Ozone Rule Would Kill 7.3 Million Jobs, Raise Costs
Reports indicate that the Obama administration will soon finalize a new job-killing environmental regulation. Earlier this year, just two years after a significant adjustment to the ground-level ozone standard, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed lowering the limit from the current 75 parts per billion standard to 60 ppb. The EPA’s own statistics show that 650 of the 675 currently monitored counties across the U.S. would violate the proposed standard—triggering new mandates, new costs, new permitting requirements, and financial penalties for operations in those areas.
A bipartisan Congressional letter signed by three Democrat senators declared the proposed rule as being both unnecessary and scientifically unfounded. The senators rightly note that the EPA “typically reviews current NAAQS [ozone standards] every five years under a detailed Clean Air Act process—and has often taken much longer than five years to complete this review. However, the Agency has proposed to significantly tighten the standards that were adopted less than two years ago, with no new data prompting EPA’s reconsideration.”
The economic impact of such an arbitrary federal rule would be dramatic and amount to a backdoor national energy tax promulgated by the EPA. According to a National Association of Manufacturers study conducted by economist Donald Norman, the proposed 60 ppb ozone standard would have the following effects:
-- $1 trillion in annual compliance costs;
-- Gross Domestic Product would be reduced by $677 billion in 2020; and
-- 7.3 million total U.S. job losses would result.
Job loss would be highest in states with significant manufacturing and refining activity. Some of those states are listed below:
State Jobs Lost
Texas 1.7 million
The EPA’s proposed ozone rule would discourage new businesses from locating to many areas of the U.S. and would restrict the growth of existing businesses. The Obama administration’s proposed backdoor national energy would kill jobs and raise costs at a time when the U.S. economy can least afford it—and it ought to be opposed.