Last week, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget released the semiannual regulatory agenda. I pointed out that the agenda, which contains the regulatory agencies’ planned actions, was quite late. Although the plans share problems from past years, like simply pushing back the target dates for regulatory actions, there are some pleasant surprises. For example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is moving forward with some proactive regulatory responses to the Toyota recalls of 2009, and the EPA plans to propose or finalize updates to National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for 30 sources. Here’s an overview of some highlights (not covering everything) from the regulatory plans. More information about each individual rulemaking can be found by following the links.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
This afternoon at 1:00 p.m., the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power will check one more box in the House GOP's ongoing effort to demonstrate its appreciation to the corporate interests that helped elect them, by holding a hearing on a proposal disingenuously called the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act of 2011, or as they acronym-ize it, the TRAIN Act.
As the name does not at all suggest, it’s a bill about undercutting environmental regulations that inconvenience the energy industry. The idea is to create a sort of non-environmentally minded Star Chamber to review the full slate of Clean Air Act and coal ash regulations, for the purpose of concluding that they cost too much. That’s not quite how they phrase it, of course, but that is the purpose.
Here’s an excerpt from the committee majority staff’s description of the bill:
In the past two years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated numerous final and proposed rules that will require retrofitting of power plants, increased fees for new construction and operation of units from diverse sectors of the economy, potential construction delays, revisions to state plans to implement federal requirements, and the adoption of Best Available Control Technology measures to address greenhouse gas emissions from diverse sources.
EPA’s own analysis indicates that some of these rules will have significant costs; other actions have not yet been analyzed. There has not, however, been an analysis of the cumulative impacts of these regulations on global competitiveness, cumulative change in energy and fuel prices, employment, or reliability of the electricity supply. Nor has there been an analysis of the cumulative impacts on consumers; small businesses; regional economies; state, local and tribal governments; specific labor markets; and agriculture.
Of course, every rule that emerges from EPA undergoes a rigorous cost-benefit analysis, totting up every penny of cost to industry (calculated by industry, for the most part, so you can imagine they don’t under-project), and comparing it with the dollar value of the benefits that would result. For a number of reasons, that process is deeply flawed and slanted against protective regulations. It ignores, for example, the value of benefits that can’t be readily monetized, with the net effect that benefits are commonly understated, while the costs to industry are often exaggerated.
Full textThis post was written by CPR Member Scholar Catherine O'Neill and Communications Specialist Ben Somberg.
The announcement from EPA Wednesday creating final standards for pollution from industrial boilers is being described by the press as “scale[d] back,” and “half the cost of an earlier proposal.” Those things are true, but the new regulation is no small matter. It will have a significant and positive effect on the health of people across the country and beyond.
Says the Sierra Club: "Though the announcement today is modest by comparison to the proposals put forth by the EPA last June, we urge Administrator Lisa Jackson to forge ahead to protect our children and families’ health." NRDC says: "EPA could have done more, but these standards accomplish long overdue, needed cuts in mercury, benzene, heavy metal and acid gas pollution from industrial plants. While the final biomass standards are notably relaxed in response to industry complaints, overall the safeguards still will save up to 6,500 lives, avoid 4,000 heart attacks, and prevent more than 46,000 cases of aggravated asthma and bronchitis every year. Americans deserve these tremendous health benefits without political interference by Congress."
"It appears that EPA has addressed many of the industry complaints while still putting out standards that would bring significant public health benefits," Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch told Greenwire. "Let's hope that EPA stands its ground when industries argue for further changes."
The rule is long overdue. There are several air pollutants at play here, but let me focus on mercury for a moment. Industrial boilers as a category are the second largest domestic source of mercury, after coal-fired power plants. Mercury emitted to the air from boilers and other sources gets deposited to surrounding land and waters; ultimately, it makes its way into fish tissue in the form of methylmercury – a potent neurotoxin to humans. In fact, exposure to even small amounts of methylmercury in utero or during childhood can lead to irreversible neurological damage, placing the developing fetus and children at particular risk. Fish, in many areas a low-cost source of food, is being poisoned by mercury, and advisories suggest reducing or removing it from families' dinner plates as a consequence.
Full textCross-posted from Legal Planet.
It’s often said that the Clean Air Act is an inappropriate way to address climate change. It would undoubtedly be desirable for Congress to pass new legislation on the subject, but the Clean Air Act is a more appropriate vehicle than many people seem to realize. There are six common misconceptions about the statute that have led to confusion:
Myth #1: EPA has made a power grab by trying to use the Clean Air Act. Not true — the Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases are air pollutants and directed EPA to make a scientific judgment about whether climate change is a threat to human health or welfare.
Myth #2: The Clean Air Act is only aimed at harms from breathing air pollutants. Again, not true. Inhalation hazards are clearly important, but the statute also addresses hazards such as increased ultraviolet radiation from a weakened ozone layer; harm to paint from reacting with air pollutants; harm to lakes from acid rain; and harm to children from lead dust that has fallen on the ground.
Myth #3: The Clean Air Act addresses only localized pollution problems due to urban air pollution. Many air pollutants such as NOx and SOx can travel hundreds of miles, and harm to the ozone layer is global rather than local. Also, climate change will actually make “ordinary” urban air pollution worse.
Full texta(broad) perspective
In 1974, atmospheric scientists discovered that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the alarming depletion of the protective ozone layer that shields all life on Earth from the harmful ultra-violet radiation from the sun. These CFCs were present as propellants in aerosol cans and also used as refrigerants. The global scientific consensus and the severity of ozone depletion motivated the international community to establish the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol), one of the most successful international environmental treaties to date. The Protocol established specific targets for the reduction and eventual elimination of ozone-depleting substances. The Protocol’s success comes from the scientific expertise on ozone-depleting substances and universal participation. Developed countries also provide significant technical and financial assistance to developing countries, which encourages and enables them to reduce their dependence on these compounds.
EPA estimates that in the United States alone, every dollar invested in ozone protection yields $20 in societal health benefits. Between 1990 and 2165, that would amount to benefits of approximately $4.2 trillion, the agency says.
The Montreal Protocol made headlines with the 22nd Meeting of the Parties in Bangkok earlier this month. The United States, Canada, and Mexico proposed the use of the Protocol to phase out hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which contribute to climate change. Daniel Reifsnyder, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Development, noted that “the global community cares not where action on climate change is taken: only that it is taken.”
Full textThere’s a lot of punditry left to be committed about whether and how the GOP majority in the House and the enhanced GOP minority in the Senate will work with the Obama Administration. I’m not optimistic. But even if the President and House Republicans are able to find some small patch of common ground, the hard reality that progressives need to swallow is that whatever major progressive legislation will bear Barack Obama’s signature has already become law, at least for his first term.
The same is not true, however, for what Barack Obama might accomplish simply by infusing the health and safety agencies in his Administration—from EPA to OSHA to FDA—with a sense of urgency, clearing away barriers to regulatory progress within his own White House, and insisting that the agencies enforce existing laws with newfound vigor. A string of catastrophes have shown that we need proactive government at least as much in these areas as we need cops on the beat in neighborhoods and airport security, even as Americans claim to hate government in a larger sense.
Resurrection of these agencies was a low priority for the President during his first two years. He made great appointments, but then left the agencies to cope with budget shortfalls and inadequate legal authority. As just one especially shocking example, FDA cannot order a recall of salmonella-poisoned food but instead must depend on the producer’s cooperation to get the food off the shelves. Worst of all, Cass Sunstein, his appointee to the post of “regulatory czar,” where he essentially supervises the agencies from the White House, has in many ways continued the Bush II pattern of red tape and neglect. “Yes we can” became “No we won’t” in too many instances. His small office continues to serve as a lobby for any powerful business interest—from coal companies to chemical manufacturers—intent on consigning the cops to desk duty.
Republicans followed the pattern of the Bush II Administration, screaming about overregulation and even going so far as to protest the rough treatment of British Petroleum in the Gulf. As usual, they gained traction by ranting against government writ large, not by acknowledging the need—no, the expectation and rock-solid demand—that these first-line responders keep Americans safe.
The predictable result was a mixed record--some regulators seized the opportunity and moved briskly ahead. Others bogged down.
All of that is squarely within the President’s power to fix. But will he?
Full textAccording to the egg industry, the thousands of people sickened by eggs contaminated with Salmonella enteritidis have only themselves to blame. As USA Today reported:
"Consumers that were sickened reportedly all ate eggs that were not properly or thoroughly cooked. Eggs need to be cooked so that the whites and yolks are firm (not runny) which should kill any bacteria," says Mitch Head, spokesperson for the United Egg Producers.
"Some people may not think of an egg as you would ground beef, but they need to start," says Krista Eberle of the United Egg Producers' Egg Safety Center. "It may sound harsh and I don't mean it to sound that way. But all the responsibility cannot be placed on the farmer. Somewhere along the line consumers have to be responsible for what they put in their bodies."
With more than 500 million eggs to date subject to recall for contamination, this effort to shift the focus to consumers’ behavior deserves scrutiny. Implicit in this shift is an attempt to absolve producers – and the government agencies charged with overseeing these producers and ensuring the health of our food supply – of responsibility. But there are many good reasons for our government to ensure the safety and security of the food we eat. Indeed, Congress has assigned this task to protector agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration precisely because most Americans want to go to their local grocery stores and know that the food sold there will be fit for human consumption.
Full text
Last week, Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman (KGL) reportedly released an 8-page outline for a bill mitigating climate disruption that they are crafting in order to try to break the deadlock that has heretofore blocked legislation in the Senate. ClimateWire reported that the KGL bill would incorporate ideas from the bill introduced by Senators Maria Cantwell (D. Wash.) and Susan Collins (R. Maine), the Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal (CLEAR) Act. That incorporation might be a good thing, because CLEAR contains several great ideas.
Last year, Amy Sinden and I characterized the idea of Dirty Input Limits (DILs), limits on inputs causing pollution rather than pollution itself, as the “missing instrument” in environmental law. We used the idea of creating a tradable permit market from limits on fossil fuel production and imports as an illustration of the potential of this instrument, which has been used in successful regulatory efforts to head off stratospheric ozone depletion and practically eliminate lead pollution, but has hitherto gone unnoticed as an environmental policy instrument. CLEAR in fact creates a DIL for fossil fuels, just as we recommended.
The main advantages of this approach come from its relative simplicity and its likely effect on innovation. We have far fewer fossil fuel producers and importers than fossil fuel users. By regulating upstream, CLEAR may reduce the number of entities that EPA needs to monitor. Also, by sending a strong signal that the government will demand reductions in fossil fuel use, this approach will likely jump-start innovation.
Full textThe EPA issued a new rule recently on nitrogen dioxide (NO2) -- but not before it was weakened by OMB. The consequences for the public health are real.
The possibility of OMB interference in the rule was first raised by Matt Madia of OMB Watch. He noted that EPA's draft final rule -- sent to OIRA for review on December 18 -- required all metropolitan areas with a population of 350,000 people or more to install a monitoring station for measuring NO2 emissions near a major roadway in the area. By the time OIRA completed its review on January 22, the minimum threshold for monitoring stations had been increased to one per 500,000 people. Troubling, to say the least.
We noticed a document that shines further light on what happened behind the scenes. The EPA had made its position clear, it turns out. In a January 20th email about the "500,000" proposal, Lisa Heinzerling, the EPA's Associate Administrator for policy, wrote, "EPA does not support the alternative threshold described in the email below." (Full disclosure: Heinzerling is a former Member Scholar of CPR. We found the e-mail in question ourselves.)
Full textThis post is the third in a series on the new CPR report Obama’s Regulators: A First-Year Report Card.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the biggest and most powerful of the protector agencies. Consequently, it has also become the agency that was most decimated by regulatory opponents in recent decades. Thus, when President Obama assumed office in January of 2009, he inherited an EPA with its confidence severely dented, but otherwise eager to get back to the important work of protecting people and the environment. As CPR found in its new report, EPA’s performance this past year reflected this disposition: the agency steamed ahead on many important issues, but approached certain controversial issues with visible trepidation.
Looking back, it’s hard not to be impressed by the breadth of EPA’s accomplishments this past year. The agency took protective actions in several areas including toxics reform, chemicals screening, ground level ozone, sulfur dioxide, lead air pollution monitoring, managing hazardous waste, and protecting children’s health and safety. EPA’s most impressive actions, however, came in the areas of climate change and Chesapeake Bay restoration.
Full text