With the Environmental Protection Agency already reeling from criticism over the Animas River spill, free-market groups are taking advantage of the agency’s muddied reputation to blast its recent spate of air-quality regulations.

The Denver-based Independence Institute released a poll Monday showing that the majority of Colorado voters surveyed agree that the EPA’s Clean Power Plan is more likely to hurt than help the state’s environment. The poll shows residents would oppose the plan if it results in higher electricity bills and believe Colorado already enjoys a clean environment.

Meanwhile, the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry and the National Association of Manufacturers debuted a multi-million-dollar national ad campaign in Denver last week targeting the EPA’s ozone rule, warning that regulations would kill jobs and increase traffic congestion in the state.

A report released alongside the ads by the Center for Regulatory Studies highlighted opposition to the ozone rule in Colorado from Democrats as well as Republicans.

“The sheer volume of bipartisan commentary opposing the proposed ozone reduction is particularly eye-opening in these normally contentious times, and shows a break with the EPA on new regulations,” said a post by the Independence Institute’s Energy Policy Center. “The ozone rule might be a step too far following so closely behind the (Clean Power Plan).”

The two federal initiatives — targeting carbon dioxide and ozone — are part of an ambitious push by the Obama administration to improve air quality and lower greenhouse-gas emissions, which has won support from environmental groups, including Conservation Colorado.

“The EPA’s Clean Power Plan is a state-oriented flexible plan to limit carbon pollution, the leading contributor to climate change,” said the group in a statement shortly after the final plan was unveiled earlier this month. “Many Coloradans are already feeling the effects of climate change through increased forest fires, droughts, and impacts to Coloradans’ clean air, public health, and future water supplies.”

But opponents have criticized the proposal, which could force coal-fired plants to undergo expensive upgrades or shut down, as a costly federal mandate that will jack up electricity prices while barely moving the needle on global temperatures.

In the Independence Institute poll, conducted Aug. 8-9 by Magellan Strategies, 59 percent of those surveyed said they would oppose the plan if it resulted in rate increases, as opposed to 33 percent who said they would not.

More than half — 52 percent — agreed that regulations from Washington, D.C., hurt the economy more than help it, while 35 percent said federal regulations help. Those percentages flipped when it came to Colorado regulations, with 48 percent saying they help.

Those responding also said they would be less likely to support the Clean Power Plan, by 51 to 37 percent, knowing the EPA has estimated it would result in a 0.02-degree Celsius reduction in global temperatures when fully implemented.

In addition, 53 percent said they would favor Colorado joining a lawsuit filed by 16 states against the plan. Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman has said she’s weighing whether to do so, while Gov. John Hickenlooper has been generally supportive of the plan’s goals.

The ozone rule in particular, has some Colorado lawmakers fuming over the EPA’s decision to give Colorado until 2030 to reduce ozone output by a whopping 40 percent, even though Colorado has been a leader in reducing ozone thanks to state efforts.

“After the great progress we have made on air quality, our state should be praised, not punished,” state Sen. Cheri Jahn, D-Wheat Ridge, said in a report released last week by the Center for Regulatory Solutions.

The study includes a poll conducted for CACI and NAM showing that 76 percent of Coloradans say their air quality is good or excellent, and that twice as many see improving economic growth as a bigger priority that reducing air pollution.

The center’s report showed that at least 15 Colorado counties accounting for 89 percent of the state’s economic output — mainly along the Front Range — would be out of compliance with the federal ozone rule.

“This is a concern, obviously, for the overall competitiveness of the Colorado economy, it’s a concern for consumers for example in terms of costs, but it very much is a concern of small businesses who overwhelming populate these key industries that have driven growth in Colorado,” said Raymond Keating, the center’s chief economist.

“The bottom line here is that this effectively is a federal cap on economic development, including small business growth and job growth in the state,” he said.

EPA administrator Gina McCarthy has argued that the tougher ozone rule, which lowers the current standard from 75 to 66 parts per billion, would reduce the risk of asthma and lung damage, making communities more attractive to business.

“Special-interest critics will try to convince you that pollution standards chase away local jobs and businesses, but, in fact, healthy communities attract new businesses, new investment, and new jobs,” she wrote in a November article defending the standards.

A number of Colorado legislators have called on the EPA to keep its 2008 ozone targets, which have not yet been fully implemented, before setting new standards.

As for traffic, the ozone limits would force a delay of state and federal road and highway projects, adding an estimated 4.5 to 9 million traffic-hours per year in the Denver metro area, according to the report.

— valrichardson17@gmail.com