Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

IMPLEMENTING THE BINATIONAL TOXICS STRATEGY
Implementation

Stakeholders Forum
November 16-17, 1998 - Chicago, Illinois

Utilities Workshop Community Actions Items

On November 17, 1998, U.S. EPA and Environment Canada sponsored a one-day workshop to discuss ways to achieve mercury reductions at U.S. and Canadian utilities. This workshop was hosted under the auspices of the Binational Toxics Strategy (BNS), a U.S.-Canadian agreement to reduce or eliminate specific persistent, bioaccumulative toxic substances, including mercury, from the Great Lakes Basin.

The BNS lays out specific challenge goals for each of the targeted substances. For mercury, the challenge goals are:

• U.S.Challenge: Seek by 2006, a 50 percent reduction nationally in the deliberate use of mercury and a 50 percent reduction in the release of mercury from sources resulting from human activity. The release challenge will apply to the aggregate of releases to the air nationwide and of releases to the water within the Great Lakes Basin.

• Canadian Challenge: Seek by 2000, a 90 percent reduction in the release of mercury, or where warranted the use of mercury, from polluting sources resulting from human activity in the Great Lakes Basin.

The utilities workshop identified practical steps that utilities, government agencies, and non-governmental entities can take in the near term to help meet the BNS’ mercury reduction challenges. The meeting was built around a series of presentations and two panel discussions (on pollution prevention and incentives for cleaner power). Discussion topics included the cost-effectiveness of various reduction options, control technologies, the effects of market restructuring, and the potential benefits of fuel switching and energy efficiency.

Workshop participants were asked to identify opportunities to achieve mercury reductions at utilities, to determine followup activities to and practical demonstrations of the best ideas coming out of the workshop, and to consider what non-hardware options are available to achieve mercury emissions reductions at electric utilities.

By the end of their daylong workshop, participants had identified specific actions that electric utilities, NGOs, local, State, provincial and federal governments and consumers can take to help reduce mercury emissions from electric utilities. These activities are briefly described below, using the following key:

=utilities

=government

=NGOs / communities

Removal of On-site Mercury-Containing Devices:

Inventory stockpile(s) of liquid mercury in storage and in electronic and measurement and control devices. Make a commitment to reduce this inventory, focusing on liquid mercury in storage and those devices which create the most significant risks of spills, either in the plant or in the customer's home.

Sponsor regional workshops to inform and inspire collection activities; invite both gas and electric utility companies to attend.

Removal of Off-site Mercury-Containing Devices:

	Inform customers (e.g., by including information sheets in monthly billing statements) about ways to improve energy efficiency in their homes. Offer customers tips on how to identify potential mercury-containing devices that may need to be removed from the premises.
	To encourage mercury emissions reductions in other sectors, finance local/state/province-wide collections of mercury containing devices from household and commercial customers.

Technology development/demonstration:

Support the development of promising technologies for the capture of mercury from the emissions of coal-fired power plants.

Same as above, and participate in projects to demonstrate the potential practical effectiveness of such technologies.

Planning for Multi-Pollutant Reduction:
Fuel switching is an expensive strategy for mercury control in many cases. However, when the benefits of reductions in other regulated or potentially-regulated pollutants (NOx, SO2, particulates, CO2) are also considered in planning future generation mix, fuel switching can become a more cost-effective option.

	Consider mercury when making near-term compliance decisions for nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide.
	Consider multiple pollutant benefits in planning future generation mix.

Develop/support programs that offer "credit" to utilities that implement multi-pollutant reduction/fuel switching programs. Early reduction credit programs can create an incentive for mercury reductions by providing sources with "credits" that can be used for compliance with future regulations.

For more information on multiple pollutant control strategies or documenting verifiable mercury reductions, contact Stacey David or Sue Gander at the Center for Clean Air Policy (202-408-9260), or download the report, "Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants:  Science, Technology, and Policy Options" from http://www.ccap.org/ .

Energy-Efficiency:
Utility support for energy efficiency programs is declining in the competitive market; paying for energy-efficiency upgrades may be an expensive way for a utility to achieve mercury reductions. However, from a societal perspective and when the payback in cost savings to utility customers is considered, energy efficiency may often be the least-cost option. For instance, use of more energy-efficient lighting is a cost-free (even financially rewarding) means of reducing mercury emissions.

Support energy-efficiency programs through market transformation strategies (energy efficient mortgages, EnergyStar, code changes, training and education), perhaps financed through statewide system benefit charges.

Green Energy:

Test the market for renewable, less environmentally-damaging forms of electricity generation by marketing "green" energy to customers.

Promote the idea of buying "green;" support the development of labeling standards for green energy.

Alternative Energy:

Consider changes in tax and other policies to encourage shifting to alternative energy.

Emissions information:

Consider harmonizing reporting requirements for the emissions information provided to governments by utilities.

To see what individuals/groups have done in their communities to reduce mercury emissions (from utilities and other sectors), check out "Mercury Success Stories".

If you would like more information about the Binational Toxics Strategy and the BNS Mercury Workgroup, check out the website at http://www.epa.gov/bns/ or contact one of the following Mercury Workgroup leaders: