Rants and Raves

[gotmilk]

T'was the other town i'm wait'n on

Under the new provision, the "downwind" states would not be required
to meet clean air standards until the "upwind" states that were contributing
to the problem had done so.


New provision to abolish or gut the Clean Air Act

Change to the Clean Air Act Is Built Into New Energy Bill
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/16/politics/16enviro.html

By MICHAEL JANOFSKY

Published: April 16, 2005

ASHINGTON, April 15 - Deep in the energy bill that was approved by
a House committee this week, under a section titled "Miscellaneous,"
is a brief provision that could have major consequences for communities
struggling to clean up their dirty air.

If it becomes law, it would make one of the most significant changes
to the Clean Air Act in 15 years, allowing communities whose air
pollution comes from hundreds of miles away to delay meeting national
air quality standards until their offending neighbors clean up their
own air.

The provision could especially affect states like New York, which
has some of the nation's dirtiest air, and other Northeastern states
that have always had difficulty meeting federal standards for ozone,
a leading cause of smog, because much of any state's pollution originates
in states to the south and west.

Under the new provision, the "downwind" states would not be required
to meet clean air standards until the "upwind" states that were contributing
to the problem had done so. Currently, states can get more time but
only if they agree to added cleanup measures.

Proponents of the measure in Congress, as well as a spectrum of industry
groups, say that the change would give state and local governments
the flexibility and discretion they urgently need to deal with air
pollution from distant sources. Otherwise, they would have to impose
much stricter limits on pollution from local sources, including power
plants, factories and automobiles.

But House members who fought against the measure, and other opponents,
say flexibility and discretion are just other words for delay, saving
money for industry and posing risks for millions of people living
where the air does not meet health-based standards.

Opponents also say that the new provision would undermine a muscular
rule announced last month by the Environmental Protection Agency,
the Clean Air Interstate Rule, which sets new power-plant emissions
for three major pollutants for the eastern half of the United States.
One of those pollutants, nitrogen oxide, is cooked by sunlight into
ozone, or smog.

Representative Joe L. Barton, Republican of Texas, chairman of the
House Energy and Commerce Committee and author of the provision,
added the same provision to the House energy bill in 2003 when House
and Senate leaders began negotiations on a final bill. The effort
failed over other issues, and it remains unclear whether the provision
would remain in a final bill this time.

Mr. Barton said in an interview it was not his intent to weaken the
Clean Air Act, which sets national pollution standards, nor to undermine
the interstate rule, which addresses windblown issues by requiring
states to meet the same emission standards for power plants as an
aid to reducing overall emissions.

Rather, he said, he wanted to restore the E.P.A.'s ability to grant
extensions to areas that could demonstrate that they could not control
their own pollution - a right the agency assumed it had, and acted
on, during the Clinton administration until three federal courts
ruled that such discretion violated the Clean Air Act.

"I'm trying to make the law more implementable, more common sense,"
said Mr. Barton, who represents a district south of Dallas. "I live
in the real world, where it's a lot tougher to meet arbitrary standards
in an area that's growing and where more people are driving cars
and trucks."

"Even my adversaries would admit that I'm not trying to abolish standards
or gut the Clean Air Act," he added. "I'm just trying to find a more
realistic solution to a real-world situation."

It is a solution that has been warmly embraced by the National Association
of Manufacturers, the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council and
other trade groups. "We're clearly in support of any kind of flexibility,"
said Bryan Brendle, an official with the manufacturers organization.

But Mr. Barton's adversaries argue that his approach poses unintended
consequences, including an invitation for local communities that
have not met air quality standards to use the extra time to put off
reducing emissions from sources inside their own borders. They say
Mr. Barton's provision could delay improvements by 10 years as one
area waits for another, which waits for another - a prospect that
Mr. Barton disputed.

"Bottom line, no longer will there be any incentive for states or
municipalities to clean up more air pollution, and the E.P.A. has
no ability to force them to do it," said Representative Tom Allen,
a Maine Democrat whose motion to kill the Barton provision failed
by a 29-to-19 committee vote, largely along party lines.

Mr. Allen said that tougher air quality standards announced by the
environmental agency since the failure of the 2003 energy bill and
the new interstate rule made Mr. Barton's provision unnecessary and
"would lead to a lot more asthma than is needed."

John Millett, an E.P.A. spokesman, said the agency had taken no position
on Mr. Barton's provision, but a high-ranking agency official, who
spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized
to speak for the agency, said "a real debate" was under way among
agency officials about its potential effectiveness and its effect
on the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Millett said: "Some people think it's a good idea. Most don't."