[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 130 (Thursday, September 30, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H9178-H9179]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     CLEAN POWER PLANT ACT OF 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Clean Power 
Plant Act of 1999, a bill to set uniform emissions standards for all 
electric generating units operating in the United States.
  I am pleased to be joined by 18 original cosponsors of both parties 
and from throughout the country. As we approach the 30-year anniversary 
of the Clean Air Act, we should take stock of all that it has 
accomplished to clean our air, improve public health and create a 
better environment.
  We must also, however, recognize that the clean air act and its 
amendments have not fully solved the problem of the air pollution in 
this country. In my home State of Maine we routinely see unhealthy 
levels of smog during the summer ozone season. We still suffer the 
effects of acid rain and mercury pollution in our rivers, lakes, and 
streams; and we are only beginning to understand the effect of 
greenhouse gases which have helped make the 1990's the hottest decade 
on record.
  When we look at the sources of air pollution in America today, one 
sector stands out as a glaring problem, eclipsing virtually every other 
source of pollution in the Nation. It is the electric generating sector 
which for nearly 30 years has evaded the full regulations of the Clean 
Air Act.
  More than three out of every four power plants in the U.S. are 
grandfathered from having to comply with the act's emission standards 
and legally pollute at four to 10 times the rates allowed for new 
plants. When Congress passed the clean air act, it assumed that these 
grandfathered plants would soon become obsolete, retiring to make way 
for new plants that would be covered by clean air regulations.
  Unfortunately, dirty power is often cheap power, and the economic 
advantage enjoyed by grandfathered plants has allowed them to survive 
much longer than Congress ever expected. Most of the power plants in 
the U.S. began operation in the 1960s or before. The operating cost for 
grandfathered plants are often half that of new clean generators.
  With the U.S. moving toward a deregulated electricity market, it is 
now time to remove the economic advantage of dirty power. If we do not 
close the grandfather loophole and level the playing field for new 
clean generation, clean energy will be disadvantaged.
  The Clean Power Plant Act of 1999 sets uniform emissions standards 
for all plants regardless of when they

[[Page H9179]]

began operation. It addresses the four major pollutants that come from 
utilities and closes several loopholes that allow the electric 
generating industry to pollute at higher rates than other industries. 
This bill, however, also recognizes the importance of fuel diversity 
for electricity generation and the need to make a smooth transition to 
cleaner technology.
  The bill sets an overall cap of 1.914 billion tons of carbon dioxide 
emissions from the utility sector. This cap is consistent with the Rio 
Treaty on global climate change which was signed by the Bush 
administration and ratified by the Senate. It requires EPA to 
distribute emissions allowances to power plants based on a generation 
performance standard.
  Because the effects of carbon emissions are global rather than local 
in nature, the bill allows the trading of extra emissions allowances 
between utilities. For nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides, the bill 
sets both a maximum emissions rate and a per-unit cap on total annual 
emissions. The emissions rates of 1.5 pounds per megawatt hour for 
nitrogen oxides and 3 pounds per megawatt hour for sulfur dioxides will 
ensure that all plants must meet standards similar to those required 
for new generators.
  The bill does not allow dirty plants to purchase emissions credits to 
meet these requirements. While capping total emissions and allowing 
plants to trade pollution credits will limit overall pollution, it may 
not protect upwind States from downwind emissions or protect 
communities around older plants from the local effects of ozone smog or 
acid rain.
  The bill also sets a total per-unit cap on emissions based on the 
amount of electricity generate by each unit during the period from 1996 
to 1998. This provision ensures that if energy demand increases, older 
plants will not simply run longer at lower emissions rate resulting in 
no net reduction in pollution. Instead, new energy demands will be met 
with new clean more efficient energy sources that are subject to all 
new source emissions standards.
  My bill also sets strict standards for mercury emissions, which under 
current law are left unregulated. The bill calls for a 70 percent 
reduction in the more than 50 tons of mercury that are emitted from 
power plants each year. This 70 percent level is what EPA in a March 
1999 report estimated is the level of reduction that plants could 
achieve with currently available technology.
  This level is a floor, however, so that EPA can require greater 
reductions as technology improves.
  The bill does not simply address emissions of mercury, however. It 
also closes a loophole in the Solid Waste Disposal Act that allows 
utilities to dispose of waste that contains mercury without 
consideration of mercury's severe environmental and health effects. My 
bill ensures that all mercury waste, including the solid waste created 
in the combustion process and the mercury that is captured by smoke 
stack scrubbers, must be disposed of in a way that ensures the mercury 
will not find its way back into the environment. This makes my bill the 
most stringent proposal to reducing the amount of mercury released by 
power plants.
  Finally, my bill closes a loophole that allows utilities to escape 
regulations on hazardous air pollutants. Currently, utilities are not 
required to use technology that removes heavy metals and volatile 
organic compounds from their emissions. These pollutants, which include 
many carcinogens, can cause severe damage to human health and the 
environment. My bill ends the exemption for utilities and will require 
them to implement the maximum available technology to limit emissions 
of hazardous air pollutants.
  This bill is not simply crafted to cut emissions, however, without 
regard for the economic effects of shifting away from fossil fuels. 
Instead, it recognizes that, to make clean energy economically as well 
as environmentally successful, we must ease the transition from old 
technology to new. The bill contains grants for communities and workers 
who are affected by changes in fuel consumption. It also authorizes 
grants for property tax relief for towns that derive a large amount of 
their tax base from older power plants that will be replaced by cleaner 
technology.
  Mr. Speaker, quality of our air is not just an environmental problem. 
It is an economic and public health issue as well. Whatever the initial 
costs of switching to new, clean generating technology, it pales 
compared to the cost of cleaning up mercury pollution, the cost of 
treating smog related illnesses, or the costs of a rapid rise in global 
temperature. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to level 
the playing field for clean energy and fulfill the promise of the Clean 
Air Act.

                          ____________________