Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise is a project led by the Heritage Foundation that outlines policy goals for a second Trump term. Mandy Gunasekara is the author of Chapter 13: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Gunasekara was Chief of Staff to the EPA Administrator during the last year of the Trump administration and before that served as the EPA’s Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation.
This post will consist of selected excerpts (numbered) from Chapter 13, followed by my comments (italicized).
1. The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment. EPA works to ensure that Americans have clean air, land and water…The EPA under the Biden Administration has returned to the same top-down, coercive approach that defined the Obama Administration… As a consequence of this approach, we see the return of costly, job-killing regulations that serve to depress the economy and grow the bureaucracy but do little to address, much less resolve, complex environmental problems.
To translate: “top-down” means federal as opposed to state and local control and “coercive” means regulatory compliance is not voluntary. Admittedly, environmental regulations often impose economic costs, at least in the short term. But that’s true for regulations in general. The question is whether the payoff is worth the cost. Or are there better ways (e.g., cheaper, less burdensome) to achieve the same goal? And can we even agree on specific goals? For example, what would count as successful resolution of a “complex environmental problem”?
2. Beyond creating such immediate and tangible harm in various communities, an EPA led by activism and a disregard for the law has generated uncertainty in the regulated community, vendetta-driven enforcement, weighted analytics, increased costs, and diminished trust in final agency actions.
Gunasekara simply makes a series of accusations without providing evidence. How is the EPA creating uncertainty in the regulated community? Are the regulations vague? Do they keep changing? Is enforcement erratic or selective? If so, the regulations and their enforcement need fixing. But what does “activism” have to do with it?
3. Day One Executive Order… The order should…stop all grants to advocacy groups and review which potential federal investments will lead to tangible environmental improvements.
“Stop all grants to advocacy groups?” I’m assuming “advocacy groups” refers to environmental groups, many of which employ scientists and policy wonks with expertise directly relevant to EPA concerns. For example, in addition to its 40 staff scientists, the Environmental Defense Fund has contracts with numerous contributing scientists from academia and research institutions on various projects. Why in the world should the EPA simply stop using these groups? It’s possible to have strong convictions about the environment (whether nature-or human-centered, whether left or right) and maintain a high level of professional integrity. Environmental activists can still provide high quality information and advice. The EPA doesn’t have to embrace their ideological convictions to benefit from their input.
4. To the extent that the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) remains in place, ensure to the maximum extent possible that grants and funding are provided to state regulatory entities and not to nonprofits.
Again, use what you can and ignore the rest. Or will the Trump administration require some sort of ideological litmus test for grant eligibility, maybe no Democrats need apply?
5. Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated.
According to the EPA website, the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program “requires reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) data and other relevant information from large GHG emission sources, fuel and industrial gas suppliers, and CO2 injection sites in the United States. Approximately 8,000 facilities are required to report their emissions annually”. Facilities and suppliers are generally required to submit annual reports if 1) their GHG emissions from covered sources exceed 25,000 metric tons CO2e per year; 2) supply of certain products would result in over 25,000 metric tons CO2e of GHG emissions if those products were released, combusted, or oxidized; or 3) the facility receives 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 for underground injection.
These large GHG emission sources, fuel and industrial gas suppliers, and CO2 injection sites don’t appear to be “small businesses”. However, the EPA wants to require GHG reporting from new emission sources, which may include relatively small businesses, such as independent oil and gas exploration companies, of which there are several in North America. Here’s more from the Brownstein law firm:
“EPA seeks to add a new emissions category titled “large emission events,” which would require reporting for certain large emission events (aka “super-emitters”)… For the first time, EPA proposes to require reporting on nitrogen removal units, produced water tanks, mud degassing, crankcase venting, and combustion slip in the E&P and midstream sectors… Between capital investments and operation and maintenance costs, EPA estimates annual costs [to businesses] of $82,701/E&P [Exploration and Production] reporter, $15,245/gathering and boosting reporter, $24,670/natural gas processing reporter, and $1,656/gas pipeline reporter…it is possible implementation costs could be higher.”
Assuming the EPA’s requested expansion of emission reporting is a good idea, I hope they find a way to reduce the financial burden on small companies.
6. Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases.
This sounds rather top-down for a small-government conservative. Why shouldn’t states have the option of adopting California’s standards for greenhouse gases?
7. Eliminate the use of unauthorized regulatory inputs like the social cost of carbon, black box and proprietary models, and unrealistic climate scenarios, including those based on Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5.
Per the Brookings Institution The social cost of carbon is an estimate of the cost, in dollars, of the damage done by each additional ton of carbon emissions. It also is an estimate of the benefit of any action taken to reduce a ton of carbon emissions. What’s the problem with that?
Blackbox models refer to machine learning models that give a result or reach a decision without explaining or showing how they did so. These models are complex and difficult for humans to interpret, which can undermine trust in them. However, black box models have also been found to have high predictive accuracy, because they are able to identify intricate patterns in the data that people might not be able to see. They aren’t definitive, but they’re not meant to be. They’re simply one tool in the vast scientific toolbox.
Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 is a hypothetical trajectory for atmospheric greenhouse gases, which often served as the basis for worst-case climate change scenarios. It was based on what proved to be an overestimation of projected emissions and is now thought to be very unlikely.]
Why would scientific models be unauthorized? All research tools have their limitations. The idea is to gather evidence from many studies using a variety of research designs and tools and see where the evidence leads – that’s how science progresses.
8. Avoid proprietary, black box models for key regulations. Nearly all major EPA regulations are based on nontransparent models for which the public lacks access or for which significant costs prevent the public from understanding agency analysis.
Using proprietary Blackbox models alone could very well be a problem, but why not include Blackbox analyses and predictions as part of the body of evidence used for drafting regulations? The public doesn’t understand most scientific models – transparent or not – and that’s never been a reason to dismiss them as evidence.
9. Reject precautionary default models and uncertainty factors... Given the disproportionate economic impacts of top-down solutions, EPA should implement an approach that defaults to less restrictive regulatory outcomes. “
The precautionary principle provides guidance in environmental decision making. It has four central components: take preventive action in the face of uncertainty; shift the burden of proof to the proponents of an activity; explore a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions; and increase public participation in decision making”. Per the European Parliament Think Tank, the “precautionary principle enables decision-makers to adopt precautionary measures when scientific evidence about an environmental or human health hazard is uncertain and the stakes are high.”
Why reject uncertainty factors? Predictions are more or less uncertain. One can’t expect absolute certainty. Regulations are drafted with future effects in mind; therefore, regulators have to think about degrees of certainty when considering new regulations. One does not have to go full precautionary principle (when in doubt, assume the worst and act accordingly), but a default approach to go with the “least restrictive” regulations is equally short-sighted. What if the least uncertain predictions justify moderately restrictive regulation? If meteorologist predict a 70% chance of rain, doesn’t it make sense to bring an umbrella – even though there’s a chance it won’t rain at all?
10. Repeal Inflation Reduction Act programs providing grants for environmental science activities.
I believe Gunasekara is referring to the Environmental and Climate Justice Program , which “provides funding for financial and technical assistance to carry out environmental and climate justice activities to benefit underserved and overburdened communities”. But I’m guessing here – she doesn’t specify the specific grant program or provide any reasons for repealing these grants.