Washington Examiner, “Air quality improving despite population, vehicle growth“:

“Air quality is improving in the region — there is no question about that,” said Joan Rohlfs, chief of air quality planning for the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. “It’s very dramatic, actually. In fact, it’s almost an issue for us because people are losing their awareness [of air pollution]. We don’t have that many code-red days anymore.”

Besides Earth Day, the peg for the article is the Environmental Protection Agency’s annual report on air quality trends, released to little attention on March 10. The report found that ozone levels have dropped 14 percent between 1990 and 2008, lead has plummeted 78 percent, and carbon monoxide is down 68 percent.

We missed the news when the EPA highlighted the report in an outpouring of national susurration, catching up a few weeks later. As The Examiner reports: “‘No one ever really looks at the data,’ said Steven Hayward, a resident scholar with the American Enterprise Institute. ‘[Public officials] never stand up and say here is the progress we’ve made.’”

As the expensive new health care law dominates the public’s attention, EPA continues its relentless drive to impose tighter control over the manufacturing economy. As industry emerges from the most severe recession since the 1930s –- a recession in which the manufacturing sector lost more than 2.2 million high-wage American jobs –- EPA regulators are pursuing an agenda that will dramatically increase energy prices for all U.S. consumers while limiting the public’s energy choices.

During the next 10 months, EPA is expected to impose first-time controls on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from industrial sources through the “tailoring rule.” (EPA docket) Regulators also want to ratchet down an air-quality standard for ozone that will impose costly compliance rules on most major U.S. metropolitan areas. This year EPA will also consider reclassifying coal by-products as “hazardous waste,” thereby raising electricity prices. The agency also may seek to impose unachievable emission standards on industrial boilers, which manufacturers use in their plants to expedite production of a variety of goods.

The cumulative cost of these rules is staggering. With respect to the tailoring rule, EPA did not even bother to undertake a detailed economic analysis and concedes that much of the technology to implement GHG controls is nonexistent. Costs of the ozone rule, by EPA’s conservative estimates, could reach $90 billion, most of which will be shouldered by industry through either direct regulation or the passing on of higher electricity costs. The forest and paper products sector estimates that tighter controls on industrial boilers could reach $6.7 billion in capital expenditures, making many of their U.S. operations unprofitable and subject to closure.

Now is not the time to begin piling on additional costs on a sector that traditionally serves as the engine of job-growth and innovation. According to EPA’s own data, we are already making progress in improving air quality for all Americans through current programs, progress that undermines the rationale for moving forward with expansive and unachievable environmental controls.

Federal regulators are moving so aggressively that even state regulators are concerned. During the comment period for the so-called tailoring rule, more than 29 state EPA regulators joined manufacturers and other commenters in urging EPA to slow down its regulatory process. To read an NAM-organized submission from representatives of manufacturing companies, please click here.

Good, basic journalism by The Cleveland Plain Dealer and reporter Michael Scott to survey the reaction of local Ohio officials to the EPA’s proposed new, lower ozone standard, “State, local air quality officials spar with U.S. EPA over proposed tougher smog standards.” Some excerpts:

Bob Hodanbosi, the Ohio EPA chief of the Division of Air Pollution Control: “The U.S. EPA is trying to make us do too much, too quickly.”

Ohio EPA Director Chris Korleski, in a letter to EPA: “”The Ohio EPA is unaware of any new study or piece of scientific evidence that did not exist in 2008 that compels the setting of an even lower standard.”

Lake County Commissioner Dan Troy: “My understanding is that these new targets would be hard to achieve if we were in the Grant Tetons. At what point do you keep trying to reduce a number toward a goal you can’t reach? …Frankly, you’re not going to get to those numbers with the technology we have now — unless you totally do away with gasoline-powered internal combustion engine. I don’t think we’re there yet.”

Also…
Akron Beacon-Journal, “Ohio EPA opposes tighter ozone limit”
Southeast Missourian, “EPA may change air quality rules, regional planner says”
Fremont (Neb.) Tribune, “Dodge County could be impacted by EPA regulations”

You would think there’d be more coverage of the issue.

The National Association of Manufacturers submitted comments to the EPA objecting to the proposed standard. For more Shopfloor coverage, click here.

The long arm of the EPA, which is always overreaching.

Immediately below we note the recent release from the Environmental Protection Agency documenting the continued, dramatic improvements in air quality — an important report in light of the EPA’s proposed regulations to throttle the economy with a new, lower standard for ground-level ozone.

The comment period on the proposed rules closed Monday, March 22, drawing vigorous input from 23 state manufacturing and business associations. The National Association of Manufacturers also submitted comments, which are available here. As the NAM notes, the national air quality standards for ground-level ozone were already lowered in 2008, imposing multibillion costs on industry, other businesses and local governments. Now the EPA wants to change the standard again?

The long arm of the EPA, which gives it leverage to pull the carpet out of under the economy.

The NAM’s submission concludes:

Manufacturers oppose revision of the 2008 ozone standard within the range proposed by EPA. Industry and federal, state and local regulators are working diligently to implement the current ozone standard and other rules pursuant to the CAA, all of which have reduced average ozone concentrations nationwide by more than 20 percent since the 1980s. EPA’s current programs are therefore fulfilling the EPA’s mission to protect environmental quality and public health. The manufacturing sector and its millions of U.S. workers urge the EPA not to lower the standard and reject options that will lead to a more stringent regulation. The NAM urges the EPA to only issue proposals that will capitalize on the manufacturing sector’s demonstrated record of technological innovation that continues to improve the quality of life for all Americans.

For more background on the ozone standard from the NAM, please click here.

Thanks to Ed Morrissey of Hot Air for alerting us to this overlooked bit of news, reported by the Institute for Energy Research:

On Wednesday, March 10, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) quietly released their annual report on air quality trends.  You would never know it from picking up a newspaper or reading news websites, but the report contains great news. Air quality in the United States has dramatically improved and, according to all indicators, it will continue to improve. …

Since 1990, nationwide air quality has improved significantly for the six common air pollutants. These six pollutants are ground-level ozone, particle pollution (PM2.5 and PM10), lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Nationally, air pollution was lower in 2008 than in 1990 for:

• 8-hour ozone, by 14 percent
• annual PM2.5 (since 2000), by 19 percent
• PM10 , by 31 percent
• Lead, by 78 percent
• NO2 , by 35 percent
• 8-hour CO, by 68 percent
• annual SO2 , by 59 percent …

The comment period ended Monday for the EPA’s proposed reduction of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards from ozone below the current level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), established in 2008. Even under the standards in existence in 1990, reduced in 1997 to 84 ppb, and even in a time of growing population and economic activity, America’s air has gotten cleaner. Given the improvements in air quality and the lack of evidence that lower ozone standards will produce any significant health improvements, it makes no sense to hammer a fragile economy with stricter ozone rules.

As for the rhetorical question, how did we miss this, the Institute for Energy Research says it found no major media reports on the EPA’s new report. Then again, the EPA’s news release didn’t cry out for attention:

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making the most recent data available on the state of the nation’s air quality. Air pollution impacts public health, the environment, and the Earth’s climate, and understanding these impacts are important priorities for the agency. EPA regulatory actions and voluntary efforts have led to cleaner cars, industries and consumer products, that in turn have contributed to improvements in the nation’s air.

That’s what’s known in the journalism business as backing into the story.

Twenty-three state manufacturing and business associations today submitted comments to the Environmental Protection Agency objecting to the EPA’s move to reduce the national standards for ground-level ozone.

In 2008, after a lengthy regulatory process that included public comment and hearings, the EPA lowered the 1997 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone from 84 parts per billion (ppb) to 75 ppb. The EPA then in January proposed new rules to drop the standard for ozone below 75 ppb, this despite the fact that air quality has been steadily improving under the 1997 standards. Ground-level ozone contributes to smog.

As the associations’ letter states:

EPA’s proposal to lower the ozone NAAQS will unnecessarily cause severe economic harm. Large swathes of the United States will be designated as being non-compliant with the new rule and will be unable to comply with a new rule. Lowering the existing 75 ppb standard to the lower end of the proposed range of 60 ppb would result in almost tripling the number of counties being designated as being in violation of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Designating an area as being in violation (or in “nonattainment’) moreover, leads to new mandates and costs under the CAA, including additional control requirements for manufacturers, the need for new business to undergo nonattainment New Source Review permitting, and the imposition of financial penalties in areas failing to meet the new standards. All these actions will discourage new businesses from locating in nonattainment areas and restrict the growth of existing businesses.

This is not the time to impose these sorts of costs on American business, just as we are recovering from the recent financial downturn in which more than 2.1 million manufacturing jobs have been lost. It makes no sense to hurt local economies already struggling to emerge from the recession. The U.S. is projected to spend approximately $9.6 billion per year on compliance costs with the current standard by 2010. A more stringent ozone standard could impose $22 billion in additional annual compliance costs on industry, costing even more jobs.

The associations also argue that the EPA failed to follow the process required by the Clean Air Act in attempting to justify this new rule.

The EPA issued the proposed rule on Jan. 11, 2010 (Federal Register notice here), and today is the comment deadline. The final rule is expected by September.

Bryan Brendle, the National Association of Manufacturers’ director of energy & resources policy, spoke today at an Environmental Protection Agency hearing in Arlington, Va., on its proposed new standard for ground-level ozone.

The full statement is here, and Bryan summarizes:

EPA is literally piling onto the industrial sector. Not only did EPA already tighten the ozone standard in 2008, but federal regulators have also recently issued a stricter standard for Nitrogen Dioxide, which will impose additional compliance costs on industry.

EPA also proposes to tighten the standard for levels of Sulfur Dioxide, with comments due to the agency next week.

Also this year, federal regulators are expected to revisit the air quality standard for Particulate Matter (PM), adding even more uncertainty for businesses seeking to add jobs in areas that may be designated as “non-attainment.”

In addition to reviewing several standards for conventional air pollutants, EPA also plans to impose first-time limits on emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from plants and factories.

Bryan notes another interesting aspect of today’s public hearing, the lack of media coverage. In his 90 minutes in attendance, no one approached him with questions and the press weren’t immediately apparent.

This isn’t a knock on the trade press who cover EPA, who do a pretty good job, but just a reaffirmation that the EPA regulatory agenda is so aggressive, so encompassing, that even people whose job it is to keep track have a hard time staying abreast of everything going on.

In 2007 and 2008, when the Bush Administration’s EPA conducted the regulatory process that led to the current ozone standard, it was a major environmental story. We saw reports about the hearings, the economic impact of the rules on communities, a health and environmental activists prominently made their cases. Granted, some media outlets didn’t recognize the news until the regulations were actually implemented, but still, it was a BIG story.

The process now under way could potentially lead to even more drastic and jobs-destroying regulations. And it’s happening with little public attention, the result of the imperial EPA drowning business, communities and the media with regulation upon regulation.

There was another hearing in Houston today, and one scheduled for Sacramento on Thursday.

Jay Ambrose, a veteran Washington journalist now in Colorado, reports that the investigations on which the EPA has based its proposed ozone rule on are “deeply flawed and quite possibly ideological hokum.” And if implemented, the results will prove onerous. From “Smog war will ruin economy“:

Among other measures reported, it would tighten regulations on farming and construction, require gasoline stations to sell cleaner fuel, further curb emissions in power plants, oil refineries and factories, which adds enforcement costs to state and local government.

The final determination is due in August, but eventually it will mean higher energy prices and local and state taxes. Workers can count on fewer jobs. Many small businesses can count on a riskier future. Manufacturers can count on less productivity and competitiveness. And any state that does not go along can count on the disappearance of its federal highway funds.

For more on the EPA’s proposed ozone reg, see these earlier posts.

Steven Milloy of Junkscience.com focuses on the substandard science used to support EPA’s recent proposed ozone limits in an op-ed in today’s Investor’s Business Daily, “Roguish EPA’s Junk Science Risks Recovery.” Excerpt:

The EPA points to a slew of studies to back up its proposal, but the scientific and economic reality of the proposal is far different. There is no body of systematically collected and scientifically analyzed data showing ambient levels of smog in the U.S. are the primary cause of a substantial or even detectable number of significant health effects.

To the extent the EPA points to published studies it claims support its proposal, these studies invariably involve cherry-picked data that have been statistically tortured to produce dubious, if not suspicious results — these studies tend to emanate from EPA-funded researchers. Imagine a police department that was also judge and jury.

Roguish AND imperial! Just the kind of regulatory agency we need.

Expect the science or lack thereof to remain a serious issue dogging the EPA’s action, and by dogging we mean serving to hold the agency accountable. The National Association of Manufacturers in October 2008 submitted a 160-page Request for Reconsideration to the EPA detailing a variety of problems with the agency’s studies and processes that led to its 2008 rule. The Legal Beagle entry on the action provides more detail on the flawed work.

Previously, in May 2008, the NAM and other members of the Ozone NAAQS Litigation Group petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to review the Bush Administration rule. The court held any action in abeyance until the current EPA acted. The industry petitioners have since requested a briefing schedule to move the case forward, a motion resisted by the EPA.

Thought-provoking column by CNBC’s Larry Kudlow, whose message in the wake of the 10 percent unemployment announced Friday is that the economy needs less meddling from the federal government in the way of programs, spending and new regulations.

From “De-stimulate“:

[On] the subject of energy-related jobs, the EPA is now going to penalize manufacturing America — or what’s left of it — with tougher standards to reduce smog. Of course, smog has already fallen 25 percent in the last three decades. And the EPA’s projected smog savings are so miniscule compared to the new costs for business that the National Association of Manufacturers, the petrochemical makers, and others are screaming bloody murder.

This little EPA beauty could cost up to $90 billion annually. All of this with a 10 percent unemployment rate, mind you. It’s another triumph for left-wing social policy over economic-growth policy.

And get this. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar recently announced that he is closing down federal lands for oil and gas drilling. This with the price of oil hovering around $83 a barrel and retail gas at the pump moving in the direction of $3 per gallon. Huh? Does anybody in Washington have any common sense at all?

For more on the ozone rule, see Bryan Brendle’s post, “Derailing the Economy.”