|
Resignation Letter
Eric V.
Schaeffer, EPA Director
Office of Regulatory
Enforcement
February 27,
2002
Christine
Whitman
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20004
Dear Ms. Whitman:
I resign today from
the Environmental Protection Agency after twelve years of service,
the last five as Director of the Office of Regulatory Enforcement. I
am grateful for the opportunities I have been given, and leave with
a deep admiration for the men and women of EPA who dedicate their
lives to protecting the environment and the public health. Their
faith in the Agencyıs mission is an inspiring example to those who
still believe that government should stand for the public
interest.
But I cannot leave
without sharing my frustration about the fate of our enforcement
actions against power companies that have violated the Clean Air
Act. Between November of 1999 and December of 2000, EPA filed
lawsuits against 9 power companies for expanding their plants,
without obtaining New Source Review permits and the up to date
pollution controls required by law.
The companies named
in our lawsuits emit an incredible 5.0 million tons of sulfur
dioxide every year (a quarter of the emissions in the entire
country) as well as 2 million tons of nitrogen oxide.
As the scale of
pollution from these coal-fired smokestacks is immense, so is the
damage to public health. Data supplied to the Senate Environment
Committee by EPA last year estimate the annual health bill from 7
million tons of SO2 and NO2: more than 10,800 premature deaths; at
least 5,400 incidents of chronic bronchitis; more than 5,100
hospital emergency visits; and over 1.5 million lost work days. Add
to that severe damage to our natural resources, as acid rain attacks
soils and plants, and deposits nitrogen in the Chesapeake Bay and
other critical bodies of water.
Fifteen months ago,
it looked as though our lawsuits were going to shrink these dismal
statistics, when EPA publicly announced agreements with Cinergy and
Vepco to reduce Sox and Nox emissions by a combined 750,000 tons per
year. Settlements already lodged with two other companies TECO
and PSE&G will eventually take another quarter million
tons of Nox and Sox out of the air annually. If we get similar
results from the 9 companies with filed complaints, we are on track
to reduce both pollutants by a combined 4.8 million tons per year.
And that does not count the hundreds of thousands of additional tons
that can be obtained from other companies with whom we have been
negotiating.
Yet today, we seem
about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. We are in the 9th
month of a "90 day review" to reexamine the law, and fighting a
White House that seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying
to enforce. It is hard to know which is worse, the endless delay or
the repeated leaks by energy industry lobbyists of draft rule
changes that would undermine lawsuits already filed. At their heart,
these proposals would turn narrow exemptions into larger loopholes
that would allow old "grandfathered" plants to be continually
rebuilt (and emissions to increase) without modern pollution
controls.
Our negotiating
position is weakened further by the Administrationıs budget proposal
to cut the civil enforcement program by more than 200 staff
positions below the 2001 level. Already, we are unable to fill key
staff positions, not only in air enforcement, but in other critical
programs, and the proposed budget cuts would leave us desperately
short of the resources needed to deal with the large, sophisticated
corporate defendants we face.
And it is completely
unrealistic to expect underfunded state environmental programs,
facing their own budget cuts, to take up the slack.
It is no longer
possible to pretend that the ongoing debate with the White House and
Department of Energy is not effecting our ability to negotiate
settlements. Cinergy and Vepco have refused to sign the consent
decrees they agreed to 15 months ago, hedging their bets while
waiting for the Administrationıs Clean Air Act reform proposals.
Other companies with whom we were close to settlement have walked
away from the table. The momentum we obtained with agreements
announced earlier has stopped, and we have filed no new lawsuits
against utility companies since this Administration took office. We
obviously cannot settle cases with defendants who think we are still
rewriting the law.
The arguments
against sustaining our enforcement actions donıt hold up to
scrutiny.
Were the complaints
filed by the U.S. government based on conflicting or changing
interpretations? The Justice Department doesn?t think so. Its review
of our enforcement actions found EPA?s interpretation of the law to
be reasonable and consistent. While the Justice Department has
gamely insisted it will continue to prosecute existing cases, the
confusion over where EPA is going with New Source Review has made
settlement almost impossible, and protracted litigation
inevitable.
What about the
energy crisis? It stubbornly refuses to materialize, as experts
predict a glut of power plants in some areas of the U.S. In any
case, our settlements are flexible enough to provide for cleaner air
while protecting consumers from rate shock.
The relative costs
and benefits? EPA?s regulatory impact analyses, reviewed by OMB,
quantify health and environmental benefits of $7,300 per ton of SO2
reduced at a cost of less than $1,000 per ton. These cases should be
supported by anyone who thinks cost-benefit analysis is a serious
tool for decision-making, not a political game.
Is the law too
complicated to understand? Most of the projects our cases targeted
involved big expansion projects that pushed emission increases many
times over the limits allowed by law.
Should we try to fix
the problem by passing a new law? Assuming the Administrationıs bill
survives a legislative odyssey in todayıs evenly divided Congress,
it will send us right back where we started with new rules to write,
which will then be delayed by industry challenges, and with fewer
emissions reductions than we can get by enforcing todayıs
law.
I believe you share the concerns
I have expressed, and wish you well in your efforts to persuade the Administration
to put our enforcement actions back on course. Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican and
our greatest environmental President, said, "Compliance with the law is demanded
as a right, not asked as a favor." By showing that powerful utility interests
are not exempt from that principle, you will prove to EPA's staff that their faith
in the Agency?s mission is not in vain. And you will leave the American public
with an environmental victory that will be felt for generations to come.
Sincerely,
Eric V. Schaeffer,
Director
Office of Regulatory Enforcement |