Column: The Costliest Regulation

Statement

As families across the country hit the road to celebrate this past Thanksgiving, the Environmental Protection Agency was preparing to roll out a new plan that would further ensnare American manufacturers in costly new federal requirements, and saddle families with higher utility bills. The EPA itself has conceded that this proposal could amount to the most expensive federal regulation in our nation's history. And true to form for this administration, it was unveiled while many Americans' attentions are turned toward their families for the holidays.

EPA's plan would dramatically increase restrictions on ground-level ozone throughout the United States. It's the latest installment in a suite of overreaching EPA proposals, from strict carbon restrictions on existing power plants to massive expansion of regulations on the nation's water and wetlands.

EPA is proposing a reduction in ground-level ozone from 75 parts per billion (ppb), to between 65 -70 ppb. It is also soliciting comments on an even greater reduction to 60 ppb. This may not sound like a lot, but it would have disastrous consequences for utilities and manufacturers that power our homes and our economy. The National Association of Manufacturers predicts a reduction to 60 ppb would cost up to $270 billion annually and put millions of American jobs in jeopardy at a time when our economy is fighting to get back on track. In Nebraska, that means work hours equivalent to more than 8,300 jobs would be slashed annually. The compliance costs for businesses and utilities throughout the state would total $72 million. Across the nation, families could expect a 15 percent increase in their electricity bill and a 32 percent increase in their natural gas bill.

Right now, each county in Nebraska falls well within federal ozone requirements. Tightening these standards means many counties would find themselves in violation of federal regulations through no fault of their own. As a result, manufacturers and utilities would face greater operating restrictions that could require the purchase of expensive equipment, or cut back hours. Growth would come to a screeching halt.

All of this is being done in the name of public safety, but the EPA has yet to prove that the health benefits justify the costs. A study conducted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality concluded that tightening the ozone standard will fail to provide any measurable increase in human health protection. The EPA's own Health Risk and Exposure Assessment indicates that lowering the ozone concentration may actually lead to more deaths in some instances. Clearly, there are serious flaws in the EPA's own modeling and methods of conducting research on the rule's health impacts. For example, the EPA does not take into account the amount of ozone that people actually breathe, but rather outdoor monitoring data, which significantly overestimates the risk ozone poses.

We all value clean, breathable air. It's an important issue that spans partisan politics. In fact, the current ozone standard was established in 2008 by the George W. Bush administration. But whenever the federal government issues a new regulation that has the potential to severely disrupt economic growth and hit Americans hard in the pocketbook, we have to be sure that the benefits outweigh the costs. EPA has yet to show this rule--the most expensive regulation in our nation's history--meets that test, and I doubt it ever will. That's why am a cosponsor of Senator John Thune's (R-S.D.) CASE Act (S. 2833), which prevents the EPA from tightening ozone standards until 85 percent of U.S. counties that are currently in violation of air quality standards reach compliance. It would also require the EPA to consider the costs and feasibility of the lower standard, which the EPA currently does not do.

Thank you for participating in the democratic process, and I will visit with you again next week.

Source