Dec. 3 (Bloomberg) -- A Bush administration analysis of air pollution legislation uses assumptions that boost the benefits of its own proposal while overstating the costs of alternatives, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service.

An Oct. 27 analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency is ``not as useful as one could hope,'' because of assumptions used that favor President George W. Bush's ``Clear Skies'' initiative, the non-partisan research group wrote in a Nov. 23 report. Meanwhile, cost estimates of competing proposals from Senators Thomas Carper, a Delaware Democrat, and James Jeffords, an independent from Vermont, are overstated, the group found.

The Bush legislation, which aims to cut emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide by 70 percent after 2018, stalled in Congress earlier this year. Proposals by Carper and Jeffords would require steeper and faster reductions, and also would call for cuts in carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming.

Baseline assumptions used by the EPA result in ``an analysis that some will argue is no longer sufficiently up-to-date to contribute substantively to congressional debate,'' the report found.

The administration's plan failed to overcome a 9-9 tie on March 9 in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, in part because a comparison of provisions in the competing proposals had not been done, the report said. The EPA agreed to Carper's request for an analysis after the vote.

EPA Response

EPA spokeswoman Eryn Witcher called the congressional research report's conclusions ``unfounded.''

``We've been urging Congress to pass a permanent, nationwide solution and have gone the extra mile to provide the most detailed, thorough, comprehensive legislative analysis of air ever prepared by the agency,'' Witcher said in a telephone interview. ``It does a real disservice to the discussion to have an analysis that makes unfounded and inaccurate conclusions.''

The congressional researchers' report said the EPA supported the administration proposal by overestimating the cost of controlling pollutants and underestimating the economic benefits of reducing premature deaths and illnesses linked to air pollution.

For example, the EPA assumes the availability of boilermaker labor for installing pollution-control equipment will be limited until 2010. Such a labor shortage would affect only the Carper and Jeffords proposals, which seek steeper emissions cuts sooner.

Lacking the ability to install pollution controls, coal- fired generators would be forced to shut down in the EPA analysis of Jeffords's proposal. In addition, natural gas-fired and renewable fuel generators would be required at a high cost, the report found.

Timeframe

Such a labor shortage has been questioned by some, including the Institute of Clean Air Companies, the trade association that represents the air pollution-control industry, the report said.

``The EPA analysis clearly indicates that installing mercury emission control technology was not feasible within the timeframe required in the Carper and Jeffords bill,'' Witcher said in an e- mail. ``The Carper bill would require controls (that are not in commercial application) to be installed on one-third of the entire U.S. coal fleet within 4 years.''

The administration's proposal would cost ``substantially'' less than the other two proposals because of its less stringent requirements and later deadlines, the congressional report said. In 2010, the plan would produce $6 billion in benefits, compared with $51 billion for Carper's legislation and $83 billion for the Jeffords proposal.

Benefits

The benefits represent lower health care costs, primarily from fewer deaths resulting from reduced emissions. Net benefits compared with the cost to power generators of implementing pollution controls are $6 billion for Clear Skies, $47 billion for Carper's bill and $59 billion for the Jeffords proposal.

The Bush legislation would result in 1,000 fewer pollution- related deaths a year in 2010. Carper's proposal would reduce deaths by 10,000 a year while Jeffords's bill would save 16,000 people a year, the EPA analysis found.

The EPA analysis does not estimate the environmental benefits of lower sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions, the health benefits of lower mercury emissions, or possible benefits of controlling carbon dioxide, the report said.

The EPA based its estimates on data from plant workers, power companies and emission-control companies, Witcher said. The congressional report was based on one study ``performed by a group with a direct financial interest in the installation of mercury controls,'' she said in the e-mail, which didn't name the group.

To contact the reporter on this story: Jim Efstathiou Jr. in Washington at jefstathiou@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: December 3, 2005 17:30 EST