Wonk Room:

Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson today announced she expects the EPA to weaken its proposed standards for global warming pollution from stationary sources and delay implementation until 2011. Responding to a letter from eight Democratic senators with strong ties to coal, oil, and industrial polluters, Jackson previewed changes to the rule to regulate greenhouse gases which her agency proposed last September she expects to make in its final form. Under the Clean Air Act, the finalization of the greenhouse gas endangerment finding originally expected in March — now, according to Jackson’s letter, in April — will trigger permitting requirements for stationary sources.

Here is the letter administrator Jackson sent to the eight Democratic Senators:

ghg_rule_weakening_letter –

Press release from DC Rising Tide via email.

This morning concerned citizens spelled out the words “Shame EPA” at the Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters in protest of the agency’s decision to approve the Hobet 45 mining permit in Lincoln Co. West Virginia.

The group greeted the morning rush of EPA staff with rolicking chants like this one, “Mountaintop removal does not deserve EPA approval/ That’s madness, insane/ Lisa Jackson, what a shame.” Even the security guards were nodding to the rhythm while activists spoke with curious EPA workers.

The Hobet permit is one of 79 permits which were deemed by the Agency to present significant environmental harm to the local watersheds thus requiring an enhanced review process. EPA claims that in the case of this permit they have found a reasonable compromise.

Unfortunately for residents of Lincoln County and surrounding waterways, this permit will still allow for 3 miles of intact streams to be mined as well as millions of cubic yards of hazardous fill to be placed in existing valley fills offsite.

Residents like Judy Bonds, Director of Coal River Mountain Watch and resident of West Virginia, express grave concern about this decision as they worry that it is a sign at the new year of things to come. “We, the affected citizens that are living with the impacts of this destructive mining practice, pray that this decision is not a preview of other destructive mining permits being approved.

She continued to express concerns that this decision would only encourage miners who have lately resorted more to fear tactics and violence. “The very sad thing about this decision it is that the coal industry will think that their thugery and their threats contributed to this decision and may encourage them to be more violent in the future. Shame, Shame EPA.”

“We certainly hope this is the last destructive permit approved that will allow the coal industry to continue to blast our homes and pollute our streams,” Judy added.

Even with the changes made to the permit unacceptable adverse impacts will be felt in the communities surrounding this mine. Mountaintop removal is a deadly practice and should be abolished immediately.

Following in the footsteps of Governor Jindal, Governor Parnell has now weighed in on something he has absolutely no say over:

Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell wants the Environmental Protection Agency to halt its effort to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

In a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Parnell said the proposed regulations would bury Alaska’s businesses, institutions and state environmental agencies in paperwork without accomplishing its goal.

Parnell said he wants the EPA to wait on the rules until Congress comes up with a solution to the greenhouse gas problem.

Many of us would prefer for Congress to come up with a solution. Since they have failed to do so, though, the EPA should move forward with regulations in the meantime.

Brad at the Wonk Room has the story:

Even as the Senate argues whether to pass clean-energy legislation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finally moving to regulate global warming pollution. One of the leading opponents to the EPA’s proposed regulations, slated to go into effect in March, 2010, is Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA). On Monday, Jindal “and the secretaries of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources and Louisiana Economic Development filed objections with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson,” claiming the Supreme-Court-mandated standards “will certainly have profound negative economic impacts.“

Here is Governor Jindal’s (R-LA) two page letter to EPA Administrator Jackson:

122809EPALetter –

The following letter was sent today by Senators Barasso and Vitter, and Representatives Issa and Sensenbrenner to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.

Dear Administrator Jackson:

We request that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conduct a thorough and transparent investigation into the questions raised by the disclosure of emails from Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (CRU). Additionally, EPA should withdraw the Proposed Endangerment Finding, as well as the Light Duty Vehicle Rule, and the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule until the Agency can demonstrate that the science underlying these regulatory decisions has not been compromised.

As you are aware, the scandal involves a number of climate change scientists and institutions that have played prominent roles in the development of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, most recently, the Fourth Assessment. EPA heavily relied on the IPCC’s findings and conclusions in its development and justification for the controversial proposed Endangerment Finding.[1] Given the multiple regulatory efforts that hinge on the Endangerment Finding and consequently the integrity of the IPCC reports, it is imperative that EPA act swiftly and with transparency to analyze the numerous questions that have been raised by the disclosure of the emails.

A large volume of email messages and documents, sent by prominent American and British climate researchers, were recently released from the CRU. The content of the emails raises serious questions that demand your attention. The scientists involved are climate science experts whose work is integrated into the fabric of the IPCC and its reports. The CRU wields significant influence in climate change circles and works closely with the U.N.’s IPCC.[2] According to the British Telegraph, “Their importance cannot be overestimated.”[3] Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director and the author of some of the most controversial emails, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports.[4] His global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely.[5] Therefore, the questions raised by these emails regarding the ethics and integrity of these scientists go to the very core of the discipline and work relied upon by the EPA.

The Wall Street Journal reported that in the emails, “Scientists appear to urge each other to present a ‘unified’ view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the ‘common cause,’ to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as to not compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to ‘hide the decline’ of temperature in certain inconvenient data.”[6] According to the New York Times, the emails provoke three fundamental questions – whether “the correspondence reveals efforts by scientists to shield raw data, preventing it from being examined by independent researchers”; whether the documents “prove that the data underlying climate scientists’ conclusions about warming are murkier than the scientists have said”; and whether “the email messages indicate that climate scientists tried to prevent publication of papers written by climate skeptics.”[7]

The answers to each of these questions are of great importance. The suggestion that these scientists prevented the dissemination, peer review, and publication of dissenting views is particularly alarming. Since the IPCC only considers peer reviewed publications, any effort to control the peer review process is the equivalent of controlling the content of IPCC reports.

During your tenure, EPA has rapidly advanced several regulatory schemes to reduce domestic emissions of greenhouse gasses (GHGs). The key regulatory decision is the Proposed Endangerment Finding, which finds that Carbon Dioxide and other Greenhouse Gases endanger human health and welfare.[8] In drafting the Technical Support Document, the scientific basis for the regulatory decision, EPA relied heavily on the findings and conclusions of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (“Fourth Assessment”).[9] Given the multiple regulatory efforts that hinge on the Endangerment Finding, it is imperative that EPA act swiftly and with transparency to answer these questions.

In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court made clear that the EPA has discretion in the timing of its issuance of any regulations.[10] The D.C. Circuit has also stated that nothing in the Supreme Court’s decision “imposes a specific deadline by which EPA must determine whether a particular air pollutant poses a threat to public health or welfare.”[11] Therefore, EPA should withdraw the Proposed Endangerment Finding, as well as the Light Duty Vehicle Rule, and the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule until the agency can demonstrate the science underlying these regulatory decisions has not been compromised.

In addition to its own investigation, we respectfully request that your agency turn over all documents and records related to the communications or other interactions with Hadley CRU dating from March 2007 through December 1, 2009 to our respective Committees. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Kristina Moore, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee at 202-225-5074, Brian Clifford, Subcommittee on Oversight, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee at 202-224-6176, Bryan Zumwalt, Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee at 202-224-4623; or Raj Bharwani with the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming at 202-225-0110.

Press Release from the White House via email.

The White House announced today that President Obama will travel to Copenhagen on Dec. 9 to participate in the United Nations Climate Change Conference, where he is eager to work with the international community to drive progress toward a comprehensive and operational Copenhagen accord. The President has worked steadily on behalf of a positive outcome in Copenhagen throughout the year. Based on the President’s work on climate change over the past 10 months – in the Major Economies Forum, the G20, bilateral discussions and multilateral consultations – and based on progress made in recent, constructive discussions with China and India’s Leaders, the President believes it is possible to reach a meaningful agreement in Copenhagen. The President’s decision to go is a sign of his continuing commitment and leadership to find a global solution to the global threat of climate change, and to lay the foundation for a new, sustainable and prosperous clean energy future.

The White House also announced that, in the context of an overall deal in Copenhagen that includes robust mitigation contributions from China and the other emerging economies, the President is prepared to put on the table a U.S. emissions reduction target in the range of 17% below 2005 levels in 2020 and ultimately in line with final U.S. energy and climate legislation. In light of the President’s goal to reduce emissions 83% by 2050, the expected pathway set forth in this pending legislation would entail a 30% reduction below 2005 levels in 2025 and a 42% reduction below 2005 in 2030. This provisional target is in line with current legislation in both chambers of Congress and demonstrates a significant contribution to a problem that the U.S. has neglected for too long. With less than two weeks to go until the beginning of the Copenhagen conference, it is essential that the countries of the world, led by the major economies, do what it takes to produce a strong, operational agreement that will both launch us on a concerted effort to combat climate change and serve as a stepping stone to a legally binding treaty. The President is working closely with Congress to pass energy and climate legislation as soon as possible.

Underscoring President Obama’s commitment to American leadership on clean energy and combating climate change, the White House also announced today that a host of Cabinet secretaries and other top officials from across the Administration will travel to Copenhagen for the conference. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson are all scheduled to attend, along with Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley, and Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Carol Browner.

Read the rest of this entry »

This piece was originally published by ProPublica. It has been republished here with permission. Learn more about ProPublica.

Five years ago the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency assured the nation that the technology credited with opening vast new natural gas supplies was safe. Now Congress has ordered the agency to take another look.

As part of the $32 billion Interior and Environment Appropriations Bill recently signed by President Obama, lawmakers asked the EPA to re-visit hydraulic fracturing, the process where copious amounts of water and sand mixed with toxic chemical additives are furiously pumped underground to break up gas-bearing rock thousands of feet below.

The bill urges the EPA to use a portion of the money to fund a scientifically robust and peer-reviewed study of the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, “using a credible approach that relies on the best available science.”

The EPA gave hydraulic fracturing its stamp of approval in a 2004 report [1], but that study has been widely criticized as politically-motivated and scientifically unsound. After the report was released, veteran EPA scientist Weston Wilson wrote a letter [2] to Colorado representatives saying that “based on available science and literature, EPA’s conclusions are unsupportable.” He also wrote that five out seven members of a panel that reviewed the findings had conflicts of interest and “may benefit from EPA’s decision not to conduct further investigation or impose regulatory conditions.”

In 2008 ProPublica reported [3] that EPA staff involved in the study negotiated directly with Halliburton, one of the leaders in the hydraulic fracturing business, and other stakeholders to soften inspection pressure from the agency. In exchange, the companies agreed to voluntarily stop using diesel fuel for some of their fracturing processes.  That report was part of an investigation showing that water sources have been contaminated across the country from drilling.

The 2004 study was used to help justify the passage of an amendment in the 2005 Energy Policy Act which exempted hydraulic fracturing from coverage under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Ever since, environmentalists and some Democratic members of Congress have been pushing for a reversal.

The new request for a study of fracturing is just one paragraph, deep in the 393-page bill that funds everything from drinking water infrastructure to Great Lakes conservation, and it does not specify an amount of money to be spent on the study.

The office of EPA administrator Lisa Jackson did not respond to requests for comment for this article. But the measure’s sponsor, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), says he expects the EPA to follow through. “I think don’t think that there is any question that they are going to move forward on it,” said Hinchey, adding that Jackson has indicated this to him directly.

Jackson previously said [4] she recognized that the current regulations restrict the EPA’s ability to protect groundwater and said the issue “was well worth looking into.” But she hadn’t indicated how the EPA would approach the problem or whether the 2004 study would be revised.

The request for a new study comes six months after a matching pair of bills called the FRAC Act was introduced in the House and Senate. The Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness Chemicals Act –sponsored by Hinchey, among others ­– would repeal the oil and gas industry’s exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act.

It’s not unusual for a study to be introduced as a way of delaying legislation. But Hinchey says this study serves a real purpose because there is a dearth of scientifically-neutral information about hydraulic fracturing.

“We are very sincere and deeply dedicated to getting this done,” he said.

Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones:

What is important is both the public appearance by Graham and the emergence of Lieberman as the third wingman. In his remarks, Graham seemed to distance himself from the Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee that are boycotting the markup of the Kerry-Boxer bill.”If you can’t participate in solving the problem, then why are you up here?” said Graham.

But later in the day he sided with EPW’s Republican rebels. In a letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, Graham joined with Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine—all seen as potential “yes” votes—to endorse the call for further EPA analysis. “As Senators interested in a bipartisan approach to addressing climate change and energy independence this Congress, we have a keen interest in ensuring that cost estimates, models, and other data critical to the legislative process be made available to members of Congress and the public in a timely manner,” they wrote. “We cannot support legislation without this information.”

Here is the letter, which was from Senators Graham, Collins, Snowe and Gregg:

Via the EPW website, here is the agenda for the first hearing:

Full Committee hearing entitled, “Legislative Hearing on S. 1733, Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.”
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
09:30 AM EDT
EPW Hearing Room – 406 Dirksen

Witnesses

Opening Remarks

Panel 1

The Honorable John F. Kerry
United States Senator (D-MA)

Panel 2

The Honorable Steven Chu
Secretary
United States Department of Energy

The Honorable Ray LaHood
Secretary
United States Department of Transportation

The Honorable Ken Salazar
Secretary
United States Department of the Interior

The Honorable Lisa Jackson
Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency

The Honorable Jon Wellinghoff
Chairman
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Press release from the EPA.

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is launching this year a comprehensive new evaluation of the pesticide atrazine to determine its effects on humans. At the end of this process, the agency will decide whether to revise its current risk assessment of the pesticide and whether new restrictions are necessary to better protect public health. One of the most widely used agricultural pesticides in the U.S., atrazine can be applied before and after planting to control broadleaf and grassy weeds. EPA will evaluate the pesticide’s potential cancer and non-cancer effects on humans. Included in this new evaluation will be the most recent studies on atrazine and its potential association with birth defects, low birth weight, and premature births.

“One of Administrator Jackson’s top priorities is to improve the way EPA manages and assesses the risk of chemicals, including pesticides, and as part of that effort, we are taking a hard look at the decision made by the previous administration on atrazine,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. “Our examination of atrazine will be based on transparency and sound science, including independent scientific peer review, and will help determine whether a change in EPA’s regulatory position on this pesticide is appropriate.”

During the new evaluation, EPA will consider the potential for atrazine cancer and non-cancer effects, and will include data generated since 2003 from laboratory and population studies. To be certain that the best science possible is used in its atrazine human health risk assessment and ensure transparency, EPA will seek advice from the independent Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) established under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.

EPA will engage the SAP to evaluate the human health effects of atrazine over the coming year. Below is the timeline:

· November 2009: EPA will present SAP its plan for the new atrazine evaluation.
· February 2010: EPA will present and seek scientific peer review of its proposed plan for incorporating population studies into the atrazine risk assessment.
· April 2010: EPA will present and seek peer review of its evaluation of atrazine non-cancer effects based on animal laboratory toxicology studies, selection of safety factors in the risk assessment, and the sampling design currently used to monitor drinking water in community water systems.
· September 2010: EPA will present and seek peer review of its evaluation of atrazine cancer and non-cancer effects based on animal toxicology studies and epidemiology studies. This review is intended to include the most recent results from the National Cancer Institute’s Agricultural Health Study, anticipated for publication in 2010.

At the conclusion of this process, EPA will ask the SAP to review atrazine’s potential effects on amphibians and aquatic ecosystems. The SAP meetings will be open to the public.

In addition to the scientific review of the effects of atrazine, EPA plans to meet with interested groups to explore better ways to inform the public more quickly about results of atrazine drinking water monitoring.