Rethink the Air Quality Planning Process: Favor Public Health over Paperwork, According to Environmental Attorney, Jed Anderson

Business Wire, Oct 31, 2007

HOUSTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of once again requiring states to develop air quality plans that will fail to achieve the national air quality standards. EPA will soon release its likely recommendation to lower the ground-level ozone standard--triggering the development of more State Implementation Plans (SIPs).

SIPs are the air quality blueprints that states are required to develop for any area in "nonattainment" with the standards.

"Trying to achieve the new ozone levels in these areas using the current SIP process will cost businesses and taxpayers many billions of dollars," said environmental attorney, Jed Anderson. "States try and fail to meet the standard, expending time and money in a paper chase that most can't win because they have little control over the majority of the emission sources. Those states that do win rely largely on federal emission reductions already on the books--making one ask what environmental good comes from requiring states to develop plans that tell the federal government what the federal government is doing," Anderson said.

Critics of the SIP process argue that the biggest chunk of ozone-related pollution now comes from mobile emissions such as cars and from pollution blowing in from other states and countries. Such pollution is generally outside state control. Despite little control, current federal law requires states to be responsible for achieving the air quality standards. "Essentially states are being told to build a barn without using a hammer or nails," Anderson said. "It's not fair to make states responsible for achieving the air quality standards, tie their hands, and then threaten to remove their transportation funding if they fail."

A recent study found that approximately half of the ozone pollution in the Houston area can be background pollution blowing in from other states and countries. Of the half of the ozone that is formed in the Houston area, over half of this pollution comes from federally regulated sources such as cars and trucks. This leaves less than 25% of the emissions that the state can control. "When the federal government is requiring a 55% reduction and the state only controls 25%, you can't get there from here," Anderson said. "The alternative is to ask for more time or require people to stop driving their cars."

While some air quality improvements will undoubtedly continue to be made through the current SIP process, the circuitous process might only serve to reinforce the problem, creating the appearance of environmental protection without supplying the substance.

"One potential solution is to remove the SIP process entirely and give the federal EPA, which now controls most ozone-related emissions sources, the responsibility for achieving national air quality standards," said Anderson. "The key is to realign responsibility for achieving the air quality standards with the authority to achieve the standards. Shifting the responsibility back to the EPA would allow states to spend their time and resources on issues they can more efficiently and properly control rather than justifying what they cannot effectively do."