Does a regulation make sense if, the moment it goes into effect, it renders many of the nation’s large economic centers out of compliance while seemingly doing little to improve public  health?

That could happen if the proposed ground-level ozone regulation the Obama administration announced today ends up being finalized next fall.

In advance of a court-ordered December 1 deadline, the administration this morning revealed its intention to tighten the nation’s ozone standard to a range of from 65 to 70 parts per billion (ppb). That would replace the current 75 ppb standard set by the federal government in 2008.

The final rule could be even more stringent; The New York Times reports the “E.P.A. proposal would also seek public comment on a 60 parts-per-billion plan, keeping open the possibility that the final rule could be stricter.”

No matter where the final number ends up, the costs associated with the administration’s action in terms of jobs, economic growth, and innovation could be enormous.

A study conducted by NERA Economic Consulting suggested that a standard tightened to 60 ppb could thrust 94 percent of the United States into “non-attainment” status, meaning non-compliance and strict penalties for areas that aren’t able to meet the standard.  Moreover, it could reduce U.S. GDP by $270 billion annually and result in nearly 3 million fewer jobs every year.

According to the American Petroleum Institute’s Howard Feldman, “Further tightening the 2008 ozone standards – the most stringent ozone standards ever – is a major concern because of the potential cost and impact on the economy.  It’s important to remember that air quality has improved dramatically over the past decades, and air quality will continue to improve under the existing standards.”

A big problem with the administration’s new proposal is it will approach – or even be lower than – peak naturally occurring levels of ozone in many locales, particularly in Western states. That means that any human activity that produces emissions – as virtually every manufacturing process does – could face strict new regulations or even prohibition in many parts of the country.

Just as problematic is the fact that EPA won’t give states any guidance on how to comply with the new standard and earn attainment status. This approach is like throwing sand in the economy’s gears.

The final and perhaps biggest head scratcher is why EPA is pursuing such an economically harmful standard in the absence of evidence it would significantly improve human health.

That’s right.  It is not clear that a stricter ozone standard would offer meaningful health benefits.  In fact, the courts have upheld the 2008 standard against charges the 75 ppb standard was inadequate to protect human health.  Meanwhile, it’s important to keep in mind that over the last decade ozone-forming emissions have been cut in half, and average ozone concentrations have dropped by a quarter.

The bottom line with today’s action is that while the expected benefits of a stricter standard would be marginal, the expected costs would be anything but. What is clear – and strikingly so – is the significant economic destruction the new rule would bring.

Several years ago the Obama administration scrapped a similar move to a stricter standard, correctly believing the cost was too much for the economy to bear.  The White House itself conservatively estimated the cost to be upward of $90 billion.

Why the administration thinks now is a good time to move forward with something it acknowledges will deal the economy a body blow is anybody’s guess.