In addition to cleaning up our environment, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must also clean up the mess the Trump administration left behind.
The Biden EPA recently took an important step in this direction by finalizing its plan to rescind a Trump-era rule that would drastically overhaul how it analyzes the rules it develops to implement the Clean Air Act. If implemented, Trump's "benefits-busting" rule would have sabotaged the effective and timely implementation of this popular and essential law, which protects the public from dangerous pollution that worsens asthma and causes other diseases. The rescission is slated to take effect next week.
On June 9, the EPA held a public hearing to gather feedback on rescinding the rule, which CPR has been tracking for several years. CPR Member Scholars Rebecca Bratspies and Amy Sinden joined me in testifying in support.
A New and Better Approach
In her testimony, Sinden highlighted the fundamental practical problems that characterize the pro-polluter form of cost-benefit analysis that the rule sought to codify. In particular, she noted the systematic lack of data on environmental and public health benefits that the EPA would need in order to perform even a passable analysis under the Trump rule. This would render impossible its goal of identifying "net benefits" with any semblance of accuracy.
Bratspies used her testimony to highlight how the rule would exacerbate environmental injustice. As she noted, historically marginalized communities — particularly people of color and the working poor — face a disproportionate burden from the very air pollutants that the rule pretends do not exist. The EPA's regulatory analysis already fails to capture the harms these pollutants cause for such communities; the Trump-era rule would have made that bad situation worse — and judicially enforceable.
In my testimony, I joined Sinden and Bratspies in calling on the EPA to use this exercise as a basis for overhauling its regulatory analysis procedures in a way that promotes the agency's public health and environmental protection mandates.
Even before Donald Trump came on the political scene, the EPA's cost-benefit analysis procedures operated as a barrier to effective safeguards, and failed in particular to account for the distributional and cumulative impacts of air pollution on marginalized communities.
To fulfill the Biden administration's bold environmental and social justice agendas, the EPA must do more than restore the pre-Trump status quo. To tackle the climate crisis and achieve its vision of a more environmentally just America, the Biden EPA must build a new and better approach for how it assesses the impacts of its rules.
Showing 2,823 results
James Goodwin | June 9, 2021
In addition to cleaning up our environment, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must also clean up the mess the Trump administration left behind. The Biden EPA recently took an important step in this direction by finalizing its plan to rescind a Trump-era rule that would drastically overhaul how it analyzes the rules it develops to implement the Clean Air Act. If implemented, Trump's "benefits-busting" rule would have sabotaged the effective and timely implementation of this popular and essential law, which protects the public from dangerous pollution that worsens asthma and causes other diseases. On June 9, the EPA held a public hearing to gather feedback on rescinding the rule. CPR Member Scholars Rebecca Bratspies and Amy Sinden joined me in testifying in support.
Clarissa Libertelli | June 8, 2021
World Oceans Day marks a time to reflect on how our oceans connect to human and environmental health. This year’s theme of “Life and Livelihoods” comes at a time when our federal government is turning to energy jobs and climate justice. As the BP/Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010 showed, the lives and livelihoods of millions are affected by how we manage ocean policy. Eleven years later, will policy adapt to prioritize human and environmental health over business?
Daniel Farber | June 7, 2021
Some events last week sent a strong signal that the tide is turning against fossil fuels. Each of the events standing alone would have been noteworthy. The clustering of these events dramatizes an important shift. To paraphrase Churchill, this may not be beginning of the end for fossil fuels, but at least it is the end of the beginning of the campaign against them.
Maggie Dewane | June 3, 2021
In this episode of Connect the Dots, host Rob Verchick and his guests discuss energy policy at different levels of government and who's leading the way in the clean energy journey.
Karen Sokol | May 27, 2021
Member Scholar Karen Sokol submitted an op-ed to the online outlet, Drilled News, on the Supreme Court's minor procedural ruling in the Baltimore climate case and its potentially major implications.
Daniel Farber | May 24, 2021
Lead can cause neurological damage to young children and developing fetuses. The only really safe level is zero. Because poor children are the most likely to be exposed to this hazard, this is also a major environmental justice issue. The Trump EPA took the position that it could set a hazard level higher than zero because of the cost of reaching a lower threshold. In a split decision, the Ninth Circuit reversed. The statutory issues are complicated, and a dissent raised some reasonable arguments. Ultimately, though, it's hard to believe Congress wanted EPA to misrepresent that a certain level of lead is safe for children when it really isn't.
Daniel Farber | May 21, 2021
In its closing days, the Trump administration issued a rule designed to tilt EPA's cost-benefit analysis of air pollution regulations in favor of industry. Recently, the agency rescinded the rule. The rescission was no surprise, given that the criticisms of the Trump rule by economists as well as environmentalists. EPA's explanation for the rescission was illuminating, however. It sheds some important light on how the agency views the role of cost-benefit analysis in its decisions.
Brian Gumm | May 20, 2021
In the latest episode of Connect the Dots Season 5, host Rob Verchick and his guests discuss the fiscal complexities and possibilities of a just, equitable transition to clean, renewable energy. When it comes to innovation and clean energy, there’s a wide range of players building new technology and sourcing terrains to scale renewables as wide as the great unknown. Funding for those projects comes from a host of financiers, from banks to private equity firms to, perhaps, everyday consumers. The drive behind financing the energy transition results from a dedicated consortium of political agendas, business prerogatives, and consumer demand.
Katlyn Schmitt | May 13, 2021
Dirty, polluted stormwater that runs off of industrial sites when it rains is a major cause of pollution to Maryland’s streams and rivers, and ultimately to the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland is home to thousands of such industrial sites, all of which are required by law to obtain a stormwater discharge permit from the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) to prevent pollution and protect public and environmental health. Unfortunately, many of these sites do not have a permit. For example, our research in one small area of Anne Arundel County found that only four out of 12 industrial sites possessed a current permit. Of the industrial sites that hold a permit, many are not in compliance with the permit requirements. Between 2017 and 2020, MDE conducted just under 2,000 inspections of permitted sites throughout Maryland and found that more than two-thirds (68%) were violating the terms of their permits. These industrial sites are commonly clustered in urban areas, creating pollution hot spots of runoff that can include heavy metals and other toxins. Such polluted waters threaten the health of those who live nearby, who are more likely to be low income and populated by people of color.