New EPA ozone rules will cause economic damage to Nevada

Smog over Las Vegas (R-J photo)

The Environmental Protection Agency this past week issued draconian new regulations that slash the levels of ozone allowed in ground-level air, posing a particular problem for all of Nevada.

“Bringing ozone pollution standards in line with the latest science will clean up our air, improve access to crucial air quality information, and protect those most at-risk,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy blithely.

The order cuts allowable ground-level ozone from 75 parts per billion, for which most states have yet to draw up compliance plans, to either 65 or 70 ppb. The agency is still quibbling over the exact level but already is planning to conduct hearings on whether to cut the allowable level to 60 ppb. (Yes, that’s parts per billion. Think of 1 ppb as the equivalent of one drop of ink in the tanker of the largest gasoline tanker truck.)

While ozone is naturally occurring, much of the ground-level ozone is a byproduct of burning fossil fuels

In order to comply with ozone limits, states will have to create contingency plans under which power plants, manufacturers and agriculture operations must cut back or shut down altogether.

Approximately a third of the country is out of compliance with the cur¬rent standard of 75 ppb and cutting to 60 ppb would leave 95 percent of the country out of compliance.

It is bad enough that much of Nevada’s ozone is blown in on the winds from smog producing California cities, Asian coal-fired power plants and wildfires, but a recent study found that the Great Basin area is the bulls-eye center for something called stratospheric intrusions that bring ozone from the stratosphere down to the surface.

Researchers took readings from a mountain top 30 miles northwest of Las Vegas and found that stratospheric intrusions added at least 30 ppb to the natural ozone level, which is usually 50 to 60 ppb. That pushes the ozone level to at least 80 ppb and violates EPA’s current standard, much less the new, more stringent one.

According to the EPA, Clark County at 77 ppb on average for the past three years already exceeds the current 75 ppb limit. A lower limit would put White Pine County’s 74 ppb over the line. Lyon County at 69 ppb and Washoe at 68 ppb would exceed a 65 ppb limit. Churchill would squeeze under at 56 ppb. But none of the other Nevada counties even have ozone monitoring stations at this time, and thus the impact is unknown.

The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that the ozone rule could cost $270 billion a year — the most expensive regulation in history.

To which McCarthy replies, “Special-interest critics will try to convince you that pollution standards chase away local jobs and businesses, but, in fact, healthy communities attract new businesses, new investment, and new jobs.” Since when is thumb-twiddling a job?

Compliance will mean shutting down or modifying power plants, factories, heavy-duty vehicles, farm equipment, off-road vehicles and passenger cars.

For Nevadans it will cost $23 million more to own and operate vehicles. The Silver State’s gross state product would be reduced by $19 billion and 11,224 jobs a year would be eliminated.

To add insult to injury, the science linking respiratory ailments to ozone levels is widely disputed and unsettled.

Maybe the EPA will next ban people from living in Nevada. That might be the only way to comply with the new rule.

Or maybe the EPA will relent. Don’t hold your breath.


11 comments on “New EPA ozone rules will cause economic damage to Nevada

  1. Rincon says:

    You might want to consider a different picture considering your stance. The clean, dry desert air looks pretty doesn’t look so clean and dry.

  2. Rincon says:

    No sweat. I fired my proofreader.

  3. Winston Smith says:

    Regulation = Law = Mandate?

    Did Congress pass these regulations?

    If not, I would suggest that they are merely color of law, and should be widely ignored.

    Let’s not save the village by destroying the village.

  4. Athos says:

    Too late, Winston! The Barbarians are inside the walls. (And this blogger’s opinion is they are in charge of the country!)

  5. Rincon says:

    If they were in charge of the country, we would have aggressively addressed climate change. Since we have done nothing in 30 years, I think Liberals could easily claim that the conservative barbarians are inside the walls.

  6. Steve says:

    Some libs actually believe the rivers are still on fire and the lakes are still dead.

  7. Rincon says:

    So those cleanups weren’t bipartisan? Conservatives believe we should still have dead lakes and flammable rivers?

    You’re right Thomas. A whole 6% of our electricity is now generated by renewables (excluding hydroelectric). Although we also reap benefits from less air pollution, less coal ash, less mercury in our lakes and streams, less black lung disease*, and fewer mountaintops removed, one could say that by and large, it was done for global warming.

    Incidence of severe black lung disease is about 3.5%, the same as in 1974.

  8. Steve says:

    You said, in part, “Since we have done nothing in 30 years….”

    And this is simply not true.

  9. Rincon says:

    As I replied to Thomas, I had exaggerated slightly. We’ve done very little. That in no way negates my point.

  10. […] December the EPA issued an order cutting allowable ground-level ozone from 75 parts per billion to either 65 or 70 ppb. By court […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s