Senator Gregg Introduces Clean Air Legislation

The new bill, called the Clean Air Planning Act of 2003, would significantly reduce emissions of four major pollutants from America's power plants over the next ten to thirteen years. Together, these pollutants are believed to contribute to heart disease, asthma, acid rain, smog, and global CLIMATE CHANGE. Senator Gregg says the bill may not satisfy everyone, but then, that's the nature of compromise.

T2 3:02 (16)
There's no question that we're not at either extreme. This isn't an industry bill, and it isn't a radical environmental bill. It's a reasonable attempt to address the question of improving our environment and still producing electricity at a reasonable cost to consumers. And I think it's where we're gonna end up.

Environmentalists are not giving the bill a ringing endorsement. They're firmly behind VERMONT SENATOR JIM JEFFORDS MORE stringent legislation. THEY feel that the emissions cuts in the would-be compromise bill don't go far enough. Still, Daniel Lashof with the National Resources Defense Council supports the basic idea of the Gregg bill.

T1 :24 (25)
This is a bi-partisan bill which clearly demonstrates that the Administration's air pollution plan is not gonna fly in the Senate. The bill includes limits on carbon dioxide emissions, which the Administration plan refuses to consider, and it includes a stronger cap on mercury emissions and a faster schedule for reducing pollution.

The carbon dioxide cap - which the Gregg bill shares with the Jeffords legislation - is the key issue for most players in the clean air debate. CO2 is A GREENHOUSE GAS emitted FROM COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS. BOTH JEFFORDS AND GREGG SAY no clean air legislation is complete without reducing CO2. But for the Bush Administration, many Senate Republicans, and the power industry, that's a non-starter. Dan Riedinger is a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, THE INDUSTRY?S LOBBYING GROUP.

T3 2:35 (26)
right now we've got just over 50% of our electric generation in the US coming from the use of coal to produce electricity. So something that imposes a very near term cap in CO2 really would force us to prematurely retire a lot of our coal-based generation, putting increased pressure on natural gas, which given the gas prices right now is not something we need to be doing. 3:01

Riedinger says a CO2 cap could lead to increased utility prices for consumers. And surprisingly, Senator Gregg doesn't deny that.

6:38 (12)
Getting the amount of pollutants that we need to get out of the air is going to probably mean that elecctric costs are gonna go up. That's a tradeoff we're going to have to make as a society.

But not everyone agrees WITH THE NEW HAMPSHIRE REPUBLICAN. Mike Cantanzaro is a spokesman for the GOP majority on the Senate Envirnoment and Public Works Committee. He says the Gregg bill is not a viable compromise between the President's proposal and the Jeffords bill.

T1 1:38 (14)
We don't feel that's the case. There's certain elemetns to this bill we think are unacceptable, just in terms of the costs. We don't think the costs that they'll impose actually can be balanced with the supposed benefits.

With many Senate Republicans SHARING that view, getting the bill passed will be no easy task. Senator Gregg doesn't deny that the way forward will be difficult - but he says he's committed to a serious attempt.

7:45 (26)
If we don't try it, we'll never know. It is an uphill fight. The sides are dug in. But we think we have a logical approach that will have a significantly positive environmental impact that is still fair in the process of creating energy, and in the process is where we should end up. 8:11

The trick now will be to convince a majority of the Senate, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, that his BILL is the right one.

For NHPR News, this is JS in Washington.