Ozone Regulations
In 1997 the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) established new ozone
standards. The EPA also placed special
restrictions on twenty-two states in the
Ohio Valley and Midwest regions
to prevent emissions from coal-burning power
plants from being carried into
the New England States by wind currents.
(Tennessee is one of these
twenty-two states.) Both of these rulings were
recently either struck down or
placed on hold by Federal Appeals Courts. Why:
The regulations put into
place in 1997 by the EPA were more restrictive than the
1990 standards.
The regulations limit the amount of ground level ozone and fine
particle
pollution permitted. Ground level ozone is produced by nitrogen
oxide(NOx)
which is created by burning fossil fuels. Since gasoline and diesel
are both
fossil fuels, then NOx is a major component of automobile
emissions.
Several members of the trucking and fossil fuel industries, as
well as members
of the twenty-two state region, have challenged the
regulations in Federal Court
and have been successful in blocking the
implementation of the new rules. In the
past two months, two separate Federal
Court Of Appeals panels have ruled that
the EPA’s authority to establish
clean air standards is not properly delegated
by Congress under the Clean Air
Act. Therefore, since the EPA is a part of the
Executive branch of
government and not the Legislative, they have no authority
to produce
regulations on their own. The plaintiffs in the case also argued that
the
amount of pollution a person can tolerate has not been established and
until
it is the EPA should not make the current regulations more restrictive.
How: The
main actors in this event are the American Trucking Associations and
their
fellow plaintiffs, the twenty-two state coalition, the EPA, and the
Federal
Appeals Court. Why would the American Trucking Associations and
other fossil
fuel burning industries want to limit the EPA’s authority? What
do they have
to gain? Last year, according to the EPA’s own press release
detailing their
enforcement efforts in fiscal year 1998, the EPA referred 266
criminal cases to
the Department of Justice, as well as 411 civil court
cases. Approximately half
of the civil cases required violators to change the
way they manage their
facilities or to reduce their emissions or discharges.
The EPA also assessed
almost $93 million dollars in criminal fines and
another $92 million in civil
penalties. In addition to fines and penalties,
polluters spent over $2 billion
dollars to correct violations. Not included
in this estimate would be the legal
expenses incurred or the advertising and
marketing costs required to mend a
damaged pubic relations image. Clearly it
is in the industries’ best financial
interest if the regulations are less
restrictive. Many companies that spent
large amounts of money to meet the
1990 Clean Air Act standards would have to
spend even more to meet the
amended 1997 standards. Do the states in the
twenty-two state region have
another reason to argue against the standards?
According to Sean
Cavanagh’s article in the April 4, 1999 edition of the
Chattanooga
Times/Free Press, Atlanta lost $700 million in federal roads money
as a
result of failing to come up with a pollution containment plan. In
addition,
the state of Georgia had to fund a state "superagency" to develop
and enforce
transit plans that meet federal standards. The states joined the
industrial
groups in claiming that the new standards are too strict and are
unnecessary.
Chattanooga is not expected to meet the new requirements by the
year 2000
deadline and Chattanooga Mayor Kensey and Tennessee Governor Sundquist
were
two of the public officials who protested the new standards as being
too
strict. Are the new standards too strict? How does the EPA determine
the
required levels? According to the press release issued by the EPA
following the
court’s decision, the Federal Courts are not questioning "the
science and
process conducted by the EPA justifying the setting of new, more
protective
standards." The EPA claims that their standards, which are
designed to limit
the affects that smog and soot have on people with
respiratory problems, protect
125 million Americans including 35 million
children. The Federal Courts only
have issue with the constitutionality of
certain parts of the Clean Air Act that
allow the EPA to establish clean air
regulations in the interest of public
health. The EPA is recommending that
the Department of Justice appeal the ruling
to the US Supreme Court. Several
interest groups are closely watching the case.
The powerful industrial
and truckers lobby groups are supporting the plaintiffs,
while several
environmental lobby groups and health associations, such as the
American
Lung Association, are supporting the EPA’s efforts. All interest
groups have
apparently been relatively quiet so far since the issue is a court
case and
most are probably afraid of being accused of trying to influence the
courts
decision. If the issue gets a new life in Congress then obviously
the
lobbyist will be more active. Opinion: Who gets what, when and how. The
EPA is
trying to establish new clean air requirements to take effect in the
year 2000
by using the public health clause of the Clean Air Act. The
plaintiffs are
trying to avoid having to spend more money to meet the
requirements by 2000 by
arguing that the public health clause is
unconstitutional. What is the federal
government’s stand on the issue. White
House press secretary Joe Lockhart
claimed that they are "deeply
disappointed" by the courts decision.
Considering that the liberals are
generally supportive of environmental issues
this is not surprising, but what
about the conservatives? Republicans are
usually more protective of business
interest. More strict laws on environmental
issues will cause fewer new
companies to start-up. This would of course have an
adverse affect on the
economy. It should be noted that the two judges who voted
on the side of the
plaintiffs in both of these case were Reagan appointees and
therefore
probably conservatives. Is it fair for the EPA to impose new strict
standards
only seven years after instituting sweeping changes in clean air
regulations?
Many companies are probably still paying for the new programs they
implented
to help meet the previous standards. Fair or not these standards are
probably
necessary. Ground level ozone contributes significantly to smog.
Smog,
according to an editorial by the Chattanooga Times’ Harry Austin on May
20,
1999,in turn affects not only our health, but also crop and forest
loss, acid
rain and fog production, and increases regional haze. If there are
so many
important benefits to reducing ground level ozone then why is the
public so
silent on the matter? Probably for two reasons. First, confusion
with
atmospheric ozone. The ozone surrounding the Earth blocks out radiation
from the
sun. Ground level ozone traps in fine particles. The hole in the
Earth’s ozone
layer makes the evening news. Smog also makes the evening news,
but very little
is ever said about the contribution made to it by ground
level ozone. Many
Americans probably just consider more ozone a good
thing, but it’s not if
it’s not in the right place. Secondly, in an article
written by Jeff Dean for
the Associated Press a survey was cited that stated
that Americans are
discouraged by the Earth’s environmental problems and are
beginning to feel
there is nothing that can be done, therefore why even worry
about it. The EPA is
trying to do something about our problems and is meeting
with resistance from
industrial and transportation groups. If the Supreme
Court does not overturn the
lower court’s ruling and reinstate the new
regulations then millions of
Americans will continue to suffer the
effects of smog. If the court rules the
regulations void because they are not
properly delegated by Congress then the
floodgates will open on lawsuits
against numerous such regulations. If an
already unproductive Congress is
forced to create all of their own regulations
then the country will come to a
stand still. If, however, these regulations are
created at random without
proper Congressional supervision then a main portion
of our system of checks
and balances will be voided. A compromise must me
attained.