August 4, 2015

　　On July 29, ACA sent a joint association letter to President Obama and Congressional members in support of maintaining the existing ground-level ozone standard. The letter, organized by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) was signed by some 260 associations and chambers of commerce.

　　EPA released its proposed rule on Nov. 26, 2014. The agency is under a court-ordered deadline to finalize the ozone standard by Oct. 1, 2015.

　　ACA opposes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone, which would lower the standard to a level within the range of 65 to 70 parts per billion (ppb) under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The current NAAQS for ozone is 75 ppb, adopted during the Bush administration and upheld by President Obama in 2011, when he directed EPA to withdraw a proposal to lower the standard.

　　EPA has said that the NAAQS needs to be lowered in order to protect public health. According to an EPA fact sheet, the cost of implementing an ozone standard of 70 ppb would be $3.9 billion annually, beginning in 2025, and a 65 ppb standard would cost $15 billion annually — though those estimates don’t include California. Because of its distinct air quality challenges, California would need additional time to meet the national standard. According to the agency’s regulatory impact analysis, EPA would make attainment and nonattainment designations for a revised standard by October 2017, probably based on 2014-2016 air quality data. Those designations would determine how long areas would have to comply with the revised standard.

　　The proposed rule could set out pollution policies, including limits on volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that ACA believes will have negative implications for states, municipalities, and industry, especially for paint and coatings manufacturers that are already striving to meet the existing ozone standard. State and local governments are struggling to meet the current primary ozone standards, and a nonattainment designation could adversely impact these communities, making it more difficult to attract and retain industry and sustain economic growth and vitality.

　　The letter urged President Obama to once again order EPA to abandon a similar rule, as he did in 2011, citing the need to reduce regulatory burdens in a recovering economy and underscoring that the proposed standard would be one of the most expensive regulations in U.S. history.

　　The letter alluded to efforts to reduce ozone that are an environmental success story. “Ozone levels have improved by 33 percent since 1980 and will improve even more in coming years. Businesses, governments, and individuals have all played critical roles in these achievements. Market-driven innovations and dozens of existing policies to improve fuel economy, increase energy efficiency, and reduce emissions from stationary and mobile sources will drive further air quality improvements over the next decade, and beyond,” the letter stated.

　　“We are committed to ensuring a clean and safe environment now and in the future,” the letter continued. “However, we also stand to bear the brunt of the economic pain from a regulation that will make it difficult to manufacture products, build new projects, produce energy, improve infrastructure and hire the workers needed to make this all happen. A stricter ozone standard could close off communities across the nation to new jobs and economic growth, requiring reductions to near-background levels in many places. We are bound by the limits of technological feasibility, and this regulation mandates controls that even the EPA admits are unknown. When regulations push beyond the achievable, we lose the ability to innovate, create jobs, and unlock the next generation of technologies. The need for balanced government policies and reasonable flexibilities has never been greater, and no single regulation threatens to disrupt this balance more than EPA’s ozone rule.”

　　The letter concluded by urging the President to retain the existing 75 ppb standard for ground-level ozone. “Let us meet these requirements before moving the targets again.”

　　Contact ACA’s Javaneh Nekoomaram for more information.