Posted on 10/28/2004 12:17:49 PM PDT by p. henry
Some time ago, a friend of mine whose political views I do not always share, but whose intelligence and opinions I respect, published an article in the San Diego Earth Times. This article seemed quite harsh in its criticism of W's environmental policies, so I decided to do some research and, if necessary write a response.
In doing the research, it seemed to me that much of the substance and some of the style of the article was derived from the New York Times. The author of the article later told me that the primary source of the article was material she had received from the Sierra Club. So, we are left with the question: is the New York Times derivative of Sierra Club material, or is Sierra Club material derivative of the New York Times?
In any event, my letter of response is posted. I posted it primarily so that Freepers can use it to show voters for whom the environment is important that, if they are relying on the Sierra Club or the New York Times, then they are being misled.
I apologise for the length of the post.
In support of this proposition, Carolyn cites, among other things, the EPA’s revision of its New Source Review regulations, the exclusion of isolated, intrastate wetlands from the Clean Water Act, the failure of the Administration to seek reinstatement of a “tax on oil, chemicals and a general corporate excise tax” which apparently expired in 1995, and the Administration’s proposal that portions of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be open to oil and gas exploration. Carolyn’s description of these issues is both incomplete and misleading.
New Source Review. In writing about the recently adopted changes to the New Source Review regulations, Carolyn says “the Bush Administration dramatically weakened the clean air protection that required aging coal-fired power plants, oil refineries, and other industrial facilities to install modern pollution controls when they upgrade or expand.” Carolyn’s article does not disclose the following:
1. New Source Review was not part of the original Clean Air Act. It was created in 1977 to sometimes, but not always, require power plants and certain other facilities to install modern anti-pollution equipment. Most of the Clean Air Act regime, including the Acid Rain Program, air toxic standards, New Source Performance Standards, the Nitrogen Oxides State Implementation Plan Call regional transport rule, the Regional Haze Program, numerous mobile source programs and state and local State Implementation Plan-based standards are not affected by the changes to New Source Review. These changes will also not affect public health protection provided by the Clean Air Act through the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the programs that ensure their efficacy. In short, the changes to New Source Review affect a relatively small part of the National Air Quality Management System.
2. The rule changes do not affect new construction. They only affect the circumstances under which changes to certain existing facilities will require a New Source Review.
3. The New Source Review rules as they existed prior to the amendments were the subject of much litigation but had not resulted in significant decreases in pollution from grandfathered facilities; and there was no assurance that the litigation would lead to any such reductions.
4. The Administration has imposed a declining cap and trade program that covers the facilities grandfathered under New Source Review.
5. Calls for reform in the New Source Review process have come from numerous interested parties since at least the early 1990’s. As Robert Stavins of Harvard and Howard Gruenspecht of Resources for the Future noted in January of 2002, New Source Review “retards environmental progress and wastes resources.”
6. The regulatory changes promulgated by the Bush Administration are, with one principal exception, little more than the finalization of proposals first made by the EPA in 1996 under the previous administration as a consequence of these calls for reform. The changes to New Source Review consist of the following:
a. Plant-Wide Applicability Limits. To provide facilities with greater flexibility to modernize their operations without increasing air pollution, facilities that agree to operate within site-wide emission caps called Plant-Wide Applicability Limits will be given flexibility to modify their operations without undergoing the New Source Review process, as long as the modifications do not cause the emissions from those facilities to violate their plant-wide caps.
b. Pollution Control and Prevention Projects. To incentivize investments in pollution prevention equipment, companies that undertake certain specified environmentally beneficial activities will be free to do so upon submission of a notice to their permitting authority, rather than having to wait for adjudication of a New Source Review Permit Application.
c. Clean Unit Provision. To encourage the installation of state-of-the-art pollution controls, the EPA will give facilities that attain Clean Unit status flexibility to make modifications to their equipment in the future without a New Source Review if they continue to operate within permitted limits. This flexibility is an incentive for facilities to voluntarily install the best available equipment, including the best available pollution controls.
d. Emissions Calculation Test Methodology. To provide facilities with a more accurate procedure for evaluating the effect of a project on future emissions, the final regulations improve how a facility calculates whether a particular change will result in a significant emissions increase and thereby trigger New Source Review permitting requirements.
e. Equipment Replacements. The regulations also provide for an exclusion from New Source Review of a replacement of equipment if (i) it involves replacement of an existing component of a process unit with an identical or functionally equivalent component at a fixed capital cost of the replacement component, plus the costs of any repair and maintenance activities that are part of the replacement activity, that does not exceed 20% of the replacement value of the process unit, (ii) the replacement does not change the basic design parameters of the process unit, and (iii) the replacement does not cause the unit to exceed any existing emissions limit.
The foregoing changes hardly constitute the environmental Armageddon described in Carolyn’s article. Their purpose and probable effect is to increase the likelihood that operators of older, coal-fired electrical generation facilities, which were the subject of grandfathering protection in the 1977 Amendment to the Clean Air Act which created New Source Review, will increase the efficiency of those facilities without increasing emissions and thereby reduce their requirements for fossil fuel consumption. These changes were made as a consequence of an EPA study of the New Source Review program which demonstrated that the program has an adverse impact on investment in expanding and preserving energy production capacity, as well as energy efficiency. It found that investment was hindered by (i) regulatory uncertainty and lack of flexibility resulting from confusion about the program’s requirements, and (ii) the added costs and delays caused by the New Source Review process. The study found that the New Source Review permit process could add a year or more to the time needed to review a proposed plant modification and cost over $1,000,000. As a consequence of these uncertainties and inefficiencies, the EPA found that many companies were delaying or abandoning plans to modernize their facilities in ways that would benefit energy production as well as the environment.
Those companies that did choose to modernize their facilities often did so without a New Source Review; and, starting in 1998, many of these modernization projects became the subject of litigation with the EPA that has still not been resolved. Thus, prior to the changes promulgated by the Bush Administration, New Source Review, as it related to existing facilities, had not resulted in any significant decrease in pollution. It was, however, extremely productive of litigation. By amending New Source Review and imposing a declining cap and trade program on those existing facilities, the Bush Administration erected a system in which the basis for litigation has been removed, the stability of the nation’s supply of electricity has been enhanced, and there is at last some assurance that the facilities grandfathered by New Source Review will over time either be shut down or cleaned up.
7. The portion of Carolyn’s article dealing with air pollution also fails to mention proposals by the Bush Administration which, when implemented, should result in significant improvements in air quality. These proposals included the following:
a. In December of 2003, the EPA proposed a number of actions that should significantly reduce current levels of power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury. These include a proposed rule to regulate mercury emissions from coal burning power plants. The proposed Utility Mercury Reductions Rule includes two approaches for reducing the estimated 48 tons of mercury currently emitted each year by coal burning power plants in the United States. One approach would require such plants to install Maximum Achievable Control Technologies under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. The second approach would set a mandatory declining cap on the total mercury emissions allowed from coal burning power plants nationwide. This approach, which allows emissions trading, would reduce mercury emissions by nearly 70% from current levels once facilities reach a final mercury cap which takes effect in 2018. The combination of a declining national emissions cap with the availability of emissions trading should help ensure that the reductions in mercury emissions occur in an economically efficient manner.
b. On February 26, 2004, the EPA issued rules requiring four industries to upgrade their facilities by installation of Maximum Achievable Control Technologies. These new rules affect industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters, plywood and compost wood products facilities, stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines, and automobile and light duty truck surface coatings facilities.
c. On May 31 of this year, the first phase of the EPA’s regional program to reduce ozone in the Eastern United States became effective. Under this program, 19 Eastern states and the District of Columbia were required to take actions to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides during the summer months. States will achieve the majority of these reductions from power plants and large industrial facilities through the Nitrogen Oxides Budget Trading Program, a regional market-based cap and trade program administered by the EPA. Also, the EPA has recently proposed a manufacturer-run, in-use emissions testing program for heavy-duty diesel trucks. Under this program, engine manufacturers will measure emissions from diesel engines and highway applications using portable on-board emission measurement systems.
In summary, far from the in draconian assault on the clean air regime described in Carolyn’s article, the Bush Administration has proposed incentivizing improved efficiency at certain aging coal-fired power plants and the installation of pollution control equipment at those power plants through a revision of the New Source Review program, which has been the subject of reform proposals since at least 1992. The Administration has also advanced a suite of additional proposals, some of which are described above, which are intended to further reduce air pollution in the United States. Taken together, these new rules have been described as the most important anti-pollution initiatives since the 1991 Clean Air Act Amendments that addressed acid rain.
Clean Water Issues. Carolyn’s article states that:
. . . the Bush Administration issued a Guidance in January 2003 that excludes isolated wetlands from Clean Water Act protection. In addition, the Administration began a rule making process that suggests eliminating protection for streams and wetlands that are non-navigable, isolated and intrastate.
This statement is, quite frankly, not true. In 2001, the United States Supreme Court, in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, limited federal authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate certain isolated wetlands. In that decision, the Court overturned the Army Corps of Engineers’ assertion of federal jurisdiction over certain isolated wetlands based on the presence of migratory birds. Writing for the majority, Mr. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote:
Section 404(a) of the Clean Water Act . . . regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into ‘navigable waters.’ The United States Army Corps of Engineers . . . has interpreted Section 404(a) to confer federal authority over an abandoned soil and gravel pit in northern Illinois which provides habitat for migratory birds. We are asked to decide whether the provisions of Section 404(a) may be further extended to these waters and, if so, whether Congress could exercise such authority consistent with the Commerce Clause . . . . We answer the first question in the negative and therefore do not reach the second.
Essentially, the Court said that the government of the United States does not have the authority to regulate waters which are not navigable and which are entirely intrastate, notwithstanding the presence of migratory birds. It was the Court, not the Bush Administration, that took this position.
In dicta, the Court went even further, saying that there
are significant constitutional questions raised by respondents’ application of their regulations, and yet we find nothing approaching a clear statement from Congress that it intended Section 404(a) to reach an abandoned sand and gravel pit such as we have here. Permitting respondents to claim federal jurisdiction over ponds and mudflats falling within the “Migratory Bird Rule” would result in a significant impingement of the States’ traditional and primary power over land and water use.
The January 2003 Guidance referred to by Carolyn was issued by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers in response to the decision by the Court to clarify the following:
a. Field staff should continue to assert jurisdiction over traditional navigable waters and adjacent wetlands and, generally speaking, their tributary systems as well as their adjacent wetlands.
b. In light of the decision of the Court, field staff should not assert Clean Water Act jurisdiction over isolated waters that are both intrastate and non-navigable, where the sole basis available for asserting Clean Water Act jurisdiction rests on any of the factors listed in the Migratory Bird Rule.
c. In light of the Court’s decision, field staff should seek project specific approval prior to asserting jurisdiction over isolated, non-navigable, intrastate waters based on other types of intrastate commerce links listed in current regulatory definitions of “Waters of the United States.”
In the announcement of the issuance of the Guidance in January 2003, the EPA specifically noted that, although the decision of the Court limits federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction over isolated, intrastate, non-navigable waters and wetlands, other federal or state laws and programs still cover these waters and wetlands. In particular, the announcement identified the Food Security Act’s “Swamp Buster” requirements and the Wetlands Reserve Program under the United States Department of Agriculture. In addition, other federal programs supporting wetlands protection and restoration continue, notwithstanding the Court’s decision, including the following: the Fish and Wildlife Services Partners in Wildlife, the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Coastal Wetlands Restoration Program, the EPA’s 5-Star Restoration Program, the National Estuary Program, and the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.
Additionally, Carolyn’s article does not reflect other clean water proposals made by the Administration. For example, the President’s 2005 budget proposal includes $45,000,000 for the clean-up of contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes. This increase in Great Lakes Legacy Program funding will be used to start or further the clean-up of four to six areas in which sediment is heavily contaminated with PCBs, heavy metals, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
Superfund Sites. Carolyn criticizes the Administration for failing to seek reinstatement of a corporate excise tax which expired in 1995, the proceeds of which apparently were used to fund the clean-up of Superfund sites where the parties responsible for those sites were bankrupt or otherwise no longer available. In Carolyn’s words, “the Bush administration has shifted the cost to taxpayers.” In this regard, two points are worthy of note:
1. Seventy percent of all Superfund sites are cleaned up by those responsible for the pollution. Since the beginning of the Superfund program, more than $21 billion in clean-up commitments and funding have been provided by responsible parties.
2. Superfund site clean-ups not funded by responsible parties have of necessity been funded by taxpayers both before and after the expiration of the tax provision cited by Carolyn. The only effect of the expiration was to change the source of the federal funds from a corporate excise tax to the general funds of the United States. Quite apart from the questionable logic and purpose of causing entities not responsible for Superfund sites to fund the clean-up of those sites, the ultimate financial impact on the public of the expiration of the excise tax is negligible. A corporate excise is a direct charge on sales which has two principal effects. First, it reduces the supply of the goods subject to excise. All excise taxes reduce profit margins, and any reduction in profit margin will over time result in decreased investment, which will in turn result in a decrease in supply and a consequent increase in price. The second effect of an excise tax is to reduce corporate profits and therefore the returns that a corporation pays to its stockholders. Therefore, had either the Clinton Administration or the Bush Administration reinstated the corporate excise tax referred to by Carolyn, the ultimate payors of the clean-up costs in question would have been individual taxpayers, either in the form of reduced returns on their investments in the corporations subject to the excise tax or in the form of increased prices occasioned by the excise tax. One is therefore prompted to ask why it constitutes environmental apostasy to fund the clean-up costs of Superfund sites from general revenues, rather than excise revenues, where no responsible party is available to pay those costs.
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Carolyn opposes the Bush Administration’s proposal to drill for oil and natural gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Her principal arguments in support of this position are as follows:
1. “Government estimates indicate that there is less than a six-month supply of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.”
2. “Supporters of drilling in the Refuge claim that the impact could be limited to 1,000 acres, but that is disingenuous. Exploration and development would sprawl across the entire 1.5 million acres.”
3. “Drilling for oil in the Arctic would not put a dent in our dependence on foreign oil, would do nothing to strengthen our national security, would not save consumers a dime or solve problems like the Northeast Blackout.”
These statements are neither complete nor accurate.
The legislative history of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge begins in 1978 and 1979 when the House of Representatives passed legislation designating the entire Regional Range, including the now contested Arctic Coastal Tundra, as wilderness. The Senate version of the bill, however, required studies of wildlife and petroleum resources, as well as the potential impacts of oil and gas development within the northern part of the Range, and postponed the decision to authorize oil and gas development or wilderness designation. Following the 1980 elections, the House accepted the Senate version of the bill and President Carter signed the Alaska National Interests Lands Conservation Act (“ANILCA”) into law. ANILCA doubled the size of the Range to approximately 19.6 million acres and renamed it the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Section 1002 of ANILCA outlined additional information that would be required before Congress could designate approximately 10% of the Refuge as wilderness or permit oil and gas development there. This parcel has subsequently become known as Area 1002.
Subsequent studies of the potential for oil and gas development from Area 1002 and the effect of that development on the ecology of the Refuge are not conclusive, in that no study I have reviewed has clearly identified the production footprint that would be required to extract oil and gas from Area 1002. The total land mass of Area 1002 occupies approximately 1.5 million acres of the approximately 19.6 million acres which constitute all of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Proponents of drilling for oil and gas in Area 1002 argue that the drilling activity would be limited to 2,000 acres within the larger land mass of Area 1002. Opponents of drilling argue that the 2,000 acres would be spread throughout Area 1002 as a consequence of the apparently diffuse nature of the oil and gas deposits in question. Proponents respond that modern directional drilling techniques would not require such a disbursed oil production infrastructure. I have yet to see a study which indicates the total amount of production which could be anticipated from Area 1002 using directional drilling techniques in a discreet, rather than a disbursed, production footprint.
What is clear, however, is that the estimated reserves of petroleum in Area 1002 are not insignificant as claimed by Carolyn’s article. In March of this year, the Energy Information Administration issued a study that said that oil would be produced from Area 1002 at a rate of approximately 950,000 barrels per day by the year 2025. That amount (which excludes additional production from Prudhoe Bay that would not otherwise be available) constitutes two-thirds of the oil we import from Saudi Arabia today and a 20% increase in domestic production. This amount is not trivial and would have a substantial impact on supply and therefore price. If the situation in the Middle East remains unchanged or worsens, production from Area 1002 would also impact national security in that, although we now import 55% of our oil, if Area 1002 is not opened to development, the Energy Information Administration estimates that we will be importing 70% of our oil by 2025.
In view of the significant economic and national security implications of the possible production of oil and natural gas from Area 1002, it is incumbent upon both proponents and opponents of drilling to approach the issue from a rational perspective. The most recent ecological study assumes a disbursed drilling production footprint covering much more than 2,000 acres. Proponents argue that directional drilling will allow significant production from a discreet area with presumably fewer impacts on the environment. Both sides of the argument cannot be correct, and we owe it to ourselves to determine which side is correct. However, rational debate has not prevailed on this matter. Environmentalists seem to take it as an article of faith that no drilling should occur in Area 1002 even under the most favorable of circumstances; and proponents of drilling, rather than answering what should be relatively simple technical questions regarding directional drilling, respond with platitudes which denigrate the importance of Area 1002. In this regard, neither the environmentalists nor the advocates of production are serving the national interest.
Very truly yours,
Otto E. Sorensen
Good post. I copied it for future reference. The local papers are always full of articles condemning Bush environmental policies, and a lot of times I'm convinced they are misrepresenting the facts.
bttt...
good work.
Thank you.
Thank you.
BTTT!!!!!!!
Why is this? Why isn't the industry making a better case? Are they scared of the issue or are they too busy making money on their other offshore facilities? (I smell NRDC RICOnuts)
bttt
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.