The Bush administration and key legislators have agreed on a compromise U.S. Clean Air Act reauthorization measure that substantially dilutes the Senate bill.
Senate debate on the environment committee's bill was suspended in January so a compromise bill could be worked out. After the compromise, legislation was returned to the Senate floor and was expected to pass.
William Reilly, Environmental Protection Agency administrator, declared, "The long stalemate that has characterized the clean air debate over most of the past 10 years is finally broken."
An administration spokesman said the bill would cost the nation less than $21 billion/year vs. $41 billion for the Senate bill and $19 billion for the administration's proposal. Meanwhile, industry groups raised various objections to the compromise, although the measure drops preferences for methanol fueled autos.
It also permits the Minerals Management Service to continue regulating Outer Continental Shelf air emissions, unlike the Senate bill. But it requires MMS's air rules for the California OCS, which are due to be promulgated soon, to be as stringent as the California onshore requirements and use the same language if possible.
WHAT IT DOES
Generally, the compromise will allow industry to reduce pollution more slowly and at a more reasonable cost than the Senate bill would have.
Depending on the severity of the pollution problem, nonattainment areas for any of the pollutants must attain the ozone health standard within 5, 10, or 15 years-20 years for Los Angeles.
In areas exceeding the ozone standard, service stations dispensing more than 20,000 gal/month of gasoline must install equipment on pumps to recover volatile organic compound emissions.
The bill requires automakers to reduce tailpipe emissions of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen, which form smog, by 22% and 60%, respectively, beginning with 40% of the vehicles sold in 1993 and increasing to 100% in 1995.
Automakers must install canisters on cars to capture hydrocarbons that would otherwise escape during refueling, but that provision may be suspended if the Transportation Department determines the systems are not safe.
The bill requires new transit buses, beginning in 1991, to use alternate fuels such as natural gas or methanol. But it does not require a "methanol standard" for problem cities, as the administration had proposed.
Beginning with the 1995 model year, vehicles sold in the nine cities with the most severe ozone nonattainment problem must achieve an overall reduction in emissions to a level of not more than 0.75 g/mile of ozone forming emissions. The current fleet of passenger cars emits about 2.8 g/mile.
The compromise says the emissions reductions will be met mainly through the use of cleaner fuels.
By January 1992 EPA is to issue specifications for various alternate fuels, including ethanol, methanol, compressed natural gas, electricity, and liquefied petroleum gas, as well as reformulated gasoline that will achieve the emissions reductions required in conventional vehicles. The performance standard will be fuel neutral.
In the second phase of the program, the bill calls for ozone forming emissions not to exceed 0.66 g/mile and toxins emissions to be 27% less than emissions from conventionally fueled vehicles. The emissions reductions can be achieved mainly with alternate fuels.
OTHER PROVISIONS
The compromise bill calls for EPA to regulate about 200 air pollutants and promulgate a standard requiring installation of maximum achievable control technology.
EPA is to compile a list of sources-chemical plants, refineries, coke ovens, cotton gins, smelters, and the like-to promulgate standards.
Any source emitting any one of the listed pollutants in volumes greater than 10 tons/year or combination greater than 25 tons/year will be classified as a major source subject to regulation under the bill.
EPA could regulate small industrial or commercial operations such as dry cleaners and service stations-even wood stoves-that regularly emit air toxins.
The compromise calls for a program to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic chemical accidents and establishes a Chemical Safety Board similar to the National Transportation Safety Board to investigate such accidents.
INDUSTRY REACTION
The American Petroleum Institute said the bipartisan Senate substitute falls far short of achieving President Bush's goal of improving the environment without damaging the economy.
"The president's Clean Air Act proposal, while in need of some further changes, is a considerably more effective and affordable plan than either the original Senate bill or the Senate substitute," API said. "We urge the administration and Congress to concentrate on perfecting the president's plan instead of opting for a costlier, less workable alternative."
The American Gas Association objected to incentives included in the compromise that would propose the use of more expensive emissions control technologies at power plants, saying they are "counterproductive to the goal of least-cost pollution control."
But AGA praised provisions that require federal fleets to adopt alternate fueled vehicles.
The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America called the compromise "a reasonable bill, one we can support."
Ingaa said the flexibility on acid rain that was a major feature of President Bush's proposal is largely intact. "We are also pleased that the bill does not contain an emissions tax or financial subsidy for scrubbing coal. We will continue to stress the importance of cofiring as a pollution control option."
The Clean Air Working Group complained that the compromise avoids a number of important issues, "such as the retention of permitting and enforcement provisions that will strangle small businesses and burden large ones without reducing one pound of pollution."
Copyright 1990 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.
