Subcommittee Discusses Ozone Standards, Democrats Emphasize the Importance of Protecting Public Health
(Washington, DC) – Today, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology’s Subcommittee on Environment held a hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground level ozone, which is a main contributor to smog. Ozone is a pollutant regulated by the Clean Air Act because it is considered harmful to public health and the environment. The EPA is in the process of reviewing the ozone NAAQS, as required every five years by the Clean Air Act.
The discussion at the hearing was dominated by the issue of EPA’s definition of background ozone. Background ozone is ozone that cannot be controlled through U.S. policies, including ozone from natural sources such as wildfires or lightning as well as ozone from anthropogenic sources such as other countries. The EPA assesses risks to human health and environmental effects from levels in excess of background ozone concentrations. Dr. Russell Dickerson, Professor of Chemical and Chemical Physics at the University of Maryland’s Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, testified that there is enough flexibility in the Clean Air Act to account for background ozone.
Ranking Member of the Environment Subcommittee, Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), said, “EPA has the responsibility to ensure that its decision to set a new ozone standard is guided by the best available science. I am cognizant of the argument that local conditions in the Intermountain West may require some new forms of flexibility by EPA in enforcing ozone standards, and I encourage EPA to work with the states to develop such flexibility. Despite that call for flexibility, the science on ozone and health is sound. The need for more science on background levels of ozone must not deter or prevent the EPA from setting an ozone standard that is fully protective of human health.”
She continued, “This country has proven time and time again that a cleaner environment improves worker productivity, increases agricultural yield, reduces mortality and illness, and achieves other economic and public health benefits that outweigh the costs of compliance.”
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) emphasized the need for investments in research at the EPA so that the EPA can effectively do its job. She said, “As a country, we need to do all that we can to ensure that we have clean air to breathe. The EPA is at the forefront of protecting our citizen’s ability to breathe clean air, whether it is in my home State of Texas or here in Washington, D.C. To do its job correctly, the EPA must invest in research, determining how pollutants occur and how they affect the health of our population. The EPA’s investment in scientific research helps achieve regulations which are the fairest and most cost-effective way of protecting our citizens from pollutants.”
One of the Majority witnesses was Jeffrey R. Holmstead, the former Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation at the EPA under the Bush Administration from 2001 to 2005. Since 2006 he has been a lobbyist for the oil, gas and coal industry at Bracewell & Giuliani. Since joining the law firm, where he heads the Environmental Strategies Group (ESG) he has helped to bring in nearly $18 million in lobbying fees from 16 separate companies and associations. According to his bio, he says the group he leads works with energy attorneys and strategic communications experts “to advise and defend companies and business groups confronting major environmental and energy-development challenges, both domestically and globally.” Mr. Holmstead noted in his Truth in Testimony disclosure form to the Committee that he was not representing any specific entity in his testimony today and was simply testifying in his “personal capacity.”
“I think everyone should find these clear financial conflicts-of-interest in a witness called to testify on the science supporting proposed environmental regulations very troubling,” said Rep. Donna F. Edwards, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Space. “We should be evaluating our air quality standards based on science, not an industry’s financial interests.”
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article