• Home
• About Amy
• Serving Minnesotans
• About Minnesota
• Issues/ Legislation
• Media Center
• Contact Amy
• FAQ

News Releases

Klobuchar Blasts EPA for Taking the Easy Road on Ozone Levels

Pushes Administration to put public health first

March 13, 2008

Washington, D.C. – Today U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar sent a letter to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) insisting that he provide a detailed explanation for why the Administration chose to set the new limit on the allowable amount of pollution-forming ozone in the air at 75 parts per billion.

EPA scientists recommended a more aggressive and safer standard of 60 ppb, a level that some scientists say could avoid anywhere between 3,000 – 9,200 deaths per year.  Klobuchar pressed the EPA to implement a more aggressive level, and chided the Administration for setting the bar too low and ignoring the risks to public health and the recommendation of its own professional staff.

 “For over thirty years, protecting public health has not harmed the economy—nor is it likely to do so in the future.  In fact, history has proven that our industry can and will rise to the challenge of high standards, creating the technology to meet them and allowing us to make continued progress on this critical issue,” said Klobuchar.  “As public officials, we are charged not with setting policies that are expedient, but which are in the best interests of the American people now and in the generations to come.”

Research shows that pollution levels in the ozone have a direct impact on rates of heart and respiratory disease that result in premature deaths.   The move would not only save lives, but could save between $2 billion and $19 billion annually in health benefits while only costing polluters between $7 and $9 billion.

The full text of Klobuchar’s letter is below:

March 13, 2008

The Honorable Stephen L. Johnson
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N\V
Washington, DC 20460-0001

Dear Administrator Johnson:

I write to express my deep disappointment with your recent decision to set the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone at a level inconsistent with scientific data and the recommendations of your own scientific advisers.  Rejecting the recommendations of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and setting air quality standards based on industry concerns defies logic, discounts undisputed science, and disregards the law.

The Clean Air Act assigns you the responsibility of protecting the American public from dangerous air pollutants. Ozone, the primary cause of smog, is linked to many of our nation's health problems, including asthma, respiratory illnesses, and even death. Your own scientific advisors, as well as numerous major medical and public health organizations recommended a standard between 60 and 70ppm to adequately protect public health. The decision to ignore the advice of the nation’s leading medical and public health experts and set a standard at 75ppm is unacceptable.

The Clean Air Act does not permit the Environmental Protection Agency to consider anything but public health when setting national ambient air quality standards. The Supreme Court, in Whitman v. American Trucking Association 531 U.S. 457 (2001), unanimously held – to consider anything but the impact on public health is outside the bounds of the law.  As Senator Edmund Muskie famously stated when passing the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, neither Congress nor the EPA was “to be limited by what is or appears to be technologically or economically feasible but to establish what the public interest requires to protect the health of persons.” 

For over thirty years, protecting public health has not harmed the economy—nor is it likely to do so in the future.  In fact, history has proven that our industry can and will rise to the challenge of high standards, creating the technology to meet them and allowing us to make continued progress on this critical issue.  To quote one of your own scientists in today’s Washington Post, “because it is difficult does not mean it is not worth doing.”  As public officials, we are charged not with setting policies that are expedient, but which are in the best interests of the American people now and in the generations that follow.  Your decision breaks that trust with the people, and shirks your responsibilities as a public servant.

Any revision to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards not purely based on public health concerns is unacceptable. To that end, I ask that you provide me with a detailed explanation of the factors you considered when determining the new standards for ozone.

Sincerely,

/s

Amy Klobuchar
U.S. Senator