EPA Says It's ‘Prohibited’ From Considering Costs When Issuing Air-Quality Regulations
The Environmental Protection Agency informed Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.) in a recent letter that it considers itself “prohibited” by law from considering costs when setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
“I received this week a letter from the EPA regarding a letter I’ve written them about some of their rules and they wrote here, quote, ‘Thus, the agency is prohibited from considering costs in setting these standards,'" Hartzler said last week. "Now in business we do a cost benefit analysis before we make policy changes. Washington should as well.”
“We have got way too many government regulations and we’ve got to get them off the backs of our business owners," said Hartzler in a Thursday press conference with House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R.-Va.). "The small business administration reported that government regulations are estimated to cost our economy over $1.75 trillion a year and I hear these horror stories on a regular basis from business owners back in my district and yet the bureaucracy seems to be oblivious to the implications of these rules on jobs.”
The letter from the EPA referenced by Rep. Hartzler was written in response to a letter she and a group of Republican House members sent to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson regarding an NAAQS rule.
“We write to you today to express our concern regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule to reconsider a recently issued 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground level ozone,” said the letter dated February 23, 2011.
“This action departs from the normal five-year NAAQS review schedule established by the Clean Air Act, a statutory process that includes mandatory reviews of new science and affords multiple opportunities for public comment.”
The letter, provided to CNSNews.com by Hartzler’s press office also said: “According to EPA’s estimate, the 2008 standard requires states and local governments to make significant reductions in ozone at a cost to industry of about $7.6 to $8.8 billion per year. EPA’s new proposal calls for even greater reductions that will cost up to $90 billion per year, per EPA’s own estimates.”
In a response dated May 10, assistant EPA administratorGina McCarthy wrote, “Under the Clean Air Act, decisions regarding the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) must be based solely on an evaluation of the scientific evidence as it pertains to health and environmental effects.”
She continued, “Thus, the agency is prohibited from considering costs in setting the NAAQS. But cost can be – and is – considered in developing the control strategies to meet the standards (i.e. during the implementation phase).”
- Nicholas Ballasy's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Cost benefits, eh?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 05/31/2011 - 5:50pm.
I hope she's not being naive enough to believe that malarkey, especially when it's the Chairman having the EPA do these things to drive the costs of energy up. Not to mention that any time an energy related company wants to build some sort of refinery or power plant that would benefit people, the EPA steps in to make sure it DOESN'T happen, such as the leases for drilling for example.
The hearing that the EPA was in was laughable when the EPA themselves tried to take credit for Bush's oil production leases until Issa corrected them on it.
-Jon
EPA work is done, in America, they need to be exported to China
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 05/31/2011 - 7:54pm.
EPA is the government so the public be damned.
The gains in less pollution from .000001 to .0000001 parts per whatever increases the costs of the filtration equipment by 10 fold.
Roll all the pollution numbers back to 1990.
If present trends continue 100% of the power generated will go to operating pollution equipment. Crap like pumping co2 into the ground. Soon 100% of the gas you place in your car, will be used to operate the new smog pumps, so sad so sorry you can't go anywhere.
You Didn't Build That.
EPA = Employment Prevention Agency
Submitted by Phryj1 on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 1:36am.
The EPA, an agency that's operating under an administration that has no qualms whatsoever about ignoring rules (including those it sets for itself), laws, and even the Constitution if it happens to be inconvenient is suddenly going to show deference for the rule-of-law if it means they can get away with hurting more businesses and driving up taxes and costs-of-living.
Not to mention, but they are already prohibited from regulating CO2, but that's not stopping them. This is absolute proof that the EPA is all about destroying as many jobs and businesses as possible. More of the fundamental transformation Obama was talking about.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
Van Jones the Great Expressed it well
Submitted by Less1leg on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 3:27am.
I've seen numerous video of this guy telling students to not go after the poltical side of Changing America. Go after regulators, join the EPA where you can change America into a social activist extension of the Socialist ideal. Change America from within, not the ballot box, but from the Agency Board of Directors. You can decree all kinds of change by sitting in the Environmental Protection Agency. He had huge numbers of University students laughing their backsides off.
And he is right. Van Jones is winning the war of socialism not at the ballot box, but in the Agencies themselves. Flood these outposts with social activists. In time, just like our Universities and Colleges people of a social activist slant will move up and take those senior management positions. Then those senior management socialists will appoint more like minded Van Jones types of Environmental Activists to replace them.
The vicous circle will be complete, and the whole darned department agency will be done by malcontent social activist hell bent on throwing road block after road block on our way of life. They are winning the war right now. Look at how warped our new graduates are on industrialization. None have a clue, and those who are graduating are so enamered with socialist environmentalism they don't even question the validity of global warming or climate change. Even when exposed for what it was, these people still sip from the Van Jones cup. Insane, just insane.
Communists in the government.
Submitted by Huapakechi on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 8:01am.
Where's Joe McCarthy when we need him most?
Open season on watermelons. (Green outside, communist Red inside)
No bag limit.