The message to the Environmental Protection Agency, coming from states, members of Congress and the public, is clear: Rules proposed by the Bush administration to reduce mercury pollution fall short of what is necessary to protect human health and the environment. Instead, the agency should move forward with a more stringent rule developed by the previous administration.

Rather than adopting regulations requiring the installation of maximum achievable control technology (MACT) as required by the Clean Air Act, the agency late last year proposed a new cap-and-trade program that would allow power plants to buy and sell the right to emit mercury, a potent neurotoxin. MACT would have reduced mercury emissions 90 percent by 2008. The cap-and-trade rules, which allows companies that cannot reduce their share of mercury emissions to pay for cuts at other facilities, would result in a 70 percent reduction by 2018.

Officials at power plants, refineries and factories have said they cannot meet the MACT requirements. That contention was countered last year by testimony from industry before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. A study by the National Environmental Trust analyzed federal data and concluded that “50 power plants, with about 150 boiler units, are already achieving mercury emissions reductions of at least 90 percent, without even installing the best controls.”

The Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, an association of state air quality control divisions, last fall concluded, “Toxic mercury emissions from power plants could be reduced by over 90 percent – from 48 tons annually down to only 7 tons – through a combination of benefits achieved from existing air pollution controls and utilization of commercially available mercury reduction technologies … without undue economic burden.”

The EPA’s own analysis of the rules has been delayed by political appointees at the agency. Further, language in the new rule was taken directly from memos on the subject written by lawyers representing the regulated industries and an advisory committee charged with providing the EPA with feedback on regulatory alternatives was disbanded without explanation earlier this year, according to media reports.

EPA administrator Michael Leavitt has said he will re-evaluate the cap-and-trade plan. He’ll have plenty to evaluate. More than 540,000 comments have been filed on the plan. Among them are strong opposition from 11 states, including Maine. The states, which also include California, New Mexico and Wisconsin, argue that the rule favored by the Bush administration favors power company interests at the expense of public health. A group of 45 senators, including Maine’s, have also asked the agency to withdraw the rule in favor of the MACT approach.

In her comments to the EPA, Sen. Susan Collins noted that data collected by the agency shows that existing technologies can reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants by 98 percent or more. “In inexplicably, the proposed Utility Mercury Reductions Rule does not reflect this technological capability,” she wrote. Environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Council of Maine have sued the agency, saying the cap-and-trade rules violate the Clean Air Act.

After evaluating all the data, the agency must adopt the rule that will accomplish the largest reduction in mercury emissions in the shortest period of time.