The Wonk Room

Breaking: EPA Appeals Board Strikes Down Construction Of New Coal-Fired Power Plant»

In a landmark action, the Environmental Protection Agency’s final decision-making board has ruled that all new and proposed coal-fired power plants must have their carbon dioxide emissions regulated. The Environmental Appeals Board ruled today that the EPA has no valid reason for refusing to place limits on the global warming emissions from Desert Power’s proposed 110-megawatt coal-fired power plant in Vernal, Utah.

Deseret Power’s Bonanza Generating Station would have emitted 3.37 million tons of carbon dioxide each year. In July 2007, the EPA issued a permit for the plant, ignoring the Clean Air Act’s stipulation that all such permits must include a “best-available control technology” emissions limit for each pollutant “subject to regulation under the Act.” Before the Sierra Club brought suit, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform opened an investigation into the EPA’s decision, saying:

It is reckless to approve a huge coal-fired power plant with no global warming emission controls. This one massive plant will negate the emissions reductions being implemented by the Northeastern states in the first mandatory regional program to cut global warming pollution. The Administration’s shameful decision rewards polluters, flouts the Clean Air Act, and fails the American people.

Joanna Spalding, the Sierra Club attorney who successfully argued the case, delivered this statement:

Today’s decision opens the way for meaningful action to fight global warming and is a major step in bringing about a clean energy economy. This is one more sign that we must begin repowering, refueling and rebuilding America. The EAB rejected every Bush Administration excuse for failing to regulate the largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States. This decision gives the Obama Administration a clean slate to begin building our clean energy economy for the 21st century.

The 69-page decision described the Bush administration’s arguments as “weak,” “questionable,” “not sustainable,” and “not sufficient,” and rebuked EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson for failing to issue CO2 regulations, repeatedly recommending an “action of nationwide scope.”

Sen. Whitehouse: ‘I Call On Administrator Johnson To Resign’»

In a sobering speech on the Senate floor, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) formally announced the request for a Department of Justice investigation into the potential criminal conduct of EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, whom he called “a man after Spiro Agnew’s own heart.”

Whitehouse listed five charges of “putting the interests of corporate polluters before science and the law” in ozone, lead, soot, tailpipe emissions, and global warming pollution; and four charges of degrading “the procedures and institutional safeguards that sustain the agency;” before discussing “his apparent dishonesty in testimony before Congress”:

And in what is perhaps the gravest matter of all, I believe the Administrator deliberately and repeatedly lied to Congress, creating a false picture of the process that led to EPA’s denial of the California waiver, in order to obscure the role of the White House in influencing his decision.

Today, Senator Boxer and I have sent a letter to Attorney General Mukasey, asking him to investigate whether Administrator Johnson gave false and misleading statements, whether he lied to Congress, whether he committed perjury, and whether he obstructed Congress’s investigation into the process that led to the denial of the California waiver request.

Watch it:

After listing yet more “signs of an agency corrupted in every place the shadowy influence of the Bush White House can reach,” Sen. Whitehouse concluded:

Administrator Johnson suggests a man who has every intention of driving his agency onto the rocks, of undermining and despoiling it, of leaving America’s environment and America’s people without an honest advocate in their federal government.

This behavior not only degrades his once-great agency – it drives the dagger of dishonesty deep in the very vitals of American democracy.

The American people cannot accept such a person in a position of such great responsibility. I am sorry it has come to this, but I call on Administrator Johnson to resign his position.

I yield the floor.

Watch it:

Join Sen. Whitehouse in calling for Johnson’s resignation here.

Full text of Sen. Whitehouse’s speech: More »

Facing Undeniable Global Warming Threat, Bush Administration Instead Attacks The Rule Of Law»

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.

Digg It!

UPDATE: At Solve Climate, David Sassoon offers his take on Stephen Johnson:

The tragedy of a small person, ill-suited to this historical moment, unable to rise to the occasion, doing the bidding of the self-proclaimed “world’s biggest polluter.”

UPDATE II: Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): “We cannot afford an Environmental Protection Agency that does not protect the environment. If Administrator Johnson cannot lead this great agency in the manner the American people deserve to see it led, he should step down and let someone else try.”

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA): “On global warming, the White House uses the slash-and-burn technique. They slash any meaningful statements or action on global warming, and allow the planet to burn.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA): “This means that the Clean Air Act, signed by Richard Nixon and carried out by every President since, has been shredded by President Bush, who will go down in history as the first president to so gravely endanger the health and safety of the American people.”

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK): “If Congress does not act, then the resulting regulations could be the largest regulatory intrusion into Americans personal lives, a nightmare scenario. Big brother is alive and well in the career ranks at the EPA.”

Go to the US Climate Action Network for collected responses from member organizations.

Global Boiling: Cheney’s Office Blocked Testimony On Global Warming Health Threat»

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.

Bush Hiding Truth: Global Warming Regulations Worth $2 Trillion Benefit»

Excerpt of the draft EPA rulemaking, discussing the threat global warming poses to public health. Download the first 150 pages of the document (Part I and Part II).

Reporters for Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal write that an “intense private battle” has broken out between officials at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Environmental Protection Agency over “the publication of a document that could become the legal roadmap for regulation of greenhouse gas emissions across the U.S. economy.” The portions of the document obtained by the Wonk Room reveal why the White House has been suppressing it since December of last year.

Even after major cuts from the December version, this document makes a mockery of President Bush’s claim in April that applying the Clean Air Act to global warming pollution “would have crippling effects on our entire economy.” In fact, after spending all of 2007 working with the Departments of Transportation and Energy to model the effects of motor vehicle greenhouse gas regulations, the EPA found the exact opposite:

Assuming gas prices in the range of $3.50 per gallon, “the net benefit to society could be in excess of $2 trillion” through 2040:

With higher gasoline prices, the benefits of high carbon-dioxide standards would be even greater. The EPA’s findings, completed last year, raise serious questions about whether Bush’s statements to the American public were made in good faith, and why he is now asserting executive privilege to block the Congressional investigation.

More »

White House Pretended EPA Email Outlining ‘Unequivocal’ Global Warming Threat Was Spam»

The New York Times revealed yesterday that the White House’s global warming denial reached levels of absurdity that would be hilarious if the stakes weren’t so high. Last December, senior EPA officials tell the Times, White House officials literally refused to open the e-mail from the EPA that concluded that “greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled.” The Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin fills in more details:

And upon learning that EPA had hit the “send” button just minutes earlier, the White House called again to demand that the e-mail be recalled. The EPA official who forwarded the e-mail, Associate Deputy Administrator Jason Burnett, refused, said the sources, who insisted on anonymity in order to discuss internal deliberations.

That fateful December confrontation — Burnett “sent the e-mail to the White House Office of Management and Budget at 2:17 p.m. Dec. 5 and received the call warning him to hold off at 2:25 p.m.” — was the culmination of months of effort by the EPA following April’s Supreme Court mandate to take action on global warming pollution. As documents shown to the House Global Warming Committee under threat of subpoena revealed, “EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson determined that man-made global warming is unequivocal, the evidence is both compelling and robust, and the administration must act to prevent harm rather than wait for harm to occur before acting.”

Instead, the administration acted to prevent the EPA from following its legal and moral duty. After the White House rejected the EPA’s efforts, EPA administrator Stephen Johnson reversed his decision to allow California to regulate tailpipe greenhouse emissions. All work at the EPA on global warming ceased, and in May Burnett announced his resignation.

Today, Johnson’s EPA is expected to unveil a censored version of the report it submitted to the White House in December, as an “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” asking for new round of comments on whether global warming represents a threat to human health and whether it should take action. This administration knows full well that global warming represents a very present threat to our health and security, as reports issued this month by its scientific and intelligence agencies reveal. Of course, Bush impeded those reports as well. The scientific assessment was submitted under court order, four years after its legal deadline, and the intelligence assessment was classified despite being based on public information.

Burnett — who came to the EPA with an anti-regulatory background — is now telling reporters he resigned because the White House threw away his efforts to confront the threat of global warming. In an email to the Post, he wrote:

The White House made it clear they did not want to address the ramifications of that finding and have decided to leave the challenge to the next administration. Some [at the White House] thought that EPA had mistakenly concluded that climate change endangers the public. It was no mistake.

Last Friday, Bush asserted executive privilege to prevent the House Oversight Committee from investigating his involvement in this gross dereliction of duty.

UPDATE: At Dot Earth, Andy Revkin reminds us the Bush stonewalling of the EPA on global warming began “just two months into his first term to abandon his campaign pledge in 2000 to restrict carbon dioxide from power plants.” A March 7, 2001 memorandum from the EPA to the White House recommended that the carbon dioxide pledge be kept, but a group of non-scientists rejected the plea. Among the cabal of right-wing officials with industry ties who blocked action in 2001 was the White House Office of Management and Budget’s Marcus Peacock, now the number-two official at the EPA.

Global Warming Committee Will See EPA Documents After Five-Month Delay»

The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming has announced today it has reached an accommodation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to see documents requested in January — and subpoenaed on April 2 — which “relate to EPA’s decisions on global warming emissions regulations for vehicles, and on the agency’s ruling on the risks of heat-trapping pollution to public health or welfare.” The announcement:

Under the agreement, the EPA will allow the Select Committee access to the documents in a timely fashion, but to not interfere with the current regulatory deliberations currently underway within the administration. The Select Committee will not withdraw the subpoena still outstanding against EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson.

The “regulatory deliberations” are the EPA’s work on issuing an Advanced Notice of Proposed Regulations (ANPR), a gambit to delay action first suggested by the Heritage Foundation.

Essentially, the committee is agreeing to all of the terms the EPA made in an April 16 offer but one — that it withdraw the subpoena in return for limited access to the documents. The EPA offered to “make the requested documents available to the Select Committee for review at the time the ANPR is published later this spring or in any event no later than June 21.” Global Warming Committee spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder tells the Wonk Room that the committee accepted these terms, including the June 21 deadline — over five months after the initial request and nearly three months after the subpoena. Burnham-Snyder added, “I don’t know exactly what the access level will be” to the documents in question.

Waxman: ‘President Bush Seems To Believe These Rules Don’t Apply To Him’»

House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) opened today’s hearing on White House interference with EPA decisions by excoriating President Bush’s record with the rule of law. Stating that we are all bound by “the science, the facts, and the law,” Waxman charged that “President Bush seems to believe these rules don’t apply to him”:

On key issues, this Administration has pushed ahead with its agenda despite the evidence and the law. We know that’s what happened on the decision to launch the Iraq War. It happened again on decisions authorizing torture. And it happened when the White House fired independent and nonpartisan Justice Department officials.

For months this Committee has been investigating recent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decisions relating to both global warming and new air quality standards. And after reviewing nearly 60 thousand pages of internal documents and interviewing officials involved in the rulemakings, we have found evidence that the White House again ignored the facts and the law.

Watch it:

Waxman concluded his opening statement by saying, “The president does not have absolute power, and he is not above the law.”

The full text of Waxman’s opening statement can be found on the Oversight Committee website. The Speaker of the House’s blog has more video.

UPDATE: Empty Wheel at FireDogLake describes a confrontation between Rep. Waxman and Stephen Johnson over Johnson’s refusal to answer whether or not he discussed his rulings with the White House. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) interrupted the chairman until he said, “I will have you physically removed from this meeting if you don’t stop.”

UPDATE II: The House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, chaired by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) has announced it “will hold a vote on a resolution recommending that EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson be found in contempt of Congress for his refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued” by the committee. The vote will be held at 9:45 AM Thursday morning. The subpoena for documents relating to the EPA’s refusal to obey the Supreme Court mandate to regulate greenhouse gases was issued by a unanimous, bipartisan vote on April 2, a year after the Supreme Court decision.

Watch it: More »

The Conservative’s Dictionary Of Scientific Language»

George Gray

Today, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) chaired a hearing of the Environment and Public Works oversight subcommittee investigating the politicization of science at the Environmental Protection Agency.

The administration witness was Dr. George Gray, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development at the EPA. Gray was appointed to the position by President Bush in 2005. Before then, Gray ran the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, an industry-funded think tank founded by John D. Graham in 1990 that fights environmental regulation. (Graham was the “nation’s regulatory gatekeeper” in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from 2001 to 2006.)

At the hearing, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) described Gray’s misuse of the English language as “Alice in Wonderland,” telling Dr. Gray, “You have tried to defend the indefensible and you have failed.” Sen. Whitehouse described the EPA’s actions as “Orwellian” and concluded the hearing with the sarcastic salute, “I have to applaud Dr. Gray for his ability to say what I found to be preposterous things with a completely straight face throughout.”

Here are excerpts from the Conservative’s Dictionary Of Scientific Language discovered by the Wonk Room to help you translate Gray’s tortured testimony:

conflict of interest, n. Conflict with an industry-friendly position. Usage: “One reviewer’s comments were excluded from the report and were not considered by EPA due to the perception of a potential conflict of interest.” — Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Department of Energy report for the EPA Integrated Risk Information System.

In 2007, Dr. Deborah Rice was the chair of an expert peer review panel charged with setting safe exposure levels for deca-BDE, a toxic fire retardant that contaminates human blood and breast milk. The American Chemistry Council (ACC), acting on behalf of the Brominated Flame Retardant Industry Partnership, wrote to Gray to ask that he personally intervene in the process. ACC alleged that the panel is not an “independent, third-party review” because Dr. Rice is a “fervent advocate of banning deca-BDE.” Rice was removed from the panel and her comments stripped.

deliberative, adj. Secret. Usage: “The discussions we have with the rest of the federal agencies are kept deliberative.” — Dr. Gray, in testimony.

This is a reference to the “deliberative process privilege,” which protects internal and interagency communications from judicially compelled disclosure. The Bush administration has claimed that the deliberative process privilege also prevents agencies from voluntarily disclosing such information, and allows them to defy Congressional subpoenas.

science-policy continuum, n. The blurring of all distinctions between scientific and political decision-making. Usage: “EPA views the relationship between science, science policy, and regulation as a continuum.” — Dr. Gray, in testimony.

The laws that govern the Environmental Protection Agency clearly state that only scientific and health considerations may guide its actions. By refusing to accept the distinctions between different stages of the regulatory process, the Bush administration is attempting to provide a legal justification for OMB interference with any and all EPA science.

sound science, n. 1. Political corruption. 2. Scientific research that does not expose industry to potential regulation or litigation. 3. An excuse for delay in regulating industry. Usage: “I have always believed that one of the primary responsibilities of this committee is to ensure that regulatory decisions are based on sound science.” — Sen. Inhofe

The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (now Center) (TASSC) was founded in 1993 by Philip Morris to discredit research demonstrating the dangers of secondhand smoke. The Chronicle for Higher Education described President Bush’s appeal to “sound science” as “a pretext for delaying or junking scientific findings that do not support his policy priorities.”

transparency, n. The pretense that political interference that is kept secret does not exist. Usage: “Transparency is key to the way we do our assessments.” –transparent, adj. Hiding corruption. Usage: “At the end of the process we are very transparent.” –Dr. Gray, in testimony

The EPA decision-making processes involve both secret steps (see “deliberative”) and public steps. At the end of the process all the public steps are disclosed.

uncertainty, n. 1. Scientific conclusions that expose industry to potential regulation or litigation. 2. An excuse for ignoring such science to make an industry-friendly decision. 3. An excuse for delay in regulating industry. Usage: “In so doing, the Administrator sought to balance concern about the potential for health effects and their severity with the increasing uncertainty associated with our understanding of the likelihood of such effects at lower O₃ exposure levels.” –EPA Administrator Johnson’s justification for setting an ozone standard of 0.075 ppm, outside the range of 0.060 to 0.070 recommended by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.

Johnson used the word “uncertainty” over 150 times in his ozone standard ruling. However, as Dr. George Thurston testified, “In the face of uncertainty, the Clean Air Act stipulates that the Administrator must choose a more stringent standard, to ensure a margin of safety.” He also explained that the Administrator was confusing “uncertainty in the size of the pollution health effects” with doubt about the existence of any effect. “There is no doubt that there are adverse health effects occuring below 0.075 ppm.”

EPA’s Johnson Claims ‘Ongoing Back Issues’ Prevent Him From Testifying Before Congress»

As each day brings new scandals involving the Environmental Protection Agency to light, the pressure for EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to respond is growing. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)’s Oversight and Government Reform Committee had scheduled a hearing for tomorrow with Johnson to testify on White House interference with ozone standards.

Today, Al Kamen reports that the hearing has been postponed because Johnson refused to appear:

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

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is conducting a hearing right now into the politicization of EPA scientific decisions (live webcast). Administrator Johnson declined the invitation to appear.

The Wonk Room wishes Administrator Johnson well and hopes that his recurring back pain subsides. Once he recovers, he should be ready to testify on these and other ongoing scandals involving his agency:

UPDATE: Council on Foreign Relations fellow and former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson argues today in the Washington Post:

There are few things in American politics more irrationally ideological, more fanatically faith-based, than the accusation that Republicans are conducting a “war on science.”

UPDATE II: The Sacramento Bee reports that the EPA will probably not regulate toxic rocket fuel contamination of water:

In a Senate hearing Tuesday, EPA assistant water chief Benjamin Grumbles did not dispute studies showing that perchlorate increases risks of brain damage in fetuses and infants and thyroid disorders in adults.

But, Grumbles said, there’s a “distinct possibility” the environmental agency won’t take action because they don’t know whether regulation would meaningfully reduce those risks.