Members Continue Oversight of EPA's Controversial Ozone Rule and its Effect on Jobs & Manufacturing

Press Release

Building off last week's hearing, the Energy and Power and Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade subcommittees today held a joint hearing to examine the EPA's proposed revisions to the existing ozone standard and potential impacts on jobs and manufacturing.

WHAT IS THE EPA PROPOSING?

The EPA has proposed revising the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to a range between 65-70 ppb.

"We have watched the Obama Administration propose and finalize a litany of rules for more than six years now. Back in 2011, the President explained his decision not to move ahead with a new ozone standard by stating that "I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover.' Well, our economy still continues to recover, and this proposed rule certainly won't help." --Chairman Whitfield

"For Texas, this rule will result in over 300,000 lost jobs and a $1,430 drop in annual average household consumption. When there are disincentives to investment in a local economy, either from business looking to build and expand or from families trying to makes ends meet, we have to pay attention and ask tough questions." -- Chairman Burgess

WHY THIS NEW RULE IS A BAD IDEA:

The most recent standard, set in 2008, is just beginning to be implemented by states, and EPA itself only finalized the implementing regulations in March of THIS year.

The new proposal could be the EPA's costliest EVER to jobs and the economy -- See the state-by-state breakdown here.

Communities still need time to comply with the current standard before they are forced to comply with additional expensive new standards.

States, local agencies, and leading industry stakeholders have expressed concern with the EPA's proposed revisions, which could be the most expensive regulation ever imposed on the American people by the agency.

The manufacturing industry has been particularly concerned because in many counties nationwide it may become very difficult for businesses to obtain necessary permits for construction and business expansion.
A new standard may also restrict the availability, cost, and performance of consumer and commercial products.

TOPLINE QUOTES:

"The EPA is proposing regulations that are beyond the bounds of innovation, putting manufacturers and other industries in a position where the only available compliance strategy, unless policies are modified, is closing up shop." - Ross Eisenberg, Vice President of Energy and Resources Policy at the National Association of Manufacturers

"The proposed standards have already cost our region thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of capital investment." Erin Monroe Wesley, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer at the Baton Rouge Area Chamber.

"At the beginning of his second term, President Obama set a goal of creating one million new manufacturing jobs. Unfortunately, President Obama's rhetoric has failed to match up with the economic realities of the policies coming out of the EPA. The new rules have been wide ranging, and each one on their own, like the Clean Power Plan, will harm our economy. Taken collectively, the results could be disastrous." -- Full Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI)

Stacey-Ann Taylor, Director of Product Stewardship at the Henry Company, which manufacturers roof coatings, discussed how under the proposed rule manufacturers could have to restrict noncompliant products from being sold on the market. "If manufacturers can't find reasonably priced technology to achieve these further VOC reductions, there will certainly be fewer consumer and commercial products available in the marketplace for purchase," she warned.

Anthony Cox, Chief Sciences Officer of NextHealth Technologies said, "We also know from extensive real-world experience that EPA's benefits estimates are exaggerated. Ozone levels have already fallen in recent decades by far more than the proposed amounts in many locations in the United States, yet analysis of public health records shows that these large reductions in ozone levels have caused no detectable public health benefits."

Michael Freeman from the WD-40 Company said, "To inflict increased burdens on our industry without first allowing current regulations to be implemented is not good policy."

Source