THE BUSH PLAN FOR CLEAN AIR : Costly New Pollution Rules to Affect Virtually Everyone

Even with legislative tussles looming, the Bush Administration’s attempt to fulfill the federal government’s 20-year-old promise of clean air appears certain to open a costly new generation of pollution control that will significantly affect the lives of virtually every citizen.

The reason lies in the enormity of the unmet need. Half the nation’s population still breathes unhealthy air. Millions more suffer indirectly from the acid rain caused by coal-burning power plants; thousands suffer diseases caused by toxins that spew from industrial plants. To repair the damage, the White House said Monday, will cost Americans up to $19 billion a year.

“We should be realistic and forthright,” Environmental Protection Agency chief William K. Reilly said. Such formidable costs “translate into obviously significant burdens for people.”

Do-it-yourselfers would find their options narrowed once the government cracks down on fumes from paints. Office workers would face higher dry cleaning bills because of new restrictions on solvents used in the dry cleaning process.

Emissions Limits

Motorists would find new aggravations in the automobile emissions limits. More of them will have to wrestle with the inconvenience of fume control nozzles on gasoline pumps. In the smoggiest of cities where alcohol-fuel cars would be required, new-car buyers may have limited options.

Meanwhile, customers of coal-burning power plants in the East and the Midwest will pay a hefty premium to reduce the poisonous acid rain for which their utilities are responsible. And those who buy products from the petrochemical, paper and other industries will feel the crunch as plants buy new equipment to capture most of the 2.7 billion pounds of toxic pollutants they now spew.

Exactly how far those requirements might reach remains undefined, obscured by still-vague elements of the Bush proposal and made uncertain by the prospect that it will be modified in Congress.

But with the depth of the Administration’s commitment to sweeping clean air legislation now beyond doubt--and with powerful members of Congress equally determined to enact such laws in coming months--the atmosphere surrounding the issue has undergone a dramatic shift.

A stalemate that blocked new clean air legislation for nearly a decade appears to have been broken, said environmental, industry and congressional officials. That has opened the way for a new round of proposals that seek--as the EPA’s Reilly put it Monday--to help “make difficult choices in the way we live.”

The fundamental task of that revitalized effort, Energy Secretary James D. Watkins said, is to “manage the consequences” of America’s use of energy.

‘Rare Opportunity’

“Ours is a rare opportunity to reverse the errors of one generation in the course of the next,” Bush told an East Room audience in unveiling his plan Monday. “We cannot--we must not--fail.”

If the Bush proposal marks the onset of a new generation of pollution control, however, it is one consciously less intrusive than its predecessor.

“It’s society’s job to prescribe the goals and set the standards and say where we’re going,” EPA chief Reilly said. “But it ought to be the job of the plant manager and the utility to figure out how to get us there.”

Under the Bush plan, for example, the electrical utilities who must reduce sulfur dioxide emissions to curtail the problem of acid rain will be permitted to trade “the right to pollute” among themselves. If one power plant is not able to meet the standard, another plant might--for a fee--be willing to make up the difference.

Similarly, heavily polluted cities will be permitted to “opt out” of a requirement calling for widespread use of alternative fuels in cars if they can find alternative ways to meet the pollution reduction goals.

Many environmentalists, drawing different lessons from history, said they were troubled by an approach that offered so much flexibility. They feared that it might allow polluters to ignore the requirements altogether.

“Regulation is much less successful when it gives a general goal and expects that the administrative agencies and the state and local governments will be able to figure out how to get there,” said Richard Ayres, chief of the Clean Air Coalition, an alliance of environmentalists.

In large part because of the Bush plan, officials and lobbyists with expertise in clean air said they found it difficult to predict exactly how an individual in a given city might be affected by the plan.

But even the most enthusiastic advocates of extensive clean air legislation agreed that the necessary clean-up measures would impose considerable costs.

“Many people will be paying more for their cars and for their fuel,” said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles.) “They will be pushed by the local air pollution people to try to use car pools more frequently.”

Overall, Waxman noted, such legislation would mean higher prices at gas stations, paint stores and other frequently patronized establishments. “Clearly, the cost of reducing air pollution on these sources is going to be picked up by the consumer,” Waxman said.

But clean air advocates from across the ideological spectrum insisted that such burdens--however heavy--would readily be shouldered by those who recognized that the alternative was a continuation of the status quo that has left nearly 100 American urban areas choking in summertime smog.

“Those who are concerned about costs are voicing only the immediate, natural human reaction,” said Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.). “And once they think beyond the initial reaction, they’ll see very significant advantages.”

“I think that the benefits that we hope to get will come at a cost that is worth paying,” added the EPA’s Reilly. “And I think that the public will pay willingly, particularly when they see the air in their cities begin to improve.”