Manufacturers making the case against EPA ozone rules

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The National Association of Manufacturers has begun broadcasting a television commercial across the West, including Nevada stations, that argues that a Obama administration Environmental Protection Agency rule for reducing ozone is a futile gesture that will harm the economy and kill jobs.

The commercial notes that Western states have cut smog-causing ozone by 21 percent over the past decade, but pollution from China has offset much of that reduction.

In December the EPA issued an order cutting allowable ground-level ozone from 75 parts per billion to either 65 or 70 ppb. By court order, the agency must finalize the standard by Oct. 1. (Think of 1 ppb as the equivalent of one drop of ink in the tanker of the largest gasoline tanker truck.) And the agency is contemplating cutting the allowable level to 60 ppb.

Compliance will mean shutting down or modifying power plants, factories, heavy-duty vehicles, farm equipment, off-road vehicles and passenger cars.

The manufacturers’ ad calculates the rules will cost more than $1.7 trillion — the most expensive regulation in history — and kill more than 1.4 million jobs per year. (The commercial can be seen online at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXcw7-1l7mk)

A third of the country is out of compliance with the current standard of 75 ppb and cutting to 60 ppb would leave 95 percent of the country out of compliance.

In the West, much of the ozone is naturally occurring. A recent study found that the Great Basin area is the bulls-eye for something called stratospheric intrusions that bring ozone from the stratosphere down to the surface.

According to the EPA, Clark County at 77 ppb on average for the past three years already exceeds the current 75 ppb limit. A lower limit would put White Pine County’s 74 ppb over the line. Lyon County at 69 ppb and Washoe and Storey at 68 ppb would exceed a 65 ppb limit. Churchill would squeeze under at 56 ppb. But none of the other Nevada counties has ozone monitoring stations at this time, and thus the impact is unknown.

The manufacturers estimate the ozone rule will cost Nevada $19 billion in GDP loss from 2017 to 2040, 11,224 lost jobs per year, $174 million in total compliance cost, a drop of $750 per year in household consumption and $23 million per year to operate vehicles. Nationally, electricity bills will go up 15 percent and natural gas bills 32 percent.

Atop that, the science linking respiratory ailments to ozone levels is widely disputed and unsettled.

In an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, Tony Cox, editor of Risk Analysis, says the EPA claim that reducing ozone levels will reduce asthma and other respiratory diseases is based on unproven statistical modeling.

“Fortunately, there is abundant historical data on ozone levels and asthma levels in U.S. cities and counties over the past 20 years, many of which have made great strides in reducing ambient levels of ozone by complying with existing regulations,” Cox writes. “It is easy to check whether adverse outcomes, from mortality rates to asthma rates, have decreased more where ozone levels have been reduced more. They have not.”

He said the use of optimistic models instead of practical reality undercuts the EPA’s arguments for the new rules, especially in light of the overall costs to the economy and the workforce.

Congress needs to rein in this irrational faith-based agency. — TM

Speak Your Mind

*