EPA's air rule looks safe

Unless minds change, Congress will not rescue the U.S. economy from the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's July rule on ozone and soot looks immune to legislative challenge.

Bills in the House and Senate would slow EPA's lurch to maximum regulation of air pollution from ozone and fine particles. The rule, signed in July, will double to more than 300 the number of counties not meeting Clean Air Act pollution standards.

Delay urged

Sens. John Breaux (D-La.) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.) submitted legislation requiring EPA to delay implementation of the new standards for 4 years and to study related science during the wait. In the House, Ron Klink (D-Pa.), Rick Boucher (D-Va.), and Fred Upton (R-Mich.) proposed a similar delay and study. Tom Bliley (R-Va.), chairman of the House Commerce Committee, scheduled mark-up of his chamber's bill in September.

But 145 representatives pledged to support the EPA rule. With one seat vacant, the 435-member House won't be able to produce the 290 votes needed to override a veto certainly awaiting any legislative setback to EPA's rule.

The dead-end won't please the many industrial and nonfederal government groups that have protested the tougher air standards. They all consider the move scientifically unwarranted and far too costly. Even members of the Clinton administration resisted the plan. Ultimately, the President supported EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner, champion of the initiative.

For oil and gas companies, the issue raises two problems. Neither of them has anything to do with the need to raise supplies of reformulated gasoline. While a doubling of counties freshly in violation of air-quality standards certainly requires changes to equipment and operations, the challenges are minor in relation to the strains of meeting initial reformulation demands.

One new worry for oil companies is the effect on petroleum demand of whatever harm the EPA rule does to the economy. EPA naturally thinks costs will be small: $6.5-8.5 billion/year. One opponent of the measure, the Reason Public Policy Institute, puts the figure at $150 billion/year. Lower economic growth means less consumption of oil and other energy.

More important than those hazards, however, is the growing tendency of unsubstantiated fear to breed maximum regulation, regardless of cost. EPA claims to be certain that its tougher pollution standards will save lives. Other authorities, including the agency's own scientific advisory board, have doubts and insist that the scientific basis for tougher standards is incomplete. Indeed, EPA's credibility suffered when studies showed that a surge in asthma, which the ozone initiative is supposed to address, results mainly from indoor factors and not from air pollution.

Of course, costs of the ozone and soot initiative-to whatever extent they can be measured-may turn out to be closer to EPA's estimates than to those of groups resisting the rule. The effect on petroleum demand may yet be negligible. And even if costs prove greater than what EPA says they'll be, a growing economy can take an occasional punch from government.

But how many blows must the U.S. economy sustain? A government willing to regulate in response to exaggerated fear is certain to do a lot of regulating. No economy can endure such a pattern of abuse.

EPA's toughening of the ozone and soot standard looks reactionary in light of recent improvements in air quality. The air is getting cleaner. So how can there be a developing health crisis related to air pollution?

Reason to learn

The new findings on asthma deflate fears EPA tried to raise about ozone. In the case of fine particles, the agency deserves attention. It sees cause for concern in an area about which science knows very little. A health threat may really exist.

But that's reason for science to learn more, not for the economy to grow less. Clinton, the EPA, and 145 lawmakers need to learn the difference.