Editorial: Clear Skies Act gets muddied

Friday, Dec. 9, 2005 | 8:13 a.m.

Nearly four years ago President Bush proposed his Clear Skies Act, a plan for reducing pollution from power plants. It is this pollution that is most responsible for global warming, smog, acid rain and mercury contamination in the food chain. Bush trumpeted the plan as a modernization of the existing Clean Air Act and said it would result in a 70 percent reduction of air pollution within 15 years.

The plan was vehemently criticized by environmental groups, which said it was too friendly toward the power industry. Under Clear Skies, carbon dioxide emissions, the gas blamed for global warming, would be addressed only through a voluntary program. Environmentalists said this was a major flaw that would likely hasten the Earth's warming trend. As for the other pollutants in power-plant emissions, environmentalists said strict enforcement of the Clean Air Act would be much more effective than what Bush was proposing.

Many members of Congress were skeptical of the plan, too. Separate plans calling for more stringent controls on pollution were proposed by Sens. Tom Carper, D-Del., and James Jeffords, I-Vt. Holding up Bush's bill has been a reluctance by the Environmental Protection Agency to compare Bush's plan with those two. In April, however, during the confirmation hearings for EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson (who was sworn in on May 2), Johnson promised that a cost-benefit analysis of the three plans would be done.

That analysis was released Oct. 27. Not surprisingly, the EPA, which has been promoting the Clear Skies plan on its Web site, found that Bush's plan was superior. Last week, however, another report, prepared by the Congressional Research Service (part of the Library of Congress), cast doubt on the EPA's analysis. Authored by specialists in environmental and energy policy, the report says, "EPA's analysis is limited and incomplete, which works to the disadvantage of alternatives to Clear Skies that include more stringent standards."

Obviously a third and totally impartial study is required. Congress should keep Clear Skies on a back burner until one is completed.