Conservation groups, Coast Builders Coalition support investments in large-scale coastal restoration and protection (NEW ORLEANS – March 8, 2017) This morning, Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards sent a letter to the Administration outlining the state’s coastal restoration and protection infrastructure priorities. In his letter, Governor Edwards proposes that the Administration give high priority status to five projects included in the state’s Coastal Master Plan: Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion, Mid-Breton Sediment Diversion, Houma Navigation Canal Lock Complex, Calcasieu Salinity Control Measures, and ...

Read The Full Story

The post Louisiana Governor Calls on President Trump to Expedite Coastal Infrastructure Projects appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

By Kate Zerrenner

Center: Debbie Kimberly, Vice President for Customer Energy Solutions at Austin Energy.

In honor of this year’s International Women’s Day we wanted to highlight a clean energy leader in Texas, and we didn’t have to go far from Environmental Defense Fund’s Austin office.

Debbie Kimberly is the Vice President for Customer Energy Solutions at Austin Energy (AE), the municipally-owned electric utility for the City of Austin. Her division is responsible for some of the utility’s clean energy portfolio, including energy efficiency, demand response (a tool that rewards people and businesses for using less electricity when the grid is stressed), and solar initiatives.

Debbie came to AE just over four years ago from an illustrious run at Arizona’s Salt River Project – the electric utility that serves the Phoenix area. I recently interviewed her about her leadership in Texas’ clean energy space.

Q: With women serving as nearly half of the executive team, AE’s significant female representation is unique. How do you think that affects the way AE operates?

A: It was one of the things that really struck me when I interviewed with the company, and more broadly, I was attracted by the diversity of the executive team. In my experience, that diversity adds value to the decisions a company makes and directly translates into the service you provide your diverse customers. At Salt River Project, we conducted extensive customer research and found that in most of the residential homes we served, a woman was the decision maker when it came to choice of electric price plan, energy efficiency offering, etc. So, we took that into consideration in our messaging and marketing plans.

#InternationalWomensDay: Spotlight on a Texas Clean Energy Leader
Click To Tweet

Q: What was one of the first steps you took when you joined AE?

A: We changed the name of the group [from Distributed Energy Services] to Customer Energy Solutions – to orient the focus first on the customer, and second on the array of solutions that can meet customers’ needs.

Q: Austin is the fastest-growing city in the country. How does your role ensure we meet growing electricity demand?

A: Our efforts have been essential in meeting energy and demand. A recent Energy Information Administration shows that Austin has the lowest residential [electricity] consumption and lowest bills for the top 10 utilities in ERCOT [the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which serves roughly 90 percent of the state]. That’s a function of 30-plus years of commitment to conservation and demand management. And we do this with top tier reliability. It’s important to have a portfolio of offerings, and an awareness of customer needs.

We’ve launched pilots, such as our low-income multi-family program.

A big challenge that we face is that more than 50 percent of our residential customers and almost all of our commercial customers are renters, so we need to design programs that can reach both the tenant and the property owner – in a city where vacancy rates tend to be very low. We’ve launched pilots, such as our low-income multi-family program, and changed some of our delivery approaches [to make it easier] for customers to save energy and money.

Q: Because of the energy-water nexus, do you see a role for integrating water more closely with some of the components of your portfolio (e.g. energy efficiency)?

A: Absolutely. When we look at our energy efficiency portfolio offerings, we consider the water savings associated with those measures. The same is true for our solar and wind resources.

We also partner with Austin Water extensively – from a programmatic basis. For example, last year we weatherized 778 homes and all of those homes received low-flow showerheads and faucet aerators. Our AE Green Building programs rate thousands of high performance commercial and residential properties every year – these properties are built to very high levels of energy and water efficiency and divert waste from landfills.

Q: Looking to the future, what are you most excited about in your portfolio?

A: I can’t think of a time where there was more to be excited about. Technology is transforming at a remarkable pace, and this is enabling changes I would have never envisioned years ago. A few nights ago I told Alexa to adjust the temperature on my smart thermostat – how cool is that?! I used to have to pull out the instructions twice a year to change the settings on my not-so-smart programmable thermostat.

We’re seeing declining prices in solar, growth in electric vehicles [EV], and I’d love to see increased electric transportation options for all citizens – not just those who can afford to buy an EV.

I’d hope to inspire the next generation of leaders to seek out opportunities in this business.

Q: How would you operate in an ideal scenario?

A: I’d be out meeting with customers (not in an office or meetings). I’d put in place those systems that make it easier for a customer to self-serve or talk to an energy concierge. I’d go out to the field and listen to employees. And I’d swing by a grade school, a high school, Austin Community College, and University of Texas on my way home and hope to inspire the next generation of leaders to seek out opportunities in this business.

Q: How do you engage, encourage, and inspire young women to enter this field? What would you say to a young woman who’s interested in the sector, but doesn’t know where to start?

A: Over the years, I’ve learned my share of lessons. When I started in the business almost 35 years ago, there was only one woman executive, and I don’t recall knowing any women engineers. I aspired to become an executive despite not being an engineer, [and] tried to soak up as much knowledge about different parts of the business.

Do your research, connect with people – online or in person; don’t be afraid to ask questions and seek out a trusted advisor (or two or three).

I am by nature a shy person. But, I volunteered for assignments, and was fortunate to have male mentors who took me out in the field – including on turbine decks and stacks –because they knew I wanted to learn.

I did work really hard, and I learned that you can often learn more from your mistakes. I learned to be myself – that was one of the earliest lessons in my management career. Today, there are so many more resources for any young person (now I’m really dating myself). Do your research, connect with people – online or in person; don’t be afraid to ask questions and seek out a trusted advisor (or two or three). Recognize that your career path isn’t always straight (mine sure wasn’t) but that’s a good thing. Be patient (I’m still working on that one) and keep your focus on the long game.

This post originally appeared on our Energy Exchange blog.

In honor of this year’s International Women’s Day we wanted to highlight a clean energy leader in Texas, and we didn’t have to go far from Environmental Defense Fund’s Austin office. Debbie Kimberly is the Vice President for Customer Energy Solutions at Austin Energy (AE), the municipally-owned electric utility for the City of Austin. Her […]

By Kate Zerrenner

Center: Debbie Kimberly, Vice President for Customer Energy Solutions at Austin Energy.

In honor of this year’s International Women’s Day we wanted to highlight a clean energy leader in Texas, and we didn’t have to go far from Environmental Defense Fund’s Austin office.

Debbie Kimberly is the Vice President for Customer Energy Solutions at Austin Energy (AE), the municipally-owned electric utility for the City of Austin. Her division is responsible for some of the utility’s clean energy portfolio, including energy efficiency, demand response (a tool that rewards people and businesses for using less electricity when the grid is stressed), and solar initiatives.

Debbie came to AE just over four years ago from an illustrious run at Arizona’s Salt River Project – the electric utility that serves the Phoenix area. I recently interviewed her about her leadership in Texas’ clean energy space.

Q: With women serving as nearly half of the executive team, AE’s significant female representation is unique. How do you think that affects the way AE operates?

A: It was one of the things that really struck me when I interviewed with the company, and more broadly, I was attracted by the diversity of the executive team. In my experience, that diversity adds value to the decisions a company makes and directly translates into the service you provide your diverse customers. At Salt River Project, we conducted extensive customer research and found that in most of the residential homes we served, a woman was the decision maker when it came to choice of electric price plan, energy efficiency offering, etc. So, we took that into consideration in our messaging and marketing plans.

International Women’s Day: Spotlight on a Texas Clean Energy Leader
Click To Tweet

Q: What was one of the first steps you took when you joined AE?

A: We changed the name of the group [from Distributed Energy Services] to Customer Energy Solutions – to orient the focus first on the customer, and second on the array of solutions that can meet customers’ needs.

Q: Austin is the fastest-growing city in the country. How does your role ensure we meet growing electricity demand?

A: Our efforts have been essential in meeting energy and demand. A recent Energy Information Administration shows that Austin has the lowest residential [electricity] consumption and lowest bills for the top 10 utilities in ERCOT [the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which serves roughly 90 percent of the state]. That’s a function of 30-plus years of commitment to conservation and demand management. And we do this with top tier reliability. It’s important to have a portfolio of offerings, and an awareness of customer needs.

We’ve launched pilots, such as our low-income multi-family program.

A big challenge that we face is that more than 50 percent of our residential customers and almost all of our commercial customers are renters, so we need to design programs that can reach both the tenant and the property owner – in a city where vacancy rates tend to be very low. We’ve launched pilots, such as our low-income multi-family program, and changed some of our delivery approaches [to make it easier] for customers to save energy and money.

Q: Because of the energy-water nexus, do you see a role for integrating water more closely with some of the components of your portfolio (e.g. energy efficiency)?

A: Absolutely. When we look at our energy efficiency portfolio offerings, we consider the water savings associated with those measures. The same is true for our solar and wind resources.

We also partner with Austin Water extensively – from a programmatic basis. For example, last year we weatherized 778 homes and all of those homes received low-flow showerheads and faucet aerators. Our AE Green Building programs rate thousands of high performance commercial and residential properties every year – these properties are built to very high levels of energy and water efficiency and divert waste from landfills.

Q: Looking to the future, what are you most excited about in your portfolio?

A: I can’t think of a time where there was more to be excited about. Technology is transforming at a remarkable pace, and this is enabling changes I would have never envisioned years ago. A few nights ago I told Alexa to adjust the temperature on my smart thermostat – how cool is that?! I used to have to pull out the instructions twice a year to change the settings on my not-so-smart programmable thermostat.

We’re seeing declining prices in solar, growth in electric vehicles [EV], and I’d love to see increased electric transportation options for all citizens – not just those who can afford to buy an EV.

I’d hope to inspire the next generation of leaders to seek out opportunities in this business.

Q: How would you operate in an ideal scenario?

A: I’d be out meeting with customers (not in an office or meetings). I’d put in place those systems that make it easier for a customer to self-serve or talk to an energy concierge. I’d go out to the field and listen to employees. And I’d swing by a grade school, a high school, Austin Community College, and University of Texas on my way home and hope to inspire the next generation of leaders to seek out opportunities in this business.

Q: How do you engage, encourage, and inspire young women to enter this field? What would you say to a young woman who’s interested in the sector, but doesn’t know where to start?

A: Over the years, I’ve learned my share of lessons. When I started in the business almost 35 years ago, there was only one woman executive, and I don’t recall knowing any women engineers. I aspired to become an executive despite not being an engineer, [and] tried to soak up as much knowledge about different parts of the business.

Do your research, connect with people – online or in person; don’t be afraid to ask questions and seek out a trusted advisor (or two or three).

I am by nature a shy person. But, I volunteered for assignments, and was fortunate to have male mentors who took me out in the field – including on turbine decks and stacks –because they knew I wanted to learn.

I did work really hard, and I learned that you can often learn more from your mistakes. I learned to be myself – that was one of the earliest lessons in my management career. Today, there are so many more resources for any young person (now I’m really dating myself). Do your research, connect with people – online or in person; don’t be afraid to ask questions and seek out a trusted advisor (or two or three). Recognize that your career path isn’t always straight (mine sure wasn’t) but that’s a good thing. Be patient (I’m still working on that one) and keep your focus on the long game.

By Kate Zerrenner

Center: Debbie Kimberly, Vice President for Customer Energy Solutions at Austin Energy.

In honor of this year’s International Women’s Day we wanted to highlight a clean energy leader in Texas, and we didn’t have to go far from Environmental Defense Fund’s Austin office.

Debbie Kimberly is the Vice President for Customer Energy Solutions at Austin Energy (AE), the municipally-owned electric utility for the City of Austin. Her division is responsible for some of the utility’s clean energy portfolio, including energy efficiency, demand response (a tool that rewards people and businesses for using less electricity when the grid is stressed), and solar initiatives.

Debbie came to AE just over four years ago from an illustrious run at Arizona’s Salt River Project – the electric utility that serves the Phoenix area. I recently interviewed her about her leadership in Texas’ clean energy space.

Q: With women serving as nearly half of the executive team, AE’s significant female representation is unique. How do you think that affects the way AE operates?

A: It was one of the things that really struck me when I interviewed with the company, and more broadly, I was attracted by the diversity of the executive team. In my experience, that diversity adds value to the decisions a company makes and directly translates into the service you provide your diverse customers. At Salt River Project, we conducted extensive customer research and found that in most of the residential homes we served, a woman was the decision maker when it came to choice of electric price plan, energy efficiency offering, etc. So, we took that into consideration in our messaging and marketing plans.

International Women’s Day: Spotlight on a Texas Clean Energy Leader
Click To Tweet

Q: What was one of the first steps you took when you joined AE?

A: We changed the name of the group [from Distributed Energy Services] to Customer Energy Solutions – to orient the focus first on the customer, and second on the array of solutions that can meet customers’ needs.

Q: Austin is the fastest-growing city in the country. How does your role ensure we meet growing electricity demand?

A: Our efforts have been essential in meeting energy and demand. A recent Energy Information Administration shows that Austin has the lowest residential [electricity] consumption and lowest bills for the top 10 utilities in ERCOT [the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which serves roughly 90 percent of the state]. That’s a function of 30-plus years of commitment to conservation and demand management. And we do this with top tier reliability. It’s important to have a portfolio of offerings, and an awareness of customer needs.

We’ve launched pilots, such as our low-income multi-family program.

A big challenge that we face is that more than 50 percent of our residential customers and almost all of our commercial customers are renters, so we need to design programs that can reach both the tenant and the property owner – in a city where vacancy rates tend to be very low. We’ve launched pilots, such as our low-income multi-family program, and changed some of our delivery approaches [to make it easier] for customers to save energy and money.

Q: Because of the energy-water nexus, do you see a role for integrating water more closely with some of the components of your portfolio (e.g. energy efficiency)?

A: Absolutely. When we look at our energy efficiency portfolio offerings, we consider the water savings associated with those measures. The same is true for our solar and wind resources.

We also partner with Austin Water extensively – from a programmatic basis. For example, last year we weatherized 778 homes and all of those homes received low-flow showerheads and faucet aerators. Our AE Green Building programs rate thousands of high performance commercial and residential properties every year – these properties are built to very high levels of energy and water efficiency and divert waste from landfills.

Q: Looking to the future, what are you most excited about in your portfolio?

A: I can’t think of a time where there was more to be excited about. Technology is transforming at a remarkable pace, and this is enabling changes I would have never envisioned years ago. A few nights ago I told Alexa to adjust the temperature on my smart thermostat – how cool is that?! I used to have to pull out the instructions twice a year to change the settings on my not-so-smart programmable thermostat.

We’re seeing declining prices in solar, growth in electric vehicles [EV], and I’d love to see increased electric transportation options for all citizens – not just those who can afford to buy an EV.

I’d hope to inspire the next generation of leaders to seek out opportunities in this business.

Q: How would you operate in an ideal scenario?

A: I’d be out meeting with customers (not in an office or meetings). I’d put in place those systems that make it easier for a customer to self-serve or talk to an energy concierge. I’d go out to the field and listen to employees. And I’d swing by a grade school, a high school, Austin Community College, and University of Texas on my way home and hope to inspire the next generation of leaders to seek out opportunities in this business.

Q: How do you engage, encourage, and inspire young women to enter this field? What would you say to a young woman who’s interested in the sector, but doesn’t know where to start?

A: Over the years, I’ve learned my share of lessons. When I started in the business almost 35 years ago, there was only one woman executive, and I don’t recall knowing any women engineers. I aspired to become an executive despite not being an engineer, [and] tried to soak up as much knowledge about different parts of the business.

Do your research, connect with people – online or in person; don’t be afraid to ask questions and seek out a trusted advisor (or two or three).

I am by nature a shy person. But, I volunteered for assignments, and was fortunate to have male mentors who took me out in the field – including on turbine decks and stacks –because they knew I wanted to learn.

I did work really hard, and I learned that you can often learn more from your mistakes. I learned to be myself – that was one of the earliest lessons in my management career. Today, there are so many more resources for any young person (now I’m really dating myself). Do your research, connect with people – online or in person; don’t be afraid to ask questions and seek out a trusted advisor (or two or three). Recognize that your career path isn’t always straight (mine sure wasn’t) but that’s a good thing. Be patient (I’m still working on that one) and keep your focus on the long game.

By Kate Zerrenner

Center: Debbie Kimberly, Vice President for Customer Energy Solutions at Austin Energy.

In honor of this year’s International Women’s Day we wanted to highlight a clean energy leader in Texas, and we didn’t have to go far from Environmental Defense Fund’s Austin office.

Debbie Kimberly is the Vice President for Customer Energy Solutions at Austin Energy (AE), the municipally-owned electric utility for the City of Austin. Her division is responsible for some of the utility’s clean energy portfolio, including energy efficiency, demand response (a tool that rewards people and businesses for using less electricity when the grid is stressed), and solar initiatives.

Debbie came to AE just over four years ago from an illustrious run at Arizona’s Salt River Project – the electric utility that serves the Phoenix area. I recently interviewed her about her leadership in Texas’ clean energy space.

Q: With women serving as nearly half of the executive team, AE’s significant female representation is unique. How do you think that affects the way AE operates?

A: It was one of the things that really struck me when I interviewed with the company, and more broadly, I was attracted by the diversity of the executive team. In my experience, that diversity adds value to the decisions a company makes and directly translates into the service you provide your diverse customers. At Salt River Project, we conducted extensive customer research and found that in most of the residential homes we served, a woman was the decision maker when it came to choice of electric price plan, energy efficiency offering, etc. So, we took that into consideration in our messaging and marketing plans.

International Women’s Day: Spotlight on a Texas Clean Energy Leader
Click To Tweet

Q: What was one of the first steps you took when you joined AE?

A: We changed the name of the group [from Distributed Energy Services] to Customer Energy Solutions – to orient the focus first on the customer, and second on the array of solutions that can meet customers’ needs.

Q: Austin is the fastest-growing city in the country. How does your role ensure we meet growing electricity demand?

A: Our efforts have been essential in meeting energy and demand. A recent Energy Information Administration shows that Austin has the lowest residential [electricity] consumption and lowest bills for the top 10 utilities in ERCOT [the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which serves roughly 90 percent of the state]. That’s a function of 30-plus years of commitment to conservation and demand management. And we do this with top tier reliability. It’s important to have a portfolio of offerings, and an awareness of customer needs.

We’ve launched pilots, such as our low-income multi-family program.

A big challenge that we face is that more than 50 percent of our residential customers and almost all of our commercial customers are renters, so we need to design programs that can reach both the tenant and the property owner – in a city where vacancy rates tend to be very low. We’ve launched pilots, such as our low-income multi-family program, and changed some of our delivery approaches [to make it easier] for customers to save energy and money.

Q: Because of the energy-water nexus, do you see a role for integrating water more closely with some of the components of your portfolio (e.g. energy efficiency)?

A: Absolutely. When we look at our energy efficiency portfolio offerings, we consider the water savings associated with those measures. The same is true for our solar and wind resources.

We also partner with Austin Water extensively – from a programmatic basis. For example, last year we weatherized 778 homes and all of those homes received low-flow showerheads and faucet aerators. Our AE Green Building programs rate thousands of high performance commercial and residential properties every year – these properties are built to very high levels of energy and water efficiency and divert waste from landfills.

Q: Looking to the future, what are you most excited about in your portfolio?

A: I can’t think of a time where there was more to be excited about. Technology is transforming at a remarkable pace, and this is enabling changes I would have never envisioned years ago. A few nights ago I told Alexa to adjust the temperature on my smart thermostat – how cool is that?! I used to have to pull out the instructions twice a year to change the settings on my not-so-smart programmable thermostat.

We’re seeing declining prices in solar, growth in electric vehicles [EV], and I’d love to see increased electric transportation options for all citizens – not just those who can afford to buy an EV.

I’d hope to inspire the next generation of leaders to seek out opportunities in this business.

Q: How would you operate in an ideal scenario?

A: I’d be out meeting with customers (not in an office or meetings). I’d put in place those systems that make it easier for a customer to self-serve or talk to an energy concierge. I’d go out to the field and listen to employees. And I’d swing by a grade school, a high school, Austin Community College, and University of Texas on my way home and hope to inspire the next generation of leaders to seek out opportunities in this business.

Q: How do you engage, encourage, and inspire young women to enter this field? What would you say to a young woman who’s interested in the sector, but doesn’t know where to start?

A: Over the years, I’ve learned my share of lessons. When I started in the business almost 35 years ago, there was only one woman executive, and I don’t recall knowing any women engineers. I aspired to become an executive despite not being an engineer, [and] tried to soak up as much knowledge about different parts of the business.

Do your research, connect with people – online or in person; don’t be afraid to ask questions and seek out a trusted advisor (or two or three).

I am by nature a shy person. But, I volunteered for assignments, and was fortunate to have male mentors who took me out in the field – including on turbine decks and stacks –because they knew I wanted to learn.

I did work really hard, and I learned that you can often learn more from your mistakes. I learned to be myself – that was one of the earliest lessons in my management career. Today, there are so many more resources for any young person (now I’m really dating myself). Do your research, connect with people – online or in person; don’t be afraid to ask questions and seek out a trusted advisor (or two or three). Recognize that your career path isn’t always straight (mine sure wasn’t) but that’s a good thing. Be patient (I’m still working on that one) and keep your focus on the long game.

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

I noted in a recent post EDF’s grave concerns about the Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA), which passed the House on January 11.  A shorter but still very concerning version of it may soon be introduced in the Senate, modeled on last Congress’ Senate version of RAA.  This bill would add dozens of burdensome and time-consuming hurdles to the rulemaking process, effectively crippling it and eliminating the health and safety protections rules are intended to provide.  To get a feel for all of the requirements, see this dizzying RAA flow chart.

Among other things, the RAA would mandate multiple rounds of cost and impact analysis of a potentially unlimited number of regulatory alternatives; require that all major rules go through an entirely new pre-proposal step, adding months if not longer to the rulemaking process; generally require that agencies choose the lowest-cost regulatory option, regardless of whether or not it is the best option or even sufficient to meet a law’s requirements; and require lengthy and resource-intensive public hearings on many rules.  To top all this off, the bill would require an agency to finalize a proposed rule within 2 years (subject to a 1-year extension) – a timeframe almost impossible to meet now without all of the additional requirements the Act would impose; if that deadline was not met, the agency would have to start over.

There is extreme irony in the advancement of the RAA in this Congress:  Just last June, both houses of Congress passed – with overwhelming bipartisan support – major reforms to the obsolete Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The Lautenberg Act removed from the original TSCA several major constraints on the rulemaking process that had so tied the hands of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that it could not even restrict asbestos, a known carcinogen that kills more than 10,000 Americans every year.  There was widespread agreement among industry and other stakeholders that those provisions of the old TSCA were detrimental or unnecessary to an efficient regulatory system and were undermining public and market confidence in the federal chemical safety system – not to mention failing to protect public health.

So here’s the irony:  The RAA would impose those same knot-tying strictures that the Lautenberg Act just got rid of – and expand them to rulemakings undertaken by any federal agency.  Let’s look at some of these crippling requirements, based on last Congress’s Senate version of the RAA:  

COST-BENEFIT CONSIDERATIONS:  As interpreted by the 5th Circuit in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, in order to regulate a chemical under the old TSCA, EPA had to conduct quantitative cost-benefit analysis (CBA) on a potentially limitless number of regulatory alternatives, regardless of whether information was available.  This requirement, coupled with the “least burdensome” requirement discussed below, is widely regarded as the most fatal flaw of the old TSCA, imposing virtually impossible evidentiary and analytic burdens on EPA.

The Lautenberg Act fixed these problems:  It requires EPA only to “consider and publish a statement on” the economic effects of a rule, and to do so only:  i) “to the extent practicable,” ii) “based on reasonably available information,” and iii) “for the 1 or more primary alternatives considered by” EPA.  It provides EPA with considerable discretion to limit the extent of analysis so that it is feasible.

Enter the RAA:  EPA and other federal agencies would have to evaluate “any substantial alternatives or other responses identified by interested persons,” regardless of how many alternatives that would be and whether or not information on them is reasonably available.  Literally anyone could tie an agency in knots merely by suggesting options that the agency would then have to analyze.  For major or high-impact rules, formal CBA would be required to be conducted on each such alternative, with virtually no discretion afforded the agency based on availability of information or practicality, and the agency would have to demonstrate that the “benefits … justify the costs.”

LEAST-COST REQUIREMENT:  The original TSCA required that EPA prove its selected regulatory requirement was the “least burdensome” of all possible options sufficient to address the problem.  The Lautenberg Act struck this requirement entirely.

Yet under the RAA, for all major or high-impact rules, EPA and other agencies would be required generally to adopt the “least costly” rule and prove that no lower-cost option is sufficient; an exception is provided where EPA could demonstrate, through even more analysis, that the additional benefits – which could not count any ancillary benefits – of a more costly rule justify the additional costs.  Yet, in contrast to costs, many benefits are very difficult to quantify or monetize and hence get short shrift in such cost-benefit analyses.

RULEMAKING STANDARD:  As just noted, TSCA originally required that EPA’s regulation to address an identified risk protect adequately against such risk using the “least burdensome requirements.”  It allowed a rule that did not actually eliminate the risk if the rule was deemed too costly.  A key reform made by the Lautenberg Act is that it precludes EPA from adopting a rule that does not eliminate an identified risk, which is to be determined without consideration of cost; then, in regulating such risk, EPA must consider costs – but only in deciding among different regulatory options each of which is sufficiently protective.  Moreover, these cost factors are only required to be considered, and EPA is not required to prove that an option meets a specific test (e.g., lowest-cost).

The RAA only generally indicates that a rule is to “meet relevant statutory objectives” – a vague term that does not require that a rule be sufficient to meet all requirements of the law that mandates or authorizes it.  In contrast, the bill’s language on cost requirements does not make clear that a rule not meeting a health-based standard would not be allowed.

REQUESTS FOR HEARINGS:  Under the old TSCA, any person could request EPA to hold a public hearing on any rule.  The Lautenberg Act struck this provision as unnecessary and overly time- and resource-intensive.  It was struck based on agreement among stakeholders that hearings were not needed and would make it impossible for EPA to meet the new law’s rulemaking deadlines.

Under the RAA, any person would be able to request a hearing on any major or high-impact rule, other than a rule “required by law” that is not a high-impact rule.  An agency would generally have to grant the request if any factual issue is in dispute, which is nearly always the case at some level.  Under this approach, any entity that wanted to drag out and obstruct a rule would have a ready opportunity to do so.

DEADLINES:  The old TSCA imposed no deadlines on EPA to identify or take action to address unreasonable chemical risks.  The Lautenberg Act imposes judicially enforceable deadlines on EPA’s proposal and finalization of risk management rules.  Critically, however, failure to meet a deadline does not relieve EPA of its obligation to complete the rulemaking.

The RAA perverts the very accountability that deadlines under the new TSCA and most federal statutes are intended to provide.  If an agency did not complete a rulemaking with 2 years of proposal (subject to a 1-year extension), the rule would be voided and the agency would have to start over – further delaying needed action to protect health or achieve a law’s key objectives.  This “reverse deadline” would apply to all rules.  Two years is highly ambitious to meet even under current rulemaking procedures, and agencies have rarely done so.  Coupled with all of the new procedural, analytic and evidentiary hurdles to rulemaking imposed by RAA, this deadline would be virtually impossible to meet and would mean virtually no regulations of any substance could be finalized.

 

Less than a year after Congress overwhelmingly adopted the Lautenberg Act – the first major federal environmental legislation enacted in over two decades – some in Congress are now threatening to impose across all of government the same paralyzing mandates that were just removed from the original TSCA by passage of the Lautenberg Act.

Lest anyone think I’m suggesting simply exempting the Lautenberg Act from the RAA, let me be clear that is no solution at all.  Congress passed the Lautenberg Act in order to restore public and market confidence in a key element of the federal safety net.  This step was also acknowledged as necessary to provide the business community with the regulatory certainty it needs to operate.  These are needs that cut across the entire federal landscape.

The very real threats – to public health, to our communities and to our environment – posed by the RAA suggests some in Congress have very short memories.

 

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

I noted in a recent post EDF’s grave concerns about the Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA), which passed the House on January 11.  A shorter but still very concerning version of it may soon be introduced in the Senate, modeled on last Congress’ Senate version of RAA.  This bill would add dozens of burdensome and time-consuming hurdles to the rulemaking process, effectively crippling it and eliminating the health and safety protections rules are intended to provide.  To get a feel for all of the requirements, see this dizzying RAA flow chart.

Among other things, the RAA would mandate multiple rounds of cost and impact analysis of a potentially unlimited number of regulatory alternatives; require that all major rules go through an entirely new pre-proposal step, adding months if not longer to the rulemaking process; generally require that agencies choose the lowest-cost regulatory option, regardless of whether or not it is the best option or even sufficient to meet a law’s requirements; and require lengthy and resource-intensive public hearings on many rules.  To top all this off, the bill would require an agency to finalize a proposed rule within 2 years (subject to a 1-year extension) – a timeframe almost impossible to meet now without all of the additional requirements the Act would impose; if that deadline was not met, the agency would have to start over.

There is extreme irony in the advancement of the RAA in this Congress:  Just last June, both houses of Congress passed – with overwhelming bipartisan support – major reforms to the obsolete Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The Lautenberg Act removed from the original TSCA several major constraints on the rulemaking process that had so tied the hands of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that it could not even restrict asbestos, a known carcinogen that kills more than 10,000 Americans every year.  There was widespread agreement among industry and other stakeholders that those provisions of the old TSCA were detrimental or unnecessary to an efficient regulatory system and were undermining public and market confidence in the federal chemical safety system – not to mention failing to protect public health.

So here’s the irony:  The RAA would impose those same knot-tying strictures that the Lautenberg Act just got rid of – and expand them to rulemakings undertaken by any federal agency.  Let’s look at some of these crippling requirements, based on last Congress’s Senate version of the RAA:  

COST-BENEFIT CONSIDERATIONS:  As interpreted by the 5th Circuit in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, in order to regulate a chemical under the old TSCA, EPA had to conduct quantitative cost-benefit analysis (CBA) on a potentially limitless number of regulatory alternatives, regardless of whether information was available.  This requirement, coupled with the “least burdensome” requirement discussed below, is widely regarded as the most fatal flaw of the old TSCA, imposing virtually impossible evidentiary and analytic burdens on EPA.

The Lautenberg Act fixed these problems:  It requires EPA only to “consider and publish a statement on” the economic effects of a rule, and to do so only:  i) “to the extent practicable,” ii) “based on reasonably available information,” and iii) “for the 1 or more primary alternatives considered by” EPA.  It provides EPA with considerable discretion to limit the extent of analysis so that it is feasible.

Enter the RAA:  EPA and other federal agencies would have to evaluate “any substantial alternatives or other responses identified by interested persons,” regardless of how many alternatives that would be and whether or not information on them is reasonably available.  Literally anyone could tie an agency in knots merely by suggesting options that the agency would then have to analyze.  For major or high-impact rules, formal CBA would be required to be conducted on each such alternative, with virtually no discretion afforded the agency based on availability of information or practicality, and the agency would have to demonstrate that the “benefits … justify the costs.”

LEAST-COST REQUIREMENT:  The original TSCA required that EPA prove its selected regulatory requirement was the “least burdensome” of all possible options sufficient to address the problem.  The Lautenberg Act struck this requirement entirely.

Yet under the RAA, for all major or high-impact rules, EPA and other agencies would be required generally to adopt the “least costly” rule and prove that no lower-cost option is sufficient; an exception is provided where EPA could demonstrate, through even more analysis, that the additional benefits – which could not count any ancillary benefits – of a more costly rule justify the additional costs.  Yet, in contrast to costs, many benefits are very difficult to quantify or monetize and hence get short shrift in such cost-benefit analyses.

RULEMAKING STANDARD:  As just noted, TSCA originally required that EPA’s regulation to address an identified risk protect adequately against such risk using the “least burdensome requirements.”  It allowed a rule that did not actually eliminate the risk if the rule was deemed too costly.  A key reform made by the Lautenberg Act is that it precludes EPA from adopting a rule that does not eliminate an identified risk, which is to be determined without consideration of cost; then, in regulating such risk, EPA must consider costs – but only in deciding among different regulatory options each of which is sufficiently protective.  Moreover, these cost factors are only required to be considered, and EPA is not required to prove that an option meets a specific test (e.g., lowest-cost).

The RAA only generally indicates that a rule is to “meet relevant statutory objectives” – a vague term that does not require that a rule be sufficient to meet all requirements of the law that mandates or authorizes it.  In contrast, the bill’s language on cost requirements does not make clear that a rule not meeting a health-based standard would not be allowed.

REQUESTS FOR HEARINGS:  Under the old TSCA, any person could request EPA to hold a public hearing on any rule.  The Lautenberg Act struck this provision as unnecessary and overly time- and resource-intensive.  It was struck based on agreement among stakeholders that hearings were not needed and would make it impossible for EPA to meet the new law’s rulemaking deadlines.

Under the RAA, any person would be able to request a hearing on any major or high-impact rule, other than a rule “required by law” that is not a high-impact rule.  An agency would generally have to grant the request if any factual issue is in dispute, which is nearly always the case at some level.  Under this approach, any entity that wanted to drag out and obstruct a rule would have a ready opportunity to do so.

DEADLINES:  The old TSCA imposed no deadlines on EPA to identify or take action to address unreasonable chemical risks.  The Lautenberg Act imposes judicially enforceable deadlines on EPA’s proposal and finalization of risk management rules.  Critically, however, failure to meet a deadline does not relieve EPA of its obligation to complete the rulemaking.

The RAA perverts the very accountability that deadlines under the new TSCA and most federal statutes are intended to provide.  If an agency did not complete a rulemaking with 2 years of proposal (subject to a 1-year extension), the rule would be voided and the agency would have to start over – further delaying needed action to protect health or achieve a law’s key objectives.  This “reverse deadline” would apply to all rules.  Two years is highly ambitious to meet even under current rulemaking procedures, and agencies have rarely done so.  Coupled with all of the new procedural, analytic and evidentiary hurdles to rulemaking imposed by RAA, this deadline would be virtually impossible to meet and would mean virtually no regulations of any substance could be finalized.

 

Less than a year after Congress overwhelmingly adopted the Lautenberg Act – the first major federal environmental legislation enacted in over two decades – some in Congress are now threatening to impose across all of government the same paralyzing mandates that were just removed from the original TSCA by passage of the Lautenberg Act.

Lest anyone think I’m suggesting simply exempting the Lautenberg Act from the RAA, let me be clear that is no solution at all.  Congress passed the Lautenberg Act in order to restore public and market confidence in a key element of the federal safety net.  This step was also acknowledged as necessary to provide the business community with the regulatory certainty it needs to operate.  These are needs that cut across the entire federal landscape.

The very real threats – to public health, to our communities and to our environment – posed by the RAA suggests some in Congress have very short memories.

 

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

I noted in a recent post EDF’s grave concerns about the Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA), which passed the House on January 11.  A shorter but still very concerning version of it may soon be introduced in the Senate, modeled on last Congress’ Senate version of RAA.  This bill would add dozens of burdensome and time-consuming hurdles to the rulemaking process, effectively crippling it and eliminating the health and safety protections rules are intended to provide.  To get a feel for all of the requirements, see this dizzying RAA flow chart.

Among other things, the RAA would mandate multiple rounds of cost and impact analysis of a potentially unlimited number of regulatory alternatives; require that all major rules go through an entirely new pre-proposal step, adding months if not longer to the rulemaking process; generally require that agencies choose the lowest-cost regulatory option, regardless of whether or not it is the best option or even sufficient to meet a law’s requirements; and require lengthy and resource-intensive public hearings on many rules.  To top all this off, the bill would require an agency to finalize a proposed rule within 2 years (subject to a 1-year extension) – a timeframe almost impossible to meet now without all of the additional requirements the Act would impose; if that deadline was not met, the agency would have to start over.

There is extreme irony in the advancement of the RAA in this Congress:  Just last June, both houses of Congress passed – with overwhelming bipartisan support – major reforms to the obsolete Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The Lautenberg Act removed from the original TSCA several major constraints on the rulemaking process that had so tied the hands of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that it could not even restrict asbestos, a known carcinogen that kills more than 10,000 Americans every year.  There was widespread agreement among industry and other stakeholders that those provisions of the old TSCA were detrimental or unnecessary to an efficient regulatory system and were undermining public and market confidence in the federal chemical safety system – not to mention failing to protect public health.

So here’s the irony:  The RAA would impose those same knot-tying strictures that the Lautenberg Act just got rid of – and expand them to rulemakings undertaken by any federal agency.  Let’s look at some of these crippling requirements, based on last Congress’s Senate version of the RAA:  

COST-BENEFIT CONSIDERATIONS:  As interpreted by the 5th Circuit in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, in order to regulate a chemical under the old TSCA, EPA had to conduct quantitative cost-benefit analysis (CBA) on a potentially limitless number of regulatory alternatives, regardless of whether information was available.  This requirement, coupled with the “least burdensome” requirement discussed below, is widely regarded as the most fatal flaw of the old TSCA, imposing virtually impossible evidentiary and analytic burdens on EPA.

The Lautenberg Act fixed these problems:  It requires EPA only to “consider and publish a statement on” the economic effects of a rule, and to do so only:  i) “to the extent practicable,” ii) “based on reasonably available information,” and iii) “for the 1 or more primary alternatives considered by” EPA.  It provides EPA with considerable discretion to limit the extent of analysis so that it is feasible.

Enter the RAA:  EPA and other federal agencies would have to evaluate “any substantial alternatives or other responses identified by interested persons,” regardless of how many alternatives that would be and whether or not information on them is reasonably available.  Literally anyone could tie an agency in knots merely by suggesting options that the agency would then have to analyze.  For major or high-impact rules, formal CBA would be required to be conducted on each such alternative, with virtually no discretion afforded the agency based on availability of information or practicality, and the agency would have to demonstrate that the “benefits … justify the costs.”

LEAST-COST REQUIREMENT:  The original TSCA required that EPA prove its selected regulatory requirement was the “least burdensome” of all possible options sufficient to address the problem.  The Lautenberg Act struck this requirement entirely.

Yet under the RAA, for all major or high-impact rules, EPA and other agencies would be required generally to adopt the “least costly” rule and prove that no lower-cost option is sufficient; an exception is provided where EPA could demonstrate, through even more analysis, that the additional benefits – which could not count any ancillary benefits – of a more costly rule justify the additional costs.  Yet, in contrast to costs, many benefits are very difficult to quantify or monetize and hence get short shrift in such cost-benefit analyses.

RULEMAKING STANDARD:  As just noted, TSCA originally required that EPA’s regulation to address an identified risk protect adequately against such risk using the “least burdensome requirements.”  It allowed a rule that did not actually eliminate the risk if the rule was deemed too costly.  A key reform made by the Lautenberg Act is that it precludes EPA from adopting a rule that does not eliminate an identified risk, which is to be determined without consideration of cost; then, in regulating such risk, EPA must consider costs – but only in deciding among different regulatory options each of which is sufficiently protective.  Moreover, these cost factors are only required to be considered, and EPA is not required to prove that an option meets a specific test (e.g., lowest-cost).

The RAA only generally indicates that a rule is to “meet relevant statutory objectives” – a vague term that does not require that a rule be sufficient to meet all requirements of the law that mandates or authorizes it.  In contrast, the bill’s language on cost requirements does not make clear that a rule not meeting a health-based standard would not be allowed.

REQUESTS FOR HEARINGS:  Under the old TSCA, any person could request EPA to hold a public hearing on any rule.  The Lautenberg Act struck this provision as unnecessary and overly time- and resource-intensive.  It was struck based on agreement among stakeholders that hearings were not needed and would make it impossible for EPA to meet the new law’s rulemaking deadlines.

Under the RAA, any person would be able to request a hearing on any major or high-impact rule, other than a rule “required by law” that is not a high-impact rule.  An agency would generally have to grant the request if any factual issue is in dispute, which is nearly always the case at some level.  Under this approach, any entity that wanted to drag out and obstruct a rule would have a ready opportunity to do so.

DEADLINES:  The old TSCA imposed no deadlines on EPA to identify or take action to address unreasonable chemical risks.  The Lautenberg Act imposes judicially enforceable deadlines on EPA’s proposal and finalization of risk management rules.  Critically, however, failure to meet a deadline does not relieve EPA of its obligation to complete the rulemaking.

The RAA perverts the very accountability that deadlines under the new TSCA and most federal statutes are intended to provide.  If an agency did not complete a rulemaking with 2 years of proposal (subject to a 1-year extension), the rule would be voided and the agency would have to start over – further delaying needed action to protect health or achieve a law’s key objectives.  This “reverse deadline” would apply to all rules.  Two years is highly ambitious to meet even under current rulemaking procedures, and agencies have rarely done so.  Coupled with all of the new procedural, analytic and evidentiary hurdles to rulemaking imposed by RAA, this deadline would be virtually impossible to meet and would mean virtually no regulations of any substance could be finalized.

 

Less than a year after Congress overwhelmingly adopted the Lautenberg Act – the first major federal environmental legislation enacted in over two decades – some in Congress are now threatening to impose across all of government the same paralyzing mandates that were just removed from the original TSCA by passage of the Lautenberg Act.

Lest anyone think I’m suggesting simply exempting the Lautenberg Act from the RAA, let me be clear that is no solution at all.  Congress passed the Lautenberg Act in order to restore public and market confidence in a key element of the federal safety net.  This step was also acknowledged as necessary to provide the business community with the regulatory certainty it needs to operate.  These are needs that cut across the entire federal landscape.

The very real threats – to public health, to our communities and to our environment – posed by the RAA suggests some in Congress have very short memories.

 

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

I noted in a recent post EDF’s grave concerns about the Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA), which passed the House on January 11.  A shorter but still very concerning version of it may soon be introduced in the Senate, modeled on last Congress’ Senate version of RAA.  This bill would add dozens of burdensome and time-consuming hurdles to the rulemaking process, effectively crippling it and eliminating the health and safety protections rules are intended to provide.  To get a feel for all of the requirements, see this dizzying RAA flow chart.

Among other things, the RAA would mandate multiple rounds of cost and impact analysis of a potentially unlimited number of regulatory alternatives; require that all major rules go through an entirely new pre-proposal step, adding months if not longer to the rulemaking process; generally require that agencies choose the lowest-cost regulatory option, regardless of whether or not it is the best option or even sufficient to meet a law’s requirements; and require lengthy and resource-intensive public hearings on many rules.  To top all this off, the bill would require an agency to finalize a proposed rule within 2 years (subject to a 1-year extension) – a timeframe almost impossible to meet now without all of the additional requirements the Act would impose; if that deadline was not met, the agency would have to start over.

There is extreme irony in the advancement of the RAA in this Congress:  Just last June, both houses of Congress passed – with overwhelming bipartisan support – major reforms to the obsolete Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The Lautenberg Act removed from the original TSCA several major constraints on the rulemaking process that had so tied the hands of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that it could not even restrict asbestos, a known carcinogen that kills more than 10,000 Americans every year.  There was widespread agreement among industry and other stakeholders that those provisions of the old TSCA were detrimental or unnecessary to an efficient regulatory system and were undermining public and market confidence in the federal chemical safety system – not to mention failing to protect public health.

So here’s the irony:  The RAA would impose those same knot-tying strictures that the Lautenberg Act just got rid of – and expand them to rulemakings undertaken by any federal agency.  Let’s look at some of these crippling requirements, based on last Congress’s Senate version of the RAA:  

COST-BENEFIT CONSIDERATIONS:  As interpreted by the 5th Circuit in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, in order to regulate a chemical under the old TSCA, EPA had to conduct quantitative cost-benefit analysis (CBA) on a potentially limitless number of regulatory alternatives, regardless of whether information was available.  This requirement, coupled with the “least burdensome” requirement discussed below, is widely regarded as the most fatal flaw of the old TSCA, imposing virtually impossible evidentiary and analytic burdens on EPA.

The Lautenberg Act fixed these problems:  It requires EPA only to “consider and publish a statement on” the economic effects of a rule, and to do so only:  i) “to the extent practicable,” ii) “based on reasonably available information,” and iii) “for the 1 or more primary alternatives considered by” EPA.  It provides EPA with considerable discretion to limit the extent of analysis so that it is feasible.

Enter the RAA:  EPA and other federal agencies would have to evaluate “any substantial alternatives or other responses identified by interested persons,” regardless of how many alternatives that would be and whether or not information on them is reasonably available.  Literally anyone could tie an agency in knots merely by suggesting options that the agency would then have to analyze.  For major or high-impact rules, formal CBA would be required to be conducted on each such alternative, with virtually no discretion afforded the agency based on availability of information or practicality, and the agency would have to demonstrate that the “benefits … justify the costs.”

LEAST-COST REQUIREMENT:  The original TSCA required that EPA prove its selected regulatory requirement was the “least burdensome” of all possible options sufficient to address the problem.  The Lautenberg Act struck this requirement entirely.

Yet under the RAA, for all major or high-impact rules, EPA and other agencies would be required generally to adopt the “least costly” rule and prove that no lower-cost option is sufficient; an exception is provided where EPA could demonstrate, through even more analysis, that the additional benefits – which could not count any ancillary benefits – of a more costly rule justify the additional costs.  Yet, in contrast to costs, many benefits are very difficult to quantify or monetize and hence get short shrift in such cost-benefit analyses.

RULEMAKING STANDARD:  As just noted, TSCA originally required that EPA’s regulation to address an identified risk protect adequately against such risk using the “least burdensome requirements.”  It allowed a rule that did not actually eliminate the risk if the rule was deemed too costly.  A key reform made by the Lautenberg Act is that it precludes EPA from adopting a rule that does not eliminate an identified risk, which is to be determined without consideration of cost; then, in regulating such risk, EPA must consider costs – but only in deciding among different regulatory options each of which is sufficiently protective.  Moreover, these cost factors are only required to be considered, and EPA is not required to prove that an option meets a specific test (e.g., lowest-cost).

The RAA only generally indicates that a rule is to “meet relevant statutory objectives” – a vague term that does not require that a rule be sufficient to meet all requirements of the law that mandates or authorizes it.  In contrast, the bill’s language on cost requirements does not make clear that a rule not meeting a health-based standard would not be allowed.

REQUESTS FOR HEARINGS:  Under the old TSCA, any person could request EPA to hold a public hearing on any rule.  The Lautenberg Act struck this provision as unnecessary and overly time- and resource-intensive.  It was struck based on agreement among stakeholders that hearings were not needed and would make it impossible for EPA to meet the new law’s rulemaking deadlines.

Under the RAA, any person would be able to request a hearing on any major or high-impact rule, other than a rule “required by law” that is not a high-impact rule.  An agency would generally have to grant the request if any factual issue is in dispute, which is nearly always the case at some level.  Under this approach, any entity that wanted to drag out and obstruct a rule would have a ready opportunity to do so.

DEADLINES:  The old TSCA imposed no deadlines on EPA to identify or take action to address unreasonable chemical risks.  The Lautenberg Act imposes judicially enforceable deadlines on EPA’s proposal and finalization of risk management rules.  Critically, however, failure to meet a deadline does not relieve EPA of its obligation to complete the rulemaking.

The RAA perverts the very accountability that deadlines under the new TSCA and most federal statutes are intended to provide.  If an agency did not complete a rulemaking with 2 years of proposal (subject to a 1-year extension), the rule would be voided and the agency would have to start over – further delaying needed action to protect health or achieve a law’s key objectives.  This “reverse deadline” would apply to all rules.  Two years is highly ambitious to meet even under current rulemaking procedures, and agencies have rarely done so.  Coupled with all of the new procedural, analytic and evidentiary hurdles to rulemaking imposed by RAA, this deadline would be virtually impossible to meet and would mean virtually no regulations of any substance could be finalized.

 

Less than a year after Congress overwhelmingly adopted the Lautenberg Act – the first major federal environmental legislation enacted in over two decades – some in Congress are now threatening to impose across all of government the same paralyzing mandates that were just removed from the original TSCA by passage of the Lautenberg Act.

Lest anyone think I’m suggesting simply exempting the Lautenberg Act from the RAA, let me be clear that is no solution at all.  Congress passed the Lautenberg Act in order to restore public and market confidence in a key element of the federal safety net.  This step was also acknowledged as necessary to provide the business community with the regulatory certainty it needs to operate.  These are needs that cut across the entire federal landscape.

The very real threats – to public health, to our communities and to our environment – posed by the RAA suggests some in Congress have very short memories.

 

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

Instead of throwing away a loaf of bread, cut away the moldy bits and no one will be the wiser. Citrus peels like these from clementines, once dried, make great fire-starters. These are just a couple of ways to help keep organic waste out of landfills. Credit: Ali Berlow

 

This was written by Ali Berlow. It originally posted at NPR’s WCAI:

Households in America account for 27 million tons of food waste a year. That’s at an annual cost between $1,500 – $2,500 for an average family of four. Another one million tons a year of organic waste, like food scraps, also ends up in landfills.

According to WCAI’s science editor, Heather Goldstone, food waste is the single largest component of our trash and a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Like methane.

The good news is that there’s a bounty of practical tips to help save money and reduce organic waste coming from home. For instance, start with the fridge.

Sophie Abrams, program manager of Island Food Rescue on Martha’s Vineyard, is working on ways to reduce and compost organic waste, like food.

“When food scraps go into a landfill they end up breaking down anaerobically, instead of aerobically,” Abrams said. “So they’re breaking down without the presence of oxygen. That’s why you get the release of methane gas into the atmosphere from food scraps breaking down in a landfill. When they’re broken down aerobically, with oxygen in a compost pile, it’s not as much an issue.”

Human beings spend a lot of time and resources into the growing and catching, harvesting and packaging, distributing and marketing of food. We buy it, we bring it home, we cook it and serve it, we clean up after it, and then, we throw a lot of it away. This cycle is repeated three times a day, for three meals every day. In fact, according to refed.com – a collaborative effort between businesses, the government, funders and non-profits that are concerned about the current state of food waste in the US, American households account for 27 tons of wasted food per year. That’s about $1,500 to $2,500 annually for the average family of four.

“It’s surprising,” Abrams said. “It’s about 40% that occurs in the home. You would think it’s all happening at businesses. Another piece of it is that there’s a lot parts of food that we don’t eat. We’re not eating banana peels unless we’re really, really crafty.”

The amount of water wasted is an astonishing hidden cost in the story of food waste. According to Ceres – a non-profit advocating for sustainable business practices and solutions – given the amount of food we waste as a nation, 21% of our fresh water that’s used to grow the food also gets wasted.

For example – an apple thrown away equals flushing a toilet seven times. A hamburger in the trash = 16 bathtubs of water, down the drain.

Some of this information is almost impossible to take in. So what is the antidote to feeling paralyzed or besieged? I think getting practical is a start. In Sophie’s case, inspiration came in the form of a book:

“My favorite thing that I’ve read is Dana Gunder’s book ‘The Waste Free Kitchen Handbook’,” Abrams said. “It is just such an easy read, just how-to manual on how to not waste food.”

The easiest place to start is at home. The one thing most of us have in our kitchens, and many of us have at work, is a refrigerator. Getting to know what’s in it better, and using it more efficiently, can actually make a big difference in reducing waste. Gunder’s book offers a bounty of advice about the fridge.

“She talks a lot about correctly organizing your refrigerator,” Abrams said.  “What are the coldest parts? What you’re supposed to be putting on the door.  And lots of creative ways for storing your leftovers – like you’re supposed to have air getting all around stuff in the freezer, and using muffin tins to freeze things, and what you can freeze. It’s a lot of kitchen knowledge, I think, that helps not waste food.”

Some of Gunder’s advice may be more aspirational but still attainable.

“One thing she talks about is a ‘Use First’ area of your fridge,” Abrams continued. “You put things that are close to going bad in the front, or in a special section, so you know what you really need to use up. Shopping in your pantry and refrigerator before you go to the grocery store, so you know you already have avocados and don’t need to buy more. Making a list is the biggest, easy one.”

My mom always told me: ‘Eat around the bad parts.’ She was giving me advice, metaphorically-speaking, about marriage. But I think the same thing applies just as well in the kitchen. For instance, cutting away any mold from bread instead of throwing it out and then transforming it into a bread pudding. Or wrinkled and tired carrots, onions and herbs getting a nice long, hot simmer in a pot of bones for a stock. And bits of cheese rind stored in the freezer until they can be stirred into a soup, a sauce or a braise.

For Abrams, a woman who will gleefully tell you that she loves trash (studying it, doing something about it), she found inspiration, even beauty and perspective, from a visit to the Crapo Hill Landfill, in New Bedford:

“It was amazing,” she said. “It’s actually a beautiful place. I felt like I was on an amazing nature walk. When we went to the top of it. It’s high, it’s like a mini mountain. When we looked out over the horizon you could see one other peak as high as us, and it’s also a landfill. It’s completely changing our landscape and our environment. I think we’ve just gotten out of control with our disposable culture.”

Food Waste Recipe

Panzanella (Bread and Tomato salad)
(This is a typical summer dish, but you can pull it off any time of year try roasting  the plum tomatoes in winter for good flavor! )

• 6 cups crusty stale  bread, cut into 1-inch cubes
• 2-3 large tomatoes (about 1 pound), trimmed and each cut into cubes
• 3/4 cup sliced unwaxed cucumber
• 1/2 cup sliced red onion
• 1/2 cup extra-virgin olive oil
• 2 tablespoons red-wine vinegar
• 8-12 fresh basil leaves, shredded
• chopped parsley a/o mint
• various flavors to add:  parsley, capers, anchovies

******

LISTEN to Sophie Abrams with Ali Berlow – Food Waste Tips, Feb. 2, 2017

For more information on food waste, and references for statistics cited above, visit ReFed.com

READ Moms Clean Air Force exclusive interview with Ali Berlow

Ali Berlow is the author of The Food Activist Handbook; Big & Small Things You Can Do to Help Provide Fresh, Healthy Food for Your Community. Follow Ali @ Twitter, Instagram: @AliBerlow

TELL YOUR SENATOR: PROTECT OUR AIR AND OUR RESOURCES

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

This is a Moms Clean Air Force exclusive interview with South Miami’s Mayor Phil Stoddard:

What is unique about protecting South Miami’s resources and environment?

We live in a water state. Water moves over us, around us, through us, and under us. We have the Gulf and Everglades to the West, Biscayne Bay and the Atlantic to the East. Lake Okeechobee to the North, and Florida Bay & the Keys to our South. We have 4 layers of water moving underneath us.

As a parent are you worried about the effects of climate change on your children and the children of South Miami?

When she was 14, my daughter figured out that sea level rise would prevent her from living out her life in South Florida. National Geographic writer Laura Parker ended her story with the conversation that led to that realization. My daughter is now in college in Washington DC, getting a toe-hold in a city with a more stable future. I worry for all the children and families who don’t know to address what lies in their future.

Why is a bipartisan effort so important and how can these efforts be achieved in our politically polarizing culture?

Weather and water don’t care much about our politics and people realizing a direct threat tend to band together irrespective of their politics. It will happen. Obama’s Whitehouse science advisor John Holdren put it best when he said: “We will respond to climate change with some mix of mitigation, adaptation, and suffering; all that remains to be determined is the mix.”

Is there anything you’d like to share that is important for Moms Clean Air Force members to know?

To change people’s thinking, we have to understand why people cling so desperately to false and outdated ideas about the climate. The most useful book I’ve found on this subject is “What We Think About When We Try Not to Think About Global Warming” by Per Espen Stokes. 

 

Mayor Stoddard was first elected to office in 2010 and is currently serving his fourth term as Mayor. In 2015 Mayor Stoddard was appointed by the White House to the Governance Coordinating Committee of the National Ocean Council where has developed national policy for sea level rise. In 2016 Mayor Stoddard was named by Politico Magazine to the Politico-50 for his blunt explanations of the economic consequences sea level rise, and was named the Green Municipal Official for 2016 by the Florida Green Building Coalition. Dr. Philip K. Stoddard has been a professor of biology at Florida International University since 1992. A big proponent of renewable energy, his house and car are powered by the sun. Mayor Stoddard has been featured in The New York Times, The New Yorker, Time, National Geographic, The Guardian, Rolling Stone, Stern, The Bond Buyer, NPR, PRI, BBC, MSNBC, and numerous documentaries, most recently National Geographic’s “Years of Living Dangerously.”

TELL YOUR SENATOR: PROTECT OUR AIR AND OUR RESOURCES

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

This post originally posted on Climate Central: 

Maple syrup season has begun! Sap from maple trees is collected during the tapping season — between February and April. These are the months when temperatures are above freezing during the day and below freezing at night, making the sap flow.

• On average, it takes about 40 gallons of sap to produce one gallon of syrup.
• 75 percent of all U.S. maple syrup comes from New York and New England, but the area where syrup is produced extends south to Tennessee and west to Minnesota.

WATCH THE FREEZE/THAW CYCLE HAPPENING SOONER 

As temperatures have climbed due to climate change, the industry has changed.

• The tapping season in New York and New England starts about 8 days earlier and ends 11 days earlier than 50 years ago.
• Higher temperatures mean less sugar in the sap. That translates to more sap required per gallon of syrup.
• During hot periods outside of winter, the sugar within the sap can be reduced by 40 percent.
• A century ago, 80 percent of global maple syrup production was based in the U.S., with 20 percent in Canada. Those figures are now reversed, as climate change likely plays a role, along with advances in sap collecting and Canadian subsidies.

Recent advances in sap collecting methods have allowed the U.S. maple syrup industry to thrive. In the future, though, climate change is projected to alter the industry.

• With no change in greenhouse gas emissions rates, tap season may start 30 days earlier than at present by 2100.
• The number of sap flow days may not change in the Northeast, but maples farther south will be increasingly less viable for producing syrup.
• Shifting ecological patterns after 2100 could mean fewer maple trees in New England and New York, possibly closing the tap on the industry.

A rise in days above freezing in winter and early spring also raises the risk of damage that the forest tent caterpillar and pear thrip can cause to maple trees.

Information is gathered from congressional testimony of Dr. Timothy Perkins, Director of University of Vermont’s Proctor Maple Research Center with additional projections from Skinner et al. (2010).

TELL YOUR SENATOR: PROTECT OUR AIR AND OUR RESOURCES

Last Thursday, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt withdrew the agency’s Information Collection Request (“ICR”) for the Oil and Natural Gas Sector, abruptly halting the gathering of information on harmful methane, smog-forming and toxic pollution from these industrial sources. In announcing the move, Administrator Pruitt hailed the benefits for the oil and gas industry, but notably ignored […]

The post In Early Action, EPA Administrator Pruitt Moves to Block Communities’ Right to Know about Oil and Gas Pollution appeared first on Climate 411.

By Peter Zalzal

Last Thursday, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt withdrew the agency’s Information Collection Request (“ICR”) for the Oil and Natural Gas Sector, abruptly halting the gathering of information on harmful methane, smog-forming and toxic pollution from these industrial sources.

In announcing the move, Administrator Pruitt hailed the benefits for the oil and gas industry, but notably ignored the interests of everyday Americans right to know about harmful pollution from oil and gas facilities.

Pruitt’s action also stops EPA from obtaining information that can inform future safeguards against this pollution. Even though cost-effective, common-sense best practices and technologies exist to reduce emissions from oil and gas facilities, most existing facilities in this sector are largely exempt from any requirements to control the vast quantities of pollution they emit.

This flawed decision is at odds with the core tenets of the agency Administrator Pruitt is entrusted to lead and inimical to the health and environmental laws he has committed to faithfully execute. Unfortunately, it is also altogether predictable. Indeed this action—which allows oil and gas companies to withhold vital pollution data from thousands of sites across the country— reflects and reinforces concerns raised about Administrator Pruitt’s ability to lead an agency that he has persistently sought to undermine.

1. Pruitt Chooses Secrecy Over Transparency.

EPA has a long bipartisan history of providing data to the public about pollution in their communities. Indeed, during the Reagan Administration, Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, which included provisions for EPA to create a publicly-available inventory of toxic chemicals down to the local level. Similarly, President George W. Bush signed a bill requiring EPA to collect and disseminate greenhouse gas emissions data from industrial sources across the country.

By withdrawing the ICR, Administrator Pruitt aims to shield the oil and gas sector from public scrutiny. Unfortunately, his penchant for secrecy with respect the oil and gas sector is familiar. During his controversial Senate confirmation process, Pruitt sought to withhold thousands of emails related to his ties to major energy interests who have donated to his political causes. While a number of those e-mails have been released, many more remain hidden from public view.

In the face of last week’s action by Administrator Pruitt, EDF has submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for all ICR data that has been submitted along with all records related to EPA’s decision to halt data collection.

2. Pruitt Places a Premium on the Views of Industry and Their Allies

In recent years, EPA has undertaken a careful, data-driven process to put in place protections to reduce pollution from the oil and gas sector. Often, EPA undertook such extensive data gathering to address industry concerns. The ICR was the latest data gathering effort, designed to ensure EPA had the full complement of information on existing oil and gas facilities. These existing facilities account for the vast majority of the sector’s pollution in coming years, yet remain largely exempt from any methane pollution control requirements.

To tailor its data request, EPA carried out two rounds of public comments, assessed significant stakeholder feedback, and substantially altered the request in response in order to leverage existing data and use electronic reporting frameworks.

In contrast to this careful and deliberative process, Administrator Pruitt withdrew the ICR with just one paragraph of explanation, just one day after receiving a request to do so from the Texas and Oklahoma Attorneys General and others.

Coincidentally, when Pruitt was Oklahoma Attorney General, he was aligned with the oil and gas industry in legal challenges seeking to undermine EPA’s oil and gas methane standards. It is disappointing, but not surprising, that he did not solicit input or wait to hear from any of the many other stakeholders involved in this process. Pruitt’s decision to withdraw the ICR may likewise raise conflicts of interest and should be closely scrutinized in light of his ethical obligations as administrator of EPA.

The Administrator has taken similar approaches in the past. As Oklahoma AG, for example, Pruitt simply copied and pasted industry requests and sent them to senior government officials under his own official seal.

EPA is legally required to protect the public from harmful pollution from oil and gas facilities. In carrying out that obligation, it is critical that public officials base decisions that affect our health and safety on careful review of the most rigorous scientific information available—and not simply accept, without any deliberation or inquiry, the recommendations of parties that have a vested interest in weakening health protections.

3. Pruitt’s Selective View of States Rights

As reason for withdrawing the ICR, Administrator Pruitt pointed to the request from the Texas Attorney General and the need to, in his words, “strengthen … our partnership with the states.”

But Pruitt’s notion of cooperative federalism bears no resemblance to the collaborative approach that EPA and states have taken to solving air pollution problems over the last four decades. Indeed, the Administrator seems comfortable with states’ rights when those states are seeking to hide emissions information and block clean air safeguards, but opposes states’ rights when they want stronger protections for their citizens.

For instance, large oil and gas producing states like Colorado and California have in place standards to reduce oil and gas sector emissions. Last Thursday, Ohio adopted stronger standards for certain sources. Eleven states – including major energy-producing states like New Mexico and California – have intervened in court to defend the same EPA emission standards for the oil and gas sector that the Texas Attorney General and his allies attacked in their letter. And many states have likewise supported EPA’s information collection request.

The Administrator’s decision ignores these views and undermines stronger state-level partnership. This is the very same disregard for state efforts to reduce pollution that Administrator Pruitt demonstrated when, during his confirmation hearing, he conveyed reservations about California’s longstanding authority to adopt vehicle emissions standards to address the state’s unique air pollution problems. And, over the weekend, additional reports surfaced suggesting that the Administration was planning attacks on California’s authority, which could be initiated as soon as this week.

This concept of states’ rights as a one-way justification to erode clean air protections is both dangerous and inconsistent with the Clean Air Act’s framework.

The underminer

During his confirmation hearing, Administrator Pruitt committed to carrying out EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment using rigorous data.  Unfortunately, with one of his first actions, he chose to undermine both.

This post originally appeared on EDF's Energy Exchange blog.

By Peter Zalzal

Last Thursday, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt withdrew the agency’s Information Collection Request (“ICR”) for the Oil and Natural Gas Sector, abruptly halting the gathering of information on harmful methane, smog-forming and toxic pollution from these industrial sources.

In announcing the move, Administrator Pruitt hailed the benefits for the oil and gas industry, but notably ignored the interests of everyday Americans right to know about harmful pollution from oil and gas facilities.

Pruitt’s action also stops EPA from obtaining information that can inform future safeguards against this pollution. Even though cost-effective, common-sense best practices and technologies exist to reduce emissions from oil and gas facilities, most existing facilities in this sector are largely exempt from any requirements to control the vast quantities of pollution they emit.

This flawed decision is at odds with the core tenets of the agency Administrator Pruitt is entrusted to lead and inimical to the health and environmental laws he has committed to faithfully execute. Unfortunately, it is also altogether predictable. Indeed this action—which allows oil and gas companies to withhold vital pollution data from thousands of sites across the country— reflects and reinforces concerns raised about Administrator Pruitt’s ability to lead an agency that he has persistently sought to undermine.

1. Pruitt Chooses Secrecy Over Transparency.

EPA has a long bipartisan history of providing data to the public about pollution in their communities. Indeed, during the Reagan Administration, Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, which included provisions for EPA to create a publicly-available inventory of toxic chemicals down to the local level. Similarly, President George W. Bush signed a bill requiring EPA to collect and disseminate greenhouse gas emissions data from industrial sources across the country.

By withdrawing the ICR, Administrator Pruitt aims to shield the oil and gas sector from public scrutiny. Unfortunately, his penchant for secrecy with respect the oil and gas sector is familiar. During his controversial Senate confirmation process, Pruitt sought to withhold thousands of emails related to his ties to major energy interests who have donated to his political causes. While a number of those e-mails have been released, many more remain hidden from public view.

In the face of last week’s action by Administrator Pruitt, EDF has submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for all ICR data that has been submitted along with all records related to EPA’s decision to halt data collection.

2. Pruitt Places a Premium on the Views of Industry and Their Allies

In recent years, EPA has undertaken a careful, data-driven process to put in place protections to reduce pollution from the oil and gas sector. Often, EPA undertook such extensive data gathering to address industry concerns. The ICR was the latest data gathering effort, designed to ensure EPA had the full complement of information on existing oil and gas facilities. These existing facilities account for the vast majority of the sector’s pollution in coming years, yet remain largely exempt from any methane pollution control requirements.

To tailor its data request, EPA carried out two rounds of public comments, assessed significant stakeholder feedback, and substantially altered the request in response in order to leverage existing data and use electronic reporting frameworks.

In contrast to this careful and deliberative process, Administrator Pruitt withdrew the ICR with just one paragraph of explanation, just one day after receiving a request to do so from the Texas and Oklahoma Attorneys General and others.

Coincidentally, when Pruitt was Oklahoma Attorney General, he was aligned with the oil and gas industry in legal challenges seeking to undermine EPA’s oil and gas methane standards. It is disappointing, but not surprising, that he did not solicit input or wait to hear from any of the many other stakeholders involved in this process. Pruitt’s decision to withdraw the ICR may likewise raise conflicts of interest and should be closely scrutinized in light of his ethical obligations as administrator of EPA.

The Administrator has taken similar approaches in the past. As Oklahoma AG, for example, Pruitt simply copied and pasted industry requests and sent them to senior government officials under his own official seal.

EPA is legally required to protect the public from harmful pollution from oil and gas facilities. In carrying out that obligation, it is critical that public officials base decisions that affect our health and safety on careful review of the most rigorous scientific information available—and not simply accept, without any deliberation or inquiry, the recommendations of parties that have a vested interest in weakening health protections.

3. Pruitt’s Selective View of States Rights

As reason for withdrawing the ICR, Administrator Pruitt pointed to the request from the Texas Attorney General and the need to, in his words, “strengthen … our partnership with the states.”

But Pruitt’s notion of cooperative federalism bears no resemblance to the collaborative approach that EPA and states have taken to solving air pollution problems over the last four decades. Indeed, the Administrator seems comfortable with states’ rights when those states are seeking to hide emissions information and block clean air safeguards, but opposes states’ rights when they want stronger protections for their citizens.

For instance, large oil and gas producing states like Colorado and California have in place standards to reduce oil and gas sector emissions. Last Thursday, Ohio adopted stronger standards for certain sources. Eleven states – including major energy-producing states like New Mexico and California – have intervened in court to defend the same EPA emission standards for the oil and gas sector that the Texas Attorney General and his allies attacked in their letter. And many states have likewise supported EPA’s information collection request.

The Administrator’s decision ignores these views and undermines stronger state-level partnership. This is the very same disregard for state efforts to reduce pollution that Administrator Pruitt demonstrated when, during his confirmation hearing, he conveyed reservations about California’s longstanding authority to adopt vehicle emissions standards to address the state’s unique air pollution problems. And, over the weekend, additional reports surfaced suggesting that the Administration was planning attacks on California’s authority, which could be initiated as soon as this week.

This concept of states’ rights as a one-way justification to erode clean air protections is both dangerous and inconsistent with the Clean Air Act’s framework.

The underminer

During his confirmation hearing, Administrator Pruitt committed to carrying out EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment using rigorous data.  Unfortunately, with one of his first actions, he chose to undermine both.

This post originally appeared on EDF's Energy Exchange blog.

By Peter Zalzal

Last Thursday, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt withdrew the agency’s Information Collection Request (“ICR”) for the Oil and Natural Gas Sector, abruptly halting the gathering of information on harmful methane, smog-forming and toxic pollution from these industrial sources.

In announcing the move, Administrator Pruitt hailed the benefits for the oil and gas industry, but notably ignored the interests of everyday Americans right to know about harmful pollution from oil and gas facilities.

Pruitt’s action also stops EPA from obtaining information that can inform future safeguards against this pollution. Even though cost-effective, common-sense best practices and technologies exist to reduce emissions from oil and gas facilities, most existing facilities in this sector are largely exempt from any requirements to control the vast quantities of pollution they emit.

This flawed decision is at odds with the core tenets of the agency Administrator Pruitt is entrusted to lead and inimical to the health and environmental laws he has committed to faithfully execute. Unfortunately, it is also altogether predictable. Indeed this action—which allows oil and gas companies to withhold vital pollution data from thousands of sites across the country— reflects and reinforces concerns raised about Administrator Pruitt’s ability to lead an agency that he has persistently sought to undermine.

1. Pruitt Chooses Secrecy Over Transparency.

EPA has a long bipartisan history of providing data to the public about pollution in their communities. Indeed, during the Reagan Administration, Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, which included provisions for EPA to create a publicly-available inventory of toxic chemicals down to the local level. Similarly, President George W. Bush signed a bill requiring EPA to collect and disseminate greenhouse gas emissions data from industrial sources across the country.

By withdrawing the ICR, Administrator Pruitt aims to shield the oil and gas sector from public scrutiny. Unfortunately, his penchant for secrecy with respect the oil and gas sector is familiar. During his controversial Senate confirmation process, Pruitt sought to withhold thousands of emails related to his ties to major energy interests who have donated to his political causes. While a number of those e-mails have been released, many more remain hidden from public view.

In the face of last week’s action by Administrator Pruitt, EDF has submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for all ICR data that has been submitted along with all records related to EPA’s decision to halt data collection.

2. Pruitt Places a Premium on the Views of Industry and Their Allies

In recent years, EPA has undertaken a careful, data-driven process to put in place protections to reduce pollution from the oil and gas sector. Often, EPA undertook such extensive data gathering to address industry concerns. The ICR was the latest data gathering effort, designed to ensure EPA had the full complement of information on existing oil and gas facilities. These existing facilities account for the vast majority of the sector’s pollution in coming years, yet remain largely exempt from any methane pollution control requirements.

To tailor its data request, EPA carried out two rounds of public comments, assessed significant stakeholder feedback, and substantially altered the request in response in order to leverage existing data and use electronic reporting frameworks.

In contrast to this careful and deliberative process, Administrator Pruitt withdrew the ICR with just one paragraph of explanation, just one day after receiving a request to do so from the Texas and Oklahoma Attorneys General and others.

Coincidentally, when Pruitt was Oklahoma Attorney General, he was aligned with the oil and gas industry in legal challenges seeking to undermine EPA’s oil and gas methane standards. It is disappointing, but not surprising, that he did not solicit input or wait to hear from any of the many other stakeholders involved in this process. Pruitt’s decision to withdraw the ICR may likewise raise conflicts of interest and should be closely scrutinized in light of his ethical obligations as administrator of EPA.

The Administrator has taken similar approaches in the past. As Oklahoma AG, for example, Pruitt simply copied and pasted industry requests and sent them to senior government officials under his own official seal.

EPA is legally required to protect the public from harmful pollution from oil and gas facilities. In carrying out that obligation, it is critical that public officials base decisions that affect our health and safety on careful review of the most rigorous scientific information available—and not simply accept, without any deliberation or inquiry, the recommendations of parties that have a vested interest in weakening health protections.

3. Pruitt’s Selective View of States Rights

As reason for withdrawing the ICR, Administrator Pruitt pointed to the request from the Texas Attorney General and the need to, in his words, “strengthen … our partnership with the states.”

But Pruitt’s notion of cooperative federalism bears no resemblance to the collaborative approach that EPA and states have taken to solving air pollution problems over the last four decades. Indeed, the Administrator seems comfortable with states’ rights when those states are seeking to hide emissions information and block clean air safeguards, but opposes states’ rights when they want stronger protections for their citizens.

For instance, large oil and gas producing states like Colorado and California have in place standards to reduce oil and gas sector emissions. Last Thursday, Ohio adopted stronger standards for certain sources. Eleven states – including major energy-producing states like New Mexico and California – have intervened in court to defend the same EPA emission standards for the oil and gas sector that the Texas Attorney General and his allies attacked in their letter. And many states have likewise supported EPA’s information collection request.

The Administrator’s decision ignores these views and undermines stronger state-level partnership. This is the very same disregard for state efforts to reduce pollution that Administrator Pruitt demonstrated when, during his confirmation hearing, he conveyed reservations about California’s longstanding authority to adopt vehicle emissions standards to address the state’s unique air pollution problems. And, over the weekend, additional reports surfaced suggesting that the Administration was planning attacks on California’s authority, which could be initiated as soon as this week.

This concept of states’ rights as a one-way justification to erode clean air protections is both dangerous and inconsistent with the Clean Air Act’s framework.

The underminer

During his confirmation hearing, Administrator Pruitt committed to carrying out EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment using rigorous data.  Unfortunately, with one of his first actions, he chose to undermine both.

By Peter Zalzal

Last Thursday, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt withdrew the agency’s Information Collection Request (“ICR”) for the Oil and Natural Gas Sector, abruptly halting the gathering of information on harmful methane, smog-forming and toxic pollution from these industrial sources.

In announcing the move, Administrator Pruitt hailed the benefits for the oil and gas industry, but notably ignored the interests of everyday Americans right to know about harmful pollution from oil and gas facilities.

Pruitt’s action also stops EPA from obtaining information that can inform future safeguards against this pollution. Even though cost-effective, common-sense best practices and technologies exist to reduce emissions from oil and gas facilities, most existing facilities in this sector are largely exempt from any requirements to control the vast quantities of pollution they emit.

This flawed decision is at odds with the core tenets of the agency Administrator Pruitt is entrusted to lead and inimical to the health and environmental laws he has committed to faithfully execute. Unfortunately, it is also altogether predictable. Indeed this action—which allows oil and gas companies to withhold vital pollution data from thousands of sites across the country— reflects and reinforces concerns raised about Administrator Pruitt’s ability to lead an agency that he has persistently sought to undermine.

1. Pruitt Chooses Secrecy Over Transparency.

EPA has a long bipartisan history of providing data to the public about pollution in their communities. Indeed, during the Reagan Administration, Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, which included provisions for EPA to create a publicly-available inventory of toxic chemicals down to the local level. Similarly, President George W. Bush signed a bill requiring EPA to collect and disseminate greenhouse gas emissions data from industrial sources across the country.

By withdrawing the ICR, Administrator Pruitt aims to shield the oil and gas sector from public scrutiny. Unfortunately, his penchant for secrecy with respect the oil and gas sector is familiar. During his controversial Senate confirmation process, Pruitt sought to withhold thousands of emails related to his ties to major energy interests who have donated to his political causes. While a number of those e-mails have been released, many more remain hidden from public view.

In the face of last week’s action by Administrator Pruitt, EDF has submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for all ICR data that has been submitted along with all records related to EPA’s decision to halt data collection.

2. Pruitt Places a Premium on the Views of Industry and Their Allies

In recent years, EPA has undertaken a careful, data-driven process to put in place protections to reduce pollution from the oil and gas sector. Often, EPA undertook such extensive data gathering to address industry concerns. The ICR was the latest data gathering effort, designed to ensure EPA had the full complement of information on existing oil and gas facilities. These existing facilities account for the vast majority of the sector’s pollution in coming years, yet remain largely exempt from any methane pollution control requirements.

To tailor its data request, EPA carried out two rounds of public comments, assessed significant stakeholder feedback, and substantially altered the request in response in order to leverage existing data and use electronic reporting frameworks.

In contrast to this careful and deliberative process, Administrator Pruitt withdrew the ICR with just one paragraph of explanation, just one day after receiving a request to do so from the Texas and Oklahoma Attorneys General and others.

Coincidentally, when Pruitt was Oklahoma Attorney General, he was aligned with the oil and gas industry in legal challenges seeking to undermine EPA’s oil and gas methane standards. It is disappointing, but not surprising, that he did not solicit input or wait to hear from any of the many other stakeholders involved in this process. Pruitt’s decision to withdraw the ICR may likewise raise conflicts of interest and should be closely scrutinized in light of his ethical obligations as administrator of EPA.

The Administrator has taken similar approaches in the past. As Oklahoma AG, for example, Pruitt simply copied and pasted industry requests and sent them to senior government officials under his own official seal.

EPA is legally required to protect the public from harmful pollution from oil and gas facilities. In carrying out that obligation, it is critical that public officials base decisions that affect our health and safety on careful review of the most rigorous scientific information available—and not simply accept, without any deliberation or inquiry, the recommendations of parties that have a vested interest in weakening health protections.

3. Pruitt’s Selective View of States Rights

As reason for withdrawing the ICR, Administrator Pruitt pointed to the request from the Texas Attorney General and the need to, in his words, “strengthen … our partnership with the states.”

But Pruitt’s notion of cooperative federalism bears no resemblance to the collaborative approach that EPA and states have taken to solving air pollution problems over the last four decades. Indeed, the Administrator seems comfortable with states’ rights when those states are seeking to hide emissions information and block clean air safeguards, but opposes states’ rights when they want stronger protections for their citizens.

For instance, large oil and gas producing states like Colorado and California have in place standards to reduce oil and gas sector emissions. Last Thursday, Ohio adopted stronger standards for certain sources. Eleven states – including major energy-producing states like New Mexico and California – have intervened in court to defend the same EPA emission standards for the oil and gas sector that the Texas Attorney General and his allies attacked in their letter. And many states have likewise supported EPA’s information collection request.

The Administrator’s decision ignores these views and undermines stronger state-level partnership. This is the very same disregard for state efforts to reduce pollution that Administrator Pruitt demonstrated when, during his confirmation hearing, he conveyed reservations about California’s longstanding authority to adopt vehicle emissions standards to address the state’s unique air pollution problems. And, over the weekend, additional reports surfaced suggesting that the Administration was planning attacks on California’s authority, which could be initiated as soon as this week.

This concept of states’ rights as a one-way justification to erode clean air protections is both dangerous and inconsistent with the Clean Air Act’s framework.

The underminer

During his confirmation hearing, Administrator Pruitt committed to carrying out EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment using rigorous data.  Unfortunately, with one of his first actions, he chose to undermine both.

By Peter Zalzal

Last Thursday, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt withdrew the agency’s Information Collection Request (“ICR”) for the Oil and Natural Gas Sector, abruptly halting the gathering of information on harmful methane, smog-forming and toxic pollution from these industrial sources.

In announcing the move, Administrator Pruitt hailed the benefits for the oil and gas industry, but notably ignored the interests of everyday Americans right to know about harmful pollution from oil and gas facilities.

Pruitt’s action also stops EPA from obtaining information that can inform future safeguards against this pollution. Even though cost-effective, common-sense best practices and technologies exist to reduce emissions from oil and gas facilities, most existing facilities in this sector are largely exempt from any requirements to control the vast quantities of pollution they emit.

This flawed decision is at odds with the core tenets of the agency Administrator Pruitt is entrusted to lead and inimical to the health and environmental laws he has committed to faithfully execute. Unfortunately, it is also altogether predictable. Indeed this action—which allows oil and gas companies to withhold vital pollution data from thousands of sites across the country— reflects and reinforces concerns raised about Administrator Pruitt’s ability to lead an agency that he has persistently sought to undermine.

1. Pruitt Chooses Secrecy Over Transparency.

EPA has a long bipartisan history of providing data to the public about pollution in their communities. Indeed, during the Reagan Administration, Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, which included provisions for EPA to create a publicly-available inventory of toxic chemicals down to the local level. Similarly, President George W. Bush signed a bill requiring EPA to collect and disseminate greenhouse gas emissions data from industrial sources across the country.

By withdrawing the ICR, Administrator Pruitt aims to shield the oil and gas sector from public scrutiny. Unfortunately, his penchant for secrecy with respect the oil and gas sector is familiar. During his controversial Senate confirmation process, Pruitt sought to withhold thousands of emails related to his ties to major energy interests who have donated to his political causes. While a number of those e-mails have been released, many more remain hidden from public view.

In the face of last week’s action by Administrator Pruitt, EDF has submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for all ICR data that has been submitted along with all records related to EPA’s decision to halt data collection.

2. Pruitt Places a Premium on the Views of Industry and Their Allies

In recent years, EPA has undertaken a careful, data-driven process to put in place protections to reduce pollution from the oil and gas sector. Often, EPA undertook such extensive data gathering to address industry concerns. The ICR was the latest data gathering effort, designed to ensure EPA had the full complement of information on existing oil and gas facilities. These existing facilities account for the vast majority of the sector’s pollution in coming years, yet remain largely exempt from any methane pollution control requirements.

To tailor its data request, EPA carried out two rounds of public comments, assessed significant stakeholder feedback, and substantially altered the request in response in order to leverage existing data and use electronic reporting frameworks.

In contrast to this careful and deliberative process, Administrator Pruitt withdrew the ICR with just one paragraph of explanation, just one day after receiving a request to do so from the Texas and Oklahoma Attorneys General and others.

Coincidentally, when Pruitt was Oklahoma Attorney General, he was aligned with the oil and gas industry in legal challenges seeking to undermine EPA’s oil and gas methane standards. It is disappointing, but not surprising, that he did not solicit input or wait to hear from any of the many other stakeholders involved in this process. Pruitt’s decision to withdraw the ICR may likewise raise conflicts of interest and should be closely scrutinized in light of his ethical obligations as administrator of EPA.

The Administrator has taken similar approaches in the past. As Oklahoma AG, for example, Pruitt simply copied and pasted industry requests and sent them to senior government officials under his own official seal.

EPA is legally required to protect the public from harmful pollution from oil and gas facilities. In carrying out that obligation, it is critical that public officials base decisions that affect our health and safety on careful review of the most rigorous scientific information available—and not simply accept, without any deliberation or inquiry, the recommendations of parties that have a vested interest in weakening health protections.

3. Pruitt’s Selective View of States Rights

As reason for withdrawing the ICR, Administrator Pruitt pointed to the request from the Texas Attorney General and the need to, in his words, “strengthen … our partnership with the states.”

But Pruitt’s notion of cooperative federalism bears no resemblance to the collaborative approach that EPA and states have taken to solving air pollution problems over the last four decades. Indeed, the Administrator seems comfortable with states’ rights when those states are seeking to hide emissions information and block clean air safeguards, but opposes states’ rights when they want stronger protections for their citizens.

For instance, large oil and gas producing states like Colorado and California have in place standards to reduce oil and gas sector emissions. Last Thursday, Ohio adopted stronger standards for certain sources. Eleven states – including major energy-producing states like New Mexico and California – have intervened in court to defend the same EPA emission standards for the oil and gas sector that the Texas Attorney General and his allies attacked in their letter. And many states have likewise supported EPA’s information collection request.

The Administrator’s decision ignores these views and undermines stronger state-level partnership. This is the very same disregard for state efforts to reduce pollution that Administrator Pruitt demonstrated when, during his confirmation hearing, he conveyed reservations about California’s longstanding authority to adopt vehicle emissions standards to address the state’s unique air pollution problems. And, over the weekend, additional reports surfaced suggesting that the Administration was planning attacks on California’s authority, which could be initiated as soon as this week.

This concept of states’ rights as a one-way justification to erode clean air protections is both dangerous and inconsistent with the Clean Air Act’s framework.

The underminer

During his confirmation hearing, Administrator Pruitt committed to carrying out EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment using rigorous data.  Unfortunately, with one of his first actions, he chose to undermine both.