Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.
Example: Paragraph: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Output: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.

New input case for you: Paragraph: The EPA held a hearing Friday on whether to lower the ozone status of Denver and eight other northern Colorado counties from "moderate" to "serious." That would force the state to work harder to reduce harmful pollution but also bring tougher and costly regulations for businesses. The agency expects to decide by the end of the year. The EPA acted after Democratic Gov. Jared Polis said in March that Colorado would no longer ask for an exemption from EPA standards by claiming some of the pollution was drifting into the state from elsewhere. It's time to stop "sugar-coating" Colorado's air problems, he said last month. "Moving to 'serious' status finally helps us stop sweeping our air quality crisis under the rug and gives us additional tools to move urgently to make our air cleaner," he said. But business groups say the state's own data shows Colorado would meet EPA standards if not for pollution from other states and even other continents. Lowering the air rating would hurt the economy by increasing the cost of doing business, they say. "We're talking about tens of millions of dollars in direct and indirect costs," Paul Seby, an attorney representing Defend Colorado, said in an interview before the hearing. Defend Colorado advocates for business and industry on state and federal regulation. Denver and the northern Colorado urban corridor have struggled to meet EPA ozone standards for 15 years. Ground-level ozone can aggravate asthma and contribute to early deaths from respiratory disease. It's the main component of smog, and it's created from pollution emitted by vehicles, industries, solvents and other sources. Clean-air advocates welcomed Polis' decision to pull the state's request for an exemption. "It's a big deal," said Christine Berg, Colorado field consultant for Moms Clean Air Force. "We know ozone pollution is particularly harmful for children." At Friday's hearing, several people told the EPA they blame ozone for their health problems. "I'm someone who never used to have breathing problems," said Marie Venner, who lives in the Denver suburb of Lakewood. Now, it sometimes hurts to take a breath, she said. Seby said Polis' decision was based on politics, not facts. Polis' predecessor, Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper who ended his presidential bid last month and is now running for the U.S. Senate had asked for the exemption based on data showing that pollution elsewhere and forest fire smoke from other states had pushed Colorado over the limit, Seby said. "Gov. Polis came into office and the exact opposite came about," Seby said. "The data didn't change, the science didn't change except for the politics." Seby said hundreds of businesses and institutions could be affected if Colorado's air rating is downgraded: oil and gas drilling, refineries, large breweries, print shops, wastewater treatment plants and hospitals. Anna Unruh, an air quality consultant for Trinity Consultants, which helps businesses get environmental permits and comply with regulations, agreed that a lower rating would complicate life for businesses and industry. New businesses and expansion projects might have to go through a longer, more rigorous process to get permits, she said. Existing operations might have to get an additional permit. More businesses would have to devote employee time to monitoring and reporting on their pollution. "Permitting definitely will get more difficult," she said in an interview. Failing to act on dirty air also has economic costs, especially to Colorado's vital tourism economy said Robert Ukeiley, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity. Nitrogen and other pollutants are affecting the environment and the views in Rocky Mountain National Park, the third-most-visited park in the nation, about 60 miles (95 kilometers) northwest of downtown Denver. "People don't want to go to a national park and look at smog," Ukeiley told the EPA at Friday's hearing. In addition to Denver, counties affected by the change are Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Douglas, Jefferson, Larimer and Weld. ___ Follow Dan Elliott at http://twitter.com/DanElliottAP . Claim: In a twist, Colorado asks EPA to lower state's air rating.
Output:
Colorado took the unusual step of inviting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to downgrade the air quality rating of the state's biggest population center, and not everyone thinks that was a good idea.