NEW IPO Logo - by Charles Larry Home Search Browse About IPO Staff Links



By CHARLES J. ABBOTT



Acid rain and the Clean Air Act



In the mid-1980s, the major pollution question for Congress was acid rain, regularly fought to a stalemate as far as legislation to limit sulfur dioxide emissions.

For the 100th Congress, the two-year term that ends with the 1988 elections, the focus has been the more broadly aimed bill to reauthorize the 1977 Clean Air Act. The reauthorization bill approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee includes acid rain as well. In the House, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the leading sponsor of acid rain bills in past sessions, has filed a reauthorization bill for the Clean Air Act and a separate bill on acid rain.

Environmentalists say the shift to Clean Air legislation (there have been unsuccessful attempts over the past several years to overhaul and reauthorize the 1977 Clean Air Act) offers the chance to develop nationwide support for action on pollution. Acid rain bills fell victim in the past to a crude vote-counting analysis that said the states in the Northeast got all the benefits from stemming acid rain while the states in the Midwest carried the burden by having to buy expensive equipment to prevent sulfur dioxide from being emitted into the atmosphere primarily from coal-fired power plants, and by facing the withering of their coal industry based in high-sulfur coal fields. And, there was the potential that power customers in many states might have to pay a surcharge to help pay for pollution equipment. Western states, nominally untouched by acid rain, might profit if legislation forced burning of their low-sulfur coal. The regional perspective made it difficult to build a consensus for action. Midwesterners were always able to prevail in committee votes to stall acid rain legislation.



'I can't say I am persuaded
by any of the people who
come to see me'


The politics are changing, however. "It's taking a different view. It's not just a new England problem anymore. . . . Everybody in the country has some sort of problem from air pollution," said Kathy McGough, field director of the National Clear Air Coalition, the umbrella organization that presses for passage of a Clean Air reauthorization. "Acid rain is being considered as one part of a bill that will have benefits throughout the country. That changes the dynamics," said Blake Early, the Sierra Club's clean air lobbyist in the Senate. Proponents also are talking up the threat to public health from air pollution and damage that can be found — and prevented — throughout the country. Environment activists have pointed to studies showing airborne pollutants are threatening water purity in lakes, to reports of pollutant haze obscuring vistas at national parks and to questions on whether crops and people are suffering from emissions.

The latter may yield strong public support, according to Early, because there is quick public support when health is at stake. The American Lung Association has testified on the issue, McGough said, and added, "That's one of the things that grabs people's attention."

Activists also figured that other events were on their side: The Reagan administration in March 1986 made a commitment to Canada for a $5 billion technology program to combat acid rain; the deadline by law for cities to meet air pollution limits or risk federal sanctions was set for December 31, 1987, and last June 30 the EPA announced that it would ban construction of some new industrial plants in at least 14 cities failing to meet the cleanup rules.

There was action, but nothing decisive. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved, 14-2, on October 22 a bill to revamp the Clean Air Act. It sets a timetable for action on acid rain and toxic air pollutants but also would give big cities more time to clean up smog. However, Senate Democratic Leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia, the dominant voice in setting the Senate's agenda, did not put the bill on his list of items needing action this year.

The Senate committee bill calls for reducing sulfur dioxide emissions by 12 million tons annually by the year 2000, roughly half the emission level of 1980. It would start with a five million ton reduction by 1993, another five million tons by 1998 and the remainder two years later.

Scientific reports identify sulfur dioxide emissions as the main source of acid rain damage to forests, surface water and man-made structures in eastern North America. The emissions, mainly from coal-burning power plants and industries, are believed to combine with water vapor to form a weak acidic liquid. Nitrogen oxide emissions from industry and motor vehicles also carry some of the blame. A common position taken by foes of acid rain legislation is that the precise mechanism that produces acid rain is not fully known, so action is premature.

"I can't say I am persuaded by any of the people who come to see me. I regard them all as having an agenda they are working," Rep. Edward Madigan (R-15, Lincoln) said in describing the guarded approach he takes on air pollution legislation. Madigan has an influential role on the matter as a frequent ally of House Energy and Commerce chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) and as the GOP leader on a key subcommittee.

Others question if there is an acid rain problem. The National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program's (NAPAP) annual


January 1988 | Illinois Issues | 18


report, released this fall, said there has been no damage to crops, "no demonstrated effects" on the health of people, little damage to forests and some damage to lakes that is limited to a few areas, mostly in the Northeast, where only a small percentage of the lakes were affected. NAPAP is a long-term study program by government of the acid rain issue with its final report due in 1990. Dingell in early October said he prefers to wait and see if the final NAPAP report lays out what legislation is needed, the timetable for action and how to split the responsibility between the United States and Canada.

"If we rush into a massive program, we may be finding that we're spending enormous sums of money cleaning up a problem that doesn't exist or be spending it entirely with the wrong emphasis," Dingell told the congressional Environmental and Energy Study Conference. Also, he said, NAPAP indicates emissions are declining. "That doesn't tell me that there's a prodigious need to rush out and pass legislation that may or may not deal with the issue in an intelligent fashion."

The interim NAPAP report is propaganda, in Waxman's view. Others concur, arguing, for instance, that NAPAP used an overly strict definition of when a lake is damaged. Dingell and his operatives say Waxman sets too hasty a timetable in his legislation and has not answered criticism about the cost in money and jobs that his bill might carry. The Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources (ENR) estimates the state would lose half of its coal sales and about half of the coalmining jobs under Waxman's bill. The logical answer to that prospect, ENR Director Don Etchison says, is clean coal technology — finding ways to reduce the harmful emissions from high-sulfur coal.

"We have opposed any bill that attempts to cut [sulfur dioxide] emissions through retrofit of plants with scrubbers," said National Coal Association (NCA) spokesman John Grasser. "A better use of that money is to fund these clean coal technology programs, to develop better ways to combust coal." The NCA represents the 300 largest U.S. coal producers, accounting for 75 percent of annual tonnage, and the membership is split fairly evenly between the East and West, Grasser said.

The United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) opposes both the House acid bill and the Senate Clean Air reauthorization bill because they would cost coal miner jobs. There are about 160,000 coal miners now, and the House bill would eliminate about 38,000 of their jobs, said a UMWA spokesman. The Senate bill also would be costly, he said.

The government is putting money into clean coal technology through a $400 million research program created at nearly the same time the Synthetic Fuels Corp. was terminated. Early last year President Reagan proposed adding $350 million to the program for work "targeted closely" to the acid rain agreement with Canada. He later suggested $2.5 billion for innovative control technology for acid rain, a response to Canadian complaints about footdragging on acid rain, but the House and Senate favored much lower amounts.

There is money in this issue and not just in research funding. Many individuals and organizations are trying to steer the outcome or persuade the government of their arguments. One of the charges against Michael Deaver, the former White House aide turned lobbyist, in his perjury trial this fall was that he lied about efforts in early 1985 to get Drew Lewis appointed as special envoy to Canada on the acid rain issue. Utilities are one of the most outspoken foes of acid rain bills, gloomily predicting zooming bills for customers from the expense of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on equipment or finding other, higher-priced fuels. The coal industry, both high-sulfur and low-sulfur, can rise or fall with a change in the law, as could the fortunes of railroads that ship fuel to power plants and the firms that make pollution control equipment. Even business lobby groups and environmental groups could feel the impact. Said the wary Madigan, who listed possible motives for several of the interested parties, "A victory on this doesn't hurt the membership drives of environmental groups."

Govs. John Sununu of New Hampshire and Arch Moore of West Virginia have proposed building a power line from the Midwest to the Northeast. Under their idea, New England utilities would buy 1,000 megawatts of coal-generated electricity from the Midwest as well as paying for the cost of the line and for pollution equipment for 2,600 megawatts of generating capacity. The power still would be cheaper than oil and gas power plants now used in New England, according to an analysis by the Center for Clean Air Policy. The Sununu-Moore plan would find a market for excess capacity of Midwestern power plants, help reduce sulfur dioxide emissions and keep the coal miners working.

Somewhat further afield, corn growers have a stake in the clean air-acid rain debate, too. Automobiles are responsible for a large part of air pollution in cities and a widely touted quick fix is shifting them to cleaner fuels, like ethanol, produced from grain, or methanol, which can be produced from coal or natural gas. The Senate Commerce Committee approved November 19 a bill to encourage production of vehicles able to burn alternative fuels. A plan to require half the gasoline sold in America to contain ethanol was added briefly to a budget reconciliation bill by Madigan. It was scratched, Madigan said, because there are questions about ethanol's effect on ozone levels. Ozone in the atmosphere is an oxidant that figures in acid rain formation. "I want to have a good answer on that before I push any more on the ethanol bill," he said. Hearings on it are scheduled for next year in Dingell's committee.

For most of the year, a motivating factor for Congress was the threat of EPA sanctions on major cities for air pollution. Some of that was removed November 17 when EPA unilaterally said it would give cities more time to meet the clean air requirements and that imposition of sanctions would be delayed. "They can't just change the law on their own," objected Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), leader of the House Working Group on Acid Rain with a membership of GOP moderates. Boehlert said action on smog, acid rain and toxic pollutants is hamstrung in the House by Dingell and in the Senate by Byrd. "EPA's action is a big step in the wrong direction," Boehlert said, because it relieves the pressure.

"They [Dingell and other House opponents] have this enormous stalling technique" held together by opposition to environmental action affecting any industry, said a House staff


January 1988 | Illinois Issues | 19


worker who has worked for passage of antipollution bills. One problem, he said, is that while it is logical to use the nonattainment issue as an engine for action on pollutants, including acid rain, the bundle of issues attracts only a limited number of new supporters; congressmen who oppose acid rain already are ready to act on smog. The turning point might be the fight over extending the deadline to meet clean air goals, the staff worker said. A short extension, an idea proposed by Waxman, would keep the pressure on Congress to pass a Clean Air re-authorization bill. A longer one or acceptance of EPA's new timetable removes nearly all impetus. In any event, it is a long, hard pull. "This is an oddity of history. You have anti-acid rain [legislation] people in all the right places," the staff worker said, naming Dingell, Byrd and Reagan. Waxman has been trying to drum up support for his Clean Air and acid rain bills and to reach an agreement on them with Dingell.

"Waxman has not moved this [acid rain] in subcommittee . . . because he doesn't have the votes," responded one House staff worker familiar with Dingell's views. That worker also derided suggestions that Dingell opposes all action as a way to protect the auto industry: "[Sulfur dioxide] doesn't come out of cars." Along with questioning if acid rain is a problem, Dingell has said Waxman's acid rain proposals hold the prospect for huge cost increases, could unfairly hit some parts of the country and might give Canadian utilities an advantage in selling their hydroelectric power in the United States. Asked if there is a stalemate on acid rain in his committee, Dingell told the Environmental and Energy Study Conference, "The matter is still in Mr. Waxman's subcommittee. Mr. Waxman can tell you whether there's a stalemate in his subcommittee better than I can. I will only say that I have a willingness to address the questions of whether there is need for new or changed legislation. . . ."

Madigan, the ranking Republican on Waxman's subcommittee, slowed acid rain legislation in the past. In an interview, he said he does not believe the Midwest is to blame for any acid rain problem in the Northeast nor are U.S. sources "the principal causes" of Canadian problems. Canada should look at its own industries, he said, just as problems in the Northeast may have home-grown roots.

Like others, Madigan noted how strong supporters, like Sens. George Mitchell (D-Maine) and Robert Stafford (R-Vt.), are paired with doubters, like Byrd, in the Senate and how strongly committed — and placed — people hold opposing views in the House. "There are people who are going to keep pushing," Madigan said when asked if there would be action in the 100th Congress. "I've been here long enough not to say definitely anything is going to happen or not happen."□

Charles J. Abbott is a reporter in The United Press International bureau in Washington, D.C., covering midwestern issues.


January 1988 | Illinois Issues | 20



Illinois Periodicals Online (IPO) is a digital imaging project at the Northern Illinois University Libraries funded by the Illinois State Library