WSJ Uses Stats From 2010 Estimate To Call 2011 Regulation “The Largest And Costliest Of Its Kind”

In Dec. 2010, EPA Delayed Rules On Boiler Emissions And Released New Proposal In February 2011. After its 2010 plan to regulate emissions from industrial boilers was met with backlash, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced in December 2010 that it would delay implementing a final rule. According to a February 23, 2011, Washington Post article, the EPA then asked for a 15-month extension “in order to review the more than 4,800 public comments that came in,” but the court gave the agency 30 days and ordered the agency “to release a final regulation this week [the week of Feb. 23].” [The New York Times, 12/9/10, 2/23/11; The Washington Post, 2/23/11]

WSJ: EPA Ruling Is “A Political Exercise” That Is The “Largest And Costliest Of Its Kind.” A March 4 editorial in The Wall Street Journal attacked the February 23 EPA regulation by claiming that the “boiler rule” is the “largest and costliest of its kind ever issued” and called it “a political exercise” that will be “a drag on jobs and economic growth for years.” From the editorial:

Amid an Environmental Protection Agency regulatory spree unprecedented in U.S. history, nothing cleared the benches last year like the so-called boiler rule. Some 62 Senators, 177 House Members and 21 Governors publicly objected, business staged a collective revolt, and the EPA itself was forced to retreat and junk the original rule. No matter how ruinous a regulation, this almost never happens.

The problem is that the new rule, which came out last week and is meant to reduce air pollutants like mercury from industrial boilers, is nearly as bad. The Atlantic is smaller than the Pacific, but they're both pretty big oceans. The EPA's new faux-moderation is meant to be political cover for regulations that will be a drag on jobs and economic growth for years in manufacturing, energy, chemicals, steel, hospitals, universities, hotels and so many others.

[...]

The boiler rule is really four interrelated rule-makings that are the largest and costliest of its kind ever issued. In April 2010, the EPA tried to steamroll the rule through with a truncated public comment period, even as it became clear that the agency had used outdated or unrepresentative data and made multiple basic mistakes.

[...]

The new standards are a notch more flexible, and also now exempt smaller units among the 200,000 boilers in the country. Yet it retains the core defects that will require thousands of businesses to make capital-intensive retrofits, money that could be put to more productive uses. Particular targets are boilers that burn oil or coal. The rule limits the dioxins they can emit, but there is no technology in existence, like scrubbers for other pollutants, that can limit dioxins.

[...]

This is a political exercise meant to create the illusion of abiding by President Obama's executive order on stupid regulations, and it certainly isn't a preview of a softer method as the EPA issues a parcel of new air and carbon rules meant to cripple coal-fired power plants in the coming months. The only way to check this reckless agency is Congressional intervention. [The Wall Street Journal, 3/4/11, emphasis added]

WSJ Uses Outdated Stats To Claim “Initial” Plan Would “Steal...$20 Billion A Year From The Private Economy.” The editorial also used estimates made by the American Forest & Paper Association based on the EPA's 2010 proposal, which the editorial acknowledges was later withdrawn. However, the editorial appeared to dismiss the new 2011 estimates by claiming that “the EPA always rigs its estimates to minimize costs and embellish benefits--a habit exacerbated under the Obama Administration”:

The EPA says it cut annual compliance costs nearly by half, to $2.1 billion from $3.9 billion, while achieving the same environmental benefits. If true, that's a damning confession of how destructive the agency can be when left to its own devices. But the EPA always rigs its estimates to minimize costs and embellish benefits--a habit exacerbated under the Obama Administration.

The boiler rule is really four interrelated rule-makings that are the largest and costliest of its kind ever issued. In April 2010, the EPA tried to steamroll the rule through with a truncated public comment period, even as it became clear that the agency had used outdated or unrepresentative data and made multiple basic mistakes.

One industry study found the initial demands would steal as much as $20 billion a year from the private economy. The American Forest & Paper Association, a trade group, estimated that the boiler rule alone, not counting other air regulations coming down the pike, would destroy 16,800 jobs as pulp and paper mills closed, not counting loggers and other suppliers. That's 14% of the industry's work force. [The Wall Street Journal, 3/4/11]

But WSJ's Outdated Estimates On Costs To Business Ignore That New Plan Is Much Cheaper

AF&PA "$20 Billion" Estimate Is From June 2010. The American Forest & Paper Association did project that the EPA's original boiler rule could cost "$20 to $50 billion" for “all manufacturing,” but the statement comes from a June 2010 press release issued six months before the EPA announced it would revise its 2010 proposal. [American Forest & Paper Association, 6/10/10]

WaPo: New Plan Will “Make It Much Cheaper For Companies To Reduce Toxic Air Pollution From Industrial Boilers And Incinerators.” According to the February 23, 2011, Washington Post article, the EPA's 2011 plan to cut boiler emissions would cost "$1.8 billion less each year than the original proposal." From the article:

Faced with stiff opposition in Congress and a court-ordered deadline, the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday said it will make it much cheaper for companies to reduce toxic air pollution from industrial boilers and incinerators.

In an overhaul of air pollution regulations, the EPA said it found ways to control pollution at more than 200,000 industrial boilers, heaters and incinerators nationwide at a 50 percent cost savings to the companies and institutions that run them. Those operating large boilers that burn renewable fuels would not be required to install some expensive technologies, and only maintenance would be required for smaller boilers. That would cost $1.8 billion less each year than the original proposal, and still avert thousands of heart attacks and asthma cases a year, the agency said.

These rules “are realistic, they are achievable and reasonable and they come at about half the cost to industry to comply,” said Gina McCarthy, EPA's top air pollution official in a conference call with reporters Wednesday. “EPA ... found we could reduce emissions at a lower cost and still achieve the health benefits required by law.” [The Washington Post, 2/23/11]

EPA Estimates Boiler Regulations Will Create Jobs, Save Billions In “Health-Related Costs,” And Save Thousands Of Lives

NYT: EPA Officials Estimate Rule Will Create “2000 New Jobs,” Save 2,600-6,600 Lives, And Save $23-56 Billion “In Health-Related Costs.” The New York Times article stated:

E.P.A. officials said on Wednesday that the altered rule would cost half as much as the previous proposal while achieving virtually the same health benefits. The agency pegged compliance costs for the new version of the rule at $2.1 billion a year and said it would generate more than 2,000 new jobs.

Gina McCarthy, director of the E.P.A.'s air and radiation office, said that the pollution reductions would save from 2,600 to 6,600 lives per year by 2014 and avert 4,100 heart attacks and 42,000 asthma attacks annually.

“These health protections will save between $23 billion and $56 billion in health-related costs,” Ms. McCarthy said in a conference call for reporters. “They are realistic, they are achievable, and they are reasonable, and they come at roughly half the cost to comply compared to that in the proposed rule in May 2010.” [The New York Times, 2/23/11]