The hearing, originally scheduled for May
8, will examine the new
ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the process the
Environmental Protection Agency used in setting them.
On March 12, 2008, EPA Administrator Stephen
L. Johnson finalized updated NAAQS for
ozone,
a primary component of smog. The new ozone
NAAQS are comprised of a revised primary
standard to protect health and a revised secondary standard to protect
the environment. In setting both standards,
EPA Administrator Johnson did not accept the
recommendations provided to him by EPA’s
independent scientific review committee, the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee (CASAC). With regard to the secondary standard,
Administrator Johnson’s efforts to set a new standard were overruled by
the White House.
Representatives from CRS, EIA,
EPA, and CBO discuss
their economic analyses of Lieberman-Warner (S. 2191) and other
emissions-controlling climate legislative proposals.
Witnesses
Brent Yacobucci, Congressional Research Service
Dr. Larry Parker, Congressional Research Service
Dr. Howard Gruenspecht, Deputy Administrator, Energy Information
Administration
Dr. Brian McLean, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
House Oversight and Government
Reform Committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) has today released
documents and testimony that show White House
involvement in the
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to deny California’s
request for a waiver to enforce its greenhouse gas emissions standards
for cars and trucks.
According to testimony by former EPA Associate
Deputy Administrator Jason Burnett, EPA
Administrator Stephen Johnson’s “preference for a full or partial grant
of the waiver did not change until after he communicated with the White
House” :
When asked by Committee staff “whether the Administrator communicated
with the White House in between his preference to do a partial grant
and the ultimate decision” to deny the waiver, Mr. Burnett responded:
“I believe the answer is yes.” When asked “after his
communications with the White House, did he still support granting the
waiver in part,” Mr. Burnett answered: “He ultimately decided to deny
the waiver.” Mr. Burnett also affirmed that there was “White House
input into the rationale in the December 19th letter” announcing the
denial of the waiver and in the formal decision document issued in
March 2008.
Burnett refused to testify on any further specifics, telling the
investigators “that he had been directed not to answer any questions
about the involvement of the White House in the decision to reject
California’s petition.” Burnett, who was involved in a series of
questionable EPA decisions during his
tenure,
resigned from the EPA on May 6.
On May 16, 2008 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced
that it is seeking comments regarding a recent petition to reduce the
volume of renewable fuels required under the Renewable Fuel Standard
(RFS). In a letter sent to EPA on April 25,
2008, Governor Rick Perry of Texas requested that the
EPA cut the RFS
mandate for ethanol production in half (RFS mandate for 2008 is 9
billion gallons), citing recent economic impacts in Texas. In response,
EPA will soon publish a Federal Register
Notice opening a 30-day comment period on the request.
In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which established the
RFS program, provisions were included enabling
the EPA Administrator to suspend part of the
RFS if its implementation would severely harm
the economy or environment of a state, region, or the entire country.
EPA must make a decision on a waiver request
within 90 days of receiving it.
George Gray, PhD., Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research
and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Panel 2
Dr. Francesca Grifo, Senior Scientist, Director, Scientific Integrity
Program, Union of Concerned Scientists
Dr. Paul Gilman, Chief Sustainability Officer, Covanta Energy
Corporation
Dr. David Michaels PhD, MPH, Research
Professor and Associate Chairman, Department of Environmental and
Occupational Health, The George Washington University
Panel 3
Dr. George Thurston ScD., Professor of Environmental Medicine, New
York University School of Medicine, Nelson Institute of Environmental
Medicine
Dr. Roger McClellan, Private Advisor, Toxicology and Human Health Risk
Analysis
Dr. Lorenz Rhomberg, Principal, Gradient Corporation
Dr. John Balbus, Chief Health Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund
Gade told the Tribune she resigned after two aides to national EPA
administrator Stephen Johnson took away her powers as regional
administrator and told her to quit or be fired by June 1.
He further reported that one of those officials had recently assessed
her performance as
“outstanding”:
Five months ago, a top U.S. Environmental Protection Agency official
gave Mary Gade a performance rating of “outstanding.” On Thursday, the
same official told her to quit or be fired as the agency’s top
regulator in the Midwest.
The regional administrators report
directly to the office of
EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. So who
can the “two aides to national EPA
administrator Stephen Johnson” who “took away her powers” be? The
following are the most likely suspects:
Yesterday, the Environmental Protection Agency dismissed Midwest
regional administrator Mary
Gade,
one of ten such officials appointed directly by
EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. Gade, a
lifelong Republican and a prominent supporter of George W.
Bush’s
pursuit of the presidency in 2000, told the Chicago Tribune, “There’s
no question this is about
Dow.”
Gade was locked in a battle with Dow Chemical over the cleanup of dioxin
poisoning from its world headquarters in Michigan. As former
EPA official Robert Sussman writes in the
Wonk
Room,
“To remove a Regional Administrator because of a disagreement over
policy at an individual site is unheard of.”
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) just spoke on the Senate floor about
Gade’s firing. Whitehouse compared her firing with the U.S. Attorney
scandal
that enveloped the Department of Justice and led to Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales’s resignation:
We do not yet know all the details of Ms. Gade’s firing, or everything
that may have gone on between her office and Dow Chemical. But from
everything that we’ve heard and seen so far, it looks like déjà vu
all over again. From an administration that values compliance with
its political agenda more than it values the trust or the best
interests of the American people. Last year we learned that this is an
administration that wouldn’t hesitate to fire capable federal
prosecutors when they wouldn’t toe an improper party line. Today it
seems that the Bush Administration might have once again removed a
highly qualified and well-regarded official whose only misstep was to
disagree with the political bosses.
Watch it:
Sen. Whitehouse also announced that he is conducting an oversight
hearing into the politicization of the
EPA
and the circumstances of Gade’s dismissal next Wednesday. The last time
EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson testified
before Sen. Whitehouse, he put in a shameful performance, leading
Whitehouse to
state:
In my short time in Washington, I didn’t think I would again encounter
a witness as evasive and unresponsive as Alberto
Gonzales
was during our investigation of the U.S. Attorney scandal.
Unfortunately, today EPA Administrator
Johnson stooped to that low standard.
E&E News (subscription req.) is
reporting that the
EPA—responding to a court order—has issued
new
regulations
to reduce air pollution from petroleum refineries. But there’s a catch:
EPA also has denied environmental groups’
request to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from the refineries, and in
so doing, stands accused of dramatically reinterpreting the Clean Air
Act:
EPA explained
that it was working on a new global warming policy in response to last
year’s loss in the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA—a case that
started when the Bush administration denied a petition to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks.
The agency also opened itself up to
controversy today by saying it did not need to set any greenhouse gas
limits for the industry now because it previously had opted against
establishing such standards.
Environmentalists said they plan to sue
EPA in federal appeals court over that
reasoning. “It’s enormous,” said David Bookbinder, an attorney at the
Sierra Club. “They’re taking the position the agency has no obligation
to look at or review any other pollutant.”
Bookbinder said he was not surprised by
EPA’s decision, adding that he did not
expect the issue to be resolved until after the Bush administration
leaves office. “I don’t want these chuckleheads writing the
regulations for CO2,” he said. “What scares
me is the chunk of collateral damage done to the Clean Air
Act.”
EPA’s response to the public comments, filed
by the Sierra Club and the Environmental Integrity Project, is explained
between pages 92 and 104 of the new rule. We’re first taking a close
look at EPA’s wording ourselves, and will
chime in with further comments as needed.
But as a matter of simple analysis, it does behoove us to note that this
is
farfrom
first time that EPA has used its own
unreasonable
delay
on the Supreme Court’s Mass. v. EPA mandate as an excuse…