Question? Call us at 800-207-8001 | Sign In | Learn About Membership

Friday, May 24, 2013 | Last Updated: January 11, 2013 10:30 AM

Energy and Environment Experts
«How Will New Leadership Impact Policy? | Main page | Did The Supreme Court Choose Wisely?»

Will Bush's Parting Shots Help Or Hurt?

November 10, 2008 | 8:00 a.m.
  • 4

Before leaving office, the Bush administration hopes to implement a host of wide-ranging regulations affecting the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, public lands protections and other key energy and environmental policies. Which of these rules are the most troublesome? Which are the most overdue?

-- Margaret Kriz, NationalJournal.com

4 Responses

Expand all comments Collapse all comments

November 10, 2008 5:50 PM

By Carl Pope

Former chairman and executive director, Sierra Club

The Russians say, "even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while," so no doubt among the massive slug of pages that will hit the Government Printing Office for publication in the Federal Register around November 20 there are some carefully thought through, badly needed modifications of federal rules and procedures.

But these are not typical rules -- not even typical Bush rules. These are rules that couldn't meet the Administration's own November 1 deadline. We know very little about how most of them were developed. But we do know enough about one of the most important -- the Administration's proposed massive rewrite of the regulations under the Endangered Species Act.

We know that when 200,000 comments, overwhelmingly negative, were received, the Administration did NOT say to itself, "lots of scientific concern here, we need to slow down and look carefully." Instead the White House hauled 15 staff members from around the country into DC, gave them 32 hours to read, absorb, and understand the tsunami of public concerns. That means that each staffer, assuming t...

The Russians say, "even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while," so no doubt among the massive slug of pages that will hit the Government Printing Office for publication in the Federal Register around November 20 there are some carefully thought through, badly needed modifications of federal rules and procedures.

But these are not typical rules -- not even typical Bush rules. These are rules that couldn't meet the Administration's own November 1 deadline. We know very little about how most of them were developed. But we do know enough about one of the most important -- the Administration's proposed massive rewrite of the regulations under the Endangered Species Act.

We know that when 200,000 comments, overwhelmingly negative, were received, the Administration did NOT say to itself, "lots of scientific concern here, we need to slow down and look carefully." Instead the White House hauled 15 staff members from around the country into DC, gave them 32 hours to read, absorb, and understand the tsunami of public concerns. That means that each staffer, assuming they take no coffee or bathroom breaks had to digest 417 comments every hour -- one comment every nine seconds.

Any process that mocks genuine public input in this fashion simply cannot be trusted. Congress should simply use its authority to cancel all of these last minute rules. Those which are meritorious and uncontroversial can be quickly put back in queue after proper vetting -- but the Administration has squandered any basis for giving its land minute, hasty rule making the benefit of the doubt.


Read More

Print |
Share | E-mail

November 10, 2008 8:52 AM

By Jeff Holmstead

Partner and Head of the Environmental Strategies Group, Bracewell & Giuliani

Since the early days of the Clinton Administration, EPA has been working to fix a permitting program known as new source review (or NSR). The Bush Administration has continued to pursue these efforts, initially by finalizing a series of rules that were proposed by the Clinton EPA, but it still needs to issue a rule known as the EGU rule (for electric generating units) that was proposed almost 3 years ago. This is the most important piece of unfinished business left at EPA, and the single most important thing that the Agency can do reduce CO2 emissions from power plants.

The idea behind this program is that, when a major new industrial facility is built, it must go through a permitting process to ensure that it installs the “best available control technology” or BACT. The most troubling parts of this program have nothing to do with “new sources,” but with existing facilities, because the Clean Air Act requires an existing facility to get an NSR permit before making “a physical change or change in the method of operation that will result in an emissions increase....

Since the early days of the Clinton Administration, EPA has been working to fix a permitting program known as new source review (or NSR). The Bush Administration has continued to pursue these efforts, initially by finalizing a series of rules that were proposed by the Clinton EPA, but it still needs to issue a rule known as the EGU rule (for electric generating units) that was proposed almost 3 years ago. This is the most important piece of unfinished business left at EPA, and the single most important thing that the Agency can do reduce CO2 emissions from power plants.

The idea behind this program is that, when a major new industrial facility is built, it must go through a permitting process to ensure that it installs the “best available control technology” or BACT. The most troubling parts of this program have nothing to do with “new sources,” but with existing facilities, because the Clean Air Act requires an existing facility to get an NSR permit before making “a physical change or change in the method of operation that will result in an emissions increase.”

This sounds like a fairly simple concept, but in practice it has been almost unimaginably complicated. EPA has issued literally thousands of pages of regulations and guidance documents, and there have been dozens of court cases trying to deal with these issues – cases that have come up with very inconsistent results.

Remember that a facility must obtain a permit before it can make a change that will trigger NSR. It generally takes a new power plant five years or more to get an NSR permit, including multiple rounds of litigation. For an existing plant, triggering NSR not only means years of delay, but tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Thus, every power company in the U.S. employs teams of lawyers and consultants to scrutinize virtually all the repair and maintenance projects it wants to undertake at its plants – just be sure they will not trigger NSR. This may sound like an exaggeration, but it is not. In a number of recent cases, federal and state enforcement officials and environmental activists have argued, sometimes successfully, that a minor repair or maintenance project at a plant (something costing less than a million dollars) actually “triggered” NSR review that would have required the plant to invest hundreds of millions of dollars. As a result, companies must carefully analyze every project their engineers want to do to make the plant more efficient or more reliable.

The EGU rule will largely resolve these issues, by clearly defining what does, and what does not trigger NSR at existing power plants. Environmental activists claim that it will lead to substantial emissions increases, but a number of studies have shown that this is not the case. It will simply allow engineers free reign to improve the efficiency and reliability of existing plants, as long as they do not change the existing capacity of the plant.

Read More

Print |
Share | E-mail

November 10, 2008 8:27 AM

By Linda Stuntz

Founding Partner, Stuntz, Davis & Staffier

As the DOE transition officer in 1993, I’d encourage the Obama Administration not to take a “meat cleaver” approach and rescind all rules promulgated by the Bush Administration after a certain date. Many of these rules likely have been in gestation for a long time and are coming out now due to the normal end of year and end of term cycles. Rescinding these would throw away good work and create uncertainty, the last things that the new Administration should want.

You can learn from the current appointees and from career staff. The Clinton Administration transition team representative at the Department of Energy in 1992-93 was extremely gracious. He spent the time to listen re pending priorities and even sought recommendations. He understood that for the Secretary of Energy at that time, Admiral James Watkins, a smooth and effective change in command was a serious matter, one on which he personally spent a great deal of time and effort. I have never forgotten that.

The Obama Administration has been entrusted by the American people to set new priorities and craft its own recommendations. A running start can only help unless the baton is dropped, which seems unlikely with this transition team.

Print |
Share | E-mail

November 10, 2008 8:26 AM

By Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass.

Ranking Member, House Natural Resources Committee

White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolton made it clear earlier this year that the Bush administration would avoid ramming through so called “midnight regulations” as they leave office by requiring all final agency rules to be completed by November 1, “except in extraordinary circumstances.” This deadline has come and gone, yet we’re still awaiting a wave of potentially devastating environmental rules to come down from several agencies. The “extraordinary circumstances” Bolton alluded to were apparently decisive Democratic victories in last week’s national elections. Bush’s successor will not share his unwavering commitment to de-regulation and giveaways to big business at the expense of the environment. Consequently, Bush now must try to finish the job himself, in the process cementing his legacy as the most anti-environment president in our nation’s history.

The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming that I chair recently issued a report that examines the most notable rules that the Bush administration has targeted in its final weeks. ...

White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolton made it clear earlier this year that the Bush administration would avoid ramming through so called “midnight regulations” as they leave office by requiring all final agency rules to be completed by November 1, “except in extraordinary circumstances.” This deadline has come and gone, yet we’re still awaiting a wave of potentially devastating environmental rules to come down from several agencies. The “extraordinary circumstances” Bolton alluded to were apparently decisive Democratic victories in last week’s national elections. Bush’s successor will not share his unwavering commitment to de-regulation and giveaways to big business at the expense of the environment. Consequently, Bush now must try to finish the job himself, in the process cementing his legacy as the most anti-environment president in our nation’s history.

The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming that I chair recently issued a report that examines the most notable rules that the Bush administration has targeted in its final weeks. Two of the most important laws under attack in Bush’s midnight regulations are the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act. These long-standing laws represent decades of bi-partisan legislative progress as well as two of the central pillars of our country’s environmental protections.

The Clean Air Act’s New Source Review (NSR), a program that forces power plants to install pollution control technologies when making updates to facilities that increase their emissions, could be completely gutted in the next few weeks. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to finalize an NSR rule before the end of the administration that would essentially exempt all existing power plants from having to install new pollution control technology when these plants are updated. If put in place, the effect of the rule will be to allow old, dirty power plants to continue to increase emissions without having to install emissions control technologies. These proposed changes in pollution control follow the same faulty methodology Duke Power used in arguing its challenge to current NSR rules, which it ultimately lost in the Supreme Court in Duke v. EPA – decided the same day as the global warming case Massachusetts v. EPA. The responses to these two cases demonstrate perfectly the Bush administration’s approach to the environmental protection: new rules to allow more pollution in one case while totally ignoring EPA’s responsibility to regulate greenhouse gases in the other.

The Department of the Interior has already indicated its intention to gut the Endangered Species Act by rushing through 300,000 comments on proposed rules in 32 hours, then providing a mere 10-day public comment period on the Environmental Assessment of the proposed rules change. The proposed rules would take expert scientific review out of many Endangered Species Act processes, and could exempt consideration of the effects of global warming.

Perhaps no other step taken by the Bush administration demonstrates its disregard for global warming as the recent reports that Interior intends to finalize new regulations governing commercial development of oil shale on more than 2 million acres of public lands in the American West. At present, fundamental uncertainty remains about the technology that could ultimately be used for large-scale extraction, as well as the larger cost and environmental implications. Oil shale’s low energy content combined with its complex, expensive, and energy- and water-intensive extraction and refining requirements make it an extremely problematic energy option. Large-scale tar shale processing is estimated to produce five times the pre-combustion greenhouse gas emissions of conventional petroleum.

By reneging on his commitment to avoid midnight regulations, Bush will be turning his back on the environment a final time while giving one last gift to his polluting pals. With so much other work to be done on the economy, energy, and health care, it is unfortunate that the Democratic-controlled Congress and President Obama will have to invest time and energy trying to undo Bush’s final radical missteps.

Read More

Print |
Share | E-mail

Leave a response

 

Archives
  • May 2013
    • What's at Stake with Natural-Gas Exports?
    • Should Washington Go Small on Energy and Climate Policy?
    • What Do Technology Innovations Mean for Washington?
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
Special Guest Moderators
  • Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., Week of Dec. 17, 2012
  • Michael Bromwich, former director of Interior Department's Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, and Regulation, Week of April 30, 2012
  • Arun Majumdar, director of the Energy Department's Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E), Week of Feb. 21, 2012
  • Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, Week of Oct. 17, 2011
  • Former Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., Week of August 8, 2011
  • Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D), Week of May 16, 2011
  • Edison Electric Institute President Tom Kuhn, Week of February 22, 2011
  • Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., Week of January 31, 2011
  • Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed, Week of October 12, 2010
  • Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Week of July 12, 2010
  • European Union Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard, Week of April 19, 2010
  • Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., Week of Nov. 9, 2009
  • Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Week of Oct. 5, 2009
  • T. Boone Pickens, Week of May 18, 2009

 

Contributors
  • Spencer Abraham
  • Jonathan H. Adler
  • C.H. "Bud" Albright
  • Richard Alley
  • Tom Amontree
  • Jon A. Anda
  • Jeff Anderson
  • Jay Apt
  • Anna Aurilio
  • David Banks
  • John P. Banks
  • Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas
  • Bill Becker
  • Frances Beinecke
  • Bob Bendick
  • Kenneth Berlin
  • Mark Bernstein
  • George Biltz
  • Ron Binz
  • Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore.
  • Skip Bowman
  • Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
  • Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M.
  • Peter Bradford
  • Michael Bradley
  • Jeffrey Breneman
  • Charles R. Brettell
  •  
  • David C. Brown
  • Carol Browner
  • Kenny Bruno
  • Michael Brune
  • Tom Buis
  • Kateri Callahan
  • Rob Campbell-Watt
  • Michael Canes
  • Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md.
  • Guy Caruso
  • Sen. Tom Carper
  • Red Cavaney
  • Terry Chapin
  • Graciela Chichilnisky
  • Paul N. Cicio
  • Eileen Claussen
  • Jamie Rappaport Clark
  • Armond Cohen
  • Brooke Coleman
  • David Conover
  • Jim Collins
  •  
  • Bill Cooper
  •  
  • Mark Cooper
  • Keith Crane
  • Kevin Crapsey
  • Kevin S. Curtis
  • Phyllis Cuttino
  • Kyle Danish
  • Lee DeHihns
  • Rich Deming
  • Robbie Diamond
  • Bill Dickenson
  • Paul Dickerson
  • Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich.
  • Bob Dinneen
  • David Doniger
  • Cal Dooley
  • Charles Drevna
  • Charles Driscoll
  • Susan Dudley
  • Charles Ebinger
  • Bill Eichbaum
  • Rep. Eliot Engel, D-NY
  • Brent Erickson
  • Stephen Eule
  • Gary Fazzino
  • Marvin Fertel
  • Richard A. Foltman, CCM
  • Michael C. Formica
  • Dirk Forrister
  • Maggie L. Fox
  • Josh Freed
  • David Friedman
  • Don Furman
  • Matthew Garrington
  • Daniel Gatti
  • Pierre Gauthier
  • Karl Gawell
  • Jack Gerard
  • Thomas Gibson
  • Victor Gilinsky
  • Maureen Gorsen
  • Chuck Gray
  • Rob Gramlich
  • Gov. Jennifer Granholm
  • Tim Greeff
  • D.J. Gribbin
  • Bryan Hannegan
  • Matthew Haskins
  • Donna Harman
  • Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash.
  • Eric Haxthausen
  • Marilyn Heiman
  • Ned Helme
  • Eli Hinckley
  • Jennifer Holmgren
  • Jeff Holmstead
  • David Holt
  • Douglas Holtz-Eakin
  • Rep. Michael Honda, D-Calif.
  • Marian Hopkins
  • Regina Hopper
  • Skip Horvath
  • Suzanne Hunt
  • David E. Hunter
  • Chase Huntley
  • Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.
  • Peter Iwanowicz
  • Jesse Jenkins
  • Rachael Jonassen
  • Gene Karpinski
  • Richard L. Kauffman
  • Joseph T. Kelliher
  • Danny Kennedy
  • Kevin Kennedy
  • Phil Kerpen
  • Jim Kerr
  • Tom Kimbis
  • Dan Kirschner
  • Tammy Klein
  • Kevin Knobloch
  • Bill Kovacs
  • David Kreutzer
  • Fred Krupp
  • Tom Kuhn
  • Janet Larsen
  • John Larsen
  • Jeannette Lee
  • Howard A. Learner
  • Peter Lehner
  • Marlo Lewis
  • Michael Levi
  • Michael Livermore
  • Simon Lomax
  • Nick Loris
  • Benjamin Lowe
  • Mindy Lubber
  • Andrea Luecke
  • Molly K. Macauley
  • Arun Majumdar
  • Arjun Makhijani
  • Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass.
  • Roger Martella
  • Bill Massey
  • Kevin Massy
  • Michael McAdams
  • Brigham McCown
  • Dave McCurdy
  • Christine McEntee
  • Dennis McGinn
  • Rep. John L. Mica, R-Fla.
  • Lewis Milford
  • Elizabeth Moler
  • Jonas Monast
  • W. David Montgomery
  • Scott Moore
  • Guy Morgan
  • Jennifer Morgan
  • Jan Mueller
  • Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska
  • David Murphy
  • Brian Murray
  • Mark Muro
  • Kristen M. Nicole
  • Teryn Norris
  • Frank O'Brien-Bernini
  • Frank O'Donnell
  • Kate Offringa
  • William O'Keefe
  • Marvin Odum
  • Alan Oxley
  • Mark Palmer
  • David Parker
  • Bruce Pasfield
  • Jacqueline Patterson
  • Tim Peckinpaugh
  • Jonathan Pershing
  • Erich Pica
  • T. Boone Pickens
  • Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa.
  • Roger Platt
  • Carl Pope
  • Tim Profeta
  • Thomas J. Pyle
  • Hal Quinn
  • Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va.
  • Rhone Resch
  • Richard Revesz
  • John robbins
  • Seth Roberts
  • Jackie Roberts
  • Jim Rogers
  • Will Rogers
  • Catrina Rorke
  • Mary Rosenthal
  • Peter Rothstein
  • Manik Roy
  • Barry Russell
  • David Sandalow
  • Don Santa
  • Jacqueline Savitz
  • Allen Schaeffer
  • Michael Schmidt
  • Conrad Schneider
  • Liz Schrayer
  • Michael Schwartz
  • Larry Schweiger
  • Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis.
  • Kathleen Sgamma
  • Robert J. Shapiro
  • Phil Sharp
  • Scott Sklar
  • Daniel Simmons
  • Robert C. Sisson
  • Tyson Slocum
  • Jeffrey Smidt
  • Bill Snape
  • Robert Socolow
  • Henry D. Sokolski
  • Gus Speth
  • Gregory C. Staple
  • Rob Stavins
  • Anne Steckel
  • Matthew Stepp
  • Jeff Sterba
  • Steven Stoft
  • Tom Stricker
  • Linda Stuntz
  • Bill Squadron
  • Paul Sullivan
  • Randall Swisher
  • Heather Taylor-Miesle
  • Scott Thomasson
  • Margo Thorning
  • Susan Tierney
  • Alex Trembath
  • Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich.
  • Joel Velasco
  • Christopher Vincze
  • David Waskow
  • Ann Weeks
  • Daniel J. Weiss
  • Bernard L. Weinstein
  • Robert Weissman
  • Jon Wellinghoff
  • John T. Whatley
  • Andrew Wheeler
  • Christine Todd Whitman
  • Jamie Williams
  • Tom Windram
  • Tom Wolf
  • Lisa Wood
  • Jonathan Wootliff
  • Don Wuebbles
  • Brian P. Wynne
  • Dan Yates
  • Benjamin Zycher

 

Blogroll
  • Coal Tattoo
  • Dot Earth/Andrew Revkin
  • An Economic View of the Environment
  • Grist
  • Living on Earth
  • New York Times' Green Ink
  • The Oil Drum
  • Society of Environmental Journalists' News Headlines
  • Yale Environment 360

 

The “agree” function has been temporarily disabled from the blog while we transition to a new system. The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate. Please e-mail blog moderator Amy Harder at aharder@nationaljournal.com with any questions.

NationalJournal Magazine | NationalJournal Daily | Hotline | Almanac | NationalJournal Live
About | Contact Us | Press Room | Staff Bios | Jobs | Reprints & Back Issues | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
Atlantic Media Company | Government Executive | The Atlantic | Quartz
Copyright © 2013 by National Journal Group Inc.
Powered by the Parse.ly Publisher Platform (P3).