States Join Fight Against EPA’s New Ozone Standards
States Challenge EPA’s New Ozone Standards
Arizona, Arkansas, North Dakota, Oklahoma and New Mexico’s Environment Department join the petition for review filed by Murray Energy Corp., asking the D.C. Circuit Court to block the new national ground-level ozone standards. The EPA recently lowered the national ambient air quality standards for ground-level ozone from 75 ppb to 70 ppb even after receiving the objections of many states, business groups and lawmakers. The crux of contention is that the new levels ignore the Clean Air Act’s intent, which is that the standards imposed by EPA actually be attainable by the several states. According to Arizona’s Attorney General, the new levels cannot be realistically attained.
According to the EPA, the new standard is well below the ozone level shown to cause the widest range of respiratory effects, and just below the lowest ozone level shown to cause both decreased lung function and increased respiratory problems. Opponents claim that the new standards will hurt economic growth in areas with high, natural background ozone levels and that the agency is implementing expensive and overreaching regulations without adequately showing how the benefits outweigh the costs. Murray Energy is challenging the rule, arguing that it would be “the most costly rule-making” in U.S. history, and pointing to the ultimate effect of the rules: forcing coal-fired power plants to close early and lay off thousands of workers. Additionally, Murray claims that the United States’ gross domestic product will be reduced by $140 billion annually through 2040. Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision2001 decision in Whitman v. American Trucking Associations Inc., holding that the EPA doesn’t need to consider costs when setting air-quality standards, Murray Energy and the five states challenging the rulemaking face long odds in courts, who have historically given the EPA free rein when it comes to setting NAAQS.
The case is Arizona et al. v. EPA et al., case number 15-1392, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.