Originally published in in The San Diego Union-TribuneThe Achilles' heel of clean air protection may turn out to be the growing backlash against the Environmental Protection Agency's arbitrary approach to pollution abatement. At issue are EPA's new and more stringent air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter, two of the most expensive regulations faced by U.S. businesses in a decade.
The new standards, if implemented, will place 20 percent of America's counties - some 637 - into the "non-attainment" category. At least 100 million people live in those areas. Complying with the standards will force the nation to go to expensive extremes in an effort to further control smog and soot. The allowable level for ozone, or smog, would be changed from 0.12 parts per million over a 1-hour period to an 8-hour standard at 0.08 parts per million. The standard would be revised from particles measuring 10-micrometers or less to 2.5-micrometers.
The most responsible economic estimates of the cost of the new standards range from $40 billion to $60 billion per year, all of which must be paid in one way or another by consumers or taxpayers. This is over and above current pollution control costs, which are estimated at more than $200 billion per year.
California is squarely between the crosshairs. In California alone, 39 counties will be classified as non-attainment areas, including the counties of the state's largest metropolitan areas -- Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, Sacramento, Fresno, and San Francisco.
Make no mistake about it, this is not a routine matter for California. In many of these areas, new business development may be disallowed unless emissions are offset by reductions elsewhere.
Small businesses could feel the full weight, as many restaurants, bakeries, dry cleaners and auto body shops are required to cut emissions. The U.S. Small Business Administration concludes that the new standards will constitute the most expensive regulations faced by small business in more than a decade.
Californians will pay more for cars, gasoline, electricity and virtually all goods shipped to market. They will have to pay more to get their cars inspected and repaired. They could be forced to drive less or join carpools - and face limitations on the use of wood stoves, boats, and outdoor power equipment. Californians could also lose jobs as higher control costs force some businesses to close - and as government emission rules keep existing businesses from expanding and new businesses from opening.
The President's Council of Economic Advisors estimates EPA's ozone standard could cost U.S. industry up to $60 billion a year in overhauls to a wide range of equipment and processes and put several hundred thousand people out of work.
What is especially unsettling about EPA's policy is the agency's decision to target electric power plants in many parts of the country, yet its apparent unwillingness to go after automobiles, particularly older vehicles still on the road. Increased inspection and maintenance of motor vehicles could reduce emissions of smog-causing nitrogen oxides significantly, but efforts by a number of states to impose controls have met public opposition.
EPA insists it can avoid the economic harm that would result from the new standards based on a Presidential Directive calling for a regional ozone plan. But that makes no sense, since the agency may not have the legal authority under the Clean Air Act to mandate a particular method of meeting the new standards or to avoid classifying an area as non-attainment. Doubtless the agency will be sued by environmental groups if it tries.
If there were credible evidence that tighter air quality standards are needed and that the EPA's ozone and particle requirements would yield significant health benefits, then these standards might be justified even at a large cost. Most people would not begrudge spending two percent of our gross national product, or even more, on the environment if the money were well spent. There is evidence, however, that much of it will be wasted. Almost in proportion as pollution-control costs have climbed, the potential health benefits from more stringent regulations have declined, as one after another of the major "hazards" of recent years turns out to have been a false alarm or a severe exaggeration.
EPA insists that the new standards will produce major health improvements for millions of Americans, but there are large disparities in the scientific underpinnings for the tighter standards. For example, EPA blames smog levels for asthma problems in children. But the evidence linking outdoor air pollution with the increased incidence and severity of asthma is tenuous at best. Studies by the Centers for Disease Control attribute the worsening asthma problem primarily to indoor air pollution, cigarette smoke, indoor allergens and poor prenatal care.
For that matter, EPA's own science advisors have said there is no "bright line" that says one standard for cleaning up the air is better than any other. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee said that the deadlines for dealing with the particular issue "did not allow time to analyze, integrate, interpret and debate the available data of this very complex issue."
Simply put, many experts disagree with the assumptions EPA has made about more stringent standards and health, and most of them emphasize that any benefits achieved through stricter standards will be minimal at best.
A coalition of more than 100 Republicans and Democrats in Congress is supporting bills in the House and Senate that would impose a limited moratorium on the administrations' new clean-air rules for four years while requiring the EPA to complete a new scientific review of the health effects of ozone and fine particulates.
Neither the House nor Senate bills would halt continuing improvements in air quality. Existing requirements for controlling smog under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments would remain in place.
It's really very simple: By rejecting bad standards that would hobble the economy, Congress may gain valuable support in the effort to base our clean air policy on sound science instead of political expediency. That would be an encouraging sign that the Clean Air Act is working as it was intended.