Criticism Portends Clean Air Plan Battles

The Bush Administration, buffeted by attacks on an air pollution plan that has not yet been made public, warned Wednesday that premature criticism could sabotage its widely acclaimed effort to combat toxic air, acid rain and urban smog.

“When both sides come at us with tong and hammer, it’s a bad omen,” a senior Administration official said. “They’re politicking this act to death while it is still getting ready to hatch.”

The charged new atmosphere over the Clean Air Act marks a notable change from the aura of consensus that prevailed when President Bush unveiled its outlines a month ago. It foreshadows a season of contention that Administration officials warned could fragment the coalition supportive of the ambitious effort.

Attempt to Influence

The new round of charges from environmentalists and industry representatives, centered on leaked drafts of the legislation, marks a last-minute attempt to influence the final Administration proposal and a first round of preliminary posturing for the congressional battle soon to begin.

With their charges, the environmentalists hope to pressure the Administration into tightening a still-fluid proposal to control toxic air pollutants and to heighten skepticism among congressional Democrats who have voiced strong support for the Bush plan.

The industry officials hope to ease the controls over toxics and to remind legislators that the President has promised to provide industry with considerable flexibility to meet broad anti-pollution goals.

“This is nothing more than an attempt to seize the political initiative to try and discredit the process,” said William G. Rosenberg, assistant administrator for air at the Environmental Protection Agency.

In recent days, unauthorized drafts of the Administration legislation began to circulate through various government agencies and on Capitol Hill, bringing into sharp focus elements of the Bush proposal that had been glossed over in the initial East Room announcement.

Perhaps most significant from an environmental point of view is a provision freeing auto makers from a requirement that every car they produce meet strict federal limits for tailpipe emissions. In practice, this has meant that the fleet’s average emissions dropped well below that standard.

While the Bush proposal as detailed in a June 30 draft of the legislation would lower the tailpipe limit significantly, it would also permit auto makers to demonstrate only that the average car in their fleet meets the standard. As a result, Richard Ayres of the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmentalists charged, auto makers could design a margin of error so small that the overall effect of the proposal might be an actual increase in tailpipe emissions.

The EPA’s Rosenberg scoffed at that claim, contending that the beefed-up enforcement provisions would ensure that auto makers pass the standard by a wide margin. With the new flexibility, they said, auto makers would be able to meet the standards at low costs.

But other Administration officials confirmed that the flexibility planned for auto makers in the final draft of the legislation is still a matter of dispute between the Office of Management and Budget and the EPA.

Another still-to-be resolved provision would specify the pollution-control technology that industry would be required to install to capture toxic emissions. While President Bush spoke of requiring the “best technology” available, drafts of the legislation indicate that the Administration was prepared to permit less efficient devices to be installed if cost, competition and other factors made more expensive devices unattractive.

That provision also remains hotly disputed, and was the primary focus of a number of recent late-night meetings among senior Administration officials, sources said.