Gov. Lynch wrote to Sen. James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, and Sen. James Jeffords, the ranking member of the committee.

"I ask your support in opposing any weakening of the provisions of the Clean Air Act that would prevent or slow down efforts to require emission reductions from power plants and other sources of air pollution in states that lie upwind of New Hampshire," Gov. Lynch wrote as the Senate considers multi-pollutant legislation and the President's "Clear Skies" proposal.

"This legislation must meet the needs of all the states, including those states located downwind, by being more aggressive in its stringency and timing for reductions in mercury and smog-producing emissions," Gov. Lynch wrote.

New Hampshire has worked with other states in the region for many years to improve the air quality, to comply with federal laws, and to slow down environmental and health damage attributed to air pollution. But Gov. Lynch pointed out that during the state's worst air-quality days, more than 90 percent of the pollution is coming from upwind states.

"New Hampshire and our neighboring states will continue to take steps to reach our clean air goals, but we cannot succeed on our own. Pollutants coming to us from upwind states preclude us from achieving our targets and place the New England states - and our businesses and industries - at a significant disadvantage," Gov. Lynch wrote. "It is time for the upwind states to take bold action to reduce their air emissions, including multi-pollutant efforts to clean up their old coal-fired power plants. It is not time to favorably consider any bill that would weaken our ability to mandate emission reductions in upwind states.

"Clear Skies" revokes some provisions of the Clean Air Act such as New Source Review, which requires old power plants to improve their pollution control methods when making major upgrades.

"States should not be stripped of their current legal protections and authorities that have worked so well for many years. To remove or restrict this provision could be punitive to downwind states like New Hampshire who are overwhelmed by pollutants released in upwind states," Gov. Lynch wrote.

A copy of the letter below.

###

Hon. James M. Inhofe Hon. James Jeffords
453 Russell Senate Office Building 413 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510

Re: Multi-Pollutant Legislation and the Clear Skies Act

Dear Senators Inhofe and Jeffords:

I want to thank you for your efforts to carefully consider the concerns of New Hampshire and our neighboring states regarding the Clear Skies legislation. I ask your support in opposing any weakening of the provisions of the Clean Air Act that would prevent or slow down efforts to require emission reductions from power plants and other sources of air pollution in states that lie upwind of New Hampshire.

As you know, New Hampshire has worked with other states for many years to improve the air quality in our region, to comply with federal laws, and to slow down the environmental damage and the growing rates of heart disease and respiratory illnesses that are attributable to air pollution. Transported air pollution is a serious problem in New Hampshire with over 90 percent of the pollution coming from upwind states during periods when we have our worst air quality. In fact, if all of the locally produced air pollution emissions were removed from New Hampshire, we would still exceed health-based standards. According to a New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services report, this transported pollution results in direct health related costs of more than $1 billion per year in New Hampshire.

Mercury is another pollutant that causes serious harm to New Hampshire as demonstrated by our statewide fishing advisories. Clear Skies proposes a mercury cap and trade mechanism that provides little protection against adverse local "hot spots" that exist in New Hampshire. This legislation must meet the needs of all the states, including those states located downwind, by being more aggressive in its stringency and timing for reductions in mercury and smog- producing emissions.

Finally, states should not be stripped of their current legal protections and authorities that have worked so well for many years. Successful programs such as Section 126 and the New Source Review provisions of the Clean Air Act will be revoked or severely restricted under Clear Skies. To remove or restrict this provision could be punitive to downwind states like New Hampshire who are overwhelmed by pollutants released in upwind states. Section 126 should be maintained as the insurance policy it was designed to be.

New Hampshire and our neighboring states will continue to take steps to reach our clean air goals, but we cannot succeed on our own. Pollutants coming to us from upwind states preclude us from achieving our targets and place the New England states - and our businesses and industries - at a significant disadvantage. It is time for the upwind states to take bold action to reduce their air emissions, including multi-pollutant efforts to clean up their old coal-fired power plants. It is not time to favorably consider any bill that would weaken our ability to mandate emission reductions in upwind states.

Once again, thank you for your conscientious review of the Clear Skies bill. I have forwarded the report of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services under separate cover and hope you will review their work on the economic and public health impacts to New Hampshire citizens associated with transported air pollution.

Sincerely,

John Lynch
Governor

Attachment: Air Pollution Transport and How It Affects New Hampshire, NHDES, May 2005

Cc: Hon. Judd Gregg
Hon. John Sununu
Hon. Charles Bass
Hon. Jeb Bradley