10.01.15

Cassidy Comments on EPA Ozone Mandates

U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) released the following statement after the Obama administration announced it tightened the national ozone standard to 70 parts per billion:

Louisiana’s energy industry is pro-development, pro-business and pro-environment. Case in point- there’s more than a hundred billion dollars worth of manufacturing and development projects invested in Louisiana, and air pollution has been reduced by 68 percent since 1970. Lowering the ozone standard further threatens millions of jobs. The associated job loss worsens public health, as having a stable job with good benefits is strongly associated with better health. America can be pro-environment and pro-business—we don’t have to hurt our workers to achieve this.

Dr. Cassidy is a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, he helped block funding in the Senate Appropriations Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill from going toward implementing Obama Administration’s proposed mandates by directing the EPA to not decrease the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone lower than the current standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) unless 85% of counties (or parishes) are compliant with the existing standard.

He led a letter with fellow congressional medical professionals to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy urging the EPA to maintain the existing National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground level ozone.

Dr. Cassidy and Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) introduced the Energy Consumers Relief Act to protect workers and consumers from the consequences of costly EPA regulations. This bill would ensure greater transparency and review of the EPA’s billion-dollar energy rules by requiring the EPA to submit a report to Congress detailing certain cost, benefit, energy price and job impacts before the EPA finalizes any new energy-related rules estimated to cost more than $1 billion. The EPA would be prohibited from finalizing certain rules if the Secretary of Energy determines it will cause adverse effects to the economy.

###