Hickenlooper: Suspending EPA’s new ozone standard ‘would be a great idea’
Filed under: CDPHE, Environmental Protection Agency, Hydraulic Fracturing
Transcript of Gov. John Hickenlooper’s comments on the Environmental Protection Agency’s ozone rule delivered to the Colorado Petroleum Council and the American Petroleum Institute on March 31, 2016 via the Center for Regulatory Solutions:
So I think it would be a great idea if they suspended the standard. I mean, just with the background [ozone], if you’re not going to be able to conform to a standard like this, you are leaving the risk or the possibility that there will be penalties of one sort or another that come from your lack of compliance. Obviously, no different than any business, states want to have as much predictability as possible, and I think if they suspend the standards, it’s not going to slow us down from continuing to try and make our air cleaner. …
You know, we’re a mile high. Air quality issues affect us more directly than they do at lower elevations. So we’re going to keep pushing it, we’re not going to back off, we’re going to continue to improve the air quality in the state every year if I have anything to say about it, but at the same time, those standards, you know, to be punitive when you’re working as hard as you can … to get cleaner air as rapidly as you can, it seems like it’s not the most constructive stance.
Two Colorado Senators, one Democrat and one Republican, had this to say about the ozone rule’s impact on the state:
State Senator Cheri Jahn (D-Wheat Ridge):
“This whole situation is a mess. EPA officials did an abysmal job with the prior standard of 75 ppb, set in 2008. Instead of working with states to implement those ozone rules, they have been obsessed with changing the rules until they are completely unworkable.
“Even the EPA admits the new standard of 70 ppb is practically impossible for Denver to meet, because of background ozone that we can’t control. Now we are facing long-term violation of the new standard, which will impose all kinds of new controls and restrictions on the economy, small businesses and investments in transportation infrastructure. EPA officials have claimed they will develop a fix for the background ozone issue, but they should have worked all that out before setting the new standard in the first place.
“If the EPA cares about protecting the health of Colorado families, it will suspend the enforcement of the new 70 ppb standard until there is a real solution to the threat from background ozone. We need solutions based on increased analysis and better science. Anything less than that will be setting Colorado up to fail.”
State Senator Jerry Sonnenberg (R-Sterling):
“I have always opposed the EPA’s strict new ozone standard because of the control it will give federal bureaucrats over basic planning decisions here in Colorado. The new limit of 70 parts per billion is completely unrealistic. It will penalize our state for background levels of ozone that come from outside Colorado and from natural sources like wildfires. Even the EPA admits Front Range communities have no hope of reaching the new standard by 2025 because of background ozone.
“Yet again the EPA has gone too far, imposing pointless and job-killing federal mandates on states and local governments. If the EPA ties down the Colorado economy with even more red tape, small businesses, family farms, working families and seniors on fixed incomes will be hit the hardest. Therefore, I am calling on the EPA to immediately halt the implementation of this punitive ozone rule, and leave in place the prior standard of 75 parts per billion.”
The CRS report noted the development surrounding the ozone rule since the 70 ppb target was adopted in 2015 (links in original):
In late February, at an EPA workshop in Phoenix, Ariz., the agency faced stiff opposition from state air regulators and business leaders – especially those from Western states. In the face of this criticism, the EPA admitted the Intermountain West is the “most problematic” region for addressing background ozone, and states like Colorado have “a very complicated puzzle to untangle” if they hope to stay out of violation with the new 70 ppb ozone standard. More recently, The Denver Post editorial board has warned background ozone will make compliance in Colorado “particularly difficult” and rebuked the environmental activists who “blithely pushed for a far stricter standard.” In addition, an air quality researcher at Denver University predicted the Front Range will never comply with the 70 ppb standard, and the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel’s editorial board called for the EPA to stand down until the agency can guarantee “communities won’t be unfairly blamed for pollution they didn’t cause.”
As CRS showed last year, in a report called “Slamming the Brakes: How Washington’s Ozone Plan Will Hurt the Colorado Economy and Make Traffic Worse,” the stringent new standard threatens to impose damaging regulatory restrictions across most of Colorado’s economy. The report also detailed a bipartisan wave of opposition to the EPA’s ozone agenda in Colorado, especially because of the EPA’s failure to account for high levels of background ozone, which make the new standard extremely difficult – if not impossible – to meet.
Independence Institute energy policy analyst Simon Lomax notes that the rhetoric surrounding the ozone rule, and in particular, its potential impact on public health, is filled with fearmongering from the “bad-air chorus.”
Lomax testified before CDPHE last month on the ozone rule:
The nature of the problem is clear. The EPA’s new ozone standard goes too far. It will throw large areas of the state into long-term violation of federal law. Violation will impose new restrictions on economic growth and jeopardize badly needed investments in transportation infrastructure.
And because the stringent new standard approaches background ozone levels, which state regulators are powerless to control, there will be little, if any, environmental benefit in return. For months, stakeholders from across government, across the political spectrum and across the economy have stated and restated the problem. But admiring the complexity of the problem won’t solve it.