Air Quality

In the field of air quality, 1972 was primarily a year of tooling up for the new type of program called for by the 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Under the original law the main objective had been to set up regional airsheds in which standards and controls could be established: The present approach emphasizes the setting of national standards for ambient air quality as well as, in a number of instances, for the emission of pollutants. Essential to the whole effort are submission of state plans for achieving standards and review of these plans by the Environmental Protection Agency. This phase of the work was carried far along during the past year.

Well before the year began, EPA had established primary and secondary standards of ambient air quality for six of the most prevalent air pollutants—particulate matter, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, and photochemical oxidants. Primary standards are designed to protect public health; secondary ones (which are more stringent) to safeguard aesthetic values, vegetation, and materials. Each state is required to offer a program by which primary standards can be reached three years after its plan is approved by EPA, and for achieving secondary standards "within a reasonable time period."

By early 1972, all 50 states and the five other jurisdictions that rank just below the national level had submitted plans. On 31 May, EPA approved 14 of these plans and partially approved the others. By the end of the year a total of 24 plans had been completely approved. The reasons for withholding complete approval ranged from EPA questioning of one or two items to absence or near absence of detailed provisions for attaining secondary, or sometimes even primary, standards. Many states apt appear to have given more attention to legal authority to implement plans than to the plans themselves.

State plans and state laws enacted thus far indicate that much reliance will be placed on some form of permit system under which persons wishing to build new plants will submit specifications to an air quality commission, or its equivalent, for a determination of whether the new plant will comply with pollution control standards. It is hard to foretell what other kinds of planning and enforcement problems arise: How much monitoring will be required? What about existing plants? Nor is it yet clear how the permits for emissions from new plants will be linked to ambient standards; if efficiency is a consideration such determinations will be difficult.

The automobile, which in most urban areas is by far the largest source of air pollution, presents control problems different from those of plants at fixed sites. The federal government is responsible for establishing standards for new cars but not for those already use. Some states will have to abate emissions from older cars in order to meet EPA's ambient standards. The plans submitted by a number of states call for strict controls over vehicles, especially in cities. New Jersey, for example, last July made annual testing for emissions a part of its regular safety inspection. Cars that fail the test are not allowed on the road unless the deficiencies have been corrected within a few days.

The 1970 amendments provided that the 1975 federal standards for new cars should set emission limits for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons 90 percent below the 1970 standard. (Because of control measures already taken, the 1975 standards represent a drop of about 97 percent from an uncontrolled situation.) 1976 standards for oxides of nitrogen require a 90 percent decrease from 1970 when controls were in effect.

The law permits one-year extension of the deadlines under carefully defined conditions. Last spring all the major U.S. manufacturers of motor vehicles (except American Motors), together with Volvo, requested EPA to defer the emission standards for a year. In May, after public hearings, Administrator Ruckelshaus denied the request. Conceding that the standards would be hard to meet, he said that the companies had not established, as the law requires, that the necessary technology does not exist. He referred especially to progress in developing catalytic reactors to control emissions. The manufacturers appealed his decision to a federal court.

Some of the technical problems of controlling emissions are formidable, especially in regard to oxides of nitrogen for which the catalytic reactor appears to be the most effective curb in the present type of internal combustion engine. Use of the reactor, together with controls for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons, would materially reduce the advantage of the internal combustion engine over other sources of automotive power. The automobile companies estimate the cut in thermal efficiency at about 30 percent. At present levels of driving this would mean a large increase in gasoline demand, which already accounts for 16 percent of primary energy use in the United States. Although the estimate of efficiency loss has been disputed, everyone agrees it would be substantial. Control devices also would add significantly to the cost of automobiles. By just how much is in dispute, but the range of $245 to $425 estimated by a consultant to EPA (Published in March 1972) is not too far from most of the opinions. The consultant also estimated that from 84 to 98 percent of the cost increases associated with air pollution equipment would be passed on in the form of higher automobile prices. The costs of maintaining the efficiency of the anti-pollution devices also are still subject to debate.

In December EPA issued regulations designed to make one grade of lead-free gasoline generally available by 1 July 1974. Earlier in the year the agency also called for a phased reduction in the lead content of all regular and premium gasoline. Besides generally helping to reduce air pollution, these measures would increase the effectiveness of the catalytic reactors. Lead in gasoline seriously fouls these devices.

There is no doubt that actions taken during the year under current programs will mitigate pollution from motor vehicles. But how much and for how long? Some observers believe that the larger problems, especially that of smog, will not be solved while the internal combustion engine is the dominant power source for motor vehicles. They also question the long-run effectiveness of present sanctions: If the ambient air and emission standards should not be met, is there any real chance that the industry would shut down?

Other doubts concern the more immediate future. Perhaps the most outstanding example is the reliance placed in many state plans upon improved and expanded mass transit. While almost everyone agrees that such a development could go far toward cleaning up the air of cities, the chances of making significant gains in time to meet standards for 1974, or even for a few years thereafter, are open to question.

Under discretionary authority granted by the Clean Air Amendments, EPA in its review of plans gave two-year extensions for meeting primary standards to 18 states that contain urban areas suffering severe pollution from automobiles. Thirteen states were granted an 18-month extension—to 30 July 1973—for submitting plans to implement secondary quality standards for 31 air quality control areas that had been established under the original act. These decisions have been appealed to the courts by both industry and environmental groups.

During the year a federal district court ruled that the EPA Administrator could not approve a state plan that would permit deterioration of air quality in areas where existing quality already was above the standards established for the whole country. EPA appealed the decision, and in November was granted a stay until the full Supreme Court could consider the case next year.
As with water quality and indeed all of the comparatively recent environmental programs, it is too early to tell whether the spate of legal challenges will recede after more precedents have been established and administrative actions adjusted accordingly, or whether they will be an enduring obstacle to efforts based mainly on the police power.

An attempt to provide the clean air program with an additional lever was made last February when the Administration submitted to Congress the draft of a "Pure Air Tax of 1972." Another proposal, introduced by Senator Proxmire, was aimed at the same end but by somewhat different means. Neither bill came even to the hearings stage during the sessions, but the idea they represent is far from dead.

The Administration bill called for a tax on emissions of sulfur to the atmosphere, to begin in the calendar year 1976. The tax would be levied only in regions where EPA's ambient standards had not been met during the preceding year. Rates for 1976 were set at 15 cents per pound of sulfur emitted in areas where primary standards had not been met, and 10 cents a pound where only secondary standards had been violated.

The Proxmire-Aspin proposal (Representative Aspin had introduced a similar bill in 1971) would tax the sulfur content of fuels shipped to electric power plants in all regions. The rate of 5 cents a pound for the first year would be increased annually by 5 cents to a maximum of 20 cents. Firms that trapped part or all of the residual sulfur in their smokestacks would receive corresponding tax rebates.

Sulfur oxides are among the largest sources of air pollution in the United States and are perhaps the most harmful of all in terms of public health. In his 1971 environmental message the President declared that sulfur oxides cost society billions of dollars a year in damage to human health, materials, vegetation, and property. He also said that to levy a charge on sulfur emissions would be a major step in applying the principle that the costs of pollution be included in the price of the product. In its 1972 report, the Council on Environmental Quality pointed out that the Pure Air Tax "should stimulate firms to develop and install control technology and use clean fuels as quickly as possible to minimize their tax liability" and that it would "create a strong financial incentive for companies to meet secondary standards by 1975, or as soon thereafter as possible. . . ."

The tax proposal, both as a specific attack on sulfur pollution and as an approach to other environmental problems, is sure to be revived in the 93rd Congress. Several environmentalist groups (many of which until recently had been cool to the tax idea) are planning to give the issue high priority in 1973. While many disagree with some of the specific provisions of the Administration bill, it is clear that they would much rather see the Administration bill passed than have no legislation at all.

Most economists interested in environmental problems favor the tax approach, believing that it will accomplish more than direct regulation and will cost less. Although regulation will have its uses under many circumstances, the principle behind taxing pollution could be applied toward greater flexibility and efficiency in many environmental programs.

The 1971 environmental message that first mentioned a tax on sulfur emissions also proposed a tax on lead in gasoline that would encourage the production and sale of lead-free fuel. The Administration submitted no bill along those lines during the year, nor was the idea mentioned in the 1972 report of the Council on Environmental Quality.