EPA wants us to change? Show us the bill first

• The EPA this year likely will announce two of the most sweeping air-pollution control edicts in its history
• Mandatory ground-level ozone reduction may be the most expensive rule change, as it applies to nearly everyone
• The Obama administration argues that its proposed mandates will boost the economy

The new air-quality regulations about to be released by the EPA may constitute the most sweeping — and most expensive — environmental policies in history, certainly as they apply to Arizona.

The EPA's rule changes governing carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants alone will be epic. Under its original draft, Arizona could be forced to shut down all of its coal-fired energy generation by 2020 — representing 36 percent of its energy mix — to meet the EPA's interim goal of less than 800 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. Currently, Arizona expends an average of 1,453 pounds per megawatt.

That carbon-reduction plan is grabbing most of the headlines, both among environment-minded supporters and critics who see the action as an effective take-over of states' energy policies.

The announcement of the final rule is so hotly anticipated that energy-industry insiders are taking odds on when it will be announced based on Environmental Protection Agency Director Gina McCarthy's vacation schedule.

But it is not the only EPA rule-change that will greatly impact our lives. And our pocketbooks.

The EPA also plans to order nationwide reductions in the production of ground-level ozone pollution, caused by everything from trucks and manufacturing facilities to lawn mowers and ATVs.

That means not only energy companies will need to comply with a new EPA ozone standard. Every source of ozone production will need to act to bring Arizona into compliance — especially in Maricopa and Pinal counties, which have chronically failed to meet existing standards.

But they wouldn't be alone. According to industry modeling, ozone standards preferred by environmental groups would cause virtually all of Arizona to be out of compliance.

The agency's timeline for establishing its new ozone rule is Oct. 1. While that date may change, there can be little doubt the EPA intends to render judgment as soon as possible, prompting a race for compliance that will require businesses to purchase expensive, new pollution-control equipment and conceivably create a market for emissions credits to allow heavier emitters to buy time.

The EPA's action on reducing ozone — based on its belief the current standard established in 2008 is too high to be healthy — is a function of the Clean Air Act. The agency has an expressed duty under the act to protect the public health.

That means the EPA is required to enforce the Clean Air Act's tenets without regard to cost or feasibility.

In advance of ordering its new rules governing carbon dioxide and ozone emissions, the EPA has been aggressive in promoting its analyses of the anticipated economic benefits of the changes.

On nearly every big change it proposes — from the reductions in industrial carbon-dioxide and ozone emissions standards to its most recent plans to reduce carbon emissions in medium to heavy trucks — the EPA is touting the changes as an economic boon.

And the Obama administration argues passionately that inaction constitutes a serious economic liability. In a New York Times story Monday, the administration announced a new study that calculates the cost of drought, which it contends is caused by greenhouse gas increases, at $180 billion.

It may be right. Indeed, drought may cost much more than that.

But the cost/benefit analyses of an administration with policy and legacy axes to grind at least requires a serious counter-analysis by those who will be paying the higher bills.

Abandoning the nation's sixth-youngest fleet of coal-fired energy production — which is what Arizona faces — does not come without cost. Overcoming the vast logistical hurdles, virtually all within the next five years, of turning entirely to natural gas and renewable energy sources does not come without cost, either.

Buying expensive ozone-reducing equipment for everything from lawn mowers to manufacturing plants won't come cheap.

The EPA's best argument for its changes would be that they will improve our environment as much as the agency claims.

Perhaps they will. But we also need to know the costs.