Big oil is knocking on the White House's door looking for sympathy over an EPA proposal to tighten the national standard for ozone, aka smog. On January 25, representatives from ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute met behind closed doors with officials from EPA and the White House Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). (Frank O'Donnell at the Blog for Clean Air has the full story.) EPA's bid to tighten the ozone standard (from the current level of 0.084 ppm to somewhere between 0.070 and 0.075 ppm) has raised the ire of many industry representatives and anti-regulatory lobbyists like the National Association of Manufacturers. Detractors of the proposed ozone-reduction rule claim it would impose big costs on polluters and result in economic hardships for companies, employees, and consumers. There are two big problems with that argument. First, the Clean Air Act prohibits EPA from considering economic impact when regulating ozone. The Supreme Court has upheld the prohibition. EPA must use the best available science to set a standard that will protect public health, regardless of compliance costs. Second, those who claim big costs are relying on a deeply flawed cost-benefit analysis prepared by EPA and OIRA. Cost-benefit analysis in public policy is rarely helpful, and EPA's ozone rule is a good example of just how ridiculous it can be. For one of the options EPA is considering (0.070 ppm), the cost-benefit analysis concluded potential costs of $20 billion or potential benefits of $23 billion. How is anyone supposed to draw a meaningful conclusion from a $43 billion range? Furthermore, ozone exposure can shorten lives. Therefore, reducing ozone pollution can help people live better and live longer. How can anyone put a price tag on that? For a more detailed discussion, read a recent opinion column from OMB Watch available at OurFuture.org: "How Bush Undermines Government Regulation" (For a really detailed discussion, read OMB Watch's report, Polluted Logic: How EPA's ozone standard illustrates the flaws of cost-benefit analysis.)