Alan Lowenthal: “Let's just talk about why we need to change the standard. I understand and appreciate that reaching that standard is…”

“Let's just talk about why we need to change the standard. I understand and appreciate that reaching that standard is going to take some work, but remember, the air, by saying that we don't need to do this because the air is cleaner than it was 30 years ago, for example, does nothing to put current air quality in context. Just because the air is cleaner than it used to be doesn't mean that it is completely healthy. My district is a great example of this. L.A. County has reduced its ground ozone by 5 days since 2009, and I am proud of that, but it doesn't mean our air is healthy. We still experienced 217 days of unhealthy ozone level days last year. We need to take into account current pollution levels. We need to use the best science available to determine what standards are needed to get our ozone pollution below those unhealthy levels. That is why we are doing this, to get the ozone below unhealthy levels. That is what EPA is doing, and we shouldn't block their efforts because we think that the air is cleaner or it is difficult to reach. {time} 1630 The savings in public health will far outweigh the costs to polluting industries. If the EPA would implement a standard of just 70 parts per billion, the cost of implementation is estimated to be about $3.9 billion, but the savings in public health costs are estimated to be anywhere from $6.4 to $13 billion. That is a net savings of $2.5 to $9 billion.…”