Hearing of the Energy and Power Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee - EPA's Proposed Ozone Rule: Potential Impacts on Manufacturing

Hearing

Thank you, Chairmen Whitfield and Burgess and Ranking Members Rush and
Schakowsky for holding this hearing on EPA's proposed ozone standard. I also want to
welcome all of our panelists.

We heard some great things about the importance of the proposed ozone rule last week
from EPA Acting Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe. Under the proposed standard, we
would see tremendous public health benefits. EPA's new standard will avoid nearly one million
asthma attacks, millions of missed school days, and thousands of premature deaths.
EPA estimates these benefits would range from $13 to $38 billion dollars annuallyoutweighing
the costs by approximately 3-to-1. In addition, it is consistent with the law and
scientific evidence.

The proposed ozone standard is part of a set of health-based air quality standards, which
make up the foundation of the Clean Air Act. These standards are based on scientific evidence
alone, and have been extremely effective in cleaning the air and protecting public health.
The current 75 parts per billion standard is weaker than the facts would allow. So, EPA
has proposed, based on a complete review of the scientific evidence, to revise the standard to fall
within 65 to 70 parts per billion as recommended.

I am sure today we will hear more about the costs than these benefits. Yet, a unanimous
Supreme Court opinion, written by Justice Scalia, made it clear that EPA's approach for
determining a safe level of air pollution is correct, and cost may not be considered.
During today's hearing, I urge everyone to keep in mind that the grossly inflated estimate
of the rule's projected costs fail to consider any of the benefits associated with reducing ozone
pollution. This ignores the real costs of poor air quality that are borne by those who breathe,
especially children.

We will also be told that EPA's proposed standard will have dire consequences for
economic growth. But the history of the Clean Air Act is one of exaggerated claims by industry
that have never come true. In reality, the Act has produced public health benefits while
supporting economic growth.

As I said last week, EPA's ozone standard is long overdue. And this rule will help put us
on the path to reaching the goal of the Clean Air Act--clean air for all Americans. Thank you.

Source