|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southern California faces sanctions for failing to meet federal ozone standard Southern California is facing federal sanctions for failing to meet an air-pollution health standard that was repealed by the Bush administration in 2004. The sanctions are expected to cost the region's largest industries and utilities millions of dollars in new fees every year until the standard is met. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is requiring the regional air-quality agency to impose the fees beginning next year on the 400-plus top-polluting industries and utilities. The region covers the four-county air basin between the ocean and the San Bernardino Mountains. The sanctions are the first imposed on Southern California for not meeting a clean-air deadline, various observers said. EPA spokeswoman Catherine Milbourn said in an e-mail that the agency preferred not to comment. A South Coast Air Quality Management District official said Friday that the fees could total as much as $36 million a year, although the agency is working on a discount system to reduce that sum to about $8 million. Southern California had faced a 2010 deadline to meet the federal standard for ozone pollution averaged over one hour. The lung-irritating pollutant causes headaches and nausea, aggravates asthma and respiratory conditions and has been linked to early deaths. In 2004, the Bush administration repealed the one-hour goal in favor of a tougher eight-hour standard and extended the deadline to 2024. However, under the Clean Air Act, changes in pollution standards cannot slow progress in cutting pollution. The Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups successfully sued to enforce the old standard. Southern California still does not meet the one-hour health standard, set in the early 1980s. Ozone levels exceeded that standard during 15 days in 2009. If the district did not impose the fees, the region could face penalties such as the loss of federal highway dollars, or the federal government could force new pollution-cutting measures, district spokesman San Atwood said. The sanctions and the district's plan for discounting the fees both have drawn criticism. The discounts would give polluters credit for the recession, for the state's clean air progress and for the cost of pollution permits the companies must have. The Natural Resources Defense Council said the air district doesn't have the authority to discount the fees, which will be invested in cleaning up the air. Industry representatives pointed out that the fees don't penalize cars, trucks and other vehicles that produce 80 percent of the region's pollution. "There is certainly a basic fairness question," said Robert A. Wyman Jr., an attorney for the Regulatory Flexibility Group, which represents industries, utilities, refineries and other businesses. Industry Complaints Those companies are responsible for about 10 percent of the region's pollution, and most already have state-of-the-art emissions controls, said Barbara Baird, an air district attorney. "They are only a small part of the problem," she said. "There is little they can do to cut emissions other than cutting their production." Jay Grady, a senior environmental manager for CalPortland Co., said the fees will make it more difficult to bring back jobs to the company's cement plant in Colton. Wyman said the fees, even reduced to $8 million and spread among 400 industries, will discourage businesses from locating or expanding in Southern California. "There will be marginal costs on top of other marginal costs that are paid only in Southern California." David Pettit, a Santa Monica-based senior attorney for the Natural Resource Defense Council, said the whole point is to make the air safe to breathe. The fee reductions sought by the air district don't meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act, he said. "We think it is illegal." The air district's fee proposal will go to the governing board in May. It would require EPA approval, Atwood said. Source: Riverside Press Enterprise |
|