John Reindl of Madison, WI While I think that the NE states should be congratulated for banding together to reduce mercury emissions from power plants, I believe that they also need to expand their efforts on mercury from products.

Several years ago, I worked on an EPA mass balance project to estimate the amount of mercury released to the environment annually in the US from products, and the result was three times the amount released to the air from coal-burning power plants.

Thus, a truly meaningful approach to limiting mercury emissions will put a great deal more emphasis on products.

For those interested in some details, see "Substance Flow Analysis of Mercury Intentionally Used in Products in the United States",
Alexis Cain, Sarah Disch, Cliff Twaroski, John Reindl, and C. Randy Case, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Volume 11, Number 3, 2007, pp 61-75.

John Reindl
Madison, WIreport abuse

Joe Atkinson of Dresden, ME We have been on this issue for years with little to no traction. While Maine has an energy policy that deserves sharp criticism and major overhaul, the issue of air born transportation of mercury into Maine from power plants in other regions is a just cause.
Maine has an unnecessarily, uncompetitive price of electricity. Maine rejected the Hydro Quebec deal for 300 mw for 40 years at 5 cents/kwhr. Maine allowed Maine Yankee to be closed (3.7 cents); both cheaper and less polluting than our current generation mix. Notwithstanding Maine’s own poor policies and choices we do not deserve to be the dumping site for cost effective power sources serving other regions.
While extracting value from our natural resources and striving to maintain global economic competitiveness must be national priorities, it must also be done in a manner that is socially and environmentally responsible and within our ability economically. There are rules governing the use of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). These rules were promulgated with input and lobbying from the power industry and while the rationale for waivers and exemptions was not unreasonable, the extended use of waivers has resulted in the diminishment of the effect of BACT technology and the outcome of implementation.
We can do far better in pollution control in coal fired power plants. There are back-fit rules to prevent an older power plant from becoming instantly uneconomical. The use of up-grade rules has allowed older plants to receive significant investment to increase output without imposition of current BACT.
We should not seek to litigate coal power out of existence as the anti-nuclear activists crippled nuclear power with the cost of regulation. The technology is there, or is within grasp. It is not unreasonable of Maine and its neighboring states to ask that the beneficiaries of low cost coal fired electricity add an incremental cost for waste reduction.report abuse