By Brett Rosenberg
March 15, 2004

Dear Mayor, The U.S. Conference of Mayors and its Clean Air Mayors program is establishing an e-mail based listserv so that Mayors have the opportunity communicate their air quality concerns to each other directly, in a dedicated forum. By sending an e-mail message through the clean air listserv, Mayors can ask questions, provide information and advice about their experiences with clean air programs in their cities, and learn about other Mayors- challenges and successes. The Clean Air Listserv is open only to mayors. If you would like to join, please send your e-mail address to Brett Rosenberg of the US Conference of Mayors staff at brosenberg@usmayors.org.

A busy legislative schedule and election year politics will likely postpone Congressional discussion and debate about reauthorizing the federal Clean Air Act, probably until early 2005, when the 109th Congress begins.

An aid to Senator James Inhofe (OK), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, indicated that delaying the bill is due in part to environmentalists who do not want President Bush credited with passing any sort of pollution reduction legislation. Top Senate and House Democrats have indicated that controversial environmental legislation would make little headway during the presidential election year. Congressman Joe Barton (TX), the new Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said recently that he would try at some point this year to address Clean Air Act reauthorization but had doubts of its odds for success.

The Clean Air Act, last reauthorized in 1990, is the principle means of regulating and protecting the nation's air resources. The 1990 reauthorization included the highly successful sulfur dioxide cap and trade system that drastically reduced the threat of acid rain and other harmful environmental impacts. The Act also contains National Ambient Air Quality Standards, known as NAAQS, that set limits based on protecting human health for several pollutants, including ground level ozone, which is responsible for smog, and particulate matter, or soot, that often greatly reduces visibility.

Among the more contentious aspects of the pending reauthorization include what are known as multi-pollutant bills. President Bush's Clear Skies Initiative, for instance, proposes to simultaneously reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury emissions from power plants through a cap and trade system similar to the earlier acid rain reduction program. Much backlash with regard to trading mercury allowances has arisen due to its particularly toxic properties and tendency to disperse in more localized areas than the other pollutants. The Clear Skies Initiative revisions to New Source Review, the mechanism by which regulators judge whether existing plants require new emissions standards following facility upgrades or maintenance has also caused much controversy.

In a competing multi-pollutant bill introduced by Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member Jim Jeffords (VT), tighter, more immediate caps on sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury would be implemented. Unlike the Clear Skies Initiative, Jeffords- bill does not allow mercury emissions trading but does include caps on carbon dioxide emissions. President Bush initially pledged to regulate carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas implicated in human-induced global climate change, but backed down, citing drastic economic repercussions. Likely Democratic presidential nominee Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts co'sponsored the Jeffords bill and has mentioned that as president, he would continue to support it.

Meanwhile, the US Environmental Protection Agency has proposed regulations to further reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury emissions from power plants. In its Interstate Air Quality Rule and Utility Mercury Reduction proposals, the EPA would set caps and tradable allowances or require specific technology to achieve additional pollution reduction goals. The EPA's actions amount to an administrative means of achieving goals similar to those of the President's Clear Skies Initiative. The outcomes of these proposals will likely depend upon the results of the 2004 elections as well as a host of probable litigation from various interest groups.