The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday unveiled a long-delayed proposal to lower the amount of ozone it allows in the nation's air, a move that delighted environmental groups and dejected industrial interests.

The EPA estimates that strengthening the existing allowable standard of 75 parts per billion of smog-producing ozone in the air would prevent asthma attacks, premature deaths, emergency room visits and missed work days. It suggests strengthening the standard to either 65 parts per billion or 70 parts per billion.

Ozone is formed in the lower atmosphere when emissions such as nitrogen oxide from coal-fired power plants, cars and buses, as well as other chemicals, mix with sunlight. Ozone levels are higher during the warmer, longer days of the year.

The Obama administration weighed similar action several years ago, but postponed it in when the president was seeking re-election 2011. The EPA has issued a series of limits on a variety airborne chemicals emitted by industry, such as carbonand mercury, and plans to issue more next year.

U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said the Clean Air Act requires her agency to review ozone standards every five years, and its past pollution reduction efforts cut the nation's ozone levels by a third since 1980. Since the Clean Air Act was adopted 44 years ago, McCarthy said air pollution has dropped by 70 percent while the nation's gross domestic product has tripled. The EPA last revised ozone standards in 2008.

McCarthy said her agency suggested a range of proposed standards to solicit public comments on a "different range of outcomes" to best protect public health. EPA will accept public comment on the proposed rule for 90 days after it's published in the Federal Register. It is scheduled to be finalized next October.

"Stronger standards better protect children and families from ozone pollution," said McCarthy.

The EPA predicts that every dollar invested to comply with the standards will save up to three dollars in health care costs. It forecasts health savings valued at $6.4 billion to $13 billion yearly in 2025 from the a 70 parts per billion standard, and $19 billion to $38 billion annually in 2025 for a 65 parts per billion standard.  It estimated yearly compliance costs would be $3.9 billion in 2025 for the less stringent standard, and  $15 billion for the higher one.

If the new standards were adopted, much of Ohio would be out of compliance. U.S. EPA data indicates Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake and Lorain counties would violate the 70 parts per billion standard, while Medina, Portage and Summit counties would also violate the 65 part per billion proposal.

U.S. EPA Acting Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe said existing programs and those scheduled for enactment would fix most problems by 2025. By that time, she said just 9 U.S. counties outside of California would not comply with the 70 parts per billion standard and 59 wouldn't meet the 65 parts per billion proposal

Ohio EPA spokeswoman Heidi Griesmer said her agency will review U.S. EPA's new proposal and provide comments. In past years, she said, OEPA has implemented the e-check testing program to reduce smog-producing motor vehicle pollution. Federal actions to reduce power plant and industrial pollution also helped reduce the state's ozone levels, said Griesmer.

"At this point, it is too early to say the control strategies we would use to clean our metro areas," said Greismer. "A lot depends on how much we have to improve. We don't know until we have a firm standard."

FirstEnergy Corp. spokeswoman Jennifer Young said it's also too early to determine how the new standards would affect her utility or any individual business. She said FirstEnergy has reduced emissions of nitrogen oxides that contribute to ozone by more than 80 percent since 1990, putting state-of-the art devices to reduce emissions on almost all its units. The company operates nine coal-fired power plants, she said, but three are scheduled for closure.

Updating the EPA's ozone pollution standards "will potentially impact all sectors of the economy, from the cars we drive, to manufacturing, industry and power generation," said Young, noting the electric industry produces less than 30 percent of U.S. emissions of nitrogen oxides.

House Speaker John Boehner and other GOP lawmakers from Ohio were unhappy with the EPA proposal.

Ohio Sen. Rob Portman fears the rule "will have a negative impact on job creation in the state of Ohio," his spokeswoman said, while Boehner predicted it could "slash family budgets by more than $1,500 per year, reduce GDP by trillions and cost our economy millions of jobs."

Wadsworth Republican Rep. Jim Renacci predicted it would lead to higher utility costs. He pledged "to rein in the EPA to ensure that its overreaching regulations do not crush job creation and increase costs for Ohioans."

"Significant portions of the country, including Ohio, are still struggling to meet the EPA's 2008 guidelines, so moving the goalposts now will only lead to more uncertainty and higher compliance costs, which will ultimately be passed onto the consumer," said a statement from Renacci.

Ohio's Democratic U.S. Senator, Sherrod Brown, wants to protect Ohioans from breathing pollutants that lead to premature death, asthma, and heart and respiratory diseases, said his spokeswoman, Meghan Dubyak.

"Sen Brown will closely follow this issue and work with industry and environmental leaders to ensure the final proposal improves air quality while promoting continued economic growth," said Dubyak.

Ohio Coal Association Interim President Christian Palich predicted the new rule would drive up electricity prices and make manufacturing less competitive in Ohio, where about 69 percent of the state's electricity comes from coal.

"I am sure it will be challenged in court," said Palich. "As an industry, we are already spending billions of dollars on scrubbers and other technologies to lower hazardous pollutants. Things are going the right way. This is part of the President's war on coal."

Ohio Environmental Council's Trish Demeter countered that ignoring ozone pollution would cost more than implementing the suggested safeguards.

"Compare the cost of reducing ozone with what families across Ohio pay in medical bills to take their asthmatic child into the doctor's office every so often because they have trouble breathing or to take care of an elderly parent or grandparent," said Demeter. "Overall, and nationally, the proposed rule will provide up to 38 billion dollars in public health benefits by 2025."

Read the full story HERE.