The lobbying over the Obama administration’s proposed tightening of the amount of ground-level ozone, or smog, allowed in the air is ramping up this week as hearings begin on Capitol Hill and the comment period for the rule ends.
Industry groups are pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to pull back on the more stringent standard, which calls for reducing concentrations of ozone from the current 75 parts per billion level to between 65 or 70 ppb. The comment period closes Tuesday for the rule, which has been one of the most vigorously lobbied during President Obama’s tenure.
“The truth is this rule could be the costliest regulation ever imposed on the American public,” Howard Feldman, director of scientific and regulatory affairs with the American Petroleum Institute, said in a Monday press call previewing the group’s comments on the proposal.
The EPA is required to consider updates to National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which apply to ozone, every five years. The Obama administration floated its proposal in November under court order, as the White House pulled an earlier draft in 2011 under industry pressure in the run-up to Obama’s re-election bid.
Opponents of the update have cited a National Association of Manufacturers-commissioned study by NERA Economic Consulting that showed the toughest standard — 60 ppb, which the EPA is taking comment on but wasn’t formally included in the proposal — would cost the economy $140 billion annually between 2017 and 2040. The study did not consider potential benefits from reducing ozone, which is linked to heart and respiratory ailments.
Industry groups are concerned that dozens of other counties would join the more than 200 that can’t meet the current standard, putting them into “non-attainment” zones. That would make it harder for companies in those areas to secure permits needed to expand or add new industrial emitters such as factories, refineries and other manufacturing outfits.
“Your agency’s new proposed change to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone jettisons these free-market policies in favor of an onerous, job-crushing standard. As chief protectors of our states’ economies, we oppose this proposed change to the NAAQS for ground-level ozone,” wrote 11 Republican governors, including potential presidential candidates Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Mike Pence of Indiana and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, in a Monday letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.
Some groups have urged legislation to halt the ozone rule, saying the revision moves the goalpost on counties that are spending on investments to try to meet the current rule. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., along with Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., on Tuesday will revive legislation from last session that blocks implementation of a harsher standard until 85 percent of the remaining counties in non-attainment come into compliance with the current 75 ppb mark.
But supporters of a tougher standard note the outside panel of scientists that advises the EPA said a level of 65 to 70 ppb would best protect public health and said 60 ppb would offer the most safety for at-risk constituencies such as children with asthma.
“The law is quite clear that the EPA is obligated by law to set a standard that is requisite to protect public health. No amount of message spinning can take away from that,” Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, told the Washington Examiner.
Medical groups such as the American Lung Association, American Thoracic Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics support the stronger rule. So do environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund and the Sierra Club, the latter of which has 100 volunteers from 16 states on Capitol Hill this week pushing air and water regulations.
“Under the law they just have to review the science, they don’t have to change the number. But it’s very clear that every reputable public health body has made it clear the current standard does not adequately protect our health,” Mary Anne Hitt, director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign, told the Examiner.
Proponents of the 60 ppb level hope the EPA will adopt that standard, but it’s a long shot given industry’s resistance and the fact that it wasn’t included in the formal proposal.
“We’ll find out. They clearly put it up there in part because it was part of the range proposed by EPA science advisers, but at the same time they did not make it part of the official proposal,” O’Donnell said.
The EPA contends a 65 ppb standard would add up to $38 billion of benefits and a 70 ppb level would yield $13 billion of gains in 2025, largely by saving money on health costs. The cost of a 65 parts per billion standard would approach $15 billion in 2025, while 70 parts per billion would amount to a $3.9 billion hit. California is considered separately and would incur a $1.6 billion cost at 65 ppb and $800 million at 70 ppb.
The EPA said its compliance costs for meeting the lower levels have decreased since its 2011 standards because other programs, such as a lower-sulfur gasoline regulation, have chipped away at ozone pollution.
But opponents say the EPA is using questionable math.
“While these numbers are high, there are significant reasons to believe that the draft [regulatory impact analysis] may underestimate the likely true cost to the American public due to a number of questionable assumptions included in the analysis,” Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a March 10 letter to McCarthy.
The House is planning to get involved in the debate as well, as the Science, Space and Technology Committee will hold a hearing Tuesday on the regulation.
But Hitt said counties shifting to meet a stricter standard wasn’t akin to buying outdated technology and that it wouldn’t send compliance plans to the dustbin.
“The difference here is that if you buy an iPhone 5 or an iPhone 6 nobody is going to die,” she said. “The process of complying with these standards is long … I would say if a county is on its way toward meeting the standard in place then they’re on their way to meeting a level of 60.”
Hitt said the standard was ripe for an update, as she noted former President George W. Bush’s administration issued the current level in 2008 despite the independent science panel recommending a tighter limit. She said “all options are on the table,” including legal action, if the EPA leaves the level as is or doesn’t go far enough.
The American Petroleum Institute’s Feldman said it was too early to consider legal action if the final rule goes beyond what his group believes is feasible.
“That’s an interesting question but quite premature right now,” Feldman said.
O’Donnell, for his part, said he doesn’t think the EPA legally could retreat from issuing a tougher standard given the Clean Air Act.
“Seventy [ppb] could very well not even pass a legal test because EPA’s science advisers said it’s too weak for vulnerable groups,” he said.
