Rebuttal To Administration’s Statement Of Administration Policy
On S.J Res. 20 – The Bipartisan Leahy-Collins
Resolution Of Disapproval On The EPA Mercury Rule

Administration assertion:  “The Administration supports clean air rules to reduce mercury emissions and protect public health based on sound science, and thus strongly opposes S.J Res.20.”

FACTS:  The rule proposed by the Administration has not been developed on sound science.  In fact it has appropriately been faulted for catering to the needs and wants of polluting industries instead of following sound science.   The General Accounting Office has found:  “EPA did not estimate the value of the health benefits directly related to decreased mercury emissions.”  The EPA Inspector General found:  “EPA’s rule development process did not comply with certain Agency and Executive Order requirements, including not fully analyzing the cost-benefit of regulatory alternatives and not fully assessing the rule’s impact on children’s health.”

Administration assertion:  “This resolution would, in effect, repeal EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule, which will reduce mercury emissions by 70 percent.”

FACTS:  This resolution will force EPA to undertake a credible rulemaking – one that’s not co-opted and written just by industry.  Also the Administration’s rule will not reduce emissions by 70 percent until 2030 and would not even begin reductions until 2018.  The Clean Air Act would start reductions in 2008 and achieve up to 90 percent reductions, far sooner.

Administration assertion:  “EPA is regulating under cap and trade rather than command and control and has been successful with other pollutants.”

FACTS:  The acid rain program has been successful, but toxic mercury is not like other pollutants.  Because of deposition, toxic hot spots can develop which cannot be controlled with a cap-and-trade approach.  There are already a number of places in the country that have been identified with high levels of mercury contamination in fish and wildlife.   The Administration’s solution ignores the dangers of mercury to communities and families living in hotspots or living downwind of mercury pollution sources.

Administration assertion:  “EPA’s analysis will ensure that power plant mercury emissions do not cause a public hazard and will achieve reductions in a manner that is more cost effective than could be achieved through a MACT standard.”

FACTS:  First, the Administration’s rule will not do anything to protect the 630,000 newborns at risk of elevated mercury exposure until 2018 at the earliest. 

Second, mercury pollution control technology is effective, commercially available, and affordable.  In fact this technology is currently being installed in two Midwest power plants.  The EPA's mercury rule leaves this new technology -- and new 300,000 jobs -- on the shelf, for another 20 years.

# # # # #