EPA Conspicuously Absent at ECOS Spring Meeting

By Mark Anderson, Senior Vice President

The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) convened its Spring Meeting last week in Austin, Texas.  I would sum up the theme of the meeting by quoting the first lunch speaker, Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Mark Vickery, stating that the relationship between EPA and the states requires “complete reformation.”  Two trends conspired to make this so—dissatisfaction with EPA over increasing mandates and policy changes with little state input, and the dramatic decline in EPA participation with ECOS.  The second-day lunch keynote speech, always reserved for the EPA Administrator or an appropriate high-level designee, was absent a speaker. 

Throughout the three-day meeting, issue after issue was raised by ECOS members about states not having the resources to carry out many EPA directives.  Yet there was not sufficient high-level EPA involvement in the meeting to have a meaningful dialogue about it.  A state and federal co-regulator relationship that should be built on trust and cooperation has clearly deteriorated. 

The problem was apparent not only in the rhetoric, but also in the specific policy discussions undertaken during the meeting.  At the opening plenary, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Michael Krancer brought up his support for HR 3867, the “Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2012.”  This legislation addresses the concern of the states that EPA, with increasing frequency, will settle lawsuits by organizations by agreeing to initiate rulemakings behind closed doors.  As such, by the time states are allowed to comment on the subsequent rulemaking, EPA responds by claiming that they are bound by the lawsuit.  The legislation would require EPA to allow comments by affected parties prior to agreeing to settlements.

Another more heated example of this lack of communication was a discussion over new air monitoring requirements.  Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Secretary Cathy Stepp spoke about the lack of clarity with EPA’s requirements.  Many states chimed into the discussion both about the lack of adequate guidance from EPA in the face of substantial new requirements and the importance of good modeling.  Again, the focus of the discussion was not on whether modeling is important, but the fact that EPA mandates policy changes for the states and then provides little communication or support about how to achieve them.

Which brings me to what I think is the most significant event during this meeting—passage of the resolution, “Challenges of Achieving Significant Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Reductions.”  The resolution discusses the challenges that face the states in meeting the US-ratified United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change GHG emissions reduction mandate.  The mandate calls for an 80 percent reduction in GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 2050—a massive undertaking by any metric.   The resolution calls on EPA to provide scenarios in which states could achieve these reductions and provide a study of the costs and benefits of doing so.  As I discussed in an earlier blog, true discussion amongst the states about the costs associated with complying with climate change requirements had been unprecedented.  The resolution passed unanimously. 

States discussing challenges posed by EPA has been a mainstay at ECOS meetings.  The difference at this meeting was the level of frustration, and the lack of significant participation by EPA officials to listen and respond.  This is particularly troublesome for the states during times of great budget strain at both the state and federal level, and it represents one of the most fundamental hurdles in the EPA-state relationship.

As a result, “you should contact your federal delegation,” was a suggestion offered by ECOS members to their peers far more frequently at this meeting than I have ever witnessed.  EPA is no longer engaging meaningfully with the states and is forcing states to look elsewhere for guidance and support.

All good relationships require trust.  When dealing with any state and local officials group, I always advise my clients to participate consistently and respect the organization and its members through open and honest communication.  EPA has violated these principles and the relationship is suffering as a result.

Growing Issues at State Departments of Agriculture Meeting

By Michael Behm, Senior Vice President and Jake Hegeman, Vice PResident

State agriculture commissioners and directors representing nearly 40 states convened in Washington, DC for the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) Winter Meeting to discuss a variety of state and federal policy issues facing farmers, ranchers and agribusiness.

While perhaps not attracting the same media attention as governors or legislators, the states’ chief agriculture officials play a critical role in sustaining America’s agribusiness.

The US agriculture industry is booming. Demand is up for agricultural products, commodity prices are near all-time highs and the value of US agricultural exports increased approximately 21% from 2010 to 2011. All of that said, the attending commissioners and directors acknowledged an equal number of challenges —a dwindling agricultural workforce and disappearing farmland, myriad regulatory challenges at the state and federal levels of government, shrinking federal subsidies and the ever-present danger of another economic downturn. Like the agriculture industry as a whole, NASDA’s members recognize…

READ THE FULL POST

ECOS to EPA: It’s the Economy, Stupid

By Mark Anderson, Senior Vice President

The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) convened its 18^th Annual Meeting earlier this week in Indianapolis, Indiana. Having attended all but one ECOS meeting since the inception of the organization in 1993, it has been a while since I’ve seen anything happen for the first time. The states agreed to craft a message to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the costs and challenges of its greenhouse gas emissions reduction policy.

State environmental agency leaders discussed two competing resolutions to deal with the EPA greenhouse gas targets. Indiana Department of Environmental Management Commissioner Tom Easterly introduced one resolution, and the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Commissioner Collin O’Mara offered an alternative resolution. The primary difference between the two was that the Delaware version remained deferential to EPA’s timeline and the economic consequences of not achieving significant reductions. Both of these resolutions were similarly titled, “The Challenge/Feasibility of Achieving Significant Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Reductions,” and both resolutions focused squarely on the economic costs associated with EPA’s impending greenhouse gas regulations.

When the resolutions were brought up for consideration at ECOS, all environmental agency leaders agreed that a unified message should be sent to EPA on the issue. The ECOS members politely agreed to table the resolutions and assemble a work group to develop a single message to EPA that would have the full backing of ECOS and that all could support. If the work group succeeds, this message will be brought forward for consideration at the spring 2012 meeting.

While discussions of the economic impact of most EPA regulations have been a mainstay at ECOS, true discussion about the economic impacts and costs of regulating greenhouse gas emissions is unprecedented. Many state environmental commissioners approach climate change policy with views that are almost religious and would never, historically, entertain a discussion of costs.

ECOS has attempted to discuss a unified climate change policy many times in the past. The outcome of those discussions was always predictable—ECOS members would break down into two entrenched camps that would, after much consternation, agree to disagree. Whether they will be able to develop a unified message this time is, of course, not year clear. However, the simple fact that ECOS demonstrated such solidarity in assembling a work group to craft a single message to EPA on the costs and challenges associated with this EPA policy is indicative of a fundamental change. State environmental commissioners have been placed under such extreme pressure by this stalled economy.

Unlike EPA, the states do not have the luxury of simply setting a blanket environmental standard without having a plan for how to get there. This EPA has been prolific in developing rules which state officials claim will impede their states’ economic growth. In fact, over the past two years, Groups of State and Local Officials have sent 96 resolutions and letters to EPA. These letters decry the results of the rulemaking process that threaten to do further harm to the states and their economies.

As demonstrated at this week’s ECOS meeting, 2011 marks a year in which even the most environmentally-friendly state environmental commissioners are forced to face the economic realities of these difficult times. In other states, 2011 marks the year in which Governors have taken an even stronger stand within their own states against overregulation. So far six Governors have issued rulemaking moratoria to foster a more positive business environment and to stave off further job losses. The moratoria in Arizona, Nevada and Washington are still in effect and will remain so until 2012.

Having worked on environmental issues for more than 20 years, I was pleased to witness the discussion on this and other instances of EPA over-regulation that took place at the ECOS meeting. I just hope that EPA and the Administration were paying close attention.

Is this rumbling being heard either by EPA or by the White House? Some would argue the proof lies in the Administration’s recent withdrawal of the NAAQS ozone standard. Do you think that the EPA and the White House are waking up to the fact that overregulation hampers economic growth? Or was the withdrawal a mere gesture of deference for struggling state economies?