By Amanda Onion

Congress has a dirty question to answer: Who can pollute and how much?

A pile of pollution proposals now sit before the nation's lawmakers and the debate over which solution to adopt promises to be a contentious one. The Bush White House and a key senator, for example, are at odds over what is necessary and possible in limiting fumes and greenhouse gasses that stream from power plant smoke stacks.

The sharpest disagreements center around whether regulations should limit carbon dioxide, a gas thought to contribute to global warming. The debate is so splintered that even members of the energy industry are divided over what regulations make most sense.

"What Congress decides now will have future implications because it affects how power companies refit their plants," said Alden Meyer, director of government relations for Union of Concerned Scientists. "These are millions of dollars worth of investments."

Hands-On vs. Hands-Off
Where Congress is headed will begin to take shape Thursday as the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee begins crafting the bill that likely will make its way to the full Senate. Complicating matters for the White House is the fact the panel is headed by Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who left the Republican party last year and declared his political independence.

Jeffords and his followers support aggressive cuts in emissions, including strict limits on carbon dioxide levels, a gas thought to contribute to Global Warming. President Bush has argued for a more hands-off approach that would set limits on some emissions, but not carbon dioxide.

Whatever solution all sides finally agree upon in coming months is sure to have long-term impacts.

Industry representatives explain the infrastructure of their business is approaching a crossroads. A sizeable chunk of the nation's power-producing plants have aged and executives will soon be making decisions about how to upgrade these plants by installing better pollution filters (control technology) or possibly whether to abandon them. Any new federal emissions regulations will surely influence those decisions.

"Faced with new requirements, we'll either invest in control technology, abandon some plants or possibly buy rights to emit through trading," explains Mark Brownstein, a spokesperson for PSE&G, a major electric provider based in New Jersey. "Whatever decisions we make will be tied to how tight the emissions caps will be."

The Carbon Conflict
One of the main disagreements in clean air reform is over carbon dioxide (CO2), a gas that's nearly impossible to curb at traditional coal-burning plants. Currently about 51 percent of the nation's energy supply comes from coal.

Carbon dioxide emissions are limited under the Kyoto treaty, which 165 nations, not including the United States, signed in November. Jeffords' proposal includes big cuts in carbon dioxide emissions. And PSE&G is part of a coalition of seven electric utilities called the Clean Energy Group that recently submitted a letter to the Bush administration suggesting a new emissions program include regulations for carbon dioxide.

Bush's Clear Skies initiative, which has not yet been drafted into a formal bill, aims to limit only sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxygen compounds and mercury.

Michael Bradley, founder of the Clean Energy Group, explains if companies are upgrading their plants now, they should do so with the future in mind.

Bradley and others anticipate carbon dioxide will eventually be regulated, if not under the Bush administration, then under future presidents. So he argues it makes sense to install technology to reduce carbon dioxide or begin shifting toward less polluting energy sources, such as wind or natural gas.

Also at play is the fact that many power companies in the Northeast already comply with local strict air quality standards, while many coal plants in the South and Midwest do not. The plans being debated in Congress would impose federal standards to apply to all states.

"Right now standards differ because each state has its own air board that dictates the rules," said Shawn Cooper, a spokesperson for PG&E, a corporation with more than 60 generating facilities that's also a member of the Clean Energy Group. "We just need an even playing field."

Defending Coal
But companies that make up the Clean Energy Group include less than 20 percent of the nation's total power providers. Other utilities are less interested in the idea of capping carbon dioxide levels.

Dale Heydlauf, senior vice president of environmental affairs at the largest energy producer in the nation, American Electric Power, argues mandatory caps of carbon dioxide would require large-scale switching from coal to natural gas plants. As he told the Senate environment committee last July, that "would be very expensive and increase electricity prices."

The Bush administration appears eager to respond to such concerns. In November, the Energy department released a report spelling out how the Jeffords' bill's proposed cuts in carbon dioxide and other emissions would raise the cost of electricity an average of $9 billion a year over the next 20 years.

"The bush administration is walking a political tightrope — they don't want to offend moderate swing voters who believe strongly in environmental restrictions, but there are strong forces in their base who strongly oppose regulations that they hope to maintain," said Marshall Wittmann, a political scholar at the conservative Hudson Institute think tank.

The White House energy plan, released last May, supports the use of more coal-burning plants. Coal remains one of the dirtiest sources of energy but the Bush administration says that power companies can find ways of making coal a cleaner fuel, if they are freed up to do so.

Freedom to Improve or to Pollute?
Freeing up power companies from restrictive regulations was part of the reasoning offered for the recent roll backs of a provision within the Clean Air Act. Under the original Clean Air Act, old coal plants had been "grandfathered," or exempt from meeting emissions standards under the Clean Air Act. The 1977 provision required utilities to install modern pollution controls whenever they built new power plants or upgraded existing ones to produce more power.

Christine Whitman, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, argued that by relaxing this provision, power companies will be able to afford to make changes that will ultimately make plants more efficient.

"These reforms are about making the Clean Air Act work effectively," said Whitman.

Environmentalists counter the decision is not about efficiency, but about opening a loophole that will allow aging coal power plants to continue to pollute at will. The Jeffords' proposal includes language to close this loophole by requiring all plants, including old coal plants, meet all emission standards by their 30th birthday.

"Energy efficiency may sound good, but that term obscures the fact that these projects will increase pollution," says said John Walke, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a Washington, D.C.-based environmental advocacy group. "It obscures the fact that the air will get dirtier."

Although senators plan to finalize the Jeffords' bill Thursday in committee, many predict debate surrounding federal emissions standards has only just begun. As Michael Bradley, head of the Clean Air Group says, "This is just the tee-up of a major issue that is bound to be protracted."

Two Plans
Two plans to set federal emissions standards differ on big issues. Below are some key points in the proposal sponsored by Sen. Jim Jeffords and the initiative offered by the White House.

Jeffords' Clean Power Act
Nitrogen oxides: 75 percent reduction by 2008.
Mecury: 90 percent reduction by 2008.
Sulfur-dioxides: 75 percent reduction by 2008.
Carbon dioxide: Stabilize emissions to 1990 levels by 2008.
Grandfathering: All old plants required to comply by emissions standards by their 30th birthday.

White House Clear Skies Initiative
Nitrogen oxides: 67 percent reduction by 2018.
Mercury: 69 percent reduction by 2018.
Sulfur dioxodes: 73 percent reduction by 2018.
Carbon dioxide: No caps on carbon dioxide.
Grandfathering: No proposed requirements for grandfathered plants.

— Sources: Environmental Protection Agency and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.