DEBATE OVER EPA’S PM 2.5 STANDARDS FALLS ALONG FAMILIAR PARTISAN LINES IN CONGRESS

Farris Willingham
GHG Monitor
06/29/12

House Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) said this week that the Environmental Protection Agency failed to take into account the effect of its recently proposed fine particulate standards on the economy, despite agency claims that most counties are already in compliance with the rulemaking. At a June 28 hearing, the Congressman called EPA’s new court-ordered standards for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) another example of a “job-killing” regulation. “We’re talking about regulations with the potential to be an obstacle to job creation, and we need to take into account the very serious adverse health implications of unemployment,” he said. 

Earlier this month, EPA unveiled its new proposal for PM 2.5, regulating fine particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter emitted from power plants, diesel trucks and buses that can help form soot. Working under the requirement of a court order, EPA said it was tightening emissions requirements from its current rate of 15 micrograms per cubic meter to between 12 and 13 micrograms per cubic meter. In a conference call with reporters June 15, EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Gina McCarthy said that about 99 percent of counties in the U.S. are already on the route to comply with the new standard by its 2020 deadline and will likely not have to alter their current pathways to comply. She attributed part of that fact to current pollution-control programs and other regulations currently in place. EPA said that the change in the rule will likely have a small impact on the economy—costing industry $2.9 million to $69 million per year to comply—a small price tag compared to the projected $88 million to $5.9 billion in annual health benefits, the agency said.

But political opponents have said that the new PM 2.5 proposal is just another example of unnecessarily burdensome regulations from EPA. Republican leaders on the House Energy and Commerce Committee previously called for EPA to maintain its current standard of 15 micrograms per cubic meter in order to limit impacts on the economy. Jeffery Holmstead, former head of EPA’s Air Office during the Bush Administration who now works as a lawyer at the firm Bracewell & Giuliani, said at the hearing that EPA may not be honest in terms of disclosing the rulemaking’s true cost to industry. “My primary concern about the new proposed standards for PM is that EPA is not being honest about the burden it would impose on state and local government, on businesses and companies, and on American consumers,” Holmstead said. “I think the Clean Air Act is important…and my own view is that ought to be achieving those benefits in the most cost-effective way possible.”

Dems Defends Science Behind New PM Standards

At the hearing, Subcommittee Ranking Member Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) highlighted a growing division between Republicans and Democrats on the PM 2.5 standards, saying the Republican majority is focusing on the economic impacts of the regulations while Democrats remain focused on the health impacts. “We’re here today in a very familiar position with the majority and industry representatives arguing that these rules are too burdensome on industry and will cost jobs, while the minority side will stand by the science and those who argue that these rules will protect our most vulnerable citizens,” Rush said, emphasizing that EPA was required to update the standards under a court order. “Mr. Chairman, I must remind you that they were legally forced to issue this proposal after several states and other health groups challenged the agency for missing an October 2011 deadline for releasing the new standard.” 

Tee Giudotti of the American Thoracic Society said during the hearing that there are “hundreds of studies” to validate the science backing the standards. “The [American Thoracic Society] supports EPA adopting a much stronger standard for fine particulate matter, first on the grounds that revision of the standard will be protective of human health, and second on the grounds that the scientific evidence accumulated by EPA is sufficient and compelling to justify a move to a more protective standard at this time,” he said. The agency proposed the standard earlier this month and said it expects to issue a final rulemaking by the end of the year.