[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 5437]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         INTRODUCTION OF THE ``CLEAN SMOKESTACKS ACT OF 2005''

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 17, 2005

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am again joining with Representative 
Boehlert in introducing the ``Clean Smokestacks Act of 2005.'' 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 in the 107th and 108th Congresses, the bill's supporters grew to 
over 100 House members. During that time, Senator Jeffords successfully 
reported the companion legislation, the ``Clean Power Act'' from 
Committee. 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, including greenhouse gas emissions. Nationally, power plants 
are responsible for about 39 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, 67 
percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 22 percent of nitrogen oxides 
emissions and 41 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.
  Earlier this week, EPA took a first half-step towards reducing 
emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions from some of 
these old plants, but EPA's regulation would still allow huge 
quantities of pollution from these plants and leave many plants 
operating without any modern pollution controls, On mercury, EPA's 
regulation would allow most old power plants to avoid ever installing 
pollution controls to reduce mercury emissions. And EPA has done 
nothing to address increasing carbon dioxide emissions from these 
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. There are many power plants from the 1950's that 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. This is one of the cheapest ways to get significant 
air quality improvements. And it finally provides 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 clean air, 
not regulatory loopholes for irresponsible energy companies, so it 
leaves the Clean Air Act in place.
  Since we first introduced this bill, the President has unveiled a 
competing proposal, which has been introduced as S. 131 in the Senate. 
The Administration claims that S. 131 targets the same goal of cleaning 
up power plants. It's important to recognize, however, that the Clean 
Smokestacks Act and S. 131 are not similar proposals with different 
levels of stringency. Rather, they have fundamentally different 
purposes and effects.
  The Administration's proposal aims to help the energy industry escape 
tough enforcement of the Clean Air Act. It does this by rewriting 
significant portions of the Clean Air Act to weaken or delete key 
environmental protections that are cleaning up the air.
  For example, S. 131 would give power plants an extra 10 years to 
avoid reducing toxic mercury emissions. S. 131 would also allow people 
to breathe unsafe air for years longer, limit the rights of states to 
protect themselves against out-of-state pollution, and weaken 
protections for national parks, among other changes to the Clean Air 
Act. Not surprisingly, industry is spending millions to urge Congress 
to adopt S. 131, while advocates for public health and the environment, 
such as the American Lung Association, almost universally oppose the 
bill.
  Moreover, unlike the Clean Smokestacks Act, S. 131 does not guarantee 
that all outdated power plants will ever install modern air pollution 
controls. And because S. 131 does not address carbon dioxide emissions, 
it cannot promise to give industry certainty regarding future federal 
or state emissions reductions requirements.
  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.

                          ____________________