EPA this week proposed new national air quality standards for particulate emissions, putting the end of a six-year debate in sight. Greens have praised and some industry groups have criticized the decision. But most of this is theater - the new standards don't give greens much to celebrate or opponents much to be angry about. That's because they will have little if any practical effect. EPA admits that recent rules limiting sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury emissions will result in the new, stricter standard being met in 99% of counties nationwide even without any new particulate-specific regulation.
This isn't surprising - EPA used the health benefits of associated particulate emissions to justify these rules. In fact the only people with much to cheer about the new standards are those looking for logical consistency from EPA. Relying on particulate benefits to justify rules for other pollutants made the agency's existing, ostensibly "safe" particulate standards look foolish, and made the rules an easy target for criticism.
While politics is an important factor, much of the delay in setting new standards is due to the fact that they are a blunt, unwieldy instrument. Scientists have known for some time that fine particulates are nasty business. But EPA was forbidden from considering costs in setting a standard which, once set, every area in the country would face draconian penalties if it failed to meet. The original intent was to force EPA to set standards sufficient to protect public health - but the ironic result of the program's rigidity is that standards are frequently delayed. In this case they were delayed so long that the reductions were achieved anyway, using different tools.
I've argued before that EPA should be allowed (in fact, required) to consider costs when setting national air quality standards. An oft-cited fear is that if EPA is allowed to consider cost, that power will be abused to justify weaker (or no) regulation, or that there will be wild policy shifts between administrations. But as the particulate example shows, this is happening anyway.
Another problem with the current system is that EPA can't consider co-benefits (like the particulate benefits of the SO2 and mercury rules) when it sets air quality standards. This is equally silly. Pollutants are linked, both because of atmospheric chemistry and because they come from the same sources. Interactions between pollutants can cut both ways, though. Moves to cut one pollutant can exacerbate emissions of others. This is particularly true when you consider carbon - technology that cuts SO2 or mercury emissions can make plants less efficient, forcing them to run longer and emit more carbon.
Pollution regulation will only get more complicated in the future, as carbon enters the equation and interactions between pollutants become better understood. EPA needs better tools to handle this complexity and make necessary trade-offs, and to free itself from tired debates and expensive litigation.
