Category Archives: EPA Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Land Grabbed, Now the Oceans, Stroke of the Pen

Posted on by

Obama creates largest ocean reserve, takes heat for new federal decrees

FNC: President Obama, with the stroke of a pen, created the world’s largest ocean reserve on Friday off Hawaii, days after designating a massive federal monument in Maine – moves that have angered local lawmakers who accuse the president of disregarding the impact on residents.

A green sea turtle is seen off the coast of Oahu, Hawaii.

A green sea turtle is seen off the coast of Oahu, Hawaii. (Reuters)

Obama used a presidential proclamation to expand the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument off the coast of Hawaii by over 400,000 square miles. The preserve now stretches 582,578 square miles, the world’s largest marine protected area.

“The expansion provides critical protections for more than 7,000 marine species … [and] will allow scientists to monitor and explore the impacts of climate change on these fragile ecosystems,” the White House said in a statement, citing the support of Sen. Brian Schatz and “prominent Native Hawaiian leaders.”

But the decision drew sharp criticism from the fishing industry and even fellow Democrats, as it will drastically expand the area where commercial fishing and drilling is banned.

Former Democratic Gov. George Ariyoshi said at a rally last month that it came down to the question of who actually owned the ocean.

“The ocean belongs to us,” Ariyoshi reportedly said. “We ought to be the ones who decide what kind of use to make of the ocean.”

Representatives from the fishing industry warn the move will increase prices and imports, The Honolulu Star Advertiser reported. All commercial extraction activities will be prohibited within the area, though non-commercial fishing is allowed by permit.

The regional council that manages U.S. waters in the Pacific Islands said the decision “serves a political legacy” rather than a conservation benefit.

“Closing 60 percent of Hawaii’s waters to commercial fishing, when science is telling us that it will not lead to more productive local fisheries, makes no sense,” said Edwin Ebiusi Jr., chairman of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. “Today is a sad day in the history of Hawaii’s fisheries and a negative blow to our local food security.”

 The land grab began: On August 25, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed a bill that mandated the agency “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife therein, and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”[5] Mather became the first director of the newly formed NPS.[6] Wikipedia

*****

Celebrate National Parks’ 100th birthday by joining Obama on a (virtual) tour of Yosemite

2014: Through legislation, Congress has provided varying authorities for acquiring and disposing of

land to the federal agencies.31 With regard to acquiring land, the BLM has relatively broad

authority, the FWS has various authorities, and the FS authority is mostly limited to lands within

or contiguous to the boundaries of a national forest. DOD also has authority for acquisitions.32 By

contrast, the NPS has no general authority to acquire land to create new park units. Condemnation

for acquiring land is feasible, but rarely is used by any of the agencies and its potential use has

been controversial. The primary funding mechanism for federal land acquisition, for the four

major federal land management agencies, has been appropriations from the Land and Water

Conservation Fund (LWCF).33 For the FWS, the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (supported

by sales of Duck Stamps and import taxes on arms and ammunition) provides a significant

additional source of mandatory spending for land acquisition. Funding for acquisitions by DOD is

provided in Department of Defense appropriations laws.

With regard to disposal, the NPS and FWS have virtually no authority to dispose of the lands they

administer, and the FS disposal authorities are restricted. The BLM has broader authority under §

203 of FLPMA. DOD lands that are excess to military needs can be disposed of under the surplus

property process administered by the General Services Administration.34 Further, it is not

uncommon for Congress to enact legislation providing for the acquisition or disposal of land

where an agency does not have standing authority to do so or providing particular procedures for

specified land transactions.

Ownership Changes, 1990-2013

Since 1990, total federal lands have generally declined. There have been many disposals of areas

of federal lands. At the same time, the federal government has acquired many new parcels of land

and there have been numerous new federal land designations, including wilderness areas, wild

and scenic rivers, and national park units. Through the numerous individual acquisitions and

disposals since 1990, the total federal land ownership has declined by 23.5 million acres, or 3.6%

of the total of the five agencies, as shown in Table 3. BLM lands declined by 24.8 million acres

(9.1%)35 while DOD lands declined by 6.1 million acres (29.8%). In contrast, the NPS, FWS, and

FS expanded their acreage during the period, with the NPS having the largest increase in both

acreage and percent growth─3.5 million acres (4.6%). In some cases, a decrease in one agency’s

acreage was tied to an increase in acreage owned by another agency.36  Read more here.

 

Cap and Trade DID Not Go Away

Posted on by

New Principles to Help Accelerate the Growing Global Momentum for Carbon Pricing

2015:

  • New report shows the number of implemented or planned carbon pricing schemes around the world has almost doubled since 2012, with existing schemes now worth about $50 billion.

 

  • About 40 nations and 23 cities, states or regions are using a carbon price. This represents the equivalent of about 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide, or 12 percent of annual global greenhouse gas emissions.
  • And new report lays out six key principles to put a price on carbon – the FASTER principles – for putting a price on carbon based on economic principles and experience of what is already working around the world

The spotlight is on New York now with the upcoming United Nations meeting on the new Sustainable Development Goals, Climate Week New York, and in about two months, global leaders will meet again in Paris for COP 21.  More from the World Bank.

****

California’s Cap-And-Trade Program Is Sick And Will Take High-Speed Rail Down With It

Chuck DeVore,  Contributor

Forbes: California concluded its most recent cap-and-trade program auction last week. Out of 44,268,323 metric tons of carbon dioxide credits offered for sale by the state Air Resources Board, only 660,560 were sold, 1.5 percent of the total, raising a paltry $8.4 million out of a hoped-for $620 million. Last May’s auction was almost as bad, raising $10 million out of an anticipated $500 million.

California’s carbon dioxide cap-and-trade auction program was expected to bring in more than $2 billion in the current fiscal year that ends June 30, 2017, a quarter of which is earmarked for the high-speed rail project narrowly approved by voters in a 2008 ballot initiative. As a hedge against uncertainty, a $500 million reserve was built into the cap-and-trade budget. But, with the August auction falling 98.5 percent short, the entire reserve was consumed in the first of four auctions for the fiscal year.

Further complicating matters is a pending lawsuit against the legality of California’s cap-and-trade program. Business groups and fiscal conservatives claim the program amounts to a tax, under a 2010 ballot initiative that better defined what exactly constitutes taxes and fees under California law, thus would requiring a two-thirds majority vote of the legislature.

Further, with the program slated to end in 2020, many businesses that are forced to buy the carbon credits are conflicted by the risk that they may end up buying the California equivalent of Confederate bonds, doomed to be worthless when the state loses its cap-and-trade war.

In the meantime, the High-Speed Rail project, currently promised to cost “only” $68 billion to run from the Bay Area some 400 miles south to Los Angeles may be looking at $50 billion in overruns. To fund the costly train, which was sold to voters as not costing a dime in new taxes, the expected revenue stream from cap-and-trade has been securitized, putting the state on the hook to Wall Street for billions in construction money advanced on the promise of future cap-and-trade revenue.

But the cap-and-trade market is showing dangerous signs of weakness. Not only have auction revenues collapsed in the last two auctions in May and August, but the competitive landscape for the auctions has collapsed as well. The Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHI), a commonly-used measure of competitive markets, signaled that last May’s auction was dominated by a sole market player. Last week’s auction improved somewhat, but was still moderately concentrated among a small number of buyers and sellers.

The lack of interest in California’s cap-and-trade carbon credits shows that the Golden State will likely have to come up with a significant amount of General Fund tax revenue, more than $2 billion annually, to build out its government-run rail project—something that isn’t likely to last much beyond the end of Gov. Jerry Brown’s fourth term in office in January 2019.

California's Cap and Trade Auction is Collapsing

California’s Cap and Trade Auction is Collapsing

**** Back in 2014:

In part from Politico: Cap and trade was a key part of the George H.W. Bush administration’s strategy for reducing acid rain in 1990, and it would have been the centerpiece of the climate bill that stalled and died in the Senate in 2010.

Despite the concept’s bipartisan heritage, cap and trade has become politically toxic in some circles — especially among supporters of coal, the carbon-intensive fuel that would face the heaviest costs under any trading system. Republicans derided the climate bill as “cap and tax,” while West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin famously unloaded a rifle into a copy of the legislation during a Senate campaign commercial.

Still, cap and trade never went away.

With RGGI and California combined, about a quarter of the U.S. population lives in areas covered by trading programs designed to drive down carbon emissions, said Janet Peace, vice president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, at a Senate briefing Thursday.

Other programs exist in Alberta, Canada; Australia; New Zealand; Norway; and South Korea. Next year, cap-and-trade programs are expected to launch in Switzerland, Tokyo, the United Kingdom and South Africa. Others are in development or undergoing pilot tests in Brazil, China, India, Japan, Mexico and even Kazakhstan.

“Eventually, 250 million people will be covered by a carbon price in China,” Peace said. The full article here.

*** The New York Times stays current on Cap and Trade.

 

We are Told to Hate Big Oil, By Whom Exactly?

Posted on by

Emails: Dem Officials Wary of Legal Campaign Against Exxon

Internal communications show unease about New York AG’s court battle

FreeBeacon: Democratic officials who enlisted in a legal campaign against the country’s largest oil company privately expressed misgivings about the effort and its crusading leader, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, internal emails reveal.

Schneiderman recruited nearly 20 other state attorneys general last year to participate in a coordinated legal campaign against ExxonMobil. However, Schneiderman appears to be the only official still actively pursuing the effort.

Emails obtained by the Energy and Environment Legal Institute through open records requests help explain their apparent lack of enthusiasm. The emails show that AGs involved in the effort grew wary of Schneiderman’s aggressive tactics.

His campaign centers on allegations that Exxon lied to shareholders and the general public about the financial dangers posed by climate change. Schneiderman has subpoenaed the company, and other states have followed suit, though many have either withdrawn their probes or put them on hold.

Ahead of a March meeting that kicked off the effort, some AGs were already expressing unease about their involvement.

“Just talked with Tom,” an aide to Iowa AG Tom Miller wrote to a colleague on March 25, a few days before Schneiderman convened AGs involved in the effort. “He thinks we may be locked in on this and have to ride it through.”

Related reading: Trump: Obama Bribed New York’s Attorney General To Sue Trump University
There is no evidence to support Trump’s claim.

After the meeting, another Miller aide described Schneiderman as “the wild card for all.”

In a statement accompanying the release of those and other emails, E&E said they demonstrated the legal weaknesses underlying New York’s legal strategy.

“The investigations began with Schneiderman and in just five short months he has watched his support collapse, such that he once again stands alone in his crusade to harass his political opponents under the guise of upholding the law,” the group said.

As the anti-Exxon efforts progressed, other AGs’ offices expressed concern at their apparent scope. They worried Schneiderman was publicly enlisting them in a campaign in which they were not sure they would—or could—participate.

When his office circulated a draft press release announcing the AGs’ collaboration on the Exxon campaign, Michael Kelly, a spokesman for Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, tried to rein in some of its language.

“At this point, we don’t know what we’re going to agree to, or really what Virginia’s laws and our authorities could allow us to do, so it makes me nervous to say we’ve ‘agreed to work together on key investigations,’” Kelly wrote in an email to Schneiderman staffers.

“Is there any room to dial that one back a notch?” he asked.

An aide to Vermont’s attorney general had similar concerns. When Schneiderman’s office drafted a “thank you” note to AGs who had participated in the March meeting, the aide recommended striking language that implied that some AGs would be conducting their own Exxon probes.

“On the ‘Exxon/Fossil Fuel Company Investigations’ can we drop the word ‘investigations’ from that?” he asked. “Not all of the states have yet opened a formal investigation and there is some sensitivity here (and I suspect in some other states) to saying or indicating we have.”

In fact, New York is the only state still pursuing an Exxon investigation thanks to the wide legal latitude granted by the state’s Martin Act, which gives Schneiderman broader investigative powers than other state AGs.

“Exxon is not really facing a blitzkrieg,” noted environmental activist Bill McKibben, an outspoken proponent of prosecuting Exxon, in a June column. “Only two states have really had the courage to take on what’s been the planet’s most profitable company.”

The other state McKibben referred to was Massachusetts. However, even Massachusetts’ subpoena of Exxon is on hold.

The U.S. Virgin Islands, which subpoenaed Exxon and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank that attorney general Claude Walker accused of abetting fraudulent conduct, withdrew both measures in the face of legal opposition.

“They were in over their head,” Vermont Law School professor Pat Parenteau said of Walker’s legal campaign “They were going to get pounded and it’s good they are off the field.”

Schneiderman’s office did not return a request for comment.

Regulations Cost $108 Billion Each Year

Posted on by

Hey, Obama was are the cost benefits and where is this a part of law? Further, who is watching this and who is challenging the postings? Are they really legal in the first place?

 

Revealed: President Obama’s 229 Major Regulations Cost $108 Billion Each Year

NationalInterest: The Obama administration is responsible for thousands of new regulations—including a historic number of major regulations. As the costs of these regulations add up, they place more of a burden on economic freedom in America.

In 2015, 43 new major regulations went into effect, increasing regulatory costs by more than $22 billion, according to the latest “Red Tape Rising” study from The Heritage Foundation.

Since President Barack Obama took office in 2009, 229 new major regulations have increased regulatory burdens by $108 billion annually. But it doesn’t stop there. As the administration tries to push its agenda before the end of Obama’s term, 144 more major regulations are already in the works.

Among the biggest culprits are the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Energy. Although Congress funds these bureaucratic agencies, the rules they impose do not typically need congressional approval. Some independent agencies, like the Federal Communication Commission, are not even required to perform analyses to determine if their regulations will be cost-effective.

Not only do regulations cost American families and businesses more money, they have a damaging effect on economic freedom.

The Index of Economic Freedom, published annually by The Heritage Foundation, shows a decrease in economic freedom in the United States for eight of the last nine years. To make matters worse, since 2010, the U.S. has been stuck in the “mostly free” category, due in large part to falling scores related to business and labor regulation. In just one year, U.S. scores for business freedom and labor freedom have dropped by 4.1 points and 7.1 points, respectively.

Heritage Foundation researchers James Gattuso and Diane Katz have argued that “the unparalleled increase in regulatory burden spells a decline in economic freedom and individual liberty.”

All that red tape is piling up and Congress needs to take immediate action to prevent further growth in the regulatory burden and to restore economic freedom in the U.S.

**** Additional information for context:

Regulatory Federal Agencies
Agencies, like the FDA, EPA, OSHA and at least 50 others, are called “regulatory” agencies, because they are empowered to create and enforce rules – regulations – that carry the full force of a law. Individuals, businesses, and private and public organizations can be fined, sanctioned, forced to close, and even jailed for violating federal regulations.

The oldest Federal regulatory agency still in existence is the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, established in 1863 to charter and regulate national banks.

The Federal Rulemaking Process
The process of creating and enacting federal regulations is generally referred to as the “rulemaking” process.

First, Congress passes a law designed to address a social or economic need or problem. The appropriate regulatory agency then creates regulations necessary to implement the law. For example, the Food and Drug Administration creates its regulations under the authority of the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act, the Controlled Substances Act and several other acts created by Congress over the years. Acts such as these are known as “enabling legislation,” because the literally enable the regulatory agencies to create the regulations required to administer enforce them.

 

The “Rules” of Rulemaking
Regulatory agencies create regulations according to rules and processes defined by another law known as the Administration Procedure Act (APA).

The APA defines a “rule” or “regulation” as…

“[T]he whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency.

The APA defines “rulemaking” as…

“[A]gency action which regulates the future conduct of either groups of persons or a single person; it is essentially legislative in nature, not only because it operates in the future but because it is primarily concerned with policy considerations.”

Under the APA, the agencies must publish all proposed new regulations in the Federal Register at least 30 days before they take effect, and they must provide a way for interested parties to comment, offer amendments, or to object to the regulation.

Some regulations require only publication and an opportunity for comments to become effective. Others require publication and one or more formal public hearings. The enabling legislations states which process is to be used in creating the regulations. Regulations requiring hearings can take several months to become final.

New regulations or amendments to existing regulations are known as “proposed rules.” Notices of public hearings or requests for comments on proposed rules are published in the Federal Register, on the Web sites of the regulatory agencies and in many newspapers and other publications. The notices will include information on how to submit comments, or participate in public hearings on the proposed rule.

Once a regulation takes effect, it becomes a “final rule” and is printed in the Federal Register, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and usually posted on the Web site of the regulatory agency. Keep reading here.

 

Did you Know the EPA has a SuperFund?

Posted on by

     

EPA’s Superfund program is responsible for cleaning up some of the nation’s most contaminated land and responding to environmental emergencies, oil spills and natural disasters. To protect public health and the environment, the Superfund program focuses on making a visible and lasting difference in communities, ensuring that people can live and work in healthy, vibrant places.

There are well regulations. Since when are they followed?

Superfund Regulations

The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) defines the organizational structure and procedures for preparing for and responding to discharges of oil and releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants in the United States. The NCP was developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to the congressional enactment of The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of December 11, 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and by section 311(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). This page contains links to other EPA Web pages with simplified explanations of the Superfund regulatory process. Other links access Code of Federal Regulations that document the technical considerations and requirements of CERCLA and the NCP.

Enforcement activities related to the Superfund Division at EPA Headquarters is overseen by the Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE), a division of the EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

The history of the Superfund: Since 1980, EPA’s Superfund program has helped protect human health and the environment by managing the cleanup of the nation’s worst hazardous waste sites and responding to local and nationally significant environmental emergencies. Below you will find a timeline highlighting some of the most notable milestones in the history of the Superfund and other cleanup programs.

So are they going to pay for the spill that contaminated the river or for the water crisis in Flint, Michigan?

There are secret meetings too!

STAR CHAMBER: EPA Holding Secret Meetings to Decide How to Dole out Billions in Illegal Slush Funds by

Two internal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) committees secretly control how billions of dollars are spent, a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation has found.

Congress appropriates about $1 billion annually for EPA’s Superfund program, and the agency has accumulated nearly $6.8 billion in more than 1,300 slush fund-like accounts since 1990.

No mention of that on their website but check this out:

Supplemental Environmental Projects at Ammonia Facilities in Arizona and California

ammonia sign

Ammonia Sign

Two ammonia refrigeration facilities have volunteered to complete Supplementary Environmental Projects (SEPs), that will benefit their surrounding communities, as part of enforcement settlements with EPA. The SEPs will enhance the emergency response capabilities of local fire and hazardous materials response teams in the immediate areas of the facilities and will also include compliance outreach in California’s San Joaquin Valley.

Dole Packaged Foods in Atwater, California (map) and Rousseau Farming Company in Tolleson, Arizona (map) both had releases of ammonia in 2006 and failed to immediately notify the proper authorities, violations of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). In addition to the release reporting violations, Dole failed to develop standard operating procedures for the ammonia system where the release occurred, constituting a violation of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

“We are pleased that both Dole and Rousseau have acknowledged their violations and recognized their responsibility to improve safety practices in their communities. Supplemental environmental projects are an excellent mechanism for companies to demonstrate good corporate citizenship and to fulfill their responsibilities under the law” -Daniel A. Meer, EPA Region 9’s Response, Planning and Assessment Branch Chief

As part of the SEP, Rousseau will spend $15,000 on 14 suits for the Tolleson Fire Department to use when responding to chemical fires. This is in addition to a $65,045 penalty. Dole will spend a total of $86,930 for the penalty and $12,000 on a compliance training and $53,000 on emergency response equipment for Merced County.