Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
323153113
label
Clean Air Act Signing 11/15/90 [OA 8318]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323153113
contentType
document
title
Clean Air Act Signing 11/15/90 [OA 8318]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13737-005
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Speech Backup Chronological Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
323153113
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a6e7d0019962c418
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Speech File Backup Files
Subseries:
Chron File, 1989-1993
OA/ID Number:
13737
Folder ID Number:
13737-005
Folder Title:
Clean Air Act Signing 11/15/90 [OA 8318]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
26
21
1
4
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
November 15, 1990
FACT SHEET:
THE CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1990
President Bush's Clean Air Act proposal of July 1989 provided the
leadership to break a 13 year legislative deadlock on clean air
amendments. In particular, the President's innovative market-
based approaches to environmental protection provided the key to
overcome regional disagreement and enact a bill providing needed
environmental protection while ensuring a growing economy. The
President's proposal had three central features:
Provisions to bring all cities into attainment with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone
(smog), carbon monoxide, and other pollutants within a
reasonable time frame.
An acid rain control program that would: 1) achieve a per-
manent reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions of 10 million
tons, by the year 2000, 2) allow utilities the freedom to
choose how to achieve the required reductions, and 3) authori-
ze utilities to buy and sell emission allowances to ensure
that the reductions are implemented in the most cost-effective
manner.
O
A program to reduce industrial emissions of hazardous air
pollutants (air toxics) 75-90 percent in the first phase
through technology-based controls.
As a result of the President's proposal, the stalemate that
denied cleaner air to the American people has now been broken.
The legislation approved today by President Bush contains all the
central features of the June 1989 proposal and will achieve all
its environmental goals.
ACID RAIN
Background
"Acid rain" is formed when sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide
emissions undergo a chemical change in the atmosphere and return
to the earth. About 20 millions tons of sulfur dioxide are
emitted annually in the U.S., three-quarters from the burning of
fossil fuels by electric utilities. Acid rain causes damage to
lakes, forests, and buildings, and contributes to reduced visibi-
lity.
Highlights
The bill establishes a two-Phase utility powerplant program for
reducing sulfur dioxide emissions by 10 million tons from 1980
levels. The first phase begins in 1995 and the second phase in
2000. Each source will receive "allowances" equal to the number
of tons of sulfur dioxide it is permitted to emit. If a source
reduces its emissions more than is required, it can sell the
extra allowances to another source, thus allowing the other
source to increase emissions while remaining in compliance. The
bill also includes a 2 million ton reduction from year 2000
projected levels in emissions of nitrogen oxides.
NONATTAINMENT OF NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS)
Background
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established ambient
air quality standards for various pollutants such as ozone,
carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. These standards are set
at levels needed to protect the public health with an ample
margin of safety, irrespective of cost, and form the benchmark
for emission standards from individual sources of these pol-
lutants. Almost all major U.S. cities are in nonattainment for
one or more of the NAAQS. The most widespread and intractable
pollutant is ozone, which is formed when volatile organic com-
pounds (VOCS) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) react in the presence of
sunlight.
Highlights
For ozone, the bill sorts urban areas into categories ("Margin-
al", "Moderate", "Serious", "Severe", and "Extreme"), according
to the severity of their ozone problem. Deadlines ranging from 3
years for "Marginal" areas to 20 years for "Extreme" areas (Los
Angeles) are established for each category.
Specific pollution control measures, such as vapor recovery
controls on gasoline pumps and vehicle inspection programs, are
also mandated for each category. The more severe the air quality
problem, the more control measures a nonattainment area is
required to implement. State or local governments in nonattain-
ment areas are responsible for identifying and implementing
additional control measures if the mandated measures do not
result in sufficient progress toward attainment.
Besides the control measures mandated for specific nonattainment
categories, the bill requires EPA to promulgate nationwide
regulations designed to reduce emissions of VOCs. These regula-
tions address emissions limitations for various sources, such as
2
traffic paint, consumer solvents, and marine vessel loading
operations.
In parallel with its ozone nonattainment provisions, the bill
also establishes similar categories, deadlines, and control
requirements for cities in nonattainment with national ambient
standards for carbon monoxide and particulate matter.
MOBILE SOURCES
Background
Emissions of pollutants from motor vehicles have been decreasing
due to implementation of current Clean Air Act requirements.
Without further action to limit mobile source emissions, however,
this trend would soon begin to reverse itself. The number of
vehicle miles travelled is expected to increase 60 percent by the
year 2005 as a result of general population growth and increased
vehicle use. Although the U.S. has successfully phased out lead
from fuels and sharply reduced its ambient levels, EPA generally
has not focused to the same extent on motor fuels as they have on
vehicles, despite the significant contribution of fuels to smog
formation and to emissions of toxic air pollutants.
Highlights
The bill requires new restrictions on tailpipe emissions of
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen oxides from new
vehicles beginning with the 1994 model year (Tier I). These
standards will reduce tailpipe emissions by about 40% from
current levels. If the EPA Administrator determines that further
reductions are necessary, technologically feasible, and cost
effective, a more stringent set of Tier II emissions limitations
will be required in the 2003 to 2006 time frame. Standards
requiring automobile manufacturers to install "onboard" canisters
to recover emissions of gasoline vapor will be set after consul-
tation on safety issues with the Secretary of Transportation.
EPA is required to promulgate regulations setting standards for
carbon monoxide emissions from vehicles operating at cold temper-
atures. A Tier II cold CO standard will be triggered for the
2002 model year if six cities are still in nonattainment with the
standard in 1997.
The bill requires emissions reductions from fuels as well as
vehicles. More stringent controls on gasoline volatility and the
sulfur content of diesel fuel are required. New programs
requiring cleaner "reformulated" gasoline are required in the
nine cities with the worst ozone nonattainment problems
beginning in 1995. CO nonattainment areas are required to sell
3
oxygenated fuels such as gasohol during the winter months start-
ing in 1992.
In response to the President's groundbreaking proposals to
promote cleaner alternative fuels, a pilot alternative fuels
program is established for California and a fleet vehicle program
is established for the 26 worst ozone cities. The California
pilot program will ensure that large numbers of cleaner vehicles
will be available in the nation's largest automobile market. By
1999, 300,000 clean-fuel vehicles must be produced, sold, and
distributed in the state and California is required to ensure
that clean alternative fuels are available to operate the vehi-
cles. In the 26 worst ozone cities, centrally fueled fleets of
ten or more vehicles are required to meet California emissions
standards by 1998.
AIR TOXICS
Background
Air toxics are pollutants that can cause mortality or serious
illness. Current law requires that air toxics standards protect
the public health with an ample margin of safety. Because this
margin has been difficult to define and has been the subject of
continued litigation, EPA has issued regulations for only seven
pollutants. Air toxics are estimated to contribute to 1500-3000
fatal cancers per year.
Highlights
The new Clean Air Act contains provisions to reduce air toxics
emissions by over 75% within 10 years of enactment largely
through a new technology standard. The bill includes a list of
189 chemicals. EPA is required to publish a list of industrial
source categories for these chemicals and then to regulate each
category within ten years. Sources will be required to install
the Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) and, if neces-
sary, to later reduce emissions even further if there remains a
significant residual risk after installation of MACT. EPA must
promulgate MACT standards for 41 source categories within the
first two years after enactment.
The Agency must also set standards for "area sources" (dry
cleaners, gas stations) to assure that ninety percent of the
emissions of the thirty most serious area source pollutants are
regulated. However, coke ovens that achieve a stringent level of
control may qualify for a compliance date extension and utility
emissions of air toxics would only be regulated if an EPA study
finds such regulation to be necessary. New requirements are also
established for municipal waste incinerators and for facilities
4
handling chemicals whose accidental release would threaten public
health or the environment.
PERMITS AND ENFORCEMENT
Permits
Each major pollution source will be required to have an operating
permit that specifies its compliance requirements. Permits will
be for a fixed term, not to exceed five years. States must
collect fees from permitees to cover the costs of the permit
program. EPA is given authority to review and, if necessary,
veto permits to assure that they comply with the law. Permittees
cannot be sued for violating EPA rules if those rules are re-
flected in the permit.
Enforcement
The bill contains enhanced enforcement and citizen suit provi-
sions that bring the Clean Air Act up to date with the other,
more recently amended major environmental statutes. These
include: the elevation of certain criminal penalties from mis-
demeanors to felonies, enhancement of civil and administrative
authorities, and revision of the citizen suit provisions.
STRATOSPHERIC OZONE AND GLOBAL CLIMATE PROTECTION
Background
Part B of the Clean Air Act currently provides broad authority
for EPA to regulate ozone-depleting substances. EPA has issued
regulations under the Clean Air Act that mirror the requirements
of an international agreement, the Montreal Protocol on Sub-
stances That Deplete the Ozone Layer.
Highlights
The bill would go somewhat beyond the Montreal Protocol in its
restrictions on ozone-depleting substances. It requires interim
reductions in the phaseout of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons,
and methyl chloroform and, unlike the Protocol, includes a
production phaseout for hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) begin-
ning in the year 2015, with production eliminated by 2030. The
bill also allows Federal preemption of State/local requirements
for two years and mandates the lowest achievable level of use and
emissions. A national recycling program is established for CFCs
used in refrigerators and air conditioners.
5
from
Deb amend
THE CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1990
TALKING POINTS
THIS LANDMARK CLEAN AIR ACT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PASSED
WITHOUT THE LEADERSHIP OF PRESIDENT BUSH.
*
It was the President's proposal of July 1989 that
broke the logjam and provided the basis for the
bill that was eventually enacted.
Congress had not acted on Clean Air for 13 years.
In each of the last several sessions, Congress has
tried and failed to pass a bill.
The President's bill cut through intense regional
disagreement and provided the coalition needed for
passage.
THE CLEAN AIR ACT OF 1990 IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT AIR
POLLUTION LEGISLATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY.
*
The Clean Air bill will reduce sulfur dioxide
emissions by 10 million tons, nitrogen oxide
emissions by 2 million tons, air toxic emissions
by 75 to 90%, and smog-causing volatile organic
compound emissions by 40%.
*
In total, the Clean Air Act will remove 56 billion
pounds of pollution per year from the nation's air
-- that's 224 pounds for every man, woman and child in
America.
*
The benefits of this bill will affect virtually
every American.
*
The Clean Air Act marks a new era in environmental
legislation; the bill is both more realistic and
more effective than previous environmental laws.
*
The effect of this bill will be: cleaner cars,
cleaner power plants, cleaner factories and
cleaner fuels for generations to come.
THE CLEAN AIR ACT IS A MAJOR DOMESTIC POLICY
ACHIEVEMENT FOR PRESIDENT BUSH.
Ever since he was elected to Congress in 1966 President
Bush has shown his commitment to protecting the
environment.
In his campaign for the Presidency, and in his first
address to a Joint Session of Congress, the President
promised to propose a strong clean air bill -- and he
delivered.
It was the President who outlined a new, innovative
approach; who submitted detailed legislation to the
Congress; who negotiated an agreement with the Senate
leadership to win passage in the Senate; and who kept
the heat on the House-Senate conferees to ensure that a
final bill was passed before Congress adjourned.
The final bill follows the model which the President
proposed: it includes the nation's first-ever program
to curb acid rain, a market-based emissions trading
system, a plan to cut air toxins by at least 75%, and
plans for cleaner cars and cleaner fuels.
vr
1990
Talking Points
Grany Nov. at
THIS LANDMARK CLEAN AIR ACT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
PASSED WITHOUT THE LEADERSHIP OF PRESIDENT BUSH
-
It was the President's proposal of July 1989 that broke the logjam
and provided the basis for the bill that was eventually enacted.
Congress had not acted on Clean Air for 13 years. In each of the
last several sessions, Congress had tried and failed to pass a bill.
The President's bill cut through intense regional disagreement
and provided the coalition needed for passage.
IN ITS SIZE AND SCOPE, PASSAGE OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT OF
1990 IS THE BIGGEST ENVIRONMENTAL ACHIEVEMENT IN
AMERICAN HISTORY
-
The Clean Air bill will reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 10
million tons, nitrogen oxide emissions by 2 million tons, air
toxics emissions by 75 to 90%, and smog-causing volatile organic
compound emissions by 40%.
In total, the Clean Air Act will remove 56 billion pounds of
pollution per year from the nation's air - that's 224 pounds for
every man, woman, and child in America.
-
The size and scope of this bill are larger than Superfund, the
Clean Water Act, or any environmental legislation ever passed.
The benefits of this bill will affect virtually every American.
-
The Clean Air Act marks a new era in environmental
legislation; the bill is both more realistic and more effective
than previous environmental laws.
-
The effect of this bill will be cleaner cars, cleaner power plants,
cleaner factories and cleaner fuels for generations to come.
THE CLEAN AIR ACT IS A CROWNING DOMESTIC POLICY
ACHIEVEMENT FOR PRESIDENT BUSH
-
Ever since he was elected to Congress in 1966, President Bush has
shown his commitment to protecting the environment.
-
In his campaign for the Presidency, and in his first address to a
Joint Session of Congress, the President promised to propose a
strong clean air bill - and he delivered.
-
It was the President who outlined a new, innovative proposal;
who submitted detailed legislation to the Congress; who
negotiated an agreement with the Senate leadership to win
passage in the Senate; and who kept the heat on the House-
Senate conferees to ensure that a final bill was passed before
Congress adjourned.
The final bill is almost identical to that which the President
proposed: it includes the nation's first ever program to curb acid
rain, a market-based emissions trading system, a plan to cut air
toxics by up to 90% using new technologies, and plans for cleaner
cars and cleaner fuels. The Clean Air Act is a triumph for the
President.
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
14
80TH STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright (c) 1990 The New York Times Company;
The New York Times
September 14, 1990, Friday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section D; Page 3, Column 4; Financial Desk
LENGTH: 711 words
HEADLINE: Clean Air Bill Is Called an Oil Saver
BYLINE: By PHILIP SHABECOFF, Special to The New York Times
DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Sept. 13
BODY:
The Environmental Protection Agency said today that pending legislation to
strengthen the Clean Air Act would substantially reduce the nation's
dependence on foreign oil.
According to an analysis made available by the E.P.A.'s Administrator,
William K. Reilly, the requirements and incentives in the clean air bill for
switching from oil to cleaner-burning fuels would save the United States at
least 800,000 to a million barrels of oil a day in the next decade.
That is considerably more than the 606,000 barrels of oil the nation was
importing each day from Iraq and Kuwait before the invasion.
Some industrial groups dispute the savings in oil consumption that could
result from the clean air act. But environmentalists and other supporters of
the bill said the E.P.A. findings could help speed Congressional action on it.
Both houses of Congress have passed the bill and differences are being ironed
out in a conference. But work in conference has been slow and there has been
concern that an agreement would not be reached before Congress adjourns at the
end of October.
' 'With American lives at stake in the Middle East, even the most outrageous
industrial lobbyist could not oppose reducing our nation's addiction to crude
oil,'' said Jay D. Hair, president of the National Wildlife Federation, the
nation's biggest conservation group. Mr. Hair said the improvements in the
Clean Air Act proposed by President Bush ''are exactly what the American
people want.
R. G. Ensz, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute, an oil
industry trade group that opposes some aspects of the clean air bill, said
his group had not seen the analysis. ''Frankly, we would be surprised if the
Clean Air Act resulted in improved energy security,' he said.
Estimates of the economic cost of the legislation range up to $20 billion for
such things as scrubbers to reduce sulfur emmissions from electric utilities and
new controls on automobile tail pipe emissions. It is also expected to reduce
costs of illnesses caused by air pollution.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
15
(c) 1990 The New York Times, September 14, 1990
Another bill before the Senate that would cut domestic oil consumption
requires that autos achieve a fuel efficiency of 40 miles a gallon. It would
save the nation another 2.8 million barrels of oil a day by 2001, said Senator
Richard H. Bryan, Democrat of Nevada and author of the legislation.
The Bush Administration, however, opposes the fuel effiency standards
because, Mr. Reilly said, they would create other problems, like reducing the
competitiveness of American-made cars and delaying the introduction of newer,
cleaner cars.
Despite the expected savings in oil consumption as a result of the Clean
Air Act, Mr. Reilly said that the Administration, in addition to the bill,
continued to favor the development of new domestic sources of oil, including the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Environmentalists strongly oppose drilling in the refuge, saying that the
amount of oil there is not worth destroying the wilderness.
But Mr. Reilly said the oil there could be developed without harming
wildlife. ''Our energy future has to include both conservation and development''
he said during a meeting with New York Times reporters and editors today.
Effect of Cleaner Fuels
According to the E.P.A. analysis of the pending clean air bill, new
provisions requiring nine cities with particularly dirty air to mandate that
cars burn cleaner fuels would reduce oil use by 500,000 barrels a day.
In addition, the requirement in the legislation that seeks to reduce the
pollution that causes acid rain would probably induce many electric utilities
now burning oil to switch to natural gas. That could save 300,000 to 500,000
barrels of oil a day, according to the analysis, which was prepared for the
environmental agency by ICF Resources Inc., a Fairfax, Va., consulting firm.
Mr. Reilly said that requirements of the bill that would crack down on
tailpipe emissions and gasoline vapors that escape from the engine or during
refueling would produce additional oil savings because pollution is really
wasted fuel.
An analysis done by the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Officers
found that the fuel -switching provisions of the clean air bill could save
the country up to 2.4 million barrels a day.
SUBJECT: AIR POLLUTION; OIL (PETROLEUM) AND GASOLINE; LAW AND LEGISLATION;
CLEAN AIR ACT
ORGANIZATION: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
NAME: REILLY, WILLIAM K (ADMR); SHABECOFF, PHILIP
GEOGRAPHIC: UNITED STATES
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS®
SIG x1204
LARIS
November 1, 1990
Gallagple
Dr.
MEMORANDUM
for fogamar Desh
Jerry
TO:
MARK LANGE
Sea Wilson
Wartin
Rus,
FROM:
CAROLYN CAWLEY
RE:
CLEAN AIR EVENT
Date and Time:
Saturday, November 3, 1990
10:00 a.m.
Place:
(AROP 220)
California Lutheran College campus
Thousand Oaks, CA
Attendees:
Possibly over 1000
4:20 11/1
Mel-"125"
College students, Wilson supporters, enviros,
Siz:
lewive, students)
community, etc.
5-7
Acknowledgements: John Schmitz thought this will prove
MIN
to be politically sensitive, so he and Boyden will
be sending you a memo with acknowledgements tomorrow.
MAX
POTUS will plant a tree.
Miry
There may several alternative fuel vehicles on site for
Rathe
the public to see and ride in.
asked for
Counsels office and Rosenbergs office are currently crashing
& prom. Am.
to compare the actual Clean Air Bill with the Presidents
peoplet
proposals made last June -- to see what we actually got.
Schmitz says to review the June speech and use the same
the
are got
concepts -- the 3 main pillars of air pollution (smog, acid
rain, and toxic air pollution).
Agrent
The first two, smog and acid rain, are the main issues
begining-
to discuss. On emissions: POTUS is widely credited with a
bold, new, market oriented plan emissions trading plan to
commer wond of
buffer the cost of reducing toxic emissions. On smog:
the introduction of the alternative fuels program marks
the first time ever that both the car and the fuel
the
have been the focus. Today, (11/1) a new alternative
fuel station opened in D.C. -- right down Pennsylvania
Avenue.
fist. LA Prove Sprace
NOT DRIVING CARS- THE AFTERWARD PLANTING
what (aul Nest)
(9)
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
14
13TH STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright (c) 1990 The New York Times Company;
The New York Times
July 25, 1990, Wednesday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section D; Page 3, Column 1; Financial Desk
LENGTH: 344 words
HEADLINE: COMPANY NEWS;
G.M. to Sell Trucks Fueled by Natural Gas
BYLINE: By THOMAS C. HAYES, Special to The New York Times
DATELINE: HOUSTON, July 24
BODY:
The General Motors Corporation today entered the market for vehicles powered
by cleaner-burning compressed natural gas.
The company said it would build, issue warranties and sell at least 1,000 of
its GMC Sierra pickup trucks next year with V-8 engines modified to run on
natural gas.
Congress is expected to mandate that commercial and public operators of
truck, bus and auto fleets begin converting to vehicles powered by
alternative fuels like compressed natural gas, methanol and ethanol as early
as 1994. The final version of the Clean Air Act is expected to be completed
before the November election.
William G. Rosenberg, assistant administrator for the air and radiation
section of the Environmental Protection Agency, applauded the decision by
General Motors but said it was not a surprise. He noted that United Parcel
Service said earlier this month that it would convert 2,700 of its
gasoline -powered trucks in Southern California to compressed natural gas
by 1995.
Richard A. Pennell, a truck manufacturing executive for G.M.'s GMC
division, said the vehicles would be made at a GMC truck plant in Pontiac,
Mich., and would have a range of approximately 200 miles between refuelings.
G.M. will subcontract work to replace gasoline -burning engines on the
selected 1991 models and will conduct its own tests to certify and issue
warranties for the new models. He declined to say whether G.M. would charge more
for the compressed natural gas models. Current models of the Sierra pickup are
priced at $14,000.
A group of nine natural- gas utilities in California, Texas and Colorado
will contribute $935,000 to G.M. to cover most of the auto maker's warranty
costs. Many of the utilities have committed to buying the trucks.
''This is the biggest commitment by any auto manufacturer so far," said
Jeffrey M. Seisler, executive director of the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition, a
lobbying group in Washington.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS ®
November 2, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO:
CHRISS WINSTON
MARK LANGE
FROM:
CAROLYN CAWLEY
RE:
CLEAN AIR COMMENTS
p.1/Heading:
The event is scheduled for 9:45 a.m.
p.1/Acknowledgements:
Add: EPA Administrator Bill Reilly
Ms. Stacia Russ {roos}, Student Body President
p.1/para.4:
National Tree Trust Foundation
p.2/para.5:
[ John Schmitz, Counsel's Office:
--"...cut the emissions that cause acid rain half
by 10 million tons. We will do so with a bold,
innovative emissions trading program that will
allow us to achieve emission reductions at a
fraction of the cost."
Also, include a nod to the Environmental Defense
Fund for their strong support of the Administration on
this issue.]
p.3/para.1:
"
The single most significant environmental accomplishment
in this nation's history."
Tom Kiernan, EPA Asst. Admin. for Air: He thinks this is
overstated and would prefer: "the single most significant
environmental legislation in this nation's history."
John Schmitz: He thinks it is OK as is and would like us to
use it.
Your call.
p.3/para.3:
"
800,000 barrels"
See Holli Williamson's comments.
p.4/para.1:
Re Boyden:
Amoco opened a station in Washington with compressed natural
gas and a reformulated gasoline.
Arco, Marathon, Exxon and others are also offering cleaner
fuels.
The electric vehicles from Ford are not out yet; should say
that we are seeing the CNG vehicles from GM, flexible fueled
vehicles from GM and Ford, and look forward to Ford's electric
vehicles.
carolyn's Clean Air changes
L- / - Acknowledgements
p.l - Heading
Event is scheduled for 9:45 a.m.
Add EPA Administrator
Bill Reilly
2-3- line 1
- - - on a scale never before attempted?
- on a scale never attempted before?
-- - - largest scale ever attempted?
2.4, linez
p-1, H 4
delete Exxon.
-
National Tree Trust Foundation -
Clean Air Charges II
I p.3,4 #1
"The single most significant environmental accomp lishment
in this nations history."
Tom Kiernan - EPA Asst Admin. for Air : He thinks its
overstated & would prefer " the single most significant env'tl
legislation in this nations history."
John Schmitz - Counsels office : He thinks it's OK as is.
Your call.
2) 3, $ 3
- " 800,000 barrels"
John Schmi +2- counsets office: =
800,000 is EPA'S number; DOE doesn't agree. There's been
Er lot of controversy. Schmitz negotiated language w/ DOE awhile ago,
and suggests we use it :
" 500,000 barrels saved from the acid rain provisions alone,
and with the encourzgement of the use of alternative fuels, we can
look forward to long term security energy of independence from foreign 011."
3
&
Add
Exxon
in
line
sentence
2
May
want "Ako, Marathen, change Exxan #1 thers are
to
3
P.4, #1
Add "Exxon".
Re Boyden:
"_._ Alloco opened a station in Washington
with compressed natural gas and a reformulated gasoline."
" Arco, Marathon, & Exxon and others are also
offering deaner fuels."
"Were seing CNG vehicles from giv ".
The Electric vehicles from Ford avent out yet. :. say
were seeing the CNG vehicles from GM, flexible
fueled vehicles from GM & Ford. Look forward
to Fords electric vehicles.
708-11456-6218
90 OCT 31 P4: 5.3
(
/
OAR/IMMEDIATE OFFICE
Facsimile Cover Sheet
Facsimile No. (202) 475-7155
Confirmation No. (202) 382-7400
TO: Carolyn Cowler
OFFICE:
TELEPHONE: 406-7750
DATE: 10/31/90 NO. OF PAGES 4
FROM: Tom Kiervas - EPA
382-2400
MESSAGE/INSTRUCTIONS:
UNITED STATES.
Assistant Administrator
PROVECTION AGENCY
for Air and Radiation
Washington, D.C. 20460
attached are some ideas per
our discussion of Dave Renewt
this incorriew Please give Bill
or upall on all for work
details or when ansistance
The
Tom Kamar
CLEAN AIR ACT SIGNING ANNOUNCEMENT
Event Themes
Goals:
Announce commitment to sign the Clean Air Act.
Recap the environmental leadership by the
President, the Republican Party, and California.
Show how Presidential leadership on the Clean Air
Act has already had an impact on cleaning the
environment.
Staging:
Use clean fueled vehicles to transport participants
to the event.
Vehicles should use the following fuels: CNG,
ethanol, methanol, reformulated gasoline, and
electricity.
President test drives multiple vehicles, perhaps
commenting on the differences he notices in driving
each vehicles.
Themes:
In following through on his campaign commitment on
the Clean Air Act, the President challenged
Congress and the American people to meet the clean
air standards that are necessary for the health of
Americans and our natural ecosystems.
As a result of that challenge, both the business
community and the American public have responded
with the initiative and ingenuity that have made
this country great.
This new environmental era, exemplified by the
vehicles and fuels used today, has the political,
business and consumer leaders working together,
without laws or mandates, to obtain environmental
improvements, not just in the years to come, but
today!
Examples of these environmental improvement already
working include:
-
Cleaner reformulated gasolines form Amoco,
Arco, Marathon and others.
1
Growth in market share for these cleaner
reformulations as consumers flock to buy them.
-
Cleaner CNG cars from GM, electric vehicles
from Ford, and Flexible-Fueled vehicles from
both.
-
Commitments by corporations for the early
phase-out of CFC's.
-
Commitment from CEO's of the worst toxic
manufacturing sites to voluntarily reduce
their emissions by 78% ?? on average.
Consumers flocking to buy the cleaner
gasolines.
The President jumpstarted this process. By boldly
leading the political process on passing the Clean
Air Act, he convinced our businesses and consumers
to start living cleaner lives today!
As the political leader, he:
$
Committed to introduce a Clean Air Act
reauthorization,
$
Followed through by introducing that bill,
1
Convinced Congress to pursue innovative an
acid rain trading program and cleaner
automotive and utility fuels,
-
Negotiated with the Senate to ensure that we
achieve our environmental and economic goals,
-
Offered a breakthrough compromise during
Conference to unravel that logjam, and
-
Will sign this bill into law.
The President has given Americans more than just
Clean Air legislation. He has given them cleaner
cars, cleaner fuels, cleaner factories today. Our
children can start breathing easier today. And
because of the President's Clean Air Act, our
children's children can be assured that the States
will
keep
getting
cleaner.
(Lange/Cawley)
November 2, 1990
12:15 a.m.
[AIRBILL. DOC]
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: CLEAN AIR ENDORSEMENT & TREE PLANTING
CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY
THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1990
10:00 A.M. 9:45
Add: Bill Reilly (Mel)
Stacia Russ (Emily)
Thank you. [[ Governor Deukmejian, Senator Wilson;
(Student Body
President)
Congressmen Gallegly and Lagomarsino
Dr. Jerry Martin. It's
a pleasure to see these trees spread beneath a broad and peaceful
sky, like -- yes, a thousand points of shade. And in a few
minutes, it's going to be a thousand and one. III ]]
X
X
x
I'm told the people of Thousand Oaks have invested over a
Emily Mead
X
X
X
X
X
hundred thousand dollars and countless hours in urban forestry
X6252
X
management -- something every community in America can do.
Trees mean greener cities and neighborhoods. God's greatest
air and noise filters, providers of shade and rest and privacy,
OK-Emily
they save on cooling costs, and reduce urban smog. But more than
that, trees create a sense of community in the people who plant
them -- and a sense of continuity between generations.
X
X
That's why I'm so pleased this year's budget has funding to
X
X
X
X
X
X
Barry Andersonbegin our ambitious national tree planting program, "America the
DMB-Dir.sofc
X
X
X 4630
Beautiful" --- along with support for the National Tree Trust Foondation
I made a commitment, as a candidate for President, to
preserve our environment. I promised the American people we
X
X
X
would break the stalemate that has hindered progress for clean
cw &
X
X
X
X
X
X
Tom Kiernan, air in this country for thirteen years. III
EPA, Asst Admin for Air
X
X
382-7400
So a year and a half ago, I gathered together leaders from
Kclean Air Announcement
6-12-89
2
lean AIR
both parties; environmentalists; and industry leaders -- because
Announcement
6-12-89
I believed it was time for a new approach.
To make real progress for clean air, the old tradition of
simple regulation wasn't the answer. We'd have to take advantage
of the innovation, energy, and ingenuity of every American --
drawing local communities and the private sector into the cause.
It was time for a new kind of environmentalism -- driven by the
knowledge that a sound ecology and a strong economy can coexist.
So I challenged the Congress to work with me on clean air
legislation of a completely different kind -- and they've been
true to the architecture and spirit of that legislation.
Now, thanks to the support and efforts of leaders like Pete
Wilson, [
], we are on the verge of a major domestic
victory for all Americans. As soon as the Congress gets me a
bill, I will sign landmark legislation for clean air.
It's efficient, effective legislation that will pull 56
clean Air Act
conclusions
billion pounds of pollution from the air -- 224 pounds for every
TP'S, P 1
X
man, woman, and child in America, every day.
This clean air legislation will cut the emissions that cause
acid rain in half -- by ten million tons. It will cut the
emissions that cause smog in our cities -- so that by the end of
this century, over 100 U.S. major cities will have clean, healthy
X
air. It will cut dangerous air toxic emissions by 90 percent.
And it encourages widespread use of alternative fuels.
campaign/
Two years ago, I was telling the nation of my commitment as
an environmentalist. Now we can put it in perspective. We're
John Schmitz, Counsels office, X6611:
"And we will do so through a bold, innovative emissions
trading program that will allow us to achieve emission reduction
at a fraction of the cost."
Also' single out the EDF for its strong support of the Administration
on this issue.
3
talking about conservation legislation on a scále that has never
been attempted before. In its size and scope of pollution
Tom
reduction, this isn't the most significant environmental
accomplishment of this administration. It's the single most
significant environmental accomplishment in this nation's
Kiernan overstated. Call it 'legislation'.
history.
Schnitz: OK as is use it.
And most important, it will work -- efficiently, at low cost
--- because it's a bold new departure from the old contentious
Tom Kiernan,
EPA,382-7400
command and control tradition. It sets tough standards --- but
bill conclusions,
then applies market-oriented strategies, turning the efforts of
Ti's
on
Regulatory
Reforms"
industry to environmental advantage.
It breaks up regional stalemates and conflicts here at home
-- and reaffirms U.S. leadership on environmental challenges
around the world. Experts from Japan and Europe are already
Counsels schmitz- X6611
visiting to ask us how we did it. It's sound energy policy,
promoting conservation in electric utilities. And it's an
important step toward energy security -- promoting new diversity
and competition in fuel sources, to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil by over 800 thousand barrels of oil a day. III
But best of all, this legislation taps the remarkable energy
and enthusiasm of local communities and American industry. It
encourages creative programs around the country -- especially
alternative fuel efforts like those of Governor Deukmejian,
Imbrecht,
Secretary Sharpless, and Chuck Imbrecht here in California.
Energy (916)
Schmitz: 800,000 is EPA'S #;
DOE does not agree. He has
negotiated language w/ DOE asuggests
we use it 500,000 barrels from the
acid rain provisions None. This + the encouragement
of the use of Nt. fuels means long term energy
security &independence from foreign oil.
4
In the short time since we issued the clean air challenge,
we've seen a revolution in thinking about fuels. The time is
right. The people are ready. And industry is responding.
Just two days ago, Amoco opened a station in Washington with
CNG and a
a reformulated gasoline. Arco, Marathon, Exxon and others are
ALSO
Schmitz
all offering cleaner fuels. We're seeing compressed natural gas
Vchidese
not
out
yet
look
Boyden
cars from GM, electric vehicles from Ford and flexible-fueled
vehicles from both. [[ Look, I'm from Texas. I understand the
cultural importance of the barbecue. So let me tell you, I want
to make California safe for outdoor cooking. ]]
We're on the verge of a new era for clean air. So to
commemorate a milestone in America's environmental history, today
we'll plant a tree. Some may see it as purely symbolic -- but I
think it's something more Emily
What we celebrate this day has roots running deeper than
law. It is potential for new progress, a planting with a daily
harvest, a promise lasting longer than our lifetimes.
With what we do to clear the air today -- for all now
living, for all our kids, and those yet to live and love this
world -- we celebrate a chance to reconfirm the environmental
ethic in America --- and reaffirm what God through nature gives to
us.
[[
And now, let's let this tree start growing
]]
# # #
4630
Anderson
Barry
Emily
6252
(Lange/Cawley)
November 2, 1990
12:15 a.m.
[AIRBILL.DOC]
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: CLEAN AIR ENDORSEMENT & TREE PLANTING
OK
Mel:
CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY
THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1990
10:00 A.M.
9:45
Thank you. [[ Governor Deukmejian, Senator Wilson;
Emily
Congressmen Gallegly and Lagomarsino
Dr. Jerry Martin. It's
Ms. Stacia RUSS - Student Body Pres.
a pleasure to see these trees spread beneath a broad and peaceful
sky, like -- yes, a thousand points of shade. And in a few
minutes, it's going to be a thousand and one. \\\ ]]
I'm told the people of Thousand Oaks have invested over a
hundred thousand dollars and countless hours in urban forestry
management -- something every community in America can do.
okly Emily
Trees mean greener cities and neighborhoods. God's greatest
air and noise filters, providers of shade and rest and privacy,
they save on cooling costs, and reduce urban smog. But more than
that, trees create a sense of community in the people who plant
them -- and a sense of continuity between generations.
That's why I'm so pleased this year's budget has funding to
Barry OMB
begin our ambitious national tree planting program, "America the
Foundation
X
Beautiful" -- along with support for the National Tree Trust.
I made a commitment, as a candidate for President, to
preserve our environment. I promised the American people we
OK Tom Re cwn kiernan
would break the stalemate that has hindered progress for clean
air in this country for thirteen years. III
So a year and a half ago, I gathered together leaders from
2
clear Annou-12-89 Air Acement
both parties; environmentalists; and industry leaders -- because
I believed it was time for a new approach.
To make real progress for clean air, the old tradition of
simple regulation wasn't the answer. We'd have to take advantage
of the innovation, energy, and ingenuity of every American --
drawing local communities and the private sector into the cause.
It was time for a new kind of environmentalism - driven by the
knowledge that a sound ecology and a strong economy can coexist.
So I challenged the Congress to work with me on clean air
legislation of a completely different kind -- and they've been
true to the architecture and spirit of that legislation.
Now, thanks to the support and efforts of leaders like Pete
Wilson, [
], we are on the verge of a major domestic
victory for all Americans. As soon as the Congress gets me a
bill, I will sign landmark legislation for clean air.
It's efficient, effective legislation that will pull 56
clean Air Act 1990
conclusions-TPS TDS billion pounds of pollution from the air -- 224 pounds for every
p.1
man, woman, and child in America, every day.
This clean air legislation will cut the emissions that cause
"p.2
acid rain in half -- by ten million tons. It will cut the
emissions that cause smog in our cities -- so that by the end of
thís century, over 100 U.S. major cities will have clean, healthy
Conclusion TP's
p.2
air. It will cut dangerous air toxic emissions by 90 percent.
And it encourages widespread use of alternative fuels.
Not long ago, I told the nation of my commitment as an
environmentalist. Now we can put it in perspective. We're
V do so w/bould innov.
Schnitz:
carto pwgr. th will us
to fract
Enviors provided have
wst.
Pres.
- on a scale never attempted before?
- on a scale that had never been
attempted before 2
3
- largest scale ever attempted?
talking about conservation legislation on a scale that had ever
attempted before. In its size and scope of pollution reduction,
this isn't the most significant environmental accomplishment of
this administration. It's the single most significant
(legi is lation
environmental accomplishment in this nation's history. \\\
And most important, it will work --- efficiently, at low cost
Conclus, TP'S
-- because it's a bold new departure from the old contentious
Regulatory
Reforms"
command and control tradition. It sets tough standards -- but
then applies market-oriented strategies, turning the efforts of
industry to environmental advantage.
It breaks up regional stalemates and conflicts here at home
-- and reaffirms U.S. leadership on environmental challenges
around the world. Experts from Japan and Europe are already
visiting to ask us how we did it. It's sound energy policy,
promoting conservation in electric utilities. And it's an
important step toward energy security -- promoting new diversity
and competition in fuel sources, to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil by over 800 thousand barrels of oil a day. \\\
But best of all, this legislation taps the remarkable energy
and enthusiasm of local communities and American industry. It
Chvck Intracht, CA 3326
encourages creative programs around the country ---- especially
alternative fuel efforts like those of Governor Deukmejian,
Secretary Sharpless, and Chuck Imbrecht here in California.
In the short time since we issued the clean air challenge,
we've seen a revolution in thinking about fuels. The time is
right. The people are ready. And industry is responding.
See Envt'l Aff (State Cabinet)
chainwoman-a of Air Resources Board
4
engand
Just two days ago, Amoco opened a station in Washington with
OK
a reformulated gasoline. Arco, Marathon, Exxon and others are
also
TP'S from Kieman
all offering cleaner fuels We're seeing compressed natural gas
vehicles
look
cars from GM, electric vehicles from Ford, and flexible-fueled
vehicles from both. [[ Look, I'm from Texas. I understand the
cultural importance of the barbecue. So let me tell you, I want
to make California safe for outdoor cooking. ]]
We're on the verge of a new era for clean air. So to
commemorate a milestone in America's environmental history, today
we'll plant a tree. Some may see it as purely symbolic -- but I
Emily NO Scientrfically proven
think it's something more.
What we celebrate this day has roots running deeper than
law. It is potential for new progress, a planting with a daily
harvest, a promise lasting longer than our lifetimes.
With what we do to clear the air today -- for all now
living, for all our kids, and those yet to live and love this
world -- we celebrate a chance to reconfirm the environmental
ethic in America -- and reaffirm what God through nature gives to
us.
[[ And now, let's let this tree start growing
]]
# # #
940 are
945 speaker
955 conce - tree planting
M/M Nilson
Guv Deuk
kep gallegly
Lagomarsin
Miller
(Lange)
June 11, 1989
7:40 p.m.
[CLEANAIR.LDC]
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS:
CLEAN AIR ACT ANNOUNCEMENT
EAST ROOM
MONDAY, JUNE 12, 1989
11:00 A.M.
In this room are Republicans and Democrats. Leaders from
both sides of the aisle in Congress. Governors. Executives from
some of the most important companies and business organizations
in America. Leading conservationists -- people who have devoted
their lives to creating a cleaner, safer environment.
I have invited you here today to make a point: With the
leadership assembled in this room, we can break the stalemate
that has hindered progress on clean air for the past decade.
With the minds, the energy, the talent assembled here, we can
find a solution.
So let me tell you the purpose of this morning's gathering.
First, I would like to lay on the table my proposals to curb acid
rain, cut urban smog, and clean up air toxics. And second, I
want to call upon all of you to join me in enacting into law a
new Clean Air Act this year.
But first, we should remember how far we've come -- and
recognize what works. The 1970 Clean Air Act got us moving in
the right direction -- with national air quality standards that
were strengthened by amendments in 1977.
Since 1970 -- even though we have 55 percent more cars,
going 50 percent farther -- in spite of more utility output, and
more industrial production -- we've still made progress. Lead
concentrations in the air we breathe are down 98 percent. Sulfur
dioxide and carbon monoxide: cut by over a third. Particulate
matter: cut 21 percent. Even ozone-causing emissions have been
cut by 17 percent.
Still, over the last decade we have not come far enough.
Too many Americans continue to breathe dirty air -- and political
paralysis has plagued further progress against air pollution. We
have to break this logjam, by applying more than just federal
leverage. We must take advantage of the innovation, energy, and
ingenuity of every American.
The environmental movement has a long history in this
country. It has been a force for good -- for a safer, healthier
America. As a people, we want and need economic growth. But
now, we must also expect environmental responsibility -- and
respect the natural world.
2
This will demand a national sense of commitment. A new
ethic of conservation. I reject the notion that sound ecology
and a strong economy are mutually exclusive. So last week I
outlined five points of a new environmental philosophy:
One -- to harness the power of the marketplace
Two
-- to encourage local initiative
Three -- to emphasize prevention, instead of just clean-up
Four -- foster international cooperation, and
Five -- to ensure strict enforcement. Polluters will pay.
We know more now than we did just a few years ago. New
solutions are close at hand. It is time to put our best minds to
work. To turn technology and the power of the marketplace to the
advantage of the environment. To create. To innovate. To tip
the scales in favor of recovery, restoration, and renewal.
Every American expects and deserves to breathe clean air.
And as President, it is my mission to guarantee it: for this
generation, and for generations to come.
If we take this commitment seriously -- if we believe that
every American expects and deserves clean air, and we act on that
belief -- then we will set an example for the rest of the world
to follow.
Today I am proposing to Congress a new Clean Air Act --and
offering a new opportunity. We've seen enough of this stalemate.
It's time to clear the air.
And you know, I think we will. We touched a lot of bases
as we prepared this bill. We've had the benefit of some good
thinking on the Hill. We've met with business leaders, who see
environmental protection as essential to long-term economic
growth. We've talked with environmentalists, who know that cost-
effective solutions help build, public support for conservation.
We've worked with academics and innovative thinkers from every
quarter, who have laid the groundwork for this approach. [[ And
just this morning I spoke at, length with Prime Minister
Mulroney. ]]
I have no pride of authorship: Let me commend Project '88,
and groups like the Environmental Defense Fund, for bringing
creative solutions to long-standing problems -- for not only
breaking the mold, but helping to build a new one.
We have had to make some tough choices Some may think
we've gone too far -- and others, not far enough. But we all
care about clean air. To the millions of Americans who still
breathe unhealthy air, let me tell you, I'm concerned. I'm
concerned about vulnerable groups -- like the elderly,
asthmatics, and children. Concerned about every American's
3
quality of life. And I'm committed to see that coming
generations receive the natural legacy they deserve.
We seek reforms that make major pollution reductions, where
we most need them, first. Our approach has reasonable deadlines
for those who must comply. It has compelling sanctions for those
who don't. It accounts for continued economic growth and
expansion. Offers incentives, choice, and flexibility for
industry to find the best solutions. And taps the power of the
marketplace and local initiative better than any previous piece
of environmental legislation.
This legislation will be comprehensive -- and cost effective
-- but above all, it will work. We will make the 1990s the era
for clean air.
We have three clear goals -- and three clear deadlines.
First, we will cut the sulfur dioxide emissions that cause
acid rain by almost half -- by ten million tons -- and we will
cut nitrogen oxide emissions by two million tons -- both by the
year 2000. We have set absolute goals for reductions -- and have
emphasized early gains. That means five million tons will be cut
by 1995 -- and the degradation caused by acid rain will stop by
the end of this century.
To make sure that coal continues to play a vital role in our
energy future, we've provided an extension of three years and
regulatory incentives for the use of innovative clean coal
technology.
We've set an ambitious reduction target and applying
market forces will be the fastest, most cost-effective way to
achieve it. So we're allowing utilities to trade credits among
themselves for reductions they make, to let them decide how to
bring aggregate emissions down as cost-effectively as possible.
Cleaner fuels, better technologies, energy conservation, improved
efficiency -- in any combination as long as it works.
There is a wisdom to handing work to those most qualified to
do it. Four hundred years ago, Montaigne wrote, "Let us permit
nature to have her way. She understands her business better than
we do." It's true. Acid rain must be stopped. That's what we
all care about.
But it's also true that business understands its business
better than we do. So we're going to put that understanding to
work, on behalf of clean air and a sound environment. We've
provided the goals -- but we won t micro-manage them. We will
allow flexibility in how industry achieves these goals -- but we
stand firm on what must be achieved.
Second, this federal proposal will cut the emissions that
cause urban ozone -- smog -- virtually in half. This will put
the states well on the road to meeting the standard. Twenty
years ago, we started the job. If Congress will act on the Clean
Air reforms I'm offering today, twenty years from now, every
American, in every city in America, will breathe clean air.
Today 81 cities don't meet Federal air quality standards.
This legislation will bring clean air to all but about 20 cities
by 1995 -- and within 20 years, even L.A., Houston, and New York
will be expected to make it.
In the nine urban areas with the greatest smog problems, we
propose bold new initiatives to reconcile the automobile to the
environment -- ensuring continued economic growth, without
disruptive driving controls. We'll accomplish this through
alternative fuels and clean-fueled vehicles. We propose to put
up to a million clean-fueled vehicles a year on the road by 1997.
But we are also proposing flexibility on the means, even as
we remain firm on the goals. A city can either request inclusion
in the program -- or, if they show they can achieve these
ambitious reductions through, other measures, we will scale back
the clean fuel vehicle requirements accordingly. Also, we are
sensitive to the problems of smaller cities whose ozone problems
are due largely to pollutants generated in other cities or
regions -- they will not be penalized for pollution problems
outside their control.
Our program incorporates a mix of cost-effective measures to
cut emissions from cars, fuels, factories, and other sources.
But I am asking the EPA to develop rules, like those we are
employing on acid rain, to allow auto and fuel companies to trade
required reductions in order to meet the standard in the most
cost-effective way. Our challenge is to develop an emissions
trading plan. Their challenge is to meet the standards.
The third leg of our proposal is designed to cut all
categories of airborne toxic chemicals by three-quarters --
within this decade. Our best minds will apply the most advanced
industrial technology available, to control these airborne
poisons. The very best control technology we have will determine
the standard we set for those plants.
Until now, because of an unworkable law, the EPA has been
able to regulate only 7 of the 280 known air toxics. The bill
I'm proposing today will set a schedule for regulating sources of
air toxics by dates certain. In addition, it will give the
dedicated people of the EPA the right tools for the job. It will
make state-of-the-art technology an everyday fact of doing
business. And that's the way it should be.
5
In its first phase, this initiative should eliminate about
three-quarters of the needless deaths from cancer that have been
caused by toxic industrial air emissions. And we plan a second
phase to go after any remaining unreasonable risk. People who
live near industrial facilities should not have to fear for their
health.
For ten years we have struggled to engage a united effort on
behalf of clean air. We are now on the edge of real change.
1989 could be recorded as the year when business leaders and
environmental advocates began to work together. When
environmental issues moved out of the courts, beyond conflict,
into a new era of cooperation.
This can be known as the year we mobilized leadership, both
public and private, to make environmental protection a growth
industry -- and keep our ecology safe for diversity.
The wounded winds of North, South, East and West can be
purified and cleansed -- and the integrity of nature can be made
whole again. Ours is a rare opportunity, to reverse the errors
of this generation, in the service of the next. We cannot, must
not fail. We must prevail.
Thank you. God Bless you. And God Bless the United States
of America.
###
(Lange/Cawley)
November 2, 1990
6:15 a.m.
[AIRBILL.DOC]
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS:
CLEAN AIR ENDORSEMENT & TREE PLANTING
CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY
THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1990
10:00 A.M.
Thank you. [[ Governor Deukmejian, Senator Wilson;
Congressmen Gallegly and Lagomarsino, Administrator Reilly. Dr.
Jerry Martin, Stacia Russ [ROOS]. It's a pleasure to see these
trees spread beneath a broad and peaceful sky, like -- yes, a
thousand points of shade. And in a few minutes, it's going to be
a thousand and one. III ]]
I'm told the people of Thousand Oaks have invested countless
hours in urban forestry management -- something every community
in America can do.
Trees mean greener cities and neighborhoods. God's greatest
air and noise filters, providers of shade, privacy, and wildlife
habitat -- they save on cooling costs, and reduce urban smog.
But more than that, trees create a sense of community in the
people who plant them --- and a sense of continuity between
generations. That's why I'm so pleased this year's budget has
funding to begin our ambitious national tree planting program.
I made a commitment, as a candidate for President, to
preserve our environment. I promised the American people we
would break the Congressional stalemate that has hindered
progress for clean air in this country for thirteen years. III
2
So a year and a half ago, we developed a comprehensive clean
air proposal. We talked with leaders from both parties; local
government; environmentalists; and representatives of industry
-- because I believed it was time for a new approach.
To make real progress for clean air, the old tradition of
simple regulation wasn't the answer. By tapping the efficiency
of the marketplace, and taking advantage of the innovation,
energy, and ingenuity of every American -- we can achieve
ambitious environmental goals. A new kind of environmentalism,
driven by the knowledge that a sound ecology and a strong economy
are mutually supportive.
So I challenged the Congress to work with me on clean air
legislation -- and while they've differed in minor details,
they've adopted the architecture and spirit of our legislation.
Now, thanks to the support and efforts of leaders like Pete
Wilson, we are on the verge of a major domestic victory for all
Americans. I will soon sign landmark legislation for clean air.
The bill I proposed last year and Congress passed last week
is efficient, effective legislation that will pull 56 billion
pounds of pollution each year from the air -- 224 pounds for
every man, woman, and child in America.
This legislation is a bold new departure from the old
contentious command and control tradition, achieving emissions
reductions at a fraction of the cost not with more regulation,
but smarter regulation. It sets tough standards -- but then
New approced & MARKET
applies market-oriented strategies, turning the efforts of
industry to environmental advantage.
This clean air legislation will cut the emissions that cause
acid rain in half -- by ten million tons -- and will permanently
cap them at these new levels. It will cut the emissions that
cause smog in our cities -- so that by the end of this century,
over 100 U.S. major cities will have clean, healthy air. It will
cut dangerous air toxic emissions by 75 percent. And it will
encourage widespread use of alternative fuels.
We're talking about environmental legislation on a scale
that has never been attempted before. In its size and scope of
pollution reduction, this Clean Air Act isn't simply the most
significant environmental legislation of this administration.
It's the most significant air pollution legislation in American
history.
This Clean Air Act is sound energy policy, promoting
conservation in electric utilities. By encouraging the use of
new, clean fuels, this legislation is an important step toward
energy security. And it encourages creative programs around the
country -- especially alternative fuel efforts like those of
Governor Deukmejian.
In the short time since we issued the clean air challenge,
we've seen a revolution in thinking about fuels. The time is
right. The people are ready. And industry is responding.
Just two days ago, Amoco opened a Compressed Natural Gas
station in Washington and announced a reformulated gasoline.
4
Arco, Marathon, Exxon and others are all offering cleaner fuels.
We're seeing compressed natural gas vehicles from GM, and
flexible-fueled vehicles from GM and Ford.
We're on the verge of a new era for clean air. So to
commemorate a milestone in America's environmental history, today
we'll plant a tree.
What we celebrate this day has roots running deeper than
law. It is potential for new progress, a planting with a daily
harvest, a promise lasting longer than our lifetimes.
[[ And now, let's let this tree start growing
]]
# # #
The attached 5 pages support the following
conclusions about the Clean Air Act of 1990:
o
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY BENEFITS
Cuts 56 billion lbs. of pollution; 224 lbs. per man,
woman and child per year at $.24/day.
-
Public health and ecological values include lower cancer risk,
respiratory disease, fewer heart ailments fewer reproductive
disorders and protection of lakes, streams, park forests and
visibility.
-
Reduces oil imports by about 1 million barrels/day.
-
No significant costs before '95; most costs after 2000.
o
THERE IS OVERWHELMING SUPPORT FOR
CLEAN AIR
-
Opinion polls overwhelmingly reflect public desire for clean air.
o
IMPLEMENTS THE PRESIDENT'S MARKET-
BASED PROGRAMS
greater gavine@
greater efficiency, effectiveness
lowest cost
-
Culmination of President's 10-year commitment to regulatory
reform using market-based principles and clean fuels to cost-
Bl innovation in
effectively meet environmental standards.
enviro. central
o
DEMONSTRATE DOMESTIC LEADERSHIP
-
President fulfilled campaign commitment and broke 8 year
Congressional log jam with 1989 proposal.
-
Congress adopted all the President's proposals in its Clean Air
bill.
o
FULFILLS CANADIAN CONCERNS
-
Helps Canadians and reasserts American international
environmental leadership.
CLEAN AIR ACT BENEFITS
PROTECTS HUMAN HEALTH
0
Cuts urban smog and other air pollutants. Over 100 major U.S. cities will reach
attainment by 2000. The 130 million people living in them will breath healthier
air.
-
Reduces air pollution-related deaths, chronic lung disease, asthma, cough,
eye irritation and other air pollution ailments.
-
Particularly susceptible population includes children, the ederly, exercising
adults and individuals with heart disease.
0
Cuts dangerous routine and accidental air toxic emissions by up to 95%.
Cancer fatalities an diseases of the lung, liver, kidney, thyroid, nervous
system, blood and heart will be reduced in the population living near large
industrial facilities.
PROTECTS THE ENVIRONMENT
0
Cuts acid rain emissions in half to 10 million tons.
Reduces acidity in U.S. and Canadian lakes and rivers
Reduces nitrogen loading of coastal waters like the Chesapeake Bay
-
Improves forest growth and agricultural yields
0
Lowers air toxic deposition to the Great Lakes and Coasts
0
Improves visibility and removes haze
o
Reduces greenhouse gas emissions
o
Phases out harmful ozone depleting CFCs
reforml.gove
Alt. Alt.fack fael
atils
IMPROVES OUR NATIONAL ENERGY SECURITY
million
0
Cuts oil imports by over 800,000 barrels of oil per day
kismon/Reilly
0
Creates incentives for new alternative automotive fuels
- thats maethanne CEPA
0
Reduces reliance on imported fuel for electricity generation
used thimpat from
Ivag
not food next few years
cost will be #25 fil @ 2005.
- certify of mktplace new teels. could zake
it rn cheaper
(Lange)
June 11, 1989
7:40 p.m.
[CLEANAIR.LI
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS:
CLEAN AIR ACT ANNOUNCEMENT
EAST ROOM
l
challogyd
the
MONDAY, JUNE 12, 1989
Prople
11:00 A.M.
In this room are Republicans and Democrats. Leaders from
both sides of the aisle in Congress. Governors. Executives from
some of the most important companies and business organizations
in America. Leading conservationists -- people who have devoted
their lives to creating a cleaner, safer environment.
11/272
ago
I have invited you here today to make a point: With the
leadership assembled in this room, we can break the stalemate
that has hindered progress on clean air for the past decade.
(13Yes)
With the minds, the energy, the talent assembled here, we can
find a solution.
Cynica
diffire
So let me tell you the purpose of this morning's gathering.
First, I would like to lay on the table my proposals to curb acid
rain, cut urban smog, and clean up air toxics. And second, I
want to call upon all of you to join me in enacting into law a
new Clean Air Act this year.
But first, we should remember how far we've come -- and
recognize what works. The 1970 Clean Air Act got us moving in
the right direction -- with national air quality standards that
were strengthened by amendments in 1977.
Since 1970 -- even though we have 55 percent more cars,
going 50 percent farther -- in spite of more utility output, and
more industrial production -- we've still made progress. Lead
concentrations in the air we breathe are down 98 percent. Sulfur
dioxide and carbon monoxide: cut by over a third. Particulate
matter: cut 21 percent. Even ozone-causing emissions have been
cut by 17 percent.
Still, over the last decade we have not come far enough.
Too many Americans continue to breathe dirty air -- and political
paralysis has plagued further progress against air pollution. We
have to break this logjam, by applying more than just federal
leverage. We must take advantage of the innovation, energy, and
ingenuity of every American.
The environmental movement has a long history in this
country. It has been a force for good -- for a safer, healthier
America. As a people, we want and need economic growth. But
now, we must also expect environmental responsibility -- and
respect the natural world.
2
This will demand a national sense of commitment. A new
ethic of conservation I reject the notion that sound ecology
and a strong economy are mutually exclusive. So last week I
outlined five points of a new environmental philosophy:
One -- to harness the power of the marketplace
Two
-- to encourage local initiative
Three -- to emphasize prevention, instead of just clean-up
Four -- foster international cooperation, and
Five -- to ensure strict enforcement. Polluters will pay.
We know more now than we did just a few years ago. New
solutions are close at hand. It is time to put our best minds to
work. To turn technology and the power of the marketplace to the
advantage of the environment. To create. To innovate. To tip
the scales in favor of recovery, restoration, and renewal.
Every American expects and deserves to breathe clean air.
And as President, it is my mission to guarantee it: for this
generation, and for generations to come.
If we take this commitment seriously if we believe that
every American expects and deserves clean air and we act on that
belief -- then we will set an example for the rest of the world
to follow.
Today I am proposing to Congress a new Clean Air Act --and
offering a new opportunity. We ve seen enough of this stalemate.
It's time to clear the air.
And you know I think we will. We touched a lot of bases
as we prepared this bill. We ve had the benefit of some good
thinking on the Hill. We've met with business leaders, who see
environmental protection as essential to long-term economic
growth. We've talked with environmentalists, who know that cost-
effective solutions help build public support for conservation.
We've worked with academics and innovative thinkers from every
quarter, who have laid the groundwork for this approach. [[ And
just this morning I spoke at length with Prime Minister
Mulroney. ]]
I have no pride of authorship: Let me commend Project '88,
and groups like the Environmental Defense Fund, for bringing
creative solutions to long-standing problems -- for not only
breaking the mold, but helping to build a new one.
We have had to make some tough choices Some may think
we've gone too far -- and others, not far enough. But we all
care about clean air. To the millions of Americans who still
breathe unhealthy air, let me tell you, I'm concerned. I'm
concerned about vulnerable groups like the elderly,
asthmatics, and children. Concerned about every American's
3
quality of life. And I'm committed to see that coming
generations receive the natural legacy they deserve.
We seek reforms that make major pollution reductions, where
we most need them, first. Our approach has reasonable deadlines
for those who must comply. It has compelling sanctions for those
who don't. It accounts for continued economic growth and
expansion. Offers incentives, choice, and flexibility for
industry to find the best solutions. And taps the power of the
marketplace and local initiative better than any previous piece
of environmental legislation.
This legislation will be comprehensive -- and cost effective
-- but above all, it will work. We will make the 1990s the era
for clean air.
We have three clear goals -- and three clear deadlines.
First, we will cut the sulfur dioxide emissions that cause
acid rain by almost half -- by ten million tons -- and we will
cut nitrogen oxide emissions by two million tons -- both by the
year 2000. We have set absolute goals for reductions -- and have
emphasized early gains. That means five million tons will be cut
by 1995 -- and the degradation caused by acid rain will stop by
the end of this century.
To make sure that coal continues to play a vital role in our
energy future, we've provided an extension of three years and
regulatory incentives for the use of innovative clean coal
technology.
We've set an ambitious reduction target -- and applying
market forces will be the fastest, most cost-effective way to
achieve it. So we're allowing utilities to trade credits among
themselves for reductions they make, to let them decide how to
bring aggregate emissions down as cost-effectively as possible.
Cleaner fuels, better technologies, energy conservation, improved
efficiency -- in any combination -- as long as it works.
There is a wisdom to handing work to those most qualified to
do it. Four hundred years ago, Montaigne wrote, "Let us permit
nature to have her way. She understands her business better than
we do." It's true. Acid rain must be stopped. That's what we
all care about.
But it's also true that business understands its business
better than we do. So we're going to put that understanding to
work, on behalf of clean air and a sound environment. We've
provided the goals -- but we won't micro-manage them. We will
allow flexibility in how industry achieves these goals -- but we
stand firm on what must be achieved.
4
Second, this federal proposal will cut the emissions that
cause urban ozone -- smoq -- virtually in half. This will put
the states well on the road to meeting the standard. Twenty
years ago, we started the job. If Congress will act on the Clean
Air reforms I'm offering today, twenty years from now, every
American, in every city in America, will breathe clean air.
Today 81 cities don't meet Federal air quality standards.
This legislation: will bring clean air to all but about 20 cities
by 1995 -- and within 20 years, even L.A., Houston, and New York
will be expected to make it.
In the nine urban areas with the greatest smog problems, we
propose bold new initiatives to reconcile the automobile to the
environment -- ensuring continued economic growth, without
disruptive driving controls. We accomplish this through
alternative fuels and clean-fueled vehicles. We propose to put
up to a million clean-fueled vehicles a year on the road by 1997.
But we are also proposing flexibility on the means, even as
we remain firm on the goals. A city can either request inclusion
in the program -- or, if they show they can achieve these
ambitious reductions through other measures, we will scale back
the clean fuel vehicle requirements accordingly. Also, we are
sensitive to the problems of smaller cities whose ozone problems
are due largely to pollutants generated in other cities or
regions -- they will not be penalized for pollution problems
outside their control.
Our program incorporates a mix of cost-effective measures to
cut emissions from cars, fuels, factories, and other sources.
But I am asking the EPA to develop rules, like those we are
employing on acid rain, to allow auto and fuel companies to trade
required reductions in order to meet the standard in the most
cost-effective way Our challenge is to develop an emissions
trading plan. Their challenge is to meet the standards.
The third leg of our proposal is designed to cut all
categories of airborne toxic chemicals by three-quarters --
within this decade. Our best minds will apply the most advanced
industrial technology available, to control these airborne
poisons. The very best control technology we have will determine
the standard we set for those plants.
Until now, because of an unworkable law, the EPA has been
able to regulate only 7 of the 280 known air toxics. The bill
I'm proposing today will set a schedule for regulating sources of
air toxics by dates certain. In addition, it will give the
dedicated people of the EPA the right tools for the job. It will
make state-of-the-art technology an everyday fact of doing
business. And that's the way it should be
5
In its first phase, this initiative should eliminate about
three-quarters of the needless deaths from cancer that have been
caused by toxic industrial air emissions. And we plan a second
phase to go after any remaining unreasonable risk. People who
live near industrial facilities should not have to fear for their
health.
For ten years we have struggled to engage a united effort on
behalf of clean air. We are now on the edge of real change.
1989 could be recorded as the year when business leaders and
environmental advocates began to work together. When
environmental issues moved out of the courts, beyond conflict,
into a new era of cooperation.
This can be known as the year we mobilized leadership, both
public and private, to make environmental protection a growth
industry -- and keep our ecology safe for diversity.
The wounded winds of North, South, East and West can be
purified and cleansed -- and the integrity of nature can be made
whole again. Ours is a rare opportunity, to reverse the errors
of this generation, in the service of the next. We cannot, must
not fail. We must prevail.
Thank you. God Bless you. And God Bless the United States
of America.
# # #
PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR CLEAN AIR
Roper Poll, April 1990
The majority of Americans believe that protecting the environment should
take precedence over ensuring adequate energy supply.
enough. 70% of Americans believe that environmental regulations have not gone far
The average consumer would pay 8 cents more for cleaner reformulated
gasoline.
0
47% of Americans favor mandatory recycling regulations for newspaper, cans
and bottles.
New York Times, March 1990
worse. 84% of Americans say pollution is a serious national problem that is getting
0
74% say that environmental improvements must be made regardless of cost.
71% say we must protect the environment, even if it means higher taxes.
0
1 out of 5 say they know someone whose health was damager
0
56% say we must protect the environment, even if it means jobs in the
community will be lost.
0
69% of Republicans say that protecting the environment is so important that
requirements and standards cannot be too high.
USA Today, April 1990
63% would accept a lower standard of living for a cleaner environment.
51% would pay more for a clean fueled car.
lose their jobs.
69% agree that we should protect the environment even if some people will
PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP
0
The President's Clean Air bill is a domestic policy victory. The
President:
-
Led by introducing the bill
-
Led by negotiating with the Senate, and
Led by introducing a conference compromise
0
It takes the issue away from the Democrats and meets one of the
President's key campaign commitments.
0
Enhances U.S. international leadership, and is particularly helpful to the
Canadians.
Congress followed the President's lead by passing a bill that includes all
of the President's June 1989 proposals:
Acid Rain - 10 million tons; market-based trading system;
permanent emissions cap
Auto Emissions - clean fuels and vehicles, using domestic fuels, like
natural gas and ethanol from grain
0
Urban Air Quality - brings over 100 cities into cimpliance with
health based air quality standards. usame deadling
Air Toxics - best technology to prevent toxic leaks from chemical
plants
0
Permitting - requires operating permits and fees to pay for state
oversight
0
Enforcement - provides better tools against violators
0
Stratospheric Ozone - protects ozone layer by phasing out CFCs
to implement revised Montreal Protocol
REGULATORY REFORM
of tash tore as up
0
Implements President's 10-year commitment to regulatory reform.
Environmental goals are met in the most cost-effective way possible with
the use of market-based strategies and performance standards.
0
Acid rain is controlled by specifiying emission goals for sulfur dioxide
and nitrogen oxides. An affected company meets those standards by
switching fuel, putting on technology, encouraging conservation, or
buying/selling allowances from other companies to meet the goals.
0
Performance standards are set for clean fuels. Refiners can use ethanol,
methanol or reformulated gasoline to meet standards.
0
Air toxics are controlled by setting performance standards that chemical
companies and others meet through a variety of measures. Voluntary
reductions will be encouraged.
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
2
1ST STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright (c) 1989 Newsday, Inc.;
Newsday
June 14, 1989, Wednesday, NASSAU AND SUFFOLK EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 6
Other Edition: City Pg. 15
LENGTH: 635 words
HEADLINE: Bush Plugging Plan to Improve U.S. Air Quality
BYLINE: By Marie Cocco. Newsday Washington Bureau
DATELINE: Lincoln, Neb.
KEYWORD: GEORGE BUSH; AIR POLLUTION; UNITED STATES; LAW; PROPOSED; ENVIRONMENT
BODY:
President George Bush, with the ragged peaks of Wyoming's Grand Tetons and an
ethanol-powered car as props, touted his Clean Air Act proposals yesterday,
saying that new technology is the centerpiece of "a new kind of
environmentalism."
On a crystal-blue morning in the Rockies, Bush spoke of the hodgepodge of
interest groups - energy producers, heavy industry and environmentalists - whose
battle has helped stymie progress on a clean-air bill. His proposals seek to
placate each of the groups to some degree, by imposing pollution-reduction
mandates but allowing industry to decide how to achieve them.
Referring to criticism of his measure that already has begun to emerge from
interest groups and their supporters on Capitol Hill, Bush said: "Some say we're
asking too much, too fast. And others say not enough, too slow."
But, he went on, "environmental gridlock must end."
Though Bush sought to take advantage of what he called the "postcard perfect"
scenery in Grand Teton National Park in northwestern Wyoming to illustrate what
he says is his commitment to the environment, local environmentalists countered
the visit, pointing up what they said is his uneven record. Before the president
spoke, a klatch of protesters - identified by Mary Lacques of Jackson, Wyo., as
having come from neighboring Idaho - were arrested on charges of protesting in a
federal park without a permit.
Park Service officer Jim Northrup said several protesters were taken to Teton
County jail. According to Lacques, who witnessed the arrests, the group was
protesting the administration's slow reaction to the recent Alaska oil spill and
demanding to know why Bush hadn't gone to Prince William Sound to stage his
event.
And local environmentalists were also out in force, providing information on
the Bush administration's plan to open 95 percent of Bridger-Teton National
Forest, which borders Grand Teton National Park, to oil and gas exploration.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
3
(c) 1989 Newsday, June 14, 1989
"These hills are too special to be used for drilling," said R. Scott Garland,
sweeping his arm toward the icy peaks and lush pine forest that surrounded Bush.
Garland's group, the Jackson Hole Alliance for Responsible Planning, is fighting
the drilling.
Bush, who spent two days in the Rockies, never mentioned that he supports new
drilling and lumbering on federal lands. Though he said in his speech yesterday
that "even the Tetons cannot escape the threat of pollution," the president
identified the threat as coming from air pollution drifting from major cities.
In Lincoln, Bush visited the University of Nebraska Center for Engine
Technology, which conducts research on using corn -based ethanol to fuel
engines.
The use of alternative fuels to reduce pollution is the cornerstone of Bush's
proposal to reduce auto emissions. In New York City and eight other metropolitan
areas with severe pollution, Bush would require that millions of new cars be
sold, beginning in 1995, that run on methanol or other alternative fuels.
Localities could win exemptions if they come up with other ways to cut
pollution.
"Alternative fuel is going to help us reconcile the automobile to our
environment," the president said. However, officials at the university lab told
the president that questions remain about ethanol compatibility with
gas -fueled cars and the cost of marketing it.
Bush's alternative-fuels proposals are typical of his approach to the clean
air measure, in which he seeks to have industry, not federal regulators, come up
with solutions.
It has political benefits, as well. Ethanol, derived from corn and other
agricultural products, has long been pushed by farm state politicians looking to
boost grain sales. And methanol, derived from natural gas, could be produced
in the oil patch, including Bush's adopted home state of Texas.
(402)472-7211 Univ of NE
PR : 472-2167
CTE : 472-3181
Dr. Peter Jenkins 472-2375
chief Researcher
Home 402/483-1281
POTUS has invited him here
their alt fiel R 40
next Thursday for a briefing on
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS® ®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
4
4TH STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright (c) 1987 Chicago Tribune Company;
Chicago Tribune
August 3, 1987, Monday, NATIONAL EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 4; ZONE: C
LENGTH: 1535 words
HEADLINE: CORN SURPLUS, POLLUTION GIVE ETHANOL NEW PUSH
BODY:
A combination of Middle Eastern tensions, the farm economy, clean air
standards and politics has brought back into prominence the issue of ethanol,
the motor fuel made from the Midwest's most abundant product, corn.
Ethanol is being viewed increasingly as a way to help eliminate the nation's
corn surplus of nearly 5 billion bushels and as a means of curbing air
pollution in some 80 cities that are failing to meet federal clean air standards
by the December deadline.
"I think people are finally beginning to realize that grain alcohol has a
place in the American fuel market," said William Scheller, a University of
Nebraska chemical engineer and ethanol pioneer who is credited with coining
the word "gasohol" in 1972. Gasohol is a mixture of 90 percent gasoline and 10
percent ethanol. Just how much of a place, and when and if it will fully come
about, are the questions now facing corn industry proponents of ethanol, who
these days see a future for the yellow kernels in everything from anti freeze
and adhesives, to fire briquets and bio degradable plastic bags.
Setting a national precedent, Colorado last month mandated the wintertime
use of motor fuel containing either ethanol or MTBE (methyl terciary butyl
ether) in vehicles operating in the heavily polluted Denver area and the eastern
half of the state. Either fuel can cut carbon monoxide emissions by as much as
20 percent, according to federal studies.
In mid-July, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad called for the state's 7,000-car fleet
to convert to ethanol. In May, California struck a deal with Arco to sell
methanol at 75 of its stations and announced it would help finance the purchase
of 5,000 autos that can burn methanol, an alcohol fuel made from coal or natural
gas.
In addition, several bills before Congress would mandate that half the
nation's gasoline supply contain 10 percent ethanol by 1992. Other measures
would encourage production of automobiles that can burn alcohol fuels by easing
government fuel economy standards.
Alcohol fuels, especially ethanol, appear tailor-made for political
candidates. They would seem to offer a means to cut the trade deficit, clean up
the air, provide greater energy security, and in ethanol's case, reduce
agricultural subsidies and grain storage costs.
Sen. Paul Simon (D., Ill.) introduced one of the gasohol bills. Sen. Bob
Dole (R., Kan.) in April urged the Environmental Protection Agency to require
the use of alcohol fuels in areas polluted by carbon monoxide. Vice President
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS ®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
5
(c) 1987 Chicago Tribune, August 3, 1987
George Bush took a similar position in a report by the President's Task Force on
Regulatory Relief. All three are presidential candidates.
Still, the gasohol bills face strong opposition in Congress. Oil companies
oppose them on grounds that they will introduce distortions and inefficiencies
in the market, while restricting consumers' choices and perhaps increasing their
costs. Consumer groups oppose them because they are not compatible with motor
homes and pre-1980 autombile engines. And others oppose them on grounds they are
mandates.
Corn alcohol proponents are worried about that opposition.
"There is simply no other alternative. How else do we reduce the corn
surplus without wiping out the economy of the Midwest?" asked William Rosenberg,
a former energy official in the Ford administration and now a real estate
investor with rural holdings.
Heightened tensions in the Persian Gulf, however, along with the nation's
rising dependence on imported oil, may counter at least some of that opposition.
"There's a growing sense in Washington of not wanting to be caught
short-handed" again, said Eric Vaughn of the Renewable Fuels Association, a
leading proponent of ethanol.
Eight percent of all gasoline now sold contains ethanol, say Department of
Energy officials. In corn -growing states, the percentage is three and four
times higher.
In 1979, a federal fuel tax exemption for gasohol was adopted, which made it
attractive to oil companies. In the seven years since then, annual ethanol
production has grown from 20 million gallons to 805 million gallons.
Yet some major oil companies such as Amoco oppose gasohol because they say
it survives by subsidy and has not met with consumer acceptance. A recent Amoco
study found that half of those who tried and gave up on gasohol cited poor
performance and engine harm, according to Jerrold Levine, director of corporate
studies for Amoco.
Ethanol proponents say those are charges involving old rumors having more to
do with methanol and put forth by major oil companies that do not own ethanol
production facilities.
"Large oil companies are reluctant to go to alcohol fuels because they like
to maintain control of octane at the refinery," said David Lindhal, director of
the Department of Energy's Alcohol Fuels Division.
But even Lindahl, who praises pure alcohol fuels for their superior
performance, acknowledges some consumer resistance to gasohol. One factor, he
said, has been pump labeling and negative advertising waged by the major oil
companies proclaiming that their gasoline was pure.
"If all the rumors about alcohol fuels were true, the whole country of
Brazil would be a parking lot by now," said C. Boyden Gray, an alternate fuels
adviser to Bush. Brazil has cut its oil imports in half since switching to
gasohol containing 22 percent ethanol made from sugar cane, Gray said.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® ® NEXIS ®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
6
(c) 1987 Chicago Tribune, August 3, 1987
Still, alcohol methanol more than ethanol have caused some problems
in older cars, proponents admit. The alcohol cleans gum out of fuel lines, which
can lead to clogged fuel filters. Vapor lock has been an occasional problem. And
alcohol's higher rate of evaporation, or volatility, means drivers travel
slightly fewer miles per tank.
Automakers may remedy the latter problem with larger fuel tanks. Ford Motor
Co. research scientist Roberta Nichols said the other problems, including
corrosion of rubber, aluminum and zinc parts, have been remedied in most
post-1980 cars.
Amoco's Levine, however, also attacks the reputed economic benefits of
ethanol for U.S. farmers. By his calculations, even if half the nation's
gasoline supply were to contain 10 percent ethanol, the price of corn still
would not rise above the $3.04 per bushel that the government now guarantees
farmers.
Meanwhile, the gain in reduced agricultural subsidies would be offset by an
increase in alcohol fuel tax exemptions, he said.
His arguments echo those of a controversial Department of Agriculture energy
office report issued last year. It was assailed as based on old data from
ethanol's inefficient infancy in the 1970s, when only a few start-up plants were
operating. Vice President George Bush was instrumental in persuading the
Department of Agriculture to write another report, now being done by its
economic research service.
While more ethanol is being produced now, methanol is said by many to be in
a better position to displace the 110 billion gallons of gasoline Americans
consume each year. It is cheaper to produce because coal and gas sources are
more abundantly available. Although corn is renewable, it takes one bushel to
make 2 1/2 gallons of ethanol.
But Michael Hall, spokesman for the National Corn Growers Association,
argues with that.
"Two years ago this county grew 8.9 billion bushels of corn, and that was
with set-aside programs in effect. So we have not tested what production could
be if we had demand factors and more acres were put into corn, = he said.
To put 10 percent ethanol in half the nation's gasoline supply, about 5
billion gallons of ethanol would have to be produced. That would require about 2
billion bushels of corn, enough to eliminate much of the unwanted surplus,
according to Thomas Faletti, an aide to Rep. Richard Durbin (D., Ill.), House
sponsor of a gasohol mandate bill.
Lindahl of the Department of Energy does not see ethanol and methanol as
competing.
"We are going to need as much as we can get from all sources," he said. The
more likely competition is between ethanol and MTBE, made from isobutylene, a
petroleum byproduct. MTBE, made at refineries, is favored by the oil
companies--an probably will be favored in Colorado.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS®
Clean Air -- Governor Deukmejian
-- The Deukemejian Administration is responsible for initiating
the largest alternative fuels program in the nation.
-- The Governor has allocated $100 Million for the 8 year
program to diversify the fuel mix, to improve the state's
energy security and to reduce emmissions. All types of
vehicles (heavy, medium, light types) are affected; the
plan also calls for the use of methanol and ethnol,
compressed natural gas, and electric vehicles.
-- Give a nod to the exceptional efforts of Secretary
Sharpless (Chair of the CA Air Resources Board) and
Chuck Imbrecht (Chair of the CA Energy Commission).
They spearheaded the Governor's initiatives both
in Sacramento and in D.C.
Gov's office is faxing my
TPS today.
FROM: API-PUBLIC RELATIONS
TO:
202 755 0447
OCT 23, 1990 1:57PM #107 P.02
CLEAN FUELS INDUSTRY
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-682-8128
AP
news release
Clean Air Act
Media Contact: Gus Ensz
202-682-8126
STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE
WASHINGTON, October 23 -- The petroleum industry
strongly supports the objectives of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990 and will make every effort to help meet these objectives.
For areas with a carbon monoxide problem, we will
provide gasoline containing greater amounts of oxygen in the
winter. More oxygen in the fuel will reduce these carbon
monoxide emissions.
Further, we are committed to providing reformulated
gasoline to help reduce the ozone problem in the nine most
seriously polluted cities -- cities that use almost one-quarter
of the nation's gasoline. To provide data on how changes in fuel
composition can reduce emissions, the petroleum and automobile
industries have initiated the most comprehensive fuel and
automotive research program ever undertaken. We hope this
ongoing research, as well as other research being conducted by
the industry, will yield valuable information to help industry
and government meet the ambitious requirements of this Act.
The reformulated gasoline provisions adopted by the
conferees present a challenge to the petroleum industry. These
provisions set tough, new targets for emissions reductions for
gasoline -- reductions which must be accomplished in a very short
time frame. The petroleum industry will make major modifications
in its refineries and supply and distribution systems to meet
this challenge.
-
FROM: API-PUBLIC RELATIONS
TO:
202 755 0447
OCT 23, 1990 1:58PM #107 P.03
2. Clean Air Act
However, we are entering uncharted territory that is
filled with uncertainty. Among the questions are:
-- is it technically feasible to meet the emission
reductions targets?;
-- can fuel meeting these targets be supplied in the
time provided?; and
-- what will the cost of such fuel be to consumers?
Given existing technology, refiners do not know how to
achieve the 15 percent emission reductions required by 1995, much
less the larger reductions required later. While we will search
diligently for solutions, it is not yet clear whether changes in
the hundreds of gasoline components will result in such
significant emissions reductions.
It is especially unclear whether a fuel meeting the
requirements set for benzene, aromatics and oxygen content can
also meet the emission reductions targets.
The joint oil and auto industry research program has so
far not revealed how to achieve these emission reduction goals;
nor are we aware of other research demonstrating this. This is
why we urged that the law include feasibility assessments for any
required emission reductions so that these targets could be
adjusted as necessary to ensure adequate supplies of gasoline at
reasonable prices. Unfortunately, this was not done. If the
emission reduction target cannot be met, gasoline cannot be sold
in these cities.
We are also concerned about the limited time provided to
meet the emission targets. The fuels program must be implemented
in about four years. Within that time, refiners will not only
have to determine how to change their gasoline, but also will
have to get EPA's approval of these changes. That means
complying with a myriad of regulations that EPA has not begun to
write.
-more-
FROM:API-PUBLIC RELATIONS
TO:
202 755 0447
OCT 23, 1990 1:58PM #107 P.04
3. Clean Air Act
Only after the legislative and regulatory requirements
are set can refiners complete plans for the major modifications
necessary to their refineries. Moreover, refinery modifications
could be further delayed by the new, more complicated permitting
requirements of the Act.
These modifications will have to be made simultaneously
by most refiners. However, over the last decade, the industry
that provides the necessary engineers, services and materials has
declined. Thus, it could take far longer than the four to five
years it currently takes for design, permitting and construction
of major refinery facilities.
This is a particular concern about oxygen. High levels
of oxygen will be required in 41 carbon monoxide areas in less
than two years and year-round in nine large ozone nonattainment
cities a few years thereafter. Numerous studies have clearly
demonstrated that large additions must be made to domestic
oxygenate production capacity as well as major changes in the
fuel supply and distribution systems to accommodate oxygenated
fuels.
Since refiners do not yet know how to make gasoline
meeting the standards in the Act, we do not know how extensive
the changes will be at our refineries. Therefore, we do not know
how much the cost of producing gasoline could rise. However, the
increase could be substantial. It is unfortunate that the bill
has some requirements that add to cost yet provide no
environmental benefit. One particular example is the requirement
to use oxygen year round even in ozone nonattainment areas which
have no carbon monoxide problem in the winter.
America's oil companies are committed to improving our
nation's air quality. The petroleum industry recognizes its
responsibility to make cleaner gasoline. However, we do not yet
have the answers that would enable us to achieve the goals set by
the Clean Air Amendments of 1990. We believe it is imperative
that all involved, government and industry, work cooperatively
within the framework of the Act to achieve a reasonable result.
The industry will certainly work diligently to meet these new
requirements while continuing to provide the quality gasoline the
American public expects at an affordable price.
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
38
52ND STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright (c) 1990 Chicago Tribune Company;
Chicago Tribune
September 29, 1990, Saturday, NORTH SPORTS FINAL EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 1; ZONE: C
LENGTH: 814 words
HEADLINE: California sets new air-quality standards
BYLINE: By Jorge Casuso, Chicago Tribune. Tribune auto writer Jim Mateja
contributed to this report
DATELINE: LOS ANGELES
BODY:
In a decision likely to have national implications, California adopted new
air-quality standards Friday that mandate the development of "ultra-clean"
cars and cleaner burning fuels.
The standards, which tighten what are already the nation's strictest
emissions regulations, require the production of electric cars by 1998 and set
the stage for wider use of alternative fuels, such as methanol, in some
mass-produced cars.
Because California is the nation's biggest car market, the new standards
are expected to have far-reaching effects on the automotive industry. In
addition, the new regulations could serve as a model for other states.
"This could pave the way for a whole new generation of cars and technology
and will redefine what we consider an environmentally acceptable car for the
next two decades," said James Boyd, executive officer of the California Air
Resources Board, which set the new standards.
"These regulations will impact everyone associated with the automotive
industry well into the next century," said Samuel Leonard, director of
automobile emission controls for General Motors. "It will change the very
nature of passenger cars and trucks."
Under the new program, cars producing 50 percent to 84 percent less
pollution than those now meeting the strictest standards must be phased into
production by 1994, when a projected 200,000 such cars will be sold. By 2003
every new car sold in the state - a projected 2 million a year - must meet the
standards.
What the plan foresees is an initial generation of flexible fuel vehicles
that can use both gasoline and alternate fuels. Those will be transitional,
leading ultimately to vehicles running solely on alternate fuels.
The regulations for the first time also require that such cleaner-burning
fuels be made available. Alternatives range from superior grade,
cleaner-burning gasoline to reliance on methanol and natural gas. Service
stations will carry alternate fuels in Southern California by 1994 and
statewide by 1997.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS ®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
39
(c) 1990 Chicago Tribune, September 29, 1990
In addition, the guidelines require that 2 percent of all cars sold in the
state have zero emissions by 1998, rising to 10 percent by 2003. That regulation
will make electric cars an everyday reality.
Automakers, who fear that they lack the technology to meet the new timetable,
successfully lobbied the board to allow greater leeway in meeting the new
standards during the early stages of the program.
Still, Leonard said: "It will put some manufacturers out of business. The
challenge is to be a survivor."
The new regulations are California's latest effort to curb the nation's worst
pollution problem, caused in large part by the 22 million vehicles on the road.
"I think by passing this measure we are making one giant leap for winning the
war," said board member Brian Bilbray.
Decisions made by the board, which is made up of nine appointed officials,
require no legislative approval but can be challenged in court.
None of its rules has been challenged since the board was formed in 1968.
The Federal Clean Air Act allows California, which has smog problems worse
than those in all other states combined, to set its own standards. The other
states can then choose to adopt California's rules.
On Thursday, New York, which had failed to meet federal air quality standards
under its existing controls, adopted California's pollution rules for cars and
trucks for the 1993 model year. It has yet to decide whether it will adopt
California's new, stricter standards. Seven other states are also studying the
new regulations.
Automakers have also been testing battery-powered vehicles, mostly vans, for
the California market. General Motors has been testing a small electric car
called the Impact.
California's timetable for cleaner air.
Friday, California adopted "technology-forcing" automobile emission rules
stricter then the federal government's. The average hydrocarbon emissions of all
vehicles will drop from 0.25 grams per mile in 1994 to 0.062 in 2003. Emission
requirements will be phased in as follows.
- 1992: New standards on lead content, detergent additives and evaporation for
cleaner-burning gasoline.
- 1994: Ten percent of all new cars will meet hydrocarbon emissions of 0.125
grams per mile, half the maximum allowed for 1993 under current rules; by 1996,
the quota will be 20 percent of new cars.
- 1997: Twenty-five percent of all new cars will meet hydrocarbon emissions of
0.075 grams per mile; by 2000, the quota will be 96 percent of new cars.
- 1998: Electric cars (zero pollutants) will constitute 2 percent of new
cars; by 2003, 10 percent of new cars.
- 2003: Seventy-five percent of all vehicles will meet hydrocarbon emissions
standards of 0.075 grams per mile; 15 percent, 0.04 grams; 10 percent, zero
pollutants.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® ® NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
8
15TH STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright (c) 1990 The Times Mirror Company;
Los Angeles Times
October 23, 1990, Tuesday, Home Edition
SECTION: Business; Part D; Page 1; Column 4; Financial Desk
LENGTH: 795 words
HEADLINE: INDUSTRY HAS MIXED REVIEWS FOR PROPOSED CLEAN AIR LEGISLATION
BYLINE: By MICHAEL PARRISH, TIMES STAFF WRITER
BODY:
Companies that make pollution control devices for cars and industry are
among the predictable winners under the proposed clean air legislation that
cleared a House-Senate conference Monday. The losers include auto makers, oil
companies and producers of high-sulfur coal.
But winners and losers alike were generally relieved that U.S. companies
affected by the legislation can now get on with their business plans, since
Congressional passage and a signature by President Bush are near-certainties.
"We're not ecstatic and we're not going to jump from the rooftops," said Mary
Bernhard, manager of environmental policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "But
I think the fact is, when you look at what the original Senate bill was, some
segments of industry would literally have been shut down by the toxics
section. I don't think that will happen now."
Indeed, some industries are likely to prosper under the new law.
These include companies building catalytic converters -- for autos - and
industrial smokestack scrubbers, which by environmentalists' estimates could
generate hundreds of millions of dollars over the next few decades.
Natural gas and low-sulfur coal producers, many of these in the Western
states, stand to gain billions of dollars as the expected new law continues a
national shift from air-polluting oil and high-sulphur coal energy generation.
Predictably, the auto and oil companies, as well as many utilities, had less
to celebrate.
Some business groups, including the National Assn. of Manufacturers, also
remain unhappy. The association is expected to strongly condemn the measure in a
press conference today.
"We are very disturbed that the new Clean Air Act conference agreement does
not cover Greater Los Angeles or some other urban areas," said Theresa Pugh,
director of environmental quality for the manufacturers.
Some aspects of the new clean-air regulations would apply to Los Angeles.
Others would leave the South Coast Air Basin, which covers parts of four
Southern California counties, under regulations of an existing federal program
that manufacturers consider legally cumbersome and complicated.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® ® NEXIS
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
9
(c) 1990 Los Angeles Times, October 23, 1990
High-sulfur coal companies, mainly in the East, will also feel the impact of
the new regulations.
"Because of acid rain, dirty coal is going to take somewhat of a hit," said
Robert Hahn, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, who wrote
portions of the original bill.
"There is going to be some loss over time to the number of jobs that will go
to coal miners," Hahn said. "But most of that will be met by attrition, if you
look at the figures."
"There's going to be a boost for the alternative fuels industry, = Hahn
continued. "The ethanol industry made out well, the methanol folks are not
going to be hurting, nor are the folks who want to do something with compressed
natural gas. But the real group that stands to gain the most are lawyers in
general, and lawyers in environmental groups."
And bureaucrats.
"You're going to see an EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) as a
mega-department when they implement this one," said William D. Fay,
administrator of the Clean Air Working Group, the industry coalition that
worked on the bill.
"And I'll tell you that the biggest loser, the surprise loser, is going to be
small business," Fay said.
Fay cited industry predictions that many small businesses from bakeries
to mortuaries -- would have to pay for permits averaging $100,000 a year to stay
in business. Many of these have never been regulated nationally.
"They are your local dry cleaner and your local printer," Fay said. "And once
they've paid their $100,000 for a permit, they're still going to have to install
pollution-control equipment, and pay for its maintenance. For a dry cleaner,
typically, that means $70,000 to $185,000 in equipment installation."
Indeed, industry has estimated the total cost of the new Clean Air act at
as high as $91 billion annually by the year 2005.
"The last cost estimate we did on the bill was around $50 billion a year once
the major controls kick in," said Mary Bernhard of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
"on top of the current $32 billion compiled by the Department of Commerce for
what industry is paying today for clean air. =
"I think those figures are malarkey, they're battlefield figures," said
Richard Ayres, senior attorney with Natural Resources Defense Council and
chairman of the National Clean Air Coalition, the umbrella lobbying
organization of environmental, labor and church groups supporting the
legislation.
"Over and over again you see that when a new regulatory requirement is first
proposed, industry looks only at current technology, or the most expensive way
to go about it," Ayres said.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
29
29TH STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright (c) 1990 The Christian Science Publishing Society;
The Christian Science Monitor
October 17, 1990, Wednesday
SECTION: IDEAS; Pg. 13
LENGTH: 782 words
HEADLINE: Auto Energy Alternatives Down the Road
BYLINE: Clara Germani, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
HIGHLIGHT:
Supply precedes demand for compressed natural gas. GOING WITHOUT GASOLINE
BODY:
BUYING a gasoline-fueled automobile before there were gas stations was one
of those supply-will-follow-demand acts of faith.
Today, supply is preceding demand when it comes to natural gas. For the
equivalent of 60 to 70 cents a gallon, compressed natural gas (CNG) can be
pumped at street-corner service stations in a growing number of urban locations.
Advocates of CNG-fueled vehicles believe that widespread industry and
consumer demand for the clean-burning, inexpensive, auto fuel is just around
the corner - especially with the increase in tough clean-air laws and the
Iraqi reminder of the United States' precarious dependence on foreign oil.
'No one is demanding this, says Norman L. Bryan, vice president of Pacific
Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), which last month opened the second of its seven
planned compressed natural gas (CNG) refueling stations. But as state and
federal clean air laws grow tougher, officials at the northern California
utility - as well as a growing number of other CNG- fuel marketers in the
United States - are positioning their companies for what they expect to be a
strong demand for the low-cost, clean-burning CNG.
Only 13 public natural-gas vehicle refueling stations existed in the US in
1986, American Gas Association data show. But in urban areas, it is getting much
easier for single vehicles, or fleet vehicles of companies not willing or able
to invest in their own refueling stations, to drive up to a pump and fill their
CNG cylinders from a high-pressure (3,000 pounds per square inch) hose.
More than 50 public stations (there are 300 private stations) were operating
last year, and over a dozen more have opened this year. Most are run by state
utilities.
But this month, San Diego Gas and Electric announced a joint venture in CNG
refueling stations with Unical oil company. A private Denver company, Natural
Fuels Corporation, operates two private refueling stations, including one with
a 10-bay garage for converting vehicles to CNG and servicing them, and also
supplies two Amoco service stations with natural gas.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS® ®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
30
(c) 1990 The Christian Science Publishing Society, October 17, 1990
'This is a very bold step,'' says Steve Plotkin, senior associate in energy
at the Office of Technology Assessment, the analytical arm of Congress.
'They're doing this more for symbolic reasons than commercial for the moment
but the moment could last 50 years.
The market for CNG, which is the same fossil fuel pumped through pipes to
homes for cooking and heating, remains largely an environmental dream, he says.
(Vehicles powered by CNG produce 90 percent less carbon monoxide and 65 percent
less ozone-forming pollutants.)
Mr. Plotkin points out that there are only about 30,000 natural-gas vehicles
in the US (Italy, by comparison, has 300,000). Vehicles are not mass-produced
for CNG fuel, he says, and the cost of converting them for dual
gasoline/natural gas use is cost-efficient only for vehicles used for
'extremely high'' mileage. And a tank of CNG provides only about 200 miles of
driving.
CNG advocates admit that the market will have to be painstakingly built.
'We're biting the bullet and putting in stations before demand in order to
generate it,'' says Paul Nelson, vice president of Natural Fuels Corporation.
The company expects to have a dozen street-corner service stations in operation
in Colorado by the end of 1991. It is targeting commercial vehicles from ''the
florist
to
the
IBM
fleet
cars
...
(organizations) which can't afford or don't
want to build their own facility. By doing it, we begin mainstreaming the
consumer,' he says.
Pacific Gas and Electric officials ''saw enough factors in the market to
sustain the use of compressed natural gas'' in automobiles, PG&E's Mr. Bryan
says. The company's service-station project was launched in earnest last January
when it became clear that the federal government intends to legislate ambitious
clean- fuel vehicle mandates aimed at reducing urban smog and ozone pollution.
The Gulf crisis, too, after a decade of plentiful and cheap petroleum, has
reminded Americans of the need for alternative fuels. After Iraq's invasion of
Kuwait, Natural Fuels' Mr. Nelson says, calls tripled from consumers
interested in converting their cars to CNG. (The process costs about $2,000
and simply adds natural-gas cylinders in the rear of the car. A second fuel
line is connected to the engine's existing combustion system through regulated
mixer equipment.)
To help boost the demand for CNG, a consortium of natural-gas industry
companies - including Natural Fuels, PG&E, and San Diego Gas and Electric -
has put up $1 million for General Motors Corporation to design and produce 1,000
natural-gas-burning trucks next year.
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: FILL 'ER UP: A tank in the trunk holds compressed natural gas in
this demonstration model of a car that uses the inexpensive, clean-burning
fuel. , R. NORMAN MATHENY - STAFF
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® ® NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
31
34TH STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright (c) 1990 Chicago Tribune Company;
Chicago Tribune
October 14, 1990, Sunday, FINAL EDITION
SECTION: PERSPECTIVE; Pg. 1; ZONE: C
LENGTH: 1965 words
HEADLINE: Gasohol back on the front burner as oil prices return to crisis levels
BYLINE: By William Mullen, a Tribune reporter. Tribune reporter William Gaines
contributed to this report
BODY:
There is perhaps an element of an alchemist's magic in the image of pumping
corn instead of gasoline into the fuel tank of a car and having the engine
start up and purr contentedly away.
It was just such an image that captured much of the nation in the
OPEC-induced gas crisis of the 1970s. That is when crude oil prices hit $38 a
barrel and retail gasoline prices hit $1.50 a gallon, and it was a happy image,
indeed.
And not a far-fetched one. You remember gasohol. It was something of the rage
in the late 1970s, when it was almost patriotic to use it as a "go-to-hell"
message to OPEC that the United States was on the way to finding alternative
fuels to end our dependency on foreign oil.
But as OPEC lowered its crude oil prices in the 1980s from nearly $40 a
barrel to $10, people forgot about gasohol or bought into a public perception
that it was inferior to straight gasoline. Gasohol assumed such a negative
connotation that many retailers stopped using the word.
"Marketers now prefer to use terms such as 'ethanol-enriched' or
'ethanol-blended' fuels, " said Maureen Lorenzetti, editor of an industry
journal.
But Iraq's Saddam Hussein, the record price of crude oil and a Congress
clamoring for higher grade, less polluting auto fuel seem about to jog
America's consciousness about gasohol, a development that could prove a boon to
Illinois with its large corn crops.
One of the reasons for the renewed interest is that ethanol has turned out to
be a useful agent for reducing toxic auto emissions. Consequently, not only will
gasohol - a blend of 1 part ethanol (an alcohol derived primarily from corn) and
9 parts gasoline - likely become more widely available in coming months,
motorists in many major cities probably will be mandated by law to use it by
1992.
That will be an ironic twist in the fierce struggle waged over the last
decade between two titans of American business - the big oil companies and the
agribusiness industry.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS® ®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
32
(c) 1990 Chicago Tribune, October 14, 1990
The oil industry long has argued that it takes as much or nearly as much
energy to produce a gallon of ethanol as the fuel itself provides. Citing
research done by Amoco Oil Co., ethanol proponents say it takes only 1 gallon of
oil to produce 10 gallons of ethanol. Depending on if you listen to pro-oil or
pro-ethanol experts, each 10 gallons of ethanol used as fuel saves the country
from having to import 2.5 to 7.1 gallons of foreign oil.
The oil companies claim that ethanol, which costs twice as much to produce as
gasoline, is a $1 billion-a-year waste of taxpayer money. That is the cost of
tax incentives that make gasohol prices competitive with gasoline. The oil
companies say they have their own products that are cheaper, more abundant and
just as effective as ethanol.
Corn farmers, food processors and ethanol producers see ethanol as a great
boon to the economy: a way to cut oil imports, buck up corn prices and put idle
farmland into production, thereby reducing costly federal farm support.
In the past, gasohol makers charge, many major oil companies fought against
ethanol by barring franchise station operators from using company tanks and
pumps to sell gasohol. Some threatened to terminate contracts with franchisees
who sold ethanol. Others wouldn't accept company credit cards from customers
buying gasohol.
The ethanol industry complained and Congress passed the Gasohol Competition
Act in 1980, prohibiting oil companies from using unfair practices to drive
ethanol out of the gasoline market.
Ten years later, 11 bankrupt ethanol producers are seeking a $2 billion
judgment against nine oil companies in federal district court in Springfield.
The pending federal lawsuit, which includes two defunct Illinois ethanol
makers - CEPO Inc., a south suburban company, and Greater Rockford Energy and
Technology Corp. - accuses the major oil companies of waging a conspiratorial
war against ethanol. It alleges that after the 1980 competition act, oil
companies used a subtler but equally effective campaign against ethanol.
When gasohol was first retailed in 1978 and 1979, users found that because of
ethanol's highly solvent properties, gasohol began cleaning off residues that
had accumulated in older automobile engines. As the residues broke loose, they
tended to clog fuel filters, stopping the flow of gas into the engines.
That resulted in a public perception that gasohol was an inferior, "dirty"
fuel. Actually, the reverse was true. Gasohol was cleaner-burning than
straight gasoline.
Ethanol makers and retailers, hoping to cash in on the patriotic cachet of
gasohol, insisted on labeling retail pumps that the gasoline contained ethanol.
It is a move many now believe was a damaging tactical error.
The lawsuit alleges the oil companies turned pump labeling against ethanol in
an artful form of psychological warfare. Many major gasoline companies began
distributing a slick signage campaign to their gas station operators.
The signs, prominently hung on pumps and around gas station property, read:
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
33
(c) 1990 Chicago Tribune, October 14, 1990
"My Gasoline is Not Blended With Alcohol"
"No Alcohol In Our Gasolines"
"Contains No Alcohol"
"100% Pure Gasoline Not Blended with Alcohol"
"Because of years and years of advertising," said Jim Bruce Smith, "there is
a high degree of public acceptance that the major oil companies have a higher
quality gasoline. People believe there is a 'tiger in the tank' and that other
gasolines are of lesser quality when they are the same."
Smith is a Panama City, Fla., gasoline jobber who sells fuel wholesale to
independent distributors and retail outlets. He made a deposition in the pending
lawsuit on behalf of the bankrupt plaintiffs.
"Even in the cornbelt now the perception is that something is wrong with
ethanol," he said. "Those places that sell it are afraid to advertise."
The oil companies named in the suit each deny the allegations.
The suit, filed in 1988, was called "baseless" by a spokesman for
Chicago-based Amoco. "We intend to contest it vigorously and we expect to win,"
he said.
The public perception of ethanol as an inferior fuel is baffling in light
of research advances and more than a decade of over-the-road experience with
gasohol, which commands about 8 percent of the U.S. gasoline market.
Since 1979, Illinois' fleet of 8,000 state vehicles have been operating
exclusively on gasohol, using more than 4 million gallons a year, after being
ordered to do 50 by Gov. James Thompson.
"We have not had many problems with it," said Jay Wavering, the Central
Management Services manager in charge of the fleet. "It burns cleaner, 50 it
gets better mileage than regular gasoline."
Virtually every automaker now accepts gasohol as a safe, reliable fuel,
with some, like General Motors, recommending its use in their new models.
What may prove to be even more important to gasohol in the future is
ethanol's effectiveness as an "oxygenate," reducing carbon monoxide and ozone
pollution, major targets in new clean-air legislation. "Oxygenated" fuels
are ones containing more oxygen and thus burn off more completely than standard
gasoline in car engines.
A gallon of gasohol emits 25 to 35 percent less carbon monoxide than ordinary
gasoline. Its use is mandated in Denver, Albuquerque and Phoenix, cities with
severe wintertime carbon monoxide emission problems.
But the ethanol and petroleum industries are typically at odds over
gasohol's effect on the ozone. Ethanol producers insist their product slightly
reduces ozone pollution. The oil industry disagrees.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
34
(c) 1990 Chicago Tribune, October 14, 1990
"You have tradeoffs," said Jerrold Levine, director of corporate studies for
Amoco. "While ethanol blends reduce carbon monoxide in the wintertime, it raises
ozone in the summer."
House and Senate versions of clean-air standards are in joint committee
negotiations this week, with a final version expected to pass and take effect as
early as October 1991.
It will mandate use of oxygenated fuels in 44 cities with carbon monoxide
pollution above federal standards, and in nine cities, including Chicago, not in
compliance with federal ozone standards.
Key to the new legislation will be whether Congress extends tax incentive
programs that have allowed ethanol to compete in the market.
The federal incentives, initiated under former President Jimmy Carter and set
to expire over the next several years, are aimed at gasohol blenders and service
station operators. Coupled with similar incentives offered by 28 states, they
have made gasohol competitive with gasoline in retail pricing.
The incentive programs for ethanol are criticized by the petroleum industry
for being too expensive. Yet a recent Government Accounting Office study
suggests that if demand for ethanol increases significantly, the government
might reap an overall savings because farmers who leave corn acreage idle to
take advantage of farm support programs would start planting to cash in on
rising corn prices. For every $1 lost to revenue through tax incentives, roughly
$2 would come back through fewer farm subsidies, according to the GAO.
Similar studies by the federal Department of Agriculture show similar savings
in the short run, but in the long term, ethanol tax incentives would result in
overall federal revenue losses.
"As you look at all alternative fuels, = said Otto Doering, a Purdue
University agricultural economist, "none make sense or would be competitive with
gasoline until crude oil prices reached $40 to $50 a barrel."
Even though crude oil prices already have hit the $40 mark, Doering said
ethanol would never be a large competitor. About 6 percent of the nation's corn
crop is used in ethanol production. One government study projects that if the
amount of corn used for ethanol rose much above 18 percent of the crop, corn
prices would increase too much to make it economic.
Other alternative fuels being studied by the government, including shale
oil, methanol, natural gas and solar electricity, are more dependably abundant
and make more sense as long-term replacements for oil.
"Realistically, what we're talking about when we talk about ethanol is a
fuel that can help on a relatively small scale," Doering said.
Yet even on a small scale, ethanol is a big business promising to get bigger.
And Illinois is in a better position than most states to take advantage of an
enlarged ethanol market.
By volume Illinois is the largest consumer of ethanol in the country. In
1988, motorists here bought nearly 1.5 billion gallons of gasohol, 50 percent
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
35
(c) 1990 Chicago Tribune, October 14, 1990
more than Ohio, the next heaviest user.
More importantly, Illinois is the biggest producer of ethanol in the country.
Two Illinois companies own nearly 80 percent of the nation's ethanol processing
capacity. Pekin-based Pekin Energy Corp. produces 10 percent of the nation's
capacity. Decatur-based Archer Daniels Midland, the world's largest food
processing business, owns four plants - two in Illinois, two in Iowa - with 68
percent of the nation's ethanol producing capacity.
ADM is well-positioned. Government studies surmise that big operators could
most easily meet needs if gasohol becomes mandated fuel. It is six times more
expensive to build an ethanol processing plant than to expand an existing one.
ADM jumped into ethanol production in the late 1970s and has been
instrumental in maintaining tax-incentive programs. As a company with a world
reach, it also has been a leader in pushing ethanol exports, already selling
large quantities to Brazil. With strong connections in Europe, it stands to
benefit from demands in Western European nations rushing to find ways to convert
to unleaded gasoline.
Whether or not ethanol is a viable alternative fuel or, as its critics
claim, an expensive tax incentive scam, it appears to have a new future in this
country, and a profitable one in Illinois.
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: A billboard near the Archer Daniels Midland Co. plant in Peoria
sends a clear message of its feelings toward the oil crisis in the Persian Gulf.
The company is the largest producer of ethanol. AP Laserphoto.
PHOTO: Illustration by Barbara Cummings, Los Angeles Times Syndicate.
ENERGY; REPORT; STATISTIC; ILLINOIS; COST; FEDERAL; LAWSUIT
LEXIS® ® NEXIS® EXIS® ® NEXIS
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
36
42ND STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright (c) 1990 Crain Communications, Inc.;
Automotive News
October 8, 1990
SECTION: Pg. 17
LENGTH: 337 words
HEADLINE: Makers welcome California plan to review emissions technology
BYLINE: By Tom Lankard, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
DATELINE: SACRAMENTO, Calif.
BODY:
The California Air Resources Board's agreement to review carmakers' progress
with low-emissions vehicles will help ensure that the state's clean-air goals
are compatible with technology, according to a General Motors executive.
As part of a sweeping clean-air program approved Sept. 28, the board agreed
to review in the spring of 1992 and periodically thereafter development of
lowemissions vehicle technology.
"That was a key point" to GM's conditional acceptance of the board's plan,
said Sam Leonard, director of GM's automotive emissions controls program.
Makers had all argued that much of the technology needed to meet the standards
was not yet available.
"You can't schedule invention," Leonard said. He believes the board's plan
will "require midcourse corrections."
The board ordered carmakers to begin in 1994 to phase in a new generation of
low-emissions vehicles that will be at least 50 percent cleaner than required by
the tightest standard the auto industry has faced so far.
Under the plan, as approved by the board on an 8-0 vote, passenger cars and
light- and medium-duty trucks and vans sold in California by 2003 will emit 75
percent less smog-related pollutants on average than in 1994. And by 1998,
makers must produce annually at least 40,000 electric cars -- called ZEVs, or
"zero emissions vehicles" - for sale in the state.
In addition, between 1992 and 1994, leaded gasoline will be phased out in
California. And, coincident with the introduction of low-emissions vehicles,
service stations must begin making available reformulated, low-emissions
gasoline and non-fossil alternative fuels to meet market demand.
To give makers more time to develop the technology to meet the new standards,
the board allowed a three-year carryback period that permits makers to make up
for not meeting a standard in earlier years by exceeding it later.
Makers also may use the new reformulated gas in certifying their cars to
the state's standards beginning with the 1995 model year.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® ® NEXIS® ®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
11
28TH STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright (c) 1990 The Times Mirror Company;
Los Angeles Times
October 18, 1990, Thursday, Home Edition
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 1; Column 5; Metro Desk
LENGTH: 746 words
HEADLINE: CLEAN MACHINES ARE TOUTED AS A BREATH OF FRESH AIR;
TECHNOLOGY: EXHIBITORS SHOW OFF THEIR ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE PRODUCTS, FROM
ELECTRIC CARS TO MORE EFFICIENT BARBECUES.
BYLINE: By TIM WATERS, TIMES STAFF WRITER
BODY:
For Lara Hait, the recent ruling by air-quality officials banning traditional
types of barbecue lighter fluids from Southern California by 1992 was a
marketing dream come true.
"It's a thrill for us," Hait said as she stood behind an exhibitor's booth
hawking her father's invention -- an insert for barbecues that promises to boost
the efficiency of the cooker while using fewer briquettes.
"We have been pushing environmental sensitivity for six years and no one
cared," Hait said.
Hait and more than 80 other exhibitors were on hand Wednesday at the Westin
Bonaventure Hotel in downtown Los Angeles as part of the three-day California
Clean Air and New Technologies Conference.
Distributors and manufacturers from around the country came to show off, and
peddle, devices ranging from non-polluting pizza ovens and deep fryers to
state-of-the-art mechanical devices geared toward helping heavy industry cut
down on nitrogen-oxide emissions.
As part of the conference, which ended Wednesday, vehicles powered by
alternative energy sources were displayed at a nearby bus maintenance yard.
Lined up for visitors to inspect and for their promoters to expound upon were a
bullet-shaped solar-powered car, a sleek battery-powered vehicle and a
methanol-powered garbage truck.
"It was born and raised as an electric car, = beamed Tom Mitchell, a
spokesman for Amectran, a Dallas-based company that developed the
battery-powered car. "For $1.75 in Los Angeles you can drive 100 miles. Can
your Mazda do that?"
Conference spokeswoman Blythe Egan said the event was planned over a
six-month period and sponsored by a consortium of 14 public agencies and private
companies. Besides manning exhibit booths, participants attended seminars on new
pollution-fighting technologies.
"The main purpose is to just bring together the regulatory bodies with
private industry and educational institutions to share knowledge and update
everybody about what is going on," Egan said.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
12
(c) 1990 Los Angeles Times, October 18, 1990
Inside the exhibitors' room, signs from such organizations as the American
Methanol Institute and Institute of Gas Technology hung from booths. Several
major oil companies were on hand, including the Unocal Corp., which decorated
its booth with three large barrels filled with scrap metal. The metal came from
old cars the company purchased as part of a program to get aging,
high-polluting vehicles off the road.
Many used the conference to drum up business. One such person was Steven
Martin, an area sales manager for a Huntington Beach company that distributes
engine parts to convert vehicles from gasoline power to propane. He extolled the
virtues of propane over gasoline, saying that it not only is a cleaner-burning
fuel but also extends an engine's life.
"I know of a Chrysler engine with 250,000 miles on it," he bragged.
Others attending the conference said they came not so much to sell their
products as to give the various state and local agencies that determine
clean-air regulations an opportunity to inspect their goods.
"We want the exposure to different regulatory divisions," said Ken Halsauer,
who works for a company that distributes pizza ovens and deep fryers that clean
and recirculate smoke and other pollutants that typically are vented into the
atmosphere.
At the maintenance yard, Bruce Ryan, a professor of mechanical engineering at
Cal State Northridge, said the bullet-shaped, solar-powered car was built by PM
dozen of the school's seniors as part of a competition sponsored by General
Motors. The two-seater is powered by a large solar panel and cost $40,000 to
develop.
"We get about 1,500 watts, which is like a hair dryer," Ryan said.
While Ryan conceded that the solar-powered car is not yet ready for mass
production, Mitchell contended that his electric car was. The car is powered
by 24 batteries, which propel the car 75 to 100 miles before they need
recharging perfect for the average commuter, he said.
"Do you know 90% of the people driving 95% of the time drive less than 50
miles a day?" Mitchell said.
Even though the battery-powered car drew a lot of attention, the biggest
hit of the conference may have been the barbecue insert device developed by Lara
Hait's father, Paul. Shortly before the conference adjourned, the Haits cooked
lunch for many of those who attended.
"They used five barbecues and only used 150 briquettes, which is a half a
bag, to cook hamburgers for 250 people," Egan said. "I thought that was kind of
astounding."
GRAPHIC: Photo, Bob Zweig points out features of hydrogen-powered engine at
conference on clean-air technology. ; Photo, An electric van looks a little
different under the hood. Box in the middle is the system control. RANDY
LEFFINGWELL/ Los Angeles Times
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
27
16TH STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright (c) 1990 The Times Mirror Company;
Los Angeles Times
October 23, 1990, Tuesday, Home Edition
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 3; Column 5; Metro Desk
LENGTH: 737 words
HEADLINE: STUDY BEGUN IN PUSH FOR ELECTRIC TROLLEYS;
TRANSPORTATION: $750,000 PROJECT TO LOOK AT IMPACT OF CHANGEOVER. PROPONENTS SAY
SUCH VEHICLES ARE QUIETER AND LESS POLLUTING.
BYLINE: By ELAINE woo, TIMES STAFF WRITER
BODY:
Los Angeles County transportation officials announced on Monday the start of
a $750,000, six-month study to replace the county's smoke-belching,
diesel-propelled public transit buses with cleaner, quieter electrified trolleys
before 2010.
Officials acknowledged that considerable public education will be needed to
win support of the electric trolley bus system -- long used in a few major U.S.
cities such as Seattle and San Francisco and abandoned in Los Angeles in the
early 1960s -- largely because of concerns over the potential unsightliness of
the overhead wires needed to power the vehicles.
They are pinning their hopes on public willingness "to have clean, noiseless
buses and live with the overhead wires," said Nick Patsaouras, president of the
Southern California Rapid Transit District board, which is conducting the study
for the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission.
The electric trolley bus system was one of several sweeping changes ordered
last year in a comprehensive clean air plan by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District. Local transit authorities believe they can beat AQMD's
deadlines, which require substantially reducing the number of diesel buses by
1998 and replacing all such vehicles with ones that are electric-powered or use
lower-emitting fuels, such as methanol and natural gas, by 2010.
The study, which will explore environmental impacts, costs, routes and other
operation aspects, will be "as close to an action plan as you can get," said
Neil Peterson, executive director of the county transportation commission.
"The basic message of today is that the transit community is dead serious
about looking at electric bus technology to see how we can bring it to the
public a lot sooner than originally anticipated," he said.
Design and environmental analysis could begin in June on five trolley lines
to be operated in heavy usage areas, such as the Wilshire Corridor or along the
El Monte busway, RTD spokeswoman Andrea Greene said.
Electric trolley cars are more expensive than diesel buses but more
cost-effective in the long run, according to local transit officials. An
electric bus costs about $400,000, compared to $250,000 for a diesel bus,
according to Green. But the trolley bus has a life expectancy of 25 years,
LEXIS® ® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
28
(c) 1990 Los Angeles Times, October 23, 1990
compared to 12 years for a diesel bus, and costs 30% less for overall
maintenance.
Patsaouras estimated that it would cost $1.6 billion to convert 20% of the
RTD's lines to trolley buses by 1998. The money would come from county
Proposition C on the November ballot, which calls for a quarter-cent
transportation tax.
Al Perdon, RTD assistant general manager, who recently returned from Seattle
and Vancouver where he observed those cities' trolley bus systems, called the
electrified buses "a really refreshing approach" to solving pollution and
traffic problems.
"What is really exciting is that when you stand at a bus stop, the bus is
there loading up passengers and it is absolutely quiet," said Perdon. "And
there are no fumes coming out the backs of buses."
Perdon said that the buses are so quiet that they could pose a hazard to
pedestrians. Vancouver has reported a higher accident rate for electric than
diesel buses. Green said that local transit authorities expect to install horns
or other pedestrian warning devices on the trolley buses, as well as give
trolley drivers extra training to avoid mishaps.
Perdon said the study will employ urban design experts to help devise ways to
reduce the visual impact of the overhead wires needed to propel the trolley
buses. He said it is possible to eliminate some of the bulky wires over
intersections by equipping buses with a battery that would power the buses at
street crossings.
Sierra Club regional director Bob Hattoy said Monday that the environmental
group supports the move to electric buses because they are the most
energy-efficient and least-polluting. He said that environmentalists will be
monitoring how the electricity is produced to meet the heightened demand for
electric power because "we don't want to replace (smog-producing buses) with the
smokestacks of new electric power plants."
Los Angeles had the first trolley system in the country in 1910 -- the Red
Cars, operated by the Pacific Electric Railway. The expansion of freeways and
pressure from the oil industry brought an end to trolleys in 1963, when a
switch was made to diesel buses.
SUBJECT: TRANSIT SYSTEMS -- LOS ANGELES COUNTY; TROLLEYS; LOS ANGELES COUNTY --
TRANSPORTATION; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT; ALTERNATIVE ENERGY;
ELECTRICITY; AIR POLLUTION CONTROL; ELECTRIC VEHICLES
LEXIS® NEXIS® ® LEXIS® ® NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
24
5TH STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright (c) 1990 Gannett Company Inc.
USA TODAY
October 29, 1990, Monday, FINAL EDITION
SECTION: MONEY; Pg. 1B
LENGTH: 1212 words
See 3rd page
HEADLINE: SQUEEZING OUT POLLUTION;
Clean Air bill's costly quest;
Firms brace for sweeping changes
BYLINE: Paul Wiseman
BODY:
For years, miners have hauled coal from the earth beneath tiny Universal,
Ind., railroads have shipped it and PSI Energy has burned it to make heat for
thousands of homes across Indiana. But those days are almost gone.
Over the weekend, Congress passed clean-air legislation that will sweep
aside old ways of doing business in thousands of industries and communities.
For Universal, the act means that PSI must install scrubbers on its power plants
or find new sources of fuel - which could throw Universal's miners out of
work.
For businesses from oil refineries on the Gulf Coast to the Sterling C.
Sommer Inc. printing plant in Tonawanda, N.Y., the legislation - the first major
overhaul of the Clean Air Act in 13 years - looms like a dark cloud. For them,
the bill could impose crippling new costs. But for others, cleaning the air will
be a chance to show off technical ingenuity, an opportunity to scour the skies
and still make money.
One way or another, the Clean Air Act will change the way most U.S.
companies operate well into the 21st century.
The Bush administration estimates the act will cost $ 25 billion a year by
2005, when it is in full force. Environmentalists peg the yearly bill at $ 20
billion. Industry says it could cost $ 50 billion a year or more. 'The
politicians have given the public the idea that clean air is for free. It's
not for free,' says Ron Boltz, Chrysler's vice president of product strategy
and regulatory affairs.
Fact is, nobody really knows how much the act will cost. Even in 1,100 pages
of legislation, Congress didn't spell out exactly how most businesses are
supposed to comply. It mainly just set pollution standards. In effect, lawmakers
told industry and the Environmental Protection Agency: ''The public wants you
to clean the air. Now go do it.
In many ways, the real work on the Clean Air Act has just begun. The EPA
will spend years writing guidelines to tell businesses what they must do.
Undoubtedly, many details will be worked out in court. ''I call this the
Lawyers' Relief Act of 1990,' quips Jim Rogers, PSI Energy's chairman.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS® ®
-Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
25
(c) 1990 USA TODAY, October 29, 1990
The bill's impact on power companies like Plainfield, Ind.-based PSI, at
least, is pretty clear. To reduce acid rain, electric utilities must slash their
annual sulfur dioxide emissions by 10 million tons by the turn of the century.
About 95% of PSI's energy comes from burning coal; 80% of the 12 million tons of
coal it burns every year is high in sulfur. ''We're probably the most-affected
utility in America,' Rogers says.
So PSI plans to install five scrubbers at a cost of up to $ 100 million
apiece, and to load up on cleaner, low-sulfur coal. The company estimates the
cost of compliance at $ 1.4 billion over the next 10 years - a big piece of
change for a utility with annual revenue of $ 1 billion.
And the buck doesn't stop with PSI. The utility predicts that its customers'
utility bills will climb 18% during the same period as a result of clean-air
legislation. High-sulfur-coal miners in towns like Universal will be hit even
harder. ''The closure of mines is imminent,' says Don Anderson, 47, who
followed in the footsteps of his father and grandfather by becoming a miner in
southern Indiana. ''It's a dying industry.
Coal is far from the only Rust Belt industry to feel the Clean Air Act's
pinch. At National Steel's Zug Island operation in the Detroit River, the issue
isn't jobs, just money. Lots of it.
The company expects to have to spend $ 200 million rebuilding its coke oven
operations, where coal is turned into coke to make steel. The new operations
will release fewer toxic emissions into the atmosphere.
At least National Steel knows how to do what it has to do. The Big Three
automakers say they aren't so lucky.
The clean-air bill requires them to cut car tailpipe emissions, to
install systems that alert drivers when their pollution-control systems falter
and to develop more vehicles that run on clean-burning fuels such as
compressed natural gas. What's more, the tailpipe standards, already expected to
add up to $ 500 to the cost of each new car by the turn of the century, could
get even tougher in 2003 if the EPA deems it necessary. ''There's an awful lot
that has to be invented,' Boltz says.
The same thing happened back in 1970 when Congress passed the original
Clean Air Act. Automakers warned then that they wouldn't be able to meet new
emissions standards, and they couldn't. So in 1977, Congress eased the tailpipe
standards. By 1983, new cars met the revised requirements.
Oil companies say they're in the same bind. The bill requires them to sell
cleaner gasoline by 1995 in the nine cities with the nation's most ozone
pollution. The cities: Los Angeles; New York; Philadelphia; Chicago; Baltimore;
Houston; San Diego; Milwaukee; and Muskegon, Mich.
Texaco Chief Executive James W. Kinnear said it was unreasonable to mandate
gasoline 'which cannot be made in existing refineries and which many in our
industry doubt can ever be made. He warned that Congress was ''gambling with
the U.S. economy and our energy security.'
Big Business isn't alone in bemoaning the clean-air burden. Main Street
will share the load. But the impact on small businesses won't be clear for
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
26
(c) 1990 USA TODAY, October 29, 1990
quite some time.
In polluted cities, businesses that release ozone-causing or toxic chemicals
will face licensing fees and guidelines that have yet to be created. Even
bakeries aren't immune: That sweet smell wafting out of their ovens is
pollution: ethanol.
Some small businesses are trying to get a jump on the requirements. Near
Buffalo, the Sterling C. Sommer printing plant already is searching for
environmentally friendly chemicals. It has tried out a new degreaser made from
orange peels that might replace solvents that contribute to ozone pollution.
In tallying the costs of the Clean Air Act, it's easy to overlook the
economic benefits, though they are even harder to measure than costs. The
American Lung Association predicts cleaner air eventually will help cut
health-care costs by $ 50 billion a year - good news for firms that now face
annual increases of 20% or more in health-benefit costs.
The act will be a boon to companies such as Combustion Engineering that make
pollution-control equipment; producers of low-sulfur coal, mostly mines in the
West; and companies such as Transco Energy that find, ship or sell natural gas.
Then there are the intangible benefits of simply having cleaner air. ' ' The
bottom line is important,' says John H. Evans Jr., a Sommer spokesman. "But
some things are more important. We only have one planet.
Bill's highlights
- Acid rain: Utilities must cut sulfur dioxide emissions by 10 million tons a
year by 2000.
- Alternative- fuel vehicles: California will set up a pilot program
requiring 150,000 clean- fuel vehicles beginning in 1996 and 300,000 in 1999.
- Auto emissions: Automakers must cut hydrocarbon emissions by more than 35%
and nitrogen oxide emissions by 60%.
- Motor fuels: Gasoline in the nine U.S. cities with the most ozone
pollution must burn 15% cleaner by 1995 and at least 20% cleaner by 2000.
- Toxic emissions: Businesses must install technology to cut use of 189
airborne toxics.
Source: USA TODAY research
GRAPHIC: color, Web Bryant, USA TODAY
TYPE: Cover Story
SUBJECT: LEGISLATION; CONGRESS; POLLUTION; ENVIRONMENT; CORPORATION
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
23
90TH STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright (c) 1990 The Times Mirror Company;
Los Angeles Times
September 5, 1990, Wednesday, Home Edition
SECTION: Business; Part D; Page 2; Column 5; Financial Desk
LENGTH: 214 words
HEADLINE: ARCO SET TO INTRODUCE 2ND LOWER-EMISSION GASOLINE
BYLINE: From a Times Staff Writer
BODY:
Atlantic Richfield Co., which introduced a lower-emission gasoline last year,
will unveil another new gasoline later this week, the Los Angeles-based company
said Tuesday.
Industry observers have been expecting Arco to introduce sometime this year
a lower-emission gasoline for cars that use unleaded fuel. Arco's EC-1 was
designed to replace leaded gas used in older cars.
Company officials declined to provide further details until a Thursday
morning press conference with Arco Chairman Lodwrick M. Cook. In a statement,
the company would only say the news conference "will deal with another
clean-air advance."
Since Arco introduced EC-1 in August, 1989, several other oil companies have
followed suit with their own reformulated gasolines. But while EC-1 is intended
for cars that use leaded fuel, many of the other reformulated versions are
intended for newer cars that used unleaded gasoline. Some of these include
Shell SU 2000E, Chevron Supreme Unleaded and Exxon Plus.
A shortage of a key ingredient and instability in energy markets recently
forced Chevron to temporarily postpone the late-summer introduction of its
reformulated gasoline in Houston, Baltimore and Washington. Chevron's
lower-emission fuel was introduced in Southern California earlier this year.
SUBJECT: ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO; VEHICLE EMISSIONS; GASOLINE; PRODUCT
DEVELOPMENT; AIR POLLUTION; POLLUTION CONTROL
LEXIS® NEXIS® ® LEXIS® ® NEXIS
®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
19
88TH STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright (c) 1990 The Washington Post
September 6, 1990, Thursday, Final Edition
SECTION: FINANCIAL; PAGE E4
LENGTH: 583 words
HEADLINE: GM May Expand Plan For Gas-Powered Trucks;
Talks With Consortium Said to Be Underway
SERIES: Occasional
BYLINE: Donald Woutat, Los Angeles Times
DATELINE: DETROIT, Sept. 5
BODY:
General Motors Corp. is weighing a $ 40 million proposal by California and
Texas natural gas interests to sharply expand the company's first-ever mass
production of trucks that will run on natural gas, industry sources said
today.
A consortium of natural gas producers and utilities is negotiating with GM to
launch 1994 production of four types of truck engines and up to a dozen types of
trucks, vans and buses designed and built to burn natural gas, sources said.
It was not clear how many vehicles would be involved. But if carried out, the
plan would suggest an increase in the scope of GM's interest in compressed
natural gas as an alternative fuel for cars and trucks.
GM would not comment today on any negotiations with natural gas interests,
except to say that it does not expect any agreements in the immediate future.
But sources in the natural gas industry described the general plan, which was
confirmed by an aide to Garry Mauro, Texas land commissioner.
The plan calls for the automaker to pay $ 24 million and the gas industry $
16 million to engineer the vehicles and engines to run on natural gas. It would
involve all categories of GM vehicles weighing more than 7,000 pounds, sources
said.
The 30,000 or so natural gas-powered vehicles now on U.S. roads were
converted from gasoline-burning fuel systems and are considered inefficient.
Fueling cars and trucks with natural gas, which burns more cleanly than
gasoline, is regarded as one way to meet the tough new clean-air standards
being debated in Congress and implemented in states such as California.
The natural gas industry is hoping for major commitments by GM and other
auto companies to build natural gas-ready cars in the factory. But the
automakers are reluctant to spend much money on such projects until they know
the final shape of a clean-air bill nearing completion in Congress.
However, GM, the Texas General Land Office and 10 natural gas utilities in
California, Texas and Colorado announced in July that the automaker would
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS ®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
20
(c) 1990 The Washington Post, September 6, 1990
begin producing at least 1,000 Sierra pickup trucks in early 1991 that would be
designed and built to run on natural gas. They are intended for sale to fleet
customers, including the utilities themselves, that have refueling facilities.
At the time, GM -- which has favored methanol and so-called "reformulated"
gasoline as solutions to the auto-emissions problem -- said the Sierra project
was a first step in a natural gas development program. The $ 40 million proposal
is the first indication of what the next steps might be.
The surge in gasoline prices that followed Iraq's invasion of Kuwait on Aug.
2 has further provoked interest in natural gas as an auto fuel. GM said that
it has since been deluged with proposals from other natural gas interests.
"We plan to have a contract in place by the first of October," a natural gas
industry executive said today. "But if it shows up in the [news]paper, it's
very likely that GM would cancel the program. They're that sensitive about it."
The executive said that GM does not want to lock itself into the program
until it sees the final shape of the clean-air legislation.
However, a GM spokesman said that the clean-air bill has nothing to do with
GM's plans and that none of its negotiations on natural gas projects will be
completed as early as Oct. 1.
"There's nothing that imminent, nor would we postpone anything because of the
clean-air bill," said Thomas Klipstine, a spokesman for GM's truck and bus
group.
TYPE: NATIONAL NEWS
SUBJECT: MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY; PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT; FREIGHT VEHICLES;
NATURAL GAS
ORGANIZATION: GENERAL MOTORS CORP.
LEXIS® ® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
16
84TH STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright (c) 1990 The Times Mirror Company;
Los Angeles Times
September 7, 1990, Friday, Home Edition
SECTION: Part A; Page 1; Column 2; Metro Desk
LENGTH: 1055 words
HEADLINE: DWP, EDISON TO INVEST IN ELECTRIC CAR
BYLINE: By FREDERICK M. MUIR, TIMES STAFF WRITER
BODY:
Seeking to slash Southern California air pollution at its greatest source,
two big Los Angeles utilities on Thursday agreed to invest $7 million to develop
an electric car and get thousands of them on the road within five years.
In an agreement with the start-up Swedish concern Clean Air Transport, the
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and Southern California Edison Co.
agreed to jointly fund the project that is intended to bring 1,000 electric
vehicles to Los Angeles by 1992 and 10,000 by 1995.
"Someone has to be the spark plug to make this happen," said Eldon Cotton,
DWP assistant general manager for power. A regional air quality plan requires
70% of all vehicles to be electric -- or otherwise non-polluting -- by 2010.
"It is essential that we move ahead on clean air, = said Los Angeles City
Councilman Marvin Braude, who spearheaded the effort to underwrite electric
car development. "We must find alternative fuels (to oil) -- and electric
power is the fuel of choice."
The car --- dubbed the LA 301 -- would carry four passengers, have a range
of 150 miles and a top speed of 70 m.p.h. and accelerate from zero to 30 m.p.h.
in nine seconds. As designed, the car would have a molded plastic body and a
galvanized steel frame. It would be available in passenger sedan and quarter-tom
mini-van models.
Officials said the vehicles would initially retail for about $25,000, but the
price could come down with large-scale production. "They're fun to ride. It's
exciting and they are vibrationless," said Braude about his test drive in a
prototype.
"The steps taken today will assure development of a commercial electric
vehicle," said Cotton. "It's a real solution to a problem we all share."
The DWP estimates that 70% to 80% of Los Angeles-area air pollution is caused
by emissions from the 8 million cars and trucks that operate daily in the
basin. Clean Air Transport officials said that electric vehicles create only
3% as much pollution as comparable gas-fueled autos -- even factoring in the
pollution created in making electricity for battery recharging.
DWP officials acknowledge that they hope the introduction of electric cars
will help persuade the South Coast Air Quality Management District to ease
pollution restrictions being placed on DWP and Edison power plants.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
17
(c) 1990 Los Angeles Times, September 7, 1990
"We hope this will mitigate" concerns over power plant pollution, said Jerry
Enzenauer, electric transportation program manager for the DWP. But, he added,
"The AQMD has not yet accepted that this will work."
The $7-million electric car investment by the two local utilities is a
small fraction of the several hundred million dollars that they estimate it
would cost to retrofit power plants to meet AQMD guidelines by the end of the
century.
Electric cars have long been considered one solution to pollution in the
Los Angeles Basin, but as yet no company has developed a commercially viable
vehicle.
Clean Air Transport beat out 18 U.S. and international competitors to win
the DWP/Edison award. Braude and DWP officials said the promise of quick
delivery of vehicles is what gave Clean Air Transport the edge over other
bidders.
The firm was founded about two years ago by a group of British, American and
Swedish investors for the sole purpose of creating an electrically powered
vehicle. Most of the engineers that have joined its team have worked for large
European car manufacturers such as Saab, officials said.
Although Clean Air Transport has not built a car before, Braude said Los
Angeles officials have confidence in the firm and sought an entrepreneurial
outfit that could move quicker than the larger, more established automobile
manufacturers.
"They had the best chance for success early on, and that is important," said
Braude.
Clean Air Transport executives would not say how much they have invested in
the project, but DWP officials said it is "substantial."
The privately held company, which is working in conjunction with the British
design firm of International Automotive Design, has completed 10 months of
design work and plans to start production by late 1992. Initially, the car
will be produced in England. But Clean Air Transport Managing Director Henry
Munkevik said all or some manufacturing could eventually be shifted to Los
Angeles, where most of the cars are likely to be sold.
The design of the LA 301 is based on a 1983 experimental car -- the Whisper
-- that was funded by the Danish government. Only 30 of those cars were
produced and, like virtually all electric car prototypes, they were never
marketed.
With Mideast tensions rising and concerns over oil prices and supplies
mounting, auto analysts say there will be increasing pressure to produce
commercially viable electric vehicles.
General Motors, which did not submit a proposal for the Los Angeles award,
has an electric vehicle in development. But officials, citing competitive
concerns, refused to disclose when it would be available for sale. Ford and
Chrysler also have prototypes in the works.
LEXIS® ® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS ®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
18
(c) 1990 Los Angeles Times, September 7, 1990
GM introduced its prototype electric car -- the Impact -- in Los Angeles
last year and the company's then-chairman, Roger Smith, said he hoped to have it
on the market in three to five years.
Some Los Angeles officials said they are skeptical that GM will have a car
on the market any time soon.
"They have not done anything," said Braude when asked why domestic car
makers were passed over for the $7-million award. "They have not delivered
anything and they won't for 10 or 15 years," he speculated. "We think they have
let Southern California down. They should have invested in electric vehicles
years ago."
Commented GM spokeswoman Toni Simonetti: "Trust me. We are working to get an
electric car out there."
GM announced in 1980 that it would build an electric car by 1985, but when
oil prices dropped, 6M abandoned the plan. Analysts say the company will
probably make good on its latest promise because restrictive clean air rules
are a certainty.
Whoever does develop a commercially viable electric vehicle will certainly
bring it to Los Angeles first, city and industry officials said.
Braude said large fleet owners under the threat of AQMD restrictions would be
among the first buyers of the LA 301. The city of Los Angeles and the DWP, he
said, also would probably be among the early purchasers.
GRAPHIC: Photo, The four-passenger LA 301 electric car will initially cost
$25,000.
SUBJECT: AIR POLLUTION - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; POLLUTION CONTROL; LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO; ELECTRIC VEHICLES;
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA -- TRANSPORTATION; ALTERNATIVE ENERGY; CLEAN AIR TRANSPORT
(COMPANY); VEHICLE EMISSIONS; INVESTMENTS; LOS ANGELES -- TRANSPORTATION;
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
LEXIS® ® NEXIS® ® LEXIS® NEXIS® ®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
19
31ST STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright (c) 1981 The Christian Science Publishing Society;
The Christian Science Monitor
July 1, 1981, Wednesday, Midwestern Edition
SECTION: Pg. 13
LENGTH: 800 words
HEADLINE: Small city's vehicles take cheaper, cleaner route ---- on natural gas
BYLINE: By Lucia Mouat, Staff correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
DATELINE: Henderson, Ky.
BODY:
When it's time to refuel this city's small fleet of government cars and
trucks, the filling station attendant bypasses the gas tank and heads under
the hood. There he plugs a thin hose into a regulator valve. The resulting
sound is nothing like the usual hum of gasoline going into the tank.
"You'd think it was air to listen to it," says Oliver Van Meter, Henderson's
director of public utilities, who has just pulled his official white car into
the station for refueling. "It's kind of like getting a flat tire filled up."
What Henderson uses -- and what a number of other cities are considering
using -- is compressed natural gas. City vehicles here carry anywhere from
one to four heavy white steel cylinders of the fuel in their trunks. Each
cylinder contains the equivalent of 3.2 gallons of regular gasoline. The
natural gas gets roughly the same mileage as gasoline but at about
one-fourth the cost.
Most city vehicles operate within a radius of five miles of City Hall -- but
if fuel runs dry before a return to the city's one compressor station is
possible, the driver simply shifts a lever near the steering wheel and switches
to a backup gasoline tank. A gauge under the dashboard that translates
measurements of temperature and pressure of the natural gas into cubic feet
lets the driver know exactly how much fuel is left.
When city officials here were searching for new ways to economize a few years
back, they first looked into electric cars and propane fuel. But they decided
the first was not versatile enough for the cost involved and the second was not
stable or safe enough to meet their standards.
One key reason Henderson eventually settled on natural gas is that the city
happens to own its own natural gas company which is expected to yield the city
$900,000 in surplus revenue this year. Aside from the brief national crisis in
natural gas supplies four or five years ago, the city has had, and expects in
the future, no problem in getting as much of the fuel piped in as it needs.
City officials readily admit that the initial cost of converting Henderson's
fleet of 65 cars and trucks is considerable - an estimated $183,000. But
they are expecting a full payback of costs within two years. Though they admit
much depends on the future price of gasoline, city officials expect to save
$100,000 a year. Added advantages, they say, include less pollution (natural
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS® ®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
20
(c) 1981 The Christian Science Publishing Society, July 1, 1981
gas is clean- burning and leaves no carbon buildup) and lower maintenance
costs in terms of fewer tune ups and oil changes needed.
Henderson is the first city in Kentucky trying the natural gas alternative.
Some cities in the South and West have been trying it longer, and their largely
successful experience helped persuade Henderson to take the plunge. But a
number of other cities looking on with interest have been hesitant to follow
suit because of the high initial cost involved and a lingering concern about the
future availability of natural gas, according to Wally Gernt, director of the
municipal energy program of the National League of Cities.
"Many cities are looking at it," he confirms, "but a lot don't have the
up-front capital to make the commitment and their cost benefit studies sometimes
show it's cheaper to stay where they are."
One cost advantage, as Henderson sees it, is that the conversion materials
can be removed from any vehicle and put on any replacement vehicle added to the
fleet.
At the moment the city's fire trucks, garbage fleet, and buses, many of
which run on diesel fuel, are not equipped to run on natural gas. But Mr. Van
Meter says that could change as vehicles are replaced.
Not everyone involved takes to the change with immediate enthusiasm, he
admits. Police, who often spend more working hours in their cars than other
city employees, tend to be the hardest to convince. Most of their cars are
being equipped with three cylinders 50 that they will have to fill up less
often.
Some city workers complain that they don't get the same power thrust with
natural gas. But Mr. Van Meter, who says he thinks the ride on natural gas
is smoother than on gasoline and that the only drawback is a slight hesitation
in switching from one fuel to the other, counters: "Some hot rodders don't like
anyting if they can't burn rubber."
He contends that after a few days of driving, most city employees get used to
the change and stop complaining. It behooves them. Because Henderson is 50
serious about its commitment to fuel the local fleet on natural gas that the
employee who switches to gasoline when his alternate tank runs dry is required
to radio in to headquarters the reason why.
"We don't want them using gasoline at all if they don't have to," explains
Mr. Van Meter.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS®
dervices of Mead Data Central
PAGE
2
1ST STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright (c) 1990 Crain Communications, Inc.;
Automotive News
October 8, 1990
SECTION: Pg. 2
LENGTH: 921 words
HEADLINE: GASSING UP;
Development of alternate-fuel trucks gains speed; Chevrolet plans new option
BYLINE: By Joseph Bohn, TRUCK EDITOR
BODY:
Chevrolet plans to offer alternate-fuel engines as regular production options
in a variety of light trucks by the mid 1990s.
The program will significantly expand on GMC Truck Division's plan to build
1,000 natural gas -powered trucks in 1991, and represents the industry's most
aggressive push into alternate fuels yet.
Ford Motor Co. currently has no specific plans to produce natural
gas -powered trucks, according to a spokeswoman.
Ford did test 27 Ranger pickups operated on natural gas -powered engines,
and is evaluating the results.
Jeff Seisler, executive director of the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition in
Arlington, Va., said his group has met and is working with Ford and Chrysler
Corp. as well as General Motors regarding natural gas vehicle programs, but
'is not at liberty to diclose the nature of the discussions."
Some other commercial vehicle manufacturers -- such as the Flexible Bus Co.
in Columbus, Ohio, Ontario Bus Industries in Toronto and Tecogen Inc. of
Waltham, Mass. -- also have begun producing natural gas powered for sale in
the United States and Canada.
Tecogen, working with GM, modified a GM 427-cubic-inch V-8 to run on natural
gas, and has a $ 700,000 order to convert 10 California school buses to
compressed natural gas.
Over 220 natural gas buses have been produced through the Urban Mass
Transportation Administration program. The Washington-based organization funds
75 percent of all urban bus purchases in the United States.
Chevrolet will offer both compressed natural gas and liquid propane gas
engines to satisfy fleets, such as Phillips Petroleum's, that still strongly
favor liquid propane.
Pat Henyon, a Chevrolet truck powertrain planner, said the division would
initially help GMC develop the 5.7 liter V-8 natural gas -powered C20903
regular cab pickups that it will build in Pontiac, Mich., next year.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS® ®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
3
(c) 1990 Automotive News, October 8, 1990
These trucks will be fitted with an Impco natural gas fuel system by PAS
Inc. of Troy, Mich.
Once this program has been successfully completed, Chevrolet plans to offer
compressed natural gas/ liquid propane gas conversion -ready engines as
special equipment options on the 5.7-liter and 7.4-liter V-8s, Henyon told
National Truck Equipment Association members at a Livonia, Mich., meeting.
The engines will be available in two-wheel drive three-quarter and one-ton
series pickups with 8,600-and 9,000-pound gross vehicle weight ratings; one-ton
G-30 extended vans; G-31 commercial cutaway vans; "P" model trucks used in
delivery and "C" model commercial chassis cabs.
The engines will be certified by GM's Engine Division in Brighton, Mich., for
conversion to natural gas by aftermarket upfitters like Impco.
GM will warranty them for aftermarket conversion.
The internals of the engines will initially only be modified to make them run
more efficiently on alternate fuels and to make sure they don't negate
warranties.
GM will let customers modify and mount their own fuel tanks.
Company sources said GM hopes to offer in-house installation of the fuel
tanks by the mid-1990s.
Chevrolet plans to offer dual fuel engines that allow a driver to switch
between compressed natural gas or liquid propane gas and gasoline to
minimize the issue of driving range between fill- ups.
By the mid 1990s, Chevrolet plans to offer compressed natural gas engines
as regular production options, according to Henyon.
Here, the engine componentry will be specifically designed to maximize
performance and economy while operating only on gaseous fuels.
GM sources said that at least one additional engine, such as the 4.3 liter
V-6, will likely be included in the program by then.
Chevrolet is using higher gvw trucks and larger displacement engines to
minimize performance and payload-carrying drawbacks that still arise with
compressed natural gas engines, according to Henyon.
With current technology, relatively large cylinders are required for trucks
to have an adequate driving range between fill- ups.
The higher gvw models are designed to minimize the potential effect on
payload carrying-capability posed by the weight of the onboard fuel tanks.
Natural gas engines also have a potential for power loss under some
operating conditions because the gaseous fuel displaces some of the air needed
for combustion.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS ®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
4
(c) 1990 Automotive News, October 8, 1990
The trucks' more limited range between fill- ups makes them initially best
suited to commercial, utility and municipal fleet operation.
Such vehicles tend to operate on the same daily schedule and fuel up from a
single location. That allows operators to determine their mileage and fuel
requirements and the size fuel tanks they need.
Fueling at a central location also allows trucks to maximize the use of
expensive compressor equipment required for refueling, according to Henyon.
Natural gas has many emissions and availability benefits that make it an
attractive alternate fuel.
On an energy-equivalent basis, it costs the equivalent of about half that of
a gallon of gasoline, according to Eric Heims of Pacific Gas & Electric in
San Francisco. The price advantage could change with road user taxes.
Burning natural gas also emits fewer hydrocarbons and offers the potential
to cut carbon monoxides.
Because natural gas is stored in pressurized fuel tank cylinders, it
doesn't generate evaporative emissions like those from gasoline. And it isn't
as corrosive as other alternate fuels like methanol, providing service
maintenance advantages such as fewer oil and spark plug changes ad longer engine
life.
GRAPHIC: Picture, Pacific Gas & Electric plans to have 40 natural gas
fueling stations, which use conventional-looking pumps, in California by the end
of 1992.
LEXIS® ® NEXIS® ® LEXIS® NEXIS® ®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
16
15TH STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright (c) 1990 Chicago Tribune Company;
Chicago Tribune
July 11, 1990, Wednesday, CHICAGOLAND NORTH EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 14; ZONE: C
LENGTH: 78 words
HEADLINE: UPS to convert trucks in L.A. to natural gas
BYLINE: From Chicago Tribune wires
DATELINE: LOS ANGELES
BODY:
The United Parcel Service said Tuesday that it plans to convert its 2,700
delivery trucks in the smog-choked Los Angeles area to run on cleaner-burning
natural gas in the first major step by a company to comply with strict new
vehicle-emissions laws here. The action by UPS, which operates one of the
nation's largest truck fleets, was applauded by local officials as evidence
that the region's new anti-smog rules, the nation's toughest, can be met on
schedule.
VEHICLE; ALTERNATIVE; CHANGE; POLLUTION; ENVIRONMENT
LEXIS® ® NEXIS® ® LEXIS® ® NEXIS ®
Service of Mead Data Central
ENDUS- CREATIVE.
PAGE
11
10TH STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
The Los Angeles Business Journal;
Copyright American City Business Journals 1990;
Business Dateline; Copyright (c) 1990 UMI/Data Courier
August 13, 1990
SECTION: Vol 13; No 33; Sec 1; Pg 4
LENGTH: 826 words
HEADLINE: Scrap Fever: Unocal's Effort to Get Jalopies Off Southern California
Roads Catches Fire
BYLINE: Chip Jacobs
DATELINE: Los Angeles; CA; US
BODY:
Unocal Corp.'s decision last spring to convert smog-belching junkers into
scrap metal has attracted more than just the eye of skeptical environmentalists
and envious public relations executives.
Since the Los Angeles-based oil company began the $ 5 million program in
April, the owners of roughly 5,000 pre-1971 cars have exchanged their vehicles
for $ 700 each. The brisk public response, combined with new sources of funds,
has prompted Unocal to revise the total number of cars it will scrap from 7,000
to 8,400.
Pre-1971 autos emit up to 30 times as much pollutants as new cars do.
Even the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which has tightened the
regulatory screws on the petroleum industry during recent years, pledged $
100,000 to Unocal's pilot project Aug. 3.
"Having regulatory agencies join private enterprise to do something immediate
about air pollution is a hell of a deal," said Roger Beach, Unocal's president
of refining and marketing. He said public reaction to the program has exceeded
company expectations.
"We've tried to demonstrate to people and other companies that there are
innovative ways to clean up the air ourselves. We've even had people sending in
$ 700 checks saying, 'Scrap one for me.'"
Unocal is riding its own environmental bandwagon, even though it still has
not come out with a reformulated gasoline like Arco's EC-1. In June, the
company announced it was sending a fleet of six tow trucks to assist drivers
with car problems on Southland freeways every day. To date, the tow trucks,
equipped with spare gas, air, water, have made 400 to 500 "assists" a week as
part of the Unocal's "76 Protech Patrol."
The impetus for the patrol was twofold, Unocal officials say. Studies by
Caltrans have shown that 70 to 80 percent of freeway tie- ups are caused by
disabled vehicles and that idling cars emit more pollution than moving vehicles.
Also, the tow trucks, which cost roughly $ 17,000 each, are hoped to generate
potential new Unocal customers.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
12
The Los Angeles Business Journal (c) 1990 UMI/Data Courier
Unocal last month also began offering free smog checks to pre-1975 cars at
120 Protech stations. If the driver, eligible for smog checks in years not
required by the Department of Motor Vehicles, fails the test, he or she is given
a free low-emission adjustment. Unocal picks up 70 percent of the test and
adjustment cost, averaging $ 55, with the Unocal dealers paying the rest.
Company officials say they have already received 4,000 calls about the smog
fighter program.
But it is Unocal's scrap-for-cash deal that has gotten the most notoriety and
private sector support.
Last May, the California Community Foundation, a San Francisco-based
non-profit group, announced it would donate $ 70,000 to Unocal's scrap program
if the oil company matched that amount. Unocal did, enabling the removal of 200
additional cars.
Also jumping on board was the Ford Motor Co., which said last month it would
give $ 700,000 to the program - enough to scrap 1,000 cars. Ford's Southern
California dealers followed suit, agreeing to donate an additional $ 63,000 to
Unocal.
First Interstate Bank sweetened the pot. The Los Angeles-based bank began
offering reduced downpayments and interest rates for auto loans, provided the
borrower join Unocal's scrap program and agree to buy cars made after 1981.
Unocal, which takes the used cars to scrap yards owned by Hugo Nu Proler in
Vernon and at Terminal Island, says as much as 6 million to 8 million tons of
smog-forming hydrocarbons will be removed as a result of SCRAP -- South Coast
Recycled Auto Program. Hugo Nu Proler pays Unocal less than $ 50 for each car,
which is then junked and recycled to metal markets in Europe and Asia.
Obviously, the SCRAP program won't had much effect on the $ 11.4 billion
(1989 revenues) company's profits. The company earned $ 165 million on revenues
during the second quarter of 1990.
"SCRAP isn't doing much for the bottom line in the short term," Beach added.
"Hopefully we are buying a perception by the public we care about the
environment. In the long pull, it can't do anything but help. The feedback has
been amazing."
One oil company analyst said Unocal's program, like Atantic Richfield's
decision to introduce a smog-cutting leaded gasoline last August, shows how
critical the environmental factor has become for oil companies, more than one
year after the Exxon Valdez spill.
"The goodwill Unocal has engendered by its public lesson in environmental
civics have burnished the impression that it is a very good corporate citizen,"
said Bernard J. Picchi, managing director of Salomon Bros. in New York. "That
can only help the company in the long run, because firms that conduct their
operations without being mindful of the environment are asking their
shareholders to take a blind gamble."
Both Picchi and Beach say Unocal's efforts are also a gentle reminder that
private sector approaches to air pollution can be as effective as more
government measures.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTÓN
November 14, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
THROUGH:
CHRISS WINSTON an
FROM:
MARY KATE GRANT mkg
SUBJECT:
CLEAN AIR BILL SIGNING CEREMONY
I. SUMMARY
Attached are draft remarks for the Clean Air Bill signing
ceremony, to be held on Thursday, November 15, 1990 at 2:30 p.m.
Leaders from conservation groups, industry and government will
attend the East Room event.
II. DISCUSSION
Your remarks (10 minutes/cards) will thank all those
involved, outline the legislation, and emphasize the market-
oriented approach taken by the bill.
Canadian Ambassador Derek Burney will be present, as will
Secretaries Lujan and Watkins; Attorney General Thornburgh; and
Administrators Reilly and Engeleiter. Also, Governor Madeleine
Kunin of Vermont will attend.
Grant/Cawley/Simon
November 14, 1990
9:00 p.m.
A:CLEANAIR
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: CLEAN AIR BILL SIGNING CEREMONY
THE EAST ROOM
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1990
2:30 P.M.
Thank you all very much. I'd like to welcome the Ambassador
from Canada, Derek Burney, who represents his countrymen's
concern for our common environment and their pleasure that
America has enacted this historic agreement into law.
It's a pleasure to have several members of the Cabinet here:
Secretaries Lujan and Watkins and Attorney General Thornburgh; as
well as Administrators Reilly and Engeleiter. Also, I see
Governor Madeleine Kunin of Vermont is here. Again, welcome.
Although Thanksgiving is still a week away, today is truly a
red-letter day for all Americans. Today, we add a long-awaited
and long-needed chapter in America's environmental history -- and
begin a new era for clean air. //
This last weekend, I spent some pleasant hours in the
Catoctin Mountains of Maryland, at Camp David. Saturday and
Sunday were clear and crisp -- bright sunshine and fall colors.
Great to get out in the woods, and go for a run. " Pumped a
little iron on the Arnold Schwarzenegger Memorial Leg Press. ))
But no American should have to drive out of town to breathe clean
air. Every city in America should have clean air. And with this
legislation, we will.//
I first made a commitment to comprehensive clean air
legislation as a Presidential candidate. Soon after coming into
2
office, we developed a comprehensive clean air proposal. We
consulted with Republicans and Democrats in the Congress, with
environmentalists and with representatives of industry, because I
believed it was time for a new approach. And it was time to
break the logjam that hindered progress on clean air for thirteen
years.
And so I told our best minds, assembled that morning a year
and a half ago: "Every American expects and deserves to breathe
clean air. And as President, it is my mission to guarantee it:
for this generation, and for generations to come."
Well, as we used to say in the Navy, "Mission defined.
Mission accomplished. "// Today, I am proud to sign the Clean Air
Act of 1990. //
This landmark legislation will reduce air pollution each
year by 56 billion pounds -- that's 224 pounds for every man,
woman and child in America. It will go after the three main
types of air pollution: acid rain, smog, and toxic air
pollutants.
This bill will cut emissions that cause acid rain in half
-- and permanently cap them at these new levels. It will reduce
pollutants that cause smog in our cities -- by 40 percent -- so
that by the year 2000, over one hundred major American cities
with poor air quality will have safer, healthier air. And it
over
will cut dangerous air toxics emissions by 75 percent using new
technologies. And by the next decade, its alternative fuel
grady
provisions will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
3
This bill means cleaner cars, cleaner power plants, cleaner
factories and cleaner fuels -- this bill means a cleaner America.
Virtually every person in every city and every town will enjoy
its benefits. //
This legislation isn't just the centerpiece of our
environmental agenda. It is simply the most significant air
pollution legislation in our nation's history -- and it restores
America's place as the global leader in environmental protection.
1990 is now a milestone year for the environment. I also
hope that it will be remembered as an important year for
environmental cooperation.
There were several members of my Administration who saw to
it, through thick and thin, that this bill got to my desk: EPA
Administrator William Reilly, Energy Secretary Watkins, Bill
Rosenberg from EPA and from my staff, Roger Porter and Boyden
Gray. What a great job they did. //
I also want to thank the many Senators and Members of
Congress from both sides of the aisle -- many of you are here
today, others couldn't be with us -- but the list is too long to
recognize each of you personally. So again, thank you for your
commitment and dedication -- as well as the Governors and the
experts from local governments who were all so instrumental in
building bipartisan support for this legislation. We've met with
business leaders, who saw stewardship to the environment as a key
to long-term economic growth; and we've met with academics and
4
innovative problem-solvers from every side, who have built the
foundation for this approach.
Let me also commend the environmental groups we've met with
-- especially the Environmental Defense Fund, under the
leadership of Fred Krupp ((other names possible)) -- for bringing
creativity to the table to end the stalemate.
We all had to make tough choices. Some said we went too far
-- others said not far enough. But despite our differences, we
all agreed on the goal: clean air for all Americans. We agreed
on the means: a new Clean Air Act.
And we all agreed: it was time to take a new approach. This
bill is both ambitious in its goals and innovative in its
methods. For the first time, we've moved away from the red-tape
bureaucratic approach of the past. The old tradition of command
and control regulation isn't the answer. By relying on the
marketplace we can achieve the ambitious environmental goals we
have as a country in the most efficient, cost-effective way
possible. We will have to take advantage of the innovation,
energy, and ingenuity of every American -- drawing local
communities and the private sector into the cause. It is time
for a new kind of environmentalism -- driven by the knowledge
that a sound ecology and a strong economy can coexist.
The approach in this bill balances economic growth and
environmental protection. The approach is comprehensive, cost-
effective, and most of all, it will work. The first major
pollution reductions are where we need them most.
5
It offers incentives, choice and flexibility for industry to
find the best solutions -- all in the context of continued
economic growth. The bill is balanced -- it will stimulate the
use of natural gas from the wells of Texas and Louisiana, fuels
made from the farms of Iowa, Illinois and the great Midwest, and
cleaner, low-sulfur coal from the hills of West Virginia to the
Rocky Mountain states. This bill can make America the global
leader in developing a new generation of environmental
technologies to which the world is now turning.
But it does more. The legislation sets reasonable deadlines
for those who must comply, but once the deadlines pass, penalties
are severe. America's heritage is precious. We will not turn
our backs or look the other way. That means polluters must
pay.//
And so there is a new breeze blowing -- a new current of
concern for the environment. Today marks a great victory for the
environment, a day when we have strengthened our clean air
statutes -- already the world's toughest. This legislation is
not only in America's interest; like so many of the environmental
issues that we are working on, this bill is in the interest of
people all over the world.
And the new environmental ethos is growing. We see it in
community efforts and school involvement across America. And
we're seeing it in the innovative response of private industry -
- in alternative fuel service stations and electric vehicles.
These companies understand: We must pioneer new technology, find
d
6
new solutions, and envision new horizons if we are to build a
bright future and a better America for our children.
There's an old saying: "We don't inherit the Earth from our
parents. We borrow it from our children." We have succeeded
today because of a sense of global stewardship, a sense that it
is the Earth that endures. And that all of us are simply holding
a sacred trust left for future generations.
For the sake of future generations, I thank each and every
one of your for your commitment to the environment. I am now
honored to sign this Clean Air bill into law.
Thank you and God bless you all.
# # #
Grant/Cawley/Simon
November 13, 1990
3:00 p.m.
A:CLEANAIR
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: CLEAN AIR BILL SIGNING CEREMONY
THE EAST ROOM
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1990
2:30 P.M.
((Acknowledgements))
Although Thanksgiving is still a week away, today is truly a
red-letter day for all Americans. Today, we add a long-awaited
and long-needed chapter in America's environmental history -- and
begin a new era for clean air. //
This last weekend, I spent a few days in the Catoctin
Mountains of Maryland, at Camp David. Saturday and Sunday were
clear and crisp -- bright sunshine and fall colors. Great to get
out in the woods, and go for a run. " Pumped a little iron on
the Arnold Schwarzenegger Memorial Leg Press. )) But no American
should have to drive to the top of a mountain to breathe clean
air. Every city in America should have air as clean as a
mountaintop. And with this legislation, I'm hoping we will.//
I first made a commitment to comprehensive clean air
legislation as a Presidential candidate. Then, early in the
Administration, I called together Republicans and Democrats,
business executives and conservationists to make a point: it was
Watking
time to break the logjam that hindered progress on clean air for
points
thirteen years.
It was time to enlist the innovation, energy and ingenuity
of every American -- to create a national sense of commitment to
conservation.
2
And so I told our best minds, assembled that morning a year
6-12-89
speech
and a half ago, this: "Every American expects and deserves to
breathe clean air. And as President, it is my mission to
guarantee it: for this generation, and for generations to come."
Well, as we used to say in the Navy, "Mission defined.
Mission accomplished. // Today, I am proud to sign the Clean Air
Act of 1990. //
it
This landmark legislation will pull 56 billion pounds of
Sheet
pollution each year from the air -- that's 224 pounds for every
man, woman and child in America. It will go after the three main
causes of air pollution: acid rain, smog and toxic air
pollutants.
This bill will cut emissions that cause acid rain in half
-- by 10 million tons -- and permanently cap them at these new
levels. It will reduce pollutants that cause smog in our cities
-- by 40 percent -- so that by the year 2000, over one hundred
major American cities will have clean, healthy air. It will cut
dangerous air toxics emissions by up to 90 percent using new
technologies. And over the next decade, its alternative fuel
John
provisions will reduce our dependence on foreign oil by at least
Hasper
800,000 barrels of oil a day. //
382-5589
This bill means cleaner cars, cleaner power plants, cleaner
factories and cleaner fuels -- this bill is good news for
America. And the benefits of this Clean Air bill will affect
virtually every person in every city and town in America. //
3
This legislation isn't just the biggest environmental bill
of our Administration. This is simply the most significant air
pollution legislation in our nation's history. //
My hope is that 1990 will be known as a milestone year for
the environment. I also hope that it will be known as an
important year for environmental cooperation.
There were several members of my Administration who who saw
to it, through thick and thin, that this bill got to my desk: EPA
administrator
Director William Reilly, Energy Secretary Watkins, and my
domestic policy advisor, Roger Porter. What a great job they
did. //
And I'd also like to thank the Congressmen and Senators,
from both sides of the aisle ((names?) ) As well as the
Governors and the local governments who were all so instrumental
in building bipartisan support for this legislation. We've met
with business leaders, who saw stewardship to the environment as
a key to long-term economic growth; and we've met with academics
and innovative problem-solvers from every side, who have built
the foundation for this approach.
Let me also commend ((names of environmental groups?) ) for
bringing creativity to the table to end the stalemate.
We all had to make tough choices. And while some said we
went too far -- others said not far enough. But despite our
differences, we all care about clean air.
And we all agreed: it was time to take a new approach. And
so, the bill is as ambitious in its goals as it is innovative in
4
its methods. For the first time, we've moved away from the red-
tape bureaucratic approach of the past -- not with over-
regulation but with better regulation. These standards are tough
ones, but they employ market-oriented strategies -- using
industry to the advantage of the environment -- to enact
efficient, effective legislation. Now we know: we can establish
a new kind of environmentalism, one where a sound ecology and a
strong economy go hand in hand. //
The approach is comprehensive, cost-effective, and most of
all, it will work. It seeks major pollution reductions, where we
most need them, first.
It offers incentives, choice and flexibility for industry to
find the best solutions -- all in the context of continued
economic growth. This bill contains an emissions trading plan in
order to allow reduction targets to be met at a fraction of the
cost it would have been otherwise. In short, it taps the power
of the marketplace and the community -- better than any other
environmental bill in history./ /
But it does more. The legislation sets reasonable deadlines
for those who must comply, but once the deadlines pass, penalties
are severe. Because America is too precious for us to turn our
backs on those who think otherwise. Polluters must pay. //
And so there is a new breeze blowing -- a new current of
concern for the environment. We see it in community efforts and
school involvement across America. And we're seeing it in the
innovative response of private industry. Take a look at the
5
Arco, Marathon and Exxon stations offering cleaner fuels.
John
Earlier this month Amoco opened a new alternative fuels service
Schmitz
station right down Pennsylvania Avenue here in Washington. We're
seeing compressed natural gas vehicles from GM, as well as
flexible fueled vehicles from GM and Ford, and we look forward to
Ford's electric vehicles in the near future. These companies
understand: We must pioneer new technology, find new solutions,
and envision new horizons if we are to build a bright future and
a better America for our children. We must -- and we will. //
I've said many times, when talking about other issues like
fighting the flow of drugs or stopping the menace of crime, that
the most fundamental obligation of the government is to protect
the people -- their health, their safety, and their ideals and
values.
One of the greatest conservationists of this century and
perhaps my favorite President, Theodore Roosevelt, understood
Ecyclopedic
this. He called our lands and wildlife "the property of unborn
104 generations." This clean air bill will mark a new chapter in the
tradition of protecting future generations.
That's where you come in. Everyone with us today has made a
commitment to a cleaner and safer world for our children. For
that, I thank each and every one of you -- for your expertise,
your dedication and for your sacrifice over the many months that
went into the passage of this legislation. With that said, I am
now honored to sign this Clean Air bill into law. Thank you and
God bless you all.
if
6
((Sign bill.))
# # #
CONSERVATION
TR Cyclopedia
CONSERVATION
CONS
the cause of conservation has been done by two
against the interests of the many, nor do we in-
PREVED
men, James Garfield and Gifford Pinchot. I
tend to turn them over to any man who will
GRANI
saw them work while I was President, and I can
wastefully use them by destruction, and leave to
GATION
speak with the fullest knowledge of what they
those who come after us a heritage damaged by
NATUR
did. They took the policy of conservation when
just so much. The man in whose interests we are
FORD;
it was still nebulous and they applied it and
working is the small farmer and settler, the man
CONSE
made it work. They actually did the job that I
who works with his own hands, who is working
TREES
and the others talked about. I know what they
not only for himself but for his children, and
STONE
did because it was something in which I in-
who wishes to leave to them the fruits of his
tensely believed, and yet it was something about
labor. His permanent welfare is the prime factor
CONS
which I did not have enough practical knowl-
for consideration in developing the policy of
moder:
edge to enable me to work except through them
conservation; for our aim is to preserve our nat-
only tl
and largely as the result of following out on
ural resources for the public as a whole, for the
toward
my part their initiative. They did not confine
average man and the average woman who make
their b
themselves only to speaking.
They trans-
up the body of the American people. (Before
on the
lated their words into actions; they actually did
Progressive National Convention, Chicago, Au-
pany V
what we were all saying ought to be done; and
gust 6, 1912.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 405; Nat. Ed.
City, I
our profound respect and appreciation is due
XVII, 294.
Nat. E
them for their work. (At Harvard University,
Cambridge, December 14, 1910.) Mem. Ed.
CONSERVATION-ROOSEVELT'S POL-
CONS
XV, 558; Nut. Ed. XIII, 603-604.
ICY ON. I acted on the theory that the Presi-
dent could at any time in his discretion withdraw
CONS
CONSERVATION - PRINCIPLES OF.
from entry any of the public lands of the United
to the
Now there is a considerable body of public
States and reserve the same for forestry, for
stitutic
opinion in favor of keeping for our children's
water-power sites, for irrigation, and other pub-
gressiv
children, as a priceless heritage, all the delicate
lic purposes. Without such action it would have
1913.)
beauty of the lesser and all the burly majesty of
been impossible to stop the activity of the land
387.
the mightier forms of wild life. We are fast
thieves. No one ventured to test its legality by
learning that trees must not be cut down more
lawsuit. (1913.) Mem. Ed. XXII, 412; Nat.
rapidly than they are replaced; we have taken
Ed. XX, 353.
memb
forward steps in learning that wild beasts and
duced
birds are by right not the property merely of the
CONSERVATION AND PUBLIC RIGHTS.
Ameri
people alive to-day, but the property of the
The rights of the public to the natural resources
its sho
unborn generations, whose belongings we have
outweigh private rights, and must be given its
ness fc
no right to squander; and there are even faint
first consideration. Until that time, in dealing
as its
signs of our growing to understand that wild
with the national forests, and the public lands
right,
flowers should be enjoyed unplucked where they
generally, private rights had almost uniformly
had, И
grow, and that it is barbarism to ravage the
been allowed to overbalance public rights. The
better
woods and fields, rooting out the mayflower
change we made was right, and was vitally
prepar
and breaking branches of dogwood as orna-
necessary; but, of course, it created bitter oppo-
have I
ments for automobiles filled with jovial but ig-
sition from private interests. (1913.) Mem. Ed.
cient e
norant picnickers from cities. (Outlook, Janu-
XXII, 456; Nat. Ed. XX, 393.
Federa
ary 20, 1915.) Mem. Ed. XIV, 567; Nat. Ed.
iety to
XII, 425.
CONSERVATION OF HUMAN LIFE. Let
sufferi
us remember, also, that conservation does not
tralize
CONSERVATION-PURPOSE OF. Surely
stop with the natural resources, but that the
utterly
our people do not understand even yet the rich
principle of making the best use of all we have
essent:
heritage that is theirs. There can be nothing in
requires with equal or greater insistence that we
fallibl
the world more beautiful than the Yosemite, the
shall stop the waste of human life in industry
volt.
groves of giant sequoias and redwoods, the
and prevent the waste of human welfare which
VII, 3
Canyon of the Colorado, the Canyon of the
flows from the unfair use of concentrated power
Yellowstone, the Three Tetons; and our people
and wealth in the hands of men whose eager-
should see to it that they are preserved for their
ness for profit blinds them to the cost of what
it was
children and their children's children forever,
they do. (Before Ohio Constitutional Conven-
practi
with their majestic beauty all unmarred. (1905.)
tion, Columbus, February 21, 1912.) Mem. Ed.
well a
Mem. Ed. III, 293; Nat. Ed., III, 107.
XIX, 165; Nat. Ed. XVII, I20.
of ex
up a C
We do not intend that our
CONSERVATION. See also ARBOR DAY;
itself
natural resources shall be exploited by the few
AUDUBON SOCIETIES; ELECTRIC POWER; FLOOD
would
[104]
TALKING POINTS
ON AGRICULTURE
THE 1990 FARM BILL
(1) Congress made many of the right choices when deciding how to
achieve farm savings. The most notable is the "triple-base"
option originally authored by Congressmen Stenholm and Roberts.
Triple base flexibility will give producers an opportunity to
break out of the traditional farm program "straitjacket" which
bound them to produce the same crop year after year.
(2) The triple base option allows farmers to plant for the
market on some acres instead of for the government.
(3) The farm bill builds and improves on the environmental
provisions of the 1985 Act. Sodbuster, swampbuster, conservation
compliance and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) have all
been extended and improved.
(4) The farm bill extends important nutrition assistance pro-
grams such as food stamp and the Temporary Emergency Food Assis-
tance Program (TEFAP).
DATE??
(5) For the first time, a forestry title has been included in a
farm bill. We are pleased that Congress approved the Presiden-
tial tree planting initiative known as "America the Beautiful" as
part of the forestry title.
(6) In the area of farm credit, Congress approved the Ad-
ministration initiative to limit abuse of farm debt relief laws
and continue the move toward partnership with the private sector
to extend farm credit.
GOOD NEWS
(1) Farmer's net cash income is forecast to be $59-63 billion
in 1990, about 10 percent above last year. Net farm income is
expected to grow about 5 percent from 1989. Growth in commodity
sale is pushing farm income to record highs this year despite
mounting expenses and forecast of declining prices.
(2) Farm income improved significantly since the 1985 farm bill
took effect. Net cash income reached record high levels in 3 of
the last 4 years, and a new record could be set in 1990.
(3) Even after accounting for inflation, real incomes in agri-
culture are only exceeded in recent history by the boom years of
the early 1970's.
(4) Farm equity, which measures the wealth of the Nation's
farms, has increased by $136 billion since 1986.
(5) In 4 years, 55 percent of the equity lost during the down-
turn in the farm economy has been recovered.
(6) Agricultural asset values have increased for 4 consecutive
years, averaging a 4.3 percent gain annually. The gains are due
mostly to rising real estate values.
(7) Farm debt has been reduced by one-third since 1982. The
decline reflects debt restructuring, debt aversion, and highly
favorable income conditions in recent years.
(8) Farm debt levels are now much more sustainable by farm
income. Equity gains will also help cushion farmers.
(9) Since 1986, the share of financially vulnerable farmers has
been halved to 5 percent of the Nation's 2.1 million farms. The
share of farmers with a favorable financial position, able to
take advantage of investment or expansion opportunities, has
increased from about 45 percent to nearly 65 percent.
(10) Rising farm sector asset values, returns on assets, and cash
flow continue to strengthen farmers' financial position.
(11) For 1989, U.S. farmer cooperatives reported the second
highest net income and third highest sales in history. Net
income less losses was nearly $1.9 billion, 12.3 percent better
than $1.7 billion in 1988. Net income was highest at $1.94
billion in 1980.
(12) Approval of the budget agreement is expected to improve farm
income by $1-2 billion per year due to lower interest and infla-
tion rates.
2
GRADY 11/1
a/ thisfil model
for ration; alleazion
one reson
Landmark
for their own program.
Resistance of paple like
Vetezuisan De wastighty
Beggest burro. accompt ared
Houldn't Rappen w/o George Bush
(
sizet she
englidem polictory
going to man:
of reductions
rbaner cars
frue $ orig
plants
reduce
we sent ap.
factors
$6
- who life
fack
Good then Cente
ag Jefe one egr
Acid pain 100fore
Av for 90%
2
brand New era
Aftain for 100
in regal.
atd, learned
Shaja domestic regional habiy
Haven't afartard
stabante
objectives - -in
- Cthe is almont statical)
fact, increased.
Singh every
another step Your
energy security
peon complex. in util Sector
reduce dep foreyn elec energy
could ate
Broder agesta
wereg. Have nathtreas Noo precison forish.
Apairt a lotaff breause
offshandrilling.
Cal coost one of them.
national bearer
99% for Cal coast eatil >2000
)
CAWLES
Superhed- dramatrolly upprate entice
we are whing 500 ilw eaf @EPA pers
pays
Correlly 41844
CLEAN AIR
Deland 5080
of wewait til 5° As will
(Suzy)
m. 154
take all credit.
Dale 5750 luch?
should indicate intent to sign.
BOYDEN
ned
descrip of bill
get out of Wash, make visual.
what we like (Idon't)
whos there (bus. Dervivos?)
* MK- may make sense for Friday AVOID for And @ Wilson
Reland- robody's done a line by line
On 3 sat get out in advance of signing, embace bill
in D.A?
382-7400
475-7155 FAX
Bill Rosenbing CEPA
We'r seen 1/2 the larguage
expect other half Vanight x%of
(Reilhir the# used
&
Rof Fayerwether (cood. review of cant. report)
used the import
More
Roanberg's chiff
WILL VOTE THURS are FRI
are
imports.
eleawait
YOM KIERNAN
382 -7400
tooks extraodinary like porus' architecture
Alt tush
[major domestic policy victory.
reforml gas
add vais provision
(whts
with
* Key off Polus' yr. admissity ago challenged long. & Am. people
-1 mil
famile
responsble u/ fill he tup.
SAU
500,000
saved
from CAA
so did industry & compuners- Boypt Hotgredice
A ENERGY BEYDEN,
AREO came out afcban gosolve
PEOPLE
Fat Am / fobya @ on Amazon
ARE
READY
(Aot joit Congres)
GM-resp.
bafkaring in
by ped. of gas
vottplace, consumers,
RtH @ CANNEST 4. Nefrosha
elee ar
Fors +GM
(now comproverate from corn)
prototype
methord gud
alt.ful
UPS-
call chuck Subrick
not you
Cal
State of al. - Goo. spenk.
AMOCO to sell in Washington
responded
Marathon in Debort
EPA- fackup from to
assume long X contable
A disportant fr erriro yes but also boliging founds -x%
in regita.
Subst. Make for distributed oil utt gas, com
Creduced deb fa. oil)
SAT- CLEAN AIR
See Jasm Bill Banb m260
Bulgf proviles for alt. fuels
not sely just on freig oil Fielde -- Air corn filles
"If you deive if. it willown."
Emily
Thousand Oaks in A (neas F.A.)- N.W.
last ys invested look in
Mrs. booch's
(whaterery common.
argat to do)
just ofrod a store, gave
away 1,000 oak sedling
in Forestry title of the Form Bill- got mil (of ITS)
got coaflete antiosigton
St. Foundation 20 milbor
grouph
national crucalc
Bach in Washington, an Amoco sta. selbing
goz that del virtually meets " 92) '95 standard
PODER
Canclain badership
lb magnaination to Caderalip in goveral
BACOMUS
S
SIMPSON
CMAFFE, QUREMBURGER)
ANGELA WAMMAN
LENT MADISAN)
H
D2
--though d have to wonder why after an 8yr.
& 11/2 ys wh Corp. Coaldit get
me a copy of they the fill.
fortr's got it.
Boydin
Teee - link to CARA.
A>
in will belptnees
free will help CA.A.
Alt. fuels- monumental charge. of reval. in way
we approvad Jules,
While fill didn't
not follut. fenes. of great or greate
cont lower Xpan surt. estime.
Boyder-
4-5yrs, jacking Regun!
ARCO's gos, AMOCO ( just last Thus) announce
EXXEN
retorned. gor ta D.C.
for a gal/mare
Polus' Anticipatory compliance a/ CAA
entering was lsa of coof. work
as
on enviro.
Texas
will mean selned costs for averyone. culfume
Timely - alw compet. sources grain gas
of thiskid of actionts
we will reduce regul, Gurden for all Binde of Ros. friend will the fortege
reduce Supert by % Sign we doar
SENT BY:The TICKET CENTER
:11- 1-90 ; 1:06PM ; LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS-
2024566218:# 1
Executive Office of the President
90 OCT I Office of Legislative Affairs
-
Issued
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER
DATE
TO
Mark Lany
FAX NUMBER
OFFICE NUMBER
COMMENTS
per our diseassion -
Thanks
FROM Becley Andusen
FAX NUMBER
OFFICE NUMBER
SENT BY:The TICKET CENTER
:11- 1-90 ; 1:06PM : LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS-
2024566218:# 2
ELTON GALLEGLY
186459
COMMITTEES:
11am DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
SUBCOMMITTES:
107 CANNON BUILDING
ARMS CANTABL INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AND SCIENCE
WASHINGTON. DC 20518
Congress of the United States
INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
(202) 228-5811
9301 CAKDALE AVENUE 10
INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
CHATSWORTH DA 01811
(815)341-2121
House of Representatives
SUSCOMMITTERS:
NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
200 NORTH WESTLAKE BOULEVARD #207
Mashington, DC 20515
INSULAR AND INTERNATIONAL APPAIRS
THOUSAND OAKS, 0A 3 1392
Breathes
(808) Clure 495,4700
October 26, speech 1990
The Honorable George Bush
come
Ined
ge
The President
The White House
not
yet
to
Washington, D.C. 30255
have
it-
Dear Mr. President:
Ms.
for
where grven. it not is I'm
Several community leaders in my District have requested that
t
if the location of your November 3rd event in California is
California Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks, you mention
a
sure
community campaign antitled "Under One Roof".
we
can
The program is one which H strongly endorse and support and
feel it is among the very finest examples of your 1,000 points
of light.
worked
In 1981, local citizens, concerned about the withdrawal of
federal funds from social service groups organized a workshop
to identify the needs of the residents and to find out how the
wemanks. into
community could help. Over 25 agencies and several referral
agencies responded and the conclusion vae that the major need
was a centrally located and financially acceptable place for
the volunteers to work.
Following almost a decade of community involvement, a
permanent Center opened in 1988, serving 30,000 individuals in
its first year of operation. It now houses 22 nonprofit
agencies and five government agencies. Because the building
is being paid for up-front, there is no mortgage and the 22
non-profit agencies have rent-free space which frees up much
needed dollars to go directly to community services.
The total project cost is $2.6 million. At this time the
Under One Roof capital campaign has received cash and pledges
totalling $1.9 million. Support has come from every segment
of the community and with your mention of the fine work that
Under One Rood has accomplished, I am confident that many
others will find the time to contribute to this most
worthwhile cause.
Thank you.
sincerely,
Elton Gallegly
Member of Congress
June 12 / Administration of George Bush, 1989
tion Agency] to develop rules like those
Thank you all, and God bless you, and
Taker
we're employing on acid rain to allow auto
thank you very much for coming.
cance
and fuel companies to trade required re-
trucks
ductions in order to meet the standard in
Note: The President spoke at 11:15 a.m. in
elimin
the most cost-effective way. Our challenge
the East Room of the White House.
fourth
is to develop an emissions trading plan;
that a:
their challenge is to meet the standards.
The third leg of our proposal is designed
Fundamen
to cut all categories of airborne toxic chemi-
White House Fact Sheet on the
Five goa
cals by three-quarters within this decade.
President's Clean Air Plan
air proposa
Our best minds will apply the most ad-
ing them:
vanced industrial technology available to
June 12, 1989
Protec
control these airborne poisons. The very
goal C
best control technology we have will deter-
Fulfilling a major campaign commitment,
public
mine the standard we set for those plants.
President Bush today proposed a compre-
agents
And until now, because of an unworkable
hensive program to provide clean air for all
peciall
law, the EPA has been able to regulate only
Americans. The President's plan calls for
as the
7 of the 280 known air toxics. The bill I am
the first sweeping revisions to the Clean Air
dren-
proposing today will set a schedule for reg-
Act since 1977 and represents the first time
that (
ulating sources of air toxics by dates certain.
an administration has put forward a propos-
health
In addition, it will give the dedicated
al since that time. The President's plan is
Improv
people of the EPA the right tools for the
designed to curb three major threats to the
job, and it will make state-of-the-art tech-
Nation's environment and to the health of
propos
life for
nology an everyday fact of doing business.
millions of Americans: acid rain, urban air
sponsit
And that's the way it should be.
pollution, and toxic air emissions.
ronme
In its first phase, this initiative should
While emissions of some pollutants-such
Achiev
eliminate about three-quarters of the need-
as sulfur dioxide, urban ozone, and carbon
Steady
less deaths from cancer that have been
monoxide-have been reduced since pas-
lishes
caused by toxic industrial air emissions. And
sage of the 1970 law, progress has not come
quality
we plan a second phase to go after any
quickly enough. The President's plan will
sions to
remaining unreasonable risk. People who
dramatically accelerate the pace of pollu-
pollutic
live near industrial facilities should not have
tion reduction and put America on the path
quiring
to fear for their health.
toward markedly cleaner air by the end of
ing em
And for 10 years, we've struggled to
the century.
trol.
engage a united effort on behalf of clean
The President's plan will:
Harnes
air, and we're now on the edge of real
Cut sulfur dioxide emissions virtually in
place.
change. Nineteen eighty-nine could be re-
half by the year 2000. The plan calls
market
corded as the year when business leaders
for a 10 million ton reduction in SO₂
rain re
and environmental advocates began to
and a 2 million ton cut in nitrogen
to achi
work together, when environmental issues
oxide (NOx) emissions, for a total re-
mobile
moved out of the courts, beyond conflict,
duction of 12 million tons in acid rain-
to a de
into a new era of cooperation. And this can
causing emissions.
ing the
be known as the year we mobilized leader-
Bring all cities currently not meeting
omy.
ship, both public and private, to make envi-
the health standards for ozone and
Employ
ronmental protection a growth industry and
carbon monoxide into attainment. Most
The pro
keep our ecology safe for diversity. The
cities will attain the standard by 1995,
of clea:
wounded winds of north, south, east, and
and the plan is designed to ensure at-
fuel sys
west can be purified and cleansed, and the
tainment in all but the most severely
cost-effe
integrity nature can be made whole again.
impacted cities by the year 2000.
nology 1
Ours is a rare opportunity to reverse the
Require factories and plants emitting
toxic compounds into the air to employ
The Presic
errors of this generation in the service of
the next. And we cannot, we must not, fail.
the best technology currently available
ronmental pl
We must prevail. I ask for your support. We
in order to achieve in the near term a
two longstan
need your support to make all of this into a
cut estimated at 75 to 90 percent in
at odds with
reality.
pollutants suspected of causing cancer.
both concern
882
Administration of George Bush, 1989 / June 12
and
Taken together with efforts to reduce
seeks to break the gridlock which has char-
cancer-causing emissions from cars and
acterized the debate on clean air for the
trucks, it is estimated that the plan will
past several years.
'71. in
eliminate in its first phase over three-
fourths of the annual cancer deaths
ACID RAIN
that air toxics are suspected of causing.
Highlights
Fundamental Principles
Requires sulfur dioxide reductions of
Five goals underlie the President's clean
10 million tons and nitrogen oxide re-
air proposals and the means for accomplish-
ductions of 2 million tons.
ing them:
Calls for 5 million tons of reductions in
Protecting the Public's Health. The
the first phase by the end of 1995.
goal of the legislation is to prevent
Establishes a system of marketable per-
ent,
public exposure to cancer-causing
mits to allow maximum flexibility for
pre-
agents and to protect those citizens, es-
utilities to achieve required reductions
r all
pecially vulnerable populations-such
in the most efficient and least costly
for
as the elderly, asthmatics, and chil-
manner.
Air
dren-who live in cities with dirty air
lime
that does not conform to national
Background
pos-
health standards.
Acid rain occurs when sulfur dioxide
n is
Improving the Quality of Life. The
(SO₂) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions
the
proposal will improve the quality of
undergo a chemical change in the atmos-
h of
life for all Americans by exercising re-
phere and return to the Earth in rain, fog,
air
sponsible stewardship over the envi-
or snow.
ronment for future generations.
Approximately 20 millions of SO₂ are
uch
Achieving Early Reductions and
emitted annually in the United States,
bon
Steady Progress. The proposal estab-
three-quarters from the burning of fossil
pas-
lishes realistic timetables to meet air
fuels by electric utilities; 20 percent from
me
quality standards, but contains provi-
other, more widely dispersed industrial
will
sions to cut substantial amounts of air
sources; and 5 percent from transportation
ollu-
pollution in the near term, while re-
sources. The source of most SO₂ emissions
ath
quiring steady progress toward reduc-
causing acid rain are old (pre-1971) electric
1 of
ing emissions that are harder to con-
powerplants, not subject to the existing
trol.
Clean Air Act's strict emissions require-
Harnessing the Power of the Market-
ments on newer plants. Fifty power plants
in
place. The proposal calls for the use of
are responsible for about half of all SO₂
alls
marketable permits to achieve acid-
emissions.
SO₂
rain reductions and emissions trading
Acid rain causes damage to lakes, forests,
gen
to achieve reductions from the auto-
and buildings; contributes to reduced visi-
re-
mobile pollution, so as to clean the air
bility; and is suspected of causing damage to
in-
to a definite standard while minimiz-
human health.
ing the burden on the American econ-
Since 1970 the United States has spent
ing
omy.
$225 billion to control air pollution. Ameri-
.nd
Employing Innovative Technologies.
can industry spends about $33 billion a year
ost
The proposal encourages development
on air pollution controls ($10 billion by the
95,
of clean coal technology, alternative
electric utility industry). One result of this
at-
fuel systems for automobiles, and other
expenditure is that SO2 have been reduced
ely
cost-effective means of using new tech-
by almost 20 percent since 1977, despite a
nology to cut pollution.
substantial increase in coal consumption
ng
The President's plan allows for both envi-
during the period since then.
oy
ble
ronmental protection and economic growth,
Any acid rain control program will in-
two longstanding concerns often considered
crease electricity rates for affected utilities.
a
in
at odds with each other. By incorporating
Generally speaking, however, proposals
er.
both concerns in his proposal, the President
with greater flexibility will result in smaller
883
June 12 / Administration of George Bush, 1989
rate increases. Thus, the President's propos-
million BTU's so as to achieve a 10
al to allow trading among utility companies
million ton reduction in Phase II.
1988);
will ensure that protection from acid rain is
Maximum flexibility in obtaining re-
al (Lar
achieved in a less costly fashion than many
ductions. The plan would allow utilities
ment
of the more traditional "command and con-
to trade required reductions so that
Federa
trol" proposals that have been advanced.
they will be achieved in the least costly
last 3 y
The President's plan represents a major
fashion. In the first phase, trading
The
new innovation in harnessing the power of
would be allowed among electric
that ov
the marketplace to protect the environ-
plants within a State or within a utility
attainn
ment.
system. In addition, full interstate trad-
into atl
The President's proposal calls for:
ing would be allowed in Phase II.
serious
A reduction of 10 million tons of sulfur
The estimated cost of the President's
Housto
dioxide by the year 2000, using a base-
proposal would be $3.8 billion annually
tainme
line year of 1980 for tons of SO2 emit-
in the second phase and approximately
cial ca:
ted, primarily from coal-fired power-
$700 million per year in the first
gent u]
plants.
phase. While this represents an in-
plan t
A two-phase program in order to
crease of over 2 percent by the year
progre:
ensure early reductions. A reduction of
2000 in the Nation's $160-billion-a-year
ing the
5 million tons is required during the
electricity bill, the flexibility built into
Ozor
first phase, by the end of 1995. All
the President's plan reduces by up to
compo
dates assume enactment of this legisla-
half the cost of various competing pro-
gen OX
tion by December 31, 1989.
posals mandating the use of specific
light.
A 2 million ton reduction of NOₓ in
technologies.
therefc
Phase II. The plan would allow utilities
in the
URBAN AIR QUALITY
to trade reductions of NO, for reduc-
ozone
tions of SO₂ or vice versa, and thus
Highlights
sharply
represents a call for a total reduction of
Employs a mix of Federal measures
1988. ]
12 million tons in acid rain-causing pol-
and State initiatives to cut sharply air
least 1
lutants.
pollution in our nation's cities. The
year pt
A 3-year extension of the Phase II
Federal measures alone will cut emis-
ment"
deadline for plants adopting clean coal-
sions that cause urban ozone, the pri-
Expo
repowering technologies, combined
mary contributor to urban air pollu-
fects, S
with regulatory incentives designed to
tion, nearly in half and help bring all
and ch
smooth their transition into the mar-
cities into compliance with air quality
for asth
ketplace. This will allow the United
standards.
Moreov
States to make good on the major in-
Sets realistic timetables for attaining
role is
vestment the President has called for
the standards but is designed to ensure
chronic
in clean coal and will ensure that coal
steady progress toward meeting that
structu
continues to play an important role in
goal.
fects, (
America's energy future.
Contains new initiatives to promote al-
cluding
Freedom of choice in cutting pollution.
ternative fuels to reduce pollution
corn; is
The plan requires all plants above a
from cars, buses, trucks, and motor
is susp
certain size in affected States to meet
fuels, and to harness the power of the
damage
the same emissions standard, but does
marketplace to ensure cost-effective
United
not dictate to plant managers how the
reductions.
The
standard should be met. The plan re-
OZONE
import:
quires the largest polluting plants to
cles (4
make the greatest cuts in pollution.
Background
bakerie
The emissions standard would be set at
Based on data measured during the sum-
vents (
the rate necessary to achieve 5 million
mers of 1985 to 1987, over 100 million
petrole
tons in the first phase. The plan envi-
people live in 81 urban areas across the
line rel
sions a standard of 2.5 lbs. per million
country that exceed the health standard for
sources
BTU, which would affect 107 plants in
ozone. In some cities, such as Los Angeles,
reduce
18 States. The standard would then be
the situation is persistent and severe (176
from u
tightened to approximately 1.2 lbs. per
days in violation of the health standard in
Air Ac
vehicle
884
Administration of George Bush, 1989 / June 12
a 10
1988); in other cities the problem is margin-
The smaller area sources are largely uncon-
al (Lancaster, PA, is listed as a nonattain-
trolled.
re-
lities
ment area, but in fact has exceeded the
VOC and NOx emissions have decreased
that
Federal standard for only a few hours in the
nationally since 1978-VOC's by 17 percent
ostly
last 3 years).
and NOx by 8 percent-despite growth in
ding
The President's plan is designed to ensure
population, travel, and industrial activity. As
ctric
that over two-thirds of the cities now out of
a consequence, the trend in ambient ozone
tility
attainment-all but about 25 cities-come
concentrations declined by 9 percent from
trad-
into attainment by 1995. All but the 3 most
1979 to 1987. Increases occurred again,
seriously polluted areas-Los Angeles,
however, in the hot summers of 1987 and
ent's
Houston, and New York-will come into at-
1988.
ially
tainment by the year 2000; and these spe-
The deadline for meeting urban ozone
itely
cial cases will be given until 2010, contin-
standards set back in 1977 under the exist-
first
gent upon a requirement in the President's
ing Clean Air Act has already expired. De-
in-
plan that they show significant annual
spite this progress in reducing ozone, the
progress toward cleaning the air and meet-
vear
health standards have not been met within
ing the health standard.
ear
the deadlines. Without new legislation, the
into
Ozone is formed when volatile organic
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
) to
compounds (VOC's) are mixed with nitro-
will be required by law to impose Federal
pro-
gen oxides (NOx) in the presence of sun-
Implementation Plans (FIP's) on several
cific
light. Heat speeds up the reaction, and
major American cities. Courts are, for exam-
therefore, concentrations are usually higher
ple, already preparing to impose such re-
in the summer months. Exceedances of the
quirements on Chicago and Los Angeles.
ozone standard (.12 parts per million) grew
These FIP's could involve extraordinary
sharply during the especially hot summer of
controls that would sharply curb economic
1988. If a city exceeds the standard for at
ures
growth and dramatically alter the lifestyles
least 1 hour on 4 or more days during a 3
air
of local residents.
year period, it is judged to be "out of attain-
The
ment" with the standard.
Over the next decade, both EPA and the
nis-
Exposure to ozone causes short term ef-
Federal Highway Administration estimate
ori-
fects, such as shortness of breath, coughing,
that growth in automobile use will begin to
lu-
and chest pains, that are particularly acute
outstrip reductions occurring from fleet
all
for asthmatics, children, and senior citizens.
turnover, so that VOC emissions will in-
ity
Moreover, ozone is suspected of playing a
crease after 2000.
role in the long-term development of
Thus, additional measures to reduce
ing
chronic lung diseases and permanent lung
ozone-causing emissions are needed if
are
structure damage. In addition to health ef-
Americans are to have air that is clean
at
fects, ozone has effects on vegetation, in-
enough to meet the health standard. The
cluding crops such as soybeans, wheat, and
President's plan sets forth these additional
al-
corn; is damaging forests in California; and
clean air measures.
on
is suspected as a contributing agent in
Some measures required under current
or
damage to forests in the southeastern
law will help reduce VOC's. These include:
ne
United States.
The effect of tightened automobile and
ve
The major sources of VOC's, the most
truck-tailpipe emission standards,
important ozone precursor, are motor vehi-
which will continue to cut emissions as
cles (40 percent); small area sources, e.g.,
older cars are replaced with new ones;
bakeries, dry cleaners, and consumer sol-
The implementation of required in-
vents (40 percent); large point sources, e.g.,
spection and maintenance programs
n-
petroleum refineries (15 percent); and gaso-
for motor vehicles by State and local
on
line refueling (5 percent). Many large point
governments;
ne
sources have already been required to
Volatility controls on gasoline. Earlier
or
reduce emissions by roughly 80 percent
this year, the Bush administration re-
es,
from uncontrolled levels under the Clean
quired a reduction of gasoline volatility
6
Air Act, and tailpipe emissions from new
to a standard of 10.5 pounds per
in
vehicles have been reduced by 96 percent.
square inch;
885
June 12 / Administration of George Bush, 1989
Selected stationary source controls on
motor vehicles. These stage II controls
-1,00
refineries and other factories.
would require refueling stations to in-
thro
It is estimated that these measures will
stall special nozzles on gasoline pumps
The m
reduce VOC emissions from baseline levels
in nonattainment areas and are expect-
the plar
by 18 percent by 2005. They will bring 23
ed to reduce VOC's by up to 2 percent
York Cit
cities into attainment by 1995, but without
in such areas.
phia, gr
additional controls, increased automobile
Provide EPA new authority to issue
Chicago.
use would cause many of these to slip back
control technology guidelines (CTG's)
strate th
out of attainment, leaving 72 cities out of
to major stationary source emitters
ductions
attainment by 2005.
(factories and plants). The most cost-
through
Additional Federal Measures Under the
effective control guidelines will be
allow th
President's Proposal
issued first. These guidelines are ex-
vehicle
pected to result in a 3.5 percent reduc-
which (
In an ambitious effort to bring all cities
tion in VOC emissions.
would b
into attainment, the President's proposals
Provide for the use of alternative
plan wo
call for:
fuels-such as clean burning methanol,
cluded in
Further tightening the volatility re-
natural gas, and ethanol-in the most
The P₁
quirements for gasoline nationwide
serious nonattainment areas. The Presi-
combine
during the summer months to reduce
dent's plan is designed to ensure that 1
fuel mea
evaporative emissions which cause
million clean-fueled vehicles per year
contribu
ozone formation. This will reduce VOC
are introduced into America's most
lem fron
emissions by an estimated 8 percent.
polluted cities by the year 1997. The
cent. Thi
Reductions in vehicle evaporative
program will not only reduce VOC
to some
emissions caused by automobile run-
emissions by an additional 2 to 5 per-
trols cur
ning losses, which will cut VOC emis-
cent, it will dramatically reduce toxic
States bu
sions by an estimated 4.2 percent.
air emissions, such as benzene, toluene,
of recond
Federal regulations to control emis-
and xylene.
sions from treatment, storage, and dis-
bile by a
It is estimated that these new Federal
cleaner a
posal of hazardous wastes, which will
measures to curb ozone pollution will
cut VOC emissions by 3.2 percent.
add $3 to $4 billion in annual costs to
Effect of
Providing EPA with the authority to
the economy when fully implemented.
the Presi
regulate VOC emissions from small
sources and consumer products, such
The Long-Term Clean Fuels Program
Taken
as consumer solvents and paints, which
proposed
EPA estimates will cut VOC emissions
The clean fuels program proposed by the
the effec
by 2.5 percent.
President is perhaps the most innovative
current
Tightening hydrocarbon emission tail-
and far-reaching component of his proposal.
emissions
pipe standards for automobiles by
It is designed to provide a long-term recon-
program
almost 40 percent. The current stand-
ciliation of the environment and the auto-
percent
ard will be tightened to the level soon
mobile so that Americans can continue to
selves, tl
to be required on all California vehi-
enjoy economic growth, freedom in using
about 20
cles (from .41 to .25 grams per mile).
their motor vehicles, and clean air.
standard.
This will cut VOC emissions by 0.4
The administration proposes to replace a
Becaus
percent.
A first time requirement for light duty
portion of the motor vehicle fleet in certain
to ensuri
cities with new vehicles that operate on
however,
trucks to meet the same tailpipe stand-
clean burning fuels. In the 9 major urban
ures to
ard now required of automobiles (.41
gpm). This will cut VOC emissions by
areas where current data shows the greatest
order to
0.2 percent.
concentration of ozone, the administration's
Expanded vehicle inspection and main-
plan calls for a 10-year program for the
State Me
phased-in introduction of alternative fuels
Proposal
tenance programs in serious nonattain-
ment areas, which will cut VOC emis-
and clean-fueled vehicle sales according to
Under
sions by 1.2 percent.
the following schedule:
roughly
Controls to reduce evaporative emis-
-500,000 vehicles in 1995
ozone p
sions which occur during refueling of
-750,000 vehicles in 1996
quired to
886
Administration of George Bush, 1989 / June 12
-1,000,000 vehicles each year from 1997
emissions by 3 percent per year beginning
through 2004
with enactment of the legislation.
The major metropolitan areas affected by
This will guarantee that, even as more
the plan are Los Angeles, Houston, New
realistic deadlines for meeting the standard
York City, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Philadel-
are set, those cities with the most significant
phia, greater Connecticut, San Diego, and
air pollution problems will be on a steady
Chicago. If these areas are able to demon-
path toward cleaner air.
strate that they can achieve analagous re-
Because of ozone transport, some areas
ductions in VOC's and toxic air chemicals
may be unable to attain the standard in
through other measures, the plan would
spite of adequate efforts to control their
allow them to opt out of the clean-fueled
own pollution. Cities under 200,000 in pop-
vehicle and alternative fuels program, in
ulation, which are not part of regional
which case the vehicle target numbers
airsheds, but whose attainment is prevented
would be scaled down proportionately. The
as a result of ozone pollution transported
plan would also allow other cities to be in-
from other cities or regions, will not be sub-
cluded in the program at their request.
ject to sanctions under these circumstances.
The President's alternative fuels program,
combined with other moter vehicle and
Emissions Trading: Harnessing the Power of
fuel measures in the plan, will shrink the
the Marketplace to Protect the Environment
contribution of vehicles to the ozone prob-
The President has also directed the EPA
lem from the current 40 percent to 10 per-
to develop rules and regulations which will
cent. This represents not only an alternative
provide companies with the maximum flexi-
to some of the more disruptive driving con-
bility in achieving the pollution reductions
trols currently being considered by some
called for in his plan. Specifically, the Presi-
States but also a bold and innovative means
dent's plan would require the Administrator
of reconciling continued use of the automo-
to issue regulations within 18 months to
bile by a growing society with the need for
allow automobile manufacturers to engage
cleaner air.
in emissions trading and refiners to engage
in fuel pooling to the maximum extent fea-
Effect of the Federal Measures Proposed by
sible. Such regulations shall establish per-
the President
formance standards for vehicles and trans-
Taken together, the Federal measures
portation fuels marketed in the most serious
proposed by the President, combined with
and severe nonattainment areas. Companies
the effect of measures being pursued under
would then be able to choose to engage in
current law, will cut ozone-causing VOC
emissions trading and fuel pooling so long
emissions nearly in half. EPA estimates the
as they can demonstrate to EPA that the
program will reduce annual emissions by 45
combination of measures they select will
percent by the year 2005. In and of them-
allow them to achieve the same emissions
selves, these measures will bring all but
reductions as the control measures outlined
about 20 cities into attainment of the ozone
in the President's program.
standard.
This emissions trading concept is already
Because of the President's commitment
being considered by the State of California.
to ensuring clean air in all American cities,
It represents a market-based means of re-
however, his plan calls for additional meas-
ducing both VOC's and reactive aromatics
ures to be undertaken by the States in
in the most cost-effective way. The EPA
order to meet the standard for healthy air.
would publish these regulations at the same
time as it publishes regulations implement-
State Measures Under the President's
ing the other control measures in the Presi-
Proposal
dent's plan. If companies cannot demon-
Under the President's proposal, the
strate alternative means of achieving the
roughly 20 cities with the most serious
same amount of pollution reduction, they
ozone pollution problems would be re-
would be required to implement the con-
quired to take steps to cut ozone-causing
trol measures outlined above.
887
June 12 / Administration of George Bush, 1989
CARBON MONOXIDE
carbon monoxide problem. To bring these
soluble
Background
cities into compliance with the health-based
stack e
standard, the President's proposal contains
as WOO
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless,
several important measures designed to cut
tion, ro
odorless gas that tends to reduce the
carbon monoxide emissions. Specifically, the
tribute
oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. It is
President's plan calls for:
premat
a particularly serious health threat to indi-
A major new program to promote the
aggrava
viduals who suffer from cardiovascular dis-
use of clean-burning oxygenated fuels,
increas
ease, especially those with angina or heart
which emit dramatically less carbon
fects. I
disease. Unlike ozone, carbon monoxide
monoxide. The plan would require
were re
problems are worse in cold weather.
those cities with the most serious
ticulate
Two-thirds of CO emissions come from
carbon monoxide problems to use gaso-
etrate t
motor vehicles. Emissions of carbon monox-
line blended with oxygenated fuels
The ]
ide decreased 25 percent from 1978 to
during the winter months. Oxygenated
Re
1987, despite a 24-percent increase in vehi-
fuels include ethanol, methanol, ETBE,
me
cle miles traveled during that period, large-
and MTBE. Blending oxygenates into
En
ly because of controls already in place on
fuel will not only reduce carbon mon-
the
emissions from cars, buses, and trucks.
oxide, it will also sharply reduce toxic
cit:
Some improvement from these controls will
air emissions caused by aromatics in
continue, as older, more heavily polluting
conventional gasoline.
TOXIC 1
cars are gradually replaced on America's
Ethanol and ETBE are generally pro-
roads by newer, cleaner vehicles. Currently,
duced in the United States from corn,
cars purchased before 1981 amount to only
wheat, and potato crops. They offer
Highlig
38 percent of the vehicle miles traveled
the opportunity both to clean the air
(VMT), but they account for over 86 per-
Dr:
and to provide expanded markets for
cent of CO emissions.
cor
America's farmers. The President's
As use of the automobile continues to
Use
plan would allow cities to opt out of
grow, however, it is expected that many
air
the oxygenated fuels requirements if
American cities will not attain the health-
Prc
they could demonstrate to EPA that
based carbon monoxide standard. That
lati
they would come into attainment of
standard is 9 parts per million (ppm), meas-
a St
the carbon monoxide standard using
ured over an 8-hour period. If a representa-
other measures. EPA estimates that re-
tive reading of monitors in an area shows
quiring oxygenated fuels in areas with
Backgro
that it exceeds the standard for 2 or more
serious carbon monoxide problems will
The €
8-hour periods, it is classified in nonattain-
reduce carbon monoxide emissions by
air is b
ment.
an additional 18 percent in these areas.
health €
There are currently about 50 American
Giving EPA the authority to issue reg-
has bee
cities not meeting the standard. As with
ulations for a carbon monoxide cold
ozone, in some cases, cities exceed the
sions in
standard only moderately. About six urban
temperature standard. Carbon monox-
of safety
areas, however, have a carbon monoxide
ide problems are exaggerated when
has bee
problem classified by EPA as serious.
motor vehicles start in exceptionally
the subj
EPA estimates that even as vehicle miles
cold weather. This standard has the po-
had dif
tential to reduce carbon monoxide
traveled (VMT) grow, the effect of fleet
under t]
turnover will bring almost half of those
emissions by 7 to 12 percent.
it has p
cities currently violating the standard into
The President's plan will bring the vast
toxic air
attainment. Several of the measures in the
majority of cities into attainment with the
proven
President's proposal designed to curb
carbon monoxide standard by 1995, and
posed a
ozone-causing emissions will also help
will bring all American cities into attain-
to guara
reduce carbon monoxide. These include the
ment by the year 2000.
reducing
measures described above to tighten tail-
pollution
PARTICULATE MATTER
pipe standards for light-duty trucks and to
Data
improve State and local inspection and
cate tha
maintenance programs.
Background
cals are
Even with these measures, however, sev-
Particulate matter (PM10) includes acid
estimate
eral American cities will continue to have a
sulfates, toxic organics and metals, and in-
approxii
888
Administration of George Bush, 1989 / June 12
soluble dusts that come from traditional
nually. Toxic chemical emissions are associ-
stack emissions, as well as area sources such
ated also with respiratory disease and birth
as wood stoves and open burning. Construc-
defects. Motor vehicles and stationary
tion, roadways, and mobile sources also con-
sources each account for approximately half
tribute to the problem. PM10 can cause
of air toxic emissions. The measures in the
premature death in elderly and ill persons,
President's plan designed to curb VOC
aggravation of existing respiratory disease,
emissions and promote alternative fuels will
increased respiratory illness, and other ef-
sharply reduce emissions from motor vehi-
fects. Particulate matter (PM10) standards
cles.
were revised in 1987 to address smaller par-
ticulate matter particles most likely to pen-
The President's plan also includes a major
etrate the lungs.
new initiative to reduce air toxic emissions
The President's program will:
from stationary sources (factories, plants,
Require reasonably available control
and other such sources). A majority of iden-
measures to meet the standard.
tified carcinogens are emitted by about 30
Ensure that the majority of cities meet
industrial categories, including steel mills
the standard by 1994, and that all
(coke ovens), rubber, pulp and paper, chro-
cities meet PM10 standards by 2001.
mium electroplating, and solvent users. The
President's plan is designed to reduce
TOXIC AIR POLLUTANTS
quickly emissions from these sources.
The President's program will:
Highlights
Establish a set schedule for regulating
Dramatically accelerates progress in
major sources of toxic air pollution.
controlling major toxic air pollutants.
Under the plan, EPA will publish regu-
Uses best technology available to cut
lations for controlling 10 source catego-
air toxics.
ries within 2 years, 25 percent of
Promises certifiable progress in regu-
source categories within 4 years, 50
lating sources of toxic air emissions on
percent of source categories within 7
a set schedule.
years, and all necessary additional cate-
gories of air toxics within 10 years.
Background
Require emitters of toxic air pollution
to use the Maximum Available Control
The emission of toxic chemicals into the
air is believed to cause cancer and other
Technology (MACT) to sharply cut pol-
lution. This means that EPA would set
health effects in humans. Since 1974 EPA
a standard based on the best technolo-
has been required to regulate such emis-
sions in order to provide an ample margin
gy currently available. Plants would
of safety to the public. Because this margin
then be required to meet that stand-
has been difficult to define and has been
ard, with some exceptions to add flexi-
the subject of continued litigation, EPA has
bility for those who have already re-
had difficulty proceeding with regulation
duced most air toxics and for very
under the law. Since passage of the statute,
small plants.
it has published regulations for only seven
Encourage voluntary reductions early,
toxic air pollutants. Because the statute has
before standards are even published,
proven unworkable, the President has pro-
by providing credit for those reduc-
posed a major revision of the law in order
tions against the MACT requirement.
to guarantee greatly accelerated progress in
After Phase I is implemented, the EPA
reducing the damaging effects of toxic air
Administrator shall assess any remain-
pollution.
ing risk after reductions from state-of-
Data recently released by the EPA indi-
the-art technology and determine if
cate that 2.7 billion pounds of toxic chemi-
there is a need for further controls.
cals are emitted into the air each year. EPA
Based on his assessment, the EPA Ad-
estimates that these emissions contribute to
ministrator would set additional stand-
approximately 1,500-3,000 fatal cancers an-
ards to prevent the public from being
889
June 12 / Administration of George Bush, 1989
exposed to unreasonable risk, which
Remarks to Students at the Teton
didn't act
would allow considerations of cost and
Science School in Grand Teton
Hansen is
technical feasibility as well as health-
National Park, Wyoming
great Wy
based risks.
June 13, 1989
thing els
It is estimated that the President's air
looking y
toxics initiative will eliminate in the first
Sorry, Manuel mentioned my birthday.
Yesterd
phase about three-quarters of the cancer
It's so nice to be in Wyoming. Nobody, not
the Clean
deaths caused by toxic air emissions from
one person-your Governor, the Senators,
protecting
our new Congressman-no one has said,
people as
factories and plants. The annual costs of the
And now you can ride the subway in Jack-
cially ple
program are difficult to estimate until
nominee
actual standards are published, but current
son Hole for half fare. [Laughter] I'm de-
and Wild
EPA estimates center at about $2 billion
lighted, and thank you for your tolerance.
own. His
per year.
But, Manuel, thank you for that warm intro-
duction. Secretary Lujan and I served in
minute a{
the State
Congress. And I liked very much what Lor-
raine said about him, and I know he'll do a
your own,
who's goin
first-rate job with all the responsibilities that
responsibi
the Secretary of the Interior has. I want to
Designation of Kenneth M. Carr as
you and I
thank all of you for one of the best birthday
Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory
out there
presents a person could possibly have, and
do such a
Commission
that was going fishing yesterday on Lake
I want
June 12, 1989
Jackson with my grandson. The score:
some con
caught six, ate two. Not bad for 45 minutes
well-know
The President has designated Kenneth M.
worth of work out there.
a trapper
Carr as Chairman of the Nuclear Regula-
And I am really thrilled to be here. I'm
the Lewis
tory Commission, effective July 1, 1989. He
just sorry that the Silver Fox is not here.
Colter wa:
would succeed Lando W. Zech, Jr.
That's my wife, Barbara. But some have in-
naked, an
Since 1986 Commissioner Carr has served
quired about her health, and she's doing
to run for
as a member of the Nuclear Regulatory
very well, thank you. And she's off doing
rived at a
Commission. Prior to this, he served in the
the good works for literacy in New York
burned ba
U.S. Navy as Deputy and Chief of Staff to
City, I think it is, this evening. I wish she
my grands
the Commander in Chief, Atlantic Com-
were here. She was with me last time, and
oming's a
mand, and the Commander in Chief of the
she'll never forget your hospitality either.
ter]-is, V
U.S. Atlantic Fleet, retiring as a vice admi-
I want to thank Governor Sullivan, who
gentler. [L
ral in 1985. From 1977 to 1980, he com-
showed us the extraordinary courtesy of
We mee
manded the submarine force of the Atlantic
coming over across the line into Montana to
tal success
Fleet and served as Vice Director of Strate-
greet us yesterday and-[laughter]-was
began whe
with us here and then had his beautiful
semite Va
gic Target Planning at Offutt Air Force
Base, NE. In 1972 he was assigned as chief
daughter come out, and we could see a
preserve,
little more of that wonderful Sullivan
Roosevelt
of staff to the commander of the submarine
force of the Atlantic Fleet, and in 1973,
family. I'm glad that Senator Malcolm
in these m
Wallop, a friend of longstanding, is with us.
ating natio
assumed duties of military assistant to the
Our new Congressman who's going to do a
an idea im
Deputy Secretary of Defense. Commission-
great job for this State, Craig Thomas, is
it was one
er Carr enlisted in the Navy in 1943.
here. And then I had to put up with [Sena-
erations of
Commissioner Carr graduated from the
tor] Al Simpson. [Laughter] You see, every
Yellowston
U.S. Naval Academy in 1949. He has re-
January or so, he and I go fishing, but not in
intact natu
ceived the Distinguished Service Medal, the
Wyoming. And we have to listen for two
of the Eat
Legion of Merit, Presidential Unit Com-
straight nights to him lying about Wyoming
toured the
mendation, and Defense Distinguished
fishing to those of us fishing in Florida.
Yellowston
Service and Meritorious Service Medals. He
[Laughter] But nevertheless, I'm glad he's
at nature's
was born March 17, 1925, in Mayfield, KY.
here. And I also want to just single out
But whe
He is married to Molly Pace of Burkesville,
another friend, a friend of my dad's, a
that flows
KY.
friend of mine, who I'm told is here. And I
And yester
890
(Lange/Dooley)
September 16, 1989
2:50 p.m.
[SPOKE.DOC]
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS:
CENTENNIAL OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1989
10:00 a.m.
Thank you, Speaker Foley for that kind introduction.
Washington state is very lucky to have a friend like Tom
Foley in the Nation's capital. He is a man of integrity -- of
decency and fair play -- and a man I'm proud and honored to work
with.
Mrs. Foley, and Lt. Governor Pritchard, thank you for your
warm welcome. Congratulations to Co-Chairmen Ralph Monroe and
Jane Gardner, Washington's first lady, on a great Centennial.
And Mayor pro-tem Higgins: you've got a beautiful city here to
be proud of.
[[ You know, back in 1889, when President Harrison sent a
telegram to the first governor of Washington -- to tell him that
Washington had become the 42nd state -- he sent the telegram
collect. [PAUSE] Well, that's one way to balance the budget.
It's a pleasure to be here, at the dawn of a second century
of statehood, here in the Evergreen state. I'm not going to give
you the usual "stump" speech. And I may be going out on a limb,
here -- but I think most of America thinks of you as the real
Washington. [PAUSE] 1]
Yours is a land of rich resources -- and resourceful people.
Salmon, gold, and timber in abundance brought us here, as the
promise of the Pacific brought the railroads west.
There has always been -- and will always be -- a sense that
the future is being decided here in this gateway to the Pacific.
Here in Washington you're doing well. Living in a state
with exports that went up nearly 40 percent last year. Leading
the nation in exports per capita. And cutting unemployment from
10 percent to 6 percent over the last five years -- during a time
of rapid population growth.
Last month you held a Pacific Summit that reminded America
how crucial the interrelations between nations are for our
future.
Even now, Governor Gardner is in Japan. Last Thursday he
attended groundbreaking ceremonies for Washington Village, a
2
housing development in Kobe [KOH-bay], Japan using Washington
finished forest products and U.S. construction methods. That
means $10 million for the state of Washington -- and a great
American export to Japan.
Washington has had a wonderful 100 years -- and you deserve
a great Centennial celebration. But it's the future I'm here to
talk to you about today.
I took this trip out West because I'm concerned -- as I
think we all are about the future of the planet we share.
It won't be enough to restore our balance of trade, if we throw
off the balance of nature.
In South Dakota, I talked about the need to restore the
balance of nature here at home -- and how each of us can begin by
planting a single tree.
In Montana, I talked about interdependence -- how the
actions we take and the pollutants we create have consequences
that are being felt the world over.
Today, I'm asking all Americans to join in a renewed spirit
of conservation -- a new commitment, to a more careful
stewardship of the natural world.
I think many of us are beginning to understand something
that Native Americans understood long before we got here: when
it comes to the preservation of our precious environment, there's
a connection between the smallest individual action, and
widespread, global consequences.
No words convey that better than a legendary speech given in
the 1800s, by an Indian Chief named Seattle:
"The earth does not belong to man, he said, "Man belongs to
the earth. Whatever happens to the earth, happens to the sons of
the earth. The sky, the lands which appear changeless and
eternal, may change.
"Continue to foul the earth and you will achieve an end to
living -- and the mere beginning of survival. You must teach
your children that the earth is rich. Teach your children that
to harm the earth, is to heap contempt upon its creator."
Chief Seattle understood what it has taken us a century to
learn. Our material prosperity and economic growth have served
us well. But now, together, we must find new ways to apply the
creativity of the marketplace, in the service of the environment.
Sound ecology and a strong economy can coexist.
3
We have an opportunity to renew the environmental ethic in
America -- and to reassert U.S. leadership on environmental
challenges, around the world. That's an opportunity we can't
afford to miss.
In the eight months since I was sworn in as President, we've
moved fast and hard to make the environment a priority. We're
seeking a worldwide ban, by the year 2000, on the CFCs which
destroy the ozone layer. We've prohibited imports of ivory, and
prices have dropped by 50 percent -- making elephant poaching
less profitable. And we're working for a policy that would ban
the export of hazardous wastes unless we're sure they'll be
disposed of safely.
We've proposed tougher laws to eliminate medical waste on
beaches. We want to expand dozens of forests, parks, and refuges
across America. We've announced a national goal of no net loss
of wetlands.
And we've laid out detailed proposals to stem acid rain, cut
urban smog, clean up air toxics, and encourage the use of
alternative fuels -- with a Clean Air Bill that achieves 95
percent of the smog-causing VOC reductions sought by competing
legislation - at a cost of 6.5 billion dollars less.
That's just in eight months -- and I plan stay involved,
helping to protect our precious environment, as long as I am
President.
When it comes to clean air, we need action on the
legislation we've proposed -- now. Every day that passes is
another day we're postponing progress on clean air. We've
brought people together, and put a sound proposal on the table.
Now it is up to the Congress, to pass this clean air legislation,
this year.
But if we really hope to recover, restore, and preserve our
natural heritage, that "other Washington" can't do it alone. And
the answer can't simply be limited to new laws.
It must be more fundamental. It lies in a shared sense of
personal responsibility -- a new environmental awareness -- on
the part of all Americans.
Through millions of individual decisions -- simple,
everyday, personal choices -- we're determining the fate of the
earth. So the conclusion is also simple: We're all responsible.
And it's surprisingly easy to move from being part of the
problem, to being part of the solution.
4
So many of the big problems -- coastal water pollution,
pesticides in groundwater, urban smog, and municipal garbage --
aren't simply caused by large powerplants and refineries -- and
many can't be solved by national legislation alone.
Millions of small, diversè sources contribute to these
problems -- including the everyday behavior of people at work and
at home. And such overwhelming environmental challenges can be
solved -- by individual determination that we can do better.
Local communities, businesses large and small, individual
families -- all can learn to generate less waste, and recycle
more of the waste that is generated.
In fact, those that do, have discovered that there are sound
economic side-effects. Environmental protection makes economic
sense.
The people of Washington state, in fact, have a history of
showing the rest of the nation the way. Back in the 1940s, J.P.
Weyerhaeuser [WHERE-howzer], Jr. moved the lumber industry from
simply harvesting forest resources, toward comprehensive
management of tree farms that could endure indefinitely.
And after research into product development, Weyerhaeuser
began introducing marketable, products made from what was once
treated as waste.
The 3M Corporation announced last spring that since starting
their pollution prevention program in 1975, the company has saved
$408 million -- and prevented 111,000 tons of air pollutants,
15,000 tons of water pollutants, and 388,000 tons of solid waste
from being released into the environment And they've done it by
rewarding employees for coming up with the ideas.
In the city of Seattle, fees for waste disposal have been an
incentive for businesses and households to reduce the amount of
waste produced. I understand that over the last several years,
waste has been cut by nearly a fourth.
So the power of the marketplace can encourage conservation
-- with spectacular results. Results that need to be duplicated
everywhere in America.
You know, fifteen years ago, when Spokane invited the world
over for a visit the 1974 Expo became the first World's Fair to
focus on the environment.
It was a good beginning. And we have made progress since
then. Perhaps nothing better symbolizes that, than the surging
river that pulses through Spokane -- a river that first lured men
here as a source of protection, transportation, and sustenance.
5
Such damage was done to this river by the early part of this
century, that for years it served as little more than an open
sewer. In 1938, the Spokane River was called "a serious health
hazard."
Over the past few decades, you have restored and reclaimed
this magnificent river. The damage has been reversed -- nature's
balance has been restored -- and the river has been reborn.
The ethic of Native Americans like Chief Seattle must also
be reborn on this continent. His was a religious understanding,
that the whole earth has a soul that can be destroyed by man. He
saw the world as a spiritual place, of precious but fragile
beauty.
Over a century ago, he said, "Hold in your mind the memory
of the land as it was when you found it. And with all your
strength, with all your mind, with all your heart, preserve it
for your children, and love it as God loves us all."
That is a challenge to us all. The American people -- all
people -- need a fuller relationship with the world they live in.
A better understanding of causes, and effects.
And if the earth is an altar, we must make it an altar not
of sacrifice, but of celebration. A place where our commitment
to restoring its natural beauty is felt in a thousand everyday
decisions.
You've made one of those decisions today -- by deciding to
plant a centennial tree. May it grow, flourish, and symbolize
the hope of a new century: that man will one day be reconciled
to nature once again.
God bless you. God bless the great state of Washington.
And God bless the United States of America.
# # #
7 Borton college ENVIVONS nextal
Low Review 189 (1979)
WHITE HOUSE LAW LIBRARY
EROSION OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT OF 1970: A STUDY
IN THE FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION
AND PLANNING
Richard Walker* & Michael Storper**
I. INTRODUCTION
190
II. THE CLEAN AIR ACT AND AIR QUALITY: GOALS AND FAILURES
192
III. EROSION OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT AS LAW
197
A. Establishing a Foundation For Air Quality Control:
Setting Standards and Preparing State Plans
198
1. EPA Standards
198
a. Criteria Pollutants
198
b. Hazardous Substances
200
2. Balancing-An Erosion of the Act
202
3. State Plans-Failure and Fragmentation
203
B. Controlling Industrial Emissions: Non-Compliance
206
1. The Variance Loophole
206
2. Coal Conversion, Tall Stacks and Electric Utilities-
Special Dispensation
209
3. Steel and Smelters-More Dispensations
211
4. Continued Non-Compliance-Retreating Deadlines
213
C. Controlling Motor Vehicle Emissions
214
1. New Automobile Emissions-Ever-Receding Deadlines
214
2. Fuel Additives
218
D. Transportation and Urban Growth: Early Planning Strategies
219
1. Land Use and Transportation Controls-An Introduction
222
2. Transportation Controls
222
3. Indirect Source Controls
226
E. Accommodating Industrial Growth: Current Approaches
229
1. New Source Performance Standards
229
2. Non-Degradation
234
3. Non-Attainment and Air Trade-Offs
235
F. Summation: Stages of Erosion
239
Richard Walker is an Assistant Professor of Geography at the University of California,
Berkeley. He received his Ph.D. in 1977 from the Department of Geography & Environmental
Engineering at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
" Michael Storper is a Ph.D. candidate in Geography at the University of California,
Berkeley. He is presently serving as a lobbyist for Friends of the Earth, and is participating
in several other environmental activist groups as well.
The authors would like to thank David B. Large of Tenekron, Inc., Berkeley, California
for his comments on a draft of this article.
190
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Vol. 7:189
1978]
CLEAN AIR ACT
191
IV. THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN THE FAILURE OF REGULATION
240
V.
POLITICAL-ECONOMIC BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING
the part of those who designed the program, or a failure of nerve on
THE CLEAN AIR ACT
243
the part of those in government entrusted with carrying out the
A. Industry Resistance
244
B. Threat of Dislocation of Particular Industries
245
"popular will" embodied in the legislation, critics have ignored the
C. Regional Dislocation and Competition for Investment
245
fundamental question surrounding the Act's future: whether gov-
D. Fixed Character of Urban and Regional Patterns
246
ernment regulation and planning can bring about as profound a
E. Threat of Halting New Growth
247
change in the economy and social practice as the rapid improve-
F. The Energy Crisis
249
G. Declining Maintenance of Existing Pollution Sources
249
ment of air quality, or, indeed, whether clean air can be realized at
H. Recession
250
all under American capitalism as it is presently constituted.
I. Unanticipated Circumstances and Technological Change
251
This article presents a negative answer to the preceding question.
VI. CONCLUSION: WHY GOVERNMENT CANNOT REGULATE
AND PLAN FOR CLEAN AIR
252
Such a conclusion is reached by first outlining the essential provi-
POSTSCRIPT
255
sions and goals of the Clean Air Act and showing that, despite the
enactment of the statute in 1970, air quality has not improved sig-
nificantly and is nowhere near the goals established in the Act. The
I. INTRODUCTION
legal erosion of the Act is explained in the following section by
documenting the non-enforcement, concessions and revisions by the
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970' (Clean Air Act), passed
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the President and the
by Congress at the apex of the environmental movement, is un-
state and national legislatures. Next, the article discusses the work-
doubtedly the seminal piece of legislation in air pollution control.
ings of the American government as it presently exists, and adopts
Its success or failure has obvious consequences for the quality of the
the view that the government is not a self-constitutive, neutral body
air we breathe. Moreover, since the 1970 Act is a model of well-
which is independent of the social formation that it is intended to
written environmental legislation, any subsequent failure to achieve
govern. Instead, the government is subject to many of the internal
its explicit goals must necessarily cast doubt on the Nation's whole
contradictions of which society itself is comprised, and which can
strategy of controlling pollution by means of government regula-
be observed through an examination of the structure of government
tion.
and the external pressures applied to government. The next section
The fate of the Clean Air Act is a subject much discussed but
examines some of the societal forces outside the control of any single
little understood. Although it is generally conceded that the Act, to
agent which form political and economic barriers to the implemen-
date, has failed to achieve its goals,' even the most critical treat-
tation of the Act, despite the original intentions of the agencies or
ments of the Act's checkered fate have been inadequate. By simply
legislatures. The article concludes that, although anti-pollution ef-
attributing the Act's lack of success to either a failure of logic on
forts have had some effect, government in its present form lacks the
power necessary to overcome the inherent barriers which are imped-
, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1857-1858a (1970) (present version at 42 U.S.C. 11 7401 et seq.). The Clean
ing the attainment of clean air."
Air Act Amendments of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-95, 91 Stat. 685 (1977) completely revised the
Act. The Act was transferred and reclassified to 42 U.S.C. " 7401 et seq. However, since this
article is primarily concerned with the version of the statute in effect from 1970-77, the
4 E.g., Kramer, Economics, Technology, and the Clean Air Amendments of 1970: The First
citation to the 1970 edition of U.S.C. will be used. The 1977 Amendments will be referred to
Six Years, 6 ECOLOGY L.Q. 161 (1976). Kramer summarizes his own article as follows:
as the "Amendments" to distinguish the present version from the 1970 version.
This Article examines a fundamental defect in the implementation of the Clean Air Act:
: Regulation by independent agency is a long-standing method dealing with social prob-
namely, that it has taken longer to establish the meaning of its programs than the time
lems in America. See generally M. BERNSTEIN, REGULATION OF BUSINESS-BY INDEPENDENT
allotted for their accomplishment.
COMMISSION (1955). This tradition - the wisdom of which is questioned in this article-was
The responsibility for this defect is shared by Congress, EPA, the state and the federal
continued almost blindly during the peak years of the environmental movement. It is embod-
courts.
ied not only in the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. " 1857-1858a (1970), but in other pollution
Id. at 163.
control measures such as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33
8 Since the focus of this article is a case study of the Clean Air Act as legal policy, eather
U.S.C. " 1288 et seq. (1976) and the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, 15 U.S.C. II
than an examination of the technical questions surrounding air quality and its health effects
2601 et seq. (1976), as well.
or the general question of state planning, most attention centers on the analysis of the legal
a See, e.g., text at notes 44-46, infra.
erosion of the Act. Other issues are dealt with less extensively since, in each such instance,
192
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
[Vol. 7:189
1978]
CLEAN AIR ACT
193
II. THE CLEAN AIR ACT AND AIR QUALITY: GOALS AND FAILURES
lished for certain designated "criteria pollutants. These pollu-
Federal air pollution control legislation in the United States is
tants were viewed as the basic measure of air quality, providing both
relatively new. In 1955, Congress enacted the first Air Pollution
targets for improvements and indices of the success of pollution
Control Act which focused entirely on providing research and tech-
control efforts. Primary standards for the criteria pollutants were to
nical assistance for air pollution control.⁷ Subsequent legislation
be set at levels which would protect public health, while more
included the 1963 Clean Air Act,8 a weak initial effort to regulate
stringent secondary standards served the more ambitious goal of
air pollution, the 1965 Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act' and
promoting public welfare.' Ambient air quality was expected to
the Air Quality Act of 1967. However, popular sentiment against
meet primary standards by May 31, 1975" (with allowance for possi-
ble delay to 1977), while secondary standards were to be met
air pollution and frustration with the near complete futility of these
within a reasonable time thereafter."
regulatory efforts" culminated in a demand for the total revision of
The Act created a cooperative state-federal framework as the
prior legislation. As a result, the 1970 Act, passed as amendments
to the 1963 Clean Air Act, was so far-reaching that it effectively
means for implementation." EPA was given direct authority to es-
established a new beginning in air pollution control.
tablish national ambient air quality standards,* limits on a special
category of "hazardous air pollutants," standards for emissions
The purpose of the 1970 Act is "to protect and enhance the quality
from new stationary sources" and standards for new motor vehicles
of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and
welfare and the productive capacity of its population
"12 The
which would achieve a ninety percent reduction in carbon monoxide
Act has two major goals: the protection of public health and the
and hydrocarbons by 1975 and a ninety percent reduction in nitro-
broader goal of enhancement of public welfare. To these ends, Con-
gen oxides emissions by 1976." States were given primary responsi-
gress directed that national ambient air quality standards be estab-
bility for achieving and maintaining ambient air quality stan-
dards. They were to adopt their own strategies to meet this respon-
sibility and to submit an implementation plan (State Plan)* to be
the full scope of theory and presentation of all the evidence needed to defend the article's
reviewed by EPA." However, if EPA determined that a State Plan
position lie outside the feasible range of a single paper.
A reason for the detailed treatment of the legal erosion of the Act is that no one has provided
were inadequate, it could promulgate regulations setting forth all,
an up-to-date and comprehensive review of such erosion, although the evidence is easily
or part, of an implementation plan for that state."
available. Furthermore, issues of growth control and planning, which are currently in the
Finally, to complete the statutory framework the Act expressly
forefront of clean air controversy and which reveal most clearly the limits of single-purpose
regulation, are highlighted in the discussion of the legal erosion of the Act.
allowed judicial review of EPA action with respect to the promulga-
.
For a historical review, see J.C. DAVIES & B. DAVIES, THE POLITICS OF POLLUTION (1975);
J. Esposrro, VANISHING AIR (1970); Comment, A History of Federal Air Pollution Control, 30
OHIO S. L.J. 516 (1969).
w 42 U.S.C. § 1857c-3 (1970). There are currently six criteria pollutants: particulates,
sulfur oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and photochemical oxidants
7 The Act of July 14, 1955, Pub. L. No. 84-159, 69 Stat. 322 (1955).
(chiefly ozone). 40 C.F.R. §§ 50.4-50.11 (1977).
8
Pub. L. No. 88-206, 77 Stat. 392 (1963).
00 42 U.S.C. § 1857c-4(b)(1)(1970).
Pub. L. No. 89-272, 79 Stat. 992 (1965).
Id. 4 1857c-4(b)(2).
10 Pub. L. No. 90-148, 81 Stat. 485 (1967). The 1967 Air Quality Act was, in fact, composed
The State Implementation Plans were due on January 31, 1972, four months were al-
of extensive amendments to the 1965 Act.
= See J. Esposiro, supra note 6. The regulatory failure preceding the enactment of the
lowed for EPA review and three years for compliance. See W. RODGERS, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
237 (1977).
1970 Clean Air Act is significant to the analysis of the regulatory failure following the Act.
" See 42 U.S.C. § 1857c-5(e)(1970).
Under a conventional view, good law will produce the desired results. See, e.g., T. Lowi, THE
See id. I 1857c-5(a)(2)(A)(ii).
END OF LIBERALISM (1969). Hence the struggle up to 1970 was to secure a good, strong law,
Id. $ 1857c-5.
which should then succeed. This article, on the other hand, adopts the position that political-
Id. " 1857c-3(a), 1857c-4.
economic structural forces underlie regulatory failure and, therefore, the more legislation
Id. I 1857c-7.
attempts to defy these forces, the more resistance will be encountered. Thus an apparently
Id. I 1857c-6.
strong law will frequently achieve little more than a weak one.
Id. $ 1857f-1(b)(1).
18 42 U.S.C. $ 1857(b)(1)(1970). This language was taken from the Clean Air Act of 1963,
Id. 1 1857c-2(a).
Pub. L. No. 88-206, 77 Stat. 392, 393 (1963) which stated that the purpose of the 1963 Act
Id.; see also id. § 1857c-5(a)(1).
was "to protect the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and
Id. I 1857c-5(a)(2).
the productive capacity of its population.
"
Id. I 1857c-5(c).
194
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
[Vol. 7:189
1978]
CLEAN AIR ACT
195
tion of standards or the approval or promulgation of any implemen-
authorizes the use of broad strategies of regulation and planning to
tation plans,28 and gave private citizens a right of action in federal
attain its goals.41 Furthermore, the statutory mandate is subject to
courts against violators of emission standards or to compel EPA to
little modification by such provisions as those requiring the balanc-
perform its statutory duties."
ing of health benefits against economic costs and technological or
In order to achieve national ambient air quality standards, emis-
political feasibility." The Act is thus a classic piece of single-
sions limitations were to be imposed on two main classes of pollu-
purpose legislation, containing the (probably unanticipated) poten-
ters: stationary sources (chiefly industrial plants)* and mobile
tial to generate far-reaching political and economic changes in
sources (chiefly automobiles). 31 Existing sources were to be brought
American society.
into compliance almost entirely by efforts at the state level. State
Regulation under the Clean Air Act has had a positive effect. Air
Plans were to include "emissions limitations, schedules, and time-
quality indices have shown modest improvement since 1970, and
tables for compliance" for existing stationary sources, as well as
comparative figures indicate a reversal of the previously unchecked
"such other measures as may be necessary to insure attainment and
increase in pollutant levels in all but one category. However, such
maintenance of such primary or secondary standards, including,
progress should not be confused with success in protecting the pub-
but not limited to, land-use and transportation controls."" EPA was
lic health. The air pollution control program has failed in virtually
given a direct hand in controlling new sources of pollution through
every instance to attain its air quality goals. A recent EPA report
its powers over motor vehicle emissions" and new source perform-
states that the majority of Americans still are breathing air that is
ance standards," but the states were also to play an important role."
harmful to their health. As of 1977, only one major metropolitan
The State Plans had to include a procedure for "preconstruction
area, Honolulu, did not violate any of EPA's primary standards for
review" of new sources which might prevent the attainment or
the six "criteria" pollutants,4 while two of the three largest metro-
maintenance of ambient air standards and to which EPA perform-
politan areas, Los Angeles and Chicago, violated all six."
ance standards would apply." Furthermore, actual implementation
Notwithstanding the failure to meet primary standards by 1975,
of performance standards could be (and has been) delegated to the
or even 1977, the Council on Environmental Quality has taken an
states."
optimistic view of what the reduction in pollution levels presages:"
The Clean Air Act is a nearly unequivocal mandate for the attain-
but extrapolation to a pollution-free future is not very meaningful.
ment and maintenance of air quality standards to protect public
The reductions so far attained are the ones most easily achieved.
health and welfare. It is an unusually powerful and uncompromising
The initial installation of pollution control equipment on cars and
piece of legislation because it sets relatively specific goals," estab-
smoke stacks, a changeover to low-sulfur fuels, the regulation of
lishes a definite and short-term timetable for implementation" and
trash-burning and the least drastic industrial process changes have
been used to accomplish the reduction; however, more complex and
20 Id. § 1857h-5.
expensive methods will be necessary in the future. Also,; the re-
20 Id. I 1857h-2.
30 E.g., id. § 1857c-6.
31 Id. 1 1857f-1.
41 Id. 5 1857c-5(a)(2)(B).
# Id. I 1857c-5(a)(2)(B).
42 See Kramer, supra note 4, at 168-70.
33 See id. § 1857c-6.
43 Nationally, between 1970 and 1975, levels of sulfur dioxide dropped 27 percent, carbon
34 Id. 1 1857f-1.
monoxide 20 percent and particulates 12 percent. Nitrogen oxides, however, have been more
38 See Ferguson, Direct Federal Controls: New Source Performance Standards and Hazard.
resistant, actually rising 10 percent since 1970. See San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 24, 1978,
ous Emissions, 4 ECOLOGY L.Q. 645, 648-49 (1975).
at 1, col. 1 (EPA figures); U.S. COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT
26 42 U.S.C. & 1857c-5(a)(4)(1970).
44 (1975); U.S. COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, SEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT 239 (1976).
37 Id. I 1857c-5(a)(2)(D).
However, the trend of improved air quality has been reversing in recent years. See note 50,
as Id. 1 1857-6(c)(1). A state may undertake implementation and enforcement of standards
infra for a more detailed analysis of the trend.
for new stationary sources if it submits a plan to EPA and EPA finds the plan adequate and
" Cited in San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 24, 1978, at 1, col. 1.
46 Id.
delegates its authority to implement and enforce the standards to the state. Id.
"
Id.
20 E.g., id. I 1857f-1(b)(1).
at
40 See, e.g., id. 1 1857c-5(a).
U.S. COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, SEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT 239 (1976).
See, e.g., Mills & Wright, Government Policies Toward Automotive Emissions Control,
196
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
[Vol. 7:189
1978]
CLEAN AIR ACT
197
duced levels manifest themselves at a time of seriously retarded
safety problems seems sadly naive in light of the advances in na-
tional awareness since 1970 of the dangers of toxic substances.
economic growth, when all economic indices, including pollution,
depressed. Moreover, some initial gains may be slipping away:
III. EROSION OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT AS LAW
are sulfur dioxide and particulate pollution have reversed the earlier
trend and increased since 1975, probably because of increased coal-
The goals of the Clean Air Act, along with the legal tools to imple-
ment these goals, have been seriously eroded in form and in fact
burning. Furthermore, undue attention to achieving primary standards for
since the Act's passage in 1970. Due to this erosion of law, air quality
the six designated criteria pollutants has diverted public attention
improvements have not been as dramatic as Congress and public
from other health threats. Various air pollutants besides the criteria
supporters of clean air legislation anticipated in 1970. Prospects for
pollutants are of equal, if not greater, danger to human life. These
further substantial improvement of air quality are even less encour-
include the heavy metals, synthetic organics and other products and
aging than they were nine years ago. This section examines a process
by-products of industrial processes, from asbestos to micro-
of policy adaptation and compromise, reflected in law, which has
particulates." Environmental legislation has only just begun to ac-
been underway virtually from the outset of the regulatory effort.
knowledge and deal with pervasive exposure to toxic and carcino-
Each of the following subsections deals with a major program-
genic substances in the environment. The idea that a mere handful
matic area which has arisen in the process of implementing the
of pollutants could be taken as the crux of the air quality and public
Clean Air Act. Since some of these areas were not anticipated by
Congress and thus were not included as programs in the 1970 Act,
it is not possible to organize a discussion of the Act simply around
APPROACHES TO CONTROLLING AIR POLLUTION 348-421 (A. Friedlander ed. 1978). The be only the
in toward reducing emissions levels that will come easily in the future will plant
the categories established therein. However, all the following areas
progress continuing retirement of pre-catalytic converter automobiles. Industrial and power but disper-
of law have been defined in practice by case law, administrative
dispersal does not may reduce net national pollution. Further progress toward clean air will
contribute to a redistribution of pollution from cities to rural areas, be impeded
policy or subsequent legislation.
Part A discusses the erosion of the basic tools for regulating am-
sal rising costs (since the least costly changes have already been effected), continued growth which
by in industrial output and automobile usage and the impact of a national energy policy
bient air quality: standards and State Plans. Parts B and C deal
with the narrower implementation problems of controlling the two
encourages the use of coal.
The most serious recession since the 1930's struck the United States economy in 1974.
major categories of emissions: stationary sources (industrial) and
This sharp setback was but the nadir of a longer period of economic difficulties beginning economic
75. 1965, worsening after 1970 and still continuing to the present despite some Scientists
mobile sources (automotive). The two parts are not, however,
about in 1976-78. See U.S. CAPITALISM IN CRISIS (Union of Radical Political THE END OF
strictly parallel since Part B deals with bringing existing sources
improvement 1978); E. MANDEL, THE SECOND SLUMP (1978); P. SWEEZY & H. MAGDOFF, Sweezy,
into compliance with standards through state efforts under State
ed. (1977); THE ECONOMIC CRISIS READER (D. Hermelstein ed. 1975). See also the
PROSPERITY The Present Stage of the Global Crisis of Capitalism, 29 MONTHLY REV. 1 (1975) on
Plans, while Part C deals chiefly with EPA-implemented controls
on emissions from new motor vehicles. Parts D and E focus on the
slowness of the recovery.
se A reduced 27 percent from 1970 levels, 1977 figures indicate that SO, levels were in only 1975
comparison of EPA statistics for 1975 and 1977 shows that while SO, levels in 1975 17
problems involved in a broader type of implementation strategy
than emissions controls-strategies which involve planning of one
were lower than the 1970 levels. Particulates registered a 12 percent reduction the
percent but were only 8 percent lower in 1977 than the 1970 levels. Carbon monoxide levels were above
sort or another, for example, in transportation, land use and in-
in 1977 as in 1975 (down 20 percent from 1970). Nitrogen dioxide levels were and
dustrial location. All of the planning strategies involve aspects of
same 1970 levels for both 1975 and 1977. Ozone pollution showed no decrease between 1970
the urbanization process, and all fall under State Plans. Part D
1977, except in California (although 30 percent more cars were on the road). San Francisco
treats the early planning initiatives, which grew mainly out of ef-
Chroncile, Feb. 5, 1979, at 1, col. 5.
81 See generally L. LAVE & E. SESKIN, AIR POLLUTION AND HUMAN HEALTH (1977), see THE also
forts to restrict vehicle use. These efforts have largely been aban-
U.S. COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, EIGHTH ANNUAL REPORT 11 (1977); S. EPSTEIN,
doned, while attention has turned to the problem of accommodating
POLITICS OF CANCER (1978).
53 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901-6987 (1976); Pesti-
industrial growth, the topic discussed in Part E. Part F provides a
Toxic E.g., Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2629 (1976); Federal Environmental sections
brief chronological summary and analysis of events in the recent
cide Control Act of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-516, 86 Stat. 973 (1972) (codified in scattered
history of clean air legislation.
of 15, 21 U.S.C).
(Lange/Cawley)
November 2, 1990
9:15 a.m.
[AIRBILL.DOC]
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS:
CLEAN AIR ENDORSEMENT & TREE PLANTING
CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY
THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1990
10:00 A.M.
Thank you. [[ Governor Deukmejian, Senator Wilson;
Congressmen Gallegly and Lagomarsino Dr. Jerry Martin. It's
a pleasure to see these trees spread beneath a broad and peaceful
sky, like -- yes, a thousand points of shade. And in a few
minutes, it's going to be a thousand and one. III ]]
I'm told the people of Thousand Oaks have invested over a
hundred thousand dollars and countless hours in urban forestry
management -- something every community in America can do.
Trees mean greener cities and neighborhoods. God's greatest
air and noise filters, providers of shade and rest and privacy,
they save on cooling costs, and reduce urban smog. But more than
that, trees create a sense of community in the people who plant
them -- and a sense of continuity between generations.
That's why I'm so pleased this year's budget has funding to
begin our ambitious national tree planting program, "America the
Beautiful" -- along with support for the National Tree Trust.
I made a commitment, as a candidate for President, to
preserve our environment. I promised the American people we
would break the stalemate that has hindered progress for clean
air in this country for thirteen years. III
So a year and a half ago, I gathered together leaders of
2
both parties; environmentalists; and industry leaders -- because
I believed it was time for a new approach.
To make real progress for clean air, the old tradition of
simple regulation would never again be enough. We'd have to take
advantage of the innovation, energy, and ingenuity of every
American -- drawing local communities and the private sector into
the cause. It was time for a new kind of environmentalism --
driven by the knowledge that a sound ecology and a strong economy
can coexist.
So I challenged the Congress to work with me on clean air
legislation of a completely different kind -- and they've been
true to the architecture and spirit of that legislation.
Now, thanks to the support and efforts of leaders like Pete
Wilson, [
], we are on the verge of a major domestic
victory for all Americans. As soon as the Congress gets me a
bill, I will sign landmark legislation for clean air. III
It's efficient, effective legislation that will pull 56
billion pounds of pollution from the air -- 224 pounds for every
man, woman, and child in America, every day -- costing each of
them only 24 cents a day.
This clean air legislation will cut the emissions that cause
acid rain in half -- by ten million tons. It will cut the
emissions that cause smog in our cities -- so that by the end of
this century, over 100 U.S. major cities will have clean, healthy
air. It will cut dangerous air toxic emissions by 90 percent.
And it encourages widespread use of alternative fuels.
3
Not long ago, I told the nation of my commitment as an
environmentalist. Now we can put it in perspective. We're
talking about conservation legislation on a scale none had ever
attempted before. In its size and scope of pollution reduction,
this isn't the most significant environmental accomplishment of
this administration. It's the single most significant
[Pollation reduction reduction]
accomplishment in this nation's history. III
And most important, it will work -- efficiently, at low cost
-- because it's a bold new departure from the old contentious
command and control tradition. It sets tough standards -- but
then applies market-oriented strategies, turning the efforts of
industry to environmental advantage.
It breaks up regional stalemates and conflicts here at home
-- and reaffirms U.S. leadership on environmental challenges
around the world. Experts from Japan and Europe are already
visiting to ask us how we did it. It's sound energy policy,
promoting conservation in electric utilities. And it's an
important step toward energy security -- promoting new diversity
and competition in fuel sources, to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil by over 800 thousand barrels of oil a day. III
But best of all, this legislation taps the remarkable energy
and enthusiasm of local communities and American industry. It
encourages creative programs around the country -- especially
alternative fuel efforts like those of Governor Deukmejian,
Secretary Sharpless, and Chuck Imbrecht here in California.
In the short time since we issued the clean air challenge,
4
we've seen a revolution in thinking about fuels. The time is
right. The people are ready. And industry is responding.
Just two days ago, Amoco opened a station in Washington with
a reformulated gasoline. Arco, Marathon, Exxon and others are
all offering cleaner fuels. We're seeing compressed natural gas
cars from GM, electric vehicles from Ford, and flexible-fueled
vehicles from both. [[ Look, I'm from Texas. I understand the
cultural importance of the barbecue. So let me tell you, I want
to make California safe for outdoor cookery. ]]
B.F.
We're on the verge of a new era for clean air. So to
commemorate a milestone in America's environmental history, today
we'll plant a tree. Some may see it as purely symbolic -- a
gesture. But I think it's something more.
Of all the laws mankind might make, the best are those
appealing to our "better angels." As this law reduces and
reverses damage done by acid rain and ozone, it will help the
trees. In turn, each tree we plant will help reverse the damage
man can do. But what we celebrate this day has roots running
deeper than law. It is potential for new progress, a planting
with no harvest, a promise lasting longer than our lifetimes.
With all we do to clear the air today -- for all now living,
for all our kids, and all those yet to live and love this world
as we have loved it -- we celebrate a chance to reaffirm what God
through nature gives to us -- and to reconfirm the environmental
ethic in America.
[[ And now, let's let this tree start growing
]]
(Lange/Cawley)
November 1, 1990
6:30 p.m.
[AIRBILL.DOC]
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS:
CLEAN AIR ACT ENDORSEMENT, TREE PLANTING
CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY
THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1990
10:00 A.M.
Thank you. Governor Deukmejian, Senator Wilson; Congressmen
Gallegly and Lagomarsino
and Dr. Jerry Martin, President of
this beautiful college.
It's a pleasure to be here -- to see trees spread beneath a
broad and peaceful sky, like -- yes, a thousand points of shade.
And in a few minutes, it's going to be a thousand and one. III
I'm told the people of Thousand Oaks have invested over a
hundred thousand dollars and countless hours in urban forestry
management -- something every community in America can do.
Trees mean greener cities and neighborhoods. They're God's
greatest air and noise filters, providers of shade and rest and
privacy. They save on cooling costs, and reduce urban smog. But
more than that, trees create a sense of community in the people
who plant them -- and a sense of continuity between generations.
That's why I'm so pleased this year's budget has funding to
begin our ambitious national tree planting program, "America the
Beautiful" -- along with support for the National Tree Trust.
I made a commitment, as a candidate for President, to
preserve our environment. I promised the American people we
would break the stalemate that has hindered progress for clean
air in this country for thirteen years. III
2
So a year and a half ago, I gathered together leaders of
both parties; environmentalists; and industry leaders -- because
I believed it was time for a new approach.
To make real progress for clean air, the old tradition of
again
Federal command and control would never be enough. We'd have to
take advantage of the innovation, energy, and ingenuity of every
American -- drawing local communities and the private sector into
the cause.
It was time for a new kind of environmentalism -- driven by
the knowledge that a sound ecology and a strong economy can
coexist. It was time to harness the power of the marketplace in
the service of the environment.
So I challenged the Congress to work with me on clean air
legislation of a completely different kind -- and they've been
true to the architecture and spirit of that legislation.
Now, thanks to the support and efforts of leaders like Pete
Wilson, [
], we are on the verge of a major domestic
victory for all Americans. As soon as the Congress gets me a
bill, I will sign landmark legislation for clean air. \\\
It's efficient, effective legislation that will pull 56
billion pounds of pollution out of the air. That's 224 pounds
for every man, woman, and child in America -- every day --
costing each of them only 24 cents a day.
This clean air legislation will cut the emissions that cause
acid rain in half -- by ten million tons. It will cut the
emissions that cause smog in our cities -- so that by the end of
3
this century, over 100 U.S. major cities will have clean, healthy
air. It will cut dangerous air toxic emissions by 90 percent.
And it encourages widespread use of alternative fuels.
Not long ago, I told the nation of my commitment as an
environmentalist. Now we can put it in perspective. We're
none
talking about conservation legislation on a scale no one had ever
attempted or imagined possible before.
In terms of size and scope of pollution reduction, this
isn't the most significant environmental accomplishment of this
administration. It's the single most significant environmental
accomplishment in this nation's history.
And most important, it will work -- efficiently, at low cost
-- because it's a bold new departure from the old contentious
rudinestary/reductive
tradition of simple regulation. It sets tough standards --- and
but
?
then applies market-oriented strategies, turning the efforts of
industry to environmental advantage.
It breaks up regional stalemates and conflicts here at home
-- and reasserts U.S. leadership on environmental challenges
around the world. Experts from Japan and Europe are already
visiting to ask us how we did it.
It's sound energy policy -- promoting conservation in
electric utilities. And it's an important step toward energy
security -- because it reduces our dependence on foreign oil by
over 800 thousand barrels of oil a day.
promots new competion
& directy in ther
4
But fest of all
And the reason this legislation has happened, the reason it
works, is that it taps the remarkable energy and enthusiasm of
local communities and American industry.
at l encourages innovative programs here in California and around
bealthin fuels efforts
the country - You of Govern Secretary sharpbure and
Chuch denbract here in A.
it calls for new ideas, like alternative fuels.
Since challeng opnel thing benls, (people ruskd). a reval. in way we
approach tabletor
The time is right. The people are ready. It's time to clear the
air.
Transp.
reformulated
Just two days ago, Amoco opened an alternative fuel station back
in Washington -- with a reformulated gasoline that virtually
meets the standards this bill sets for 1995.
Suprher Arco, Marathon, & other are also offering
Chanr CNG(T)
Vexas
Carbegur.
the beginning of a new era of environmental achievement.
a new as of cooper. work, mean soluced costs school Endro were for
So to commemorate a milestone in America's environmental
history, today we engage in the simple act of planting a tree.
Some may see it as purely symbolic -- a gesture -- but I think
it's something more.
5
Of all the laws mankind might make or break, the best --
like law I'll soon sign -- are those we know are right. If we
could make it so, all laws would be appeals to our "better
angels." But what we celebrate today has roots running deeper
than any law. It is a planting with no harvest, a potential for
new progress, a promise lasting longer than our lifetimes.
Among these trees whose architects have been the ages,
we plant another, as a promise.
With all we do to clear the air today -- for all now living,
for all our kids, and all those yet to live and love this world
as we have loved it -- we celebrate a chance to give to nature
some of what, through God, it gives to us.
What we celebrate this day -- reducing and reversing damage done
by acid rain and ozone -- will help the trees. And in turn, each
tree we those trees themselves will help reduce, reverse the
damage man can do.
Today, and every day, through a thousand actions great and small,
turn the cycle of cynism to a greater tide of optimism -- confirm
the powerful cycle of nature -- of renewal and restoration -- and
bring about a rebirth of America's environmental ethic.
A
~~~
THE WHITE house
WASHINGTON
xoo SA &
Clean air
- Lt two event
- adv of will
(916)324-3000 Main #
cat
3298 PR
Chuck Embrick
916- ca Energy Comm
324 3326 Ex of CA's programs-
Dinkis initiatives
cons/mkt/ind based speech
V
get into 6M on when been doing
Ford > vehicles
UPS- converting fret tontegas
vof NB RD pugr on come progrens
This bill : saves 800,000 - IN bavas/day
of imported til
State Air Pollution Control Laws
As recently as 1963, only 14 states had laws providing for air
pollution control on a statewide basis, while two others had limited-
coverage laws.
Under the impetus of federal l'egislation aiding state programs,
46 states now have such laws, although some still have too limited
coverage to meet the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act of
1967.
Most of this state legislation was enacted in 1967. Forty-eight
states had legislative sessions that year and 39 of these considered
air pollution control bills. Twenty legislatures enacted compre-
hensive air pollution control laws, and six others adopted amend-
ments to strengthen existing legislation.
With minor variations, the procedures for developing and pro-
mulgating regulations for air pollution control are similar in most
states. Usually, the control-agency staff drafts the proposed reg-
ulations, with either formal or informal assistance or review by
outside technical experts and affected interests. Then formal hear-
ings are held, followed by official action by a state board or com-
mission.
Federal officials report that some states have not been vigor-
ous in implementing their control authority, however. In his 1968
report on the Clean Air Act. the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare said that "they have failed to adopt emission stand-
ards or ambient air quality standards as part of their regulatory
activities." But he added that there is some recent evidence of im-
provement, especially in the newer state programs.
Twenty states have adopted emission standards, as compared
with 14 a year earlier and seven in 1963. Other states currently
are in the process of formulating standards.
State resources devoted to air pollution control also have in-
creased greatly during the last few years. Before the Clean Air Act,
the total annual allocation for state air pollution control programs
amounted to a little over $3-million. California alone accounted for
more than half the total, with New York and New Jersey having
1
STATE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAWS
SUMMARIES OF STATE LAWS
3
le only other programs with budgets over $100,000. Now, total
anual budgets have more than tripled, and 22 states have pro-
STATE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LEGISLATION-Contd.
rams with spending exceeding $100,000.
Local
Tax
About half the states also have legislation exempting industrial
Control
Option
Incentives Regulations
ollution control facilities from taxes of one sort or another.
Kentucky
X
X
X
This book contains a summary of the status of the law on air
Louisiana
X
X
ollution control in each state, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Maine
ico, and the cities of Chicago, Detroit, New York. Philadelphia,
id Pittsburgh. The states without general air pollution laws are
Maryland
X
X
X
Massachusetts
X
X
labama, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
X
X
Michigan
X
X
X
X
nese states do have laws on the abatement of nuisances which
Minnesota
X
X
X
ay be applied to air pollution.
Mississippi
X
X
The entire text of the California statute is reproduced, by way
Missouri
X
X
X
example, because California has the most advanced program of
Montana
X
X
X
r pollution control of any state. The California law was exten-
Nebraska
X
vely amended in 1968, with the motor vehicle pollution control
Nevada
X
X
ctions completely rewritten. Massachusetts, Vermont and Puerto
New Hampshire
X
X
X
ico adopted new laws in 1968, as did Congress for the District of
New Jersey
X
X
X
X
blumbia.
New Mexico
X
X
The text of suggested state legislation developed by the Coun-
New York
X
X
X
X
I of State Governments also is reproduced. Many of the state stat-
North Carolina
X
X
X
North Dakota
X*
es have been based on this model law.
Ohio
X
X
X
STATE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LEGISLATION
Oklahoma
X
X
Local
Tax
Oregon
X
X
X
X
Control
Option
Incentives
Regulations
Pennsylvania
X
X
X
labama
Rhode Island
X
X
X
laska
X
X
rizona
X
X
South Carolina
X
X
X
X
rkansas
X
X
South Dakota
alifornia
X
X
X
X
Tennessee
X
X
Texas
X
X
X
olorado
X
X
Utah
X
X
onnecticut
X
X
X
X
elaware
X
X
Vermont
X
strict of Columbia
X
Virginia
X
X
X
orida
X
X
X
X
Washington
X
X
X
West Virginia
X
X
X
X
:orgia
X
X
X
X
Wisconsin
X
X
X
waii
X
X
X
aho
X
X
X
Wyoming
X
X
X
inois
X
X
X
X
Puerto Rico
X
diana
X
X
X
Virgin Islands
X
va
X
X
X
* Limited coverage under general health provisions.
nsas
X
X
238
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Vol. 7:189
1978]
CLEAN AIR ACT
239
overcome. Second, Congress is silent with respect to the size of
F. Summation: Stages of Erosion
regions within which trade-offs may be made. It is possible that
sources far apart can substitute for one another, regardless of the
The preceding review of the erosion of the Clean Air Act is famil-
real impact on the population in the area. Under such loose re-
iar to those who have watched the progress of the law over time,
strictions new industries may search out the most readily abated
although some of the matters described are subject to interpretation
sources of pollution, regardless of how they relate to the problem
regarding their impact on the Act's successful implementation and
posed by the new facility, leaving the most difficult and expensive
the realization of clean air in the long run. This article adopts a
pollution problems to be solved under State Plans. EPA is aware
pessimistic view toward the ultimate effectiveness of the Act. Only
of this problem, but has merely asked states to use a "reasonable
time will vindicate or reprove this view. However, the legacy of past
cutoff on the geographic content of the air quality calculations.'
failures, which began before 1970,355 leaves little confidence in the
Third, EPA limited new source review to only those sources emit-
future attainment of the 1970 Act's goals.
ting more than 100 tons of pollutants a year. 352 The limitation
The chronology of the Act's rise and fall divides into stages, sepa-
allows many significant polluters to escape review and is especially
rated by the major legislative interventions of Congress. From 1963
worrisome in the instance of "staged" construction of large facili-
to 1970, timid actions by Congress could not placate the growing
ties such as petrochemical plants, wherein the complete facility
concern over worsening air quality and public exasperation with the
may emit more than 100 tons, but no single individual stage would
futility of weak legislation. The 1970 Clean Air Act resulted.
emit 100 tons; if each "stage" is the relevant unit, the facility
The 1970 Act marked a new stage of development. EPA, environ-
could escape new source review. Fourth, Congress based the
mentalists and industry were all involved in the great experiment.
trade-off potential of existing facilities on their allowable, rather
Although erosion of the Act began immediately, it did not become
than their actual, emissions. 353 Since some facilities are not pollut-
decisive until 1973-74 when major crises struck energy supplies, the
ing up the maximum limits allowed by law, they may either trade-
automobile industry and the economy in general. 358 Congress re-
off "paper pollution" or deliberately increase their emissions in
acted with the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act
order to have more pollution to trade-off in the future. With the
of 1974, which formalized EPA's delaying actions, further delayed
poor record of enforcement of existing State Plans, it is likely that
auto emission deadlines, virtually ended EPA's efforts to institute
there will be an even greater future divergence between Plans and
transportation controls and initiated a coal-based energy policy
reality under this policy. Finally, neither Congress nor EPA de-
which runs directly against the interests of clean air. As the original
manded that the old source be shut down before construction of the
target year of 1975 passed, the Act's goals had been deemed unreal-
new one begins. Thus, once the new facility is in place, industry can
istic and unenforceable, and most of its deadlines were waived.
balk at compliance for years. The dispute between the Bay Area Air
After a brief respite, pressure against the Act began building once
Pollution Control District and Standard Oil of California's Rich-
again. The pressure came from several quarters: the new deadlines
mond refinery may be an omen; Standard Oil reneged on an agree-
were approaching, the continuing recession placed economic bur-
ment to shut down two older units while at the same time it began
dens on major polluting industries such as electric utilities and
operating a new one.³⁵⁴
steel, certain industries sought to locate in new areas such as the
Unless stringent conditions are set for emissions offsets and unless
Colorado Plateau, industry launched a new wave of investment in
such conditions are met in practice, the new air trade-offs policy will
plants in metropolitan areas and corporations, labor and others de-
mean that primary air standards will never be met in the face of
veloped a fear of "no-growth" policies which evolved at a time of
continued urban-industrial growth.
economic stagnation. 357 The predictable result was that in 1976-77,
Congress once again amended the Clean Air Act.
331 41 Fed. Reg. 55,526 (1976).
See J. ESPOSITO, supra note 6.
333 Id. at 55,558.
383 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-95, § 129(b), 91 Stat. 745, 748
See Walker & Large, supra note 227.
387
For a discussion of these forces see text at notes 368-417, infra. See also Walker, Storper
(1977)(to be codified in 42 U.S.C. § 7503(1)(A)).
& Gersh, supra note 343.
384 See San Francisco Examiner, May 15, 1977, at 1; San Francisco Chroncile, July 8,
1978, at 2, col. 1.
[Vol. 7:189
1978]
CLEAN AIR ACT
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
241
240
The new Amendments released the growing political and eco-
decision-makers in the various branches of government. Thus, most
nomic pressure against compliance measures by such means as the
critics of the erosion of the Clean Air Act ascribe the failure of "law"
delay of auto emission deadlines, the policy of allowing significant
to a failure of judicial logic or administrative willpower. 359 However,
deterioration of air quality in certain geographic areas, the use of
this kind of reasoning forcibly extracts individuals, ideas, the legal
emissions offsets which allowed growth in non-attainment areas and
system and government as a whole from their real social context in
the delay of State Plan deadlines which legitimized non-attainment
an unsupportable manner. In order to ferret out the underlying
of standards and non-compliance with the Plans. Senator Edmund
causes of social outcomes, one must address the material forces of
Muskie summarized the erosion of the Clean Air Act by the 1977
political and economic life which impinge upon the formal, legal
decisions of government agents. This is not to say that ideas and
Amendments in these terms:
wills do not enter into the process, but rather that they are ideas
All in all, Mr. President, this bill represents something less than that
and wills of real people, in and out of government, who are grounded
which we set out to do in 1970. Under this legislation, the Administrator
in real class positions, real social roles and a real economic system
of the Environmental Protection Agency will have fewer tools to accom-
with its own distinct requirements for successful reproduction. 361
plish the job of protecting America's health and welfare from the threat
of air pollution
So, Mr. President, we begin again.33
Considerations of self-interest, expertise, personal judgment and
legal consistency all play a part, but always with respect to the
The enactment of the 1977 Amendments commences yet another
restraints inherent in the functioning of the larger social structure.
stage in the evolution of the Clean Air Act. It is likely that pressure
Government is neither independent from society, nor is it a neu-
will again mount for a relaxation of standards and deadlines as the
tral arbiter in social conflict. Its institutions, personnel and policies
general revised target date of 1982 approaches; suits will be filed,
are all arenas of social struggle. Indeed, governments only come into
EPA will take various actions, states will respond and, in all proba-
being through an historical process of political conflict over what
bility, Congress will have to re-enter the arena to clarify de facto
needs doing and how it should be done. Any specific effort to
policies. This is not to say that all the goals and means for attaining such
control social life and the economy which government undertakes,
be it through the regulatory process, the consideration of a bill in
goals in the 1970 Act have been abandoned or that progress in clean-
Congress or the institution of enforcement proceedings against vio-
ing the air may not actually continue to be made. But if past experi-
lators, necessarily contains ongoing conflict over means and ends. 363
ence is any guide, promises of future compliance - of making
The personnel of regulatory agencies act under varying degrees of
"reasonable progress" toward clean air - are not very reassuring.
influence from two general types of political forces: (1) external
In fact, the preceding examination of the Act's history indicates that
pressures exerted on them directly by lobbying, threats and prom-
the pressures to restrict enforcement of the Act are deeply rooted in
ises by the powerful, legal suits, mass political protest, voting and
the basic political and economic relationships of our society. In the
80 forth; and (2) internal forces, generated within each person by
next three sections this article will examine some of these relation-
his/her own judgment regarding the meaning of laws, by his/her own
ships in order to describe the systematic forces arrayed against
beliefs as to what is right and proper or by his/her own understand-
cleaning up the air.
300 See, e.g., Kramer, supra note 4.
-
IV. THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN THE FAILURE OF REGULATION
On the material structural analysis of society, see D. HARVEY, SOCIAL JUSTICE AND THE
Crry (1973).
Although the preceding discussion documents the systematic ero-
201 On the relation of individual ideas and will to society and its roles, see R. WILLIAMS,
sion of the Clean Air Act, it does not explain why that erosion
MARXISM AND LITERATURE (1978); R. BERNSTEIN, THE RESTRUCTURING OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL
occurred. By attending too closely to the "law" as such, one will deal
THEORY (1976); R. PARK, THE IDEA OF SOCIAL STRUCTURE (1974); D. HARVEY, supra note 360.
322 See generally Esping-Anderson, Friedland & Wright, Modes of Class Struggle and the
only with formal results and apparent causes. The form of the law
Capitalist State, KAPITALISTATE 186 (Summer 1976).
directs one's attention to the stated ideas and logical reasoning of
as On the idea of government policy as process see W. DOMHOFF, WHO REALLY GOVERNS
(1976); J.L. DAVIES & B. DAVIES, supra note 6; P. BACHRACH & M. BARATZ, Power AND POVERTY
(1970).
123 CONG. REC. S13,696-97 (daily ed. Aug. 4, (remarks of Sen. Muskie).
242
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
[Vol. 7:189
1978]
CLEAN AIR ACT
243
ing as to what it is possible to do under prevailing social conditions.
long-term stability because it provides a degree of access to power
"Internalized" forces are, of course, not random, but are condi-
by various interests and a way to experiment with social change. 387
tioned by several external social mechanisms: by a pervasive ideol-
Nonetheless, it cannot guarantee that such experiments will suc-
ogy which provides a definite view of how the world works and how
ceed. The Clean Air Act had to be modified because government
it ought to work, by a previously established system of law, by the
could not resolve harmoniously the conflicting demands of clean air
threat of external intervention if the wrong action is taken and by
goals and economic growth, energy independence, suburbanized
an operating economic system which gives clear signals of distress
city structures and other interests. In the course of searching for
when government pushes too hard. The preceding arguments serve
ways to attain statutory air pollution goals, the government moved
to break down the practical distinction between abstract "policy"
from the realm of formal law to substantive economic questions.
and actual "implementation" when agencies must choose how to
What began as a supposedly simple effort to abate air pollution
interpret the broad rules handed down to them, when the courts, the
threatened to draw government into the establishment of substan-
President's office and states react and interact with agency actions
tial controls over such a wide range of economic activity as urbani-
and, finally, when Congress reconsiders its proclamations in light of
zation, industrial investment, energy use and land use. Hence a
actual implementation efforts. Similarly, clean lines between
single-purpose act threatened to become a wide-ranging program of
"government" and "the private sector" do not exist, not only be-
national economic planning, and began to affect a wide range of
cause government personnel-particularly the leadership - move
variables in the private sector. When economic disruption or the
freely back and forth between public and private life, but also be-
prerogatives of the private sector are imminently threatened, how-
cause the general "pressures and limits" of social and economic
ever, an ostensibly open, loosely organized and "pluralistic" govern-
reproduction impinge on government and citizenry alike.
ment can react decisively to limit change, whether by restraints
Moreover, constant reconsideration of regulatory measures is ne-
imposed on one branch of government by another, or by restraints
cessitated not only by changing economic and political circumstan-
imposed by higher levels of bureaucracy on lower levels. If, on the
ces, but also because sectors of society rarely know unambiguously
other hand, government cannot internally set its own limits, power-
what their interests are, or what is possible within the realm of
ful outside forces will act upon the government to restrict change.
political change. Hence, government policies, especially reform ef-
The following section analyzes in greater detail the central
forts such as the Clean Air Act, are very much experiments in lim-
"structural" imperatives of the political economy which forced the
ited change. Such experiments are undertaken in a highly politi-
government to retreat from the regulatory goals it established in the
cized setting where outlines of political power, economic impera-
Clean Air Act of 1970.
tives and ideological motivation are already established. The virtue
V. POLITICAL-ECONOMIC BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING THE CLEAN AIR
of the Clean Air Act as a case study in regulatory experiment and
ACT
failure is that it provides a good step-by-step history of the disman-
tling of initial goals which turned out to be "unrealistic" in terms
The discussion of the legal erosion of the Clean Air Act demon-
of the subsequent impacts they actually had, or threatened to pro-
strates the existence of a group of political-economic barriers to the
duce, on the economy.
government's implementation of the Act as written. These barriers
The relatively loose structure of the representative and federal
make it, in effect, impossible simply to legislate clean air.
forms of government are quite useful for societal adaptability and
207 This openness is strongly favored where the dominant class is relatively competitive and
W. DOMHOFF, THE POWERS THAT Bx (1978); R. MILIBAND, THE STATE IN CAPITALIST SOCIETY
regionally dispersed, and where the economic system is highly dynamic and must continually
innovate to overcome barriers to accumulation, as is the case in American capitalism. A
(1969).
degree of openness can even help to preserve class domination, since some demands from
200
The phrase is from Williams, supra note 36, at 87.
In this case the law has not stood in isolation from reality owing to tacit non-enforcement
below can be met without jeopardizing upper class prerogatives and power. In strictly class
as is often the case. It has, instead, had to be openly modified over time in light of efforts to
terms, however, American government is considerably less open to influence than popular
enforce it. This outcome owes much to the constant prodding of the government by environ-
ideology would have us believe. See note 364, supra.
mentalists armed with the right to sue for non-action - one of the many progressive features
of the Act itself. See text at note 29, supra.
246
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
[Vol. 7:189
1978]
CLEAN AIR ACT
247
concentrated in certain regions, these regions are currently suffering
lution generated, especially by automobiles and other means of
from generally unhealthy economies." A dramatic example is the
transport; existing space-extensive patterns of urbanization are not
so-called "decline of the northeast" (or "snowbelt"), marked by
conducive to clean air and may have to be restructured in the inter-
persistent high unemployment, local government fiscal crises,
ests of public health. 387 However, EPA's rather feeble efforts to effect
urban decay and generally poor economic growth. 380 In such situa-
such changes have met with severe local opposition and were rather
tions the enforcers of the Clean Air Act again face a dilemma not of
quickly abandoned. 388 This failure is not a simple result of the im-
their own making, in which they have the power to tip the scales
mutability of urban spatial patterns, although, because the organi-
against a community or region. Naturally, there is intense local
zational structure of the city is literally frozen into stone and steel
resistance to further dislocation. Recently the Carter Administra-
as factories, highways and cities, 389 change can be very costly and
tion declared a national policy of aid to distressed areas;381 as a
socially disruptive. Rather, certain features of the political economy
result, EPA has relaxed its strict enforcement of clean air standards
of American society systematically militate against such change.
in such problem areas as the old steel-producing region of the north-
First, urban spatial patterns have arisen historically for rather deep-
east³" and has retreated from its transportation planning in such
seated reasons deriving from the nature and evolution of the United
areas as the troubled New York metropolitan region.³⁸³
States. Regardless of the historical reasons for existing patterns,
The government has failed to impose strict enforcement on Los
attempts to alter the present organization of the cities conflict with
Angeles, too, even though it is part of the growing sunbelt region.
deeply ingrained interests and expectations of many elements of
Drastic restrictions, such as EPA's gas rationing scheme, could
society. Second, change is opposed because it threatens profits,
easily tip regional favorability away from Los Angeles. In fact, all
wages and individual income flowing from the existing set of urban
regions compete for capital investment which overzealous pollution
activities; moreover, such costs are not borne evenly or without
control may discourage, so there is a strong incentive among local
economic disruption. Hence, the straightforward-if diffi-
and state governments to lower their environmental standards, not
cult-problem of restructuring the organization of urban space in
to mention taxes and other regulations. This was clearly demon-
the interests of public health is easily perceived as a "trade-off"
strated by recent events in California, where renewed enforcement
between clean air on the one side and jobs, higher prices, dislocation
of air pollution regulations gave the state a sudden reputation for a
and disruption on the other.
"bad-business climate."38
E. Threat of Halting New Growth
D. Fixed Character of Urban and Regional Patterns
Critics of the Clean Air Act have accused its enforcers of stopping
Spatial patterns have considerable impact on the amount of pol-
new growth, whether it be growth around major urban areas which
already have a serious air pollution problem" or growth in pre-
379 On the relationship between obsolescent industrial base and regional economic decline
see Watkins & Perry, Regional Change and the Impact of Uneven Urban Development, in
See, e.g., B. BERRY et al., LAND Use, URBAN FORM AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (1974);
THE RISE OF THE SUNBELT Crries 19 (D. Perry & A. Watkins eds. 1977).
Kurtzweg, Urban Planning and Air Pollution Control, 39 J. AM. INST. OF PLANNERS 82 (1973).
See THE FISCAL CRISIS OF AMERICAN Crriss (R. Alcaly & D. Mermelstein, eds. 1977); G.
See text at notes 228-76, supra.
STERNLIES & J. HUGHES, supra note 303.
Harvey, The Geography of Accumulation, in RADICAL GEOGRAPHY 263 (R. Peet ed. 1977).
Address by President Jimmy Carter, "New Partnership to Conserve America's Com-
See R. Walker, The Suburban Solution (1977), unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Balti-
munities," Statement on National Urban Policy, at the White House (March 21, 1978). See
more, Johns Hopkins University (available from University Microfilm, Ann Arbor, Michigan
also, "Toward Cities and People in Distress," a draft of the National Urban Policy Statement
and Johns Hopkins University library). See also Walker, The Transformation of Urban Strue-
submitted by the President's Urban and Regional Policy Group (Nov. 15, 1977).
ture in Mid-Nineteenth Century American Cities and the Beginnings of Suburbanization, in
See text at notes 154-61, supra.
URBANIZATION AND CONFLICT IN MARKET SOCIETIES (K. Cox ed. 1978); Gordon, Class Struggle
See text at notes 250-55, supra.
and the States of American Urban Development in RISE OF THE SUNBELT CITIES 55 (D. Perry
See text at notes 242-44, supra.
& A. Watkins eds. 1977); Watkins & Perry, Regional Change and the Impact of Uneven Urban
For a good example of what can happen in this regard see Chernow, The Rabbit that
Development, in THE RISE OF THE SUNBELT Crriss 19 (D. Perry & A. Watkins eds. 1977).
Ate Pennsylvania, MOTHER JONES 19 (Jan. 1978). See also Harrison & Kanter, The Political
⑉ Mumy, supra note 373 and Mumy, Economic Systems and Environmental Quality, to
Economy of State "Job-Creation" Business Incentives, in REVITALIZING THE NORTHEAST (G.
be published in 11 ANTIPODE (1979).
Sternlieb & J. Hughes eds. 1978).
-
Id.
See Walker, Storper & Gersh, supra note 343.
See text at notes 334-54, supra.
252
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Vol. 7:189
1978]
CLEAN AIR ACT
253
have themselves proven to be hazardous. 415 Catalytic converters,
Any belief that the original goals of the Clean Air Act would be
which have successfully reduced most automobile emissions, pro-
met on schedule has been destroyed by the passage of time. The
duce increased emissions of sulfuric acid. 416 Powerplants in their
1975 goals may still be reached in the future. Yet, although such
search for coal and their avoidance of air standards have relocated
speculation cannot be proven false before the fact, the relatively
to the Rocky Mountain region where they no longer pollute the
limited progress made toward cleaner air and the erosion of the law
already substandard air of metropolitan areas, but rather degrade
which was designed to achieve that goal strongly indicate that
previously pristine airsheds. 417 Indeed, it appears that the only de-
clean air standards will not be met. Faced with the present reality
velopment which the enforcers of the Clean Air Act can definitely
of unmet goals and eroded law, various agents of government and
anticipate is unanticipated change.
the legal system must shoulder the blame. EPA, in particular, is a
primary target for criticism. However, all agents have weakened at
VI. CONCLUSION: WHY GOVERNMENT CANNOT REGULATE AND PLAN
one time or another, and EPA often took a strong stand on issues
FOR CLEAN AIR
only to be overridden by the President, courts or Congress. Thus,
In the last twenty years, public sentiment against increasing pol-
major change is difficult unless all branches of government move
lution of the environment produced a change in philosophy toward
simultaneously."
pollution problems. Abandoning the former laissez-faire attitude,
"Government" is not the source of the problem, however. Govern-
environmentalists and other clean air advocates have apparently
ment actors are typically moved by external political forces, and
adopted the view that the solution to pollution problems lies in
government policies encounter barriers to their realization in the
government regulation. This article has questioned the ideology of
external economic environment. The economic structure and its
regulation, which is 80 prevalent in American politics.
imperatives are the origin of the once-removed, but politically pow-
The perception of the problem of governing in our society as one
erful, obstacles to successful implementation of the Clean Air Act
of mobilizing popular sentiment, passing a law and creating a gov-
and the source of erosion of the Act. Government cannot overcome
ernment agency to enforce the law is a mystification of political-
these barriers and simply regulate and plan for clean air because it
economic reality. Such a simplistic perception is more prevalent
does not have sufficient power. The regulators do not control the
than might be supposed. 418 Yet, even more sophisticated views still
central variables which determine the amount and kind of pollu-
mystify the actual processes of social control and social change by
tants which are put into the air. They do not control the key deci-
explaining the phenomenon of regulatory failure - and hence the
sions over production, investment, employment and location. They
basic difficulty of controlling conditions of society such as air qual-
can only try to redirect the decisions of those who do have these
ity and energy use - as, inter alia, failures in logic by the architects
basic economic powers. Moreover, government lacks control over
of regulatory programs, failures of will on the part of those who were
the collective result of private economic activities. Congress and
to implement and enforce the programs, failures of judicial logic in
EPA do not have the wherewithal to prevent an industrial crisis in
interpretation of the Act and regulations or "capture" of regulatory
steel or automobile manufacturing nor to countermand the interna-
agencies. This article strives to pierce the layers of illusion to reveal
tional recession and inflation of the 1970's. Their role is limited to
the real nature of the problem of societal self-governance which
a "realistic" reaction to such exigencies. The indirect power of the
underlies the failure of regulation.
economic system disciplines the regulators and their supporters by
means of crisis. It forces them to retreat from strict enforcement of
415 See text at note 203, supra.
pollution laws for fear of creating unemployment, triggering regional
410 See text at note 186, supra.
economic decline or disrupting the economy severely by penalizing
417 See text at note 304, supra.
418 There seems to be an assumption that regulation acts simply and directly, and that
a major industry. Similarly, regulators cannot redirect the path of
the issuance of a rule or an order by an administrative agency results in the achievement
economic development, whether this means reorganizing the spatial
of the mandate and the purpose of that rule or order without any complicating conse-
layout of cities, revising a wasteful pattern of intensive energy use
quences. This assumption is not to be found explicitly in any discussion but seems to be
implied in most of the literature.
D. SAVAGE et al., THE ECONOMICS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS 168 (1974).
619 See P. BACHRACH & M. BARATZ, supra note 363.
1978]
CLEAN AIR ACT
254
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
[Vol. 7:189
255
is also a myth; instead, the government is an arena where contend-
or reorienting the country's transportation system. Such enterprises
ing forces do battle over the conditions of social life, such as the
would require not only that command over economic decisions
quality of air, and society struggles to discover the possibilities for
which government does not have, but also would require time to
improving the way we work, live, govern ourselves-and breathe. If
rebuild the physical environment of human activity and effect com-
clean air is found not to be achievable given presently existing bar-
plex social change, which no single piece of legislation can achieve.
riers in social organization, then, perhaps, it is not new laws that
Clean air regulations are thus limited by the parameters of gov-
are needed but a transformed economic and political system as a
ernment power. They are also limited by the positive exercise of
whole.
power by the class in society which has the most to lose from suc-
cessful societal control over production and investment deci-
POSTSCRIPT
sions-the owners and managers of capital. Such power expresses
itself directly and indirectly. Business can resist regulation and lim-
Between the time this article was completed (mid-1978) and the
its on its freedom to make a profit when and how it chooses through
final preparations for its publication were made (early-1979), a few
the direct use of economic power. This resistance takes such forms
noteworthy events occurred which further corroborate the article's
as lawsuits, noncompliance or relocation to avoid areas with strict
theme of "erosion" of the Clean Air Act.
regulation; it may be transformed into political power such as
*For the first time, a primary ambient air quality standard has
lobbying or support from voters who would be hurt by relocation.
been relaxed. On January 26, 1979, Environmental Protection
The cumulative decisions of private capital are also fundamental in
Agency (EPA) Administrator Douglas Costle lowered the ozone
shaping the patterns of urbanization, transportation and energy-use 420
standard from 0.08 parts per million to 0.12 parts per million, a fifty
that exist today and confront government regulators as givens.
percent increase.¹ Although EPA claimed that its action could be
This shaping power of capital extends into the future as well; as
justified by new health research findings,' this claim was vigorously
capital changes societal patterns, regulators appear only to be chas-
disputed by environmentalists and by the California Air Resources
ing after it-coping with new hazardous products, new locations for
Board. The American Petroleum Institute, on the other hand, said
powerplants and new industrial processes. Finally, however, private
that it would file suit to lower the standard still further.4
is also confined within a certain range prescribed by the
*According to the Clean Air Amendments of 1977, new State
power exigencies of social reproduction as a whole and by the cumulative
Implementation Plans must be forthcoming by January 1, 1979 for
impact of a multitude of individual decisions made by the purveyors
areas still not in compliance with air quality standards. As of the
of capital. U.S. Steel and General Motors, despite their size, are as
January 1, 1979 deadline, however, not one state had submitted its
plan to EPA.'
powerless as EPA to prevent recession or regional change.
The division and inequality of power and the role of economic
*Opponents of the Clean Air Act won an important strategic vic-
imperatives do not reduce the reality of the political economy to
tory in California with respect to the preparation of the revised
either total domination by economic imperatives or economic deter-
minism. Regulation can effect change; it already has produced
I 44 Fed. Reg. 8202 (1979) (amending 40 C.F.R. § 50.9). The revision also changed the
cleaner air. Without the Clean Air Act of 1970, air quality probably
chemical designation of the standards from "photochemical oxidants" to "ozone," the princi-
pal. but far from sole, component of photochemical smog. Id. Only two cities out of 105 being
would not have shown any improvement, and worse conditions
monitored currently meet the standard; EPA estimates that 15-20 smaller cities will meet
might now prevail. The evidence presented in this article chronicles
the new standard. Most large cities are considerably above both standards; Los Angeles is
the erosion of the Act, but it also shows how the political activities
the worst. San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 27, 1979, at 1, col. 2.
I See 44 Fed. Reg. 8203-04, 8207-11 (1979).
of clean air advocates have played an important role in influencing
I
San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 27, 1979, at 1, col. 2.
the actions of regulators and attaining the gains that have so far
Id.
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-95, § 172, 91 Stat. 746 (1977) (to be
been made.
codified in 42 U.S.C. § 7502).
To a large degree, then, the perception of government as regulator
Personal communications with an anonymous EPA official, San Francisco Regional Off-
ice, March 3, 1979.
420 See Walker & Large, supra note 227.
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
[Vol. 7:189
256
1978]
CLEAN AIR ACT
257
State Plan. Owing to its history of leadership in air quality control,
lining government permit procedures for powerplants. The policy
California is widely considered to be a test case for how vigorously
gives final authority to the Energy Commission and allows the Com-
other states will respond to the new deadline. Therefore, any weak-
mission to override local air pollution control districts if necessary."
ening of that state's resolve redounds to the detriment of EPA's
This move was sharply attacked by local district authorities in
willingness to pressure less aggressive states.
Southern California and by environmentalists." A spokesman for
The first step in the California-based opposition effort to under-
Friends of the Earth objected to the policy on the grounds that
mine state planning was to attack local efforts to prepare regional
"[i]t comes down to power plants not having to meet state stan-
air quality plans which would ultimately be incorporated in the
dards when all other industries do.""
State Plan. The San Francisco Bay Area Environmental Manage-
*Finally, a national congress of business and labor groups was
ment Plan, drafted by a task force under the auspices of the Associa-
held in San Francisco in January, 1979, to consider methods for
tion of Bay Area Governments, is the most important of these air
compelling Congress to amend the Clean Air Act and to eliminate
quality plans. The Bay Area Environmental Management Plan was
its most objectionable features. This bold offensive against the Act
stimulated by and funded under Section 208 of the 1972 Federal
was sponsored by such organizations as the American Petroleum
Water Pollution Control Act,' and originally consisted of two units:
Institute, the Bay Area Council, the Commission on Labor and
air and water. Under fire from business-led organizations such as
Business, the Construction Industry Advancement Fund and the
the California Council for Economic and Environmental Balance,
California Council for Economic and Environmental Balance, with
the Committee on Labor and Business and the Bay Area Council,'
the latter serving as host. Clearly, the success of campaigns against
the task force ultimately dropped proposed land use controls
environmental regulations in California directed by well-funded
thereby weakening the air pollution control plan.' This remained an
united-front organizations, like the Council for Economic and Envi-
equivocal victory for the organizations, however, because the State
ronmental Balance, has moved the business-led forces of opposition
Air Resources Board, under Tom Quinn, still had final say over the
to a new level of coordinated activity in place of the more or less
State Plan. However, opponents of the Board went to the California
random acts of legal obstruction and non-compliance characteristic
legislature with a bill which said that the Air Resources Board could
of their past struggle against the Clean Air Act."
not revise the air management plan, but must include it as is in the
final State Plan. Governor Brown signed the bill into law in Sep-
" San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 24, 1979, at 1, col. 1.
tember, 1978, over the objections of his own close advisor, Quinn."
" Id.
*Emboldened by the preceding success, the Clean Air Act opposi-
10 Ron Rudolph, quoted in Not Man Apart, Feb. 1979, at 6, col. 1.
tion introduced bills in both houses of the California legislature
M An idea of the antagonistic tone of the Conference (for which there are no transcripts)
can be had from the excerpts of speeches printed in the BAY AREA COUNCIL BULLETIN 2-4 (No.
which would force the Air Resources Board to submit the final State
17, Feb. 1979).
Implementation Plan to the legislature for approval before it could
17 For more on the crucial anti-regulatory initiatives of business and labor in California
see Walker, Storper & Gersh, The Limits of Environmental Control: The Saga of Dow in
be forwarded to EPA."
*On January 23, 1979, the California Energy Commission and the
the Delta, to be published in 11 ANTIPODE (1979).
State Air Resources Board adopted a joint policy aimed at stream-
? 33 U.S.C. § 1288 (1976).
B See, e.g., [SAN FRANCISCO] BAY AREA COUNCIL, BAY AREA COUNCIL BULLETIN (No. 17, Feb.
1979) for these business-led organizations' attitude toward pollution control.
, Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Environmental Management Plan for the
San Francisco Bay Region, final version approved by ABAG on Jan. 13, 1979.
H SB 2167 (1978).
Personal communications with an anonymous member of the Air Resources Board Staff,
Sacramento, " California, Sept. 21, 1978. See also BAY AREA COUNCIL BULLETIN 6 (No. 17, Feb.
1979).
12 SB 228 and AB 300 (1979).