Clear Skies Act of 2003
The Clear Skies Act of 2003 was a proposed federal law of the United States. The official title as introduced is "a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce air pollution through expansion of cap-and-trade programs, to provide an alternative regulatory classification for units subject to the cap and trade program, and for other purposes." The bill's Senate version () was sponsored by James Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma and George Voinovich (R) of Ohio; the House version () was sponsored by Joe Barton (R) of Texas and Billy Tauzin (R) of Louisiana . Both versions were introduced on February 27, 2003. Upon introduction of the bill, Inhofe said, "Moving beyond the confusing, command-and-control mandates of the past, Clear Skies cap-and-trade system harnesses the power of technology and innovation to bring about significant reductions in harmful pollutants." The Clear Skies Act came about as the result of President Bush's Clear Skies Initiative. In early March 2005, the bill did not move out of committee when members were deadlocked 9-9. Seven Democrats, James Jeffords (I) of Vermont, and Lincoln Chafee (R) of Rhode Island voted against the bill; nine  Republicans supported it. Within days, the Bush Administration moved to implement key measures, such as the NOx, SO and mercury trading provisions of the bill administratively through EPA. It remains to be seen how resistant these changes will be to court challenges. Background: The Clear Skies Initiative. On February 14, 2002 President George W. Bush announced the Clear Skies Initiative. The policy was put together by Jim Connaughton, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, and involved the work of Senators Bob Smith and George Voinovich and Congressmen Billy Tauzin and Joe Barton. The Initiative is based on a central  idea: "that economic growth is key to environmental progress, because it is growth that provides the resources for investment in clean technologies." The resulting proposal was a market-based cap-and-trade approach which intends to legislate power plant emissions caps without specifying the specific methods used to reach those caps. The Initiative would reduce the cost and complexity of compliance and the need for litigation. Current power plant emissions amounted to 67% of all sulfur dioxide (SO) emissions (in the United States), 37% of mercury emissions, and 25% of all nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. Only SO has been administered  under a cap-and-trade program. The goals of the Initiative are threefold: Through the use of a market-based cap-and-trade program, the intent of the Initiative was to reward innovation, reduce costs, and guarantee results. Each power plant facility would be required to have a permit for each ton of pollution emitted. Because the permits are tradeable, companies would have a financial incentive to cut back their emissions using newer technologies. The Initiative was modeled on the successful SO emissions trading program in effect since 1995. According to the President, the program had reduced air pollution more  than all other programs under the Clean Air Act of 1990 combined. Actual reductions were more than the law required and compliance was virtually 100% without the need for litigation. Also, he said that only a "handful" of employees were needed to administer the program. The total cost to achieve the reductions was about 80% less than had originally been expected. Bush mentioned several benefits of the Initiative: Competing proposals. In May 2004, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) released a study comparing the Clear Skies Act with the Clean Air Planning Act of 2003 (S. 843), introduced by Senator Thomas  R. Carper, and the Clean Power Act of 2003 (S. 366), introduced by Senator James Jeffords. The differences between the three bills are summarized as follows: Criticisms in opposition. The law reduces air pollution controls, including those environmental protections of the Clean Air Act, including caps on toxins in the air and budget cuts for enforcement. The Act is opposed by conservationist groups such as the Sierra Club with Henry A. Waxman, a Democratic congressman of California, describing its title as "clear propaganda." Among other things, the Clear Skies Act: By 2018, the Clear Skies Act will supposedly allow 3  million tons more NOx through 2012 and 8 million more by 2020, for SO, 18 million tons more through 2012 and 34 million tons more through 2020. 58 tons more mercury through 2012 and 163 tons more through 2020 would be released into the environment than what would be allowed by enforcement of the Clean Air Act. In August 2001, the EPA proposed a version of the Clear Skies Act that contained short timetables and lower emissions caps . It is unknown why this proposal was withdrawn and replaced with the Bush Administration proposal. It is also unclear whether or not  the original EPA proposal would have made it out of committee. In addition, some opponents consider the term, "Clear Skies Initiative" (similarly to the Healthy Forests Initiative), to be an example of administration Orwellian Doublespeak, using environmentally friendly terminology as "cover" for a give-away to business interests. Arguments in favor. Proponents for the CSA argue that the Clean Air Act sets unachievable goals, especially for ozone and nitrogen oxide pollution. Having a clearly defined cap will benefit both industry and the general population because the goals are visible to everyone and industry benefits from cost-certainty. For example, the  claim that simply enforcing the Clean Air Act will result in less pollution than the Clear Skies Act assumes that strict measures will be taken in heavily polluting areas, such as Los Angeles and other municipalities. Measures such as transportation control were taken in the 1970s but were withdrawn amid widespread public protest. Proponents of reform argue that a more likely result of following the current Clean Air Act is the continued 'muddling along' approach to environmental legislation, with most important decisions made in courts on a case-by-case basis after many years of litigation. Clear Skies Act of