July 30, 1997
We'll Regulate Those Polluters Behind the Tree. . .
EPA Implies Free Ride for Clean Air,
Especially for Farmers
On July 16, 1997, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Browner signed the
controversial Ozone and Particulates (PM 2.5) rules. The rules are now final, published (Fed.
Reg. 38652 et seq., 7/18/97), and in litigation (American Trucking Association v. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S.Cir.Ct. D.C.Cir.). Some things, however, remain the same. These rules
are still very expensive, are of questionable net benefits, and are based on incomplete science.
And EPA now admits the rules will affect 634 U.S. counties: (546 will violate the ozone rule, five times the 106 counties currently in ozone nonattainment; and 283 counties will violate the PM 2.5 rule, seven times the 41 counties now violating the PM-10 standards).
EPA Continues to Exaggerate the Benefits . . .
Administrator Browner
repeatedly asserts that the rules, taken together, "will protect 125 million Americans, including
35 million children, from the adverse health effects of breathing polluted air." Certainly,
everything we do to scrub the air will have at least some benefit for people. However, just like
distilled water may have better health benefits than tap water for 267 million Americans, the real
issue is whether the incremental health benefits are worth the additional cost. EPA declined to
choose a zero-tolerance standard for ozone or PM 2.5, and so the agency has already made
judgement calls based on economics, not just health. EPA originally admitted that its ozone rule
would save few lives, and its PM health claims continue to be questioned.
. . .Especially to Farmers:
In her July 22 testimony before the Senate Agriculture
Committee, Browner was effusive about the economic benefits of the new ozone rules, declaring
that "EPA estimates that full compliance . . . would result in more than $500 million in benefits to the
American farmer." This number, like much of EPA's hyperbole, seems pulled out of the air. EPA's
original estimate for the proposed ozone rule -- which was slightly more stringent than the final rule -- was only $207 million a year in agricultural
benefits. However, neither Browner's unfounded $500 million number nor the EPA's $207 million
estimate for the proposed rule bothered to subtract from the purported benefits the $100 million a year in agricultural damage caused by increased ultraviolet light (due to decreasing the protective ozone shield), a calculation EPA used in 1993 when issuing rules banning CFC's. In truth, EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee warned EPA that " the absolute values of the numbers are highly uncertain estimates of crop losses and are a result of a propagation of uncertainties. They are rough estimates and this should be explicitly stated in this discussion."
. . . And Downplay the Costs:
Economic costs for the final rules were not
discussed in either Browner's nor her Assistant Administrator for Air Mary Nichols' written
testimony, nor was the final Regulatory Impact Analysis included in the Federal Register. The
President's Council of Economic Advisors estimated that full attainment under the proposed PM
and Ozone rules would cost between $12 billion and $60 billion a year. Although the EPA's
plan to allow areas currently in ozone nonattainment to stay on their current ozone attainment
plans until 2000 (unless they are not projected to reach attainment by 2000) will reduce the
implementation cost somewhat, that delay could increase costs on other areas subject to the new
standards, due to transport of ozone by the weather from one area to another. The Regulatory
Analysis Program at George Mason University estimated that the proposed ozone rule will cost
$80 billion per year. Since the fine particulates rule was finalized before the monitoring was
even conducted, the costs of reaching the PM 2.5 standards remain a matter of speculation.
. . . Especially for Rural Areas:
"Don't worry, this won't affect you" seems to
be the EPA's new favorite pickup line. During the July 22 Agriculture Committee hearing,
Browner stated that "the EPA will not focus regulatory efforts on farm tilling activities." She
noted that one of the relatively few monitors (not of a type that will be used by EPA in the future)
that EPA has operated in a heavily agricultural area -- the San Joaquin Valley in California --
found that tilling and wind erosion accounted for less than 6 percent of the total PM 2.5
measured, while the bulk of the measured 2.5 emissions came "from motor vehicles and
stationary combustion sources." So, it would seem that farmers will be OK so long they do not
use motor vehicles or electricity. Also of serious concern is the fact that CITGO Petroleum's
test monitor placed this year in the middle of a virtually unoccupied stretch of the Tall Grass
Prairie Preserve in Oklahoma registered a violation of the new PM 2.5 standard. Under EPA's
plan it will be five years (two to establish monitors plus three years of data collection) before
anyone really knows how many rural areas will be in nonattainment under the new rule.
Powerplants Aren't the Only Ones Behind the Tree
In her testimony before the Committee on Environment and Public Works on July 24, 1997, Nichols
assured the assembled Senators that autos will not be targeted, "so long as they continue to do
what they are doing," and again stressed that the EPA would be targeting electric utilities and
other stationary sources. The Edison Electric Institute states that electric utilities produce only
29 percent of the country's NOx and less than 1 percent of the country's volatile organic
compounds. Thus, these two ozone precursors will have to be reduced elsewhere to meet the
new ozone standards. Watch your back, especially you farmers, and car drivers, and small businesses, and....
________________________________________________________________