Statement Regarding Proposed Ozone Standards

 

Daren Bakst  January 29, 2015 Public Hearing

U.S. EPA William Jefferson Clinton East Building, Room 1153 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20460 My name is Daren Bakst and I am Research Fellow in Agricultural Policy at The Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this statement are my own, and should not be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation.

I appreciate this opportunity to speak at today’s hearing, a

nd look forward to submitting written comments for the docket.

Making the Standards More Stringent is Premature

 States are just now starting to meet the current 75 parts per billion standard. According to the Congressional Research Service, 123 million people live in areas that have not attained the current standards. In fact, 105 million people live in areas that are still considered nonattainment for the less stringent 1997 ozone standard.

1

 

When nearly 40 percent of the nation’s population lives in areas that have not met the current

standard, it is premature to adopt an even more stringent standard.

Costs Exceed Benefits

 The EPA claims that the benefits of a new 70 parts per billion or 65 parts per billion standard outweigh the costs. However, this is misleading. When focusing on ozone only benefits, the costs far exceed the benefits for each of the more stringent standards.

Based on EPA’s own

data, and taking the most generous estimate of ozone benefits, the costs exceed the benefits, ranging anywhere from half a billion dollars for a 70 parts per billion standard to $19 billion for a 60 parts per billion standard.

2

 

1

 

“Ozone Air Quality Standards: EPA’s 2015 Revision,” James E. McCarthy, Congressional Research Service,

October 3, 2014, http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43092.pdf

2

 

“

Table 5-23. Estimate of Monetized Ozone and PM2.5 Benefits for Proposed and Alternative Annual Ozone Standards Incremental to the Analytical Baseline for the 2025 Scenario (nationwide benefits of attaining each alternative standard everywhere in the U.S. except California)

 – 

 

Full Attainment (billions of 2011$),”

 Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ground-Level Ozone at

 

 p. 5-81 and

to determine costs, “

Table 8-1. Total Costs, Total Monetized Benefits, and Net Benefits in 2025 for

 

The benefits only outweigh costs if taking into account PM

2.5

co-benefits. PM

2.5

co-benefits, assuming the highest levels of benefits, account for anywhere between 70-75% of the total  benefits,

3

 depending on the standard. In other words, for the proposed ozone standard, ozone  benefits are only about a quarter of the benefits. While the EPA has constantly used PM

2.5

co-benefits to improperly justify a seemingly endless amount of regulations that have nothing to do with the reason for the regulations, using PM

2.5

co- benefits to make the case for an ozone standard is particularly egregious. The EPA has a very clear and direct means to address PM

2.5

through the National Ambient Air Quality Standards process, and that, not surprisingly, is through the PM

2.5

 standard. The ozone standard is a distinct standard that is supposed to be focused on ozone. To sell a more stringent ozone standard, the EPA lists a series of alleged facts

in its “By the  Numbers” document

4

 that will scare the public into thinking a more stringent standard is necessary. For example, according to the EPA, setting the ozone standard to 70 parts per billion or 65 parts per billions would avoid:



 

65,000-180,000 missed work days; and



 

790 to 2,300 cases of acute bronchitis among children Here is the catch. Both of these alleged facts are based on reductions in PM

2.5

 alone, and not ozone. The other facts listed in the document, except for one, take into account reductions in

both

 PM

2.5

and ozone.

5

 The public is being led to believe that reducing ozone achieves these health benefits. In reality, much of these alleged benefits have nothing to do with an actual reduction in ozone. These numbers, assuming the facts listed are reasonable estimates, should also be put in  perspective. For example, the EPA claims making the standard more stringent would avoid 1,400 to 4,300 asthma-related emergency room visits. Given that there are about 1.8 million such visits in a year,

6

 the reduction amounts to eight-hundredths of one percent to two-tenths of

U.S., except California (billions of 2011$),”

RIA, at p. 8-4, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/20141125ria.pdf

3

 Table 5-23, RIA, at p. 5-81. To determine the percentage, the highest level of benefits for PM

2.5

was divided by the highest total level of benefits at the 7 percent discount rate for each standard. If the lowest level of PM

2.5

and total  benefits are assumed, PM

2.5

 benefits account for about 63%-67% of total benefits.

4

 

“The National Ambient Air Quality Standards EPA’S Proposal to Update the Air Quality Standards For Ground

-L

evel Ozone By The Numbers,” Environmental Protection Agency,

http://www.epa.gov/glo/pdfs/20141125fs-numbers.pdf

5

 

“

Table ES-7. Summary of Total Number of Annual Ozone and PM-Related Premature Mortalities and Premature

Morbidity: 2025 National Benefits,”

 

RIA at p. ES-14.

 

6

 

“Asthma Facts CDC’s National Asthma Control Program Grantees,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

July 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/asthma/pdfs/asthma_facts_program_grantees.pdf

 

one percent, a minuscule impact at best. Further, these numbers are based on both reductions in PM

2.5

 and ozone, not on ozone alone.

Recommendation

I urge the EPA to maintain the current 75 parts per billion standard. A more stringent standard is  both premature and unjustified. As the EPA does move forward, the agency should be very transparent regarding the ozone benefits and costs, and not sell a stricter ozone standard on PM

2.5

 co-benefits.