition, they noted that the rule wouldn't be finalized for over a year, which is longer than necessary and well after the upcoming election.

Before the Administration announced the Clear Skies Initiative, the EPA estimated that in order for communities to meet the fine particulate air quality standard by 2010, it was necessary to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants by 80% in 2012, preventing estimated 19,000 premature deaths each year. The Administration's proposed 3.2 million ton cap by 2015, would push attainment of air quality standards further back beyond the deadlines, requiring communities to enact local measures to make up the difference. In addition, EPA estimates the rule would prevent less than 14,000 premature deaths, 5,000 fewer than if the stronger rule were adopted, and Clean Air Act deadlines were met.

Gard said, "Frankly, I'm at a loss as to why the Administration has chosen to ignore its own EPA's findings that support a tougher standard."