Costly U.S. Smog Curbs Draw Scant Opposition

Gathered before a diverse group of Silicon Valley business leaders, Carol Browner had just described her agency’s fiercely fought plan to set tough new limits on air pollution. Finished with her appeal, she stepped back, bracing for the questions.

After all, as head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Browner had unveiled the Clinton administration’s most sweeping environmental initiative--proposed new health standards that would force about 500 counties to clean up smog and soot, at a staggering cost of billions of dollars.

So in California, she was ready for the same blistering assault from businesses, mayors, governors and members of Congress that the EPA has encountered in virtually every city and state.

But the attacks never came.

Nobody accused the EPA of altering people’s lifestyles, ruining the economy, shutting down businesses, inflating the cost of cars or banning barbecues. Nobody even asked how much it would cost.

For Browner, coming to the smoggiest state in the union to discuss the EPA’s proposed new pollution standards was like a breath of fresh air.

Californians have the most to gain--and the most to lose--under the new national limits for particle pollution and ozone--alias soot and smog. With the dirtiest air, the Los Angeles region will have to do more, at greater cost, than any other place in the nation.

After battling air pollution from industry and vehicles for six decades, and already adopting the world’s strongest rules, the Los Angeles region would have to amplify its efforts, developing new regulations that would probably generate millions more in cleanup costs.

Indeed, air quality officials in the Los Angeles Basin have no idea at this point how they could comply, and wonder if the standards are even reachable here, unless the EPA agrees to extend the deadlines deep into the 21st century.

But while the debate has been fiery elsewhere, especially in industrial sectors of the Midwest and East, California officials and many businesses are less vehement--one EPA official described them as “almost sanguine”--about the threat of aggressive new smog limits. No elected official in California has stepped forward to urge the Clinton administration to abandon them.

On Wednesday, the EPA wrapped up its years-long investigation--the most extensive ever conducted in setting a public health standard. Its staff will now pore over 17,000 letters, records of 15,000 phone calls and hundreds of hours of testimony amassed since the proposal was revealed in November. Browner must impose new standards by July 19 to meet a court-ordered deadline.

The two new standards will define the concentrations of particles and ozone deemed healthful. Then, each city or state will have until 2002 to craft its own strategy and until 2012, at the latest, to achieve the new limits. Areas that fail to comply face the threat of severe sanctions, including a freeze on federal highway funds.

In a reaction echoed by few other states, the Wilson administration supports strengthening the standards. Air Resources Board Executive Officer Michael Kenny told the EPA in a letter Wednesday that the old limits “do not adequately protect public health.”

And the people burdened with cleaning up the Los Angeles Basin’s air--the South Coast Air Quality Management District--say the new proposal is actually too weak in some key ways. AQMD officials asked the EPA to “seriously rethink” a provision that averages pollution over broad areas, saying it would inadequately protect people in severely polluted cities, such as Riverside.

The state and AQMD, however, did ask the EPA to extend deadlines to achieve the new limits, although they did not say how long.

The EPA estimates that the tighter standards yearly would prevent 20,000 premature deaths from respiratory and cardiac disease, 250,000 asthma attacks and 60,000 cases of chronic bronchitis.

Complying would cost $6.6 billion to $8.5 billion in 2007, while the benefits, largely in terms of reduced medical bills, would reach $58 billion to $120 billion, the EPA estimates.

Nationally, a coalition of more than 500 major businesses--led by oil, auto, steel and trucking companies--has spearheaded the most vocal opposition.

The opponents say the science about the potential health benefits is incomplete and too uncertain to warrant such an immense expense.

Although health experts say evidence overwhelmingly shows that fine particles are linked to illnesses and deaths, they do not know which types are the most dangerous--for example, diesel exhaust versus coal--or exactly what they do to the human body. Industry leaders say waiting for such details could avoid a massive effort that might prove to be inconsequential in protecting health.

“People are going to lose their jobs and businesses, with absolutely no guarantee of public health benefits in return,” said Thomas J. Donohue, president of the American Trucking Assn.

Many California business leaders have voiced similar but more moderate objections.

Attorney Robert Wyman, who represents Los Angeles area oil refineries and aerospace companies, is not asking the EPA to shelve the new standards. Instead, he has focused on urging officials to collect new data defining the worst particles so that California can design the most reasonable and effective solutions.

“We already have the cleanest businesses in the world, so doing more will be much more challenging and costly than anywhere else in the country,” said Wyman, who is influential in molding Southern California’s smog rules.

One reason Californians seem less strident is that combating smog is a way of life here. And Southern Californians have clearly seen the benefits; the skies are substantially cleaner than they were 30 years ago or even 10 years ago.

Many Californians also dismiss misconceptions spreading in other states, where people have been told by some industries that barbecues, fireplaces, Fourth of July fireworks and lawn mowers could be banned. California officials have not--and say they never will--ban such consumer products.

Still, there are no methods available today that would clean up enough of California’s pollution by 2012--unless businesses are shut down, driving is restricted and growth is halted. As a result, industries fear unrealistic requirements for every vehicle, product and business.

Of widespread concern is the fate of diesel engines, with California trucking companies especially worried since there is no practical replacement for long-haul trucks.

Still, the EPA says technologies coming on line, especially cleaner truck and bus engines in 2004, mean 70% of the cities violating the new standards will comply. But that is little solace for California, which accounts for most of the 30% that won’t.

In describing the Los Angeles challenge, Browner borrowed a line from a famous song about New York: “If we can make it there, we can make it anywhere.”

“We’re not suggesting this is easy,” Browner said. “It’s going to be tough.”