en
Written by John Egan for Industrial Info Resources (Sugar Land, Texas)--Barely an hour after a disappointing unemployment report last Friday morning, President Barrack Obama asked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Washington, D.C.) to withdraw its proposed ground-level ozone rule, pleasing industrial and business groups but angering liberals and environmentalists.
During the summer, business groups and Republicans in Congress lobbied furiously against the proposed EPA ozone regulation, saying it would kill thousands of jobs and cost billions of dollars to implement.
In January 2010, when it released its draft rule to lower ground-level ozone levels, EPA estimated it would cost between $19 billion and $90 billion per year by 2020 to implement the new standard. At the time, the agency estimated the new rule would create between $13 billion and $100 billion of public-health benefits.
The wide range of costs and benefits reflected the broad ground-level ozone standards the agency proposed in its January 2010 draft rule. The National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) sets allowable levels of ground-level ozone (O3), a precursor of smog. The last time EPA reset this standard was in 2008, when it set ozone levels at 75 parts per billion (ppb). In the now-withdrawn regulation, EPA had sought to lower ozone standard to between 60 and 70 ppb.
Business and industry groups had been particularly irked over the costs and potential impacts of the proposed regulation. The now-shelved draft rule would have thrown hundreds of American counties out of compliance with the Clean Air Act, which would limit the ability of industrial plants to operate, let alone expand or build new grassroot facilities. Existing or planned power plants, oil and gas wells, cement factories and other industrial facilities would have been forced to install pollution-control equipment to meet the new ozone standard.
In a 2001 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court said EPA was not permitted to consider costs when setting air quality standards that would protect public health.
Ground-level ozone is formed by a reaction of nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO) and methane (CH4) in the presence of sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities, electric utilities, motor vehicles, gasoline vapors and chemical solvents are the major man-made sources of NOx and VOCs, according to the EPA.
Ground-level ozone reduces lung function, making it more difficult for some people to breathe, and aggravates chronic lung diseases such as asthma, emphysema and bronchitis. The now-foregone lower standards would have prevented 12,000 premature deaths per year, the agency estimated.
In asking the EPA to withdraw its proposed rule, President Obama said, "I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover." However, because the Clean Air Act compels the EPA to revisit ozone standards every five years, and the EPA is already working on a new ozone standard, scheduled to be introduced in 2013, the president said, "ultimately, I did not support asking state and local governments to begin implementing a new standard that will soon be reconsidered."
Obama added: "I want to be clear: my commitment and the commitment of my administration to protecting public health and the environment is unwavering. ... My administration will continue to vigorously oppose efforts to weaken EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act or dismantle the progress we have made." In a brief statement, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, said, "We will revisit the ozone standard, in compliance with the Clean Air Act."
Manufacturing has been one of the few bright spots in a weak U.S. economy. With one eye on the 2012 president campaign, the other eye on a weak economy, unrelenting criticism from Republicans as a "job-killer," and the knowledge that a new ozone standard is required in 2013, the president apparently felt it was advisable to shelve the proposed ozone standard.
Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute (Washington, D.C.), welcomed Obama's move Friday, saying that it suggests the White House "is becoming more sensitive to the uncertainty created by their heavy regulatory hand. ...They are beginning to understand that the regulatory burden does more to chill job creation than just about anything else out there."
Jay Timmons, president and chief executive of National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), said the president's decision "is the right move to protect jobs, and we hope it serves as a cautionary tale. Manufacturers still face a great deal of uncertainty from regulations looming on the horizon, including the Boiler MACT rule, the Utility MACT rule ... and a slew of others that will hamper our ability to grow and compete. We urge the Administration to apply the same approach to these other burdensome regulations that it did when deciding to forgo the discretionary ozone standard."
"We support any decisions by the administration to recognize the enormous burden its regulations can place on jobs, the economy and low-cost electricity," said Vic Svec, a senior vice president at Peabody Energy Corporation (NYSE:BTU) (St. Louis, Missouri), the biggest U.S. coal producer.
But environmentalists, liberal groups and public-health advocates bitterly criticized Obama's decision. "The White House is siding with corporate polluters over the American people," said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (New York, New York). "The Clean Air Act clearly requires the Environmental Protection Agency to set protective standards against smog--based on science and the law. The White House now has polluted that process with politics."
Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress (Washington, D.C.), said, "Today's announcement from the White House that they will retreat from implementing the much-needed--and long-overdue--ozone pollution standard is deeply disappointing and grants an item on Big Oil's wish list at the expense of the health of children, seniors and the infirm."
"For two years, the administration dragged its feet by delaying its decision, unnecessarily putting lives at risk," Charles Connor, president of the American Lung Association (Washington, D.C.), said in a statement. "Its final decision not to enact a more protective ozone health standard is jeopardizing the health of millions of Americans, which is inexcusable." The group said it would revive its lawsuit against the federal government to reinstate the now-withdrawn ozone standard.
Industrial Info Resources (IIR) is the leading provider of global market intelligence specializing in the industrial process, heavy manufacturing and energy markets. IIR's quality-assurance philosophy, the Living Forward Reporting Principle, provides up-to-the-minute intelligence on what's happening now, while constantly keeping track of future opportunities.
During the summer, business groups and Republicans in Congress lobbied furiously against the proposed EPA ozone regulation, saying it would kill thousands of jobs and cost billions of dollars to implement.
In January 2010, when it released its draft rule to lower ground-level ozone levels, EPA estimated it would cost between $19 billion and $90 billion per year by 2020 to implement the new standard. At the time, the agency estimated the new rule would create between $13 billion and $100 billion of public-health benefits.
The wide range of costs and benefits reflected the broad ground-level ozone standards the agency proposed in its January 2010 draft rule. The National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) sets allowable levels of ground-level ozone (O3), a precursor of smog. The last time EPA reset this standard was in 2008, when it set ozone levels at 75 parts per billion (ppb). In the now-withdrawn regulation, EPA had sought to lower ozone standard to between 60 and 70 ppb.
Business and industry groups had been particularly irked over the costs and potential impacts of the proposed regulation. The now-shelved draft rule would have thrown hundreds of American counties out of compliance with the Clean Air Act, which would limit the ability of industrial plants to operate, let alone expand or build new grassroot facilities. Existing or planned power plants, oil and gas wells, cement factories and other industrial facilities would have been forced to install pollution-control equipment to meet the new ozone standard.
In a 2001 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court said EPA was not permitted to consider costs when setting air quality standards that would protect public health.
Ground-level ozone is formed by a reaction of nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO) and methane (CH4) in the presence of sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities, electric utilities, motor vehicles, gasoline vapors and chemical solvents are the major man-made sources of NOx and VOCs, according to the EPA.
Ground-level ozone reduces lung function, making it more difficult for some people to breathe, and aggravates chronic lung diseases such as asthma, emphysema and bronchitis. The now-foregone lower standards would have prevented 12,000 premature deaths per year, the agency estimated.
In asking the EPA to withdraw its proposed rule, President Obama said, "I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover." However, because the Clean Air Act compels the EPA to revisit ozone standards every five years, and the EPA is already working on a new ozone standard, scheduled to be introduced in 2013, the president said, "ultimately, I did not support asking state and local governments to begin implementing a new standard that will soon be reconsidered."
Obama added: "I want to be clear: my commitment and the commitment of my administration to protecting public health and the environment is unwavering. ... My administration will continue to vigorously oppose efforts to weaken EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act or dismantle the progress we have made." In a brief statement, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, said, "We will revisit the ozone standard, in compliance with the Clean Air Act."
Manufacturing has been one of the few bright spots in a weak U.S. economy. With one eye on the 2012 president campaign, the other eye on a weak economy, unrelenting criticism from Republicans as a "job-killer," and the knowledge that a new ozone standard is required in 2013, the president apparently felt it was advisable to shelve the proposed ozone standard.
Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute (Washington, D.C.), welcomed Obama's move Friday, saying that it suggests the White House "is becoming more sensitive to the uncertainty created by their heavy regulatory hand. ...They are beginning to understand that the regulatory burden does more to chill job creation than just about anything else out there."
Jay Timmons, president and chief executive of National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), said the president's decision "is the right move to protect jobs, and we hope it serves as a cautionary tale. Manufacturers still face a great deal of uncertainty from regulations looming on the horizon, including the Boiler MACT rule, the Utility MACT rule ... and a slew of others that will hamper our ability to grow and compete. We urge the Administration to apply the same approach to these other burdensome regulations that it did when deciding to forgo the discretionary ozone standard."
"We support any decisions by the administration to recognize the enormous burden its regulations can place on jobs, the economy and low-cost electricity," said Vic Svec, a senior vice president at Peabody Energy Corporation (NYSE:BTU) (St. Louis, Missouri), the biggest U.S. coal producer.
But environmentalists, liberal groups and public-health advocates bitterly criticized Obama's decision. "The White House is siding with corporate polluters over the American people," said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (New York, New York). "The Clean Air Act clearly requires the Environmental Protection Agency to set protective standards against smog--based on science and the law. The White House now has polluted that process with politics."
Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress (Washington, D.C.), said, "Today's announcement from the White House that they will retreat from implementing the much-needed--and long-overdue--ozone pollution standard is deeply disappointing and grants an item on Big Oil's wish list at the expense of the health of children, seniors and the infirm."
"For two years, the administration dragged its feet by delaying its decision, unnecessarily putting lives at risk," Charles Connor, president of the American Lung Association (Washington, D.C.), said in a statement. "Its final decision not to enact a more protective ozone health standard is jeopardizing the health of millions of Americans, which is inexcusable." The group said it would revive its lawsuit against the federal government to reinstate the now-withdrawn ozone standard.
Industrial Info Resources (IIR) is the leading provider of global market intelligence specializing in the industrial process, heavy manufacturing and energy markets. IIR's quality-assurance philosophy, the Living Forward Reporting Principle, provides up-to-the-minute intelligence on what's happening now, while constantly keeping track of future opportunities.
