• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
Download
 
 
EPA Proposals Will Inflict More Economic Harm Than GoodBriefing Paper
 –
11.01.10
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is overreaching its authority, moving forwardwith a number of unrealistic proposals that could cost millions of jobs, hurt consumers andput U.S. businesses at a competitive disadvantage globally.
The agency’s re
cent waiver offuel blends containing up to 15 percent ethanol (E15) may endanger vehicles, while its pushto regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and alter ozone standards could destroy jobsand raise energy costs.The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee said in a September 2010 report:
“[T]hese rules threaten the economic viability of America’s manufacturing base and hundreds of 
thousands of well-paying jobs. Moreover, these rules will bring little, if any, public health or environmental benefits. As Americans suffer through a jobless recovery, EPA is pursuing policies 
that exacerbate our economic problems and do not improve the environment.” 
 
More Stringent Ozone StandardsGround-level ozone is one of the air pollutants for which EPA is required to set NationalAmbient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). NAAQS are reviewed on a five-year cycle;nevertheless, EPA is pushing forward with a more stringent standard just two yearsfollowing its last review, despite the fact that no new data exists on which to base newstandards.
 
EPA is proposing to tighten the ozone standard from 75 parts per billion to a rangebetween 60 to 70 parts per billion. More stringent standards would be costly, unattainableand unnecessary. According to a Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI study, the tighteststandard proposed could result in the loss of 7.3 million U.S. jobs by 2020, add $1 trillionin new costs per year between 2020 and 2030, and sharply reduce the nation'sproductivity.
o
Attaining these levels requires nitrogen oxides (NOx) reductions of 60 to 80 percent ormore from current levels. Reaching this level would essentially require the shutdown ofmost, if not all, commercial and transportation activity in this country.
o
The annual attainment cost of meeting these standards is estimated to be more than $1trillion per year between 2020 and 2030
—
equivalent to 5.4 percent of projected GDP in2020. GDP itself would be reduced by approximately $677 billion in 2020, according tothe same study.
o
While the EPA invo
kes the “absurd results”
legal doctrine to justify its climate proposals,it ignores the absurdity of an ozone standard so stringent that it would put pristine areaslike Yellowstone National Park in non-attainment.
o
In an Aug. 6 letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, a bipartisan group of seven U.S.senators said:
“EPA should maintain the current ozone standards, which EPA finalized only two
years ago, and concluded were adequately protective of public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. Moving to change the standard again,
outside of the Clean Air Act’s normal 5 
-year review process, as local communities are struggling to meet the existing standard, would be unfair and 
unwise.” 
 
 
EPA Proposals Will Inflict More Economic Harm Than GoodBriefing Paper
 –
11.01.10
o
The letter described EPA policies as
“impacting our s
tandard of living by drasticallyincreasing energy costs and decreasing the ability of our states to create jobs, fosterentrepreneurship, and give manufacturers the ability to compete in the global
marketplace.”
Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG)EPA rules regulating GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act are scheduled to go intoeffect on Jan. 2, 2011. API joined a lawsuit against EPA's GHG rules, because the rulesare an unconstitutional change to the Clean Air Act.EPA has also proposed that some states be required to change their state implementationplan (SIP) to ensure GHG emissions are accounted for in the permitting of large new orexpanded facilities, and to establish a federal implementation plan to apply to states thatdo not adopt such a SIP. These rules could impose a significant burden on the U.S.economy, requiring expensive investments in stationary sources by businesses acrossthe country, diverting capital that might otherwise create jobs and assist us in oureconomic recovery.
o
EPA does not have the legal authority to modify provisions of the Clean Air Act, as onlyCongress can change laws, not a federal agency.
o
As many as 6
million of America’s industrial facilities, power plants, hospitals, agricultural
and commercial establishments eventually will be subject to these rules and would berequired to get permits in order to expand or merely continue operating. State agenciescharged with issuing permits would be swamped, leading to a considerable burden onstate resources and the ability to move forward on a national climate policy.
o
Even some Obama administration officials are concerned about
the cost of EPA’s
GHGcontainment efforts
and are questioning EPA’s proposals. Federal clean air laws allow
regulators to consider cost when determining emission reduction mandates.
o
In a February 2010 letter to Jackson, a bipartisan group of six U.S. senators, led by JayRockefeller (R-W.Va.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska) cited:
 
“…
serious economic and energy concerns relating to the potential regulation of 
greenhouse gases (GHGs) from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act.” 
 
“The President and you have been explicit in calling on Congress to passcomprehensive legislation that would enhance our nation’s energy and climate
security.
We strongly believe this is ultimately Congress’ responsibility, and if done
properly, will create jobs, spur new clean energy industries, and greatly advance the goal of U.S. energy independence. If done improperly, these opportunities could be 
lost.” 
of 00

Commenting has been disabled.