States and the federal government are once again butting heads. But amidst lawsuits, trials and contradictory cost-benefit analyses, Pennsylvania is backing out.
Last September, Pennsylvania withdrew from five lawsuits filed against the Environmental Protection Agency. These lawsuits, which were introduced by several other states and numerous environmental organizations since 2008, demand that the EPA toughen its ozone regulations.
Over the past few days, tensions between these states and another group of states suing for more lax air pollution standards have risen due to President Barack Obama’s refusal to advance legislation that would decrease ozone emissions.
But the number of states suing may have no effect on the outcome. Brian Glass — chairman of the legal staff for nonprofit environmental agency PennFuture — stated in an email that the lawsuits will continue in Pennsylvania’s absence. However, he expressed doubts over whether Pennsylvania was still committed to protecting the environment.
“Pennsylvania’s withdrawal from these lawsuits may signal its own priorities under the current administration,” Glass wrote, adding that the withdrawals call into question “whether the current administration is fully invested in protecting the public health of its citizens.”
Environmental Studies professor John Keene agreed. “[Pennsylvania governor Tom] Corbett is not as sympathetic with this cause” as former governor and 1965 College graduate Ed Rendell’s administration, he said.
None of the experts know who will win the lawsuits, although Keene says that the courts “are deferential to the decisions of federal administrative agencies,” and won’t interfere unless the EPA can’t defend its regulations.
“That’s the only way they’ll lose,” he said.
Ozone — a lethal substance and a precursor to smog, Keene said — is a serious problem in Philadelphia. Only a few ounces of ozone can kill several thousand people, and in smaller quantities it can exacerbate and cause breathing problems such as asthma. Philadelphia currently ranks fifth in the country for worst ozone pollution. Keene stated that since Philadelphia is highly industrial and has many oil refineries that contribute to ground-level ozone, tougher regulations would be beneficial.
The main argument against toughening standards is that doing so would harm business. Environmental Studies professor Stanley Laskowski noted that such standards would be seen as an “economic burden.” Yet he feels that advancing environmental legislation could give other industries the opportunity to do well.
Glass said that the benefits of advancing legislation would outweigh the costs. “Strong regulations often create more jobs as the regulated community adapts to bring itself into compliance,” he wrote.
EPA spokeswoman Bonnie Smith wrote in an email that the EPA has already enacted new pieces of legislation — such as “The Cross State Air Pollution Rule” and the proposed “Mercury and Air Toxics Standards” — that are expected to “save tens of thousands of lives, prevent hundreds of thousands of asthma and heart attacks and avert millions of missed school and work days, yielding hundreds of billions of dollars in benefits to our communities” nationwide.
Yet in the end, though Pennsylvania’s withdrawal dismayed PennFuture, its participation isn’t essential. “These cases should be guided by the law,” rather than who is taking part in a lawsuit, Glass said.
