Clear Skies Act of 2003

Last updated August 07, 2024

The Clear Skies Act of 2003 was a proposed federal law of the United States. The official title as introduced is "a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce air pollution through expansion of cap-and-trade programs, to provide an alternative regulatory classification for units subject to the cap and trade program, and for other purposes."

Upon introduction of the bill, Inhofe said, "Moving beyond the confusing, command-and-control mandates of the past, Clear Skies cap-and-trade system harnesses the power of technology and innovation to bring about significant reductions in harmful pollutants." The Clear Skies Act came about as the result of President Bush's Clear Skies Initiative.

In early March 2005, the bill did not move out of committee when members were deadlocked 9-9. Seven Democrats, James Jeffords (I) of Vermont, and Lincoln Chafee (R) of Rhode Island voted against the bill; nine Republicans supported it. Within days, the Bush administration moved to implement key measures, such as the NOx, SO₂ and mercury trading provisions of the bill administratively through EPA. It remains to be seen how resistant these changes will be to court challenges.

Background: The Clear Skies Initiative

On February 14, 2002, President George W. Bush announced the Clear Skies Initiative. The policy was put together by Jim Connaughton, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, and involved the work of Senators Bob Smith and George Voinovich and Congressmen Billy Tauzin and Joe Barton. The Initiative is based on a central idea: "that economic growth is key to environmental progress, because it is growth that provides the resources for investment in clean technologies." The resulting proposal was a market-based cap-and-trade approach which intends to legislate power plant emissions caps without specifying the specific methods used to reach those caps. The Initiative would reduce the cost and complexity of compliance and the need for litigation.

Current power plant emissions amounted to 67% of all sulfur dioxide (SO₂) emissions (in the United States), 37% of mercury emissions, and 25% of all nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. Only SO₂ has been administered under a cap-and-trade program.

The goals of the Initiative are threefold:

Cut SO₂ emissions by 73%, from emissions of 11 million tons to a cap of 4.5 million tons in 2010, and 3 million tons in 2018.
Cut NO_x emissions by 67%, from emissions of 5 million tons to a cap of 2.1 million tons in 2008, and to 1.7 million tons in 2018.
Cut mercury emissions by 69%, from emissions of 48 tons to a cap of 26 tons in 2010, and 15 tons in 2018.
Actual emissions caps would be set to account for different air quality needs in the East and West.

Through the use of a market-based cap-and-trade program, the intent of the Initiative was to reward innovation, reduce costs, and guarantee results. Each power plant facility would be required to have a permit for each ton of pollution emitted. Because the permits are tradeable, companies would have a financial incentive to cut back their emissions using newer technologies.

The Initiative was modeled on the successful SO₂ emissions trading program in effect since 1995. According to the President, the program had reduced air pollution more than all other programs under the Clean Air Act of 1990 combined. Actual reductions were more than the law required and compliance was virtually 100% without the need for litigation. Also, he said that only a "handful" of employees were needed to administer the program. The total cost to achieve the reductions was about 80% less than had originally been expected.

Bush mentioned several benefits of the Initiative:

Reduces respiratory and cardiovascular diseases by dramatically reducing smog, fine particles, and regional haze.
Protects wildlife, habitats and ecosystem health from acid rain, nitrogen and mercury deposition.
Cuts pollution further, faster, cheaper, and with more certainty—replacing a cycle of endless litigation with rapid and certain improvements in air quality.
Saves as much as $1 billion annually in compliance costs that are passed along to consumers.
Protects the reliability and affordability of electricity.
Encourages use of new and cleaner pollution control technologies.

Legislative history

Congress	Short title	Bill number(s)	Date introduced	Sponsor(s)	# of cosponsors	Latest status
107th Congress	Clear Skies Act of 2002	H.R. 5266	July 26, 2002	Joe Barton (R-TX)	1	Died in committee
107th Congress	Clear Skies Act of 2002	S. 2815	July 29, 2002	Bob Smith (R-NH)	0	Died in committee
108th Congress	Clear Skies Act of 2003	H.R. 999	February 27, 2003	Joe Barton (R-TX)	1	Died in committee
		S. 485	February 27, 2003	Jim Inhofe (R-OK)	1	Died in committee
		S. 1844	November 10, 2003	Jim Inhofe (R-OK)	0	Died in committee
109th Congress	Clear Skies Act of 2005	S. 131	January 24, 2005	Jim Inhofe (R-OK)	1	Died in committee

Competing proposals

In May 2004, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) released a study comparing the Clear Skies Act with the Clean Air Planning Act of 2003 (S. 843), introduced by Senator Thomas R. Carper, and the Clean Power Act of 2003 (S. 366), introduced by Senator James Jeffords.

The differences between the three bills are summarized as follows:

Carbon dioxide emissions: While all three bills implement emissions targets on power sector emissions of NO_x, SO₂, and mercury, the Clean Air Planning Act and the Clean Power Act also call for limits on carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. Under the Clean Air Planning Act, greenhouse gas emission reductions outside of the power sector, referred to as offsets, can be used to meet the emission targets for CO₂.
Size of generators covered: All three bills cover emissions from larger generators that generate power for sale, including central station generators and generators at customer sites that sell power they do not use for their own needs. The Clear Skies and Clean Air Planning Acts cover generating facilities 25 megawatts and larger, while the Clean Power Act covers facilities 15 megawatts and larger. The bills have differing provisions regarding the coverage of combined heat and power facilities that generate some power for sale.
Emissions caps: The bills generally rely on emissions cap and trade programs to achieve the required reductions. Under such programs, allowances will be allocated and covered generators will have to submit one allowance for each unit of emissions they produce. However, for mercury, the Clean Air Planning Act combines a minimum removal target for all plants with an emissions cap, and the Clean Power Act specifies a maximum emissions rate for all facilities and allows no trading of mercury allowances. The Clear Skies Act contains a "safety valve" feature that caps the price that power companies would have to pay for mercury ($2,187.50 per ounce or $35,000 per pound), SO2 ($4,000 per ton), and NOx ($4,000 per ton) allowances. Should one or more of these "safety valves" be triggered, the corresponding cap on emissions would effectively be relaxed.
Emissions allocation: Under the Clear Skies Act, emission allowances are to be allocated based on historical fuel consumption, what is often referred to as "grandfathering". Under the Clean Air Planning Act, a grandfathering approach is used to allocate emission allowances for SO₂, but allowances for NOx, mercury, and CO₂, are allocated using an output-based scheme. Under this approach, referred to as a generation performance standard (GPS), generators are given allowances for each unit of electricity they generate. The number of allowances allocated for each unit of generation changes each year as the total generation from covered sources changes. The use of a GPS dampens the electricity price impacts of the bill but raises overall compliance costs.
Control technology: In addition to the emission caps, the Clean Power Act also requires that all plants have the best available control technology (BACT) beginning in 2014 or when they reach 40 years of age, whichever comes later. This provision, often referred to as a "birthday" provision, requires older plants to add controls even if the total emissions of covered facilities are below the emission caps.

Criticisms in opposition

The law reduces air pollution controls, including those environmental protections of the Clean Air Act, including caps on toxins in the air and budget cuts for enforcement. The Act is opposed by conservationist groups such as the Sierra Club with Henry A. Waxman, a Democratic congressman of California, describing its title as "clear propaganda."

Among other things, the Clear Skies Act:

Allows 42 million more tons of pollution emitted than the EPA proposal.
Weakens the current cap on nitrogen oxide pollution levels from 1.25 million tons to 2.1 million tons, allowing 68% more NOx pollution.
Delays the improvement of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) pollution levels compared to the Clean Air Act requirements.
Delays enforcement of smog-and-soot pollution standards until 2015.

By 2018, the Clear Skies Act will supposedly allow 3 million tons more NOx through 2012 and 8 million more by 2020, for SO₂, 18 million tons more through 2012 and 34 million tons more through 2020. 58 tons more mercury through 2012 and 163 tons more through 2020 would be released into the environment than what would be allowed by enforcement of the Clean Air Act.

In August 2001, the EPA proposed a version of the Clear Skies Act that contained short timetables and lower emissions caps . It is unknown why this proposal was withdrawn and replaced with the Bush administration proposal. It is also unclear whether or not the original EPA proposal would have made it out of committee.

In addition, some opponents consider the term, "Clear Skies Initiative" (similarly to the Healthy Forests Initiative), to be an example of administration Orwellian Doublespeak, using environmentally friendly terminology as "cover" for a give-away to business interests.^[1]

Arguments in favor

Proponents for the CSA argue that the Clean Air Act sets unachievable goals, especially for ozone and nitrogen oxide pollution. Having a clearly defined cap will benefit both industry and the general population because the goals are visible to everyone and industry benefits from cost-certainty. For example, the claim that simply enforcing the Clean Air Act will result in less pollution than the Clear Skies Act assumes that strict measures will be taken in heavily polluting areas, such as Los Angeles and other municipalities. Measures such as transportation control were taken in the 1970s but were withdrawn amid widespread public protest. Proponents of reform argue that a more likely result of following the current Clean Air Act is the continued 'muddling along' approach to environmental legislation, with most important decisions made in courts on a case-by-case basis after many years of litigation.

Related Research Articles

Acid rain is rain or any other form of precipitation that is unusually acidic, meaning that it has elevated levels of hydrogen ions. Most water, including drinking water, has a neutral pH that exists between 6.5 and 8.5, but acid rain has a pH level lower than this and ranges from 4–5 on average. The more acidic the acid rain is, the lower its pH is. Acid rain can have harmful effects on plants, aquatic animals, and infrastructure. Acid rain is caused by emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, which react with the water molecules in the atmosphere to produce acids.

Emissions trading is a market-based approach to controlling pollution by providing economic incentives for reducing the emissions of pollutants. The concept is also known as cap and trade (CAT) or emissions trading scheme (ETS). One prominent example is carbon emission trading for CO₂ and other greenhouse gases which is a tool for climate change mitigation. Other schemes include sulfur dioxide and other pollutants.

The U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standards are limits on atmospheric concentration of six pollutants that cause smog, acid rain, and other health hazards. Established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under authority of the Clean Air Act, NAAQS is applied for outdoor air throughout the country.

Navajo Generating Station was a 2.25-gigawatt, coal-fired power plant located on the Navajo Nation, near Page, Arizona, United States. This plant provided electrical power to customers in Arizona, Nevada, and California. It also provided the power for pumping Colorado River water for the Central Arizona Project, supplying about 1.5 million acre feet (1.85 km³) of water annually to central and southern Arizona. As of 2017 permission to operate as a conventional coal-fired plant was anticipated until 2017–2019, and to December 22, 2044, if extended. However, in 2017, the utility operators of the power station voted to close the facility when the lease expires in 2019. In March 2019, the Navajo Nation ended efforts to buy the plant and continue running it after the lease expires.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI, pronounced "Reggie") is the first mandatory market-based program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the United States. RGGI is a cooperative effort among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia to cap and reduce carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from the power sector. RGGI compliance obligations apply to fossil-fueled power plants 25 megawatts (MW) and larger within the 11-state region. Pennsylvania's participation in the RGGI cooperative was ruled unconstitutional on November 1, 2023, although that decision has been appealed. North Carolina's entrance into RGGI has been blocked by the enactment of the state's fiscal year 2023–25 budget.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Homer City Generating Station</span> Coal-fired power station in Pennsylvania, USA

Homer City Generating Station is a decommissioned 2-GW coal-burning power station near Homer City, in Indiana County, Pennsylvania, USA. It is owned by hedge funds and private equity firms and is operated by NRG Energy. Units 1 and 2, rated at 660 MWe, began operation in 1969. Unit 3, rated at 692 MWe nameplate capacity, was launched in 1977. It employed about 124 people.

Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) is an emissions trading program operating in the state of California since 1994. Under the trading program, hundreds of polluting facilities are required to cut their emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur oxides (SOx).

The W. H. Sammis Power Plant was a 2.23-gigawatt coal power plant in Stratton, Jefferson County, Ohio. The plant was operated by Energy Harbor. It began operations in 1960.

The Acid Rain Program is a market-based initiative taken by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in an effort to reduce overall atmospheric levels of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which cause acid rain. The program is an implementation of emissions trading that primarily targets coal-burning power plants, allowing them to buy and sell emission permits according to individual needs and costs. In 2011, the trading program that existed since 1995 was supplemented by four separate trading programs under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). On August 21, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued its Opinion and Order in the appeal of the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for two independent legal reasons. The stay on CSAPR was lifted in October 2014, allowing implementation of the law and its trading programs to begin.

The Clean Air Conservancy was a United States non-profit charity devoted to protecting our planet’s clean air and slowing the pace of climate change by actively participating in pollution markets and participating in emissions trading.

The United States produced 5.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2020, the second largest in the world after greenhouse gas emissions by China and among the countries with the highest greenhouse gas emissions per person. In 2019 China is estimated to have emitted 27% of world GHG, followed by the United States with 11%, then India with 6.6%. In total the United States has emitted a quarter of world GHG, more than any other country. Annual emissions are over 15 tons per person and, amongst the top eight emitters, is the highest country by greenhouse gas emissions per person.

The Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) is a comprehensive source of data on the environmental characteristics of almost all electric power generated in the United States. eGRID is issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007 (S. 309) was a bill proposed to amend the 1963 Clean Air Act, a bill that aimed to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂). U.S. Senator, Bernie Sanders (I-VT), introduced the resolution in the 110th United States Congress on January 16, 2007. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works but was not enacted into law.

Title 40 is a part of the United States Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40 arranges mainly environmental regulations that were promulgated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), based on the provisions of United States laws. Parts of the regulation may be updated annually on July 1.

The environmental policy of the United States is a federal governmental action to regulate activities that have an environmental impact in the United States. The goal of environmental policy is to protect the environment for future generations while interfering as little as possible with the efficiency of commerce or the liberty of the people and to limit inequity in who is burdened with environmental costs. As his first official act bringing in the 1970s, President Richard Nixon signed the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) into law on New Years Day, 1970. Also in the same year, America began celebrating Earth Day, which has been called "the big bang of U.S. environmental politics, launching the country on a sweeping social learning curve about ecological management never before experienced or attempted in any other nation." NEPA established a comprehensive US national environmental policy and created the requirement to prepare an environmental impact statement for "major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment." Author and consultant Charles H. Eccleston has called NEPA the world's "environmental Magna Carta".

The Clean Air Act (CAA) is the United States' primary federal air quality law, intended to reduce and control air pollution nationwide. Initially enacted in 1963 and amended many times since, it is one of the United States' first and most influential modern environmental laws.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) was an energy bill in the 111th United States Congress that would have established a variant of an emissions trading plan similar to the European Union Emission Trading Scheme. The bill was approved by the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009, by a vote of 219–212. With no prospect of overcoming a threatened Republican filibuster, the bill was never brought to the floor of the Senate for discussion or a vote. The House passage of the bill was the "first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change."

Merom Generating Station is a 2-unit, 1080 MW rated coal-fired power plant located between Merom, Indiana, and Sullivan, Indiana, which has been in operation since 1982. It is owned by Hallador Energy Company, who acquired it from Hoosier Energy effective October 21, 2022.

The climate change policy of the United States has major impacts on global climate change and global climate change mitigation. This is because the United States is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in the world after China, and is among the countries with the highest greenhouse gas emissions per person in the world. Cumulatively, the United States has emitted over a trillion metric tons of greenhouse gases, more than any country in the world.

Air quality laws govern the emission of air pollutants into the atmosphere. A specialized subset of air quality laws regulate the quality of air inside buildings. Air quality laws are often designed specifically to protect human health by limiting or eliminating airborne pollutant concentrations. Other initiatives are designed to address broader ecological problems, such as limitations on chemicals that affect the ozone layer, and emissions trading programs to address acid rain or climate change. Regulatory efforts include identifying and categorising air pollutants, setting limits on acceptable emissions levels, and dictating necessary or appropriate mitigation technologies.

References

House version of the bill (in PDF format)
Press release: President Announces Clear Skies & Global Climate Change Initiatives
Energy Information Administration (EIA): Analysis of Clear Skies, Clean Air Planning, and Power Act of 2003

Notes

↑ "A Guide to the Bush Administration's Environmental Doublespeak". October 2004. Retrieved 2008-01-13.

External links

Pro Clear Skies Act sources

Testimony from Jeffrey Holmstead of the EPA

Anti Clear Skies Act sources

Testimony from David Hawkins of NRDC
Sierra Club analysis Archived 2008-09-17 at the Wayback Machine
Natural Resources Defense Council analysis

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] "A Guide to the Bush Administration's Environmental Doublespeak". October 2004. Retrieved 2008-01-13.

[1]