Countdown to the Disappointment: The Final Days of Ozone Lobbying

Groups representing both industry and the public are making final efforts to lobby EPA on its upcoming revision to the national standard for ozone, a.k.a. smog. EPA is under a court deadline to finalize the new standard by March 12.

EPA's scientific advisory panel on clean air has recommended EPA tighten the standard (currently 84 parts per billion) to between 60 and 70 parts per billion — a recommendation most environmentalists and public health advocates endorse. Many industry groups, as well as some governors and some in Congress, would like the standard to remain the same.

EPA is leaning toward a standard of 75 parts per billion, the Associated Press reports [1]:

Both industry lobbyists and environmentalists say they believe [EPA Administrator Stephen] Johnson has taken the view that the standard should be tightened to 75 parts per billion — an approach that doesn't satisfy either industry or health experts

"It's a political compromise," says Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, an advocacy group. Even so, he adds, "every major industry is ... putting the squeeze on" to get the White House to leave the current standard in place.

On Feb. 27, EPA and the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) met with [2] lobbyists from the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the Edison Electric Institute, and the National Paint and Coatings Association. EPA and OMB also got a Valentine's Day visit [3] from the National Taxpayers Union, an anti-government group that calls environmental, worker safety, and other public protections "hidden taxes." EPA and OMB have also heard complaints from big oil [4] about a new ozone standard.

According to AP, "NAM Vice President Keith McCoy said his group told the White House Office of Management and Budget that the EPA was not considering the economic impact."

If it's true that EPA isn't considering economics, it's in an attempt to obey the law. The Clean Air Act prohibits EPA from considering compliance costs when setting the standard for ozone, and calls for the agency to make decisions that "reflect the latest scientific knowledge."

To their credit, on March 3, EPA and OMB met [5] with representatives from NRDC, the American Lung Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other public health groups. Those groups provided a listing of recent epidemiological studies that show adverse health effects at low levels of ozone exposure.

One of those adverse health effects is premature death, as AP also points out. A 2006 study for California showed that tightening the standard to 70 ppb would result in 270 avoided premature deaths in the state. "Another study estimated 3,800 premature deaths would be avoided nationwide."

For more on why EPA should base its decision on science, not economics, see the OMB Watch report Polluted Logic [6].