Subcommittee Democrats Emphasize Health-Based Rationale for Ozone Standards
(Washington, DC) – Today, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee held its second hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone with an emphasis on how the standard may impact rural communities. Members highlighted that under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to establish an ozone standard to protect public health based on science, not on costs of implementation.
Ranking Member of the Environment Subcommittee Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) said in her opening statement, “the Clean Air Act, as passed by Congress, explicitly prohibits the EPA from considering cost when setting an ozone standard. Congress purposefully put the health and well-being of Americans first. Now, more than ever, the American people need a strong EPA to protect their right to clean air and water. Some will argue today that implementing a lower ozone standard is not worth it -- that it will kill jobs and the economy. There is much more evidence showing that on balance, jobs are created and the economy expands following the passage of major environmental reforms.”
She continued, “In my home state of Oregon we recognize the challenges associated with implementing a more stringent standard. Wildfires and the long-range shifting of ozone from Asia will need to be addressed if we are to achieve a lower standard. That said, comments submitted by my home state indicate Oregon’s support for the EPA’s proposal. Specifically, a letter from David Collier, the Air Quality Manager at the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality states that ‘Oregon welcomes EPA’s proposal to lower the ozone NAAQS, based on advice provided by the Clean Air Act Science Advisory Committee, in order to provide the adequate protection to human health and welfare’.”
In response to a question regarding the Clean Air Act prohibiting EPA from considering costs in setting an ozone standard, minority witness, Dr. Paul Miller, Deputy Director and Chief Scientist of the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management replied, "They're health based, welfare based, [standards] based on science. Costs come into implementing the standard. I think it was very far-sighted, and as I've mentioned several times, I think that's forced industry to innovate in areas where they weren't going to."
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said in her statement for the record, “Organizations such as the World Health Organization, the National Academies of Science, the American Lung Association, the Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the American Thoracic Society and many others have independently examined the scientific evidence and reached the same conclusion-- ozone is harmful to human health. It is time for us to be supportive of EPA’s efforts to protect the American people. We need to allow EPA and the States to take the needed steps to improve our air.”
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article