Attention: This is not a current document. It is an excerpt from the Web page of the former Colorado governor, Roy Romer. It is displayed by the Colorado State Archives for its historical value.

June 2, 1998

The Honorable Colorado
House of Representative
Sixty-first General Assembly
Second Regular Session
Denver, CO 80203

Ladies and Gentleman:

I am returning to the Secretary of State House Bill 98-1003, "Concerning the Removal of Provisions in the Air Quality State Implementation Plan that are More Stringent Than Those Required By Federal Law," which I vetoed today at 9:46 A.M . This letter sets forth my reasoning for vetoing this bill.

H.B. 98-1003 requires the Air Quality Control Division to report whether any element of existing state implementation plans (SIP) are more stringent than federal law when the Air Quality Control Commission considers revisions to SIPs. The bill also requires the Division to identify those provisions in air quality permits that are more stringent than federal law and clearly mark these as "state-only enforceable."

I have vetoed this bill for the following reasons: (1) it is unnecessary as it restates existing law and the state will examine elements in SIPs that are "more stringent" than federal law as the SIPs are revised; (2) it is difficult to definitively determine which provisions in a SIP or permit are "more stringent" than the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act; and (3) pulling out provisions in a SIP or permit could disrupt the state's ability to comply with clean air standards.

The state is required to achieve attainment of air quality standards that are adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for various air pollutants. However, the EPA does not specify in detail how the state is to accomplish this goal. In order to meet this goal, the state develops air quality state implementation plans (SIP) for each criteria pollutant. SIPs identify a menu of strategies, approaches and techniques which are not specifically required by federal law but will help the state reach or maintain compliance. Since SIPs are designed to get us into compliance, it is extremely difficult to single-out any one provision or strategy in a SIP and declare it to be "more stringent" than federal requirements. In fact, all of the strategies in SIPs are designed to get us into compliance. By requiring the state to reevaluate SIP provisions to determine if they are "more stringent" than federal law, the bill would force state regulators to spend time and money on a pointless paperwork exercise that would add no environmental benefit.

In addition, SIP are constantly being revised and updated to meet new realities. They are the result of complex compromises and negotiations that involve numerous stakeholders and interests. Each provision interrelates with other strategies and are designed to complement each other. The result is a comprehensive program that will ensure compliance. Requiring the state to reexamine these SIPs and pull out certain provisions could disrupt the comprehensive program embodied in the SIPs and ultimately put state compliance at risk.

Preserving our air quality requires a wide range of methods and techniques. We all need to work together to keep our air clean and maintain compliance with air quality standards. The state needs to be free to work with all interested stakeholders and the regulated community to ensure that we do all that we can to not only get us into compliance, but also keep improving our air quality. Since it does not help us advance our air quality goals, I have vetoed this bill.

Return to Archives Homepage

[State Home| Department Home| Top]

Comments to archives@state.co.us

Colorado Department of Personnel, General Support Services (GSS)

Colorado State Archives

Attention: This is not a current document. It is an excerpt from the Web page of the former Colorado governor, Roy Romer. It is displayed by the Colorado State Archives for its historical value.

June 2, 1998

The Honorable Colorado
House of Representative
Sixty-first General Assembly
Second Regular Session
Denver, CO 80203

Ladies and Gentleman:

I am returning to the Secretary of State House Bill 98-1003, "Concerning the Removal of Provisions in the Air Quality State Implementation Plan that are More Stringent Than Those Required By Federal Law," which I vetoed today at 9:46 A.M . This letter sets forth my reasoning for vetoing this bill.

H.B. 98-1003 requires the Air Quality Control Division to report whether any element of existing state implementation plans (SIP) are more stringent than federal law when the Air Quality Control Commission considers revisions to SIPs. The bill also requires the Division to identify those provisions in air quality permits that are more stringent than federal law and clearly mark these as "state-only enforceable."

I have vetoed this bill for the following reasons: (1) it is unnecessary as it restates existing law and the state will examine elements in SIPs that are "more stringent" than federal law as the SIPs are revised; (2) it is difficult to definitively determine which provisions in a SIP or permit are "more stringent" than the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act; and (3) pulling out provisions in a SIP or permit could disrupt the state's ability to comply with clean air standards.

The state is required to achieve attainment of air quality standards that are adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for various air pollutants. However, the EPA does not specify in detail how the state is to accomplish this goal. In order to meet this goal, the state develops air quality state implementation plans (SIP) for each criteria pollutant. SIPs identify a menu of strategies, approaches and techniques which are not specifically required by federal law but will help the state reach or maintain compliance. Since SIPs are designed to get us into compliance, it is extremely difficult to single-out any one provision or strategy in a SIP and declare it to be "more stringent" than federal requirements. In fact, all of the strategies in SIPs are designed to get us into compliance. By requiring the state to reevaluate SIP provisions to determine if they are "more stringent" than federal law, the bill would force state regulators to spend time and money on a pointless paperwork exercise that would add no environmental benefit.

In addition, SIP are constantly being revised and updated to meet new realities. They are the result of complex compromises and negotiations that involve numerous stakeholders and interests. Each provision interrelates with other strategies and are designed to complement each other. The result is a comprehensive program that will ensure compliance. Requiring the state to reexamine these SIPs and pull out certain provisions could disrupt the comprehensive program embodied in the SIPs and ultimately put state compliance at risk.

Preserving our air quality requires a wide range of methods and techniques. We all need to work together to keep our air clean and maintain compliance with air quality standards. The state needs to be free to work with all interested stakeholders and the regulated community to ensure that we do all that we can to not only get us into compliance, but also keep improving our air quality. Since it does not help us advance our air quality goals, I have vetoed this bill.

Last modified March 29, 2005