After years of delays and intense lobbying, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed tightening the amount of ozone pollution allowed in the air, a move that’s sure to incite political attacks from industry groups and Capitol Hill conservatives.
The EPA proposed ratcheting down the acceptable amount of ozone to between 65 and 70 parts per billion — while taking comment on 60 parts per billion — down from 75. The proposal is sure to be the focus of political and lobbying fights over the next several months. Industry groups have billed it the most expensive regulation ever, saying factories and other facilities across the country will have to pay for upgrades to control pollution. Public health advocates and environmentalists, however, say reducing the smog-forming pollutant will sharply reduce medical costs on respiratory and heart ailments.
The proposal in line with what an outside independent panel of scientists that advises the agency, known as the Scientific Advisory Board, had recommended, though not as strict as the 60 parts per billion environmentalists and public health officials had sought.
“We are concerned that EPA did not include 60 ppb in the range, though it was the clear recommendation of independent scientists as well as health and medical societies, including the American Lung Association,” said ALA CEO Harold Wimmer.
Industry groups have said the update would greatly increase the number of counties that face “nonattainment” — enduring conditions when ozone concentrations are too high — that would trigger formation of plans to reduce ozone pollution. Opponents say that will make it more difficult for factories, power plants, fuel refineries and other big polluters to operate. Similarly, businesses worry the more stringent standard would put a damper on permits needed to expand facilities.
“Manufacturing growth could slow or stop in states that find themselves unable to meet a lower ozone standard,” the American Chemistry Council said in a statement. “Most likely, companies wanting to expand or build a facility will be forced to shut down operations elsewhere or find the significant additional investment required to buy emission offsets.”
The EPA issued the proposal under court order after the agency missed a mandated deadline for reviewing the standard, and the agency must tender a final rule by October 2015.
The rule has a tumultuous history.
President Obama in 2011 pulled a proposal in the same range after frenetic lobbying from industry groups in a move that sought to de-escalate pressure heading into his re-election fight. Industry groups sighed momentary relief. But environmentalists and public health advocates were furious, as they’d been fighting for the change since President George W. Bush went against the advice of an outside panel of scientists that advise the EPA to set the current standard.
Republicans will make taking down the proposal a top priority when they take over Congress in January. Republicans and industry groups have targeted the outside EPA panel, known as the Scientific Advisory Board, that suggested the tighter ozone standards.
“As Senate committees return to regular order in the new Congress, this rule will face rigorous oversight so we can gain a better understanding of the health and economic impacts of the proposed standard, and we will solicit the thoughtful input of state and local leaders across the country,” said Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., the incoming Environment and Public Works Committee chairman.
One industry-backed study put the figure at a gross domestic product loss of $3.4 trillion between 2017 and 2040. Even the EPA in its 2011 proposal said a 65 parts per billion standard could cost up to $44 billion in 2020, while it said at the time that the 60 parts per billion environmentalists are seeking would cost $90 billion.
But proponents say claims that a tighter rule would severely damper economy growth are exaggerated, and that they fail to account for public health benefits from reducing smog.
The EPA said the proposal would generate $3 in benefits for every dollar spent, adding up to $38 billion in 2025. 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, however, is treated apart from the rest, and would incur a $1.6 billion cost for a 65 parts per billion standard, and $800 million for the less stringent 70 parts per billion.
“Special-interest critics will try to convince you that pollution standards chase away local jobs and businesses, but, in fact, healthy communities attract new businesses, new investment, and new jobs,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in an editorial for CNN.
