 Bush Introduces Clear Skies Legislation
Washington, D.C., July 30, 2002 (ENS) - Legislation introduced Monday would implement the Bush administration's market based approach to reducing air pollution from power plants, known as the Clear Skies plan. But a new national poll shows that most voters reject this approach, preferring the mandatory emissions cuts and other mechanisms contained in the existing Clean Air Act. The Bush Administration calls the plan an aggressive program that would cut power plant pollution by 70 percent and protect public health. Representatives Billy Tauzin of Louisiana and Joe Barton of Texas, both Republicans, introduced the Clear Skies Act of 2002 on Friday, and Senator Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican, introduced a companion bill in the Senate on Monday. "America has made significant progress over the last 30 years in our quest for cleaner air, and we have learned a lot about what approaches work best. Now is the time to put those lessons to use," said President George W. Bush. "Building upon the success of our most effective clean air program, we have crafted a new Clean Air Act for the 21st century - one that will do more to clean up emissions from power plants than ever before." But environmental and public health groups warn that the Clear Skies plan will cripple current efforts to reduce air pollution, providing far fewer benefits that existing legislation. President Bush first announced the Clear Skies initiative on February 14. The plan would set mandatory, nationwide emissions caps for three air pollutants - sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and mercury - with the aim of reducing power plant emissions of these pollutants by 70 percent. The White House claims the plan would reduce emissions of these three pollutants by 35 million tons of more than full enforcement of the current Clean Air Act. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released data from computer models suggesting that nationwide reductions of SO2, NOx and mercury would mean "vast improvements" in air quality in all regions, particularly areas that now suffer the most from power plant pollutants, including the northeast, southeast and midwest. These pollutants are responsible for air quality problems including smog, acid rain and haze, and they also deposit mercury and nitrogen into the nation's waterways. Many older power plants have been accused by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of illegally upgrading without installing pollution controls. Under the Clear Skies plan, many cities and towns would meet air quality standards for the first time in years, the EPA claims. "Clear Skies will protect public health and the environment and dramatically improve America's air quality," said EPA Administrator Christie Whitman. "The President and I are committed to a plan that will clean up power plant pollution much faster than current law. This plan makes sense for the environment, public health and American consumers." The EPA estimates that by 2020, the Clear Skies plan would deliver $96 billion per year in health and visibility benefits, including preventing 12,000 premature deaths, 10,500 fewer hospitalizations or emergency rooms visits per year, and 13.5 million fewer days when Americans suffer from minor respiratory symptoms. An alternative estimate also cited by the agency shows just $11 billion in benefits, including avoiding 7,000 premature deaths each year by 2020. "Clear Skies will also help save our forests, lakes, streams and coastal waters from acid rain and nitrogen and mercury deposition," said President Bush. "Clear Skies will do this through the use of a market based system that guarantees results while keeping electricity prices affordable for the American people." Cap and Trade The Clear Skies proposal is modeled on the 1990 Clean Air Act's acid rain program, the nation's first cap and trade program for pollutants. By meeting emissions caps early, or exceeding required pollution reductions, companies earn credits that they can sell to other companies that are having trouble meeting the new emissions requirements. The White House argues that establishing a cap in 2010 will cause companies to begin reducing their emissions immediately to generate such credits. Under the plan, emissions of SO2 would be capped at 4.5 million tons per year by 2010, and three million tons by 2018. Current annual SO2 emissions are 11 million tons. NOx emissions from power plants would be capped at 2.1 million tons in 2008, and 1.7 million tons in 2018, down from current emissions of five million tons a year. The plan would set the first ever national cap on mercury emissions: 26 tons in 2010, then 15 tons in 2018, down from current emissions of 48 tons a year. None of Ohio's coal burning power plants are currently required to meet the emissions standards of the 1970 Clean Air Act because they were planned or constructed prior to 1973. But critics of the proposal say the plan would allow more pollution than current federal law. For example, the White House bill would eliminate current protections against increased emissions from aging, coal fired power plants under a Clean Air Act provision called New Source Review (NSR), and weaken existing measures to reduce air pollution drifting over national parks. The Electric Reliability Coordinating Council (ERCC) commended the Bush Administration for proposing to eliminate the NSR provisions, which they have blamed for the expensive lawsuits now facing many large utilities which have upgraded their power plants without installing required new emissions control equipment. "Cap and trade programs can go a long way towards making the Clean Air Act more rational," said ERCC spokesperson Scott Segal. "Clean air is too important to be left to perpetual litigation." In fact, Segal argued, the NSR provision should be overhauled or retracted now, before Congress undertakes its potentially lengthy review of the Clear Skies legislation. "Current problems with NSR are ongoing and need to be fixed right now," Segal said. "Environmental protection, workplace safety, and electric reliability hang in the balance." Clean Air Delayed The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said Monday that the White House bill would delay pollution cuts already required under the Clean Air Act by as many as 10 years. The Bush plan would allow 50 percent more SO2 emissions than current law can achieve, and delay safer standards by as long as eight years, the NRDC charges. It would permit three times more toxic mercury emissions than existing law, and would allow millions of tons of additional NOx pollution. The Clear Skies plan also fails to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas. In contrast, an alternate, Democratically backed plan, the Clean Power Act (S 556), would cut emissions of all four major power plant pollutants. According to an NRDC analysis of EPA figures, by 2020, the tighter standards mandated by the Clean Power Act would cut 34 million more tons of SO2, 6.5 million more tons on NOx, 280 more tons of mercury, and 9.2 billion more tons of CO2. The weaker emission limits in the White House plan would cost 12,000 lives and almost $115 billion each year in medical costs compared to the Clean Power Act, which cleared the Environment Committee last month. "Sweetheart deals for industry in the administration bill will cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars, and condemn millions of people to pollution levels harmful to their health," said David Hawkins of NRDC. "Introduction of this bill looks like nothing more than an election year smokescreen, but the public will see through this cynical ploy." John Kirkwood, president and CEO of the American Lung Association, said the administration's Clear Skies plan "will dismantle the Clean Air Act and severely weaken the nation's effort to fight air pollution." "The plan will not reduce power plant emissions enough to clear the skies and protect the nation's health," Kirkwood said. "In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency's own analysis shows that the Clean Air Act will provide greater pollution reductions than those proposed by the Administration initiative." Public Not Convinced Most Americans share this view, according to a new poll released by the nonprofit Clean Air Trust. The survey of registered and likely voters, conducted for the Clean Air Trust, found that, by almost a three to one margin, voters reject the notion that electric power companies should be able to buy pollution credits from another company rather than clean up their own emissions. That result held true even when the Bush cap and trade plan was described in the White House's own terms, claiming that the proposal would "lead to faster reductions in air pollution at less cost by relying on the efficiency of the market." "If it were up to the voting public, the Bush plan would be dead on arrival," said Frank O'Donnell, executive director of the Clean Air Trust. O'Donnell noted that the survey questions were worded carefully in order not to load the results. "The truth is, once the voting public understands what the Bush plan is all about, they flatly reject it, even if we don't point out that it will encourage irresponsible corporate behavior," added O'Donnell. O'Donnell noted that 53 percent of surveyed Republicans, 69 percent of Independents, and 70 percent of Democrats oppose the cap and trade proposal. However, 70 percent of voters said they supported tougher enforcement of existing clean air laws. Voters also said they would be less likely, by a 45 percent to 10 percent margin, to vote for a candidate who supports the cap and trade proposal. The Clear Skies bill is expected to have the support of most Republicans in Congress. Representative Barton, who introduced the House version of the legislation, said the bill "will not only accelerate the already improving air quality of our nation, but begin key reforms to regulatory programs which have hindered progress and impeded technological innovation." Still, Barton said he expects the bill to face considerable opposition and debate. "This bill serves as a starting point which will hopefully lead to passage of this or similar legislation over the next several years," Barton noted. "This is a first step, and an important one, but we have many more ahead of us." More information about the Clear Skies plan is available at: Source: http://ens-news.com/ens/jul2002/2002-07-30-07.asp
|
