EPA and ozone regulations

Marketwatch reports that the EPA wants to include cost analyses in the equation when considering air pollutant regulation. The Clean Air Act, as written, prohibits it from doing so. The EPA uses cost analyses elsewhere.

Cost benefit analyses can cut both ways. They can show that a given pollution control measure is not as expensive as the industry says it will be, and/or that it produces benefits in excess of the cost. They could also show that the benefits are not in excess of the costs, and then industry complains.

The 2003 effluent limitation guidelines governing confined animal feeding operations (basically industrial livestock farms) showed that quantifiable benefits were approximately the same as costs to implement. There were unquantifiable costs, and the EPA had no cost data on the health effects from livestock effluents (e.g. human health effects of nitrates and pathogens leaching into water). Here, industry was bearing the costs, and society was reaping the benefit. The regulations passed. But you could see how the industry might challenge them: your cost estimates are too low, your benefit estimates are too high, this is a financial burden that will bankrupt us, give us some subsidies...

Here's the first bit of the article:

In annoucing the agency's decision to tighten air regulations for ozone, the primary component of smog, Johnson said science showed the decision was in the best interest of public health. But Johnson simultaneously complained to reporters in a conference call that the clean air laws prevented him from considering the price tag on implementing the new standards.

The Clean Air Act prohibits officials from considering economic costs when setting air quality standards. Johnson, however, made the case last week that although he focused solely on the impact this type of pollution from motor vehicles and power plants has on people's lungs in making his decision, the issue of "cost of achieving healthy air" shouldn't be ignored as the agency makes air quality improvements that are smaller in degree.

Johnson seemed to be trying to appease a split-personality comprised of a health official and a bill collector during the call. The administrator said repeatedly -- and the agency highlighted in its press release -- that the decision was made to meet the "requirements of the Clean Air Act," making it sound like the agency grudgingly acted in order to comply with the law. On the other hand, he praised the agency's decision to lower emissions and protect the public health, calling it the "most stringent 8-hour standard ever for ozone."

The agency also clearly laid out the effects of ozone on public health. The agency's own scientific review showed that breathing air containing ozone can reduce lung function, increase respiratory symptoms, aggravate asthma, and lead to premature death for people with heart and lung disease.

"After evaluating the results of more than 1,700 new scientific studies available for this review, EPA concluded that ozone causes adverse health effects at the level of the 1997 standard and below," the agency said in supporting documents released at the time of the announcement., referring to the previous standard. Roughly 345 counties will not meet the new standards, according to the agency.