President Obama is a man in a hurry. Looking to secure his environmental legacy after his ambitious agenda went nowhere for years, he’s now stepping on the gas with 15 months left in office. According to American Action Forum, the Obama administration has issued 500 regulations with costs exceeding $100 million.
It seems every week there is a new agency rule and executive order on everything from power plant emissions to waterways. Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency sent its recommendations on how to reduce ozone emissions to the Office of Management and Budget. OMB, the regulatory review and number crunching arm of the White House,
had just 30 days to evaluate the EPA proposal’s costs and benefits. They will formally release the new rule today.
Typically, the interagency reviews that the OMB conducts take roughly 60-90 days. The quick turnaround on the new ozone rules could be a clear sign that the administration already knows what it wants to do and thus is not particularly interested in a thorough analysis.
The administration surely must be aware that 30 days is inadequate for review of what could be one of the most costly and disruptive regulations ever issued. Three years ago, Obama was wary of the impact of the new ozone rules on the still tentative economic recovery and delayed a plan to impose more stringent rules. Now, with political concerns in his rear view mirror, the president is charging ahead with an aggressive revision of the current 75 parts per billion threshold.
Incidentally, the current standard was finalized in 2008, but due to the vastly complex and burdensome nature of compliance — as well as the already ambitious threshold — many states have miles to go before they reach attainment. Imposing a more aggressive standard before we have met the requirements of the previous rule is an ineffective regulatory approach, and not what our recovering economy needs — particularly during a time when air quality is better than it’s been in decades.
Over the last 35 years, the amount of ozone, which creates smog, has been reduced by one third through expensive re-engineering of the cars, industrial facilities and power plants that generate ozone-forming emissions. Make no mistake about it, to make what might seem like small reductions to lower levels of ozone will be expensive for industry and consumers. The National Association of Manufacturers estimates the 65 ppb standard would pull $140 billion out of the annual GDP. The administration’s rose-colored estimate puts the annual cost at barely a tenth of that amount.
There has been a steady drum beat of opposition to the ambitious ozone plan from all sectors of the economy, and not just manufacturers and oil and gas companies. Contractors, homebuilders, farmers and ranchers, even operators of wastewater treatment and recycling facilities have filed comments with the EPA or published op-eds essentially warning that the new standard would be so low that nearly all human economic activity would push local areas out of compliance — or into “non-attainment” in EPA-speak.
Independent analyses of both the costs and benefits have challenged EPA’s claims. There is no way that OMB can reconcile these conflicting analyses in 30 days.
Elected officials from both political parties have also expressed concerns about how they will be able to maintain economic growth while designing plans to constrain the very activities that create jobs and grow tax bases — manufacturing, roadbuilding, construction and transporting goods to customers.
Last month, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, acknowledged that he is not certain the estimated health benefits outweigh the possible economic costs. Based on numerous studies, he can be certain that the health benefits are illusory. Senator Michael Bennet, another Colorado Democrat, also said that the rule doesn’t make sense for his state.
Everyone remembers Obama invoking Martin Luther King, Jr.’s call to the “fierce urgency of now.” It looks like Obama himself has again been seized by that spirit. He is using the power of his executive authority to complete an agenda whose costs and burdens will be felt long after his helicopter departs on January 20, 2017.
Without a change in direction, the president’s environmental legacy is all too likely to be remembered for its failure to adequately consider the real damage done to an already weak economy in pursuit of sparse — at best — environmental benefits.
William O’Keefe is the CEO of the George C. Marshall Institute. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
