MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, Chalr

RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE LEE, Utah DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DEAN HELLER, Nevada MARK UDALL, Colorado JEFF FLAKE, Arizona AL FRANKEN, Minnesota TIM SCOTT, South Carolina JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii ROB PORTMAN, Ohio MARTINHEINRICH, New Mexico JOHN HOEVEN. North Dakota TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin

ELIZABETH LEOTY CRADDOCK, STAFF DIRECTOR SAM E. FOWLER. CHIEF COUNSEL KAREN K. BILLUPS, REPUBLICAN STAFF DIRECTOR PATRICK J. McCORMICK III, REPUBLICAN CHIEF COUNSEL 

# Unitcd ^tatcs ^cinatc

COMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6150

WWM/.ENERGY.SENATE.GOV

November 13, 2014

The Honorable Gina McCarthy

Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460

Dear Administrator McCarthy,

We write to encourage the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to request comment on the full range of policy options when proposing any revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone. At the outset, we note our strong support for reasonable air quality standards that protect human health and welfare. According to EPA data, such standards have already reduced emissions that are the cause of high ozone levels by over 30 million tons per year since 1980, resulting in a 25% reduction in ozone. Similar air quality improvements should continue.

In 2008, however, EPA strengthened the ozone NAAQS from 84 to 75 parts-per-billion (ppb), but then suspended state implementation during a reconsideration process in 2010-11. While implementation is again ongoing, EPA has not issued all relevant guidance, and though states are still in the relatively early stages of implementation, they have committed substantial time and resources to compliance with the 75 ppb standard. Notwithstanding states' ongoing implementation of the current 75 ppb ozone NAAQS, we understand that EPA staff recently recommended lowering the standard to between 70 ppb and 60 ppb. We are concerned that

^ further revising the ozone standard prior to full implementation of the 2008 standard risks depleting already strained state funds and, in mid-implementation, forces local communities to comply with ever-changing regulatory requirements.

Moreover, we have seen analysis that shows a new standard in the low end of range proposed by EPA staff will push nearly the entire United States into "nonattainment." We are concerned a proposal in this range would encumber states and communities with burdensome new regulations that will challenge local economies and threaten job growth. Indeed, the National Association of Manufacturers estimates that each year through 2040, an ozone NAAQS at 60 ppb would reduce the GDP by $270 billion, result in 2.9 million fewer job years, and cost the average U.S. household $1,570 in the form of lost consumption.Joe nnelly, United Sta Se ator



# ^0^

Heidi Heitkamp, United States Sen As you know, the permit requirements and persistent EPA oversight that accompanies non-attainment designation carries significant consequence for communities trying to increase job growth and build economic momentum. Established companies seeking to expand operations within non-attainment areas face challenges, as existing facilities are often required to install controls more restrictive than required outside a non-attainment area. Businesses seeking to move into a non-attainment area or expand existing operations there must install additional ozone emissions reduction technology — regardless of cost — and find offsets for ozone emissions. If no cost-effective offsets can be found, a new project cannot proceed. Furthermore, federal funds for transportation projects in non-attainment areas are cut off unless the state can show such projects do not increase ozone emissions. Additionally, areas receiving a designation of non-attainment face increased regulatory costs and must implement measures to curb ozone precursors, both of which pose threats to continued economic growth. Should more areas move into non-attainment, we are concerned that this will have a negative impact on economic growth and job creation.

We support EPA's mission of protecting air quality and appreciate the progress made over the last thirty years toward achieving that goal. We are concerned, however, that the range of ozone NAAQS reportedly being studied will not consider giving states more time to fully implement the current 75 ppb standard and is laden with potential harm to job creation and economic growth in our communities and states.

Given potential economic impact and that states have not yet implemented the current standard, we believe that EPA should engage in fulsome public dialogue on a full range of policy options when reviewing the ozone NAAQS, and we ask that EPA request comment on the existing standards when proposing any revision to the ozone NAAQS, in addition to any range contained in the proposal. Doing so will help advance the Clean Air Act's tradition of protecting the environment while preserving the economy.

Sincerely,