<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="/stylesheets/rss.css"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/" xmlns:xcal="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xcal" xmlns:enc="http://www.solitude.dk/syndication/enclosures/">
  <channel>
    <title>Hill Heat: EPA Fully Embroiled in Scandal; Bush Changed Regulations</title>
    <link>http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2008/03/14/epa-fully-embroiled-in-scandal</link>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <ttl>40</ttl>
    <description>Science Policy Legislation Action</description>
    <item>
      <title>EPA Fully Embroiled in Scandal; Bush Changed Regulations</title>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span class="caps"&gt;EPA&lt;/span&gt; administrator Stephen L. Johnson has taken significant heat from &lt;a href="http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2007/12/20/further-california-waiver-denial-responses"&gt;environmental groups&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2007/12/20/california-reponses-to-california-waiver-denial"&gt;state officials&lt;/a&gt;, and Congress for his &lt;a href="http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2007/12/20/epa-admin-denies-california-waiver"&gt;December denial&lt;/a&gt; of California&amp;#8217;s Clean Air Act waiver request to enact &lt;span class="caps"&gt;AB 32&lt;/span&gt; to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions (and the &lt;a href="http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2008/02/29/epa-releases-california-waver-denial-justification"&gt;February release of his justification&lt;/a&gt;). Congressional investigations, though stonewalled repeatedly by Johnson, have revealed that &lt;a href="http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2008/02/27/senate-investigation-finds-top-epa-officials-supported-california-waiver"&gt;unanimous staff recommendations to approve the waiver&lt;/a&gt; were overturned by the administrator.&lt;/p&gt;


	&lt;p&gt;The Supreme Court decision &lt;em&gt;Mass. v. &lt;span class="caps"&gt;EPA&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, which compelled the agency to make a decision on the waiver, also required the agency to make an 
&lt;a href="http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2008/03/04/epa-puts-off-hard-decision-on-co2-endangerment-finding-may-face-new-lawsuit"&gt;endangerment finding&lt;/a&gt; as to whether greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health and if so, to issue motor vehicle regulations. On Wednesday Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)&amp;#8217;s Oversight Committee investigation &lt;a href="http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1807"&gt;revealed&lt;/a&gt; that Johnson in fact attempted to issue an endangerment finding and motor vehicle regulations in December, but was evidently overruled by the White House and Department of Transportation. Johnson is still being unresponsive to &lt;a href="http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1817"&gt;Waxman&amp;#8217;s investigation&lt;/a&gt;, as well as the &lt;a href="http://globalwarming.house.gov/mediacenter/pressreleases?id=0189"&gt;one newly opened&lt;/a&gt; by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) of the Global Warming Committee.&lt;/p&gt;


Late Wednesday night, the &lt;span class="caps"&gt;EPA&lt;/span&gt; issued new smog regulations, lowering the public health (primary) and public welfare (secondary) standards to 75 parts per billion from 84 ppb.  The Washington Post&amp;#8217;s Juliet Eilperin &lt;a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/12/AR2008031202362.html"&gt;revealed&lt;/a&gt; that the &lt;span class="caps"&gt;EPA&lt;/span&gt; scientific panel was overruled in its recommendation to establish a much lower seasonal secondary standard to protect plantlife during the growing season: 
&lt;blockquote&gt;Nearly a year ago, &lt;span class="caps"&gt;EPA&lt;/span&gt;&amp;#8217;s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee reiterated in writing that its members were &amp;#8220;unanimous in recommending&amp;#8221; that the agency set the standard no higher than 70 parts per billion (ppb) and to consider a limit as low as 60 ppb. &lt;/blockquote&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;She goes on to note that on March 6, the Office of Management and Budget&amp;#8217;s Susan E. Dudley sent a letter to the &lt;span class="caps"&gt;EPA&lt;/span&gt; asking them to consider the effect of a too strict regulation on &amp;#8220;economic values and on personal comfort and well-being,&amp;#8221;. &lt;span class="caps"&gt;EPA&lt;/span&gt; Deputy Administrator Marcus C. Peacock replied that &amp;#8220;EPA cannot consider costs in setting a secondary standard,&amp;#8221; with the cutting retort: &amp;#8220;EPA is not aware of any information that ozone has beneficial effects on economic values or on personal comfort and well being.&amp;#8221;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;


Today Eilperin further revealed that President Bush &lt;a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031304175.html"&gt;personally stepped in at the last minute&lt;/a&gt; to block the &lt;span class="caps"&gt;EPA&lt;/span&gt;&amp;#8217;s intended secondary standard.
&lt;blockquote&gt;The president&amp;#8217;s order prompted a scramble by administration officials to rewrite the regulations to avoid a conflict with past &lt;span class="caps"&gt;EPA&lt;/span&gt; statements on the harm caused by ozone. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement warned administration officials late Tuesday night that the rules contradicted the &lt;span class="caps"&gt;EPA&lt;/span&gt;&amp;#8217;s past submissions to the Supreme Court, according to sources familiar with the conversation. As a consequence, administration lawyers hustled to craft new legal justifications for the weakened standard. &lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:44:00 -0500</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">urn:uuid:be61478c-6d82-41f8-b324-6b34c73d04d6</guid>
      <author>The Cunctator</author>
      <link>http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2008/03/14/epa-fully-embroiled-in-scandal</link>
      <category>Policy</category>
      <category>EPA</category>
      <category>California waiver</category>
      <category>Mass v EPA</category>
      <category>Clean Air Act</category>
      <category>smog</category>
      <category>ozone</category>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.hillheat.com/articles/trackback/1974</trackback:ping>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
