Ozone rule misses the mark

Sound environmental regulations have to be built upon a foundation of science. When science and expert opinion are pushed aside in favor of politics the result is often unachievable goals and real economic pain. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed ozone rule checks all the wrong boxes.

EPA is proposing to lower the national ozone standard from its current level of 75 parts per billion (ppb) to a range of 65 to 70 ppb. While that drop might sound innocuous, it will be incredibly difficult and costly to achieve, and the purported benefits are questionable at best.

Driving EPA’s ozone push is the promise of improved health with lower ozone levels. That reasoning rests on shaky ground.  At higher levels, ozone can cause health problems – think of the air pollution on a bad day in Beijing for example.  However, EPA must justify its regulations, and what so far has not been done, is prove that lowering ozone levels from 75 ppb to 65 or 70 ppb will actually improve health.  Ozone levels in the U.S. are already vastly improved and it is unclear if further lowering of ozone – particularly manmade contributions – will provide measurable health benefits.

According to analysis of the EPA’s own models by experts at the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the new rule would actually increase mortality in some cities, including Houston and Los Angeles.  As the TCEQ experts explained, either lowering the ozone standard misses its purpose or EPA is having trouble interpreting its own data. By either measure, the scientific case for lowering ozone concentrations doesn’t hold up.

While EPA will tell you that it can’t consider economic impacts when building regulations, it’s curiously trying to justify its ozone rule by citing potential economic benefits from improved health.  The larger body of evidence on the cost and plausibility of these rules contradicts EPA’s claims. One study from the National Association of Manufacturers projects that the U.S. economy would lose $140 billion and 1.4 million jobs per year if EPA gets its way.

These brutally high costs — some are calling this regulation the most costly of all time – are because ozone is such a tricky form of pollution to address. While part of ozone concentrations come from manmade sources, considerable amounts of ozone – as high as 80 percent in some areas – occur naturally. That’s why under EPA’s proposed rule, some national parks would actually be out of compliance.

Furthermore, a significant amount of the manmade ozone pollution we are dealing with isn’t actually produced here. Pollutants from China, for example, contribute to U.S. concentrations of ozone.  EPA’s proposal is so problematic and costly because meeting the target requires us to make a 14 percent cut in ozone concentrations while only focusing on a fraction of the actual causes. Attaining these goals won’t just require the adoption of new, pollution-control technology on power plants or factories, but will often mean that for one plant to expand, another will have to close.

At the heart of the issue is what precisely is driving EPA’s proposal. Current law doesn’t actually require EPA to lower the ozone standard.  In addition, the foundational justification for the rule – potential health benefits – is full of holes. Unfortunately, EPA’s proposal smacks of a preference to make fossil fuels more costly while boosting the nation’s renewable energy sector. Sound regulation must rest on science, not politics. EPA’s ozone proposal wildly misses this mark.

Porter is an energy and environmental consultant, based in Savannah, Georgia, and a former assistant administrator of the EPA.