2011 Issue

29 F EW REmEmbER hoW improbable it was that both the Clean Air Act and EPA were promoted by Richard Nixon. However, both of Nixon’s initiatives received overwhelming popular support and bipartisan congressional approval. This happy public and political consensus began to break down as soon as EPA grappled with the actual business of promulgating air quality regulations, and so it has been to this day. It should be noted that the Clean Air Act has been amendednumerous times since 1970, includingmajor revi- sions in 1977 and 1990. Each of these revisions was surrounded by acrimony, not tomention theenormous struggles that accompanied most of EPA’s regulatory activity under the Clean Air Act. There ismuch to celebrate in the remarkable progress that has been made in cleaningup the air thepast 40 years. According toEPAdata, aggregate emissions of the six regulated pollutants have decreased by 54% since 1980. This has occurred despite the fact that gross domestic product increased by 126%, vehicle miles by 91%, energy consumption by 29% and population by 34%. This success is not often understood by the general public. Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., tells thestoryof howsurprisedattendeesof aprofessional conference recently inEuropewere tohear that air pollution levels are constantly decreasing everywhere in Europe and the United States. I had no idea. It was certainly news to me. Even though I was a professor of environmental healthandhadbeenactively involved inmany aspects of air pollution formany years, that simple fact hadsomehowescaped me, Hayward said. In fact, Hayward notes, since 1970 aggregate air emissions have fallen faster and further than either the crime rate or the percent of the population on welfare. Of course, there are a number of issues to be resolved under the CleanAirAct andmanybattles ahead. The relentless rainof changing regulationsandensuing litigationhas left thebusinessand investment communitiesdesperate for a level andstable regulatoryplaying field. Two issuesof great immediateconcernare theState Implementation Plan (SIP) process and the regulation of greenhouse gases (GHG). Too often, EPA has frustrated the regulatory efforts of the state and local authorities by inordinately delaying review of and ultimately disapproving SIPs for controlling sources in those areas that do not meet national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA should accord the states the full latitude granted them under the CAA to Happy Birthday Clean Air Act and EPA? Joseph A. Cannon, H. Michael Keller and Robert H. Scott develop control measures in their SIPs. EPA’s role in the SIP develop- ment process is and should be limited, and should not be used to strong-armthe states intoaone-size-fits-all approach. As recognized by theUnitedStates SupremeCourt, Section110of theCleanAirAct, 42 U.S.C. § 7410, leaves to the state the power to determine which sources would be burdened by the regulations and to what extent . Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 269 (1976). The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments did not alter the balance of responsibilities In September, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and many other well-wishers celebrated the 40Th Anniversary of the Clean Air Act. Forty years ago on December 2, 1970, the EPA itself came into existence. how interesting to reflect on the remarkable and tumultuous history of efforts to address air pollution over the past four decades.