EPA ozone policy likely to stay ‘mobile’
By KEN MIDKIFF
Published Friday, March 21, 2008
(http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2008/mar/20080321comm002.asp)

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency announced it was lowering the ozone level standard. That announcement caused me to reflect on long-ago actions.

Many years ago, I was the Jefferson City lobbyist for the Sierra Club, trying to get the Missouri General Assembly to pass bills that would protect - or at least not harm - the environment.

Being brand-new in 1994, I was somewhat flattered that a group representing St. Louis industrial facilities wanted the Sierra Club to join them in supporting what is now called Inspection and Maintenance standards on "mobile sources." This sounded as if it was a good idea, and the environmental members of the Missouri House and Senate were adamantly in favor of the bill. Indeed, a person whose environmental credentials were impeccable sponsored the Senate bill.

So, on behalf of the Ozark (now Missouri) Chapter of the Sierra Club, I signed on. In retrospect, that was a mistake.

Little did I realize at the time that the primary purpose of the legislation - which was passed and signed into law - was to place the entire burden of complying with the federal ozone standards onto "mobile sources" - cars and trucks, things that move around.

There’s no disagreement about cars and trucks being responsible for creating a lot of smog. They emit various compounds that react with sunlight and create ozone. But, there’s also no disagreement that "stationary sources" - such as industrial facilities, power plants and manufacturers - produce a lot.

But this bill let those stationary sources off the hook and required mobile sources to greatly reduce emissions. To some degree, this has worked. While coming close to exceeding the standard, St. Louis is now - or was - in attainment with the ozone amount. That’s not to say that there’s not smog, it is just less than there was.

There is no question in my mind about requiring better emission standards on new cars and trucks, and there’s no question about requiring older vehicles to undergo testing and maintain or install devices to reduce emissions.

There are, however, lingering questions about the amount of "ozone precursors" - compounds that will become smog - released by such stationary sources as Emerson Electric or Solutia or Lambert Field. With 20-20 hindsight, those facilities and many others also should have been required to cut back. But the advocates of the bill that placed the onus on mobile source were representatives of those stationary sources. The de facto group advocating passage of the bill preferred that the finger of regulation be pointed at someone else. That someone else turned out to be almost everyone who drives a car or truck in the St. Louis area while industrial facilities foul the air with impunity.

With the newly established ozone standard, it is likely that St. Louis, Kansas City and the surrounding areas will flunk. If, however, industrial facilities would have been required to reduce emissions along with automobiles way back in 1994, chances are that the metropolitan areas would be in compliance.

Maybe now those stationary sources as well as mobile ones will be targets for cutbacks. However, folks who drive cars aren’t nearly as organized as industries. What likely will happen is that "mobile sources" will be required to cut back on emissions even more. Déjà vu all over again.