The Garden Club of America
National Affairs and Legislation Committee
Barbara Geltosky, Vice Chairman Energy Sources
February 2015
The EPA was created in 1970 in a bi- partisan move to address growing public concern for the deteriorating conditions of water, air and land. In response to public concern, Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969, which some called the single most important piece of environmental legislation in our history. President Nixon signed NEPA into Law on New Years Day 1970, and then “reorganized” the Executive Branch into an independent agency, called the EPA.
During the 70’s many environmental laws and amendments were passed: among them were The Endangered Species Act (GCA is now working on support for adding the Monarch to the list), The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and The Clean Air Act in 1970.
The EPA forced cities such as Cleveland, Detroit and Atlanta to halt violations of water pollution standards, and DDT was banned in 1972. In 1979 President Carter proposed legislation to Congress, which would establish a multi-million dollar fund to help clean up hazardous waste dump sites that threatened public health or the environment. Known as the Superfund, it identified 250 hazardous waste sites targeted for cleanup due to contamination and funded remediation; Superfund operations are ongoing today.
However, Congress has been steadily eating away at the EPA’s ability to do its job protecting health and the environment. Congress is poised to adopt a fiscal year 2015 budget that would reduce the agency’s funding for a fifth year in a row. The $60 million cut in EPA’s budget, which builds on previous reductions, will bring the agency’s staffing to its lowest level since 1989. These funding cuts are not surprising, given that anti-regulatory forces in Congress have made clear their intent to use the budget process to block EPA’s work. Last year, The House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies advanced a spending bill that included provisions blocking EPA from reducing power plant emissions. [i] Last year’s spending cuts resulted in fewer civil and criminal cases and fewer inspections, with an anticipated 40-50% reduction of inspections and enforcement cases in 2015, despite a recent poll stating that 87% of Americans support stringer enforcement of clean air and water standards. EPA also announced further staffing cuts in January, with unsurprisingly lower employee morale.[ii] And although the President champions a second term legacy of reducing GHG emissions, his FY 2015 budget request for EPA cut funding forty percent from 2014 levels. “EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy noted that the agency has experienced “zero real growth” over fiscal years 2013 to 2015, despite the need for extensive work to address numerous important public health and environmental problems such as climate change, improving air quality, and the health impacts of toxic chemicals. “[iii] When Senators boast of trimming EPA’s “regulatory overreach” back to 1989 levels, how can the EPA meet its ambitious goals?
The EPA is charged with administering both laws and executive orders, including the Endangered Species Act, NEPA, Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, and the Toxic Substances Control Acts to name a few. Despite budget woes, EPA continues to be the major enforcement agency for clean air and water issues, as well as implementing executive orders when Congress refuses to act. Most recently, under Administrator Gina McCarthy, who has spoken to us at NAL, EPA has announced a Clean Power Plan to cut carbon pollution from power plants. This plan consists of rules governing carbon emissions from both old and new power plants, and most recently, in January of 2015, a proposed rule to cut methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 40-45% from 2012 levels.
With regard to the methane rules; “The final rules are expected to yield a nearly 95 percent reduction in VOC (volatile organic compounds) emissions from more than 11,000 new hydraulically fractured gas wells each year. This significant reduction would be accomplished primarily through capturing natural gas that currently escapes into the air, and making that gas available for sale. The rules also will reduce air toxics, which are known or suspected of causing cancer and other serious health effects, and emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.” The final action includes the review of four rules for the oil and natural gas industry: a new source performance standard for VOCs; a new source performance standard for sulfur dioxide; an air toxics standard for oil and natural gas production; and an air toxics standard for natural gas transmission and storage.”[iv]
The Proposed Methane Rule comes at a time when the US has become the largest producer of natural gas in the world and forty percent of that production is shale gas. Methane causes about 10% of all US greenhouse gas emissions, and 30% of that comes from transmission of natural gas. Although down somewhat, emissions are projected to rise more than 25% by 2025, if nothing is done to reduce them. While percentages are relatively small, “Pound for pound, the comparative impact of methane on climate change is 20 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 20 year period”.[v] That is why regulating methane is so important.
Although the Obama Administration initially championed gas as a clean bridge fuel to replace dirty coal in their all of the above energy strategy, the truth about gas related emissions is more complicated. Fossil fuels are non- renewable sources of energy and produce significant air pollution. “Scientists studying unconventional gas drilling warn that gas is likely to have a greater influence on water, air and climate than previously understood”. The Council of Scientific Society Presidents—which represents 1.4 million scientists from more than 150 scientific disciplines – reported to the Obama administration in May 2010, “some energy bridges that are currently encouraged in the transition from GHG-emitting fossil energy systems have received inadequate scientific analysis before implementation, and these may have greater GHG emissions and environmental costs than often appreciated.” The development of unconventional gas from shale deposits, the Council warns, is an “example where policy has preceded adequate scientific study” [vi]
The Cornell study also warns that fracked gas can present even greater climate disruption than coal or oil. The US Energy Information Administration states that “The GHG footprint for shale gas is at least 20% greater than and perhaps more than twice as great as that for coal when expressed per quantity of energy available during combustion.” This comes from the extraction process and leaked methane. And a 2014 National Academy of Science report indicates that the EPA is probably underestimating methane emissions from gas operations by as much as 50%, so things are likely even worse than we think. In top down (measured from the air) rather than bottom up (measured from the ground) measurements over fracking sites, the NAS detected much larger quantities of methane gas than previously estimated. [vii]
Although the oil and gas industry maintains that they are doing enough to curb methane leaks, the photos of methane flares seen from space would seem to indicate otherwise. Measures can be taken to reduce the leaks, but key details of how the proposed methane rule will affect the industry remain to be seen. One thing environmentalists agree on is cutting methane emissions is a key to controlling climate change. And the EPA, our “Enforcer” is being hamstrung in its enforcement measures due to budget cuts.
######
[i] Peterka, Amanda ,“Budget’s out today and Dems have a new leader on a key panel”, e and e news , February 2, 2015.
[ii] Bravender, Robin, “Agency kicks off new year with staff cuts”, e and e news, January 9, 2015.
[iii] White, Ronald, “Congress Slashes EPA Budget Again Despite Strong Public Support for Strengthening Health Protections”, Center for Effective Government, December 12, 2014
[iv] EPA.gov
[v] http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html
[vi] http://www.eeb.cornell.edu
[vii] Banarjee, Neela, “EPA drastically underestimates methane released at drilling sites” Los Angeles Times, April 14, 2014
FEB