EPA cooked the books to push for greater restrictions
The Environmental Protection Agency inflated the monetized benefits of a major air quality rule to justify imposing a harsher smog standard on U.S. counties,according to a new report by Energy In Depth (EID).The EPA is an agency that cannot be trusted to call ball and strikes on the environment. It has too many extremist in top positions who are willing to say and do anything no matter what the consequences are for the economy. I just do not trust them.
“EPA’s ozone rule could very well be the costliest regulation in U.S. history,” said Steve Everley, spokesman for the petroleum industry-backed EID. “If a rule of this magnitude is to be imposed, then the EPA should consider providing a far more scientifically robust ‘public health’ basis — one that doesn’t rely on inflated health benefits or a lack of appreciation for the very real economic costs.”
The EPA proposed its costly smog, or ozone, standard the day before Thanksgiving 2014. The agency mandated that ambient smog levels be lowered from 75 parts per billion (pbb) to levels between 70 ppb and 65 ppb. The EPA also solicited comments for an even lower standard at 60 pbb — one which could put almost the entire country out of compliance with the rule and cost $3.4 trillion by 2040.
The EPA said its new smog standard was based on “1,000 studies” published since 2008. The agency argued the rule would also bring $23 billion in monetized net benefits. But EID found that EPA’s monetized benefit calculation is 3,100 percent higher than what the agency calculated in 2011 for the same smog standard.
In 2011, the agency estimated the “net benefits” of a 65 ppb smog standard were only $700 million, which included the “co-benefits” of reducing fine particulate matter. This means that the benefits of reducing smog alone were less than advertised.
In fact, White House regulations czar Cass Sunstein told the EPA that in “some of the agency’s estimates, the net benefits would have been zero” if it weren’t for the co-benefits of reducing particulate matter.
But just three years later, the EPA somehow found their rule had benefits that were 3,100 percent more than they originally thought.