BuckeyeBlog

As I noted on the Eye on the Statehouse blog, on Tuesday John Engler of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) met with Governor Strickland to discuss ozone standards. I wrote a Viewpoint about these standards and am glad to see that the issue is being raised with the Governor. Stricter ozone standards have the potential to hurt Ohio’s economy without producing much (if anything) in the way of a benefit. With the state not fully recovered from the last recession and now facing a potential economic slowdown, these regulations could not come at a worse time.

I could go into further detail on this theme, but the NAM has written an informative letter to the EPA that does a better job than I ever could. Here are some particularly notable excerpts:

The EPA also misinterpreted a key health study and relied on flawed epidemiology when issuing its recommended options for comment on a more stringent ozone standard. The EPA relies heavily on a study by William C. Adams, Professor Emeritus of the University of California – Davis, to justify moving to a more stringent standard. Although EPA’s internal reanalysis of the Adams study found “significant” health effects with reduced exposure to ozone, Dr. Adams’ original work found no significant effects below the current standard.

…

According to the EPA’s own studies, average ozone concentrations nationwide have decreased by 21 percent between 1980 and 2006. Furthermore, total emissions from the six key air pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act, some of which are precursors to ozone formation, have declined by 54 percent between 1970 and 2006. These emissions will continue to fall without revising the current standard. According to EPA’s the Clean Air Trends Report, current regulations – including the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the highway and non-road diesel rules – will significantly reduce ground level ozone-causing emissions to drop over the next two decades. Power plant emissions will drop by 50 percent by 2015, and mobile source emissions will drop by more than 70 percent by 2030, all within the context of the current standard. Also, these air pollution emission reductions have taken place within the context of a growing economy, with energy consumption in the U.S. having increased by more than 176 percent since passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970.

…

The U.S. is projected to spend approximately $9.6 billion per year on compliance costs with the current standard by 2010. To date, the U.S. has spent more than $180 billion on all CAA programs. A more stringent ozone standard could cost industry approximately $22 billion in additional annual compliance costs, further undermining competitiveness and diverting resources from investments in technological innovation.

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 6th, 2007 at 3:14 pm and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.