On Jan. 10, overcome by optimism and naiveté, Reg•Watch declared that Americans may get answers about who was responsible for EPA's decision to deny California's efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. Reg•Watch has now been properly grounded, as EPA has refused to turn over any pertinent information, citing a host of bogus excuses.

A statement by EPA's general counsel instructing agency staff to turn over all communications related to the decision engendered the false optimism. Instead, EPA will provide little to the public, for fear of violating "Executive Branch confidentiality" or creating a "chilling effect" among agency staff if their opinions "were to be disclosed in a broad setting."

(Apparently, the only chilling effect EPA is interested in creating is the one that may occur if greenhouse gases wind up causing a disruption in the Gulf Stream and turn the northeast into an arctic mess.)

But that's nothing compared to EPA's most ridiculous excuse for not fully turning over information: "Further disclosure could result in needless public confusion about the Administrator's decision that EPA will be denying California's request."

This excuse isn't surprising from an administration that has consistently adopted a Bush-and-Cheney-know-best attitude to government decision making — but that doesn't make it any less insulting.

Two dozen scientists came from around the country to Washington this week to protest political meddling in decisions on endangered species protections, according to The Washington Post:

The scientists say political appointees at [the Department of] Interior, or those who report to them, have been altering their reports recommending "critical habitat" preservation to favor industries whose interests conflict with the findings.

The group of scientists, organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Endangered Species Coalition, caught the ears of staffers for more than 20 legislators and Lynn Scarlett, Deputy Secretary for Interior.

Political manipulation of endangered species decisions has stayed in the news ever since an Inspector General report found a former Interior official, Julie MacDonald, had leaked documents to industry lobbyists and overruled scientific opinions on several endangered species listings. Since then, Interior reviewed eight decisions MacDonald was involved in and will revise seven.

The controversy over endangered species listings has flared up again as Interior is delaying a decision on whether to protect the polar bear. The polar bear's habitat is threatened by melting sea ice. The species would be the first to receive protection as a result of a symptom of global warming.

The New York Times published an edictorial yesterday speculating as to the Bush administration's motivations for delaying the decision. The Times argues a delay in the decision will be a windfall for the oil and gas industry.

Yesterday, The New York Times published an article on new electricity producer regulations in Hong Kong which would tie electricity prices to a producer's emission levels:

The 10-year agreement reached this week between the Hong Kong government and the territory's two companies — Hong Kong Electric and CLP — authorizes the companies to charge electricity rates that will give them a 9.99 percent return on assets.

If either company exceeds regulatory limits for any pollutant, however, it would be required to charge customers less, reducing its allowed rate of return by 0.2 to 0.4 percentage point.

If the companies manage to cut their pollution more than required, then they are allowed to raise prices to the point where they effectively earn bonuses of 0.05 to 0.1 percentage point on their rate of return.

Like most pollution regulations in the U.S., this one creates an economic incentive for industry to comply. But the U.S. usually uses government-imposed financial penalties or, in the case of sulfur dioxide (and possibly greenhouse gases in the future), a cap-and-trade system.

In those regulatory schemes, polluters wind up paying the federal government. In Hong Kong, polluters would be penalized by having their revenue reduced when prices are lowered. This puts money directly back into the pockets of consumers. When electricity producers meet or exceed compliance requirements, consumers pay a little more.

Here's the interesting part: In the U.S., when the federal government collects fines Americans benefit in the form of improved government services, lower taxes, or both; but those benefits may not be realized for years and the average person likely would not even notice them.

Moreover, if a government-imposed fine leads to lower taxes, that disproportionately benefits the top 50 percent of income earners (who contribute 97 percent of tax revenue). In Hong Kong's scheme, the money goes back to all consumers based on consumption levels, which would disproportionately improve the marginal utility of low-income earners.

Oh yeah, and those low-income earners, they're the ones disproportionately affected by pollution in the first place.

When producers are in compliance with the regulations, consumers — regardless of wealth status — pay a little more for the benefits of cleaner air and water.

Reg•Watch isn't sure this would ever work in the U.S., but it could be a more equitable alternative to the kinds of regulations we usually turn to.

Officials from the Department of the Interior have announced they will miss a deadline for deciding whether to protect the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act. The Department proposed listing the species as "threatened" (one step short of endangered) last January. (More info on the proposal.)

The decision on the polar bear is particularly important because scientists have shown the greatest threat to the species' survival is global climate change. If the Department chooses to grant the polar bear protection, it would be the first species to be given protection because of the adverse effects of climate change.

Considering the Bush record on regulatory protections, one wonders if impropriety is afoot. According to the Associated Press, "Listing polar bears as 'threatened' with extinction could trigger limits on development, particularly oil and gas exploration and production, which could harm the animals." Could industry groups be lobbying against the decision?

According to previous Federal Register notices, the polar bear listing is a "nonsignificant" regulatory action. Therefore, it is not undergoing a White House review, as endangered species listings sometimes do.

Department officials say they hope to finalize their decision in February. But if the delay continues, further investigation will be warranted.

Reg•Watch Update: "Polar Bear Trails Oil and Gas in Race to a Decision"

Yesterday, 16 states sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its refusal to allow California to implement a program for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. Had EPA granted California permission, the other 15 states in the suit would have adopted the California program.

EPA administrator Stephen Johnson denied California's request on Dec. 19. Johnson claimed California's proposed program is unnecessary in light of a recent federal law which would tighten the national fuel economy standard and that a federal regulation is preferable to a "confusing patchwork of state rules."

Johnson's argument is bogus. Had EPA approved California's request, other states could have adopted California's program (not created their own willy-nilly). The presence of two policies is neither confusing nor a patchwork. Furthermore, the Clean Air Act (not to mention the Constitution) contains provisions affording states the opportunity to enact their own regulatory schemes even if they are stricter than federal standards.

EPA insiders have acknowledged Johnson's decision does not hold water and will likely be overturned in court. But, since federal lawsuits take months or years, the Bush administration will still achieve its goal: delaying any meaningful action on climate change for eight long years.

Some progress may occur in the short term if Congress moves swiftly with focused oversight hearings. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, have both requested EPA documents and communications related to Johnson's decision. EPA's general counsel has instructed agency personnel to provide said material, including any evidence of communications with the White House, according to the Associated Press.

Although congressional attention will alter policy, identifying who is responsible for the denial of the California's request will allow the public to hold the culprits accountable.

In 2007, new regulatory policies and the inability of federal agencies to protect the public made headlines more so than at any time in recent memory. Four themes dominated regulatory policy in 2007: White House influence over agency rulemaking activity and discretion; the inability of the federal government to ensure the safety of imported goods; the influence of industry groups; and the Bush administration's refusal to regulate in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

Click on these links for a recap of 2007's highlights and lowlights:

• White House Interventions
• Import Safety
• Industry Influence
• Ignoring Science