PRINT
EMAIL
COMMENT
BUZZ UP
DIGGEXECUTIVE POLL
Bernard Madoff, convicted of running an $65 billion Ponzi scheme, was sentenced to 150 years in jail. What’s your take on his punishment?
OUR PREMIUM CONTENT
The Kiplinger Agriculture Letter
The Kiplinger California Letter
Kiplinger's Biofuels Market Alert
Kiplinger's Retirement Report
SUBSCRIBER HELP
CURRENT LETTER
Overhauling
Financial Regs
PREVIOUS ISSUES
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) final rule on smog is anything but. The new standard on ozone emissions is already under fire both from advocates of heavy industry, who will likely sue to block enactment of the rule, and environmentalists, who pushed for the regulation.
Business groups argue that the ozone standard is too strict. They say the new limit of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an eight-hour period, tightened from 0.084 ppm, would impose tens of billions of dollars in new costs on utilities, factories and refineries. And those might not be the only ones footing the bill.
"Historically, power generating utilities have been targeted to meet such standards," says Dan Riedinger, a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute. "But because industry has undertaken a few different emissions programs previously, the low hanging fruit has largely been picked." As a result, Riedinger says, states will look not just to power generating facilities but also to small manufacturers and even cars and trucks to reach compliance. Much of the increased cost would be passed on to customers.
Environmental groups howl that the regulation doesn't go far enough, pointing to a study by the EPA's own scientific advisers recommending that the standard be lowered to a range between 0.06 ppm and 0.07 ppm to safeguard public health. Moreover, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will investigate charges that the White House intervened directly in the rulemaking process to set new summer ozone standards at the same level as the regular new limits. Such interference would constitute a violation of the Clean Air Act and could lead to lawsuits by states. Previously, summer ozone standards were stricter than the regular limits in order to avert smog damage to agriculture and other plant life.
Congressional leaders also made it plain that a Bush administration request to amend the Clean Air Act -- allowing the EPA to consider implementation costs as well as public health concerns when setting future air pollution standards -- was dead on arrival. "It is outrageous that the Bush Administration would call for changes that would gut the Clean Air Act, which has saved countless lives and protected the health of millions of Americans for more than 35 years," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chair of the Senate environment committee, in her official response to the request from EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. "The Bush Administration would have us replace clean air standards driven by science with standards based on the interests of polluters."
Under the terms of a 2001 Supreme Court decision (Whitman v. American Trucking Associations), the EPA is barred from considering cost as a factor in setting national air quality standards. Johnson included a recommendation to amend the Clean Air Act in his March 12 statement announcing the new smog standards.
No resolution is likely until well into the next administration. Even if the new rule withstands all challenges, it'll still take years for the EPA to designate areas not in compliance with the regulation and for states to submit plans for how they'll meet the new standard.
The fight over the smog rule overshadows a smaller win for environmentalists. The EPA says that starting in 2015, soot emissions from marine diesel engines must be slashed by 90%, and nitrous oxide emissions, by 80%. In 2016, both pollutants must be cut in locomotives by the same percentages. The limits are expected to curb respiratory illnesses and treatment costs, particularly in coastal cities subject to ship-related air pollution. As of the most recent study, conducted in 2002 by Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), marine diesel and locomotive engines accounted for 10% of all ozone forming pollutants and soot in New York, New Jersey and all six New England states.
"This is the last great unregulated source of [air] pollution," says Paul Miller, NESCAUM's deputy director, referring to the diesel engines targeted by the new regulation. He says that the environmental community generally supports the rule, though he puts it in the context of the new ozone standard: "It's failing in the big picture, but doing something fairly good in one piece of the overall picture."
For weekly updates on topics to improve your business decisionmaking, click here.
POSTED BY: Mike (March 31, 2008 11:09 PM)
EPA was required BY LAW to review the ozone standard; this change was not a result of environmentalists "pushing" for it. And the Supreme Court decision from 2001 was an 8-0 decision as I recall. Furthermore, cost is considered in the implementation of the standards, just not when they establish the standards.
E-Mail Article
Print Article
Reprint Article
