Regulatory Policy - RegWatch

RegWatch:

News & Analysis | REG•WATCH Blog | Press Room

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Court Rules in Favor of Mountaintop Mining
Update on mountaintop removal: The use of a streamlined, general permit for mountaintop mining was reinstated by an appeals court on Nov. 22, vacating a lower court decision to bar the use of a general permit for 11 coal mining projects in West Virginia. The three-judge panel concluded that the Army Corps of Engineers had complied with the Clean Water Act in issuing the general permit. The streamlined general permit requires far less scrutiny of environmental impacts than an individual permit. The decision is a defeat for local communities and environmentalist. From the BNA, Daily Report for Executives (subscription-only):

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act allows the Army Corps to authorize projects with individual permits or streamlined general permits for categories of activities that have minimal effects on the environment. Certain conditions must be met for coverage under a general permit. . . .
Issued in 2002, Nationwide Permit 21 authorized discharges of the fill material into waters of the United States.
Coal companies applying for a permit must file a "preconstruction notification" with the Army Corps, which determines whether proposed projects will have a minimal effect on the environment. The corps would then determine if the mining company should have to undertake separate projects to mitigate the environmental impact of their activity.
In his July ruling, Goodwin said the "fundamental problem with the corps approach is that NWP 21 defines a procedure instead of categories of activities."
He said the corps did not define mining activities that will have only minimal effects on the environment and only provided a "post-hoc, case-by-case evaluation of environmental impact."
Goodwin also said the process does not include a provision for public hearings.
The appeals court disagreed on each point. The three-judge panel said that the corps used both procedural and substantive parameters to define discharge activities covered under NWP 21.

Text of the decision available here.

Posted by Genevieve Smith, 01:58:12 PM

EPA to Reduce Testing of Ground Zero
In a slap in the face to resident of New York City, EPA released yesterday a reduced testing plan for contaminants released in the collapse of the World Trade Center. EPA backed away from initial broader testing plan that included parts of Brooklyn and areas north of Canal Street in Manhattan. From the Washington Post:

The fires at Ground Zero burned for three months, and western Brooklyn sat directly within the smoke-and-dust plume from the World Trade Center. But EPA officials said that their tests have not been able to distinguish between World Trade Center contamination and the dust and detritus of normal urban life.
"We would prefer to go further, but the science won't let us," said E. Timothy Oppelt, an EPA official who has chaired an expert technical review panel intended to guide the testing. "We can't be whimsical."
The EPA also announced Tuesday that it is shutting down Oppelt's review panel -- which includes toxicologists, doctors, environmentalists and residents. The committee was supposed to meet monthly but has not convened since July.
The panel will hold a final meeting in December, and that meeting will be shorter than usual.
"It's crucial for this panel to continue," said Suzanne Mattei, New York City executive of the Sierra Club, which has issued several studies on Ground Zero-related contamination. "If we can't get a proper response after a disaster of this magnitude, what's the point of having a federal government?"

In a statement on the testing, Sen. Hilary Clinton lamented that "[t]he panel has not even begun to meet its mandate to identify unmet public health needs," she said. More on EPA's testing plans and the panel.

Posted by Genevieve Smith, 11:44:00 AM

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

A Little Good News for the Holidays
The New York Times reports that more and more companies are finding it profitable to go green:

"There are a lot of creative types looking for the next big thing," said Bob Sheppard, deputy director for corporate programs at Clean Air-Cool Planet, a nonprofit environmental education organization. "Well, these days, environment is it."
It is impossible to quantify the size of the environmental industry. Many of the newer companies are privately held. And many "green" products - more efficient power generators, say, or biodegradable plastics - are parts of other industries.
But investors are clearly funneling ever more money into green technologies. Last year, the California Public Employees Retirement System, or Calpers, said it would invest $200 million in what it called the "burgeoning environmental technology sector." This year, 27 members of the Investor Network on Climate Risk promised to invest $1 billion in companies with green products.
"The environmental industry is about to take off, as more investors realize that they can reap returns from cleaner technologies," said Dan Bakal, director of electric power programs at Ceres, a coalition of investors and environmental organizations that runs the investor network.

Unsurprisingly, greater regulation has helped to spur new environmentally-friendly industries.

In one sense, the current environmental boon is a replay of the 1970's, when regulations spawned a profitable industry to sell electrostatic precipitators, air scrubbers and other air cleaning devices. New federal rules limiting diesel emissions are spurring sales now, too.
But this time, other powerful motivators are at play. The United States did not sign the Kyoto treaty regulating greenhouse gases, but companies feel pressure to reduce gas emissions to do business comfortably in countries that did sign. Moreover, "people know that regulations will come here, too," said Judi Greenwald, director of innovative solutions at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a nonprofit research group.

More on how regulation can spur U.S. competitiveness: OMB Watch Issue Brief: Regulation and Competitiveness

Posted by Genevieve Smith, 11:11:44 AM

Thursday, November 03, 2005

The Spy Who Greened Me
Huh?

PEER has released an EPA email announcing that the agency is

Creating an Intelligence Operations function within the Office of Homeland Security to advise the Administrator and other senior EPA officials on matters related to national security and intelligence; to serve as the principal Agency liaison to the U.S. intelligence community; and to coordinate with EPA programs and Regions on matters related to classified and other sensitive information.

Again -- huh?

Read the PEER press release and download the EPA email

Posted by Robert Shull, 07:24:59 PM

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Clear Skies No Better than Existing Regs
EPA recently released cost-benefit analysis of competing legislation to curb power plant emissions, including the President's Clear Skies legislation as well as legislation introduced by Sen. James Jeffords (I-VT) and separate legislation introduce by Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE).

The cost-benefit analysis showed that the President's Clear Skies bills perform no better than regulations already on the book. Furthermore, though the analysis predicts lower costs for the Clear Skies Act compared to competing legislation, it also predicts far fewer benefits.

While Clear Skies would cost less than $3 billion and produce $66 billion to $78 billion in benefits, Carper's bill (S.843, introduced in the 108th), which goes further in reducing emissions and setting strict deadlines, would cost $10 billion and produce $109 billion to $128 billion in benefits. Jeffords bill (S.150), which seeks the greatest level of emissions reductions, could produce up to $162 billion worth of benefit and cost $41 billion.

You would think that these numbers would clearly indicate that the Clear Skies initiative does not go far enough in protecting the public. Stricter regulations could produce tens of billions of dollars more in added benefit. Unfortunately, cost-benefit analysis—especially as wielded by this administration--consistently sides against more stringent protections, seeking to minimize costs rather than maximize benefits. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson actually pointed to the cost-benefit analysis as a clear indication that Bush's proposal was the best option, even though the facts clearly state otherwise.

Even if cost-benefit analysis is used to maximize benefit, it still works as a one-way ratchet, consistently overestimating cost and underestimating benefit. While costs can be easily monetized, many benefits are more difficult to quantify. Cost-benefit analysis tends to focus only on risks for which there is a standard monetization, such as the risk of cancer or death. Other risks, such as asthma, neurological disorders or the impact of climate change, that can be associated with power plant pollution are often not folded into the cost-benefit equation.

For more information on how cost-benefit analysis gets it wrong, read "Is Cost-Benefit Analysis Needed?"

Posted by Genevieve Smith, 02:29:52 PM

Latest Entries by Theme

Cost-Benefit Analysis

In Congress

Publications

Consumer Issues