The Environmental Protection Agency will move ahead Friday with a rule requiring cleaner gasoline and lower-pollution vehicles nationwide, amounting to one of President Obama’s most significant air pollution initiatives, according to people briefed on the decision. 
 
 The proposed standards would add less than a penny a gallon to the cost of gasoline while delivering an environmental benefit akin to taking 33 million cars off the road, according to a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the announcement had not been made yet. 
 
 Oil industry officials, however, said the cost would be at least double the administration’s estimate and could add up to 9 cents a gallon in some places. 
 
 The proposed standards, which had been stuck in regulatory limbo since 2011, would reduce the amount of sulfur in U.S. gasoline by two-thirds and impose fleet-wide pollution limits on new vehicles by 2017. 
 
 The Obama administration’s decision to go ahead with the regulations deals a political blow to the oil and gas industry, which had mobilized dozens of lawmakers in recent days to lobby the White House for a one-year delay. 
 
 It also comes as the administration alarmed many environmentalists by weighing a delay in limits on greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants. Unlike the sulfur limits, the administration argued, the power plant limits could immediately hurt the struggling economy. 
 
 While gasoline sulfur itself does not pose a public health threat, it hampers the effectiveness of catalytic converters, which in turn leads to greater tailpipe emissions. These emissions — nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide and fine particles — contribute to smog and soot, which can cause respiratory and heart disease. 
 
 The proposed standards were first reported by The Washington Post on Thursday afternoon and confirmed by the administration Thursday night. 
 
 The regulations are supported by environmental advocates, state regulators and even automobile companies, who would prefer uniform sulfur standards for fuel nationwide. But oil industry officials and their congressional allies say it will cost up to $10 billion to upgrade refineries and an additional $2.4 billion in annual operating costs. 
 
 Both public health advocates and the administration say the ultimate cost would be much lower because of provisions giving refiners flexibility in complying with the standards. The EPA estimates annual health benefits of up to $23 billion by 2030. 
 
 The agency surveyed 111 U.S. refineries and found 29 already can meet the sulfur standard or come close to it, 66 can reach it with modest modifications and 16 would require a major overhaul. 
 
 The requirements also have the potential to cut major contributors to smog-forming ozone and pollution — nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, or soot — by 80 percent and 70 percent, respectively, according to the administration official. 
 
 S. William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said the new standard could be “the most significant air pollution policy President Obama will adopt in his second term. . . . There is not another air pollution control strategy that we know of that will produce as substantial, cost- 
 
 effective and expeditious emissions reductions.” 
 
 Automakers have lobbied in favor of the rule in part because they must already meet stricter emissions standards in California. 
 
 “Cleaner cars will need the cleaner fuels already on sale across Europe and Asia,” said Auto Alliance spokeswoman Gloria Bergquist, whose group represents a dozen automakers. “And the best part of these low sulfur fuels is that they provide clean air benefits to all 250 million vehicles on the road right away, from day one, at the gas pumps.” 
 
 Charles T. Drevna, president for the American Fuel and Petroleum Manufacturers, said the EPA is not obligated under the Clean Air Act to reduce the sulfur content of gas any further. U.S. refiners have lowered gasoline sulfur nearly 90 percent since 2004, according to the association, from 300 to 30 parts per million. 
 
 “Those remaining molecules of sulfur that are left, those little buggers don’t want to come out easily,” Drevna said. “We still believe that EPA has not demonstrated the need for this regulation.” 
 
 Environmentalists and public-health advocates said reducing sulfur content is particularly important for more than a third of Americans who live in communities that do not meet federal air-quality standards. In Washington, for example, two-thirds of the nitrogen oxide pollution stems from passenger vehicles. 
 
 Sixteen Democrats in the House and five in the Senate have appealed to the White House in recent days to delay the proposal for a year, while at least 60 congressional Republicans have objected to it. 
 
 Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) told reporters in a call Thursday that if the EPA thinks new requirements are justified, “then they shouldn’t be afraid to lay their cards on the table” and allow at least a year for more public scrutiny. 
 
 Bob Greco, group director for downstream and industry operations at the American Petroleum Institute, said the nation’s refiners are struggling to meet other federal environmental requirements, including renewable-fuel mandates. 
 
 “Our industry is already facing a tsunami of regulations from EPA,” Greco said. “We’re just making it that much harder for refiners to compete globally and stay up and running.” 
 
 The administration made several provisions for flexibility in the rule, including a three-year delay for small refiners, rewards for businesses who act early to reduce sulfur and a trading program for pollution credits, according to those familiar with the regulations. Backers say the standards will also generate new jobs in the refining and pollution-control industries. 
 
 Critics remain skeptical. “They only amount to a stay of execution for the U.S. refining industry,” said Stephen Brown, vice president of government relations for Tesoro, a refiner and marketer of petroleum products. 
 
 Janice Nolen, the American Lung Association’s head of national policy and advocacy, said the standards would translate into fewer cases of asthma, heart and lung disease, as well as fewer missed work days across the country. 
 
 “There’s still a lot of pollution that these cars and vans and pickup trucks are producing,” Nolen said. 
 
 Discuss this topic and other political issues in the politics discussion forums. ||||| Automakers, at White House, parry oil industry on EPA rule 
 
 By Ben Geman - 
 
 An array of automakers and their lobbying groups are pressing the Obama administration to issue low-sulfur gasoline rules that face resistance from oil industry officials who call them costly and unneeded. 
 
 
 
 Auto industry representatives met with White House Office of Management and Budget aides on March 22, where they offered backing for the Environmental Protection Agency’s planned “Tier 3” fuel and vehicle emissions rule. 
 
 
 
 Two trade groups — the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and Global Automakers — along with representatives from Toyota, Chrysler, Honda, Volkswagen, Mercedes and others, participated, according to the online meeting record. 
 
 
 
 A joint presentation from the trade groups for the meeting calls the rules “critically important,” argues they will provide public health benefits, and calls them necessary for harmonization with California’s emissions rules. 
 
 It also notes that auto mileage and greenhouse gas emissions rules that the Obama administration has already issued “anticipated nationwide availability of clean compatible fuels.” 
 
 The meeting also included representatives from EPA, the White House Council on Environmental Quality and other departments.Oil refiners — who have also pressed OMB on the matter recently — have pushed back against the delayed EPA rules.Oil industry groups contend the rules will create billions of dollars in compliance costs while providing little benefit, noting that existing standards have already required steep cuts in the sulfur content of gasoline.American Petroleum Institute CEO Jack Gerard last year alleged that EPA is pushing ahead with tougher sulfur rules “without regard to the impacts on fuel prices.”But the automakers’ presentation argues that the costs for refiners to ratchet down sulfur content further have been “overstated.”It states that refiners are already producing ultra-low sulfur fuels in California and “much of the developed world,” noting the retail cap of 10 parts-per-million in Japan and the European Union.Click here for a list of meeting participants and the industry presentation. ||||| The court’s decision stemmed from a legal challenge filed by industry groups and 21 states, which argued that the EPA’s regulations imposed unfair costs on utilities that burn coal to make electricity. (David Spencer/AP) 
 
 The Supreme Court dealt a major blow Monday to the Obama administration’s efforts to keep toxic mercury out of the nation’s air and waterways, saying U.S. officials failed to properly consider economic costs when they imposed expensive pollution controls on coal-burning power plants. 
 
 The court, in a 5-to-4 decision, halted further implementation of the 2011 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule, the Environmental Protection Agency’s landmark regulation that required electric utilities to reduce mercury pollution, linked in multiple studies to respiratory illnesses as well as birth defects and developmental problems in children. 
 
 The decision’s ultimate impact on pollution controls was uncertain. The justices declined to strike down the rule altogether and left open the possibility that the regulation could be altered and reinstated. Moreover, a sizable majority of the country’s coal-burning utilities already have taken steps to meet the EPA’s requirements, muting the decision’s practical effects, at least in the near term. 
 
 Still, the court’s rebuff of one of the Obama administration’s ­signature environmental accomplishments cheered industry groups and congressional Republicans who have long railed against the White House’s environmental policies as punitive to business. Lawmakers cited the court’s concerns about regulatory costs in vowing to fight other EPA mandates, including a controversial proposal to limit greenhouse-gas emissions blamed for global warming. 
 
 “The Supreme Court’s decision today vindicates the House’s legislative actions to rein in bureaucratic overreach and institute some common sense in rulemaking,” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said after the decision was announced. 
 
 [Read: The Supreme Court’s decision in the EPA case] 
 
 Environmental groups and public health advocates called the decision a victory for polluters, and particularly for the relatively small number of utilities that have resisted the EPA’s requirements to rein in mercury emissions from coal burning. Companies were obliged to have a pollution-control strategy in place by April or, with an extension, by early next year. 
 
 “The court has sided with the dirty delinquents — the small percentage of coal-fired plants that haven’t cleaned up — and against the majority that are already protecting our children from mercury and other toxic pollutants,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, a nonprofit organization that is a party to the case. 
 
 The court’s decision stemmed from a legal challenge filed by industry groups and 21 states, which argued that the EPA’s regulations imposed unfair costs on utilities that burn coal to make electricity. Coal burning is the biggest single source of man-made mercury pollution, and the EPA had sought for decades to lower emissions of the toxin, citing a growing body of scientific evidence linking exposure to a wide variety of health problems, including neurological impairment in developing fetuses. Mercury contamination has resulted in health advisories being issued for hundreds of streams, rivers and lakes across the country, as well as government cautions against eating certain types of seafood. 
 
 Although mercury’s toxic effects are extensively documented, opponents of the EPA rule argued that the regulations imposed unreasonable costs on utility companies and their ratepayers. The rule required hundreds of coal-burning plants to install pollution controls or switch to alternative forms of energy, such as natural gas. Some older plants simply shut down rather than undergo expensive retrofitting. 
 
 In Monday’s ruling, the court focused on what Congress meant when it ordered the EPA to regulate toxic pollution from power plants in a way that was “appropriate and necessary,” an arguably vague standard that is silent on how costs should be factored into decision-making. 
 
 The EPA contends that it does consider costs but later in the process, after it determines whether regulations are needed to address a threat to public health. But industry groups said the agency should have conducted a cost­benefit analysis at the outset, a view that five of the nine justices found convincing. 
 
 1 of 24 Full Screen Autoplay Close Skip Ad × Innovation and green energy around the world View Photos The United States and many other countries are in a fast-moving race to clean-energy independence. The pope’s leaked encyclical comes as countries around the world are looking for sustainable energy sources. Caption The pope’s leaked encyclical comes as countries around the world are looking for sustainable energy sources. Biofuel: California Research associate Emma Valdez checks on bottles of algae being cultivated for biofuel research in 2012 at the Sapphire Energy facility in San Diego. Sapphire Energy cultivates algae to create crude oil that can be processed into jet fuel, diesel and gasoline. David Maung/Bloomberg News Buy Photo Wait 1 second to continue. 
 
 “It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion, which remanded the case to a lower court for a further review into how costs should be considered in the EPA’s rulemaking. 
 
 But Scalia said the court was not requiring the EPA to conduct a “formal cost-benefit analysis in which each advantage and disadvantage” is given a dollar value. “It will be up to the agency to decide (as always, within the limits of reasonable interpretation) how to account for cost,” he wrote. 
 
 The costs and benefits of the mercury regulations are themselves a matter of vigorous dispute. The EPA’s opponents say that the annual costs of compliance under the rule would be $9.6 billion but that the benefits of reduced emissions of hazardous air pollutants amount to only $4 million to $6 million. 
 
 The EPA and environmental groups estimate the savings to be at least $37 billion, a figure that includes costs related to as many as 11,000 premature deaths and more than a half-million lost days of work each year. 
 
 Some activists and legal experts said the setback to the EPA may be temporary. William J. Snape III, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity, said the ruling means only that the “EPA must go through the paper exercise of calculating costs, and presumably benefits, of ‘necessary and appropriate’ regulatory authority that the statute clearly gives the agency.” 
 
 [Read: Oral arguments in Michigan v. EPA] 
 
 But industry groups and congressional Republicans praised the ruling as an overdue rebuke to the EPA. 
 
 “As children, we learn that every day can’t be Christmas. EPA just learned that today,” said Scott Segal, director of the Electric Re­liability Coordinating Council. “The agency cannot continue to write rules without regard to their cost.” 
 
 EPA officials said the agency was reviewing its options. Spokeswoman Melissa Harrison noted that the justices had not challenged the agency’s ability to regulate toxic smokestack emissions through the Clean Air Act. 
 
 “EPA remains committed to ensuring that appropriate standards are in place,” Harrison said.
– Big oil's lobbyists have lost a fight over cleaner gasoline: The EPA will require refiners to reduce the amount of sulfur to cut down on smog, reports the Washington Post. The cut is a sizable one, dropping the allowable limit by two-thirds from 30 parts per million to 10. Backers say the move will eventually save the US billions in health care costs, but the oil industry disputes that and says the only tangible result will be higher gas prices. Sulfur content already has come down drastically since 1994 from 300 parts per million, and an industry executive says getting the remaining "little buggers" out of there isn't worth the cost. Environmental groups pushed for the move, as did the auto industry, which argued that the lower limit will put the US in line with Japan and Europe, reports the Hill. Automakers are big fans of the change because it will make it easier for them to meet emissions standards nationwide. The Post quotes the leader of a clean-air group as saying the EPA decision will end up being the biggest such move of President Obama's second term. "There is not another air pollution control strategy that we know of that will produce as substantial, cost-effective and expeditious emissions reductions."