I believe that the considerable progress we have made toward achieving cleaner air is owed in large measure to one basic principle embodied in that law. That principle is that when it comes to setting the standards designed to protect the air our children breathe, we should consider only how to best protect public health.
What kind of progress have we made under the law since it was amended in 1990?
Since that time, we have reduced ground-level ozone, particulate matter and carbon monoxide pollution, we have reduced the levels of acid rain producing sulfur emissions, we have reduced the levels of stratospheric ozone depleting chemicals, and we have reduced the amount of toxics in our air.
In California, we have also made great progress on these fronts -- reducing the levels of soot and smog that lead to health problems ranging from asthma to decreased lung function.
Between 1980 and 1997, for example, statewide ozone levels have decreased 49 percent. Statewide levels of particulate matter (PM10) have decreased 31 percent between 1987 and 1997. At the same time, California's population and motor vehicle miles traveled increased 16 and 26 percent, respectively.
It is well worth noting that the advances brought by the Clean Air Act have been achieved at much lower costs than predicted by critics of the law. For example, a study prepared by critics in 1989 predicted that the acid rain program would cost between $4.1 billion an $7.4 billion. Other industry estimates were much higher. The General Accounting Office's most recent cost estimate for this program is approximately $2 billion; independent economists place the cost at only $1 billion.
Another industry study prepared in 1993 predicted that the law's reformulated gasoline program would add 16 cents to the price of each gallon of reformulated gas made. Actual costs of the program, however, are today estimated at between 3 to 5 cents per gallon.
While these and other doomsday cost predictions have not been borne out by experience, we have witnessed the law spur the development of new, innovative technologies.
Since the early 1970 amendments to the law, vehicle emission control technologies have been developed that reduce emissions from cars by 99 percent. Control technologies for stationary sources have also been revolutionized. For example, Selective Catalytic Reduction technology can reduce the emissions of nitrogen oxides from utilities, refineries, and manufacturing by up to 90 percent.
Would we have seen these technological advances without a tough law on the books? I don't think so.
But much more remains to be done.
California still suffers from some of the most serious air quality problems in the nation. Approximately 30 million Californian's live in counties that don't meet the law's health-based air standards.
Although air quality in the Los Angeles area has shown improvement for the first time this year, it still has among the worst air quality in the nation. We know that the smog and soot that plagues the L.A. area may have serious health consequences for the approximately 15 million people that live there.
A recent study, for example, found that air pollution in that region may impair children's long-term breathing capacity, leaving them vulnerable to respiratory disease and underdeveloped lungs. Asthma, which is exacerbated by air pollution, is also on the rise.
In 1997, EPA finalized rules that would have helped us reduce those health risks. Unfortunately, those new rules were thrown into doubt by a May 14, 1999 federal appeals court ruling. In the case, the court resurrected a discredited 1950's legal doctrine to call those rules into question. Even very conservative legal scholars find the court's ruling puzzling.
So, while EPA and the Department of Justice appeal that ruling, the cleaner air that American's deserve is on hold.
The ruling, however, offers this committee guidance in what it did not find.
The court did not find that EPA relied upon bad science in establishing those new clean air rules. The court did not find that EPA acted beyond its authority in excluding a consideration of costs in setting those new standards.
The last thing we need to do in this committee is to buy into the argument that the science used by the EPA in its air program is flawed, or that costs should be considered in setting our air standards.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses here today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.