PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 1, 2010
Mercury Reduction and Energy Security Act of 2010 - Amends the Clean Air Act to require affected units (coal-fired electric steam generating units that have nameplate capacities greater than 25 megawatts and generate electricity for sale) to reduce mercury emissions by the less stringent limitation of: (1) 80% capture of inlet mercury or an emission rate of 1.6 pounds of mercury per trillion British thermal units (Btu) of input coal for the period beginning on January 1, 2012, and ending December 31, 2014; and (2) 90% capture of inlet mercury or an emission rate of 0.8 pounds of mercury per trillion Btu of input coal by 2015 and each year thereafter.
Specifies methods that owners or operators of affected units are required to use as reference methods in calibrating the instruments used to measure the mercury concentrations in emissions from affected units.
Establishes excess emissions penalties for mercury. Sets forth compliance provisions.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes: (1) owners or operators of affected units that fail to achieve such limitations to request an alternate emission limitation; (2) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish alternate limitations if the Administrator determines that the owner or operator has properly installed and operated continuous emissions monitoring system and control technology designed to achieve such limitations and is unable to achieve such limitations; and (3) the Administrator, after granting alternate limitations, to impose more stringent emissions limitations in subsequent years. Makes such alternate limitations effective January 1, 2015.
Provides that this Act supersedes any other requirement in such Act with regard to the emission of mercury from electric utility steam generating units.
People & committees
Rep. Costa, Jim [D-CA-20] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.5674 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.5674 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.5674 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.5674 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.