[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 8]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 11145]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     CLEAN SMOKESTACKS ACT OF 2003

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 8, 2003

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am again joining with Representative 
boehlert in introducing the ``Clean Smokestacks Act of 2003.'' This 
important legislation will finally clean up the nation's dirty, 
antiquated power plants.
  When I originally introduced the ``Clean Smokestacks Act'' with 
Representative Boehlert in the 106th Congress, we had a modest 
beginning. We had a total of 15 cosponsors and little attention.
  But by the end of the 107th Congress, the bill's supporters had grown 
to 135 House members. Senator Jeffords had successfully reported the 
companion legislation, the ``Clean Power Act.'' And even the Bush 
Administration, at least in rhetoric, recognizes that we urgently need 
to clean up these power plants.
  Electricity generation is our nation's single largest source of air 
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Nationally, power plants are 
responsible for about 35 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, 64 
percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 23 percent of nitrogen oxides 
emissions and 33 percent of mercury emissions.
  These four pollutants are the major cause of some of the most serious 
environmental problems the nation faces, including acid rain, smog, 
respiratory illness, mercury contamination, and global warming. If we 
are going to improve air quality and reduce global warming, we must 
curb the emissions from these power plants.
  When the original Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970, the electric 
utility industry argued that stringent controls should not be imposed 
on the oldest, dirtiest plants since they would soon be replaced by new 
state-of-the-art facilities. Although Congress acceded to these 
arguments and shielded old power plants from the law's requirements, 
many of these facilities--which were already old in 1970--are still in 
use. In some cases, power plants from 1922 are still in operation and 
have never had to meet the environmental requirements that a new 
facility would.
  As a result, a single plant in the Midwest can emit as much 
NOX pollution as the entire state of Massachusetts.
  The Clean Smokestacks Act says it is time to clean up these aging 
plants. The Act sets strong emissions reduction requirements for all 
four of the key pollutants from power plants, and it finally sets a 
deadline for old plants to install modern pollution controls. The Act 
allows for emissions trading to increase flexibility and reduce costs, 
where trading won't cause environmental harm. And the Clean Smokestacks 
Act promotes cost-effective energy efficiency and renewable energy 
measures, which help reduce pollution and save consumers money.
  This approach just makes sense. Because these power plants are so old 
and so dirty, cleaning them up provides tremendous benefits at 
reasonable costs. These requirements are one of the cheapest ways to 
get significant air quality improvements. And they finally provide a 
level playing field for new and old plants.
  At the same time, this approach gives industry the benefit of 
increasing regulatory certainty by targeting all four pollutants at 
once. Industry can make better investments if it knows what all of the 
emissions requirements will be over the next decade or so.
  Finally, the Clean Smokestacks Act recognizes that we need cleaner 
air, not regulatory relaxation, so it leaves the current Clean Air Act 
in place.
  Since we first introduced this bill, the President has unveiled a 
competing proposal, the ``Clear Skies Initiative'' or CSI, which he 
claims targets the same goal of cleaning up power plants. It's 
important to recognize, however, that the Clean Smokestacks Act and CSI 
are not similar proposals with different levels of stringency. Rather, 
they have fundamentally different purposes.
  The Bush Administration claims that their CSI proposal also targets 
the problem of aging power plants and provides certainty to the 
industry. It does neither, but it does rewrite significant portions of 
the Clean Air Act to weaken or delete important environmental 
protections.
  In contrast to the Clean Smokestacks Act, the CSI proposal does not 
guarantee that all outdated power plants will ever install modem air 
pollution controls. And, because CSI does not address carbon dioxide 
emissions, it cannot promise to provide the industry with certainty 
regarding future federal or state emissions reductions requirements.
  What CSI does do is rewrite key provisions of the Clean Air Act. CSI 
would repeal a requirement to reduce mercury emissions, limit the 
rights of states to protect themselves against out-of-state pollution, 
extend deadlines for areas to achieve clean air, and weaken protection 
for national parks, among other rollbacks. The real purpose of CSI 
appears to be weakening current Clean Air Act requirements for power 
plants and other sources, under cover of some looser and later 
emissions requirements. Not surprisingly, CSI is supported by industry, 
but is almost universally opposed by environmental groups.
  So let there be no mistake--the Clean Smokestacks Act in the House, 
and the Clean Power Act in the Senate, are the proposals to strengthen 
the Clean Air Act by finally closing the loophole for old dirty power 
plants and addressing all four pollutants they emit.
  In conclusion, let me commend Rep. Boehlert and all of the supporters 
of this legislation. I am pleased to be part of this bipartisan, 
bicameral approach to strengthening the Clean Air Act and protecting 
our environment.

                          ____________________