Just two years after the Environmental Protection Agency last imposed new, more costly regulations to limit economic activities that might contribute to ground-level ozone, the EPA is at it again. We can understand the political impetus: The Bush Administration was weak on the environment, and the Obama Administration is strong, so we’re going to double down.

But in the case of new ground-level ozone limits, the Bush Administration was neither weak nor strong, it was just wrong. The scientific basis for new National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) was thin and the economic consequences serious.

So the current EPA is making doubly bad policy at a time when President Obama is elevating obs and reasonable regulation Administration priorities.

Unfortunately, the proposed NAAQS is slipping below the radar amid all the other regulating the agency is forcing onto the economy. Therefore, the National Association of Manufacturers has developed a website with the message, “Tell the EPA to Stop Putting Jobs at Stake.” It features an online petition and a sample letter to express one’s views to the agency. As the website explains:

The Agency has issued a proposal that would change the current ozone standard from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to a range from 70 ppb to 60 ppb. According to a recent study by the Manufacturers Alliance (MAPI), setting the standard at 60 ppb would cost 7.3 million jobs by 2020 and add $1 trillion in new regulatory burdens between 2020 and 2030. Furthermore, the EPA is setting this new standard just two years after announcing the 75 ppb standard in 2008.

This is another example of the Agency’s overregulation and will put high-paying manufacturing jobs at stake.

The EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Panel will meet twice in the next few weeks to discuss its technical recommendations to the Agency on the new standard. This is a great opportunity for manufacturers to make their voices heard on another regulation that will cost jobs. Please sign your name to the petition below to tell the EPA not to adopt a new, more stringent ozone standard and to give the current standard time to work.

The deadline for the petition is NOON EST on Monday, February 7.

New jobs figures are due out this Friday, with the unemployment rate anticipated to be 9.5 or 9.6 percent. Are jobs really important? If so, the EPA can stand strong and abandon its plans to impose economy-harming ozone regs.

Roll Call has published an op-ed by Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA) and Jay Timmons, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, citing the EPA’s pending limits on ground-level ozone and industrial boiler emissions (the Boiler MACT rule) as an example of excessive regulation that slows economic growth and damages jobs creation.

From “Proposed EPA rules could hurt job growth“:

Manufacturers have also been alarmed by two proposals that have generated less public attention but could still wreak economic damage: lower limits on ground-level ozone and emissions controls on industrial boilers.

New rules for ozone would supersede lower emission limits adopted just two years ago, with compliance costs that EPA acknowledges could near $90 billion annually by 2020. Democratic and Republican senators and governors from industrial states have criticized this rulemaking as a “financial and regulatory burden” that would “create additional barriers to job creation and industry growth.”

Industrial boilers play a critical role in our economy, generating power for companies large and small, as well as municipalities and universities. The EPA has proposed dramatic new rules that skirt cost-benefit analysis and would be impossible for many existing facilities even to meet. The forest products industry, which makes extensive use of boiler-generated energy, would be hit especially hard, facing estimated costs of $7 billion.

None of our international competitors confronts standards such as these, which will only drive more jobs offshore. Industry studies demonstrate that hundreds of thousands of jobs may be at risk if this rule is adopted. The Administration’s own Commerce Department has produced a study that concludes the draft rule could cost the United States 40,000 to 60,000 jobs a year.

Since the column was written, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the EPA a one-month extension to issue the final Boiler MACT rule (deadline is now February 21, 2011). The EPA had requested a 15-month extension to re-propose the rule to consider new information about the achievability of the regulations.

 The court order is available here, and the opinion is available here.

The Environmental Protection Agency in October postponed its announcement of new federal ozone limits, avoiding the politically damaging reports before Election Day. Yet another report about the EPA’s plans to crack down on economic activity would not have helped the Administration’s prospects.

The EPA’s proposed rule could drop the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone from the 75 parts per billion limit established by the Bush Administration in March 2008 to as low as 60 ppb.

The economic impact of the EPA’s proposal is one of the most under-reported stories in the United States today. Thankfully, at least one newspaper, The Sarasota Herald-Tribune, has taken advantage of the EPA’s delay to examine what the rules could mean to the local economy.

We could quibble with the article, but at least the paper is trying to explain the impact of the EPA’s threat. From “Air rules could force changes here“:

New federal air quality rules, expected in the coming weeks, will likely trigger a wave of emission controls on industries in Southwest Florida, and the possibility of motor vehicle inspections….[snip]

Southwest Florida’s air quality barely meets current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards, and with those thresholds set to rise, the region will be forced to put better curbs on air pollution.

Or businesses could relocate to a region that doesn’t face the additional limits. Or move to another country all together.

The Herald-Tribune cites the joint National Association of Manufacturers and American Petroleum Industry’s study conducted by the Manufacturers/Alliance MAPI, “Economic Implications of EPA’s Proposed Ozone Standard (ER-707).” The study reported that reducing the ozone standard to 60 parts-per-billion could destroy 7.3 million U.S. jobs and reduce the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $687 billion in 2020. (More from API.)

And even more than the Bush Administration’s limits, the EPA’s latest proposal has thin scientific justification and could even be counterproductive when it comes improving the health of the U.S. populace.

The EPA’s jobs-killing plan is likely to be announced in January, perhaps during one of the slow news periods to avoid a sharp political backlash. In the meantime, other papers could follow the Herald-Tribune’s example and try to inform their readers about the impact of the ozone rules. The NAM stands ready to help with those explanations.

The Wall Street Journal today reports on the political unpopularity of the Environmental Protection Agency, its regulatory assault on the economy, and its polarizing administrator, Lisa Jackson. From “Environment Chief Caught in the Campaign Crossfire“:

[For] Republicans and for some Democrats, the EPA is a symbol of a government that does too much and discourages job-creating investments. “It represents government out of control,” said Rep. Sanford Bishop, (D., Ga.) when asked to describe his constituents’ view of the agency.

Ms. Jackson has emerged as one of the Obama administration’s most energetic regulators. During the past 18 months, the agency has proposed 42 “significant” regulations, according to OMB Watch, a left-leaning watchdog group. That compares with 16 in the first 18 months of the EPA during the George W. Bush administration. The government defines regulations as “significant” if they have an annual impact on the economy of $100 million or more or meet certain other criteria, such as raising new legal issues or interfering with other agencies’ actions.The new rules seek to reduce ozone pollution from factories and cars; coal ash waste from power plants; storm-water runoff from construction sites; greenhouse-gas emissions from cars; and mercury emissions from industrial boilers.

We can just imagine the White House political team, saying, “Gee, Lisa. You’re kind of, well, toxic these days. Can’t you do something to lower your profile, maybe get out of town before the election?”

EPA news release, “EPA Administrator Jackson to Travel to China“: “WASHINGTON – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P. Jackson will travel to China from October 9 through October 14. This is the administrator’s first official visit to China, where she will highlight and build on a wide range of joint efforts aimed at addressing current and emerging environmental challenges, from sustainability to greenhouse gas pollution.”

Also at the WSJ today, Kim Strassel examines the campaign of Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), who ran afoul of his district’s economic interests when he supported Waxman-Markey. The column is, “The Cap-and-Trade Crackup.”

The Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy report we cited below , “The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms,” did not take into account the Bush Administration’s 2008 ozone regulations (reducing the ambient air quality standard to 75 parts per billion), nor the Obama Administration’s proposed regulations, which could lower the standard to 60 ppb.

It’s safe to say those regulations will be expensive. Bet small business gets hit the hardest.

From The Oil and Gas Journal, “Proposed ozone standard would devastate US economy, API warns“:

WASHINGTON, DC, Sept. 21 — A US Environmental Protection Agency proposal to reduce the national primary ozone standard to 60 ppb from 75 ppb would devastate the US economy by forcing most of the country to meet stringent standards which now are imposed of its most heavily populated areas, the American Petroleum Institute warned.

“We all know that EPA cannot consider economics in considering standards,” Howard Feldman, API’s director of regulatory and scientific affairs, said in a Sept. 21 teleconference with reporters. “But it cannot ignore them. There’s a real cost and real significance to this.”

The story builds on the NAM-API co-sponsored report, “Economic Implications of EPA’s Proposed Ozone Standard (ER-707. The analysis by Donald A. Norman, Ph.D., Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI economist, concluded:

• GDP would be reduced by $676.8 billion in 2020 (in 2010 dollars), an amount that represents 3.6 percent of projected 2020 GDP in the baseline case (2.5 percent annual GDP growth);
• Total U.S. job losses attributable to a 60 ppb ozone standard are estimated to rise to 7.3 million by 2020, a figure equal to 4.3 percent of the projected 2020 labor force;
• Together, annual attainment costs and reduced GDP in 2020 would total $1.7 trillion.

API’s Feldman raises another an angle we hadn’t considered: Unreasonably stringent ozone rules represent yet another move again U.S. energy security, including the tremendous promise shown by natural gas development of such areas as the Marcellus Shale: “Clearly, natural gas drilling is increasing across the country, and we expect that to continue…As more of it moves into areas such as Pennsylvania which would not meet these new standards, it would require extra costs and controls. The states also would have to offset these emissions.”

Earlier posts: (continue reading…)

The EPA is so aggressive on so many regulatory fronts, otherwise major issues tend to get shortchanged in the media, so kudos to The Wall Street Journal for covering the agency’s proposed ozone regs, being pushed before the new 2008 regulations even had a chance to go into full effect.

Monday’s WSJ reported, “New Smog Proposals From EPA Draw Fire“:

A proposed crackdown on smog by the Environmental Protection Agency is fueling resistance from businesses groups concerned about costs, Republicans who say it’ll be a drag on the economy—and some heartland Democrats engaged in tough election battles this fall.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has dramatically stepped up the pace and scope of regulatory activity since 2009. She has pushed sweeping rules to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions linked to climate change, challenged coal companies over their mining practices, and questioned the methods energy companies are using to drill for natural gas.

Now Ms. Jackson is proposing to redefine what constitutes unsafe levels of ground-level ozone, a primary ingredient in smog.

The Journal cites two letters from elected officials alarmed by the EPA’s excesses. One comes from a bipartisan group of Senators led by Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH). The letter, available here, notes that the EPA normally revises the National Ambient Air Quality Standards on a five-year basis, if not longer. The Senators argue.

However, the Agency has proposed to significantly tighten the standards that were adopted less than two years ago, with no new data prompting EPA’s reconsideration. We believe that changing the rules at this time will have a significant negative impact on our states’ workers and families and will compound the hardship that many are now facing in these difficult economic times. (continue reading…)

The Environmental Protection Agency’s drive to increase regulation of economy activity, starting with its proposed greenhouse gas regulations, is so expansive and so aggressive that much is what it’s doing is escaping real scrutiny. But the EPA’s agenda is a jobs-killer and the public needs to know about it.

Take the EPA’s latest move to lower ozone limits, regulations that a new economic analysis says could destroy more than seven million jobs.

Starting about four years ago, the EPA sought to reduce the national standards for ground-level ozone, a basic component of smog. In March 2008, the Bush Administration imposed a standard of 75 parts per billion, putting hundreds of counties out of compliance and adding billions of dollars of compliance costs to manufacturers, retailers, government and others.

Then, this January, even before those new, very strict and very expensive standards went into full effect, the EPA proposed even more stringent ozone regulations – with a huge impact on the economy and jobs.

The economists at the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI have just released a study that quantifies that impact, and the results are shocking.

The new report, “Economic Implications of EPA’s Proposed Ozone Standard,” concludes that reaching the proposed level of 60 parts per billion would:

• Impose annual compliance costs of $1 trillion between 2020 and 2030. One trillion dollars!
• And total U.S. job losses attributable to a 60 ppb would be 7.3 million by 2020. That’s more than 4 percent of the labor force projected for 2020.
• Big states with large manufacturing sectors would be the hardest hit. The ozone regs would cost Texas 1.7 million jobs, Louisiana, 983,000 jobs, California, 846,000 jobs, etc.

Unemployment right now is 9.6 percent, and yet the EPA is moving forward with regulations that will crush economic growth and hiring. The environmental arguments for the regulations are debatable, at best, but the agency pushes on.

The Obama Administration has made job creation a priority, the centerpiece of its economic proposals. But at the same time, the Administration’s EPA is proposing regulations that would destroy seven million jobs!

You cannot credibly claim to be for new jobs and then lead a regulatory campaign that eliminates existing ones.

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.’”

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.