Hill Heat: Tag EPA

In Draft of Greenhouse Gases Regulations, Bush Administration Attacks Clean Air Act

Wonk Room — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:38:00 -0500

After over a year of battles with the White House and other federal agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency has published its response to the April 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which mandated that the agency determine whether greenhouse gases pose a threat to our health and welfare and take action in response. With today’s publication of an “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson ignores the threat and attacks the rule of law.

Johnson published his staff’s document – after extensive cuts from the White House – with complaints attached from the White House Office of Management and Budget, the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the White House Council of Economic Advisers, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Department of Transportation, the U.S. Small Business Administration, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Energy.

In one voice, the other agencies attack the use of the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases as “deeply flawed and unsuitable,” “fundamentally ill-suited,” “extraordinarily intrusive and burdensome,” “unilateral and extraordinarily burdensome,” “drastic,” “dramatic,” “excessive,” “extremely expensive,” and “costly and burdensome.” The clear and present threat of global warming is dismissed as a “complex” issue that hinges on “interpretation of statutory terms.”

Sadly, Johnson decided to join them, attacking the immense work done by his staff to address the catastrophic threat of climate change:

I believe the ANPR demonstrates the Clean Air Act, an outdated law originally enacted to control regional pollutants that cause direct health effects, is ill-suited for the task of regulating global greenhouse gases.

In his press conference announcing the release of today’s decision, Johnson reiterated his opinion that the Clean Air Act is the “wrong tool” for the task, “trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.”

This is yet another case where Johnson is following the example of the likes of disgraced former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who made similar statements about the Geneva Conventions’ ban on torture as White House Counsel:

As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war. The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians. In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions.

Similarly, the White House’s arguments in defense of ignoring the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act’s ban on warrantless wiretapping:

Reverting to the outdated FISA statute risks our national security. FISA’s outdated provisions created dangerous intelligence gaps, which is why Congress passed the Protect America Act in the first place.

George W. Bush, Stephen Johnson, and the other officers of the executive branch swore an oath to “faithfully execute” their office and defend the Constitution. They have evidently decided to break that vow, time and again. In the Alice-in-Wonderland world of the Bush administration, it’s always the “quaint,” “outdated,” “burdensome,” and “ill-suited” laws that are the problem—never their reckless abandonment of principle and duty.

Office of Vice President Censored Testimony on Global Warming Endangerment

Wonk Room — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:30:00 -0500

From the Wonk Room.

Last fall, as the Environmental Protection Agency worked to satisfy its Supreme Court mandate to protect the American public from the threat of greenhouse gases, White House officials took steps to prevent such action. In a letter responding to questions by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chair of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, former EPA official Jason K. Burnett implicated the Office of the Vice President, Dick Cheney, as well as the White House Council on Environmental Quality for censoring “any discussion of the human health consequences of climate change” in testimony to Congress.

Although Burnett refused to assist in the efforts, the October testimony of Dr. Julie Geberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was “eviscerated,” with ten pages detailing the specific health threats of global warming – ranging from heat waves to floods – eliminated. After initial denials of White House interference, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino later claimed that the Office of Management and Budget had redacted testimony that contained “broad characterizations about climate change science that didn’t align with the IPCC.”

In fact, Burnett tells Sen. Boxer that the reason for the cuts was to “keep options open” for the EPA to avoid making an endangerment finding for global warming pollution, which would trigger immediate consequences for polluters. He writes:

On December 5th, under the direction of EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, Burnett emailed a formal endangerment finding to the White House Office of Management and Budget, but received a “phone call from the White House” that asked Burnett “to send a follow-up note saying that the email had been sent in error.” He declined to retract the email, which remained unread. Two weeks later, on December 19, Johnson put an end to EPA’s work on global warming regulations and rejected California’s petition to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions.

This May, Burnett resigned from the EPA. In June, President Bush asserted executive privilege to block investigation of his involvement. Boxer has called Burnett to testify before her committee on July 22, in a hearing on “the most recent evidence of the serious danger posed by global warming.” In a statement today, Boxer said:

History will judge this Bush Administration harshly for recklessly covering up a real threat to the people they are supposed to protect.

Read Dr. Gerberding’s unredacted testimony here.

Read Sen. Boxer’s letter to Jason Burnett, and his letter in response.

Appeals Court Rejects Petition to Order EPA to Make Global Warming Endangerment Finding

The Cunctator — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:46:00 -0500

The U.S. District Court of Appeals has unanimously rejected a petition requesting it require the Environmental Protection Agency to issue its long-delayed finding as to whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health and welfare. The petition had been filed by officials of 18 states exactly a year after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which ordered the EPA to issue an endangerment finding.

Since that time, Congressional and journalistic investigations have discovered that Administrator Stephen Johnson, with assistant deputy administrator Jason K. Burnett, worked to obey the Supreme Court decision and completed its work for submission to the White House on December 5, 2007. But the White House refused to accept the work, literally keeping Burnett’s email unopened and ordering him to retract the message. He refused to do so, and has since resigned.

The White House overrode the EPA decision to make the endangerment finding, to grant California a waiver to issue its own greenhouse tailpipe emissions regulations, and to recommend federal standards. Instead, Johnson denied California’s waiver and is expected to issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking sometime soon with draft emissions standards (he has missed his self-imposed deadline of the end of spring).

EPA's New Ozone Standards

Wonk Room — Tue, 20 May 2008 13:00:00 -0500

The hearing, originally scheduled for May 8, will examine the new ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the process the Environmental Protection Agency used in setting them.

On March 12, 2008, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson finalized updated NAAQS for ozone, a primary component of smog. The new ozone NAAQS are comprised of a revised primary standard to protect health and a revised secondary standard to protect the environment. In setting both standards, EPA Administrator Johnson did not accept the recommendations provided to him by EPA’s independent scientific review committee, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). With regard to the secondary standard, Administrator Johnson’s efforts to set a new standard were overruled by the White House.

In light of new information obtained by the Committee, questions are also expected regarding the White House’s role in EPA’s action to block California’s program to regulate greenhouse gases from automobiles.

Witnesses

Panel I

Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
Susan E. Dudley, Administrator of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Dr. Rogene Henderson, Chair, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee

Panel II

Dr. Francesca Grifo, Senior Scientist, Union Of Concerned Scientists
Michael Goo, Climate Legislative Director, Natural Resources Defense Council
Dr. Roger O. McClellan, Advisor, Toxicology and Human Heath Risk Analysis
Alan Charles Raul, Partner, Sidley Austin, LLP

1:50 Waxman We have seen White House interference with federal agencies in the run-up to the Iraq War, torture, and US Attorneys. The record is overwhelming that EPA’s experts all supported grating the waiver petition.

EPA’s expert advisory committee unanimously recommended a new standard for protecting the environment. Johnson supported the new seasonal standard. He said there was ‘no evidence’ for a different standard.

Our investigation has not been able to find any evidence President Bush based his decision on the science or the law. I support the broad powers the Constitution vests with the President, but he does not have unlimited powers and he is not above the law.

1:55 Issa We’re all entitled to our opinions, not our facts. The appropriate role of the President was established by the Constitution. President Clinton offered a prime example of an executive involved in regulatory actions. We know that on March 12, Susan Dudley sent a memo to the EPA indicating President Bush’s decision on the ozone standard. It does not reflect any unusual or improper action. The Clinton executive order makes it clear that the President will decide disputes between OIRA and the EPA. The President agreed with OIRA’s conclusions.

Claiming that science dictates a certain outcome is contrary to science and law.

2:05 Waxman It’s the policy to swear in the witnesses. Your prepared statements have been submitted. Please keep your oral opening statements within five minutes.

Johnson I’m pleased to discuss EPA’s decision to significantly increase ozone standards. Since 1980, ozone levels have been cut by 20 percent. I concluded the 1997 no longer protected public health with an adequate level of safety. I chose 0.075 ppm as the 8-hour standard. I proposed a three-month standard to address plants’ cumulative exposure to ozone. As required by Executive Order 12866, I coordinated with other agencies. I believe it is time to modernize the Clean Air Act. Congress has adopted these principles in the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Clean Air Act is not a relic, but a living document.

2:10 Dudley Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, OIRA coordinates interagency review. Both OMB and EPA have been forthright on the ozone standards. No changes were made to the level or form of the health-based standard. Discussions of the secondary standard were exclusively on the form.

2:15 Henderson I’m testifying as the current chair of EPA’s CASAC. Dudley’s first memo was clearly disputed by Marcus Peacock. So the next memo she wrote said Bush made the decision. CASAC has been accused from wandering from scientific issues into policy. In this case policymakers have wandered into science. If the Administrator sets a standard outside the range outside the CASAC’s recommendations, one should ask whose advice he based his decision on. I would like to quote from Dr. Paul Gilman, “Setting the standards by fiat, behind closed doors, is not in our best interest.”

2:23 Waxman You’re the chair of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. Are the standards EPA Administrator Johnson set consistent with the science?

Henderson It is not consistent with the CASAC recommendations, which are based on the science.

Henderson We always recommend a range.

Waxman Did he select a number within the range?

Henderson No.

Johnson I would respectfully disagree with the characterization. I did agree with CASAC that the current standard was insufficient.

Waxman You think that you set the standard within the science. Your professional views may be scientific and legally correct. You recommended the secondary standard be set on cumulative exposure?

Johnson More correctly there were two options. Other agencies preferred a different option. The President provided input. Ultimately I made the decision.

Waxman As the head of the EPA you recommended a proposal. OMB didn’t like that proposal. You ultimately agreed with their proposal.

Johnson More accurately, I agreed with CASAC that a cumulative standard is most biologically accurate.

Waxman I want a direct answer.

Johnson I don’t believe it’s a yes or no question. There was one preferred by EPA, and one preferred by OMB. I think it’s good government.

Waxman Your staff said it was pure politics. And this isn’t the only time you were reversed by the White House. Jason Burnett said you recommended that you grant the California waiver. After talking to the White House, you changed your mind.

Johnson If you look through the 1000s of pages, it shows a very deliberative process where I considered all options.

Waxman Burnett told us under oath that you recommended a partial grant. Your staff also told us you recommended emissions standards.

Johnson It’s true there was a draft endangerment finding before the Energy Independence and Security Act was passed.

Waxman We interviewed 7 senior career EPA officials and they told us the same thing. The recommendation was submitted in the first week of December, and then all work stopped. You’ve become a figurehead. Three times you recommended to deal with climate change and protect the environment, three times you back down. Congress passes the law, the Executive Branch is supposed to faithfully execute them. The President seems to think he can do what he pleases. Let’s go to this ozone decision.

Johnson There were many uncertainties. That’s why I chose the primary form. It’s a very transparent process. I think that’s good government.

2:36 Issa You’re a career professional.

Johnson I came to EPA in 1980.

Issa You’re not a political appointee.

Johnson I’m a career professional and a political appointee.

Issa Today we’re talking about a reduction and trying to go through what good deed goes unpunished. Is Mr. Waxman’s district in compliance with the ozone standard? Has it ever been?

Johnson No. The law prohibits me from considering costs. I believe there’s an opportunity to improve the Clean Air Act. I think it’s unconscionable to have communities not in compliance with the standard for twenty years.

Issa For CO2, it’s time for Congress to act.

Johnson I wholeheartedly agree. Dealing with a global air pollutant, my experience is that a legislative fix is correct. I believe global climate change, greenhouse emissions need to be addressed. I’m issuing an advanced notice of a rulemaking process this spring.

Issa Today we appear to be having a hearing about whether a 11% reduction is worse than a 16% reduction.

Johnson That’s certainly a view. I wholeheartedly agreed with CASAC that it needs to be reduced.

Issa Basically, if 2,3,4 years from now we’ve achieved a portion of this reduction, there’s nothing to stop this from happening at any time.

Johnson We’re required every five years to review each and every one of these standards. The Agency has never met the five-year requirement. We’re required to make these evaluations.

2:44 Bilbray I don’t come from a business background. I come from a regulatory background. Sheer population has been ignored from the environmental impact. Doctor, you serve on one of the most critical bodies. Back in the 90s, when California petitioned for a waiver for MTBE, were you involved?

Henderson My chairmanship began in 2004.

Bilbray What was the Clinton justification for requiring us to put MTBE and ethanol in our fuel?

Johnson It was before my time.

Bilbray Mr. Chairman, I was outraged at the time that the Clinton administration was bowing to political pressure. For us to point fingers at one administration when we waited for a decade is wrong.

2:45 Tierney What did you mean by “willful ignorance”?

Henderson I don’t believe OMB actually read our documents. It bothers me that when all the hard work went in for a secondary standard, someone can just say, “Nope, can’t do that.”

Tierney You want to respond?

Johnson The record clearly indicates it was a difficult decision.

Tierney An EPA lawyer wrote, “We could be exposed to a contempt proceeding.” Mr. Johnson, I think what’s happening is pretty unacceptable. By your own words, it was “necessary” and “compelling” to set this secondary standards. Nearly 1000 scientists said they experienced at least one instance of political interference.

Johnson I’d like to quote to you, if I may, Dr. Paul Gilman, “EPA has become too politicized in its actions.” That was the Clinton administration.

Tierney Are you proud of what’s going on now?

Johnson I’m proud. My role as Administrator is to evaluate the science.

Bilbray UCS Survey?

Johnson I am aware the survey was received by political appointees and non-scientists.

Bilbray For this to be used as some kind of scientific document. No pollster would accept this. Doctor, in your analysis, was their a consideration of economic impact?

Henderson We are not allowed to consider costs. We did consider what was biologically relevant. I have a concern for the affect of ozone on vegetation as well as people. We are neglecting the rural areas.

Bilbray How long have you been chairman?

Henderson Four years.

Bilbray You didn’t talk about economic value of crops that could have been destroyed.

3:00 Johnson I’m not allowed to consider costs or whether it can be implemented or not. With all science there are uncertainties. Judgment needs to be exercised.

Henderson Welfare includes but is not limited to … economic well-being.

3:02 Higgins I’d like to focus on the primary standard and health impacts. Did you find the primary standard to be sufficient?

Henderson No.

Johnson I disagree.

Higgins EPA estimated 350 more deaths, 10,000 asthma attacks, 750 emergency hospital visits, at your standard.

Johnson The Clean Air Act does not require zero risk. It is the most health-protective standard of our nation’s history. I’m very proud of that.

Higgins I have a letter from the American Lung Association strongly critiquing this decision. Your decision seems to be inconsistent with mainstream thinking. It’s just not credible to argue your decision is based on science.

Johnson I disagree. It is the most health-protective standard of our nation’s history. Ultimately, I need to make the tough decision.

3:08 Platts I yield to Issa.

Issa Could we put the map up on the board. My understanding that everywhere that’s dark – which unfortunately includes most of California – there’s no effective difference between primary and secondary standard.

3:18 Hodes With all due respect I’m asking the questions. Do you recall or not recall discussing costs with the White House?

Johnson Even if I recall, I don’t want to answer the question.

Hodes Are you asserting privilege?

Johnson I’m not asserting privilege.

Hodes Do you or don’t you recall?

Johnson Even if I recall, I don’t believe if it is appropriate to answer the question.

3:20 Sarbanes Explain your memo.

Dudley The air quality based on the secondary standard is the same. What we care about is air quality. The two standards would have the same effect.

Sarbanes I’m incredulous. The administrator said he found “compelling” evidence that a cumulative index is the best way to measure effects on vegetation. I could see you asserting inadequate evidence, but that there was no evidence doesn’t seem to jive with all the other testimony and documentation.

Dudley There are two different issues here. The form of the standard won’t affect the air quality of those counties.

Sarbanes What you’re saying strikes me as doubletalk. Did the President or the White House indicate to you that there would be times when the science would be overriden by political purposes?

Johnson My charge and oath of office was to carry out the laws. The President said he wanted me to accelerate the environmental protection. I carried this out to the best of my ability, based on sound science. Science isn’t pure.

Sarbanes I can’t think of a clearer example of where your charge came into conflict with the Presidential edict.

3:26 Welch Jason Burnett is a senior member of the EPA. He’s been deposed. He testified you favored granting this waiver in full in August and September.

Johnson Over time…

Welch Let’s keep it simple. Is he correct in his recollection?

Johnson I don’t recall the August and September timeline. I was considering all options.

Welch Mr. Burnett said that in August and September you were favoring granting a waiver in full.

Johnson As I said, I considered all the options.

Welch It’s obvious you did. Is he right that you considered a partial grant?

Johnson Yes.

Welch Did you have a meeting with the President about this?

Johnson I have routine meetings with the President and the executive branch.

Welch Did you have a meeting with the President about this?

Johnson When and where…

Welch Does “transparent” mean we can’t know whether you met with the President?

Johnson I believe as Administrator I need to have private meetings with the President.

Welch Did I ask the content of the meeting? Did your staff present you a slide stating that the most legally defensible option was granting the waiver?

Johnson I don’t recall that particular slide.

Welch Did the EPA staff make it clear the statutory

Johnson There were a wide range of options.

Welch It’s a little frustrating.

Johnson It shouldn’t be frustrating.

Waxman You admitted you have a conversation with the President on the California waiver.

Johnson I have routine conversations.

Waxman You are being awfully evasive.

Johnson I have routine conversations.

Waxman Did you have any conversation with the President on any of these three rules?

Issa Regular order! I want a copy of the rules!

Waxman I will have the gentleman physically removed if he does not desist.

Waxman Did you have any conversation with the President on any of these three rules?

Johnson I have routine conversations, I don’t believe it is appropriate for me to discuss the content of these conversations.

Waxman Are you asserting privilege?

Johnson Not at this time.

3:36 Watson Was the Vice President’s office involved the California waiver?

Johnson Not to my knowledge.

Watson According to press accounts, the CEO of Ford and GM met with the Vice President’s office.

Johnson It’s not a problem unique to California.

Watson Was there any input from the White House that influenced your final decision?

Johnson My decision was based on the science and the law.

Watson Was there any input from the White House that influenced your final decision?

Johnson I have routine conversations…

Watson Yes or no.

Johnson The answer is, no, they did not make the decision.

Watson That was not my question. Maybe my English was not clear. In your routine conversations, was there any input from the Vice President?

Johnson I don’t recall any.

3:43 Issa Our deliberations are protected from discovery by the executive branch. It’s no surprise that you might wish the same privilege. You serve at the pleasure of the president, but he does not have authority over your actions. Is that correct?

Johnson Yes.

Issa Chairman Dingell declared regulation of CO2 a “glorious mess.”

Johnson I believe there are many intricacies with the Clean Air Act. My personal opinion is that given the years and years of litigation is to prefer a legislative approach.

3:46 Cummings This stuff is personal for me, because I have asthma. In my district in Baltimore my constituents have a high rate of asthma. We’re curious as to how our administrator, our man in the EPA makes his decisions. You’ve said “it’s not a popularity contest.” Do you remember saying that?

Johnson I do, and I agree with it.

Cummings All too frequently the courts have decided your decisions do not conform to the law. Did you know your decisions before the DC Circuit Court have been overturned over two thirds of the time?

Johnson Yes.

3:59 Waxman You were required to produce documents by April 19. Has the President asserted executive privilege with regards to these documents?

Johnson I’m not making an assertion of executive privilege, instead I’m making my staff available to you.

Dudley Our lawyers are discussing the documents. I have a letter from OMB General Counsel.

Waxman We’ve made reasonable accomodations to Executive Branch interests. You’re trying to shield the White House from oversight. Unless there’s a valid claim of executive privilege, you have to turn over the documents. There’s been no assertion of executive privilege. This is a serious issue, and your defiance of the subpoena is a serious matter.

4:02 Waxman The record shows this committee spared no effort in oversight of the Clinton administration.

Issa We have a long tradition of looking into it and recognizing the President has a role to play.

Johnson The challenge we have as a nation is to move forward. 50% of our electricity comes from coal. France is much less.

Issa You have a responsibility as a federal officer to all Americans. My understanding is protecting our commerce against arbitrary standards.

Johnson Again, I have three criteria. Acceleration of temperatures, other parts of the country make it worse. In my judgment, it did not meet the “compelling and extraordinary” standard.

4:09 Bilbray The standard that we’re complaining with the ozone standard. The science panel recommended a max of .07.

Henderson It was a range from .06 to .07.

Cannon

4:15 Johnson I have to say for the record those are not the criteria.

4:16 Waxman You’re willing to make a mockery of the rulemaking process. The record tells us what happened. Your testimony pretends none of this happened. I can’t adequate how deeply this saddens me and how poorly it reflects on the EPA.

Energy and Related Economic Effects of Global Climate Change Legislation

Wonk Room — Tue, 20 May 2008 10:00:00 -0500

Representatives from CRS, EIA, EPA, and CBO discuss their economic analyses of Lieberman-Warner (S. 2191) and other emissions-controlling climate legislative proposals.

Witnesses

Brent Yacobucci, Congressional Research Service
Dr. Larry Parker, Congressional Research Service
Dr. Howard Gruenspecht, Deputy Administrator, Energy Information Administration
Dr. Brian McLean, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Dr. Peter Orszag, Congressional Budget Office

10:03 Domenici: The more of these hearings we can do the better off this country will be. We have five cap-and-trade bills in the Senate. Every single day, 11 out of 11 studies have concluded that these bills will result in higher energy costs, lower economic growth. The analyses of L-W don’t agree on much. Addressing global climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. I remain concerned about the dire consequences L-W could have for our nation. The best estimates of our capable minds often prove inaccurate. The EIA projection for oil prices in 2010 was $25. Even the projected environmental impacts of climate change have varied. IPCC’s assessment of sea level rise was reduced from three feet to 27 inches. Very few will have been able to provide input on the manager’s amendment. We’re all working on a bill that will be irrelevant. It is critical to look at what other countries have tried to do.

Assume the president signs L-W. What will we have achieved for the environment? Close to nothing. Without international participation, L-W will have reduced greenhouse gases by 1% by 2050.

China has surpassed us in global warming emissions. Addressing climate change is a great challenge, but not the only challenge we face.

Rather than choosing among cap-and-trade programs, we could look at promoting nuclear power and other tax incentives.

10:16 Bingaman Orzag recently testified before the Finance Committee.

10:17 Yacobucci explains a cap-and-trade system.

10:22 Parker CRS has conducted a review and synthesis of models projecting costs of S. 2191. Long-term cost projections are at best speculative.

10:30 Gruenspecht The projected impacts of L-W are highly sensitive to assumptions about availability of low and no-carbon energy sources and access to international offsets. Costs are roughly three times larger under least favorable assumptions than under most favorable assumptions. 80-90% of emissions reductions are in the electricity production sector. Over 90% of coal, the main emissions source impacted by a cap, goes into electricity production.

10:37 McLean discusses EPA report.

10:43 Orzag Addressing climate change will involve short-term economic costs. Timing is important. An inflexible cap is bad. Giving the permits away is equivalent to auctioning the permits and giving the money to the polluters. Two key factors of a cap-and-trade system include timing flexibility and auction revenue.

10:49 Bingaman A NAM/ACCF study envisions 75% higher allowance costs than the EIA study but economic impact three times higher. Can you explain why?

Gruenspecht The allowance price difference reflect some of the assumptions, like the absence of banking. We were surprised by the size of macroeconomic losses done for NAM. We asked to look at some of their modeling results and met with their contractor. They used EIA’s high-priced oil policy scenario but compared it to the low-price scenario. We think there are some abnormal results in their report.

Bingaman Basically there’s double-counting?

Gruenspecht They’re mixing the impact of two different things.

Bingaman A price ceiling and floor is the best mechanism?

Orzag I don’t want to say best, but yes.

10:55 Barrasso Effect on gas prices?

Gruenspecht If electricity sector can’t reduce emissions, gas price effect can range from $0.40 to $1.00.

Barrasso I want Americans to be aware of the effects on their pocketbook. You talk about uncertainties. The uncertainties are one of magnitude, not direction: how many jobs will be lost. Will a safety valve help?

Parker A safety valve – putting an upper limit on price – is a very effective of limiting economic impact.

Barrasso There’s going to be lower wages and lower returns for retirement plans no matter what you do.

Parker Prices will go up but whether or not bills will go up depends on individual action. We found bills may go down.

Barrasso Nuclear energy.

Gruenspecht Public acceptance is important.

11:07 Sanders What happens if you don’t act?

Orzag I think climate change is among the nation’s and world’s highest long-term risk. There is some danger of catastrophic change. The question is one of timing. It’s like paying an insurance premium.

Sanders We’re paying $10 billion more for Katrina. What will flooding, drought, war cost? That’s really what we’re debating. It’s disaster if we don’t go forward. I believe you’re underestimating efficiency and renewable energy. Of course there going to be economic dislocation.

McLean On the impacts. I think this is an area that concerns us greatly. It’s a very hard area to quantify and monetize. We’re working on that. On energy efficiency and renewables, there’s a lot we can say about that. We show a huge increase in renewable energy.

Corker The bill that came out is not just a cap-and-trade bill. It’s a huge spending bill. It spends every penny in a non-discretionary way. I think the whole issue of allowances because we’re passing out what is like public shares in a public company. I know the romance of this is interesting. There’s a lot underneath this that is going to affect us. Transfering trillions of dollars of wealth. $7.2 trillion, maybe $23 trillion. I think that’s important. I don’t understand why we would be allocating credits out to middlemen.

In essence this bill transfers out hundreds of billions of dollars to states for no reason.

Orzag It is a key insight that much of this money represents a windfall.

Corker It makes absolutely no sense to give allowances to people not involved in emissions. This bill provides for us to provide international credits. What it does do is transfer out, when we have a trade deficit, hundreds of billions of dollars to projects that are often wracked with fraud.

McLean What would states do with money? I’m not defending the amount of money or the policy decision. A lot of efficiency programs are run at the state level.

Corker I hope this is a dry run.

11:24 Salazar What we’re doing is defining a new energy future for America. There’s a lot of learning yet to be had. On the allocation of the auction revenues. Is this the right allocation?

Orzag It depends what your objective is. Low-income households, minimize macroeconomic costs, spur innovation. A more effective approach to cushion macroeconomic costs would be to auction the permits and use that to reduce payroll taxes.

Salazar A lot of people have talked about a Manhattan-style project. Would it be better to put the money into that pot than to lower costs on low-income consumers?

Orzag It’s big, but there is a given size. You can’t do all things for all people at all times. The price signal will do some things. You can auction revenue and explicitly fund R&D. Or allocate permits to entities that do the work, but that would be more opaque.

Gruenspecht There are issues of economic efficiency and fairness.

Salazar We have these great thoughts and great programs. We talk about hybrids and clean-coal technology. This is an opportunity to marry our work to deal with climate change to make our vision a reality.

11:32 Domenici You’re talking about this as if it is another huge Federal Reserve System. You have made it eminently clear. I think people are going to be very quizzical about what we’re doing. I believe is what we really need to do is develop new technology as rapidly as possible to clean up what we need to clean up, and then clean things up.

Murkowski Is it fair?

Parker None of the models will give you the answer reliably what the cost will be. What the models can do is whether we’ve designed the bill to hold the price down. How can they be modified to bring these reductions at the most economic level.

Murkowski Most useful, but for whose end? If I’m opposed to cap-and-trade, I’ll look at NAM’s model. We can use these models as we use statistics to support our particular situation.

Gruenspecht The different studies start from different baselines. They analyze different provisions. CRA gets a large impact from the low-carbon fuel standard. I already had a long discussion with NAM may have wrapped up two different scenarios. It’s technology and technology acceptance.

12:00 Craig I don’t know if I’m willing to risk Idahoans on the environmental or economic models of climate change. We spent years shaping energy legislation. You’re all over the field, as is the country. I’m not quite sure I can remember, have we as a Congress ever tried to micromanage the market. And I think the answer is no, never before. We’re averaging about 1.9 hurricanes in the United States. An average of $5 billion. The impact of this bill is between three to nine hundred hurricanes. We’ve spread the hurricane hit nationwide. It isn’t just Florida and the Gulf Coast and the East Coast. Now the whole country gets hit, from an economic point of view. Old speak, new speak or green speak, I don’t know where we are. But I suspect no speak is the best way for us to go.

12:08 Bingaman Second-order impacts like employment?

Parker Once you move from first-order to second-order impacts you lose even more certainty. You’re making a whole host of assumptions about a quality of life of a generation that doesn’t even now work. My concerns would be increased when talking about employment numbers.

Orzag The main effect will be on the type of jobs, not the number of jobs.

Bingaman There’s no effort to adjust for dynamic effects.

Orzag I tend not to focus on the job numbers that come out of these assessments.

Gruenspecht I too tend to be very skeptical of job numbers.

Corker Right now 52% of auction proceeds go into technology development. A five-person board, not the Congress, decides how this money is spent. Would this distinguished, mind-numbing panel agree that upstream is a direct tax, pretty much?

Orzag In economics, direct and indirect taxes have a specific meaning. But consumers will bear pretty much all of the cost no matter what.

Corker Upstream is easier to monitor. This is in essence a tax. It is in fact a carbon tax. What’s happened is interest groups have gathered around the table and have made what could have been very simple with a carbon tax very complicated. I’d like you to address the efficacy of a carbon tax that increased over time.

Orzag Economic analysis generally suggest that a carbon tax is more efficient. You can make the cap-and-trade similarly efficient by auctioning all the permits and offering significant flexibility in timing.

Corker And we’re allocating about 70% up front.

Orzag At the very start it’s even greater.

Yacobucci You’d still have to decide where that money goes if it’s a tax.

Corker We’re going to be offering an amendment to return all the revenues to consumers. We’re going to be debating on the floor a tax. Two candidates for president advocated a gas-tax holiday. I think we need to be very transparent about this. Citizens need to know we’re driving up the price of petroleum.

Murkowski Is there something we can do to get the technology in place first?

Orzag Pricing carbon will create a strong incentive for technologies to be developed and diffused throughout the economy.

Murkowski And the impact might be higher in certain areas.

McLean A price signal and investment in R&D both have impact. I think we need to do both.

Waxman: 'White House Involved in California Waiver Denial'

Wonk Room — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:25:00 -0500

From the Wonk Room.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) has today released documents and testimony that show White House involvement in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to deny California’s request for a waiver to enforce its greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and trucks.

According to testimony by former EPA Associate Deputy Administrator Jason Burnett, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson’s “preference for a full or partial grant of the waiver did not change until after he communicated with the White House” :

When asked by Committee staff “whether the Administrator communicated with the White House in between his preference to do a partial grant and the ultimate decision” to deny the waiver, Mr. Burnett responded: “I believe the answer is yes.” When asked “after his communications with the White House, did he still support granting the waiver in part,” Mr. Burnett answered: “He ultimately decided to deny the waiver.” Mr. Burnett also affirmed that there was “White House input into the rationale in the December 19th letter” announcing the denial of the waiver and in the formal decision document issued in March 2008.

Burnett refused to testify on any further specifics, telling the investigators “that he had been directed not to answer any questions about the involvement of the White House in the decision to reject California’s petition.” Burnett, who was involved in a series of questionable EPA decisions during his tenure, resigned from the EPA on May 6.

On December 19, 2007, the date President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson announced that his agency would deny California’s waiver request. This request, made in 2005, set off a series of legal battles that culminated in the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts vs. EPA that ordered the EPA to take action on greenhouse gases. Since then, the EPA has failed to obey the Supreme Court mandate, despite the efforts of career staff.

Waxman’s memo concludes:

It would be a serious breach if the President or other White House officials directed Administrator Johnson to ignore the record before the agency and deny California’s petition for political or other inappropriate reasons. Further investigation will be required to assess the legality of the White House role in the rejection of the California motor vehicle standards.

Johnson is expected to testify before Waxman’s committee tomorrow at 1 PM.

Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch writes:

This is an incredibly sordid story. Steve Johnson should come out and finally tell the truth about this situation. And he should resign for agreeing not only to be a White House pawn but for trying to deceive the public about what happened.

EPA Seeking Comments on Renewable Fuel Standard Waiver Request

EESI — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:01:00 -0500

On May 16, 2008 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it is seeking comments regarding a recent petition to reduce the volume of renewable fuels required under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). In a letter sent to EPA on April 25, 2008, Governor Rick Perry of Texas requested that the EPA cut the RFS mandate for ethanol production in half (RFS mandate for 2008 is 9 billion gallons), citing recent economic impacts in Texas. In response, EPA will soon publish a Federal Register Notice opening a 30-day comment period on the request.

In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which established the RFS program, provisions were included enabling the EPA Administrator to suspend part of the RFS if its implementation would severely harm the economy or environment of a state, region, or the entire country. EPA must make a decision on a waiver request within 90 days of receiving it.

EPA Renewable Fuel Standard Program
EPA Notice (PDF)

The Effects of Ethanol on Texas Food and Feed (PDF) — Study from Texas A&M University (April 2008)

If you have questions, please email or call Jetta Wong at jwong [at] eesi.org or (202) 662-1885.

Overview of EPA Investigations

Wonk Room — Thu, 08 May 2008 17:10:00 -0500

From the Wonk Room.

The scheduled Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing today on White House interference with ozone standards has been the hearing has been postponed because EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson refused to appear:

EPA officials say Johnson had a “recurrence of ongoing back issues stemming from a car accident years ago.”

Below is the current status of a number of EPA scandals Congress is expecting Administrator Johnson to answer for:

EPA SCANDAL	CURRENT STATUS
The denial of the California waiver petition.	January 8: California and 15 other states sue to overturn denial. April 9: Waxman issues latest subpoena for documents involving White House. April 22: NHTSA issues fuel-economy standards that it claims preempts state global warming standards; states warn of lawsuit.
Failure to obey Supreme Court mandate to make a global warming pollution endangerment finding.	March 27: EPA announces it will ask for a new round of comments. April 2: Officials of 18 states sue to require the EPA to act within 60 days April 2: EPA documents are subpoenaed by House Global Warming Committee; the documents have not been turned over. April 18: Court orders EPA to file its response to the state suit by May 8.
White House interference in ozone standards.	April 16: Waxman subpoenas White House documents. May 8: Date of scheduled Oversight Committee hearing with Administrator Johnson; postponed when Johnson refuses to appear.
Mary Gade firing.	May 1: EPA Region V Administrator Mary Gade resigns, saying “There’s no question this is about Dow.” Sen. Whitehouse (D-RI) and Rep. Dingell (D-MI) announce intent to investigate. May 7: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington file two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the EPA regarding Gade’s resignation.
Politicization of the EPA.	April 23: Union of Concerned Scientists issues survey of 1600 staff scientists describing mass politicization and political interference. April 29: Sen. Boxer (D-CA) releases Goverment Accountability Office report detailing politicization of toxic regulation. May 7: Senate Environment and Public Works Oversight Subcommittee holds hearing into politicization of EPA.

EPA's New Ozone Standards - POSTPONED

Wonk Room — Thu, 08 May 2008 10:00:00 -0500

Witnesses

Panel I

Stephen Johnson, administrator, U.S. EPA
Susan Dudley, administrator, Federal Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Rogene Henderson, chairwoman, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee

Panel II

Francesca Grifo, senior scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists
Michael Goo, climate legislative director, Natural Resources Defense Council
Roger McClellan, adviser, Toxicology and Human Health Risk Analysis
Alan Charles Raul, partner, Sidley Austin LLP.

Science and Environmental Regulatory Decisions

Wonk Room — Wed, 07 May 2008 09:30:00 -0500

Topics covered will include the firing of EPA regional administrator Mary Gade, the GAO report on the IRIS toxic assessment process and the UCS survey of political interference of EPA scientists.

Witnesses

Panel 1

George Gray, PhD., Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Panel 2

Dr. Francesca Grifo, Senior Scientist, Director, Scientific Integrity Program, Union of Concerned Scientists
Dr. Paul Gilman, Chief Sustainability Officer, Covanta Energy Corporation
Dr. David Michaels PhD, MPH, Research Professor and Associate Chairman, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, The George Washington University

Panel 3

Dr. George Thurston ScD., Professor of Environmental Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, Nelson Institute of Environmental Medicine
Dr. Roger McClellan, Private Advisor, Toxicology and Human Health Risk Analysis
Dr. Lorenz Rhomberg, Principal, Gradient Corporation
Dr. John Balbus, Chief Health Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund

9:30 Boxer Implications for children’s health.

9:48 Whitehouse IRIS. Mary Gade. The EPA is being polluted.

9:55 Inhofe I don’t believe Johnson is corrupt. I believe in “sound science.” We are passing economic burdens onto the states. What we have are more environmental regulations hindering environmental progress.

10:00 George Gray I serve as the Agency’s science adviser. EPA views the relationship between science, science policy, and regulation as a continuum. Our scientists are encouraged to publish. The scientific method encourages critical thinking and disagreement. We rely on policy processes to make decisions. From the lab bench to the Administrator’s desk, we follow a science-to-decision-making continuum in common with other federal agencies that rely on both science and science-policy considerations in decision-making.

10:06: Whitehouse If what you said is true, why did 889 scientists report political interference?

Gray We have to be careful about those numbers. This report provides useful information. It’s not statistically appropriate view of the EPA.

Whitehouse Just the raw data point.

Gray The number is unacceptable to me.

Whitehouse Why doesn’t your testimony reference this in any way? In the last two hearings we’ve heard enormous criticism about how OMB has been stuffed into even in the beginning of the process. These are fairly serious people making this challenge. There appears to be significant support for these concerns. And you act as if nothing is going on. There’s nothing going on but ‘yammering critics’?

Gray This agency relies on the best available decisions. We are very transparent in the way that we do things.

Whitehouse How are the secret meetings with OMB jibe with your claim that this is done transparently?

Gray Transparency is key to the way we do our assessments. The discussions we have with the rest of the federal agencies are kept deliberative. In the end of the IRIS, the assessment must pass strict peer review. There’s not room for monkeyshines.

Whitehouse Is it your testimony that OMB involvement is purely scientific?

Gray The development of scientific assessment involve science and science policy considerations. At the end, the decisions are transparently described.

Whitehouse The OMB and interagency IRIS review lack transparency.

10:12 Alexander How many scientists are employed by the EPA?

Gray Around 7000.

Alexander The recent ozone decision. How many scientists involved?

Gray Up to a hundred.

Alexander In the scientific advisory committee made a recommendation to the administrator.

Gray Yes.

Alexander The recommendation was that the standard should go to .06-.07. Is it possible those scientists would say it was political interference with the decision?

Gray Well..

Alexander Would you say one scientist might say their decision was overruled by political interference?

Gray I suppose so.

Alexander What factors caused the administrator to ignore the recommendation?

Gray He takes very seriously the advice.

Alexander You don’t know why. Lots of county mayors said they didn’t want it because they would lose auto jobs. Might have he considered economic factors?

Gray By law he is not allowed to consider that. There’s a lot of science.

Alexander Are the CASAC recommendations public?

Gray Yes.

Alexander Did the administrator explain why he made a different decision?

Gray He followed the requirement to do that.

Alexander That sounds like what senators do every day.

10:17 Boxer I wanted to show you a series of charts with headlines. This hearing is extremely important. If you just read the Supreme Court case decided in February 2001 written by Scalia. The Clean Air Act unambiguously bars economic cost considerations. They are not to allow politics into this. We can listen to the special interests. They’re not supposed to. It’s a disgrace. Politics is front and center at the EPA. The GAO knows what they’re talking about. The scientists are not being listened to and the special interests are invited in and everything is kept secret. I have to say, Mr. Gray. What do you mean when you say it’s transparent?

Gray We lay out the scientific and other bases for our decisions.

Boxer Do you support keeping the meetings secret?

Gray I disagree with GAO.

Boxer You agree with OMB that these documents have to be kept secret. You agree with keeping it secret and yet you say you believe in transparency.

Gray At the end of the process we are very transparent.

Boxer You have lost all credibility with me. It’s an outrage. Be honest, say you don’t agree with transparency.

10:23 Inhofe The UCS is a “radical green group.”

Gray There has been reluctance among some to acknowledge the degree of uncertainty in our science. It’s been really important that for the credibility of our decisions we have to characterize uncertainty.

Inhofe How has the ORD improved air quality?

Gray Our science helps support decisions about ambient air standards. The tightening of the particulate matter standard, ozone standard, lead standard.

10:29 Klobuchar In Minnesota we believe in science. CDC director Julie Geberding’s testimony was redacted. And now Mary Gade was forced out.

Gray In this case I have no direct knowledge. I cannot comment on an internal personnel matter.

Klobuchar How can we restore the credibility of the agency?

Gray The credibility of this agency is enhanced by the quality of our work. In our office we have no restrictions on our scientists or discussions with the press.

Klobuchar Why can’t we see the comments?

Gray You can see what outside scientists recommend.

Klobuchar Why did the administrator ignore the CASAC recommendation?

Gray The administrator did not ignore CASAC. That is the basis of his ultimate decision. He made a different choice based on his view of the science.

Klobuchar It was the unanimous recommendation of the advisers.

Gray Ultimately it is the administrator’s decision.

10:34 Whitehouse You admit other considerations would be illegal. What other science did Administrator Johnson look to on the ozone standards?

Gray This is a very good example of how uncertainty in science plays a factor.

Whitehouse You’re telling me the unanimous decisions of the advisory panels creates uncertainty?

Gray I certainly do. The panels put particular weight on the Adams study. The author said they misinterpreted it.

Whitehouse Frankly, I can’t see a legitimate explanation for this chain of events. This is not an alien group.

Gray We certainly never ignore the recommendations.

Whitehouse We can’t see the reasoning. Nobody can show me where the science is. Frankly, uncertainty is a lousy justification. In fact, because your job is to protect people, one would think you would err on the low side.

10:38 Alexander Did they not recommend .61? .62? .63? .64? They disagreed between .60 and .70. The scientists disagreed among themselves more than the administrator did. They can’t even agree between .06 and .07. In my opinion they disagreed more between themselves than the administrator did with them. Whose responsibility is it?

Gray The administrator’s.

Alexander Is the panel’s recommendation advisory?

Gray Yes.

Alexander The administrator’s decision was closer to the top range of the committee than the top range was to the bottom range. The only objection was that there was an interagency review. And that review isn’t public.

Gray That’s correct.

Alexander The Republican senators had a private discussion. I would think the Executive Branch is like that.

10:41 Boxer Comparing EPA to us doesn’t even make sense. They according to Justice Scalia cannot consider all these things we can consider. Your continuous claim that there’s transparency is ludicrous. This is Alice in Wonderland. There is no transparency. They didn’t follow the science. They went over the level any scientist recommended. Do you know why Administrator Johnson could not be here?

Gray I don’t know, but he’s been out of work because of his back.

Boxer There are serious charges that the White House interfered with this. The administrator needs to be up here. Do you know we have yet to receive emails from the White House dealing with the California waiver?

Gray No.

Boxer Will you find out and send me a letter?

Gray I can do that.

Boxer It is not a game. We have had a stall for seven and half years on climate change. There is no transparency here.

10:45 Klobuchar I want to follow up on the perchlorate hearing we held yesterday. Why has the EPA failed to issue a standard?

Gray Under the Clean Air Act there are no consideration of costs. Perchlorate is a very serious issue. We are moving to have a decision on perchlorate by the end of the year.

Klobuchar How long have we known since this was a risk?

Gray We are looking a toxicological models.

Gray Scientific information never converges on a single point. We try to reflect the uncertainty on that.

Klobuchar Do you think good science comes from the Annapolis Center? You were on the board. They just gave an award to Sen. Inhofe.

Gray I haven’t been on the board for the last eight years.

Boxer The statement that costs are not a consideration are a big lie. For you to sit here and say you follow the science. You’ve lost every lawsuit. I’m counting 11. You have tried to defend the indefensible and you have failed, as far as this senator is concerned.

Alexander I would ask consent to put into the record the recommendation of CASAC and the response of the EPA Administrator which under the law he has the sole authority to make. He agreed with the top range of the advisers more than the top range agreed with the bottom range.

Klobuchar I would like to put into the record the many health associations who agreed with the .060 standard.

11:14 George Thurston When the administrator ignores CASAC he ignore the Congress. It’s just untenable to cite uncertainty in choosing a standard less stringent. The Clean Air Act states that in the face of uncertainty a more stringent standard must be chosen. There is no uncertainty that there are adverse health effects at .075 level. The only uncertainty is the amount. Sen. Inhofe and I apparently agree on using “sound science.” And that is defined by law as CASAC.

11:19 Scientists understand science but they also have personal opinions.

11:35 Baucus I urge the EPA to make decisions based on science.

11:41 Whitehouse It’s important to remember when we discuss these process questions that has real consequences for real people. They have to stay inside or risk real medical problems. When EPA strays from its own science is it evenly balanced between straying too far towards the environment or too far towards industry?

Balbus In all of the cases I’m aware of, the decisions were tilted toward industry.

12:00 Whitehouse Dr. Grifo. When you have OMB with the ability to have secret meetings in the science stage of the EPA determination and inject its point of view, what safeguards are you aware of in the process that would restrict the OMB input to prevent, to put it bluntly, shilling for industry?

Grifo Nothing that I’m aware of.

Whitehouse Dr. Michaels, as you’ve looked at institutional forces to twist the science, there’s the legendary ones like the American Tobacco Institute and the American Lead Institute. Have you ever come across the Annapolis Center to which Mr. Gray belonged?

Michaels I address that very question in my book. The Center was founded by a vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, and was funded by Exxon. Their mantra is “uncertainty.” There’s no science there. Unfortunately we’re seeing a whole industry of for-profit scientist consultants and front groups. You can always find someone who appears to be a scientist to complain. They talk about “sound science” but it just sounds like science.

Whitehouse Other people have been cleared out of positions on advisory boards. One of them includes Deborah Rice. They even scrubbed the record of anything she said. The reason was an asserted conflict of interest. She had stated her professional view on an issue on behalf of the state of Maine in a regulatory hearing. Is that generally understood as a conflict of interest? A conflict of interest is a financial link. I ask this because as we were preparing for this hearing we had scientists who said that they would love to testify but they fear retaliation and her name was invoked.

Michaels It is truly Orwellian. Dr. Rice is a respected toxicologist working for the state of Maine.

12:09 Boxer It’s a sin to have that attitude. I believe that attitude prevails in the EPA. I believe our children’s health is expendable to those folks in the EPA. Just as I believe the tobacco industry made that decision. This committee has a job to do, and it’s very important to blow the whistle.

Thurston There are epidemiological studies that show effects below the standard the administrator set. In 1984 we followed children in western New Jersey. We demonstrated lung-function decrements at well below the 100ppb ozone one-hour standard. At the time the standard was 120 ppb, and they used controlled exposure studies to deny the epidemiology. We have the same problem today. Real people getting real exposure in the real world show these effects. Hospital admissions. There are mortality effects of ozone. We know there are mortality effects. The OMB and the RIA does consider economics.

Boxer I predict a lawsuit on this and the people will win this. Could you describe your concern with the children’s chemical evaluation program?

Balbus EDF was involved in the development of this program. We were highly critical in the multi-tier structure. This pilot study started in 2000 and I was part of the original peer-review panel. The major issue is its incredibly slow pace. It’s been a slow walk ground to a halt.

Boxer The EPA’s chemical assessment management program. North American Competitive Council: Chevron, GM, Lockheed Martin. Their mission isn’t protecting children’s health.

Balbus I don’t know exactly what their role is.

Boxer The EPA when they deal with these pollutants in the air, by law, they must only consider the health of the people. I want to send a message to the workers over there: Change is coming. You’re going to be able to proud once again.

12:24 Whitehouse It has been a pleasure for me listening to the panel. I think we learned a lot today. I have an awful lot of alarm bells that are ringing right now. There’s the ozone standard with no visible means of support. It appears that whenever the EPA has departed from scientific recommendations it has done it on behalf of industry. In contrast to Dr. Rice, Robert Shatner, an employee of ExxonMobil, James Klonig, Dale Thickles. I have to applaud Dr. Gray for his ability to say completely preposterous things with a straight face. It’s a skill but not what we want. We stand adjourned.