EPAAIR POLLUTION: EPA's Clean Air Act proposal greeted with jeers (03/13/2008)
Katherine Boyle, E&E Daily reporter
Senate Democrats slammed changes to the Clean Air Act proposed by U.S. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson yesterday that would allow the agency to consider the economic costs of regulations aimed at protecting public health.
During a teleconference on EPA's ground-level ozone standards last night, Johnson unveiled four principles that he hopes will guide legislative changes to the Clean Air Act.
The law must protect public health but should allow decisionmakers to consider benefits, costs, risk tradeoffs and feasibility of proposed regulations, Johnson said.
The EPA administrator also called for greater accountability and enforcement of air quality requirements and said the schedule for addressing national ambient air quality standards should be driven by available science and the prioritization of health and environment concerns.
"The Bush administration would have us replace clean air standards driven by science with standards based on the interests of polluters," said Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), chairman of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, said Johnson's proposed changes would undercut EPA's ability to protect the nation's health. "I firmly believe ... standards must continue to be based solely on rigorous scientific study and our understanding of air pollution's impacts on our health and environment," he said.
"Costs should be considered when determining how to comply with these standards not what the standard should be," Carper added.
Johnson said the changes would "modernize" the Clean Air Act. He said he did not take into account the economic costs of the new 75 parts per billion ozone standard EPA announced yesterday because the law forbid it.
"As the science continues to advance, there may be some day in the future when there is a functional equivalent of near zero or zero that the [national ambient air quality standard] would determine," Johnson said. "At that time, the administrator and the agency would have to be faced with practicality, feasibility and benefits' costs."
Rogene Henderson, chairwoman of EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, said the change would get Johnson "out of a bind" because he faces great pressure from interest groups that oppose more stringent air pollution standards due to their cost.
Henderson said in some ways the change might make EPA's regulatory decisionmaking process more transparent.
"He makes his decision by talking to small groups," she said. Right now "you ask how he decided and he has to say by law, but one has to think some of the cost and feasibility issues are playing a role."
Industry groups applauded Johnson's suggestions.
"The Clean Air Act appropriately puts public health before all other considerations," Dan Riedinger, spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute. "That shouldn't change. But something's wrong when EPA itself can't say whether the benefits of a tighter ozone standard will outweigh the costs."
However, in 2001 the Supreme Court ruled that costs cannot be a factor in national ambient air quality standard decisions after industry groups challenged the Clinton administration's 1997 changes to ozone and particulate matter standards.
EPW Committee ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.) also praised Johnson's proposals as "common sense" but predicted Congress would not have enough time to consider them this year.
Ozone standards
Democratic lawmakers also lambasted the new ground-level ozone standards EPA released yesterday.
The agency tightened the current standard of 80 parts per billion over an 8-hour period to 75 ppb against the urging of health advocates, environmentalists and EPA's own science advisers who wanted a more restrictive standard.
Frank O'Donnell, president of the environmental advocacy group Clean Air Watch, said Johnson was "quite obviously ... considering costs in this smog decision. He interpreted the law the way he wishes it were."
House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) fired off a letter to Johnson before the administrator officially announced the standard.
Waxman demanded the administrator explain why he had ignored the advice of the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, which unanimously recommended Johnson choose a standard of 70 ppb or lower in order to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) also criticized the decision, calling it a "smoke and mirrors" solution that pretended to solve a problem while allowing it to grow worse.
Conversely, Inhofe blasted the rule as too stringent and said it would have devastating economic impacts on Oklahoma and the nation.
"Hundreds of counties across the country -- which have worked long and hard to come into compliance with the current standard -- will once again face potential stiff federal penalties, lose highway dollars, and become unattractive places to locate new businesses," he said.