Clean air protections are under attack yet again. While opponents of these standards continue to target rules through anti-regulatory legislation, new arguments criticizing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) analyses of air pollution reduction benefits have emerged. These efforts to undermine clean air standards ignore the purpose and legal mandate of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by focusing on the costs to businesses instead of the health benefits of cleaner air, despite evidence that the benefits of these rules outweigh their costs.

The 112th Congress has consistently voted to weaken environmental and health protections, earning the label of "the most anti-environment House in history." According to data compiled by the House Energy and Commerce Committee minority staff, the House majority has voted 77 times to dismantle the CAA. A number of statutory provisions that would block EPA’s authority to issue certain regulations under the CAA have passed in the House. Meanwhile, the Senate will soon vote on a resolution introduced by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) that would nullify EPA’s mercury and air toxics standards (MATS) for power plants.

One claim against the MATS, also called the Utility MACT rule, is that the Obama administration impermissibly relied on the “co-benefits” of reducing other kinds of air pollutants to justify the rule reducing mercury. The MATS set technology-based emissions standards for mercury and other air toxics, but the controls needed to meet the standards will also reduce emissions of particulate matter and lower the level of soot in the air. Particulate matter can cause serious health problems, so these additional reductions will produce significant health benefits. Many air pollution regulations achieve such co-benefits.

Despite these facts, Inhofe accused the EPA of "double miscounting benefits" because most of the benefits of the rule come from reductions in particulate matter, not mercury. Notably, he did not refute these expected benefits, which include preventing up to 11,000 premature deaths, nearly 5,000 heart attacks, and 130,000 asthma attacks per year starting in 2016.

This misleading argument was echoed last week, both during a House hearing and at a conference examining the impact of anti-air pollution efforts. The National Journal hosted a policy summit June 6 that featured public health and environmental experts, as well as industry representatives and private sector consultants. The debate over the MATS was particularly contentious, with a panelist from a private consulting firm (NERA Economic Consulting) asserting that the rule produced negligible direct benefits because the benefits calculated by EPA result from pollutant reductions other than mercury reductions.

Later that day, Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) offered the same argument at a hearing of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee’s Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. The subcommittee chairman condemned what he called "a pattern of scientific and economic practices . . . that inflates health-based regulatory benefits." "More and more of these regulations are almost exclusively justified on the basis of incidental 'co-benefits' from particulate matter reductions," he said.

The recent attention on calculating the co-benefits of air pollution reduction rules may misleadingly suggest that this is a new practice. In fact, EPA has estimated the co-benefits of reducing emissions of non-targeted pollutants for years, during both the Bush and Obama administrations.

A memorandum from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) notes that "most EPA air quality regulations reduce particulate emissions, either as the targeted pollutant, or as a co-benefit of reduction emissions of other pollutants." Between 2004 and 2011, about 20 economically significant CAA rules had particulate matter reductions comprising over 50 percent of the total benefits. Roughly half of these rules were proposed or promulgated during President Bush’s second term.

CRS also explains the difficulty in obtaining data regarding the illness or mortality associated with exposure to an individual pollutant. "The agency proceeds with regulation," CRS concludes, "because it was directed by the statute to do so, but it may not be able to quantify or monetize the benefits of regulating emissions of a specific substance."

The attack on EPA’s calculation of rule benefits is another attempt to undermine strong clean air standards and justify valuing costs over public health and safety. The political rhetoric challenging these rules often ignores the primary goal of the CAA ─ to protect public health and welfare. If the anti-regulatory measures passed by the House gain traction in the Senate, clean air protections with enormous public health benefits could be in jeopardy.