Date: 1990-05-21
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the committee chairman. the gentleman from Michigan. is always generous with his time and I thank him.. but I may run out somewhere around 6 minutes. Mr. Speaker. we are writing history today. In an unprecedented maimer. adversaries have come together. animosities have subsided. differences have been put aside in this year of the environment. "Hallelujah" was the word which rang out when the committee completed its deliberations. and that word is applicable today. Chairman DINGELL. the gentleman from California (Mr. WxcmAN]. the gentleman from New York . the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. MADrGANI. the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Swxir]. the gentleman from Indiana . and others have worked prodigiously. Their efforts have been tremendous. their patience and sacrifices have likewise been great. The bill accomplishes more. at lower cost. than the bill passed by the other body. The bill will not cause the shutdown of the coke ovens for the steel industry. The acid rain provisions recognize the concerns of the highsulfur coal miners. the steelworkers by allowing for more flexible. yet very stringent regulation. The bill does achieve balance. It is a good bill. yet. in some places the bill goes further than some of us thought necessary. The acid rain proposal herein is ambitious. It sets as its goal a 10millionton reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions levels by the year 2.000. and 4 2millionton reduction of nitrogen dioxide emissions by the same year. I do not have a problem with these goals. none of us do. However. I do have several concerns with respect to the accuracy of the 10million ton reduction estimate. how the reduction will be achieved. and the disproportionate burden It places on the Midwest and Southeast. Some people say that acid rain is a Midwest problem. as has been stated already here today. Let me remind you that while all our utilities will bear the enormous compliance costs. the ultimate effect of acid rain control on international competitiveness and energy security impacts everyone. and industrial sources other than utilities are contributing to the problem. but are not paying. In the State of Ohio. compliance costs are estimated to be $1.5 billion to $2 billion a year. These costs will result in electric rate increases of 10 to 40percent and an estimated loss of 15.000 mining and related Jobs. In the Ohio Valley. an aluminum producer faces up to a 40 percent rate increase. This means a loss of more jobs. The National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program. or NAPAP study. has recently stated that the total sulfur dioxide emissions reduction resulting from this bill would be much more than 10 million tons. more like 10.8 to 11.3 million tons. H.R. 3030 is not totally equitable in its emissions reduction requirements. For example. the bill requires Ohio and 8 other Midwestern and Southern States to achieve over 70 percent of the Nations sulfur dioxide reductions. while these States contribute only about 50 percent of the total emissions. Ohio utilities have spent more than any other State on air pollution control. so it is not totally equitable. Further. another aspect of this bill. proposals for the regulation of emissions from consumer and commercial products are part of the bill. The public probably does not realize that clean air covers emissions from products. not just the manufacture. but the use of the products in our households. The original proposal In one of the bills provided for mandatory percentage reductions of 25 percent in 5 years and 50 percent in 10 years. We would have been denied. under that proposal. the use of many seemingly innocuous products. such as perfume. shampoo. deodorants. mouthwash. along with paints. varnishes and stains. without the benefits of the analysis to tell Just how harmful these studies might be. Although the report language suggests that all commercial and consumer products will be regulated. from shampoos to toxic solvents. this was changed in the statutory language. and I congratulate those who were helpful in changing it. which now requires that only the worst actors be regulated. That is where this bill has bounced. The EPA must consider how much a product actually contributes to the formation of ozone before it decides whether or not it makes some sense to regulate it. Hundreds of thousands of household products sold throughout the country and not found to be the cause of the problem will not be subject to unnecessary regulation. On the other hand. the major contributors. as recognized by the OTA and other agencies such as surface coatings. paints. and asphalt. are likely to be regulated. 1AT2550 The compromise exists in this bill. and it is common sense. as much of the bill can be so described. It is progress that the authors of this bill and the crafters of the many compromises and modifications along the way can be proud of.