EPA press release on WTC cleaning hotline launch, June 2002

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Clearing Ite Sfey By A. Denny EUerman and Paul L. Joskow w

Cambridge, Mass. .resident Bush has caUed r/l his Clear Skies initiative “the most aggressive ini­ tiative in American his­ tory to cut power plant —— emissions.” It is unfortu­ nate that many environmentalists and tome legislators have opposed, this - plan. It provides for a huge reduction to emissions and uses innovative strategies to fight air pollution. Mr. Bush’s initiative has yet to be Spat la legislative form. But it would expand toe use of the cap-and-trade ^proach to pollution control and it •: would seem to remove, although the administration has, yet to make- this ; Clear, an outdated and obstructive fea- ture of the Clean Air Act of 1970, • namely the distinction between old aite new sourcesof pollution. . Beyond: some small programs aimed at reducing the amount of car­ bon dioxide in the air, the Clear Skies initiative does not address global wanning. Neither, however, does the Clean Air Act The president’s plan is a proposai to refdrm the Cleaii Air Act 3 to deal mote effectively with tradition­ al sources of pollution. The Clear Skies initiative would es­ tablish hard national caps on power plant emissions of three key pollutants (sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and ■I

mercury emissions), requiring reduc­ tions of about 70percent from today’s levels over 10 to 15 years. The method is Uke a«tt of; the cap-and-trade prb- in gf^lor emissions cre­ ated in 1990 to control acld ralri. This ' criaiPtBZier proach was never a good idea and has approach is widely acknowledged to now become unworkable and environ­ ■tewiiu ... ' i .......... . ... have reduced sulfur dioxideemissions mentally counterproductive. • M.' more quickly and more cheaply than toe socalled command-and-controi The Clean Air Act provides that pollution sources are controlled under 5 offers methods that preceded it Cap-and-trade regulation has suc­ “ state implementation plans/’ proved by the Environmental Protec- a realisticroute to ceeded because it focuses oh reducing total pollution to top emissions cap without specifying parti.cular technol- tion Agency, that bring a state’s emis­ sions sources into line with national cleaner air. ogiesand specific emisslbhs-levels for air quality standards. This core stand­ hundreds of dlfferent sources. The ard ensures, uniformity so no high- emission hot spots develop; it Is unaf- system allows sources to trade emis­ fected by the Clear Skies InitiativE. creased the value of existing plants. sions permits, so that those’ fading The difficulty of ailing new plantshas very costly cleanup bills can effective- made old plants less likely to be re­ ly W others with Wer costs to re­ But requiring new sources to meet placed, and dramatic technological duceemissions on their behalf. more stringent requirements than old advances have reduced maintenance The main critldsms of Mr. Bush’s sources never made much sense. The costs and made tt possible to extend plan focus on the move to . end the hope in 1970 was that large future . the life of old plants. distinction between, old. and new reductions in emissions would be sources of emissions. The. Clean Air Act held that plants built after 1970 ; made as old plants were retired and had to have the best emission control . replaced by new plants. But two prob- technology available at the tone th^^ : lems bedeviled implementation. Im­ were bullt, and old plants that were posing more stringent requirements substantially upgraded would have to on. new plants has effectively b- meet the same standard.This ape f'Od NYC-WTC_000143054