S. HRG. 115–120 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF KATHLEEN 

HARTNETT WHITE TO BE MEMBER OF THE 

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND 

ANDREW WHEELER TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 8, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF KATHLEEN HARTNETT WHITE 

OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ITY AND ANDREW WHEELER TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR TO BE MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:17 Dec 20, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 S:\_EPW\DOCS\27600.TXT SONYA
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

27–600 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 115–120 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF KATHLEEN 

HARTNETT WHITE TO BE MEMBER OF THE 

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND 

ANDREW WHEELER TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 8, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

KAMALA HARRIS, California 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

GABRIELLE BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

NOVEMBER 8, 2017 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 3 

Cornyn, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Texas, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 6 

WITNESSES 

Stivers, Hon. Steve, U.S. Representative from the State of Ohio ........................ 8 

White, Kathleen Hartnett, Director, Texas Public Policy Foundation ................ 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper .............................. 17 

Response to an additional question from Senator Booker ............................ 35 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Gillibrand ......................... 35 

Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe ............................. 36 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Merkley ........................................................................................ 37 

Senator Sanders ........................................................................................ 41 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 57 

Wheeler, Andrew, Principal, Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting .......................... 62 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper .............................. 67 

Response to an additional question from: 

Senator Gillibrand ..................................................................................... 82 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 82 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Merkley ........................................................................................ 82 

Senator Sanders ........................................................................................ 84 

Senator Sullivan ........................................................................................ 93 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 94 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Kathleen Hartnett White, Distinguished Senior Fellow-in-Residence & Director, Armstrong Center for Energy & the Environment, 

www.texaspolicy.com, sourced November 7, 2017 ............................................. 600 

Board of Directors, www.texaspolicy.com, sourced November 7, 2017 ................ 602 

Information on the Texas Public Policy Foundation from 

www.sourcewatch.org, sourced November 7, 2017 ............................................ 605 

Green Energy Policies May Haunt Democrats This Fall, The Patriot Post, 

July 2, 2016 .......................................................................................................... 626 

Trump pick for top environmental post once wrote Texas would be ‘better 

off’ as an independent republic, www.cnn.com, October 26, 2017 ................... 628 

Clean Air Act ........................................................................................................... 632 

(1) 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF KATHLEEN HARTNETT WHITE TO BE MEMBER OF 

THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ANDREW WHEELER TO BE DEPUTY 

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Capito, Boozman, 

Wicker, Fischer, Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan, Cardin, Whitehouse, 

Merkley, Gillibrand, Booker, Markey, Duckworth, and Harris. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Good morning. I call this hearing to order. 

Today we will consider the nominations of Kathleen Hartnett 

White to be a member of the Council of Environmental Quality— 

the CEQ, and Andrew Wheeler to be Deputy Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

Before I speak about the nominees, I want to reiterate remarks 

that I made last week on the Senate floor that are applicable to 

today’s hearing. All year long, Democrats have been putting up 

roadblocks to President Trump’s nominations. Democrats have 

been forcing 30 hours of debate on even some of the most bipartisan of President Trump’s nominees. But then those Democrats 

have not been showing up to use the time for the debate, the 30 

hours. 

In the past, both sides would agree to waive the time requirements and to move on to other Senate business. But today many 

Democrats insist on cloture votes and then insist that we waste 

hour after hour on the Senate floor, even when there is no one on 

the floor to debate the nominees that are in front of us. 

It is time to end this pointless spectacle. We have nearly 100 

nominees for important jobs in the Administration on the Executive 

Calendar waiting a vote on the Senate floor. The Environment and 

Public Works Committee has reported 11 nominees to the full SenVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:17 Dec 20, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\27600.TXT SONYA
2 

ate for approval, only two of whom have received votes on the Senate floor so far. 

I am pleased that we will be able to vote on another this week, 

but unfortunately, it required cloture and another 30 hours of debate time. 

As of last Friday, there have been 51 cloture votes on President 

Trump’s nominees. In comparison, the previous four Administrations had only a total of seven cloture votes on their nominees at 

this point in their administrations. That would be Bill Clinton, 

Barack Obama, and both Presidents Bush. 

Democrats are not using the Senate rules for debate or deliberation, only for delay. It is therefore time to change the rules and go 

back to the process that Senator Schumer supported in 2013 and 

2014. Today, the schedule allows us to do only one or two nominations in a typical week. If we go back to the 2014 Schumer standard, we could clear multiple nominations in a day. 

Now I would like to turn to today’s nominees. 

President Trump has nominated Kathleen Hartnett White to be 

a member of the CEQ. The President intends to designate her as 

the Chair of the CEQ upon her confirmation by the Senate. CEQ 

was established pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 

Act, the implementation of which the CEQ oversees. CEQ is responsible for coordinating Federal environmental efforts. It develops and recommends national policies to the President that promote the improvement of environmental quality. 

James Connaughton, who is the former Chair of the CEQ under 

President George W. Bush, said this of Ms. Hartnett White. He 

said, ‘‘She is clearly highly qualified, adept, and has a breadth of 

experience.’’ 

Ms. White currently serves as a distinguished senior fellow in 

residence and director of the Armstrong Center for Energy and Environment at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which she joined 

in 2008. From 2001 to 2007 she served as Chairman and Commissioner of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. 

Ms. White has also served as a leader of the Lower Colorado 

River Authority, the Texas Water Development Board, the Texas 

Economic Development Commission, the Environmental Flow 

Study Commission, the Texas Emissions Reduction Advisory Board, 

the Texas Water Foundation, the National Cattlemen’s Association, 

and the Texas Wildlife Association. 

I look forward to hearing from Ms. White how she will bring her 

breadth of experience to bear on CEQ. 

President Trump also nominated Andrew Wheeler to be Deputy 

Administrator of the EPA. The Deputy Administrator plays a central role in developing and implementing programs and activities 

focused on fulfilling the EPA’s mission of protecting human health 

and the environment. The Deputy Administrator oversees Agencywide initiatives and coordinates important issues with EPA’s regional and program offices. 

I was heartened by the Ranking Member’s positive comments 

about Mr. Wheeler and his dedication to the EPA’s mission. Our 

Ranking Member has previously stated, ‘‘The fact that we have 

worked with him, we know him, he used to work with George 

Voinovich, who is one of my closest friends and allies on the enviVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:17 Dec 20, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\27600.TXT SONYA
3 

ronment, is certainly helpful.’’ He went on to say, ‘‘And I think, 

having worked in the Agency, he actually cares about the environment, the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the planet on 

which we live.’’ 

Mr. Wheeler has spent over 25 years working in the environmental field, first as a career employee with the title of Environmental Protection Specialist at EPA for 4 years, then as the EPW’s 

Clean Air Subcommittee Staff Director for 6 years; next as the 

EPW’s Republican Staff Director and Chief Counsel for 6 years; 

and finally, as a consultant and lobbyist for a large variety of energy and environmental clients for the last 8 years. 

We know how well qualified Mr. Wheeler is, and if confirmed, 

what a wealth of experience and expertise he will bring to a critically important role in protecting America’s public health and safety. 

As I turn to Senator Carper, I would also add, like your two sons, 

Andrew is also an Eagle Scout. 

I would like to also now turn to the Ranking Member for his 

statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are 

grateful for this hearing and for our nominees that will be appearing before us today. 

John Barrasso and I are friends. I consider everybody on this 

Committee a friend. And I wasn’t going to mention this, but I have 

to say this. We have an Administration, Mr. Chairman, that has 

basically said to heads of various agencies they don’t have to respond to oversight inquiries from anybody except the Chairman of 

a committee. And you know and I know that usually the party that 

is not in the White House tends to be more rigorous in exercising 

oversight over the Administration. That is the way it has always 

worked, whether you have a Democrat or Republican President. 

We have asked, on our side of the aisle, some 30 letters to EPA 

asking for response. We think we are exercising our oversight responsibilities. We have heard now on about 10 of them. And if you 

are playing baseball, you are batting .333. In baseball, that is pretty good, but it is not pretty good here in the U.S. Senate. 

We can do better here. And as my colleagues know, when we had 

a Democratic administration, and my colleagues said they weren’t 

getting the responses they needed, I would literally call the heads 

of the agencies and say, for God’s sake, respond to Senator whoever 

it is. For God’s sake, respond. And that is kind of like regular 

order, and we need to get back to that. We get good responses on 

our letters, and we can move people. We move people a lot faster, 

and I want to. I want to do that. 

I come from a background that, as Governor, folks I nominate, 

I expect them to be confirmed. Get a hearing; be confirmed. Eight 

years as Governor of Delaware, and we had a Republican House, 

Democratic Senate, not one was ever turned down to lead an administration, to lead a department, to lead an agency, to serve as 

a judge. Not one was turned down. And I think part of it was the 

way we treated and responded to legislators for their lawful reVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:17 Dec 20, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\27600.TXT SONYA
4 

sponsibilities, obligation to do oversight. And we are not getting 

that right now. 

I had not planned to say that, but I felt compelled to do that, especially the part that I regard you as my friend. 

Before I turn to the nominations, I want to say I look forward 

to the day when Scott Pruitt, the head of the EPA, comes and testifies before us again. And my hope is that that day will come soon. 

Turning to today’s hearing, we have two nominees before us who 

have been nominated to serve in very important capacities, very 

important capacities. The Council on Environmental Quality is led 

by the White House’s top environmental official. CEQ has historically played a vital role in coordinating the efforts of all Federal 

agencies on cost cutting and important environmental issues. For 

example, CEQ co-chaired President Obama’s Climate Adaptation 

Task Force to help communities strengthen their resilience to extreme weather and prepare for other impacts of climate change. 

CEQ leads the Office of Federal Sustainability, which develops 

policies to modernize Federal property and save money through increased energy efficiency and other purchasing requirements. CEQ 

also plays a key role in identifying ways to make sure Federal 

agencies work together well and in a coordinated fashion. And CEQ 

helped to get the almost unanimously enacted Toxic Substance 

Control Act, which a bunch of us worked on, over the finish line 

by coordinating with a wide range of stakeholders during negotiations between the House and the Senate and those stakeholders 

and the Administration. 

The nominee to carry on this important work must be someone 

who can build alliances, someone who can work with Congress and 

be a credible leader. Unfortunately, in my view, the nominee before 

us today, Kathleen Hartnett White, does not, in my opinion, meet 

this standard. 

In her years serving the Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality and thereafter, Ms. White has shown a disdain for science, 

a disregard for laws and regulations already on the books, and a 

staggering disrespect for people who have views with which she 

disagrees. 

Ms. White, who has been asked to hold the top environmental position in the White House, has shown that she is not only a science 

denier, but actively promotes misinformation on climate, on ozone, 

on mercury, particulate matter, and other known health hazards 

that impact our air and our waterways. From describing the Renewable Fuel Standard as unethical, to comparing people who believe in climate programs to pagans, to saying that 

environmentalism will lead to mass starvation or other large scale 

calamities, her tone, her words, and her actions are simply unacceptable. 

Our second nominee, Andrew Wheeler, once occupied a seat on 

this side of the dais, as the Chairman has said. He is no stranger 

to the Environmental and Public Works Committee. As a long time 

staff member for the senior Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Wheeler 

was someone with whom we didn’t always agree on each and every 

policy, but he did prove to be one with whom we were always able 

to work together on policies that we did agree on. 

5 

Given the polarizing nature of Scott Pruitt’s EPA, as well as the 

polarizing nature of one of Mr. Wheeler’s long-time clients, Bob 

Murray, of Murray Energy, I am anxious to hear from Mr. Wheeler 

about whether he can assure members of this Committee that his 

confirmation to be Deputy Administrator of the EPA would not be 

more of the same approach at the Agency. 

I would like to know if Mr. Wheeler can leave his clients and his 

conflicts of interest behind him and start over with the interests 

of the country as his No. 1 priority. I also want to understand 

whether, unlike Ms. White, Andy Wheeler can embrace and acknowledge accepted environmental and public health science. 

So thanks, Mr. Chairman. We look forward to hearing from all 

of our witnesses, and especially welcome as a Buckeye our lead off 

witness. Thank you for joining us today. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much, Senator Carper. 

I would point out that, according to the EPA, to date, the Agency 

has delivered over 4,300 pages of documents to the minority, including civil and criminal enforcement summaries, travel records, 

communications relating to the Clean Power Plan Executive Order, 

communications relating to the oil and gas industry, information 

collection requests, and then ethics documents as well, including 

recusal forms, training records, and ethics pledges. 

I do agree that the Administration needs to be responsive to 

members from both sides of the aisle. I would point out that as an 

early member of this Committee a number of years ago, under 

Chairman Boxer, I was the Ranking Member of something called 

the Oversight Committee, and I had a number of things that I 

wanted to look into in terms of oversight, and the Chairman at 

that time told me the only oversight that was going to be done 

under her Committee at that time was over what she described as 

abuses of the Bush administration; nothing of that was happening 

during that current Obama administration. 

Senator CARPER. Well, for good or for bad, I am not Barbara 

Boxer. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. I am Tom Carper, and I want to work together, 

and I want to get things done, and I want to get reasonable responses to the two-thirds of requests we have made. I just want 

reasonable responses, and I don’t think that is too much to ask for. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Senator Cornyn of Texas was scheduled to be here to introduce 

Ms. Hartnett White. He had a conflict that he just could not avoid, 

so I am going to submit his statement to the record of support for 

Kathleen Hartnett White into the record without objection. 

Hearing none, it is submitted. 

Senator CARPER. I object. 

Senator BARRASSO. Too late. 

[Laughter.] 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cornyn follows:] 

6 


27600.001

Introduction 

Nomination Hearing of Ms. Kathleen Hartnett White to be Chairman of the White 

House Council on Environmental Quality 

Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works 

8 November 2017 

*Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper- thank you for allowing me to introduce 

my friend and fellow Texan, Kathleen Hartnett White, to be the Chairman of the White 

House Council on Environmental Quality. 

*Kathleen hails from Bastrop County, Texas where she and her husband raise National 

Champion Jack Russell Terriers and Hereford cattle. As a rancher, Kathleen 

understands the value of protecting our nation's natural resources. And that a 

successful ranching operation depends upon a healthy and thriving environment. 

*In Texas, Kathleen has served at multiple levels of government, including a six-year 

term as Chairman and Commissioner of the Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality (TCEQ). As the head of the second largest environmental regulatory agency in 

the United States, Kathleen worked tirelessly to protect the people and environment of 

Texas. In fact, during her tenure at TCEQ, Texas experienced a dramatic reduction in 

harmful emissions and pollution levels. 

*Kathleen also served on the Texas Water Development Board and the Texas Strategic 

Economic Development Commission and the Environmental Flows Study Commission. 

*Given her extensive experience as a regulator, I have no doubt she's the right person 

for this important position. Kathleen understands what it takes to manage a large 

regulatory entity. She has proven her ability to coordinate a multitude of government 

1/2 
7 


27600.002

actors and competing interests, and to do it with a high degree of intelligence, an 

understanding of complex policy issues, and plenty of good will. 

*Her extensive background as a regulator makes her the perfect choice to help 

President Trump ensure that federal agencies comply with the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). 

*We are fortunate that Kathleen has agreed to once again answer the call to public 

service, and I am honored to support her nomination here today. 

2/2 
8 

Senator BARRASSO. Now, I would like to welcome to the Committee Congressman Steve Stivers from the Ohio 15th District. And 

he would be doing us the privilege of introducing Mr. Wheeler. 

Congressman Stivers, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE STIVERS, 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member 

Carper, and Senators for the honor to be with you today. It is certainly my honor to introduce my good friend, Andrew Wheeler, who 

is nominated to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

Andrew comes with an unmatched amount of experience in energy and environment policy both in government and in the private 

sector, which will make him an excellent candidate for this role. 

Andrew and I met back in 1983 at Woodland Trails Boy Scout 

Camp, where I was Commissioner and he was the Director of Nature Conservation. He and I both went on to become Eagle Scouts, 

so I have great information, as you go through your due diligence 

for your confirmation process. He is indeed a Boy Scout. 

Even back then Andrew had clear passion for the environment 

and understood the importance of stewardship. Andrew began his 

career with the EPA, serving in the Office of Pollution Prevention. 

He then went on to the U.S. Senate, starting with Senator James 

Inhofe, then moving to the Subcommittee for Clean Air, Wetlands, 

and Nuclear Safety, and later the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works. 

In more than 10 years with these committees, he worked on 

nearly every piece of major energy and environmental related legislation that came through Congress. For example, in his time as 

Staff Director on this Committee, Andrew was responsible for managing Senate floor debate and strategy for legislation on topics including regulations, offshore oil reserves, alternative fuel vehicles, 

biofuels, and tar sands. In his role, he also gained experience developing long term goals and strategies, and managing a staff and 

budget. 

Currently, Andrew is a principal at Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting and co-lead of Faegre Baker Daniels’ energy and natural resources practice. In that role, he advises clients on a variety of 

complicated legislative, regulatory, and operational issues. 

With his years of experience in the Senate and working with 

multiple Federal agencies, it is clear that Andrew is more than 

qualified for this position. Moreover, Andrew had a top tier education, earning a B.A. in English and Biology from Case Western 

Reserve University and a Juris Doctorate from Washington University School of Law, and an MBA from George Mason University 

School of Business. 

Andrew understands the balance we need to have between environmental stewardship and responsible use of our natural resources. I have the utmost confidence in Andrew, and I hope you 

will move forward with his confirmation as Deputy Administrator 

of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

I want to thank you for your consideration, and it is certainly my 

honor to introduce my friend, Andrew Wheeler. 

9 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Representative Stivers. I appreciate your being here. You are welcome to stay or leave, 

whichever works best for your schedule, but you can’t continue to 

sit there. 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you. I will move away. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator Inhofe, I heard your name raised in that glowing recommendation. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You can 

hear from the non-Eagle Scout group now. 

I have to say there is no one in this room right now, or no one 

at this table, who knows Andrew Wheeler better and loves him 

more than I do, and I would just say that all the things that we 

did together, I think the Chairman did a good job talking about his 

background. When you stop and think about all the highway bills, 

all these bills, we did these together. We accomplished a lot, and 

a lot of that was due to Andrew Wheeler. They desperately need 

him over there. They are understaffed. And I just want those in 

this room to know that if you knew him as well as I would, we 

would have this over with already. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Now I would like to welcome our nominees to the Committee and 

ask that they please come forward. 

Kathleen Hartnett White, who is the nominee to be a member of 

the Council on Environmental Quality, and Andrew Wheeler, who 

is the nominee to be the Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

I want to remind each of you that your full written testimony 

will be made a part of the record. I look forward to hearing the testimony from both of you. 

We will hear first from Ms. Hartnett White. 

Would you like to introduce any members of the family, folks 

who may be with you today? And after you do, we would ask that 

you please proceed with your testimony at your convenience. 

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN HARTNETT WHITE, 

DIRECTOR, TEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION 

Ms. WHITE. Thank you very much, Chairman Barrasso. I would 

like to welcome and introduce some family members here who are 

with me. 

Senator BARRASSO. Please. 

Ms. WHITE. My niece, Melanie. I can’t find you. My niece, 

Melanie, and her son, Mason O’Brien. His father, Jim O’Brien, is 

my closest relative who could not attend today, but I would like to 

list them. I am proud to say his wife, Melanie, just retired from the 

U.S. Navy. I am very, very proud of her. 

My husband, also, got incredibly sick from some mean, mean flu, 

so I am a little sparse on family. But I would like to raise him up. 

My husband is a fifth generation cattle rancher in Presidio County 

in Texas, extremely remote, and he also managed to be chairman 

of the El Paso branch of the Dallas Federal Reserve and President 

of the American Hereford Association. I am very proud of him. I 

am very thankful for him and his patience. 

10 

Senator BARRASSO. Please proceed. Welcome. 

Ms. WHITE. I will now proceed with my personal statement. 

Senator BARRASSO. Please do. Welcome to the Committee, and 

please proceed. 

Ms. WHITE. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, all the 

members of the Committee, I am honored to appear before you 

today as President Trump’s nominee for member, and if confirmed, 

Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. 

And I am most grateful to the President for the confidence he has 

placed in me. 

As I just mentioned, my husband, Beau, is a fifth generation cattle rancher. His family ranch in Presidio County is really a living 

example of the mission of the NEPA, of the National Environmental Policy Act, that promotes an enduring and productive harmony between humans and the natural world. 

I grew up in rural Kansas, and there my late parents instilled 

in me a lifelong curiosity and reverence for the natural world. They 

also told me to wisely use the natural resources with which our 

country is so blessed. 

A strong economy, I believe, is what makes environmental gains 

possible. As Chairman of the TCEQ, my record of achieving major 

improvements in air quality and water quality demonstrates that 

economic growth can go hand in hand with remarkable environmental enhancement. And I am proud to say Texas has been a 

leader in that. The Texas environment is dramatically cleaner now 

than it was 30 or 40 years ago, while the State’s economy has continued to grow. 

While I was Chairman at TCEQ, Texas experienced nation leading growth in population, in gross State product, and in jobs, while 

dramatically reducing point source emissions, and my written testimony gives the percentages on all of those. 

It was a big job to chair TCEQ in a big State. In particular, I 

had regulatory oversight over more than 350,000 public and private 

entities, implementing and enforcing binding regulations on air 

quality, water quality, water supply, and waste disposal. And I 

might add, I have to submit for the record—or in whatever format 

you need—documents for all the enforcement actions I took while 

I was at TCEQ. 

Senator BARRASSO. They will be included. Thank you. 

Ms. WHITE. Thank you. 

Execution of environmental laws is essential, and we took a very 

strong perspective on that. 

With the help of a dedicated staff of over 3,000, and working 

with officials across the State and Federal agencies, TCEQ had 

many successes. As an example, for years Houston has vied with 

Los Angeles as the worst ozone polluter in the country. But under 

the implementation plan I developed while I was Chair, Houston 

actually attained the then ozone standard in 2010 and 2011, far 

earlier than many thought possible. 

The achievements in Texas in recent years I think were possible 

because we insisted upon robust science, coordination across the 

agencies, efficient permitting, and timely, predictable outcomes. 

These principles are also now the keys to the President’s agenda 

for regulatory reform and urgently needed new infrastructure. 

11 

I strongly believe that the Federal Government can and should 

provide a predictable, transparent, and timely process for making 

decisions, including for major infrastructure projects. We owe this 

to the American people. And I commend this Committee for recognizing these issues in two, now, law. I believe one is called the 

FAST Act and MAP–21, and I think that is wonderful. 

This Committee has a proud history of working together to solve 

complex national problems with practical solutions that benefit all 

Americans. If confirmed, I pledge to work with this Committee and 

the President to continue that tradition and achieve a balanced and 

effective national approach to our environmental challenges. 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to answering your 

questions today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. White follows:] 

12 


27600.003

Kathleen Hartnett White 

Distinguished Fellow-in-Residence and Director of the Armstrong Center 

for Energy & the Environment 

Texas Public Policy Foundation 

Ms. Kathleen Hartnett White currently serves as Distinguished Senior 

Fellow for energy & the environment at the Texas Public Policy Foundation 

(TPPF). From 2001 to 2007, she was Chairwoman and Commissioner of the 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) -the second largest 

environmental regulatory agency in the world. Ms. White also served as a 

Director of the Lower Colorado River Authority, the Texas Water 

Development Board, the Environmental Flows Advisory Group, the Texas Strategic Economic 

Development Planning Commission and the Texas Emissions Reduction Advisory Board. A 

leader and scholar in both environmental and energy matters, Ms. White is a past recipient of 

the Texas Water Conservation Association's President's Award and the Colorado River 

Foundation's friend of the river award. A native of Kansas, Ms. White earned her bachelor's 

and master's degrees from Stanford University, and currently resides with her husband, Beau, 

in rural Bastrop County, Texas. 
13 


27600.004

Opening Statement of Kathleen Hartnett White 

Nominee for Member, White House Council on Environmental Quality 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

November 8, 2017 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the 

Committee, I am honored to appear before you today as President 

Trump's nominee for member, and if confirmed, chairman of the White 

House Council on Environmental Quality. I am grateful to the President 

for the confidence he has placed in me. 

As I mentioned earlier, my husband Beau is a fifth generation 

cattle rancher. His family ranch in Presidio County of far west Texas, 

among the most remote areas of the country, is a living example of the 

mission of the National Environmental Policy Act to promote an 

enduring and productive harmony between humans and nature. 

Growing up in rural Kansas, my late parents instilled in me a 

lifelong curiosity and reverence for the natural world. They also taught 

me to wisely use the natural resources with which our country is so 

blessed. 
14 


27600.005

A strong economy, I believe, is what makes environmental gains 

possible. As chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality, my record of achieving major improvements in air quality 

demonstrates that economic growth indeed can go hand in hand with 

remarkable environmental improvements. And, I am proud to say, 

Texas has been a leader in showing that. 

The Texas environment is dramatically cleaner now than it was 30 

or 40 years ago, while the state's economy has continued to grow. 

While I was chairman ofTCEQ, Texas experienced nation-leading 

growth in population (3.05 million [14.6%]), Gross State Product ($438 

billion [59.1% ]), and jobs (872,352 [7 .6% ]), while dramatically reducing 

point source emissions (e.g., Nitrogen Oxides [51.3%], Volatile Organic 

Compounds [28.6%], and Sulfur Dioxide [27.1 %]), as well as ambient 

pollution levels (e.g., Ozone [30%]). Win-win outcomes are indeed 

possible. 

In particular, as chairman of TCEQ, I had regulatory oversight 

over more than 315,000 public and private entities- implementing and 

enforcing binding regulations on air quality, water quality, water supply, 

waste disposal, and recycling. With the help of a dedicated staff of over 

3,000, and working with officials across the state and federal agencies, 

2 
15 


27600.006

TCEQ had many successes. As an example, for years, Houston had vied 

with Los Angeles as the worst ozone polluter in the United States. But 

under the state implementation plan developed when I was chair, 

Houston actually attained those federal ozone standards in 2010 and 

2011, far earlier than many thought possible. 

The achievements of Texas in recent years, I think were possible 

because we insisted upon robust science, coordination across agencies, 

efficient permitting and timely, predictable outcomes. These principles 

are also the keys to the President's agenda for regulatory reform and 

urgently needed new infrastructure. I strongly believe that the Federal 

government can and should provide a predictable, transparent, and 

timely process for making decisions, including for major infrastructure 

projects. We owe this to the American people. 

I am an environmental optimist. I believe in and played a part in 

win-win environmental and economic outcomes. I have witnessed firsthand in Texas dramatic environmental improvements in air and water 

quality while the economy grew and jobs increased. Similar 

opportunities are now possible across the country. The biggest 

challenge to expanding win-win outcomes is the weight of unnecessarily 

burdensome costs and unpredictable regulatory processes. 

3 
16 


27600.007

This Committee has a proud history of working together to solve 

complex national problems with practical solutions that benefit all 

Americans. If confirmed, I pledge to work with this Committee to 

continue that tradition and achieve a balanced and effective national 

approach to our environmental challenges. 

Thank you. I look forward to responding to any questions the 

Committee may have. 

4 
17 


27600.008

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled "Hearing on the Nominations of Kathleen Hartnett White to be Member of 

the Council on Environmental Quality and Andrew Wheeler to be Deputy Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency." 

November 8, 2017 

Questions for the Record for Ms. Kathleen Hartnett White 

Ranking Member Carper: 

Please provide a response to each question, including each sub-part. 

I. Do you agree to provide complete, accurate and timely responses to requests for 

information submitted to you by any Member of the Environment and Public Works 

Committee? If not, why not? 

Yes. 

2. The Rule of Law Defense Fund is an affiliate of the Republican Attorneys General 

Association. Have you ever contributed any money or time to the Rule of Law Defense 

Fund? If so, please provide details. 

No. 

3. In the White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA, February 2012, industry argued, "the record 

does not support EPA's findings that mercury, non-mercury HAP metals, and acid gas 

HAPs [hazardous air pollutants] pose public health hazards." 1 Do you agree with this 

statement? Why or why not? 

EPA calculated that nearly all (>99%) of the benefits from the Mercury and Air 

Toxics (MATS) rule would not come from the reduction of mercury and air toxics, 

but would come from co-benefits from the reduction of PMz.s. EPA estimated that 

mercury reductions from MATS would prevent a 0.00209 IQ point loss per child. 

IQ tests cannot detect such a miniscule change. The benefits from non-mercury 

HAP metals and acid gas HAPs were so tiny that EPA did not even attempt to 

quantitate them. Therefore, EPA's own analysis demonstrates that the MATS 

will not result in a measurable improvement in public health from reductions in 

the very pollutants it is intended to reduce. 

4. On April 17, 2012, Dr. Jerome Paulson, Chair, Council on Environmental Health, 

American Academy of Pediatrics, testified before the EPW Committee, stating, 

"Methyl mercury causes localized death of nerve cells and destruction of other cells in 

the developing brain of an infant or fetus. It interferes with the movement of brain cells 

and the eventual organization of the brain ... The damage it [methylmercury] causes to 

an individual's health and development is permanent and irreversible .... There is no 

1 https://www .cadcuscourts.gov /internet/opinions. nsf /284AC4 708BC070098525 7CBB004 F0795/%24file/t2 ·1100··1488346. pdf 

Page 1 of 45 
18 


27600.009

evidence demonstrating a "safe" level of mercury exposure, or a blood mercury 

concentration below which adverse effects on cognition are not seen. Minimizing 

mercury exposure is essential to optimal child health.''2 

a. Do you agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics' finding on the 

importance of minimizing mercury exposures for child health? If not, please 

cite the scientific studies that support your disagreement. 

I wholeheartedly agree that children should not be exposed to unsafe 

levels of mercury or any other toxic substance. 

b. Do you agree that the record supports EPA's findings that mercury, nonmercury hazardous air pollutant metals, and acid gas hazardous air 

pollutants emitted from uncontrolled power plants pose public health 

hazards? If not, why not? 

Yes. EPA calculated with controls that nearly all (>99%) of the 

benefits from the Mercury and Air Toxics (MATS) rule would not come 

from the reduction of mercury and air toxics, but would come from cobenefits from the reduction ofPM2.s. EPA estimated that mercury 

reductions from MATS would prevent a 0.00209 IQ point loss per child. 

IQ tests cannot detect such a miniscule change. The benefits from nonmercury HAP metals and acid gas HAPs were so tiny that EPA did not 

even attempt to quantitate them. Therefore EPA's own analysis 

demonstrates that the MATS will not result in a measurable 

improvement in public health from reductions in the very pollutants it 

is intended to reduce. 

c. Do you agree that it is currently difficult to monetize the reduced risk of 

human health and ecological benefits from reducing mercury emissions 

from power plants? If so, please explain. If not, why not? 

I agree that it is difficult to monetize the human health and ecological 

benefits from any environmental regulation. Assessing exposure and 

responses to low levels of environmental pollutants is fraught with 

uncertainty. No one disputes this. 

5. The Edison Electric Institute (EEl), the association that represents all U.S. investorowned electric companies, has told my staff that, to its knowledge, all of its member 

companies have fully implemented the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule. EPA 

staff has reported to my staff something similar. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

Rule protects our children from harmful mercury and air toxics pollution; and by 

industry accounts is already being met with technology that is already bought, paid for 

and running on almost all our power plants. 

Page 2 of 45 
19 


27600.010

a. Do you dispute reports that nearly all covered facilities are already in 

compliance with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards? If so, please explain. 

I have no reason to dispute the claim that power plants that remain open 

have met the MATS. 

b. According to a recent report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance Report and 

the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, "consumers now pay 3% less 

per kilowatt-hour for electricity than in 2007."3 This means the near universal 

compliance ofthe Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule has been achieved 

without significant impacts to electricity reliability or affordability, in fact 

electricity prices have gone down. Do you agree? If not, why not? 

I cannot agree with the second statement in the question because it is not 

backed up by any data to establish a specific relationship between MATS 

compliance costs and general market affordability trends and no 

information regarding reliability is provided in the question. I share the 

universally held view by utility rate experts, which is that low natural gas 

prices are the primary reason why electricity prices have dropped. A 

credible assumption would be that electricity costs would have dropped 

even more without MATS given that MATS-compliant coal units have 

continued to be a significant share of electric generation and additional 

emission control requirements add costs to a power plant, both in terms 

of up-front capital and ongoing operation and maintenance costs. Also, 

the question does not account for the fact that "affordability and 

reliability" are impacted in different regions/localities by the types of 

electric generating units in each region/locality. I do not believe that 

generalized statements about the entire fleet can be assumed to accurately 

represent trends of all regions/localities. 

c. Even though industry has achieved near universal compliance with the 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and electricity prices have gone down, 

not up, Administrator Pruitt is currently reviewing whether it is "appropriate 

and necessary" to issue the standards in the first place. Do you agree that 

the EPA should be conducting this review, and if so, why? 

Mercury is listed as a hazardous air pollutant under Section 112 of the 

Clean Air Act and is subject to regulation from listed source categories 

of hazardous air pollutants. Electric utility steam generating units are 

subject to regulation under Section 112 only upon a lawful showing that 

their regulation is appropriate and necessary. In Michigan v. EPA, the 

Supreme Court concluded that EPA interpreted Section 112(n) 

unreasonably by failing to consider costs in its "appropriate and 

necessary" determination. Therefore, I believe it is entirely appropriate 

3 http://www .bcse.or g/'-'!..Q_ content/u plo,lds/2017~Susta inablt> Energy,in·America- Fi.lctbook-Executlve-Summary. pdf 

Page 3 of 45 
20 


27600.011

for the Administrator to be conducting review of that finding. 

d. If the EPA determines the agency has not met the "necessary and 

appropriate" criteria found in Section 112(n), and revokes the Mercury and 

Air Toxics Standards Rule, what does that mean for all the pollution control 

technology that has been bought, paid for and running on our power plants 

that is helping the industry be in full compliance of the rule? 

I cannot predict whether power plant operators will, in the absence of a 

federal regulatory requirement to do so, continue to incur the ongoing 

operating and maintenance costs associated with MATS-driven pollution 

control technology. 

6. Tf confirmed, how do you plan to maintain a relationship with the White House Office of 

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)? 

CEQ and OSTP are important components oftbe Executive Office of the President 

and I expect to work closely with OSTP to ensure that sound science is used in our 

recommendations to the President. 

7. In the absence of Senate-confirmed leadership at OSTP, how will you work with OSTP if 

confirmed? With whom will you interact? 

I will work with the acting leadership of the OSTP. 

8. Do you believe it would benefit the administration to nominate leaders for OSTP so that 

OSTP is better positioned to work with CEQ? Why or why not? 

Yes. 

9. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process provides the public with often 

their only opportunity to influence federal agency decision-making. Do you agree that it 

is important for citizens to be able to participate in the analysis of impacts of a proposed 

federal action that may affect their lives and businesses before that decision is 

made? Will you work to ensure that those opportunities are not weakened? 

Yes. Yes. 

I 0. Similarly, the NEP A process provides other government agencies, whether other federal 

agencies, local and state agencies or tribal governments the opportunity to participate as 

partners in the analysis of proposed federal actions. Do you support the mechanisms that 

allow for that participation? 

Yes. 

II. In response to a question from Chairman Barrasso about why you would like to serve at 

CEQ, one of the reasons you articulated is that given the last two surface transportation 

Page 4 of45 
21 


27600.012

bills, you said that this is a unique opportunity to "reform much of the NEPA process" 

and later added that you would seek "very significant changes in environmental 

review". Are you aware, according to an April 2014 Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) Report on NEPA Analyses, that less than I percent of Federally assisted highway 

projects require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, the most detailed 

NEPA review document, while almost all other Federally assisted highway projects 

proceed under a Categorical Exclusion? Why specifically do you believe that "very 

significant changes in environmental review" are necessary given the information 

included in the GAO report? 

Yes. As currently administered, the NEPA process is suboptimal for taxpayers and 

decision makers, especially with respect to the length of time now required. 

12. Are you aware that the same GAO report found that overwhelming evidence shows that 

the causes of delay for these major projects are more often tied to local/state and projectspecific factors, agency priorities, project funding levels, local opposition to a project, 

project complexity, or late changes in project scope? Why specifically do you believe that 

"very significant changes in environmental review" are necessary given the information 

included in the GAO report? 

I'm certain that there are a variety of factors that complicate infrastructure 

development in the United States. Only one of them- NEPA administration- is 

jurisdictional to CEQ. 

13. You have indicated that Executive Order 13807 on "Establishing Discipline and 

Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure" is 

a top priority for you to implement. As you may be aware, President Trump has failed to 

appoint an Executive Director for the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council 

(FPISC). The FPISC Executive Director is charged, among other tasks, with establishing 

standard schedules for completing the environmental review process for specific types of 

infrastructure projects. Would you agree that a new director should be appointed quickly 

and empowered with the resources and staff to make the FAST Act's Title 41 permitting 

provisions a success? Why or why not? 

Decisions on appointments are made at the President's discretion. 

14. As you may know, American Indians and Alaska Natives share a unique relationship with 

the federal government. As part of that relationship, the federal government has a duty to 

perform meaningful consultation with Indian Tribes and Alaska Native villages regarding 

issues that affect tribal communities and tribal members. Do you commit to engage in 

essential and honest consultation with tribes and tribal governments? 

Yes. 

Page 5 of 45 
22 


27600.013

15. You asserted in an August 31, 2015 press release4 that under the Clean Water Rule 

established by the Obarna Administration, "EPA can seize control of dry land where 

water may flow after heavy rains. This means that if common drainage ditches or the 

channels between planted rows of crops contribute water flow, regardless of frequency or 

volume, to a downstream water it would categorically be within EPA's purview." You 

further assert that "The average person will be forced to obtain a permit, potentially 

costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, from the U.S. Corps of Engineers just to erect a 

fence or put in a driveway." 

a. Under the Clean Water Act Section 404(f), all normal farming activitiesincluding row crop farming-are exempt from permit requirements. Do you 

agree that the Clean Water Rule did not change that exemption for normal 

farming activities? If not, please explain why not, using specific textual 

references from the Clean Water Rule. 

EPA has proposed to rescind the 2015 WOTUS Rule and recodify the 

rule that was in place prior to the 2015 rule. 82 FR 34,899 (July 27, 

2017). Public comment closed in September. Regarding the 2015 rule, 

while the 2015 rule did not specifically revise the statutory exemptions 

located in Section 404(1)(1), it is possible that the expansive descriptions 

and new definitions in the 2015 rule could be interpreted as redefining 

areas or activities incidental to an activity or area that was once excluded 

from coverage under 404(t) under the prior rule to be considered 

jurisdictional under the 2015 rule. Section 404(1)(2) also contains an 

exemption from the exemption thus allowing certain activities to require 

a permit. It is possible this exemption might be invoked more often thus 

eroding a statutory exemption by regulation. 

b. Please explain how channels between planted rows of crops and construction 

of fences by farmers are not a result of normal farming activities, and thus 

exempt from Clean Water Act regulation. 

As stated above, it is possible under the lens of the 2015 rule to view 

longstanding agricultural features as jurisdictional. Channels are often 

provided to move water whether it is storm or irrigation water. A change 

in the activity or relocation of a historical feature might trigger a new 

jurisdictional evaluation under the 2015 rule. 

c. Under the Clean Water Rule, EPA ditches would be regulated only if they 

meet the definition of"tributary," which means they contain a bed, a bank and 

ordinary high water mark. What percentage of"common drainage ditches" 

associated with agricultural practices meet that definition? 

Page 6 of 45 
23 


27600.014

I cannot quantify that percentage, but the 2015 rule would expand the 

definition. 

d. You mention in your press release that anyone desiring to erect a fence or put 

in a driveway would be forced to obtain a permit, potentially costing hundreds 

of thousands of dollars. In reality, is it not the case that this cost estimate is 

based on a single analysis and applies only to the cost of applying for an 

individual permit from the Corps of Engineers? 

There may be additional costs for surveys, consultants, scientists and 

attorneys necessary to defend a feature or obtain a permit, and that 

would not include the value of a permittee's time. These costs will 

increase dramatically if a jurisdictional determination is denied and there 

is need to appeal. 

e. Is it not also true that such permits account for only about three percent of the 

permits that the Corps of Engineers issues?5 

I do not know the exact percentage of the permits, but given the 

expansive 2015 rule which created more questions than certainty, that 

percentage could be expected to increase. 

f. And is it nottrue that smaller-scale activities like building fences and putting 

in driveways would fall under the Corps' nationwide permits, whose average 

cost is about $29,000 per application? 

The expansive rule could minimize the benefit ofthe Nationwide Permits. 

Activities that once were covered under a Nationwide Permit could be 

seen under the 2015 rule as impacting larger areas and requiring 

individual permits. 

16. As you may be aware, two weeks prior to Hurricane Harvey devastated vast portions of 

Texas, Executive Order 13807 on "Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the 

Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure" went so far as to repeal 

the Federal Floodplain Risk Management Standard (FFRMS), which would have held 

new infrastructure projects to more resilient standards. The FFRMS guidance provided 

three flexible options for meeting the standard in flood hazard areas: (I) build standard 

infrastructure. such as federally funded housing and roads. two feet above the I 00 -year 

flood standard and elevate critical infrastructure, like hospitals and fire departments, by 

three teet; (2) elevate infrastmcture to the 500 year flood standard; or (3) simply use 

data and methods informed by the best-available, actionable climate science. In sho1i, 

the FFRMS was meant to protect taxpayer dollars spent on projects in areas prone to 

flooding. not to mention the human toll of such events. That is a common-sense 

approach given that in just the past five years, all 50 states have experienced flood 

damage. 

5https:l/www.everycr'>repori.corn/files/20160623 97223 c7ac7S 7 2 206SS 7c3alc1044778014d7bb2Sbcf3c.pdf p. 2a 

Page 7 of45 
24 


27600.015

a. In light of the Hurricane-related damage observed this season, would you 

support the reinstatement of the FFRMS? If not, why not, and how would you 

suggest resiliency be factored into the infrastructure project design and 

approval process? 

State and local governments remain free to impose higher design 

standards where needed. We should continue to provide technical 

support and assistance to those communities who may be at a higher risk 

for flooding. If confirmed I commit to work with FEMA to improve the 

nation's preparedness and resilience against all-hazards and will continue 

to encourage local communities to take actions that limit or reduce the 

impact of hazards. 

b. Do you agree that infrastructure projects that do not account f(x flooding 

hazards in the manner(s) prescribed by the FFRMS would be more likely to 

suffer flood damage over the lifetime of the inrrastructure? Would such 

damage be likely to result in additional costs to repair'? If not, why not? 

Not necessarily. There are multiple ways to account for the potential risk 

associated with flooding. State and local governments remain free to 

impose higher design standards where needed. We should continue to 

provide technical support and assistance to those communities who may 

he at a higher risk for flooding. If confirmed I commit to work with 

FEMA to improve the nation's preparedness and resilience against allhazards and will continue to encourage local communities to take actions 

that limit or reduce the impact of hazards. 

c. Do you view the repeal of the FFRMS as a national security threat. given the 

security threat that rising sea levels could pose to military bases? If not, why 

not? 

The military is capable of assessing and mitigating the risk posed to its 

facilities. State and local governments remain free to impose bigber 

design standards wbere needt.>d. We should continue to provide technical 

support and assistance to those communities who may be at a higher risk 

for flooding. If confirmed I commit to work witb FEMA to imprm1e the 

nation's preparedness and resilience against all-hazards and will continue 

to encourage local communities to take actions that limit or reduce the 

impact of hazards. 

d. Do you think Executive Order 13653 should be reinstated? If not, why not? 

For the reasons set forth above, I do not. State and local governments 

remain free to impose higher design standards where needed. We should 

continue to provide technical support and assistance to those 

communities who may be at a higher risk for flooding. If confirmed I 

Page 8 of 45 
25 


27600.016

commit to work with FEMA to improve the nation's preparedness and 

resilience against all-hazards and will continue to encourage local 

communities to take actions that limit or reduce the impact of hazards. 

17. You said in a 2015 op-ed that, quote, "extreme weather events have not been more 

frequent or more intense than in the 20th century." This country just suffered three 

unusually intense hurricanes in quick succession- including one in your home state of 

Texas and one that has left the majority of Puerto Rico without electricity and water for 

weeks. Over l37 wildfires have raged in the West, costing hundreds of billions of dollars 

in damages and dozens oflost lives. Two weeks ago, the Trump White House released a 

final (ie, not draft, as was inaccurately asserted at the hearing) report6 that concluded that, 

quote, "it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse 

gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." The 

report also documented increases in sea levels, heatwaves, wildfires, and flooding, and 

said that, quote, "Changes in the characteristics of extreme events are particularly 

important for human safety." 

a. Do you continue to reject the evidence that carbon dioxide pollution is causing 

the earth to warm, that human activity is responsible for that warming, and 

that with increased warming comes an increased frequency and intensity of 

extreme flooding. hurricanes and wildfires? If so. please fully document the 

basis for such rejection. 

The climate is changing and human activity impacts our changing climate 

in some manner. The ability to measure with precision the degree and 

extent of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing 

debate and dialogue. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any 

regulatory actions are based on the most up to date and objective 

scientific data. 

b. Do you agree with the report's conclusion that "it is extremely likely that 

human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant 

cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century?" If not, please 

fully document the basis for your disagreement. 

The climate is changing and human activity impacts our changing climate 

in some manner. The ability to measure with precision the degree and 

extent of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing 

debate and dialogue. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any 

regulatory actions are based on the most up to date and objective 

scientific data. 

6 https://sdence2017 .globilkhanvP.gov/ 

Page 9 of 45 
26 


27600.017

c. Do you agree with the report's documentation that demonstrated increases in 

sea levels, heatwaves, wildfires, and flooding? If not, please fully document 

the basis for your disagreement. 

I agree that sea level is rising, just as it was in the mid-1800s and has been 

since the end of the last icc age. I disagree that we know with any level of 

certainty how much human activity has caused that rate of rise to 

increase. There are large decadal and even century time scale variations 

in these events. 

18. Can you name one Clean Air Act regulation that was promulgated by the Obama 

Administration- not a voluntary or grant program that you do support, and why? 

I support those regulations that are based on sound science and good public 

policy considerations. 

19. Are there any other EPA regulations- not a voluntary or grant program- that are on 

the books today that you support? If so, which ones? 

Yes. I support all the regulations although I may have concerns about the 

scientific merits of some of the standards incorporated into those regulations. 

20. Please define the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)'s mission and the role 

you believe that sound science plays in fulfilling that mission. 

"To declare national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony 

between humans and their environment, to promote efforts which will prevent or 

eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and 

welfare of people; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural 

resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental 

Quality." 

Science should play an informational and educational role in the policy-making process. 

21. The President has signaled in his 2018 Budget that he would like to restart the 

licensing process for the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. The 

Department of Energy will have to supplement the Environmental Impact Statement 

and CEQ may be asked to be involved. You have made statements in favor of 

nuclear energy- do you support President Trump's proposal to move forward with 

the Yucca Mountain project? 

Although generally supportive of nuclear power, I have not studied or been 

briefed on the specific merits of the nuclear waste repository at Yucca 

Mountain. I would need to reserve judgment until fully informed on the 

project. 

22. Delaware is already seeing the adverse effects of climate change with sea level rise, 

ocean acidification, and stronger storms. While all states will be harmed by climate 

Page 10 of 45 
27 


27600.018

change, the adverse effects will vary by state and region. Can you comment on why it is 

imperative that we have national standards for the reduction in carbon pollution? If 

you do not believe it is imperative, why not? 

I believe it is the responsibility of Congress to determine what, if any, standards 

we should have for regulating carbon dioxide. 

23. In a per curiam opinion, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

affirmed the Endangerment Finding and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to issue a 

writ of certiorari on the D.C. Circuit's decision. The Endangerment Finding set in 

motion EPA's legal obligations to set greenhouse gas emissions standards for mobile 

and stationary sources, including those established by the Clean Power Plan in August 

2015.1 During an exchange with Senator Gillibrand during Administrator Pruitt's 

confirmation hearing before the Environment and Public Works Committee, he stated, 

"I believe that the EPA, because of the Mass v. EPA case and the endangerment 

finding, has obligations to address the C02 [carbon dioxide] issue." Do you agree with 

Administrator Pruitt's statement that the EPA has an obligation to address C02? If 

not, why not? 

Yes. 

24. Clean car standards save consumers money at the pump and help reduce oil imports. 

Automakers are complying with vehicle standards ahead of schedule. If confirmed, will 

you commit to support federal programs to address emissions from vehicles? 

These standards are under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency 

and not CEQ. However, if confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on this 

matter and working with OMB on the regulatory review process. 

25. For the most part, patients and their families only participate in scientific trials and 

studies once they know their privacy - and any resulting health-related information -

will remain confidential and secure. If confirmed, do you commit to respecting 

confidentiality agreements that exist between researchers and their subjects? Will you 

protect the health information of the thousands of people that have participated in 

health studies in the past? 

Yes, I will commit to ensuring that sensitive personal information remains 

secured. 

26. In December 2007, President Bush's EPA proposed to declare greenhouse gases as a 

danger to public welfare through a draft Endangerment Finding, stating, 

"The Administrator proposes to find that the air pollution of elevated levels of 

greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations may reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public welfare ... Carbon dioxide is the most important GHG (greenhouse gas) directly 

emitted by human activities, and is the most significant driver of climate change." 8 Do 

7 https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/us~court-anpeals-dc-circuit-upholds-epas-action-reduce-greenhouse-gases-under-clean 

RhHp:, m:,JJ<;chnulkn..o\\:-, or" ~l!!:'_~J,:f@l!.J!]es'"'U117 Draft Proposed b1.!arlt',\'rlllC'!H Findinl! pJi 

Page 11 of 45 
28 


27600.019

you agree with these statements, if not, why not? 

The climate is changing and human activity impacts our changing climate in some 

manner. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that 

impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue. If 

confirmed, I will work to ensure that any regulatory actions are based on the most 

up to date and objective scientific data. 

27. How many times have you called for the end of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)? 

Please list each such instance, along with the argument you used in support of your 

views. 

New data regarding the increased size of the corn crop and for innovative new 

uses of ethanol have altered my previous comments about renewable fuels. 

Thanks to the prodigious increase in the US corn crop and innovative science, 

America and the world are enjoying a "win-win" gain in our energy supply and 

global food supply. 

28. Do you agree that the EPA's recent consideration of the costs of the Mercury and Air 

Toxics Standards Rule shows that the agency has met the "necessary and appropriate" 

criteria Congress provided under 112(n) to direct the EPA to regulate power plant 

mercury (and other air toxic) emissions under Section 112, and more specifically under 

Section 112(d)? If not, why not? 

The quantifiable monetized benefits of the HAP reductions predicted to occur under 

MATS measured only a few million dollars. I understand that EPA has recalculated 

the benefits attributable to MATS in response to the Supreme Court remand. I am 

not familiar with the new estimates and I cannot prejudge any decision that might 

be made by EPA as it conducts its ongoing review of the rule. 

29. Do you agree with Justice Scalia's opinion in Whitman v. American Trucking 

Associations that it is "fairly clear that [the Clean Air Act] does not permit the EPA to 

consider costs in setting the standards"? If you do not agree, why not? 

I agree with Justice Scalia's opinion that the Clean Air Act does not explicitly tell 

the EPA to consider costs in setting the NAAQS. However, I also agree with 

Justice Breyer's opinion that "we should read silences or ambiguities in the 

language of regulatory statutes as permitting, not forbidding, this type of rational 

regulation." 

30. Do you agree with President Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the 

International Paris Climate Accord? If so, please explain. 

Page 12 of 45 
29 


27600.020

I agree that it was wise, for at least two reasons. First, the U.S. is unfairly burdened 

under the agreement compared to other major emitters like China and India. 

Secondly, the terms of the agreement would be all economic pain for the U.S. with 

no measurable climate gain. 

31. In our personal meeting, you also expressed that you did not support the Mercury and Air 

Taxies Standards or MATS rule. 

a. Please provide a detailed explanation of why you do not support the 

regulation. 

EPA's own analysis demonstrates that the MATS will not result in a 

measurable improvement in public health from reductions in the very 

pollutants it is intended to reduce. 

b. Do agree with the comments in the President's budget, that state the Mercury 

and Air Taxies Standards Rule is burdensome, and do you support 

Administrator Pruitt rescinding the rule? 

I think it is always appropriate for any agency to determine if a 

regulation is "appropriate and necessary" as long as the agency follows 

the appropriate administrative procedures. 

32. Currently, you are a member of the C02 Coalition that promotes misinformation about 

climate science. In February of this year, you spoke on a panel hosted by the C02 

Coalition. There you described the C02 Coalition as, a "very, very meaningful source [of 

information]," and said that you were "very hopeful because of organizations like the 

C02 Coalition." You go on to say that "carbon dioxide is not a pollutant." Ms. White, 

do you denounce the C02 Coalition as a misinformation campaign or do you continue to 

agree that climate policies deprive mankind of the benefits of carbon dioxide? 

The C02 Coalition increases public awareness of scientific issues that should be 

part of the public debate on climate change and energy policy, such as: C02 is 

necessary for life on Earth. 

33. Is the U.S. National Academies of Sciences a reliable authority on scientific matters? If 

not, why not? 

They certainly can be. 

34. In a 2011 Americans for Prosperity Conference, you stated that particulate matter is not 

a health hazard. What is the scientific basis for this statement, and do you continue to 

stand by it? 

Ambient PM levels in the United States today are low and I do not believe that PM 

at these levels pose a health hazard. There is considerable uncertainty in the 

scientific literature about whether exposure to PM actually causes adverse health 

Page 13 of45 
30 


27600.021

outcomes and, if it does, at what concentration effects may occur. EPA's own 

assessment documents for the 2012 PM NAAQS outline many of these 

uncertainties. 

35. What, if any, are the casual connections between hydraulic fracturing and 

environmental problems such as contamination of drinking water, air emissions of toxic 

pollutants and greenhouse gases and even earthquakes? 

In EPA's recent study, it found that there is no clear evidence or widespread cases 

of hydraulic fracturing contaminating drinking water. I do believe that concerns 

associated with hydraulic fracturing, and all other forms of energy production, 

should continue to he studied. 

36. In 2012, you wrote, "The Clean Air Act (CAA) no longer provides an effective, 

scientifically credible, or economically viable means of air quality management."9 Do 

you still agree with this statement? If so, why? If not, why not? 

I still agree with this statement. The CAA, as applied, has become outdated and 

inefficient. 

37. Should states have more control over the air pollution reductions requirements under 

the Regional Haze Program under the Clean Air Act? 

It is not clear what is intended by the phrase "more control over," hut I would defer 

to the language Congress included quite explicitly in the statute where it provides: 

"air pollution prevention ... at its source is the primary responsibility of States and local 

governments." 

38. According to the work history that you provided the Committee, from 1980 through 

1985, you worked as a manager for Hartnett and Evans. Please provide a detailed 

description of the company, including any involvement the company had in any oil and 

gas related activities at any time. 

When my father's health began to decline, I often came home to help. Hartnett and 

Evans was a farming business predominantly devoted to raising wheat. In about the 

1930's, the business sold some leases to energy companies for oil and gas production 

and retained de minimis royalties on a very small share. The farm property sold 

decades ago. The wells involved were stripper wells with minimal volume and 

declining production. I assigned my small holding as gift to my nephew. 

39. In your June 29,2013 Fuel-fix article, Ethanol follies continue with Domestic and 

Alternative fuels, you wrote, "Unexpected in 2007, the historic upsurge in domestic oil 

and natural gas has brought the U.S. within sight of energy dominance in the global 

market. Corn ethanol deserves no credit for this stunning achievement." Do you still 

agree with these statements, and if so, why? If not, why not? 

~ http://thf rnedia.s3.amawnaws.com/2012/Environment<~IConservation/Environmentai-Conscrvation:I.lliLB_ook.pdf 

Page 14 of 45 
31 


27600.022

As you know, recently the President clearly communicated his support for the 

Renewable Fuel Standard. If confirmed, I will fully support the President's policy 

on the RFS. The Chairman of the CEQ does not have direct role in implementing 

the RFS but I will support the letter and spirit of the law. 

I support all forms of energy and that includes ethanol. Our country is blessed with 

diverse and abundant energy sources among which ethanols are making an 

increasingly significant contribution. The diversity of the energy resources we enjoy 

in the US is a strategic asset for our national security, the economy, jobs and 

fundamental human welfare. 

40. In your June 29, 2013 Fuel-fix article, Ethanol follies continue with Domestic and 

Alternative foels, you wrote, "It is time to repeal the renewable fuel standard -not to 

expand or entrench this market distortion. Ethanol can be made from a wide variety of 

sources. Genuine snake oil, in fact, might be a more thermodynamically efficient 

source than natural gas or com." Do you still agree with these statements, if so, why? 

If not, why not? 

As you know, recently the President clearly communicated his support for the 

Renewable Fuel Standard. If confirmed, I will fully support the President's policy 

on the RFS. The Chairman of the CEQ does not have direct role in implementing 

the RFS but I will support the letter and spirit of the law. 

I support all forms of energy and that includes ethanol. Our country is blessed with 

diverse and abundant energy sources among which ethanols are making an 

increasingly significant contribution. The diversity of the energy resources we enjoy 

in the US is a strategic asset for our national security, the economy, jobs and 

fundamental human welfare. 

41. Reports 10 indicate that TCEQ entered into contracts with TERA, the organization 

headed by EPA nominee Michael Dourson, and that work conducted by TERA was 

used by TCEQ to weaken air pollution standards in Texas. Did these efforts occur 

during your tenure at TCEQ? If so, please document and describe the relationship 

between TCEQ and TERA during your tenure. 

TCEQ had contracts with TERA from May 2007 to June 2017 and my tenure as a 

Commissioner and Chairwoman at TCEQ extended from November 2001 to 

August 2007. Therefore, the first contract with TERA was in place for several 

months before I left the agency. The work that TERA engaged in for TCEQ 

included organizing the peer review of chemical assessments. These peer reviews 

involved scientists from a variety of backgrounds (academic, government, and 

industry), who provided their expert opinions on the TCEQ's chemical 

assessment. TERA's role was to find the appropriate experts, and to organize and 

Page 15 of45 
32 


27600.023

mediate the discussions. This work was based on the highest standards of risk 

assessment and science to ensure the protection of public health and the 

environment in Texas. 

Examples of documents written in response to comments received during the peerreview process conducted by TERA include: 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/implementation/toxldsd/comments/p 

ublic_comments_and_tceq_responses_nickel.pdf 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/implementation/toxldsd/proposed/fe 

b14/hexavalent%20chromium_responses%20to%20comments.pdf 

42. During the hearing, you denied directing the staff of TCEQ to break the law by 

knowingly altering the manner in which it reported radiation levels in drinking water. 

Please refer to the footnoted or attached documents when responding to each sub-part 

of this question. 

a. Do you agree that EPA's 2000 rule 11 related to measuring radionuclides in 

drinking water said that states should not add or subtract the margin of error 

associated with the measurements out from the testing results? If not, please 

provide a specific explanation for your views. 

EPA rule language in 40 Code of Fed. Regulations§ 141.26(c)(3) is silent 

regarding adding or subtracting the standard deviations (the "margin of 

error") from analytical results. EPA stated on p. 76727 of the December 

7, 2000 issue of the Federal Register in adopting the rule that various 

states have interpreted the analytical results in a variety of ways, and 

then EPA expressed how EPA interprets its rule. Had EPA wanted to 

expressly add rule language they could have easily done so but they did 

not. Instead, EPA chose to leave the rule language silent. 

b. Do you agree that TCEQ was aware of the EPA 2000 rule, and chose not to 

follow it when it subtracted the margin of error associated with the 

measurements out from the testing results? If not, please provide a specific 

explanation for your views. 

TCEQ was aware of the rule during my tenure there. As previously 

stated, the rule is silent regarding the "margin of error". While I was at 

TCEQ, the agency followed TCEQ's interpretation of what the plain 

language of the rule allowed. 

c. Do you agree that TCEQ maintained its methodology even after being told by 

EPA that it was not legal to do so? If not, please provide a specific 

explanation for your views. 

I am aware of the EPA's interpretation of its rule as previously stated, 

but as previously stated the EPA rule language is silent regarding 

Page 16 of 45 
33 


27600.024

TCEQ's methodology. I do not specifically recall EPA telling TCEQ 

during my tenure there that TCEQ's methodology was not legal. 

d. Do you agree that a 2001 White Paper (attached) written by the predecessor 

entity to TCEQ stated that as many as 140 drinking water systems in Texas 

were out of compliance with EPA's standards, adding that "Some of these 

systems contain levels of radioactive contaminants with a calculated cancer 

risk of 1/400 (1110,000 being the allowable federal and state cancer risk for 

most contaminants), posing a potentially serious health concern"? If not, 

please provide a specific explanation for your views. 

As noted in the December 31, 2004 report from the Texas Water 

Advisory Council (TWA C), a letter signed by dozens of Texas 

Congressional members and a letter from the Texas Radiation Advisory 

Board call into serious question whether the EPA's standards were 

technically justified. This report could be fairly characterized as a report 

from state leadership, not just TCEQ, and includes legislative leadership 

and leadership from over a half-dozen major Texas agencies. 

Notwithstanding the questionable EPA standards, during my tenure at 

TCEQ the agency had mechanisms in place to assist any systems which 

truly had levels of contaminants which posed a health concern (e.g., 

options to utilize point-of-use and point-of-entry devices and bottled 

water). 

e. Reports 12 indicate the following related to this matter. For each sub-part 

below, please indicate if the statement is inaccurate or accurate, and, if 

inaccurate, please provide documentation supporting your response: 

i. TCEQ Commissioners- which included you- directed TCEQ staff to 

violate EPA's rules by subtracting the margin of error from drinking water 

measurements, which had the effect of removing drinking water system 

violations. 

This statement inaccurately characterizes the EPA rule which I 

presume is being referenced. As previously stated, the rule language 

is silent regarding the "margin of error" issue, and the rule can 

logically and reasonably be interpreted to allow for the manner in 

which TCEQ addressed the "margin of error." 

ii. TCEQ told the Texas Water Advisory Council (on which you served, in 

addition to your TCEQ role) in 2004 that "Under existing TCEQ policy, 

calculation of the violation accounts for the reporting error of each 

radionuclide analysis. Maintaining this calculation procedure will 

eliminate approximately 35 violations." 

12 https:/1 web .<l rch ive. org/w eb /20 14 05 2 81603 05 /h ttp:/www. kh o u. com/home I~ Texas- pollti cla ns~kn ew -agency-hid-th e~a mount -of-radiation-indrln!ling-water-1222054:19. htm I 

Page 17 of 45 
34 


27600.025

The referenced statement was included on page 1 of the TCEQ Report 

on Radionuc/ides and Arsenic in Drinking Water, Prepared for the 

Texas Water Advisory Council, June 7, 2004 Meeting. 

iii. You were present at the 2004 meeting ofthe Texas Water Advisory 

Council referenced in ii. 

I was present. 

iv. The Texas Water Advisory Council 2004 report 13 -which you signed, and 

which included materials related to the failure of Texas to comply with 

EPA's radionuclide drinking water rules submitted by you- noted that 

"According to the TCEQ, failure by the agency to adopt federal drinking 

water standards will result in the automatic withdrawal of the State's 

primacy status, the result of which would amount to the loss of federal 

drinking water revolving funds in the amount of approximately $65 

million over a five year period. However, this result is unlikely." 

The referenced statement is included in the TW AC report. As 

previously noted, this report could be fairly characterized as a report 

from state leadership. 

v. The calculation procedure referenced in ii was maintained for several 

more years after 2004. 

To my knowledge, the existing TCEQ policy continued after 2004. 

My tenure at TCEQ ended in August 2007. State leadership through 

the TW AC was expressly aware of the TCEQ policy change, and 

could have asked TCEQ to change it, but instead concluded that 

water suppliers should be given maximum flexibility for achieving 

compliance with the standards. Thus, any TCEQ decision was not 

made in a vacuum, but comported with the position of state 

leadership. 

vi. When asked later about this matter, reports indicate that you stated "the 

decision to continue the subtraction was a good one. "'As memory serves 

me. that made incredibly good sense,'' she told KHOU. White says she 

and the scientists with the Texas Radiation Advisory Board disagreed with 

the science that the EPA based its new rules on. She says the ne'v 

rules were too protective and would end up costing small communities 

tens of millions of dollars to comply. "We did not believe the science of 

health effects justified EPA setting the standard where they did." said 

White. She added, "1 have far more trust in the vigor of the science that 

TCEQ assess, than 1 do EPA.'' In response to questions about why the 

TCEQ did not simply file a lawsuit against the EPA and challenge the 

13 ~ttp://www.senate.state.tx.u~/crntes/78/cSBO/rpt twJc ian2005.pdf 

Page 18 of45 
35 


27600.026

Senator Booker: 

federal rules openly in court, White said that in federal court, "Legal 

challenges, because oflaw and not because of science, are almost 

impossible to win." 

This statement generally reflects a portion of what was reported by 

KHOU, although I have no way of attesting to the accuracy or 

completeness of the KHOU report, or whether the KHOU report 

might have been biased. 

43. Ms. Hartnett-White, on August 15, 2017, just days before Hurricane Harvey devastated 

your home state of Texas, President Trump made an "infrastructure" announcement that 

included the repeal of the 2015 Federal Flood Risk Management Standard. The rule 

President Trump repealed would have ensured that federally-funded projects in a 

floodplain, such as roads, bridges, hospitals, and other infrastructure, are built to 

withstand extreme weather and flooding driven by climate change. If confirmed, will you 

support putting back in place a standard for federally-funded infrastructure projects and 

post-disaster rebuilding that takes into account foreseeable flood risk? 

A single federal approach to mitigation of potential risk is not necessarily the best 

approach. 

Senator Gillibrand: 

44. You served in the Administration of then-Governor Rick Perry as Chair of the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality. Recently, Secretary Perry stated that fossil fuels 

can prevent sexual assault in the context of electrifYing African villages. Do you agree 

with Secretary Perry, that fossil fuels prevent sexual assault? 

I believe the question as stated is an out of context and oversimplification of 

Secretary Perry's position that electrification and the subsequent additional lighting 

can provide greater security to the public in general. I do agree that adequate 

lighting can provide a safer environment for the public at large. 

45. You have stated that "extreme weather events have not been more frequent or more 

intense than in the 20'h century." According to the National Oceanographic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the average number of extreme weather and 

climate events that reached or exceeded $1 billion in damage adjusted for inflation -

was 3.75 between the years 1980 and 1999. Between 2000 and 2017 the average number 

of billion dollar disasters has jumped to nearly 8 per year. Do you still believe that we 

are not seeing more frequent or more intense weather events? 

Yes, I do, because the increase in weather-related damages is not due to worsening 

weather, but rather the rapid increase in prosperity, personal possessions, and 

infrastructure, especially in our coastal areas. 

Page 19 of 45 
36 


27600.027

46. A core role ofthe Council on Environmental Quality is the implementation ofthe 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPW). NEPA provides the framework for how we 

carryout environmental reviews for federally-funded and permitted projects. Hurricane 

Harvey has raised questions about how poor planning and a lack of good floodplain 

management makes Houston more vulnerable to excessive flooding when it is inundated 

by large amounts of rainfall. Do you believe we should be factoring in resiliency to 

extreme weather events into the NEP A process to ensure that we are avoiding the 

mistakes of the past and building in a smarter way? 

No. However, I believe we need to ensure that as we develop land and create more 

impervious surface we need to ensure storm water controls are properly designed to 

control increased runoff from heavy rain events which can makes these flooding 

events worse. 

47. I am troubled by President Trump's decision to repeal the federal floodplain risk 

management standards that were implemented by the Obama Administration, which 

incorporated factors, including climate change and sea-level rise, into the decisionmaking process when we build in floodplains. Regardless of whether you think climate 

change is caused by human activity or not, is it wise to ignore the impacts of extreme 

weather and sea level rise when investing federal dollars in infrastructure projects built in 

floodplains? 

No. 

48. You state in your paper, Fossil Fuels: the Moral Case, that "environmental quality 

remains an unaffordable luxury for much of the developing world." Do you believe that 

breathing clean air and having access to clean water is a luxury? 

Clean air and clean water should not be a luxury but can become unaffordable in 

some societies, such as third world economies, when the price of energy is too high. 

Having access to affordable and reliable electricity is necessary to power drinking 

water and waste water treatment plants. 

Senator Inhofe: 

49. During the hearing a news report was raised regarding your time at TCEQ accusing you 

of directing staff to underreport levels of radiation in drinking water. You were not given 

a chance to fully answer this charge. What was the policy ofTCEQ at the time and how 

did it relate to federal law? 

In 2004 and prior to that time, TCEQ policy had been to allow for the subtraction of 

reporting error for radionuclide analyses. EPA rule language in 40 CFR § 

141.26(c)(3) is silent regarding this type of reporting error, which involves adding or 

subtracting the standard deviations from analytical results. EPA stated on p. 76727 

of the December 7, 2000 issue of the Federal Register in adopting the rule that 

Page 20 of45 
37 


27600.028

various states have interpreted the analytical results in a variety of ways, including 

in the way TCEQ interpreted the rule, and expressed how EPA interprets its rule. 

Had EPA wanted to expressly add rule language, they could have easily done so, but 

they did not. 

Further, as noted in the December 31, 2004 report from the Texas Water Advisory 

Council (TWA C), a letter signed by dozens of Texas Congressional members and a 

letter from the Texas Radiation Advisory Board call into serious question whether 

the EPA's radionuclide standards were technically justified. This report could be 

fairly characterized as a report from state leadership, not just TCEQ, and includes 

legislative leadership and leadership from over a half-dozen major Texas agencies. 

State leadership through the TWAC was expressly aware of the TCEQ policy, and 

could have asked TCEQ to change it, but instead concluded that water suppliers 

should be given maximum flexibility for achieving compliance with the standards. 

Thus, any TCEQ decision to allow for a reporting error was not made in a vacuum 

and comported with the position of state leadership. 

Senator Merkley: 

50. If you are confirmed as the Chair of Council on Environmental Quality, you will be 

responsible for coordinating federal environmental efforts in the United States with 

federal agencies to develop environmental and energy policies and initiatives. Therefore, 

your understanding of the most basic science of climate change science will be essential 

to your role in the regulation of greenhouse gases. In the first volume of Fourth National 

Climate Assessment (found here: https://science20 l7.globalchange.gov/downloads/), 

authored by 13 federal agencies, scientists report, "Global annually averaged surface air 

temperature has increased by about 1.8°F (1.0°C) over the last 115 years (I 90 1-2016). 

This period is now the warmest in the history of modern civilization. The last few years 

have also seen record-breaking, climate-related weather extremes, and the last three years 

have been the warmest years on record for the globe. These trends are expected to 

continue over climate timescales." Do you agree with this finding? 

a. If you do not agree with this finding, please explain why, and please provide 

at least one peer reviewed study supporting your stated position. 

I agree that global average temperatures are likely the warmest in the 

history of modern civilization, but maybe not warmer than during either 

the Medieval or ancient Roman civilizations. The science is stiU out on 

whether there has been any climate-related changes in severe weather, as 

stated in the most recent U.N. IPCC report. The expected level of future 

warming is a subject oflegitimate debate. 

51. In the same report, the authors report, "It is extremely likely that human activities, 

especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed 

Page 21 of45 
38 


27600.029

warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no 

convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational 

evidence." Do you agree with that finding? 

a. If you do not agree, please explain why, and provide at least one peer 

reviewed study supporting your stated position. 

The climate is changing and human activity impacts our changing climate 

in some manner. The ability to measure with precision the degree and 

extent ofthat impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing 

debate and dialogue. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any 

regulatory actions are based on the most up to date and objective 

scientific data. (Miller et al, Human Contribution, Nature Geoscience, 

September 19, 2017). 

52. The same report finds that "Global average sea level has risen by about 7-8 inches since 

1900, with almost half (about 3 inches) of that rise occurring since 1993. Human-caused 

climate change has made a substantial contribution to this rise since I 900, contributing to 

a rate of rise that is greater than during any preceding century in at least 2,800 years. Do 

you agree with that finding? 

a. If you do not agree, please explain why, and provide at least one peer 

reviewed study supporting your stated position. 

The climate is changing and human activity impacts our changing climate in some manner. 

The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to do 

about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue. If confirmed, I will work to ensure 

that any regulatory actions are based on the most up to date and objective scientific data. 

(Jevrejeva, S.; Moore, J.C.; Grinstcd, A.; Matthews, A.; Spada, G .. 2014 Trends and 

acceleration in global and regional sea levels since 1807. Global and Planetary Change). 

53. The same report finds that "Heatwaves have become more frequent in the United States 

since the 1960s, while extreme cold temperatures and cold waves are less frequent. 

Recent record-setting hot years are projected to become common in the near future for 

the United States, as annual average temperatures continue to rise. Annual average 

temperature over the contiguous United States has increased by 1.8°F ( 1.0°C) for the 

period I 901-2016; over the next few decades (2021-2050), annual average temperatures 

are expected to rise by about 2.5°F for the United States, relative to the recent past 

(average from 1976-2005), under all plausible future climate scenarios." Do you agree 

with this finding? 

a. If you do not agree, please explain why, and provide at least one peer 

reviewed study supporting your stated position. 

There are multi-decadal changes in weather over the United States, which 

are simply a natural feature of the climate system. For example, the Pacific 

Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is known to have a strong influence on the 

Page 22 of 45 
39 


27600.030

drought-prone West (e.g. Kam et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 2014). 

Recent warming in the U.S. bas indeed occurred, although there are concerns 

about bow thermometer adjustments may have contributed to the calculated 

warming rate. 

54. The same report finds that "Annual trends toward earlier spring melt and reduced 

snowpack are already affecting water resources in the western United States and these 

trends are expected to continue. Under higher scenarios, and assuming no change to 

current water resources management, chronic, long-duration hydrological drought is 

increasingly possible before the end of this century." Do you agree with this finding? 

a. If you do not agree with this finding, please explain why, and please provide 

at least one peer reviewed study supporting your stated position. 

The climate is changing and human activity impacts our changing climate 

in some manner. The ability to measure with precision the degree and 

extent of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing 

debate and dialogue. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any 

regulatory actions are based on the most up to date and objective 

scientific data. 

The western U.S. will always have droughts to contend with, given 

increasing population pressure and water resources in a semi-arid region. 

Many studies have shown that recent droughts pale in comparison to 

tree-ring reconstructed droughts in the West in centuries past. E. R. Cook 

and co-workers have pioneered this work (e.g. Stable et at., Climatic 

Change, July 2007). 

55. The same report finds that "The global atmospheric carbon dioxide (C02) concentration 

has now passed 400 parts per million (ppm), a level that last occurred about 3 million 

years ago, when both global average temperature and sea level were significantly higher 

than today. Continued growth in C02 emissions over this century and beyond would lead 

to an atmospheric concentration not experienced in tens to hundreds of millions of years. 

There is broad consensus that the further and the faster the Earth system is pushed 

towards warming, the greater the risk of unanticipated changes and impacts, some of 

which arc potentially large and irreversible." Do you agree with this findings? 

a. If you do not agree with this finding, please explain why, and please provide 

at least one peer reviewed study supporting your stated position. 

The climate is changing and human activity impacts our changing climate in 

some manner. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of 

that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and 

dialogue. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any regulatory actions are 

based on the most up to date and objective scientific data. 

Page 23 of45 
40 


27600.031

56. You told me during the confirmation hearing that if confirmed, climate change would be 

one of your top three priorities. What specific actions would you take as CEQ Chair to 

address climate change issues? 

If confirmed and after consultation with other Offices of the White House and lead 

agencies such as the EPA, I would be interested in coordinating and conducting a 

broad assessment of the relative effectiveness of current climate policies, programs 

and regulation within the federal government. 

57. You told me during the confirmation hearing that if confirmed, climate change would be 

one of your top three priorities. One ofthe responsibilities ofthe Council on 

Environmental Quality is to oversee the implementation of the National Environmental 

Policy Act. Do you think the government should consider greenhouse gases and their 

impacts on climate change when analyzing and permitting infrastructure projects? 

a. If not, do you think the courts have gotten this issue wrong for decades as the 

courts have consistently ruled for nearly 20 years that the federal government 

are required to consider climate change in its environmental reviews? 

If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any regulatory actions are based 

on the most up to date and objective scientific data, including the everevolving understanding of the impact that increasing greenhouse gases 

have on our changing climate. 

58. One ofthe responsibilities of the Council on Environmental Quality is to oversee the 

implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act. The NEPA process provides 

citizens with an opportunity to influence federal agency decision making. How would 

you ensure that American citizens will continue to be able to participate in the analysis of 

impacts of a proposed federal action that may affect their lives and businesses before that 

decision is made? 

I believe that public participation is a vital part of the NEPA process, and 

will work to ensure ample effective opportunities for such participation. 

a. Similarly, how would you ensure that other government agencies, whether 

other federal agencies, local and state agencies and tribal governments will 

opportunity to participate as partners in the analysis of proposed federal 

actions? 

CEQ has a vital role in overseeing the interagency coordination, and 

coordination with state, local, and tribal governments, at the heart of the 

NEPA process, and I will work diligently to ensure that those agencies 

and governments are fully integrated into agency decision-making. 

Page 24 of45 
41 


27600.032

Senator Sanders: 

Climate Change 

59. President Trump has suggested in the past that climate change is a hoax. Is the President 

correct? Is climate change a hoax? 

No. 

60. Are you familiar with the effects of the greenhouse gasses on our planet? If so, please 

provide a brief explanation. 

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as water vapor and C02 absorb and emit the 

infrared (IR) energy that the Earth's surface emits to outer space. That IR cooling 

must, on average, balance absorbed solar radiation by the Earth in order for 

temperatures to remain roughly constant over time. The net effect of GHGs is to 

warm the surface of the Earth and lower atmosphere sufficiently for life to exist. 

61. Do you agree with the vast majority of scientists that the greenhouse effect is a real 

phenomenon? If not, why not? 

Yes. 

62. Do you believe that the combustion of fossil fuels releases carbon pollution into the 

atmosphere? If not, why not? 

The combustion of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere. 

63. Do you agree with the vast majority of scientists that carbon dioxide absorbs and emits 

radiation within the thermal infrared range and is therefore a greenhouse gas? If not, why 

not? 

Yes. 

64. Do you agree with the vast majority of scientists that releasing carbon pollution into the 

atmosphere contributes to climate change through the greenhouse effect? 

Yes. 

65. Do you believe that the generation of energy through the combustion of fossil fuels 

contributes to climate change more than generating energy through renewable sources 

like wind, solar, and geothermal? lfnot, why not? 

It is likely, but the ability to measure the degree and extent of that impact are 

subject to continuing debate and dialogue. 

Page 25 of 45 
42 


27600.033

66. If confirmed, what will you do at CEQ to promote renewable sources of energy like 

wind, solar, and geothermal? 

I do not believe it is the role of CEQ to promote particular energy sources. Energy 

diversity is an important factor in our country's energy portfolio. 

67. If confirmed, what will you do to stimulate economic innovation and opportunity through 

a robust response to climate change? 

I do not believe it is the role of CEQ to promote particular energy sources. 

68. Over this past year, we have seen unprecedented devastation from Hurricanes Harvey, 

Irma and Maria plus dozens of wildfires that have ravaged the West. Do you agree with 

the vast majority of the scientific community that climate change has exasperated the 

frequency and devastation of these natural disasters? 

If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any regulatory actions are based on the most 

up to date and objective scientific data, including the ever-evolving understanding 

of the impact increasing greenhouse gases have on our changing climate. Before 

the land falling major hurricanes of 2017, we went an unprecedented 11 years 

without a major hurricane strike. 

69. Congress has already appropriated $51.8 billion to address these disasters, and we intend 

to continue to work to rebuild communities devastated by the impacts of these disasters. 

A recent study published in the journal Science found that for every degree Celsius the 

planet warms, there is a loss of roughly 1.2% GDP in the United States. Do you believe 

that addressing climate change is good economics? 

If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any regulatory actions are based on the most 

up to date and objective scientific data, including the ever-evolving understanding 

of the impact increasing greenhouse gases have on our changing climate. 

70. Last week, the Trump Administration released a Climate Science Special Report written 

by 13 federal agencies that calls human activity the dominant driver of global warming. 

"It is extremely likely," the report concludes, "that human activities, especially emissions 

of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20'h 

century. For warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation 

supported by the extent of the observational evidence." 

a. During your nomination hearing, you said that you view this report as a 

"product of the last administration." Do you think the current administration 

rejects science? If so, why would the current administration release a scientific 

report? 

Page 26 of45 
43 


27600.034

I do not think the current administration rejects science. If I am 

confirmed, I will seek thorough briefings on the Climate Science Special 

Report. 

b. You have previously supported revoking the EPA's endangerment finding, 

which states that greenhouse gasses threaten the public health and welfare of 

current and future generations. Given that the Trump Administration's recent 

Climate Science Special report, which strongly supports the idea that 

greenhouse gasses are a significant threat to environmental and human 

welfare, do you still believe the EPA should revoke its endangerment finding? 

If so, why? If not, what has changed? 

I would support the Administration's policy on this matter. 

c. In a 2015 Daily Signal op-ed, you wrote that "temperatures have not warmed 

as predicted by the models over the last 18 years." Given the Climate Science 

Special Report's findings that we are currently experiencing the warmest 

period in the history of modem civilization, do you stand by that statement 

now? If so, why? If not, what has changed? 

It remains true that global average temperatures have not warmed as 

much as many models predicted. This is a different issue from whether 

global temperatures are currently warmer than they have been in the last 

century or more. 

d. In a 2015 Daily Signal op-ed, you wrote that "extreme weather events have 

not been more frequent or more intense than in 20'h century." Given the 

Climate Science Special Report's findings that we are seeing more frequent 

and intense heavy rainfall, heat waves, droughts, and forest fires, do you stand 

by that statement now? If so, why? If not, what has changed? 

If confirmed, I would look forward to extensive briefing on the special 

report and follow the President's policy on this issue. 

71. In your book, Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy, you state: "Unless 

feeding the world's seven billion human residents is not a priority, the increased 

atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide attributable to human activity is 

unquestionably a huge social benefit." On what scientific reports and data does this 

statement rely? Given the Climate Science Special Report's findings that emissions of 

greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are a significant threat to environmental and human 

welfare, do you stand by that statement now? If so, why? If not, what has changed? 

Yes. Natural atmospheric C02 and human induced C02 enhances plant growth and 

thus the global food supply. I offer the following list of attached scientific 

publications that speak to the global impact of those combined benefits: 

Page 27 of 45 
44 


27600.035

A C02-lnduced Global Stimulation of Terrestrial Carbon Uptake and Water Use 

Efficiency (http://www .co2science.org/articles!V20/oct/a l.ph p) 

A Half-century Increase in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production Driven 

Primarily by Rising Atmospheric C02 

(It ttp:/ /www .co2science.org/a rticles/V20/a ug/a 19.ph p) 

The Interactive Effects of C02, Nitrogen Application and Water Supply on Spring 

Wheat (http://www.co2science.org/articles/V20/nov/a5.php) 

Elevated C02 and Ozone Improve the Growth of Japanese Cedar Trees 

(http://www .co2science.org/articles/V20/oct/a 17.php) 

Two Soybean Cnltivars Respond Positively to Atmospheric C02 Enrichment 

(It ttp:/ /www .co2science.org/a rticles!V20/oct/a8.php) 

Elevated C02 Mitigates the Negative Effects of Drought on Grapevines 

(http://www .co2science.org/articles!V20/sep/a 14.ph p) 

Elevated C02 Improves Both the Quantity and Quality of Two Lettuce Cultivars 

(http://www .co2scien ce.o rg/a rtic lcs!V20/scp/ a3. ph p) 

Elevated C02 and High Temperature Improve the Growth of Rice and Chinese 

Yam (http://www.co2science.org/articles!V20/sep/al.php) 

72. While speaking at an Americans for Prosperity forum in 2011, you stated that in the U.S. 

"there is no environmental crisis in fact, there's almost no major environmental 

problems." When asked if you still stand by this statement during your nomination 

hearing, you said "that's not what I intended for it to mean." What was the underlying 

intent of your 20 II statement? 

a. If that in fact was not the intent of your 2011 statement, do you believe the 

United States is currently experiencing any major environmental problems? If 

so, please list all the environmental problems you believe the United States is 

currently facing. 

The US environment has improved immensely over the last 40-50 years. 

We have much cleaner air and cleaner water than before. Perhaps the 

greatest environmental risks stem from failing wastewater and drinking 

water infrastructure as well as levels of toxins in certain areas. 

73. During your nomination hearing, you were asked if you knew how much of the excess 

heat generated by greenhouse gas emissions has been absorbed by the oceans. You 

admitted that you did not know and were not able to say whether the answer is above or 

below 50 percent. You further stated that you believed there were differences of opinion 

on whether more or less than 50 percent of the heat generated by greenhouse gas 

emissions is absorbed by the oceans. There is, in fact, scientific consensus on the 

greenhouse gasses absorbed by the oceans. 

Should the CEQ Chair be familiar with basic scientific information like the amount of 

heat stored in the oceans? If so, why are you qualified to be CEQ Chair? If not, what is, 

Page 28 of45 
45 


27600.036

in your view, the minimum level of scientific competency necessary to serve the 

American people as CEQ Chair? 

Please provide the scientific studies that indicate a "difference of opinion" on whether the 

oceans absorb more or less than 50 percent ofthe heat generated by greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

There is in fact no consensus on how much heat is being absorbed into the oceans, it 

is an emerging field of study that still in its infancy. Oceans are the least understood 

and studied part of the earth due to the technical complications of studying the vast 

deep ocean. Ocean absorption of heat has only recently been posited as a reason for 

incorrect temperature projections of the climate models. 

74. During your nomination hearing, you were asked if the law of thermal expansion applies 

to seawater and if water in the ocean warms as it expands. You answered that you did not 

have any expertise, or even much "layman's study" of the oceans. 

a. Should the CEQ Chair be familiar with the law of thermal expansion? If so, 

how are you qualified to serve the American people as CEQ Chair? If not, do 

you commit to studying this phenomenon? 

The CEQ chair is not, and cannot be, an expert in everything. Luckily 

there are agencies in the federal government which are ocean experts. As 

my record as regulator in Texas demonstrates, I will be a champion of 

rigorous analysis of the best available science to ensure that as one of the 

President's senior advisors, I always provide the most well informed and 

objective counsel. 

b. If you lack the knowledge to say whether or not the ocean expands when 

warmed, why do you feel comfortable asserting that there are legitimate 

differences of opinion on whether the oceans absorb more or less than 50 

percent of the heat generated by greenhouse gas emissions? 

There is no consensus on how much heat is being absorbed into the 

oceans, it is an emerging field of study that is still in its infancy. Oceans 

are the least understood and studied part of the earth due to the technical 

complications of studying the vast deep ocean. Ocean absorption of heat 

has only recently been posited as a reason for incorrect temperature 

projections of the climate models. 

Past Career/Conflicts of Interest 

75. During your time at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, you represented and received 

millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests like Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, and 

Chevron. 

Page 29 of45 
46 


27600.037

a. As Chair of CEQ, would you have any active conflicts with any of these 

organizations? If so, will you commit to recuse yourself for the full course of 

any matter in which any of your former clients is a party? If not, why not? 

I will consult with relevant ethics officials and review relevant rules of 

professional conduct and will follow the advice of the CEQ Ethics 

Counsel in determining any recusals. 

b. If confirmed, how will you prevent inappropriate undue influence from 

regulated industries on CEQ employees, including yourself? 

In consultation with appropriate counsel, CEQ would follow the law and 

applicable policies regarding undue influence. 

c. CEQ is tasked with ensuring the health and safety of working people, their 

families, and the communities in which they live. Given that your recent work 

history has consisted of taking large donations from fossil fuel companies to 

represent their interests rather than the interests of ordinary Americans, will 

you commit to refusing undue influence from special interests and instead 

fight to protect the environment? 

I will proudly and aggressively carry out CEQ's legal mission regarding 

environmental protection. As previously noted, Texas Public Policy 

Foundation (TPPF) receives donations from a variety of individuals and 

entities with interests in TPPF's mission. However, I did not receive 

dollars in a personal or professional capacity directly from any individual 

or any entity in exchange for my work at TPPF, nor did I professionally 

represent any individual or entity other than TPPF as part of my work at 

TPPF. In consultation with appropriate counsel, I will follow the law and 

applicable policies regarding undue influence in order to maintain the 

integrity of the office. 

d. President Trump has repeatedly stated that he intends to "drain the swamp" by 

reducing corporate influence on the U.S. Government. Given that your former 

organization engaged in exactly the type of behavior that the President has 

disavowed, how do you fit into his commitment to "drain the swamp"? 

Since I have not spoken directly with the President about his comments 

relating to "draining the swamp" it would not be appropriate for me to 

speculate as to his intentions about his comments. 

76. During your time as a member of the Texas Council on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), 

the Council routinely manipulated data from the Texas Department of State Health 

Services on the amount of alpha radiation traceable in drinking water. TCEQ manipulated 

this data to make the amount of alpha radiation appear lower than the EPA legal limit for 

exposure to alpha radiation. TCEQ emails and documents show that the agency was 

Page 30 of 45 
47 


27600.038

attempting to help water systems avoid formally violating federal limits so they did not 

have to inform their residents of the increased health risk. 

In an interview with KHOU News, you confirmed that TCEQ modified data and 

defended those actions by stating: "As memory serves me, that made incredibly good 

sense. We did not believe the science of health effects justified EPA setting the standard 

where they did. I have far more trust in the vigor of science that TCEQ assess (sic), than I 

do EPA." 

a. Manipulating scientific findings is incredibly troubling. In hindsight, do you 

see how problematic it is to falsify or modify scientific data, as you have 

admitted TCEQ did in this case? 

I have never falsified scientific data nor directed my staff to do so and I 

did not admit to doing so during the hearing. 

The aforementioned statement inaccurately suggests TCEQ 

"manipulated" data on radionuclides in drinking water. TCEQ policy in 

2004 and prior had been to allow for a reporting error for radionuclide 

analyses. EPA rule language in 40 CFR § 141.26(c)(3) is silent regarding 

this type of reporting error, which involves adding or subtracting the 

standard deviations from analytical results. EPA stated on p. 76727 of 

the December 7, 2000 issue of the Federal Register in adopting the rule 

that various states have interpreted the analytical results in a variety of 

ways, and expressed how EPA interprets its rule. Had EPA wanted to 

expressly add rule language they could have easily done so but they did 

not. 

Further, as noted in the December 31, 2004 report from the Texas Water 

Advisory Council (TWAC), a letter signed by dozens of Texas 

Congressional members and a letter from the Texas Radiation Advisory 

Board call into serious question whether the EPA's radionuclude 

standards were technically justified. This report could be fairly 

characterized as a report from state leadership, not just TCEQ, and 

includes legislative leadership and leadership from over a half-dozen 

major Texas agencies. State leadership through the TWAC was expressly 

aware of the TCEQ policy, and could have asked TCEQ to change it, but 

instead concluded that water suppliers should be given maximum 

flexibility for achieving compliance with the standards. Thus, any TCEQ 

decision was not made in a vacuum, but comported with the position of 

state leadership. 

b. If confirmed, will you commit to upholding the scientific integrity at CEQ? 

Page 31 of45 
48 


27600.039

Yes. 

77. In a 20 I 5 The Hill op-ed, you questioned if ozone is a harmful pollutant, stating that it is 

not harmful to human health unless "you put your mouth over the tailpipe of a car for 

eight hours every day." During your nomination hearing, you mentioned the reduction of 

ozone-producing emissions in the Houston/Galveston area as one of your most proud 

accomplishments. If you consider ozone to be a non-harmful substance, why are you 

proud of reducing ozone-producing emissions? 

The statement referenced in The Hill op-ed clearly demonstrates my opinion that 

ozone is a harmful pollutant, but it is only harmful if you are exposed to a high 

enough concentration of it. This has been well-established in experiments where 

humans are exposed to ozone14• During my tenure as a Commissioner and 

Chairwoman at the TCEQ, concentrations of ozone in the Houston/Galveston area 

were occasionally above a level where some respiratory effects may occur in an 

exposed person. In addition, the Houston/Galveston area was not in attainment with 

the federal laws and regulations for ozone concentrations. Therefore, it was my 

responsibility, and the responsibility of the TCEQ and the people and industry of 

Texas, to reduce emissions that contribute to ozone formation. We were very 

successful and tbe area saw a decrease in emissions and ozone concentrations that 

was more rapid than the national average decrease of ozone in non-attainment 

areas. 

78. While you were Chair of the TCEQ, you were vocally opposed to federal rules limiting 

ozone pollution, or smog, implying that air quality is already good enough. Do you 

recognize the public health effects of ozone pollution, which include reducing lung 

function and causing lung damage? If confirmed, how will you advise the President, 

EPA, and others about ozone standards? 

As I stated in the response to question 77, ozone is harmful when at a high enough 

concentration. If confirmed, I would advise the president and the EPA based on our 

responsibilities as outlined by the Clean Air Act, with a priority on regulations 

where the risks to human health and the environment are the greatest. 

79. In the past, you have repeatedly criticized the Clean Air Act and a 2007 Supreme Court 

ruling that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants that can be regulated 

under the Clean Air Act. During your confirmation hearing, you said you would "uphold 

all law, the letter and the spirit." If confirmed, how will you specifically commit to 

carrying out the CEQ's obligations under existing law, including as decided by the 

Supreme Court? 

I will follow the law. 

14 http:/ /jap.physiology.org/content/jap/102/2/688.full.pdf; 

https :/ /www. ncbi. nlm. nih .gov I pubmed/?term=22 906168 

Page 32 of 45 
49 


27600.040

80. In April2016, you appeared before the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources and 

stated that "after 40 years of private conservation and environmental regulation under the 

major federal environmental laws, most of the greatest risks to human health, wildlife, 

and other natural resources in the United States have been dramatically reduced." 

a. To which environmental laws were you referring? 

NEPA, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, RCRA and many other federal 

laws. 

b. Do you still believe that federal environmental laws have been responsible for 

dramatically reducing risks to human health, wildlife, and other natural 

resources in the United States? If so, why? If not, why has your view 

changed? 

Yes I still believe that the many federal laws significantly contributed to 

improving environmental quality. 

c. If confirmed, will you commit to protecting these effective environmental 

laws in your role as CEQ's Chair? 

Yes, I will uphold and protect these laws and all federal laws. 

81. During a 2016 interview with The Right Perspective radio show, you stated: "There's a 

real dark side of the kind of paganism the secular elites' religion now- being evidently 

global warming". In your book, Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy, 

you state: "Many cultural historians contend that environmentalism is the ideological 

successor to failed Marxist and socialist ideologies." In your article, Fossil Fuels: The 

Moral Case, you state: "!PCC science claims of95 percent certainty that human activity 

is causing climate calamity are more like the dogmatic claims of ideologues and clerics 

than scientific conclusions." 

During your nomination hearing, you were asked whether it is right to compare world 

leaders who believe in climate science to pagans and ideologues. You answered that your 

words were taken out of context. Did you in fact write the book, Fueling Freedom: 

Exposing the Mad War on Energy, and the article, Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case? If so, 

your words were not taken out of context. 

a. Our previous three presidents believe in human-driven climate change. Do 

you consider them pagans and ideologues? 

No. 

b. What about the vast majority of ordinary Americans who believe in humandriven climate change? Do you think they are pagans and ideologues? 

Page 33 of45 
50 


27600.041

No. 

82. During your nomination hearing, you admitted that your previously-held opinion on the 

renewable fuel standard (RFS), expressed in your book, Fueling Freedom: Exposing the 

Mad War on Energy, was incorrect and based on out-of-date data. 

a. Why did you publish a book that contained opinions based on out-of-data 

data? 

Data and new information are continually becoming available and due to 

the time frames involved in writing, editing, and publication it is difficult 

to always include the most current data. 

b. What steps did you take before publishing your book to ensure it contained 

opinions based on up-to-date data? 

I undertook multiple rounds of editing and fact-checking with my coauthor Steve Moore and Regnery Publishing but I am responsible for the 

data error about ethanol. 

c. Are there any other assertions in your book that are based on out-of-date data? 

Not to my knowledge. However, with a 300 page book with over 600 

citations, it would be fair to say there may be newer data for some of the 

citations. 

d. Please list all the assertions from your book that you are completely confident 

are based on up-to-date data. 

I am always reevaluating my own beliefs to ensure they continue to be 

supported by the most current facts and data. 

e. What assurances do we have that your currently-held opinions are based on 

up-to-date data? 

I am always reevaluating my own beliefs to ensure they continue to be 

supported by the most current facts and data. 

f. Should the CEQ Chair make decisions based on up-to-date information? 

Yes. 

g. Given the fact that your published work contains inaccurate information, why 

should we believe that, if confirmed, your decisions as CEQ Chair will be 

based on up-to-date data? 

Page 34 of 45 
51 


27600.042

I am always reevaluating my own beliefs to ensure they continue to be 

supported by the most current facts and data. 

83. During your nomination hearing, you stated that it is "confusing" whether or not there is 

a crisis in the country regarding air quality and particulate matter. 

CEQ 

a. Do you agree that the people of this country deserve a CEQ Chair who is not 

confused by basic climate science and data? If not, why not? 

Yes. 

b. What other environment-related matters do you find confsing? 

Although environmental matters are often complicated, it was your 

question I found confusing, not the matter itself. 

84. In 2005, CEQ Chief of Staff Philip Cooney, a former American Petroleum Institute 

lobbyist, was caught improperly editing government climate reports to downplay 

connections between carbon pollution emissions from human activity and climate 

change. Cooney resigned after these revelations. If confirmed, how will you prevent this 

type of behavior from CEQ staff? 

We should ensure that all work processes are marked by transparency and 

accountability. 

85. On August 15,2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13807, Establishing 

Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for 

Infrastructure Projects. Among other things, this Executive Order rolls back federal 

floodplain risk management standards that require the federal government to account for 

climate change and sea-level rise when building infrastructure. 

NEPA 

Given that climate change will likely increase impacts on infrastructure like we saw 

during the recent hurricanes and resulting floods that devastated Texas, Florida, Puerto 

Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other U.S. communities, do you believe it is a good idea to 

weaken federal floodplain risk management standards? If so, why? If not, how can CEQ 

work to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely on public infrastructure, especially with 

regard to issues arising from climate change? 

A single federal approach to mitigation of potential risk is not necessarily the best 

approach. 

Page 35 of45 
52 


27600.043

86. As you may know, the stated goal of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is: 

'To declare national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony 

between humans and their environment, to promote efforts which will prevent or 

eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare 

of people; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources 

important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality" 

a. If confirmed, do you commit to supporting NEPA's stated goal? 

Yes. 

b. If confirmed, how will you work to prevent or eliminate damage to the 

environment and biosphere? 

By following the statutory requirements as created by Congress. 

c. If confirmed, how will you work to enrich the understanding of ecological 

systems important to the nation? 

By following the statutory requirements as created by Congress. 

87. As you know, each federal agency consults with the CEQ to develop NEP A procedures 

that supplement the CEQ's regulations. If confirmed, how will you work with other 

agencies to meet the goals ofNEPA as defined by Congress? 

If confirmed a major part of my role will be to coordinate and facilitate interagency 

matters. 

88. On September 14, 2017, CEQ released a Federal Register notice that, among other things, 

makes several references to revising Categorical Exclusions (CE) under NEPA. If 

confirmed, will you commit to rejecting new CEs that thwart the stated goals ofNEPA? 

I could not pre-judge the proposal but if confirmed it would be a priority to receive 

extensive briefing on these matters. 

a. Describe the criteria you would use when considering whether new or revised 

CEsare in conformity with NEPA and CEQ regulations. 

I will be guided by the relevant law, science, precedent, and advice of 

counsel. 

b. If confirmed, how will you ensure transparency and public participation when 

an agency is considering a new or revised categorical exclusion? 

I will follow the Administrative Procedure Act. 

Page 36 of 45 
53 


27600.044

c. If confirmed, will you commit to rejecting any new or revised CEs related to 

new fossil fuel infrastructure? 

I could not pre-judge the matter but if confirmed it would be a priority to 

receive extensive briefing on the report. 

89. Please describe the criteria you will use to mediate NEPA-related disputes between 

federal agencies. 

I will be guided by the relevant law, science, precedent, and advice of counsel. 

90. Transparency and public participation are central tenants ofNEPA. If confirmed, how 

will you work to protect and promote transparency and public participation in regard to 

Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements? 

Diligently. 

Science 

91. Please explain what scientific integrity means to you. If confirmed, will you commit to 

protecting scientific integrity at CEQ? 

To me, scientific integrity includes a process of unbiased data collection, analysis, 

and public transparency, which has no particular desired political policy outcome to 

answer to or abide by. I will commit to upholding these values. 

92. During your nomination hearing, you were asked for your views on the role of science in 

the regulatory process. You answered that "it is key to have access to the data." But, it 

remains unclear what you will do with the data once you obtain access. What should the 

role of science be in the development of the CEQ's policies, rules, and regulations? 

Science (i.e. knowledge) is integral to these processes. Everyone should have access 

to data which is collected through taxpayer funded efforts. This is a 

noncontroversial statement, and our government agencies have improved greatly in 

recent decades in making data public. I will expect to see further progress in this 

area. 

93. During your nomination hearing, you stated that you have many unanswered questions 

about climate science in your "personal capacity." I know many scientists who would be 

happy to answer these questions for you. Please list the unanswered questions you have 

in your "personal capacity" regarding climate science. I am sure this committee would be 

more than happy to connect you with scientists who can answer them for you. 

Page 37 of45 
54 


27600.045

1) To what extent do chaotic ocean changes contribute to climate change? How do 

you know? 

2) If major droughts today are caused by increasing C02, what caused the 

exceptional drought of the 1930s in the U.S.? 

3) Did the Medieval Warm Period and Roman Warm Period exist? If so, what 

caused them? 

4) If humans are to blame for receding glaciers in Alaska, why are some of those 

glaciers uncovering tree stumps dated to be 1,000-2,000 years old, obviously having 

grown during an extended time of previous warmth? 

5) Why are climate models still producing warming rates roughly double what has 

been observed in recent decades, even though the climate modelers know what the 

answer is ahead of time? 

If confirmed, do you commit to sitting down with members of the scientific community 

so they can answer your unanswered questions? 

Yes. 

94. During your nomination hearing, you supported the full participation of scientists in all 

EPA discussions. As you may know, EPA Administrator Pruitt recently banned scientists 

who receive EPA grant money from serving on panels that counsel the agency on 

scientific decisions. 

a. If confirmed, will you commit to publicly stating your disagreement with 

Administrator Pruitt on this matter? 

I don't disagree with Administrator Pruitt and will defer to 

Administrator Pruitt on this matter. 

b. If confirmed, will you commit to advising the president in your role as CEQ 

Chair that the EPA should allow the full participation of scientists in all EPA 

discussions? 

I don't disagree with Administrator Pruitt and will defer to 

Administrator Pruitt on this matter. However, scientists who receive 

EPA grant funding are still able to publicly comment on proposed EPA 

actions just like any other citizen. 

Most Pressing Challenges 

95. The EPA's FYIS budget lists the following as priorities: clean water and drinking water, 

infrastructure, work at Brownfields and Superfund projects, improving and protecting air 

quality, and ensuring the safety of chemicals. If confirmed, would these also be the most 

pressing challenges that deserve your and CEQ's attention? If confirmed, how will you 

ensure CEQ better addresses these challenges? 

Page 38 of45 
55 


27600.046

Yes. By focusing on the priority items allocated in the Congressional budget. 

Environmental Justice 

96. As you may know, low-income and minority communities are disproportionately 

impacted by climate change. People in these communities are more likely to live near 

petrochemical facilities and be exposed to carcinogenic emissions and toxic waste 

discharge. Latino farmworkers, who make up the majority of agricultural workers in the 

U.S., are exposed to pesticides at a far higher rate than the general U.S. population. 

Latino children are twice as likely as non-Latina children to die from asthma. From 2012-

2014, African American children had a death rate ten times that of non-Latina white 

children. African American children are three times as likely to suffer an asthma attack. 

If confirmed, how will you address growing issues associated with environmental justice? 

I am familiar with the concept of environmental justice. I agree that it is important 

that all Americans be treated equally under the law, including the environmental 

laws. Low-income and minority communities are disproportionately exposed to air 

pollutants because they live near industry, where housing is often cheaper. 

Unnecessary regulations often increase consumer prices, also disproportionately 

impacting low-income and minority communities. 

97. Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice for Low Income and Minority 

Populations, requires federal agencies that are complying with NEPA to consider 

environmental effects on human health, as well as economic and social impacts, 

specifically within low-income communities and communities of color. This Executive 

Order states that proposed federal actions must address "significant and adverse 

environmental effects" on low-income communities and communities of color. 

If confirmed, how will you work to ensure that federal agencies, including CEQ, comply 

with this Executive Order when executing NEPA environmental reviews? 

I hope to work with other agencies charged with execution of NEP A in a collegial 

fashion. 

Environmental Regulations 

98. Oil and natural gas extraction by way ofhydrau1ic fracturing, or "fracking," has 

expanded rapidly in the United States. The EPA conducted a study of the drinking water 

impacts offracking and released a final report in December 2016. The Agency found 

"hydraulic fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources under some 

circumstances." 

Page 39 of 45 
56 


27600.047

a. Do you concur with the conclusions of the EPA's final report on fracking and 

drinking water? If not, why not? 

The EPA's findings on hydraulic fracturing from this report and other 

studies it has conducted are consistent: there is no clear evidence or 

widespread cases of hydraulic fracturing contaminating drinking water. 

b. In your book, Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy, you state: 

"Contrary to false reports in the media, virtually no documented 

environmental problems have been associated with fracking- ever." Is this 

still your view? If so, how do you explain the numerous studies and anecdotal 

accounts that find risks to human health and environmental health from 

fracking? If your view has not changed, please explain why. 

It's important to recognize that "Cracking" has become a buzz word 

associated with every step of the oil and natural gas development process. 

If a truck en route to a drilling site has a spill, that's labeled a Cracking 

accident. The same goes for pit liner leaks, or well blowouts, which can 

happen on occasion. 

Anecdotes do not equal evidence. The practice of hydraulic fracturing has 

been studied by countless credible entities with professional authority (i.e. 

government, university, private environmental consulting firms, etc) and 

all come to the same conclusion, which is when performed properly, 

hydraulic fracturing can (and is) being done properly without major 

impacts to our environment. 

For nearly every sensational headline produced after a new study comes 

out, there is usually a scientist or credited environmental professional 

who can refute or dispute the rumors that hydraulic fracturing is causing 

massive risks to our health. 

c. What studies- if any- do you believe would be appropriate for the EPA to 

conduct on the effects of fracking on water quality? 

I do believe hydraulic fracturing, and the entire drilling and oil and 

natural gas production process, should be studied. For that matter, we 

should never stop studying potential environmental impacts from all 

forms of energy development, be it from fossil fuels or renewable sources. 

99. Data shows that mercury pollution in the North Atlantic and mercury concentrations in 

our fisheries have fallen dramatically since the United States started requiring stronger 

emissions controls from coal power plants. 

Page 40 of 45 
57 


27600.048

Given this scientific confirmation of the positive effects of these regulations, what will 

you do, if confirmed, to continue to accelerate the clean-up of all sources of mercury 

emissions, including from coal power plants? 

The question presupposes that the reductions in mercury pollution are due solely to 

the regulations that have been imposed on coal fired power plants. However, the 

aforementioned reductions also coincide with reductions in mercury from waste 

water treatment plants and stricter solid waste regulations requiring more stringent 

management of mercury waste. Therefore before increasing requirements on coal 

power plants, the issue should be further studied. 

Senator Whitehouse: 

I 00. You have repeatedly tried to associate climate science with paganism. You went as far 

as to label Pope Francis's statements about climate change as reciting "propaganda" in a 

2015 article on Townhall.com. Earlier this month, scholars gathered at the Vatican to 

review the science of climate change, in particular how it is affecting human health. 

a. Do you consider the participants at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences 

conference "pagans" for accepting and speaking about the reality of climate 

change? 

I cannot speak for the personal religious beliefs and motivations of specific 

individuals. 

b. Do you continue to believe climate change science to be "propaganda"? 

The public almost always only hears from media about improbably worst case 

scenarios. 

I 01. You stated in a 2016 interview with Rolling Stone that the United States is "not a 

democracy if science dictates what our rules are." In reality, Congress specifically 

required science to guide the rules, regulations, and policies agencies use to execute our 

keystone environmental laws. CEQ has an important role in coordinating and overseeing 

the faithful implementation of these laws. 

a. How should CEQ use science? 

The CEQ must rely upon science. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any 

regulatory actions are based on the most up to date and objective scientific data, 

including the ever-evolving understanding of the impact increasing greenhouse 

gases have on our changing climate, 

b. What or who would you consider reliable sources of scientific knowledge? 

Page 41 of45 
58 


27600.049

If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any regulatory actions are based on the 

most up to date and objective scientific data, including the ever-evolving 

understanding of the impact increasing greenhouse gases have on our changing 

climate. I would listen to all sides. 

c. Should the funding source for research be considered in determining the validity 

and trustworthiness of scientific research? 

Yes. 

102. Do you support the National Ocean Policy and will you maintain CEQ's role in its 

implementation? Do you have any views on how the NOP should be modified or 

changed? 

I support the purpose and goals of the National Ocean Policy. Not at this time. 

103. Have you reviewed EPA's endangerment finding for carbon dioxide? If not, will you 

commit to reviewing it before the Committee votes on your nomination? 

Yes. 

104. Earlier this month, the U.S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP) released its 

Climate Science Special Report. Among its conclusions, the report, which was authored 

by scientists from NOAA, NASA, EPA, DOE, Army Corps of Engineers, and other 

agencies and leading universities, stated: "This assessment concludes, based on extensive 

evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of 

greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause ofthe observed warming since the mid-20'h 

century." 

a. Do you agree with this assessment? If not, on what scientific studies do you base 

your opinion? 

If confirmed it would be a priority to receive extensive briefing on the report. 

b. If confirmed, will you use the science summarized in the report to guide your 

decisions and make policy recommendations to the President? 

If confirmed, I would consider the most rigorous analyses of the best 

available science. 

c. Will you commit to not taking any adverse action or making any adverse 

recommendation concerning the employment of any federal agency scientists who 

contributed to the report? 

Honest scientific inquiry is vital to good environmental policy and I will 

always support fair and respectful treatment of scientists. 

Page 42 of45 
59 


27600.050

d. Will you direct agencies to consider the report the best and latest compilation of 

climate science for the U.S.? 

If confirmed it would be a priority to receive extensive briefing on the 

report. 

!05. Do you agree with each ofthe following statements included in the U.S. Global Change 

Research Program's recent Climate Science Special Report? 

If confirmed it would be a priority to receive extensive briefing on the report. 

a. "Human-caused climate change has made a substantial contribution to [sea level 

rise] since 1900, contributing to a rate of rise that is greater than during any 

preceding century in at least 2,800 years." (page I 0) 

If confirmed it would be a priority to receive extensive briefing on the report. 

b. "The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades will depend 

primarily on the amount of greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide) emitted 

globally." (page I I) 

If confirmed it would be a priority to receive extensive briefing on the report. 

The climate is changing and human activity impacts our changing climate in 

some manner. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of 

that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and 

dialogue. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any regulatory actions are 

based on the most up to date and objective scientific data. 

c. "There is broad consensus that the further and faster the Earth system is pushed 

towards warming, the greater the risk of unanticipated changes and impacts, some 

of which are potentially large and irreversible." (page I I) 

The climate is changing and human activity impacts our changing climate in 

some manner. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of 

that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and 

dialogue. If confirmed, I will work to ensure tbat any regulatory actions are 

based on the most up to date and objective scientific data. 

d. "The world's oceans are currently absorbing more than a quarter of the C02 

emitted to the atmosphere annually from human activities, making them more 

acidic (very high confidence), with potential detrimental impacts to marine 

ecosystems." (page 28) 

The climate is changing and human activity impacts our changing climate in 

some manner. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of 

Page 43 of45 
60 


27600.051

that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and 

dialogue. 

e. "The rate of acidification is unparalleled in at least the past 66 million years." 

(page 28) 

If confirmed it would be a priority to receive extensive briefing on the report. 

f. "This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely 

likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the 

dominant cause ofthe observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the 

warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation 

supported by the extent of the observational evidence." (page I 0) 

If confirmed it would be a priority to receive extensive briefing on the report. 

g. "Human activities are now the dominant cause ofthe observed trends in climate." 

(page 36) 

If confirmed it would be a priority to receive extensive briefing on the report. 

h. "[T]here are no suggested factors, even speculative ones that can explain the 

timing or magnitude and that would somehow cancel out the role of human 

factors." (page 3 7) 

If confirmed it would be a priority to receive extensive briefing on the report. 

I 06. You have worked for or collaborated with a number of organizations with funding ties 

to the Koch Brothers, ExxonMobil, Donors Trust, and other front groups for fossil fuel 

financing. 

a. Will you provide this Committee a full listing of all specific donors that have 

supported your work, including any public remarks, writings, or other 

communications pieces? 

Since 2008, my work has been funded through my employment with the 

Texas Public Policy Foundation. As a 50l(c)(3) non-profit, non-partisan 

research institute, the Foundation does not disclose its donor information in 

accordance with IRS regulations, nor do I have access to this 

information. My public remarks, writings, or other communications pieces 

published during my tenure at the Foundation are voluminous in nature and 

available online at www.tcxaspolicv.com. 

b. Will you recuse yourself from taking meetings with former funders? 

I believe that when CEQ is considering significant decisions, it is important 

Page 44 of 45 
61 


27600.052

to meet with all stakeholders. I can assure the Committee and the American 

people that I will abide by all ethical standards set by the White House and 

follow both the letter and the spirit of the law. 

107. You mention in a 2009 blog post on the Texas Public Policy Foundation's website that 

"[ w ]ind power must shed the government supplement and meet the tests of the free 

market place." Also, in your book, you state that "[t]he grand prize winner in the 

government subsidies sweepstakes was the wind industry, which received $5 billion." 

a. What is the value of government subsidies received by the fossil fuel industry? If 

you are unable to provide a specific amount, how were you able to conclude that 

the wind industry was the "grand prize winner"? 

From the same reference where the $5 billion figure was sourced, the report 

states that Natural Gas and Oil industries receive $2.8 billion, coal $1.4 

billion. 

b. Are you familiar with the lmcrnational Monetarv Fund's 2015 analvsis of 

subsidies to the fossil fuel industry which puts just the U.S. subsidy at around 

$700 billion a year? Do you agree with the lMF independent analysis? 

I have not studied that report and therefore cannot conclude whether I agree 

with that statement or not. 

108. Will you recuse yourself from any meetings, decisions, or recommendations that will 

directly affect or involve any former funders for your work at the Texas Public Policy 

Foundation? 

I will always follow the advice of CEQ ethics officials regarding conflicts of interest. 

109. Will you agree not to seek any waivers under the President's ethics agreement? 

At this time, I do not expect to seek any waivers. However, if such circumstances 

were to arise, I would follow the advice of CEQ's ethics officials. If I receive a 

waiver, I will make it public. 

Page 45 of45 
62 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much, Ms. Hartnett 

White. We appreciate your testimony and your presence here 

today. 

Mr. Wheeler, it is now your turn. If you would like to introduce 

anyone and then proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW WHEELER, 

PRINCIPAL, FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS CONSULTING 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you, Senator. I would like to introduce my 

sister, Liesel, right behind me; her husband, Tim Cooper; and my 

nephew and godson, Luke Cooper. And I really appreciate Luke 

being here today because, being here, he has broken his perfect attendance record at school. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WHEELER. So I am very happy and proud. 

Senator BARRASSO. Does he need a note from a doctor? We can 

help him. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you. 

And I do have three friends: my friend Don, whom I met my first 

day of law school in 1987, flew here from Seattle to be here just 

for this hearing; and my friends John and Michael, who climbed 

Kilimanjaro with me 2 years ago. And I figured if they could get 

me to the top of the mountain, they could get me through today. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WHEELER. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking 

Member Carper, and Chairman Emeritus Inhofe, and members of 

the Committee. I am truly honored and humbled by this opportunity to appear today as the nominee for the position of Deputy 

Administrator at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I 

want to thank President Trump for this distinguished opportunity, 

and I want to thank Administrator Pruitt for the trust he has 

shown in me in supporting my nomination. 

As many of you know, I spent 14 wonderful years working on 

this Committee for Chairman Inhofe and Senator Voinovich in a 

number of different roles, including the Majority and Minority Staff 

Director and Chief Counsel. I must say the view from this table is 

far different from the view from the staff bench behind the dais. 

As a side note, I have never sat here before. I think this table 

is really kind of high. If I had sat here when I was staff director, 

we would have lowered it. 

Starting with the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments in 1996 

through three highway bills, several WRDA bills, brownfields, diesel reduction legislation, and numerous other bills that I had the 

privilege to work on, I always tried to find common ground and 

work across the aisle. 

I would like to take a moment and speak directly to the career 

employees of the EPA who may be watching this hearing. I started 

my career at EPA in the Toxics Office in 1991 as a career employee. I have always believed that the career employees at the 

EPA are some of the most dedicated and hard working employees 

in the Federal Government, and if confirmed, I would be honored 

to join you again. The mission of the EPA, to protect human health 

63 

and the environment, is critical to our country and its citizens, and 

something that I take very seriously, and I know that you do, too. 

President Trump and Administrator Pruitt have set an ambitious 

agenda that I intend to help implement, if confirmed to this position. Administrator Pruitt has talked about returning EPA to its 

core mission and purpose, a goal that I wholeheartedly support. 

During his confirmation hearing, Administrator Pruitt emphasized three key objectives: first, we are a nation of laws, and it is 

EPA’s role to administer those laws faithfully. I understand the 

separation of powers through my time spent working here in the 

Senate, I know where the laws are drafted, many of them here in 

this very room, and I will work with the Administrator to ensure 

that the Agency is following the laws. 

Second, Administrator Pruitt committed that the Agency would 

acknowledge, respect, and promote the critical role of the States in 

implementing the Federal environmental laws. Cooperative federalism is a cornerstone of the Administrator’s approach. We must 

work cooperatively with the States to ensure that the environment 

and public health are both protected. 

Third, Administrator Pruitt emphasized the important role that 

the public plays in the regulatory process. He said it is critical that 

the EPA truly listen to the diverse views of the American people, 

and that includes all of the people. It is vitally important that the 

American public understands the mutual goals of environmental 

protection and economic growth. 

The environment today is cleaner than it has ever been in modern times. As a nation, we have made tremendous progress since 

the 1970s, and we have to build upon that progress going forward. 

I would like to go off script for just a minute and recognize my 

mother, who was too ill to travel here today. When I was 21 

months old, my sisters were 8 years and 8 months old, our father 

passed away. Our mother went back to school to finish her teaching degree, taught elementary school for almost 30 years, and 

raised us on her own. She put all three of us through college and 

helped us with various graduate schools. She has been my No. 1 

mentor, next to Senator Inhofe, and confidante, and I know I would 

not be here today if it wasn’t for her constant love and support. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you again 

for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I want to thank 

your staff for their service. I look forward to starting our dialogue 

now by answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wheeler follows:] 

64 


27600.053

Andrew R. Wheeler 

Principal 

Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting 

Mr. Wheeler is a principal and the head of the energy & environment team 

at Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting and co-chairs the energy and natural 

resources industry team within the law firm. Prior to joining Faegre Baker 

Daniels, Mr. Wheeler worked at the U.S. Senate Environment and Public 

Works Committee for fourteen years serving in various roles including as 

the majority and minority staff director and chief counsel. He started his 

career at the Environmental Protection Agency as a special assistant in the 

toxics office where he received three bronze medals. He has a B.A. from Case Western Reserve 

University, a J.D. from Washington University in St. Louis, and an M.B.A. from George Mason 

University. Mr. Wheeler is a member of the District of Columbia bar and an Eagle Scout. 
65 


27600.054

Statement of Andrew R. Wheeler 

Nominated to be Deputy Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Good morning. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and members of the 

Committee. I am truly honored and humbled by this opportunity to appear today as the nominee 

for the position of Deputy Administrator at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I want to 

thank President Trump for this distinguished opportunity. And I want to thank Administrator 

Pruitt for the trust he has showed in me in supporting my nomination. 

As many of you know, I spent fourteen wonderful years working on this Committee for 

Chairmanlnhofe and Senator Voinovich in a number of different roles including the Majority 

and Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel. !must say the view from this table is far 

different than the view from the staff bench behind the dais. 

Starting with the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments in 1996, through three highway 

bills, several WRDA bills, Brownfields, diesel reduction legislation and numerous others bills 

that I had the privilege to work on, I always tried to find common ground and work across the 

aisle. 

I would like to take a moment and speak directly to the career employees of the EPA who 

may be watching this hearing. I started my career at EPA in the taxies office in 1991, as a career 

employee. I have always believed that the career employees at the EPA are some of the most 

dedicated and hard-working employees in the federal government, and if confirmed I would be 

honored to join you again. The mission of the EPA to protect human health and the environment 

is critical to our country and its citizens and something that I take very seriously and I know you 

do too. 
66 


27600.055

President Trump and Administrator Pruitt have set an ambitious agenda that I intend to 

help implement if confirmed to this position. Administrator Pruitt has talked about returning 

EPA to its core mission and purpose, a goal that I whole-heartedly support. During his 

confirmation hearing Administrator Pruitt emphasized three key objectives: 

First, we are a nation oflaws and it is "EPA's role to administer those laws faithfully." I 

understand the separation of powers and through my time spent working here in the Senate, I 

know where the laws arc drafted, many of them here in this room. I will work with the 

Administrator to ensure that the Agency is following the laws. 

Second, Administrator Pruitt committed that the Agency would acknowledge, respect, 

and promote the critical role of the states in implementing the Federal environmental laws. 

Cooperative federalism is a cornerstone of the Administrator's approach. We must work 

cooperatively with the States to ensure that the environment and public health arc both protected. 

Third, Administrator Pruitt emphasized the important role that the public plays in the 

regulatory process. He said it is critical that the EPA truly listen to the diverse views ofthe 

American people. That includes all oflhe people. It is vitally important that the American 

public understands the mutual goals of environmental protection and economic growth. 

The environment today is cleaner than it has ever been in modern times. As a nation we 

have made tremendous progress since the 1970s and we must build upon that progress going 

forward. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you again tor the opportunity to 

appear before you today, and I want to thank your staff for their service. !look forward to 

starting our dialogue now by answering any questions you may have. 
67 


27600.056

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled "Hearing on the Nominations of Kathleen Hartnett White to be Member of 

the Council on Environmental Quality and Andrew Wheeler to be Deputy Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency." 

November 8, 2017 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Andrew Wheeler 

Ranking Member Carper: 

Please provide a response to each question, including each sub-part. 

!. For decades, both Republican and Democratic administrations alike have had written 

policies limiting White House contacts with agencies that have investigatory and 

enforcement responsibilities. These policies have recognized that even a simple phone 

call from the White House to an agency inquiring about or flagging a specific matter can 

upset the evenhanded application ofthe law. I recently learned that Devon Energy, a 

strong political supporter of Administrator Pruitt's, informed the EPA just 5 days after 

Mr. Pruitt was sworn in as Administrator that it was no longer willing to install air 

pollution technology or pay a high penalty to EPA for its illegal air emissions of cancercausing benzene and other chemicals. We also know that Trump family casinos, hotels 

and golf courses have been the subject of EPA enforcement actions for violations ofthe 

Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. 

a. Do you agree that it is essential that in making decisions, EPA must be shielded 

from political influence and spared even the appearance of being subject to 

political influence or considerations? 

I agree that it is important that EPA should be shielded from political 

influence, particularly in areas involving enforcement. 

b. Will you commit to restricting communications between EPA and the White 

House staff regarding specific matters under the authority of EPA? 

I commit to restricting any inappropriate communications. 

c. Will you commit to ensuring the staff of EPA is familiar with those restrictions? 

Yes 

d. Will you commit to advising this Committee within one week if any inappropriate 

communications from White House staff to EPA staff, including you, occur? 

I commit to reporting any inappropriate communications to the pertinent 

authorities. 

Page 1 of30 
68 


27600.057

2. Recently, EPA conducted "anti-leaking" training for its employees 1

• According to EPA 

sources, the briefing stated that "Prohibitions we will discuss do not refer to 

"Whistleblowing". Agency employees have the right to make lawful disclosures to 

anyone, including, for example, management officials, the Inspector General, and/or the 

Office of Special Counsel. Employees may make disclosures to the EPA Office of the 

Inspector General through the EPA OIG Hotline at 888-546-8740." This presentation 

evidently failed to note the rights of federal employees have to make disclosures to 

Congress. 

5 U.S.C. § 7211, provides that: The right of employees, individually or collectively, to 

petition Congress or a Member of Congress or to furnish information to either House of 

Congress, or to a committee or Member thereof, may not be interfered with or denied. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8), it is a violation of federal law to retaliate against 

whistleblowers. That law states: Any employee who has authority to take, direct others 

to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, with respect to such 

authority ... take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, a personnel action with 

respect to any employee or applicant for employment because of .... (A) any disclosure of 

information by an employee or applicant which the employee or applicant reasonably 

believes evidences- (i) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or (ii) gross 

mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and 

specific danger to public health or safety, any disclosure to the Special Counsel, or to the 

Inspector General of an agency or another employee designated by the head of the agency 

to receive such disclosures, of information which the employee or applicant reasonably 

believes evidences a violation of any law, rule, or regulation ... " In addition, pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 1505, it is against federal law to interfere with a Congressional inquiry: 

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication 

influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due 

and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had 

before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of 

the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either 

House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress. 

a. If you are confirmed, will you commit to protect the rights of all career employees 

in EPA to make lawful disclosures, including their right to speak with Congress? 

I will. 

b. Will you commit to communicate employees' whistleblower rights via email to 

all EPA employees within a week of being sworn in? 

I will ensure that the EPA employee's whistleblower rights are 

communicated to them in a timely fashion. 

Page 2 of 30 
69 


27600.058

3. In the wake of Hurricane Irma, at least II deaths and numerous injuries have been 

reported in Florida due to accidental carbon monoxide poisoning from gasoline-powered 

portable generators.2 One additional death has also been reported in North Carolina, 

along with other injuries throughout the Southeastern United States. 3 Many of these 

deaths and injuries could have been prevented had stronger safety standards been in place 

for portable gasoline generators. In November 2016, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC), following years of work on the issue, voted to issue a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to implement a mandatory safety standard for portable 

generators.4 Since then, Administrator Pruitt and Acting CPSC Chairman Buerkle have 

separately opined that section 213 of the Clean Air Act precludes CPSC action. 

a. Section 213 of the Clean Air Act is intended to regulate emissions from non-road 

engines or vehicles when the EPA determines that such emissions "are significant 

contributors to ozone or carbon monoxide concentrations in more than I area 

which has failed to attain the national ambient air quality standards for ozone or 

carbon monoxide." In your opinion, would the occasional indoor use of portable 

generators following a power outage be likely to be a significant contributor to 

ambient carbon monoxide concentrations in more than I area that has failed to 

attain the national ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide? Why or 

why not? 

I am unaware of the specifics of this issue and would be reluctant to comment 

on an ongoing issue in the event that I would be participating in a final 

agency determination. 

b. There are currently no areas in the United States that have failed to attain the 

national ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide, and this has been the 

case since 20105

• As a matter oflaw, could section 2!3 of the Clean Air Act be 

used to regulate carbon monoxide emissions due to the indoor use of portable 

generators ifthere are no areas in the United States that fail to attain the national 

ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide? Why or why not? 

I am unaware of the specifics of this issue and would be reluctant to comment 

on an ongoing issue in the event that I would be participating in a final 

agency determination. 

httgjj}.Vww.sun"sentine!.com/news/weather/h.!-.Jrrlca.Dmfl: 

Page 3 of 30 
70 


27600.059

4. Your ethics agreement states that you "for a period of one year after my resignation, I 

also will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving 

specific parties in which I know the firm is a party or represents a party, unless I am first 

authorized to participate, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. 2635.502(d). In addition, I will not 

participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties 

in which I know a former client of mine is a party or represents a party for a period of one 

year after I last provided service to that client, unless I am first authorized to participate, 

pursuant to 5 C.F.R. 2635.502(d)." 

a. Please provide a list of all such particular matters involving specific parties that 

you will either need to recuse yourself from or seek authorization to participate in. 

For each such particular matter, please also indicate whether you plan to seek 

authorization to participate. 

I will rely on the guidance from EPA's career ethics officials to determine 

any issues for which I am to be recused. I do not anticipate seeking a waiver, 

and if I do I will make these waivers public. 

b. 5 C.F.R 2635.502(a) states that: 

"where an employee knows that a particular matter involving specific 

parties is likely to have a direct and predictable effect on the financial 

interest of a member of his household, or knows that a person with whom he 

has a covered relationship is or represents a party to such matter, and where 

the employee determines that the circumstances would cause a reasonable 

person with knowledge of the relevant facts to question his impartiality in 

the matter, the employee should not participate in the matter unless he has 

informed the agency designee of the appearance problem and received 

authorization from the agency designee in accordance with paragraph (d) of 

this section." 

Do you agree that you or your firm's representation of clients in particular matters 

that are before EPA would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the 

relevant facts to question your impartiality if you are confirmed and continue to 

participate either in the particular matter itself or in an administrative action 

designed to accomplish the identical outcome the particular matter was intended 

to accomplish? Why or why not? 

I will rely on the guidance from EPA's career ethics officials to determine 

any issues for which I am to be recused. I do not have any financial interests 

in any of my current or former clients. I commit to severing my relationship, 

including all financial interests, with my firm at the time of my departure. 

Page 4 of 30 
71 


27600.060

5. Do you intend to seek a waiver to participate in non-public meetings with your former 

clients or your firm's clients if you are confirmed? If so, please list which clients you 

intend to seek such waivers to meet with and explain will why this would not cause a 

reasonable person with knowledge ofthe relevant facts to question your impartiality in 

the matter at hand. 

I do not plan to seek any waivers, and ifl do I will make those waivers public. 

6. On February 28, 2017, President Trump directed EPA and the Army Corps to review and 

possibly rescind or repeal the Clean Water Rule in Executive Order 13 776. EPA recently 

ended the public comment process on the first step of a two-step process to repeal the rule 

and replace it with a rule that will protect far fewer sources of drinking water. 

Individuals with first-hand knowledge of the process EPA utilized to prepare its have 

informed my staffthat: 

i) When EPA first submitted the proposed repeal rule to OMB, the draft stated that 

the agency would undertake a new cost-benefit analysis as part of the second step 

of its process. 

ii) OMB interpreted EPA's first proposal to mean that the rule's repeal would not 

avoid any costs to industry or have any economic impact at all. EPA's political 

staff then directed the career staffto undertake a new economic analysis. In 

response to this direction from OMB, EPA career staff reportedly changed the 

table included in the 2015 rule to a) reflect 2016 dollars instead of2014 dollars, b) 

convert "annual costs incurred" under the Clean Water Rule to "annual costs 

avoided" due to its repeal and c) convert "annual benefits gained" under the Clean 

Water Rule to "annual benefits forgone" due to its repeal. This new table was sent 

to OMB on June 8, 2017. 

iii) OMB correctly concluded from EPA's June 8 submittal that repealing the rule 

would cost more in lost benefits than it would save industry in compliance costs. 

On June 13, 2017, presumably to avoid such an admission on the part of EPA, 

EPA career staff were verbally directed by political staffto solve this 'problem' 

by simply deleting the majority of the benefits of the rule from the table andresubmitting it to OMB, which they did6

• 

6 httm.://www.epa.gov/sttes/production/flles/2017-06/documents/economic anJlysis proposed stepl rule. pdf See Table 1 

Page 5 of 30 
72 


27600.061

The direction that was reportedly provided to the EPA career staff to make the various 

revisions to what was submitted to OMB was verbal, not written. 

a. If you are confirmed, do you commit to ensure that career staff at EPA will 

receive appropriately documented, rather than verbal, direction from political 

officials before they take action? If not, why not? 

I will always seek to provide my directions clearly in writing. 

b. You said in the hearing that it would be wrong to direct career staff to break the 

law. Assuming that the events described to my staff occurred as described (and 

understanding that you don't have any specific knowledge about these events), is 

it your view that this may have been an instance in which career staff were 

directed to break the law? Why or why not? 

I do not have any specific knowledge of these events and considering the 

process is still ongoing believe it would be inappropriate for me to comment 

on this particular situation. 

7. Do you agree to provide complete, accurate and timely responses to requests for 

information submitted to you by any Member of the Environment and Public Works 

Committee? If not, why not? 

I do. 

8. Recently, EPA announced that Administrator Pruitt would be publishing brief summaries 

of his calendars biweekly, after dozens of Freedom of Information Act requests for this 

information as well as a March request by me and my colleagues that he do so. During 

the Obama Administration, the Administrator, regional Administrators and all those 

serving in confirmed roles published their calendars daily7• If you are confirmed, will 

you commit to publishing your calendars daily? If not, why not? 

I will commit to providing my calendar in a timely manner. 

9. In a per curiam opinion, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

affirmed the Endangerment Finding and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to issue a 

writ of certiorari on the D.C. Circuit's decision. The Endangerment Finding set in 

motion EPA's legal obligations to set greenhouse gas emissions standards for mobile 

and stationary sources, including those established by the Clean Power Plan in August 

2015. 8 During an exchange with Senator Gillibrand during Administrator Pruitt's 

confirmation hearing before the Environment and Public Works Committee, he stated, 

"I believe that the EPA, because of the Mass v. EPA case and the endangerment 

7 b.!!Qs:/lyosem 1te.epa.pov I opa/adrn pre~).nsf/Calendars ?Open View 

11 https://www.epa.gov/c!imatechange/us-court-appea!s-dc-circuit-upholds-epas-action-reduce-greenhouse-gases-under-clean 

Page 6 of 30 
73 


27600.062

finding, has obligations to address the C02 [carbon dioxide] issue." Do you agree with 

Administrator Pruitt's statement? Why or why not? 

I do. 

10. In December 2007, President Bush's EPA proposed to declare greenhouse gases as a 

danger to public welfare through a draft Endangerment Finding, stating, 

"The Administrator proposes to find that the air pollution of elevated levels of 

greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations may reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public welfare ... Carbon dioxide is the most important GHG (greenhouse gas) directly 

emitted by human activities, and is the most significant driver of climate change." 9 Do 

you agree with these statements? Why or why not? 

I believe that climate change is real and that humans have an impact on the 

climate. 

II. The Rule of Law Defense Fund is an affiliate of the Republican Attorneys General 

Association. Have you ever contributed any money or time to the Rule of Law Defense 

Fund? If so, please provide details. 

No. 

12. In the White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA, February 2012, industry argued, "the 

record does not support EPA's findings that mercury, non-mercury HAP metals, and 

acid gas HAPs [hazardous air pollutants] pose public health hazards." 10 Do you agree 

with this statement? Why or why not? 

I am unfamiliar with the particulars of this case. 

13. On April 17, 2012, Dr. Jerome Paulson, Chair, Council on Environmental Health, 

American Academy of Pediatrics, testified before the EPW Committee, stating, 

"Methyl mercury causes localized death of nerve cells and destruction of other cells in 

the developing brain of an infant or fetus. It interferes with the movement of brain cells 

and the eventual organization of the brain ... The damage it [methylmercury] causes to 

an individual's health and development is permanent and irreversible .... There is no 

evidence demonstrating a "safe" level of mercury exposure, or a blood mercury 

concentration below which adverse effects on cognition are not seen. Minimizing 

mercury exposure is essential to optimal child health." 11 

Page 7 of30 
74 


27600.063

a. Do you agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics' finding on the 

importance of minimizing mercury exposures for child health? If not, please 

cite the scientific studies that support your disagreement. 

I am not familiar with the specific findings of the Academy but I am 

familiar with health concerns involving mercury and worked in the Senate 

to try and pass Clear Skies which would have addressed mercury pollution. 

b. Do you agree the record supports EPA's findings that mercury, non-mercury 

hazardous air pollutant metals, and acid gas hazardous air pollutants emitted 

from uncontrolled power plants pose public health hazards? If not, why not? 

I agree that mercury pollution is harmful but I understand the Supreme 

Court raised concerns about the Agency's cost benefit analysis. 

c. Do you agree it is currently difficult to monetize the reduced risk of human 

health and ecological benefits from reducing mercury emissions from power 

plants? If so, please explain. If not, why not? If these costs cannot be 

calculated, are the risks still real? 

I believe it is difficult to monetize benefits and that the agency must use all 

available tools to do so. 

14. The US Supreme Court has expressly declined to consider whether EPA should have 

chosen some other mechanism "under section 112" in regulating power plant mercury 

and ali the other HAPs emitted by the industry. What is your position on that 

precedent? 

If confirmed, I will work with the career staff at the Agency to determine the best 

course of action to protect the public from the health impacts of mercury. 

15. Do you agree that the EPA's recent consideration ofthe costs of the Mercury and Air 

Toxics Standards Rule shows that the agency has met the "necessary and appropriate" 

criteria Congress provided under I 12(n) to direct the EPA to regulate power plant 

mercury (and other air toxic) emissions under Section 112, and more specifically under 

Section 112(d)? If not, why not? 

This case is still active before the agency and it would be inappropriate to prejudge 

the issue without a complete briefing from the career staff at EPA. 

Page 8 of 30 
75 


27600.064

16. The Edison Electric Institute (EEl), the association that represents all U.S. investorowned electric companies, has told my staffthat, to its knowledge, all of its member 

companies have fully implemented the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule. EPA 

staff has reported to my staff something similar. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

Rule protects our children from harmful mercury and air toxics pollution; and by 

industry accounts is already being met with technology that is already bought, paid for 

and running on almost all our power plants. 

a. Do you dispute reports that nearly all covered facilities are already in compliance 

with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards? If so, please explain. 

I do not have any particular knowledge as to the compliance status. 

b. According to a recent report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance Report and the 

Business Council for Sustainable Energy, "consumers now pay 3% less per 

kilowatt-hour for electricity than in 2007." 12 This means the near universal 

compliance of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule has been achieved 

without significant impacts to electricity reliability or affordability, in fact 

electricity prices have gone down. Do you agree? If not, why not? 

There are many factors that have impacted the cost of electricity since 2007. 

c. Even though industry has achieved near universal compliance with the Mercury 

and Air Toxics Standards and electricity prices have gone down, not up, 

Administrator Pruitt is currently reviewing whether it is "appropriate and 

necessary" to issue the standards in the first place. Do you agree that the EPA 

should be conducting this review, and if so, why? 

These issues were the subject of a Supreme Court decision and have 

ramifications on other EPA rulemakings going forward so they must be 

addressed. 

d. If the EPA determines the agency has not met the "necessary and appropriate" 

criteria found in Section 112(n), and revokes the Mercury and Air Toxics 

Standards Rule, what does that mean for all the pollution control technology 

that has been bought, paid for and running on our power plants that is helping 

the industry be in full compliance of the rule? 

This case underscores the necessity for the Agency to always follow the law. 

Page 9 of 30 
76 


27600.065

17. Section I 09 ofthe Clean Air Act is very clear. It requires EPA to review the NAAQS 

for six common air pollutants including ground-level ozone, particulate matter, sulfur 

dioxide, nitrogen dioxide every 5 years. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set these 

standards that "are requisite to protect the public health," with "an adequate margin of 

safety," and secondary standard necessary to protect public welfare. Please respond to 

each sub-part below: 

a. If confirmed, will you continue to hold to the five-year National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards review time period that the Clean Air Act requires of the 

EPA? 

I believe the five year review is important to maintain and will seek to 

follow the law. 

b. Do you agree with Justice Scalia's opinion in Whitman v. American Trucking 

Associations that it is "fairly clear that [the Clean Air Act] does not permit the 

EPA to consider costs in setting the standards"? If you do not agree, why not? 

I agree with Justice Scalia. 

c. Do you agree that the Trump Administration's November 6, 2017 

announcement that "the Clean Air Act requires EPA to issue designations [for 

non-attainment areas] no later than 2 years after the agency sets a new National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard or revises an existing standard. The 

Administrator may extend this deadline up to I year, ifthere is insufficient 

information to designate areas by the 2-year deadline" 13 is accurate? If not, why 

not? 

I believe this is a correct statement ofthe law. 

d. Do you agree that the agency set a new National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

for ozone on October I, 2015 14, as was also stated in the Trump 

Administration's November 6, 2017 announcement? If not, why not? 

I agree. 

Page 10 of 30 
77 


27600.066

e. Do you agree that the November 6, 2017 announcement by the Trump 

Administration stated that "EPA is not extending the time provided under 

section 107 of the Clean Air Act [to designate non-attainment areas] but is not 

yet prepared to issue designations"? 

I am not familiar with the specifics of the November 6, 2017, 

announcement. 

f. Do you agree that the Trump Administration has failed to comply with the 

Clean Air Act by failing to designate ozone non-attainment areas by October I, 

2017 while also choosing not to extend the deadline for such designations to be 

made? 

I believe it is important to meet all statutory deadlines. 

g. If confirmed, will you commit to not further delay the implementation of the 

2015 ozone NAAQS? If not, why not? 

I believe it is important to meet all statutory deadlines. 

18. Do you agree with President Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the 

International Paris Climate Accord? If so, please explain. 

I do agree with the President's decision. 

19. In part of his justifications for withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, President 

Trump stated the Paris Accord could, "cost America as much as 2. 7 million lost jobs by 

2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates (NERA)." 15 This 

economic statistic and others linked to the NERA study were also distributed in White 

House materials as reasons the President was deciding to withdraw from the Paris 

Accord. Soon after the President's speech, NERA stated, "In a set of talking points 

distributed by the White House in conjunction with its announcement of the US 

withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the Trump Administration selectively used results 

from a NERA Economic Consulting study, "Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Regulations on 

the Industrial Sector." ... Use of results from this analysis as estimates of the impact of 

the Paris Agreement alone mischaracterizes the purpose ofNERA's analysis, which was 

to explore the challenges of achieving reductions from US industrial sectors over a longer 

term. Selective use of results from a single implementation scenario and a single year 

compounds the mischaracterization." 16 

Page 11 of 30 
78 


27600.067

a. In light of the NERA statement, do you think the President misspoke when he 

wrongly cited information from the NERA study in his Paris speech? If not, why 

not? 

I am not familiar with the specific citations to the NERA study. 

b. If confirmed, will you commit that you will not distort the NERA study- or any 

other economic study- to justify the U.S. withdrawing from the Paris Climate 

Accord or to justifY the elimination or delay of climate policies? 

My goal would be to not distort any scientific or economic analysis. 

c. After the President's Paris Climate Accord speech, MIT's Joint Program on the 

Science and Policy of Global Change issued a statement stating the President's 

characterization oftheir analysis of the Paris Accord to be misleading. 17 If 

confirmed, will you commit that you will not distort the climate science studies to 

justifY the U.S. withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord or to justifY the 

elimination or delay of climate policies? 

My goal would be to not distort any scientific or economic analysis. 

20. As you may know, American Indians and Alaska Natives share a unique relationship with 

the federal government. As part of that relationship, the federal government has a duty to 

perform meaningful consultation with Indian Tribes and Alaska Native villages regarding 

issues that affect tribal communities and tribal members. Do you commit to engage in 

essential and honest consultation with tribes and tribal governments? 

Absolutely, I worked closely with several Oklahoma tribes during my tenure in the 

Senate and look forward to enhancing and expanding these important relationships, 

if confirmed. 

21. An article 18 about the President's decision to leave the Paris Climate Agreement in Inside 

Climate News stated that "Other hardliners include Murray Energy's chief executive 

Robert Murray and his coal company's lobbyist, Andrew Wheeler, who helped enlist 

Pruitt to talk to the National Mining Association before it joined the rejection lobby." Is 

this excerpt accurate? If so, please describe the manner in which you helped "enlist Pruitt 

to talk to the National Mining Association" and provide any documents you prepared or 

received that are related to this effort. If not, please describe the inaccuracies. 

Page lZ of 30 
79 


27600.068

I do not recall any role in enlisting Administrator Pruitt to speak at NMA. 

22. Please provide me with a copy of the following presentations that are listed in the 

materials you sent the Committee: Attached are the available presentations as noted. 

a. How to Conduct Congressional Oversight (2017) [a copy of handouts used] 

b. Preparing for the New Administration (20 17) (no materials available] 

c. The Air Up There: Developments and Opportunities for Clean Air, Coal, Energy 

and Climate (2016) [no materials available, agenda attached] 

d. Preparing for the Change in Administration (20 16) [a copy of handouts used] 

e. Focusing on What Really Should be Debated: The Cases of Boiler MACT, Utility 

MACT and CSPAR (2012) (copy ofPowerpoint attached] 

f. The Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act: Cap-and-Trade 

(2009) [copy ofPowerpoint attached] 

23. Earlier this year, the fiscal year 2018 budget proposal 19 submitted to Congress sought to 

eliminate the $20 million in funding the EPA provides for the Justice Department's 

Environment and Natural Resources Division. EPA has historically provided about 27 

percent of that office's budget. Do you support such a reduction in funding? Please 

provide your reasoning and any information you have supporting your answer. 

If confirmed, I will implement the appropriations levels provided by Congress. 

24. Since 1987, how much funding has been provided to ENRD by EPA? How much money 

has DOJ secured through fines, penalties, and commitments to remediate contamination 

and pollution during this same time period? 

I am unfamiliar with and do not have access to this type of information at this time. 

25. In September, the EPA Inspector General issued a report titled "EPA's Distribution of 

Superfund Human Resources Does Not Support Current Regional Workload." It 

concluded, among other things, that one of the impediments to progress in cleaning up 

Superfund sites is lack of adequate EPA staff. Do you agree with and accept the 

conclusions of the 10 in this regard? If not, why not? 

I am unfamiliar with the IG report and any responses by the Agency. I do believe it 

is important to provide adequate resources to the Superfund program in order to 

speed up the current pace of cleanups. If confirmed, I will implement the 

appropriations levels provided by Congress. 

1shttps:l/www.documentcloud.org/rlocurnents/110§1j)O-EP.A2i!.Rerfund-reimbursements-to-DOJ-documents.htm!#docurnent/p7/J378119 

Page 13 of 30 
80 


27600.069

26. The Administration's budget request proposes to reduce the size of EPA's workforce by 

approximately 3000 Full Time Employees (FTEs) in FY 2018, including just under 600 

FTEs in the Superfund program. Administrator Pruitt has stated that he would like to 

greatly accelerate the cleanup of hazardous waste sites, in particular Superfund sites. Do 

you believe that reducing the Superfund workforce by 23 percent will accelerate or 

reduce the pace of cleanups at Superfund sites across the country? 

If confirmed, I will implement the appropriations levels provided by Congress. 

However, I do believe that programs can always be made more effective and 

efficient. 

27. This country just suffered three unusually intense hurricanes in quick successionincluding one in your home state of Texas and one that has left the majority of Puerto 

Rico without electricity and water for weeks. Over 137 wildfires have raged in the West, 

costing hundreds of billions of dollars in damages and dozens of lost lives. Two weeks 

ago, the Trump White House released a final (i.e., not draft, as was inaccurately asserted 

at the hearing) report20 that concluded that, quote, "it is extremely likely that human 

activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the 

observed warming since the mid-20th century." The report also documented increases in 

sea levels, heatwaves, wildfires, and flooding, and said that, quote, "Changes in the 

characteristics of extreme events are particularly important for human safety." 

a. Do you accept the evidence that carbon dioxide pollution is causing the earth to 

warm. that human activity is responsible tor that warming, and that with increased 

warming comes an increased frequency and intensity of extreme t1ooding, 

hurricanes and wildfires? If not, please fully document the basis for such 

rejection. 

Although I am not from Texas as the question states, I do believe that the 

climate is changing and that humans have an impact on the climate. 

b. Do you agree with the report's conclusion that "it is extremely likely that human 

activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the 

observed warming since the mid-20th century?" If not, please fully document the 

basis f()r your disagreement. 

I do believe that the climate is changing and that humans have an impact on 

the climate. 

20 L!l!.Q.?://sC!encr>2017.globa!change.gov/ 

Page 14 of 30 
81 


27600.070

c. Do you agree with the report's documentation that demonstrated increases in sea 

levels, heatwaves, wildfires, and flooding? If not, please fully document the basis 

for your disagreement. 

I do believe that the climate is changing and that humans have an impact on 

the climate. I have not had an opportunity to review the report's 

documentation. 

28. The C02 Coalition21 is a group that promotes misinformation about climate science. In 

February of this year, Ms. White spoke on a panel hosted by the C02 Coalition. There 

she described the C02 Coalition as, a "very, very meaningful source [of information]," 

and said that she is "very hopeful because of organizations like the C02 Coalition." The 

group also produces 30 second cartoons extolling the virtues of increased levels of C02 

in the atmosphere22• Do you agree with Ms. White's statements, and do you agree that 

the C02 Coalition is a meaningful source of information on climate change? If not, why 

not? 

I am not familiar with the coalition. 

29. Can you name one Clean Air Act regulation that was promulgated by the Obama 

Administration- not a voluntary or grant program- that you do support, and why? 

To the best of my recollection I only worked in opposition to two Clean Air Act 

regulations during the Obama Administration, MATS and CPP. I did not fully 

review any of the other regulations and therefore cannot provide an opinion on 

them. 

30. Are there any other EPA regulations- not a voluntary or grant program- that are on 

the books today that you support? If so, which ones? 

There are relatively few EPA regulations that I did not support over the years. 

21 http:f/co2coalition.org/ 22 https:l/youtu.be/50apr4fopul 

Page 15 of 30 
82 


27600.071

Senator Gillibrand: 

31. Cleaning up Superfund sites is a core function of the EPA. However, the Trump 

Administration proposed cutting the Superfund budget by 30 percent in this year's 

budget. If enacted, those cuts would imperil the ability of the EPA to clean up the most 

hazardous contamination in New York and across the country. The longer it takes to 

clean up Superfund projects, the longer the health of children and families who live near 

these toxic sites are put at risk. This is immoral, and an abdication of the EPA's 

responsibility to protect public health. Do you support the cuts to the Superfund program 

that were in President Trump's budget request? 

I did not participate in the budget process and I am unfamiliar with the budget 

assumptions; although I believe that the agency can be more effective, more focused, 

and less costly as we partner with states to fulfill the Agency's core mission. If 

confirmed I will implement the appropriations levels provided by Congress. 

Senator Inhofe: 

32. In 2016, President Obama signed a bi-partisan provision of the WIIN Act allowing states 

to develop risk-based programs to manage coal ash from power plants. Unfortunately, 

before the WIIN Act became law, EPA had issued self-implementing coal ash regulations 

under the RCRA program. Accordingly, the existing EPA regulations do not contain the 

flexibility and protections established by the WliN Act. Many groups -- including 

electric co-ops and public power -- have repeatedly asked EPA to harmonize its existing 

regulations with the WIIN Act. There is increasing urgency for EPA to act now to allow 

states the ability regulate coal ash. It is the desire of the states that regulate electric power 

generating plants to exercise their rights under the WIIN Act. If confirmed, will you 

pledge to work with me to address this issue? 

Yes, and as a general rule I believe it is important to work with our state partners to 

provide as much flexibility as the law allows in furthering the goals of cooperative 

federalism. 

Senator Merkley: 

33. In a recent public disclosure of Administrator Pruitt's calendar of meetings, less than 3% 

of his meetings were with public health and environmental advocacy organizations, 

whereas over 25% of his meetings were with industry representatives. Do you believe 

this reflects fair and balanced input from public health and environmental advocacy 

organizations? 

I have no knowledge of meetings scheduled, but if confirmed, I commit to meet and 

listen to all stakeholders. 

Page 16 of 30 
83 


27600.072

34. In the final version of the Fourth National Climate Assessment Report (Volume I) (found 

here: (found here: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/), scientists from 

EPA and 12 other agencies find that "Global annual average temperature has increased 

by more than 1.2°F (0.7°C) for the period 1986- 2016 relative to 190 l-1960." (Figure 

ES.l) 

a. Do you agree with this finding? 

b. If you do not agree with this finding, please explain why, and please provide 

at least one peer reviewed study supporting your stated position. 

I have not had the opportunity to closely review the finding of the report 

but I will always turn to the career scientists from EPA and its sister 

agencies for the most recent updates on climate science. 

35. In the hearing you said, "I believe that man has an impact on the planet. What's not 

completely understood is what the impact is." Yet the Fourth National Climate 

Assessment finds that "human activities are the primary driver of recent global 

temperature rise" (Figure ES. 2). 

a. Do you agree with this finding? 

b. If you do not agree with this finding, please explain why, and please provide 

at least one peer reviewed study supporting your stated position. 

I have not had the opportunity to closely review the finding of the report 

but I will always turn to the career scientists from EPA and its sister 

agencies for the most recent updates on climate science. 

36. You told me in our conversation that when it comes to scientific matter, you would defer 

to career staff and independent scientists. However, recently the EPA banned scientists 

who have received EPA funding from sitting on the agency's science advisory boards. As 

a result, many independent scientists were dismissed before they even completed their 

terms. EPA has not raised similar concerns about potential conflicts of interest for 

scientists who work for industries that EPA regulates. At the same time, EPA is replacing 

these scientists with people from the very industries that the EPA is support to regulate. 

a. Do you agree that EPA should bar scientists from serving on its advisory 

boards simply because they have received funding through EPA grants? 

I am not familiar with the specifics of the recent announcement but I do 

believe it is important to have individuals without conflicts serve on the 

various boards. 

Page 17 of30 
84 


27600.073

b. Do you think it is acceptable for someone who receives money from ExxonMobil or even from a foreign government to serve but not someone who 

receives a grant from the agency itself? 

I am not familiar with the specifics of the recent announcement but I do 

believe it is important to have individuals without conflicts serve on the 

various boards. 

c. How is EPA supposed to carry out its mission to protect human health and the 

environment when it receives scientific ad vices from the industries that the 

agency is supposed to regulate? 

I am not familiar with the specifics of the recent announcement but I do 

believe it is important to have individuals without conflicts serve on the 

various boards. 

37. As a lobbyist for Murray Energy, you were present for the preliminary discussions that 

led to the crafting ofthe Department of Energy's cost recovery proposal for coal and 

nuclear plants. You also viewed a three-page memo drafted by Murray to the White 

House to revive the domestic coal sector. Additionally, you admitted to attending two 

meetings with DOE and the House Energy and Commerce committee staffers. As the 

EPA Deputy Administrator, you would be in charge of regulating companies like Murray 

Energy, one of your former clients. Moving forward, how will you guarantee that the 

EPA will act in the best interests of the American people rather than in the interests of 

your former clients? 

I will follow the advice and guidance of the career ethics officials at the EPA 

regarding my former clients and law firm. Additionally, I have no financial 

interests in any of my clients nor will I have any interests in the firm after my 

departure. At no time have I had any equity ownership in the firm. 

Senator Sanders: 

Climate Change 

38. President Trump has suggested in the past that climate change is a hoax. Is the President 

correct? Is climate change a hoax? 

I believe that climate change is real and human activity contributes to climate 

change. 

Page 18 of 30 
85 


27600.074

39. Do you agree with the vast majority of scientists that climate change is real, it is caused 

by human activity, and that we must aggressively transition away from fossil fuels and 

toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy like wind, solar, and geothermal? 

I believe that climate change is real and human activity contributes to climate 

change. I believe in the use of all forms of energy including wind, solar, geothermal 

and fossil fuels. 

40. Do you agree with the vast majority of scientists that the combustion of fossil fuels 

contributes to climate change? 

I believe that climate change is real and that humans have an impact on the climate, 

which could include actions such as the combustion of fossil fuels. 

41. This past year, we have seen unprecedented devastation from hurricanes Harvey, Irma 

and Maria plus dozens of wildfires that have ravaged the West. 

a. Do you believe, as the scientific community does, that climate change contributes 

to the frequency and devastation of these natural disasters? 

I believe that climate change is real and that humans have an impact on the 

climate. 

b. Congress has already appropriated $51.8 billion to address these disasters, and we 

intend to continue to work to rebuild communities devastated by the impacts of 

these disasters. A recent study published in the journal Science found that for 

every degree Celsius the planet warms, there is a loss of roughly 1.2% GDP in the 

United States. Do you believe that addressing climate change is good economics? 

Fossil Fuels 

I believe it is important to address adaptation and in the late 90's I worked 

on the Stafford Act reauthorization to help ensure that communities are 

rebuilt to withstand stronger storms in the future. 

42. In your view, how important is it for the United States to reduce our reliance on fossil 

fuels? 

I believe that a diverse fuel supply helps ensure reliable and affordable energy 

resources for jobs and low income families who are most susceptible to fluctuations 

in energy prices. 

Page 19 of 30 
86 


27600.075

43. You previously worked at Murray Energy Corporation, a privately-owned coal company. 

Do you believe the federal government needs to invest more in polluting, finite fossil fuel 

resources like coal? 

I believe that it is important for the federal government to invest in energy research 

such as clean coal technology and battery storage for renewable energy. However, it 

is also important for the government, particularly regulatory agencies, to not pick 

winners and losers absent clear statutory authority from Congress. 

44. EPA is tasked with ensuring the health and safety of working people, their families, and 

the communities in which they live. If confirmed, will you commit to refusing undue 

influence from special interests and instead fight to protect the environment? 

Absolutely. 

Energy Future 

45. In your view, what is the role of renewable energy in our energy future? 

I believe renewable energy is very important going forward but it is also important 

for the government, particularly regulatory agencies, to not pick winners and losers 

absent clear statutory authority from Congress. 

46. If confirmed, how will you work to support renewable energy like wind, solar, and 

geothermal? 

I will commit to not picking winners and losers and to ensure a level-playing field for 

all energy sources. 

47. In your view, what should the United States' energy infrastructure look like at the end of 

this century? Specifically, what should be our main sources of energy? 

I cannot predict what the energy future will look like. I will say that America's 

abundant low-cost energy in the 201

h century extended people's lives, brought 

prosperity and lifted more people out of poverty then probably any government 

program. In 1917 no one could have predicted nuclear, wind, solar, or geothermal 

energy and I look forward to living long enough to see what innovations occur in the 

21" century. 

Past Career/Conflicts of Interest 

48. In the past, you worked for Murray Energy Corporation, which brought suit against the 

EPA for its enforcement of the clean air and water protections. Can you explain why 

federal courts should be in the position of determining safe levels of air pollution to 

protect the health and welfare of Vermonters, as opposed to the federal Agency whose 

mission it is to protect human and environmental health? 

Page 20 of 30 
87 


27600.076

I believe that too many of EPA's regulations have been driven by litigation from 

both industry and environmental organizations and I will strive to ensure that the 

agency enacts timely regulations that will be upheld by the courts. 

49. Your former clients include Whirlpool Corporation, Bear Head LNG Corporation, 

Celanese Corporation, Coalition For Domestic Medical Isotope Supply, Darling 

International, Domestic Fuel Solutions Group, Enterprises Swanco LLC, !COR 

International, Insurance Auto Auctions, Inc, KAR Holdings, Murray Energy, Nuclear 

Energy Institute, Sargento Foods Inc, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and 

Underwriters Laboratories. If confirmed as Deputy Administrator of the EPA, would you 

have any conflicts of interest with these companies, or any other companies you 

represented during your time as a lobbyist? If so, will you commit to recuse yourself for 

the full course of any matter in which any of your former clients is a party? If not, why 

not? 

I will follow the advice and guidance of the career ethics officials at the EPA 

regarding my former clients and law firm. Additionally, I have no financial 

interests in any of my clients nor will I have any interests in the firm after my 

departure. 

50. Murray Energy Corporation paid millions in fines and penalties for contaminating 

waterways in Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania with coal slurry and discharge 

during your tenure. 

a. Were you aware this type of environmental contamination was occurring? If 

you were aware, what actions did you take to address this water 

contamination? If you were aware of the contamination and did not act, why 

not? If you were not aware, why not? Do you think it is acceptable for a senior 

corporate official to lack knowledge of their company's pollution? 

I was never an employee of Murray Energy. I represented them on 

specific issues in Washington, DC, and did not work on the issue 

referenced in the question. 

b. Do you believe this type of environmental contamination endangers the health 

and wellbeing of American citizens? 

I believe that discharges into waterways can endanger public health. 

c. If confirmed, how will you ensure corporate environmental polluters like 

Murray Energy Corporation are held accountable? 

I believe all violations of permits or the law should be prosecuted. 

Page 21 of 30 
88 


27600.077

51. In 2015, Federal regulators accused Murray Energy of attempting to silence 

whistleblowers and said that ''Murray Energy chided 3,500 workers for making too many 

confidential safety complaints to regulators and-- at one of the mines-- threatened to 

retaliate by closing down operations." 

a. If contirmed, how will you work to prevent retaliation against whistle blowers 

who help the federal government enforce the nation's environmental laws? 

I am unaware of the specifics of this particular situation; however, I believe 

that whistleblower rights should be protected. 

b. Were you aware of this behavior? Jfyou were aware, what did you to do ensure 

Murray complied with environmental laws and took whistleblower complaints 

seriously? If you were not aware, how will you ensure EPA employee's concerns 

are taken seriously, if confirmed? 

I am unaware of the specifics ofthis particular situation; however, I believe 

that whistle blower rights should be protected. 

52. You criticized the Paris Climate Agreement, calling it a "sweetheart deal" for China that 

gave the United States' competitor a manufacturing edge. China is still in the deal, and 

their climate policies are rapidly outpacing ours. China is moving away from dirty fossil 

fuels at a rate much quicker than the United States, and they are on track to more than 

double their renewable energy infrastructure and get a fifth of their energy from nonfossil fuel sources by 2030. 

a. If both countries remain on their current paths, China will soon replace us as 

the world's technological and economic leader in the fields of climate science 

and energy generation. Do you believe we should continue to allow China to 

out-compete us in these areas? 

I believe that we should compete against China in all areas. 

b. Should the U.S. be concerned that China is rapidly outpacing us in these 

areas? Do you recognize that China's leadership in these fields represents a 

threat to our economy and national security? 

I believe that we should compete against China in all areas. 

c. The Carnegie Mellon Institute estimates that air pollution from energy 

production caused at least $131 billion in damages in the U.S. alone. Do you 

think this financial drain threatens our ability to compete with countries like 

China on the international scale? 

I am unfamiliar with this particular study. 

Page 22 of 30 
89 


27600.078

Science 

53. If confirmed, do you commit to relying on independent scientists with relevant expertise 

to evaluate and review the data that the EPA uses when making decisions related to the 

implementation of environmental regulations? 

I do. 

Most Pressing Challenges 

54. In your opinion, what are the most pressing environmental challenges that deserve the 

attention of the EPA? If confirmed, what will you do at the EPA to better address these 

challenges? 

I believe that the agency needs to return to its core mission, in particular addressing 

Superfund cleanups in a faster manner and working to get more nonattainment 

areas, for the criteria air pollutants, to attainment. I also believe that our aging 

water infrastructure is in need of attention and I look forward to working with 

Congress on this issue. 

Environmental Regulations 

55. If confirmed, do you commit to upholding the goal of the Clean Air Act, which according 

to the EPA website is "to address the public health and welfare risks posed by certain 

widespread air pollutants"? 

I do. 

56. Do you support EPA Administrator Pruitt's decision to rescind the Clean Power Plan? 

I do. 

57. According to the EPA, the Clean Power Plan will lead to climate and health benefits 

"worth an estimated $55 billion to $93 billion in 2030, including avoiding 2,700 to 6,600 

premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in children." 

a. Do you agree with the EPA's findings? If you do agree or are unfamiliar with 

these data, do you agree that, if the EPA's estimations are correct, we have a 

moral imperative to maintain the Clean Power Plan and protect the thousands of 

people that it positively impacts? If you do not agree with the EPA's findings, on 

which data or scientific studies do you base your opinion? 

I believe that the Clean Power Plan was outside of the direct authority of the 

EPA under tbe Clean Air Act as evidenced by the unusual stay implemented 

by the Supreme Court. 

Page 23 of 30 
90 


27600.079

b. If confirmed, what will you tell the parents who have children with asthma that 

will be adversely impacted by Administrator Pruitt's decision to rescind the Clean 

Power Plan? 

As a former asthmatic child who still occasionally uses an inhaler, I take 

these issues seriously and I will work with Administrator Pruitt on solutions 

within the statutory authority that the agency has been granted. 

58. Oil and natural gas extraction by way of hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," has 

expanded rapidly in the United States. The EPA conducted a study of the drinking water 

impacts and released a final report in December 2016. The Agency found "hydraulic 

fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances." 

a. Do you concur with the conclusions of the EPA's final report on fracking and 

drinking water? 

I am unfamiliar with the specifics of the report but will work with the career 

EPA employees on this issue. 

b. What further studies-if any-do you believe would be appropriate for the EPA 

to conduct on the effects of fracking on water quality? 

Since I am unfamiliar with the specifics in this report, I will rely upon the 

advice of the career employees on the need for future studies. 

c. If confirmed, would you support implementing a requirement to provide full, 

well-specific public disclosure of all information related to oil and gas 

development involving [racking's possible impacts on groundwater, surface 

water, public health and safety, and habitat potential impacts? 

I started my career working on the TRI program and the Right-to-Know 

aspects of that program and I believe all of the environmental laws function 

better with the information in the hands of the communities most-impacted. 

59. Data shows that mercury pollution in the North Atlantic and mercury concentrations in 

our fisheries have fallen dramatically since the United States started requiring stronger 

emission controls from coal power plants. 

Given this scientific confirmation of the positive effects of these regulations, what will you 

do, if confirmed, to continue to accelerate the clean-up of all sources of mercury emissions, 

including from coal power plants? 

Since the MATS regulatory program is currently under review by the agency it would 

be inappropriate for me to comment at this time. 

Page 24 of 30 
91 


27600.080

60. Changes in weather patterns, such as heavier precipitation events that increase run-off 

and flooding, are affecting lakes, rivers, and reservoirs nationwide. Water quality, 

quantity, and the integrity of our water infrastructure are at risk. Recent studies in the 

Northeast have found that degraded water quality on lakes can cost lakeside communities 

millions of dollars in losses from both tourism and taxable income due to reduced 

property values. If confirmed, how will you work as Deputy Administrator to support 

water resource management programs that address these issues? 

I believe that water infrastructure and water quality issues are the sleeper 

environmental issues of our times and need our full attention. I will work with both 

Administrator Pruitt and the career staff at EPA to address the variety of waterrelated issues. 

Environmental Justice 

61. How do you define "environmental justice"? 

EPA defines Environmental Justice as the fair treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people regardless of race, color, culture, national origin, income, 

and educational levels with respect to the development, implementation, and 

enforcement of protective environmental laws, regulations, and policies. 

62. Do you think environmental justice is a serious issue that the EPA should address? 

Yes. 

63. If confirmed, will you commit to addressing the growing environmental and economic 

justice issues associated with exposure to environmental pollution? 

I will. 

64. Latino children are twice as likely as non-Latina white children to die from asthma while, 

from 2012-2014, African American children had a death rate ten times that of non-Latina 

white children. African American children are three times as likely to suffer an asthma 

attack. As Deputy Administrator, how will you work to protect vulnerable low-income 

communities and communities of color from the harmful impacts of air pollution? 

All children, regardless of race or income deserve clean air and safe water. We must 

ensure that all communities are treated the same. 

65. Describe how you will, if confirmed, ensure that EPA's Environmental Justice 2020 plan 

is fully implemented. 

I have not been briefed on the 2020 plan, but look forward to working with the 

career agency employees on its implementation if I am confirmed. 

Page 25 of30 
92 


27600.081

66. If confirmed, do you commit to meeting with community members and leaders who have 

concerns about environmental or health issues within the EPA's jurisdiction? 

I will. 

67. If confirmed, what steps will you take as Deputy Administrator to ensure that the EPA 

and other federal agencies are complying with Executive Order 12989 on Environmental 

Justice? 

I will work to ensure that all Executive Orders are complied with and will work to 

the extent possible with our sister agencies and departments in that compliance. 

68. If confirmed, will you commit to addressing issues of environmental justice in Native 

American communities and offer a voice to those most affected by the environmental 

consequences of industrialization, especially in regard to resources protected by treaties? 

I will work with Native American communities and have done so in my previous 

work in the U.S. Senate. 

Vermont 

69. Lake Champlain is one of Vermont's most treasured environmental features. Tourism and 

property values are tied to the health of the lake-keeping its waters swimmable, fishable 

and drinkable is important to Vermonters. Run-off- including from farmlands, lawns, 

and paved roads and point source pollution- contributes to high levels of phosphorus that 

spur algae growth. The algae turns the lake green and can be toxic. In 2016, the EPA 

released new phosphorus limits for the lake by establishing a Total Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL). 

a. If confirmed, do you commit to continuing the Agency's support for the clean-up 

of Lake Champlain through this new TMDL and federal funding? 

I will work with the appropriations levels provided to the EPA by Congress. 

b. Will you, if confirmed, support increased funding and support from the EPA to 

crack down on pollution? If not, how will you ensure Clean Water Act obligations 

are satisfied? 

I will work with the appropriations levels provided to us by Congress. 

Page 26 of30 
93 


27600.082

Senator Sullivan: 

Permitting: 

70. The EPA has jurisdiction over permitting for discharges of effluent into water and 

emissions into the air. They also administer registration and use safety testing for 

chemicals in commerce as well as tracking disposal of waste cradle to grave to sanitary 

landfills as opposed to open dumps. Permits and authorizations pursuant to these 

authorities add time and regulatory requirements to business and infrastructure project. A 

key concern in recent years has been the increasing amount of delays to do extended 

permitting application reviews and environmental challenges to issued permits. EPA 

must find ways to more efficiently permit projects in a manner that can survive legal 

scrutiny and provide greater certainty to project proponents and citizens. 

a. Will you work as Deputy Administrator to modernize EPA's permitting 

reviews while maintaining adequate environmental protections? 

I believe that it is paramount for the EPA to provide permitting certainty 

to the American public and will work with Administrator Pruitt on his 

agenda to modernize the permitting process. 

b. Will you work with other agencies to ensure interagency coordination is done 

in a timely manner? 

Yes, I will. 

c. How can the EPA, ensure that it makes timely decisions while limiting 

environmental impacts from a permitted discharge? 

I believe that we can use the structure that Congress passed as part of the 

Highway Streamlining process and apply those lessons learned to all EPA 

permits. 

ANCSA Contaminated Lands 

71. In 1971, Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to settle aboriginal 

land claims. Earlier this year this Committee held a hearing regarding the legacy of 

federal contaminated lands and the challenge we face in cleaning them up. One of the 

witnesses at that hearing testified about the particular challenges in addressing 

contaminated lands that were conveyed under ANCSA to Alaska native corporations and 

villages. These are lands the government gave to these Native Alaskans as a settlement 

that were in fact contaminated before the native corporations and villages took 

possession. 46 years later, the majority of those contaminated sites have not been 

remediated and, under current law, Alaska Native entities that received those lands can be 

liable under for costs associated with cleaning up those lands. 

Page 27 of 30 
94 


27600.083

a. Do you recognized that these issues are fundamental problem for the Alaska 

Native community? 

I am unfamiliar with this specific issue but will work with the career staff at 

EPA to assist your office in addressing this problem. 

b. Can you commit to work to address and prioritize cleanup of ANCSA 

contaminated lands within the EPA and coordinating/communicating with other 

federal agencies including The Army Corps and Department of the Interior? 

Yes, I will commit to workiug with the other agencies to address this 

problem. 

Senator Whitehouse: 

72. You agreed in your ethics agreement that if confirmed you will sign the Trump ethics 

pledge. The pledge prohibits appointees from "participat[ing] in any particular matter 

involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to [their] former 

employer or former clients" for the first two years after their appointment. The pledge 

also prohibits you from participating in any particular matter, and more broadly the issue 

area in which that particular matter falls, on which you lobbied within the two years 

before your appointment. 

a. Do you commit to abide by the pledge and not seek a waiver to participate in 

matters that you would otherwise be recused from? 

I will follow the advice aud guidance of the career EPA ethics officials and if 

a waiver is necessary I will make the waiver publicly available. However, 

based upon preliminary discussions with the career ethics officials I do not 

believe that a waiver will be necessary. If oue is required I will make it 

public. 

b. You've worked against EPA during your time at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. To 

ensure compliance with the pledge, please provide all ofFaegre Baker Daniels 

LLP clients and cases or work from the past two years, noting all clients with 

whom you've worked, cases on which you've worked, and regulatory work 

you've done? 

I will follow the advice and guidance of the career EPA ethics officials and if 

a waiver is necessary I will make the waiver publicly available. However, 

based on preliminary discussions with the career ethics officials, I do not 

anticipate that a waiver will be necessary however, if one is needed I will 

make it public. 

Page 28 of 30 
95 


27600.084

c. Will you also recuse yourself from matters that your client Bob Murray included 

on his three-page environmental agenda? 

I do not have a copy of the agenda and therefore cannot comment on it. 

73. Energy Secretary Rick Perry directed FERC to initiate a rulemaking that would 

effectively subsidize the coal industry in the name of ensuring grip reliability. The 

proposal has been criticized by environmental groups, natural gas companies, solar and 

wind companies, former Republican FERC commissioners, the American Petroleum 

Institute, and even the regional grid operators. And research by the Center for American 

Progress outline that ratepayers would be on the hook for this bailout. 

a. At your confirmation hearing, you acknowledged that you knew about this 

proposal in your role as a Murray Energy lobbyist. What exactly was your 

involvement in the development of this proposal? 

I was not involved in the development of the proposal at all, I attended a 

meeting at the Department of Energy earlier this year with representatives 

from Murray Energy. At that point there was no proposal. 

b. If the proposal comes before EPA in any manner, will you recuse yourself from 

any role or involvement on it? 

I will follow the advice and guidance from the career EPA ethics officials. 

c. In your opinion, how would Perry's proposal, if approved by FERC, benefit 

Murray's coal mining assets? 

Given that I was no longer representing this client at the time of the 

proposal, I am unfamiliar with any potential impacts it would have on their 

interests. 

74. EPA Administrator Pruitt recently told CNBC that "I would not agree that [carbon 

dioxide is] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see." Do you agree with 

his statement? 

I believe that the climate is changing and that humans have an impact on the 

climate. What is not completely understood is to what extent that impact might be. 

75. Have you reviewed EPA's endangerment finding for carbon dioxide? If not, will you 

commit to reviewing it before the Committee votes on your nomination? 

I reviewed the endangerment finding at the time it was issued. I was critical at the 

time of the process that the agency used to make the determination; however, the 

process has been affirmed by the DC Circuit. 

Page 29 of30 
96 


27600.085

76. Do you agree with each of the following statements included in the U.S. Global Change 

Research Program's recent Climate Science Special Report? 

a. "Human-caused climate change has made a substantial contribution to [sea level 

rise] since 1900, contributing to a rate of rise that is greater than during any 

preceding century in at least 2,800 years." (page I 0) 

b. "The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades will depend 

primarily on the amount of greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide) emitted 

globally." (page II) 

c. "There is broad consensus that the further and faster the Earth system is pushed 

towards warming, the greater the risk of unanticipated changes and impacts, some 

of which are potentially large and irreversible." (page II) 

d. "The world's oceans are currently absorbing more than a quarter of the COz 

emitted to the atmosphere annually from human activities, making them more 

acidic (very high confidence), with potential detrimental impacts to marine 

ecosystems." (page 28) 

e. "The rate of acidification is unparalleled in at least the past 66 million years." 

(page 28) 

f. "This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely 

likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the 

dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the 

warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation 

supported by the extent of the observational evidence." (page 10) 

g. "Human activities are now the dominant cause of the observed trends in climate." 

(page 36) 

h. "[T]here are no suggested factors, even speculative ones that can explain the 

timing or magnitude and that would somehow cancel out the role of human 

factors." (page 3 7) 

I have not reviewed the Climate Science Special Report and it is my 

understanding that the report is currently in the notice and comment phase 

so it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this time. 

Page 30 of 30 
97 


27600.086

Requested Wheeler Presentations 

a. How to Conduct Congressional Oversight (2017) [a copy of 

handouts used] 

b. Preparing for the New Administration (2017) [no materials 

available] 

c. The Air Up There: Developments and Opportunities for Clean Air, 

Coal, Energy and Climate (2016) [no materials available, agenda 

attached, please note there was a typo on the date, the conference 

occurred in 2015, not 2016] 

d. Preparing for the Change in Administration (2016) [a copy of 

handouts used] 

e. Focusing on What Really Should be Debated: The Cases of Boiler 

MACT, Utility MACT and CSPAR (2012) [copy ofPowerpoint 

attached] 

f. The Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act: Capand-Trade (2009) [copy ofPowerpoint attached] 
98 


27600.087

FftEGRE~R 

~IELS 

Andrew Wheeler 

As a principal and the team leader of the energy and environment practice group at FaegreBD 

Consulting and Of Counsel at Faegre Baker Daniels law firm, Andrew Wheeler employs his 

extensive background in energy, environmental, and infrastructure policy. He helps lead the 

firm's practice by advising numerous types of clients on comprehensive legislative, regulatory 

and operational strategies. His knowledge and insider understanding of the Senate, House and 

various federal agencies allows Andrew to develop tailored, comprehensive strategies that assist 

clients in realizing their federal affairs goals and build lasting relationships with key 

policymakers. 

Andrew came to FaegreBD Consulting from the Senate Committee on Environment and Public 

Works where he served as Majority Staff Director, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel. In 

those roles, he worked on every major piece of environmental and infrastructure related 

legislation over fifteen years. Prior to his work at the full Senate EPW Committee, Andrew 

served in a similar capacity for six years for the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, 

Wetlands and Nuclear Safety. He started his career at the Environmental Protection Agency 

working on toxic chemical, pollution prevention and right-to-know issues. Andrew completed 

his law degree at Washington University, his MBA at George Mason University, and his 

undergraduate work at Case Western Reserve University. 

Andrew R. Wheeler 

Principal 

andrew.wheeler@FaegreBD.com 

D: +1 202 312 7424 I M: +1 202 870 8SS6 I F: +1202 312 7460 

Faegre BD Consulting 

1050 K Street NW I Suite 400 I W•shington, DC 20001, USA 
99 


27600.088

Oversight Toolbox 

Letters to Agencies. 

Committee Briefings, Office Briefings 

Member Meetings 

Other Organizations (GAO, NAS, Commissions, iGs) 

identify Allies 

Administrative Procedures Process 
100 


27600.089

RECENT ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS 

RELATING TO SECTION 404 

OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 

THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 1997 

Senator Inhofe. Let me start by asking Mr. Davis the question. 

In your testimony, both your written testimony and your oral 

testimony, you talked about the 14 days as the average time the 

takes the Corps to approve a general permit and 104 days for the 

approval of individual permit, but I've heard all kinds of scary 

stories from the field saying it has been much, much longer than 

that. 

One of the reasons that I understand is that it takes the 

Corps quite a number of days before it decides when an 

application is complete, so that you don't start the clock 

running until that point, and then maybe after that point it•s 

104 days. 

Now, I would like to ask you, have you done any studies to 

determine how long it is from the time the application is first 

submitted and is granted, not when it's accepted as an application of proper form? 

Mr. Davis. I don't think, Mr. Chairman, we've done any 

specific studies. We have, though, encouraged our field, through 

training and guidance, to expedite the process and to not allow 

this initial phase, which is obviously very important to get a 

complete application before we can go out with a public notice 

and advertise to the public the proposed project, we have 

encouraged them to keep that moving. 

If you look at the literally tens of thousands of actions a 

year, I'm sure there are some abuses of that. But, on balance, 

when you look at the way the program is working -- Senator Inhofe. It's striking an average here. If it's 104 

days, do you think that maybe at an average it would take 200 

additional days from the time it's submitted until it's 

considered to be complete? 

Mr. Davis. Absolutely not. I mean, the law requires us to 

submit a -- to publish a public notice within 15 days of complete 

application. My experience has been that a large majority of 

them come in relatively complete and we're ready to go with that 

and we meet that 15-day requirement. So I think it would be much 

less than 200 days. 

Now, there are projects that are very, very large projects -

Senator Inhofe. No. I'm talking about just average, 

because -- Mr. Davis. No. On average it would not be 200 days. 

Senator Inhofe. This is my concern. I know there are 

exceptions. All right. 
101 


27600.090

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S CLEAN AIR BUDGET 

AND THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS' WETLANDS BUDGET 

TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2000 

Senator Inhofe. Okay. That's not the figure that I have. 

Let•s go to this chart up here. At our last wetlands 

hearing three years ago, we asked you to start keeping track of 

the length of time it takes for the Corps to review and act on an 

individual permit. I know you kept track on the periods between 

the time of application -- why don't you go up there and point to 

this -- the time of application is deemed complete, and the time 

it is approved. But the period of time -- that's 127 days -- the 

period of time that I'm concerned about is the period from which 

it is submitted to the time it is approved. 

Now, we had asked for that information. Do you have that 

information for us? ' 

Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe we have that 

information. 

Senator Inhofe. All right. That's a good, honest answer. 

Let's get it. 
102 


27600.091

Timeline on Permits Requests 

June 26, 1997 Hearing where you first asked Mr. Davis about the process 

timing for individual pennits. 

August 29,1997 Corps answered Hearing followup questions regarding the 

avemge time for individual pennits. 

Jan 26, 1998 Staff requested in briefing that they tmck the individual permits 

processing time. 

Feb 20, 1998 Corps responded that it would be difficult to track 

March 5, 1998 Staff reiterated in briefing that Senator Inhofe would like the 

data tracked. 

Oct 9, 1998 Staff reiterated in briefing that Senator Inhofe would like the 

data tracked. 
103 


27600.092

Sec. 214. Regulatory Analysis and Management Systems Data. 

This provision requires the Secretary to publish on the Army Corps' Regulatory Program website, 

quarterly reports that include all Regulatory Analysis and Management Systems (RAMS) data, 

including the date on which an individual or nationwide permit application under Section 404 of 

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is received, the date on which the application is 

considered complete, the date on which the Corps either grants or denies the permit. Also, if an 

application is not complete when first received by the Corps, a description of the reason the 

application is not complete should be included in the RAMS. This provision was an amendment 

offered by Senator Inhofe and adopted by unanimous consent. 
104 


27600.093

SEC. 2027. F1SCAL TRANSPARENCY REPORT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.-On the third Tuesday of January of each 

year beginning January 2008, the Chief of Engineers sball submit 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works ofthe Senate 

and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 

House of Representatives a report on--

(!) the expenditures by the Corps for the preceding fiscal 

year and estimated expenditures by the Corps for the current 

fiscal year; and 

(2) for projects and activities that are not scheduled for 

completion in the current fiscal year, the estimated expenditures 

by the Corps necessary in the following fiscal year for 

each project or activity to maintain the same level of effort 

being achieved in the current fiscal year. 

(b) CONTENTS.-Jn addition to the information described in 

subsection (a), the report shall contain a detailed accounting of 

the following information: 

(I) With respect to activities carried out with funding provided 

under the Construction appropriations account for the 

Secretary, information on-

(A) projects currently under construction, including-

(i) allocations to date; 

(ii) the number of years remaining to complete 

construction; 

(iii) the estimated annual Federal cost to maintain 

that construction schedule; and 

(iv) a list of projects the Corps of Engineers expects 

to complete during the current fiscal year; and 

(B) projects for which there is a signed partnership 

agreement and completed planning, engineering, and 

design, including-

(i) the number of years the project is expected 

to require for completion; and 

(ii) estimated annual Federal cost to maintain that 

construction schedule. 

IOUSC3036 

note. 

121 STAT. 1080 PUBLIC LAW 110--114---NOV. 8, 2007 

(2) With respect to operation and maintenance of the inland 

and intracoastal waterways identified by section 206 of the 

lnland Waterways Revenue Act of 1978 (33 U.S.C. 1804)--

(A) the estimated annual cost to maintain each waterway 

for the authorized reach and at the authorized depth; 

(B) the estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance 

oflocks and dams to ensure navigation without 

interruption; and 
105 


27600.094

(C) the actual expenditures to maintain each waterway. 

(3) With respect to activities carried out with funding provided 

under the Investigations appropriations account for the 

Secretary-

( A) the number of active studies; 

(B) the number of completed studies not yet authorized 

for construction; 

(C) the number of initiated studies; and 

(D) the number of studies expected to be completed 

during the fiscal year. 

( 4) Funding received and estimates of funds to be received 

for interagency and international support activities under section 

234 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

(33 U.S.C. 2323a). 

(5) Recreation fees and lease payments. 

(6) Hydropower and water storage receipts. 

(7) Deposits into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and 

the Harbor Maintenance Truat Fund. 

(8) Other revenues and fees collected by the Corps of Engineers. 

( ) 'With respect to permit applications and notifications, 

a list of individual permit applications and nationwide permit 

notifications, including--

(A) the date on which each permit application is filed; 

(B) the date on which each permit application is determined 

to be complete; 

(C) the date on which any permit application is withdrawn; 

and 

(D) the date on which the Corps of Engineers grants 

or denies each permit. 

(10) With respect to projects that are authorized but for 

which construction is not complete, a list of such projects for 

which no funds have been allocated for the 5 preceding fiscal 

years, including, for each project-

(A) the authorization date; 

(B) the last allocation date; 

(C) the percentage of construction completed; 

(D) the estimated cost remaining until completion of 

the project; and 

(E) a brief explanation of the reasons for the delay. 
106 


27600.095

PrestoniGatesiEIIis & 

RouvelasiMeeds llP 

""'41!.1M 

TO: Interested Parties 

FROM: Michael W. Evans 

DATE: January 14, 2005 

SUBJECT; How to Refer to Statutory Provisions 

When you are working on legislation, it often is necessary to refer to a specific provision 

of a statute. In order to help you do so, this outline explains how to refer to the various 

provisions. It will help you be more precise. It also will allow you to adopt an air of superiority 

whenever someone else refers to clause two as "two little eye." 

Sec. 101. This is a section. 

(a) This is a subsection. 

(I) This is a J2l!!!!H.!:!lll. 

(A) This is a subparagraph. 

(i) This is a clause. It is referred to as "clause one." For 

some reason, lower case Roman numerals come before 

upper case Roman numerals. 

(I) This is a subclause. It is referred to as "subclause 

one." 

(aa) This is an item. It is referred to as "item a." 

There is no official designation for a provision beyond an item. It's probably a subitem. 

Anyway, if you get to that level of detail, your draft probably is too complex. 

A LAW FIRM I A LIMITED LIABILIT't PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING OTHER LIMITED LIABILITY ENTITIES 

1735 NEW YORK AVENUE NW SUITE 500 WASHINGTON, DC ZDOOII TEL: {202) &28·1100 FAX: {202}331·1024 www.pttltongales.com 

Ancttorage Coeur d'Alene Hong Kong Orange County Portland San Francisco Soatue Spokane Washing!O!l, DC 
107 


27600.096
108 


27600.097
109 


27600.098

11/~ 012017 IU McKlnn~y School of law's Eighth Annual Environment, Energy & Natu1111 Resources Symposium: The Air Up Thefe: Developments and Op ... 

lfrl Indiana University IWI Robert H. McKinney School of Law 

Events 

Friday, March 6, 2015 

IU McKinney School of Law's Eighth Annual Environment, Energy & Natural 

Resources Symposium 

The Air Up There: Developments and Opportunities for Clean Air, Coal, 

Energy, and Climate 

CLE: 6.5 HOURS 

Speaker: Janet McCabe, Air Official at US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 

Time: 1o:oo am-6:oopm 

Location: Wynne Courtroom and Atrium, Inlow Hall, 530 W. New York Street, Indianapolis, IN 

Contact: en!aw@iu.edu 

'Too many Americans continue to breathe dirty air, And political paralysis has plagued further progress 

against air pollution. We have to break this logJam by applying more than just Federal leverage. We must 

take advantage of the innovation, energy, and Ingenuity of every American." 

-President George H. W. Bush 

"We've got to pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we need?" 

- Lee lacocca 

IU Robert H. McKinney School of Law's Eighth Annual Spring Environmental Symposium will focus on the legal 

challenges and opportunities in the management of air quality - including an exploration of proposed new rules regarding 

greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants, energy industry responses to regulatory changes, and opportunities 

for renewable energy in Indiana. 

Our Keynote, Janet McCabe, is the top Air Official at US Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, DC, and she will 

be joined by experts and industry leaders from the private sector, government, and public interest organizations. 

Other experts and officials from state and federal government and from the private sector will join panels to discuss: 

• Propoaed Greenhouse Gas Rules- Clean Air Act Draft 111(d) Regulations 

• Renewable Energy & Air: The Market and Legal Policy Response to the move from Fossil Fuels 

• The Private Sector Response to Clean Air Regulatory Cllanges 

We will also have legal ethics panels on climate change and environmental justice as well as an expert introduction to the 

science of climate change. 

Admission: 

$75 Attorney w/CLE ( 6.,5 hours, including 1.0 etbics, pending approval) 

• $25 General Admission 

• Free (w /ID) for students, teachers St non-profit employees 

Registration: 

» Online Re&istratlon for Outside Attendees 

https:f/mcklnneylaw.lu.edu/evenlB!aJrmnt.cfm?eid=287 113 
110 


27600.099

11/1-D/2e17 IU McKinney School of law's Eighth Annual Environment, Energy & Natural R8SOI.Irces Symposium: The Air Up There: Developments and Op ... 

• $75 Attorney w / 6.5 CLE Credit hours (pending approval) 

• $25 General Admission 

»Online Registration for Hidt Scboo]{Collell" OU. McKinney and Otherl Studentl!. Faculty. Staff and 

Non-Profit Emplovees 

Agenda: 

9:3oam· Noon I Registration 

to:ooam-to:J58lll I Welcome & Introductions 

10!1SBm-l0:45Bm Setting the Stage ·The Air Up There: Science, Policy, and Legal Ethics Challenges 

. Eric Dannenmaier, Professor of Law, IU Robert H. McKinney School of Law, Indianapolis, 

IN 

10:450ffi·11:30am I Panel One • Climate Change -A Science Primer for Law and Policy Leadera 

• Dr. Gabriel Filippelli, Professor, IUPill Department of Earth Sciences 

11:3oam-12:oopm I LUNCH 

12:oopm-1:oopm KEYNOTE • National Clean Air Regulatory Priorities 

. Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radistion, US EPA, Washington, 

DC 

~-·~---,_ ___ ........... , .. h ....... • Jodi Perras, Indiana Rapresentative for Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign, Sierra Club 

• Mark Mll88sel, President Indiana Energy Association [invited] 

• Bob Martineau, Commissioner, Environmental Counsel of the States [invited], 

Commissioner, Environmental Counsel of the States [invited] 

2:30pm·J!30pm Panel Three • Renewable Energy & Air: The Market and Legal Policy Response to the 

move from FOB8il Fuels 

. Nick Melioh, President, Johnson Mellob Solutions 

• Dr. M. Razi Naiim, Ph.D., P.E., CSO, Aerodyn Combustion, UC 

. Dr. Peter J, Schubert, Ph.D., P.E. Principal, Biomass Unit Ops, LLC 

. Angela Weber, Commissioner, Indiana Utilities Regulatory Commission 

3'30-4:oopm I Special Presentation - Legai Ethics In the Air: What is a Lawyer's Duty to 

Environmental Jnstice Dr. Csrlton Waterhouse, Professor, IU Robert H. McKinney School 

of Law - Indianapolis, IN 

4:15pm·s:15Pm Panel Four- The Private Sector Response to Clean Air Regnlatory Changes 

. Edward L. "Skipp" Kropp, Of Counsel, Steptoe & Johnson, PUC 

• Michael Allen, Associate General Counsel, Citizens Energy Group 

. Kel1y Carmichael, Managing Director, Environmental Safety & Sustainability, NiSource 

. Andrew Wheeler, Principal, FaegreBD Consulting =-l "'"'"""" 

__ ................................. ~ ..... • ~c Dannenmaier, Professor of Law, IU Robert H. McKinney School of Law, Indianapolis, 

Panelists from throughout the doy will be invited to respond and comment 

6:oopm I RECEPI10N ·All Invited 

https:J/mcklnneylaw.lu.edulsvsntslcurrent.cfm?eld=287 

I 

I 

I 

I 

213 
111 


27600.100

11/1012':117 IU McKinl'lBy School of Law's Eighth Annual Environment, Energy & Natural RBBOUrces Symposium: The Atr Up There: Developments and Op., 

Parking: 

Parking is available for a nominal fee at the campus Gateway Garage, located on the comer of Michigan and California Streets 

(Address is 525 Blackford Street). 

Parking is also available for a nominal fee at the Natatorium Garage two blocks west of the law school. 

Special Accommodations: 

Individuals with diaabilities who need special assistance should call f317l 2.74=8036 no later than one week prior to the event. 

Special arrangements can he made to accommodate most needs. 

Shm I 

https://mcklnnaylawJu.9du/events/CIJff'8ntcfm?eld=287 313 
112 


27600.101

FftfGRE Bt«ER 

[)11\JIEL.S 

Andrew Wheeler 

As a principal and the team leader of the energy and environment practice group at FaegreBD 

Consulting and Of Counsel at Faegre Baker Daniels law firm, Andrew Wheeler employs his 

extensive background in energy, environmental, and infrastructure policy. He helps lead the 

firm's practice by advising numerous types of clients on comprehensive legislative, regulatory 

and operational strategies. His knowledge and insider understanding of the Senate, House and 

various federal agencies allows Andrew to develop tailored, comprehensive strategies that assist 

clients in realizing their federal affairs goals and build lasting relationships with key 

policymak:ers. 

Andrew carne to FaegreBD Consulting from the Senate Committee on Environment and Public 

Works where he served as Majority Staff Director, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel. In 

those roles, he worked on every major piece of environmental and infrastructure related 

legislation over the fifteen years. Prior to his work at the full Senate EPW Committee, Andrew 

served in a similar capacity for six years for the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, 

Wetlands and Nuclear Safety. He started his career at the Environmental Protection Agency 

working on toxic chemical, pollution prevention and right-to-know issues. Andrew completed 

his law degree at Washington University, his MBA at George Mason University, and his 

undergraduate work at Case Western Reserve University. 

Andrew R. Wheeler 

Principal 

andrew. wheeler@ Faegre BD .com 

D: +1202 312 74241 M: +1202 870 8556 I F: +1202 312 7460 

FaegreBD Consulting 

1050 K Street NW 1 SUite 400 I Washington, DC 20001, USA 

PJ:i -~ Atr·,74l 

\))i<o\uA ~us 

Jot& 
113 


27600.102

U') 

c 

0 

c;::; 

.!!1 

::J 

01 

~ ...., 

c 

:3 

·c: "" 

01 

·v; 

::;:, 

(ij 

u .E 

0 

c 

0 

u 

"' 

Midnight Regulations and the Decrease of OIRA Staff 

Every four years, the number of new general regulations surges during the "midnight" period 

between the presidential election day and Inauguration Day. This surge is seen when an incumbent 

president is reelected; however, it is considerably higher when there is a change in party. 

changes in party 

.. ~ ~ 40 

30 II election year 

20 

Ill ·• ; ~ 

10 Ill Ill 

:.:!./ 

0 

' ~ ;.? •· ., 

' : . ' : •1:: ··I ,4',; :.'\'' 

,. ',,}' ,I 

I :,, ; ' ;~-~-, i ~· ~ ,. 

1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 

OIRA Full-Time Employees 

80 

60 

40 

1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 

read more ( ) 

~~~- MERCATUS CENTER 

~~~- George Mason University 

Data notes: Secondary chart does not cross horizontal axis at 0. 

Sources: OIRA's online "revlew counts" database; 

Appendix to the Budget of the United States for FY 1981-2014. 

Produced by Sherzod Abdukadirov and Rizqi Rachmat January 2016. 
114 


27600.103

Congressional Review Act 

• Congress is given 60 legislative days1 to disapprove. 

• Agencies (promulgating a covered rule) must submit a report to 

each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General. 

- copy of the rule 

- concise general statement describing the rule 

- the proposed effective date ofthe rule 

• Resolution ofDisapproval introduced in the Senate 

• Resolution is referred to Committee of jurisdiction 

• After 20 days it can be discharged by written petition of30 

Members and placed on Senate Calendar 

• Debate is limited to 10 hours with no amendments, requires simple 

majority to pass. 

• A resolution passed by one body of Congress cannot be referred to 

Committee in the other body. 

1. There is an extended time frame for rules submitted in the final 60 days of a 

congressional session. These rules can be disapproved within 75legislative days of when 

the next session of Congress convenes. 
115 


27600.104

EPA Issues New Pollution Rule for Diesel Trucks, Buses 

By Brian Hansen 

WASHINGTON, DC, December 21,2000 (ENS)- In a bold move that drew 

accolades from environmental groups and objections from the trucking industry, the 

outgoing Clinton/Gore administration today unveiled a new air pollution control rule. 

It will force drastic reductions in heavy duty truck and bus emissions over the next 

decade .... 

... Carol Browner, administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

announced the sweeping new standards at a news conference in Washington. Browner 

said the new diesel rule could not have been enacted without the leadership of 

President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, who she said have "fought 

tirelessly to make clean air a reality." ... 

. . . Others see the new rule quite differently. Senator James Inhofe, a Republican from 

Oklahoma, has signaled that he and other GOP lawmakers will try to roll back the 

new diesel rule and other so-called "midnight regulations" that the Clinton 

administration has enacted in the waning weeks of its final term 

"What is most disturbing is that the Clinton/Gore administration will promulgate these 

regulations at any cost," Inhofe wrote in a recent op-ed piece published in the 

"Washington Times" newspaper. "This last minute regulatory push serves two 

purposes: first, it panders to special interest groups for political gain and second, it 

preempts regulatory decisions which should properly be made by the next 

administration." 

President-elect George W. Bush and Vice President-elect Dick Cheney will be sworn 

into office on January 20. Sources tell ENS that Christine Todd Whitman, New 

Jersey's Republican Governor, is the incoming administration's top choice to head up 

the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Bush has not said whether his administration would support Inhofe's efforts to roll 

back the EPA's newly enacted diesel rule. Browner, asked about the possibility, said, 

"I certainly hope that they would not delay or undo this. This is much needed. This is 

about cleaner air for every person in this country." 

"These standards are about providing a level of public health protection, and it would 

be my strong hope that the next administration will share our commitment to clean air 

for all Americans," Browner added .... 
116 


27600.105

THE TENSION BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL 

REGULATION, JOB GROWTH AND THE ECONOMY 

- The Clean Air Act -

FAEGREBD 

(lll'.llli\\ 

Andrew \Nhee!er 

Principal 

FaegreBD Consulling 

June 1, 2012 

.. Overall impact of EPA Clean Air Rules 

.. UMACT 

.. CSAPR 

,. NSPS 

.. What's Next 

11/10/2017 

1 
117 


27600.106

~ Employment losses total2.15 million job-years by 2020. Counting job garns, net employment losses total1.65 million job-years. 

~ Annual employment losses average 239,000 jobs. Counting job 

gains, net employment losses average 183,000 jobs per year. 

~ Job losses outweigh job gains by three to one. 

~Cumulative GOP loss of $190 billion by 2020. 

~The average U.S. family loses $270 per year in disposable income, a total of $1,750 by 2020. 

r~ Analysili.b'fNafiona/ECOI10ITik;R&8eafchAssod:ates{NERA),OcttiMif20t! 

100 

.. 

.. 

Percentage of Coal Units with Advanced Controls, 

2010 and 2015 

-n.a camblnatlon of so,~ acrubbera and -~ecuv. catalytic 

reducUon control• for NO. also rftduc•• .... n:.ury. •llmllultlng tha need for IIHNCUFy-SIM'Ciflc controle at m.ly power plants. 

11/10/2017 

2 
118 


27600.107

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

Energy Cost Impacts on American Families. 2001-2012 

As Percentage of Annual Household After-Tax Income- Gene Tnsko 

___ I8%__ 

<$1QK $10-<30K $30-<50K >$50K 

!i:f~BD 

11/10/2017 

3 
119 


27600.108

• EPA claims 'up to $2 Trtllion in annual economic benefits by 2020" but .. 

~ EPA uses 'willingness to pay' questionnaires as~ng people how much they 

would consider paying for less sick days or less risk has no bearing on the 

economy or the impact on real jobs. 

~ The EPA's macroeconomic analysis actually shows the cumulative impact of 

their regulations on the GOP to be a range between $110 billion loss to just a 

$5 billion gain by 2020. 

~ The same analysis showed that the overall impact to the GDP in 2010 by the 

previous EPA Clean Air regulations was a ioss of $32 billion to $79 billion. 

• The EPA's Utility MACT regulation is supposed to control HAPs but. .• 

~ The monetized benefils of controlling HAiPs amount to only 0.0004% of the 

benefits of the proposal, the rest are from PM which is already controlled by 

existing regulations. 

,, Utility MACT would have a "negligible impact on mercury exposure' because 

most mercury exposure in our country comes from non-US sources. Mercury 

emissions have been cut in half over the past 30 years. 

,, The other HAPs in the proposal would change the background cancer risk from 

.33 as it is currently to 0.330001 

11/10/2017 

4 
120 


27600.109

....... C....,....,~Ibol. 

::~-.NW 

w...._., ut:®l 

,l;omlll.•m ClnJ\fmll)' !111!1 m!l a.Vclll!llll~lm!lli;ull'\l with the Utilily MAC!' ntk will h~· ~~~:hlc...:d by 

l!Oiii. In f"<'l Sn>~h1·rn docs noii'"JI<:d Ill haw ~ t'HIU!il~mt ~ film! !it~dited mnillldcr in d.e 

~IUUl!Wf <11"1!012. What SPUth~'l11 IW~ 'Hid iJ; ll~rt while the <11jlital H>'il for ('(lllljlli:utrc tvi!h the 

Utility MACT nile u,..ybe .. mww\1>1! k1l' th:m proj(t1~~~ from !!,.• pm~l ntle bct..UIKT!hc lb•nl 

tlllr nMy lt"(llfirl' r.,.....,.~.o.t;q~IOU><'"· lbt'Y haw Nnl' JAid tlml frnnplilun'\' "ill bl: n.rhil'Vtld by ww. Tium htoymul diM;' il flll<rWml>lioQn:r 1~rind ,.;u olil! he.· tlCL~kd olnc to thr. lJ<:td I:0..11t:w ••·ruhlxrs, 

llll!dii>Uo.t"~, ntw g~~~ pipdinc~. fuel l't>nven<iun~ ami tmiUII>i~l pn\icn~ to (Uinply w!l!t II"' ml~'1 

pmrie:iDtU.J!ht:llul<ln:S$j)OU:tltialrclQhililf!m>blenu. Suulhcmn:nminsronccmcdaboutlhc 

!oh1111 time rnuncltltll(' rtd~. 

~ "The United Mine Workers of America and other unions met with EPA officials 

repeatedly over the course of the rulemaking to share our analysis of the 

rule's potential impacts and to recommend several improvements to it. Our 

study suggested that up to 56,000 megawatts of electric generating 

capacity at smaller and older plants could be "at risk" of premature 

closure. We told EPA that as many as 54,000 direct jobs were at risk in the 

utility, mining and rail transport sectors, in addition to 200,000 jobs in related 

industries and communities impacted by plant closures." ... Estimates I've 

seen of lost tax revenues as a result of already-announced closures are 

devastating lor these communities, such as more than $2 million in 

Oregon, Ohio, and $6.5 million in Eastlake, Ohio. That's a lot of new police 

cars, fire trucks and textbooks that won't be available where they are 

needed." 

~ .Cecil E. Roberts, President of the UMW March 13,2012 

11/10/2017 

5 
121 


27600.110

• This is the most expensive power sector EPA regulation in history and all of the costs will get passed onto us, the consumer- yet Con~ress has failed to act. And, this is 

only one of several new costly EPA utility regulations. Unless this regulation is 

changed, It will have a severe impact on manufacturing competitlveneas and 

jobs. Even without this new regulation, electricity costs have been rising at an alarming rate. According to the EIA, U.S. industrial electricity costs have risen 4.5 percent per year since 2000. Despite lower natural gas costs for gas·fired power 

generation, Industrial electricity pnces rose in 2011. Even a 1 cent/kWh increase in the cost of electricity imposes additional costs of approximately $9 billion per year on manufacturing facilities .. .If the Utility MACT rule goes into effect as currently 

finalized, billions of dollars of investment will be required in upgrades to eXISting electriclly production facilities, new generation facilities and transmission upgrades. In 2015 alone, EPA estimates that the rule will cost consumers $9.6 billion 

annually (in 2007 dollars). Others in the electric power industry have estimated that costs will be much higher.' 

~ ·Industrial Energy Consumers of Amerlcs, February 16, 2012 

,. CSAPR's Tlme!lne is unrealistic. 

~~ =~nfa~:::;~ha~ha~~~=~~~~:g~~~C:~9;::.,~,:~ ~~:~ed:e~:~ 

,.. CSAPR is inflexible and attack.s states rights. 

t~ EPA is initiarry enforcing the new rule lhrough Federal Implementation Plans, which are less flexible than state-specific State Implementation Plans and cootra,ry to the Implementation of most Clean Air 

Act rules, 

,.. The Qnalverslon of CSAPR was significantly different than the proposed rul&. 

r.- The final rule added Texas to the annual S02 and NO~ programs and Iowa, Missouri, and Wisconsin were added 10 lhe ozone-season NOx program. The slates did not have an opportunity to comment on l:tlese substanllal changes. 

r> The final version also included much stricter emission reduction mqulrements. EPA signlflcanUy 

~~~f~~f~~~:e::~~~~:.ffJ~th~~~:m! ~=ro~~~~s mm~~A":r~ 20 percent by 2012 and 50 pementby 2014, far more strict than 1M proposal, 5 percent and 20 percent respectively. 

'"' EPA's air quality modeling was flawed. 

~- ~~A7~~~Z~d~~~:~t:~~o~~~~~n2~~~r:u=~O:ss~~~:r=~er plantsdeclined~andNO~declinedby~. 

11/10/2017 

6 
122 


27600.111

--~IVIIMihb~ .. jllafUI{ti>,.Mdttl)o:)WidOolVW~-HO.)(lt~) 

~o:>l"tt60brb.-c-_..,(am.ttliOJ-NOti(2SIIIIIIt) 

S..~br~orit~ ....... NOott!los.ltll 

Slllwtllll:(l(hiWIHbYI!e~lo#~R.-. 

2500 

2000 ---

1500 

1000 ~ 

- ---

--- --=~=-= 500 

Coal Oil Na!Gas 

11/10/2017 

7 
123 


27600.112

"He was as lame as a duck. Not the 

metaphorical lame duck, either, but a 

real duck that was actually lame, 

maybe from stepping on a land mine 

or something." 1> From a collection of the best high school similes and metaphors. 

11/10/2017 

8 
124 


27600.113

B~D 

CONSULTING 

The Waxman-Markey American 

Clean Energy and Security Act 

(ACES): Cap-and-Trade 

a presentation on the draft bill's cap-and-trade title 

under discussion by the House Energy and 

Commerce Comm~tee 

Andrew Wheeler and Andy Ehrlich 

Energy and Ctimate Change practice group 

B&D ConslJlting 
125 


27600.114

Who WeAre 

B'flD 

CONSULTING 

B&D Consu/ting:A national advisory and advocacy firm 

headquartered in Washington, D.C. 

• Andrew Wheeler: Former Staff Director and 

Chief Counsel of the Senate Environment & 

Public Works Committee 

- Led Senate cap-and-trade debate in 2003, 2005 and 

2008 

Andv Ehrlich:En ergy & Climate Change 

practice group leader, former Chief of Staff in 

the leadership of the House of 

Representatives 

- Successfully advocated on numerous aspects of last 

years Lieberman-Wamer Climate Security Act 

2 
126 


27600.115

The Full ACES Bill 

• Bundles comprehensive energy reform 

with climate change legislation 

-Title 1: Clean Energy 

-Title II: Energy Efficiency 

-Title Ill: Reducing Global Warming 

Pollution 

-Title IV: Transitioning to a Clean Energy 

Economy 

'ik- fZg-:; 'IS ~ /hJ ~A;(~-{- ~_s 

ftvwik cv ~~ 0vs -ik- ul~~ rv-eu. 

~~ (\{~ 3 1;-vvvs-f? lJh__ 

c \~"t, / ~ (M-{_ (, l. ~ ('-( !,., tJ_ 

rsm..s 5f""'kW ~~-t. 

3 
127 


27600.116

Greenhouse Gases Covered 

• The cap covers seven ofthe primary industrial 

greenhouse gases plus room to expand: 

- Carbon Dioxide 

-Methane 

- Nitrous Oxide 

- Sulfur Hexafluoride 

- Hydrofluorocarbons 

- Perfluorocarbons 

- Nitrogen trifluoride 

- Any other anthropogenic gas designated as a GHG 

by the Administrator 

u 0- '\I'. p1,_.,n-fk ..eU. J of 

~~~~~ 

Lt~ p~wJ~ IY\ 4_ ~f vvk p~lv ot L,·q (!) -J o;t4,l tA;.sflrY 

.~ ~\ l~~~~/L~ -Yl'A-P~ ~Lu--

atl5 ~ 

4 
128 


27600.117

B~D 

CONSULTING 

Coverage of the Cap 

• The draft's covered entities are responsible for 

85% of U.S. global warming emissions. 

- Entities that emit less than 25,000 tons per year of 

C02 equivalent are not covered by this program. 

- Entities emitting over 10,000 tons of C02 equivalent 

must report to a GHG registry 

•lnslee is working with Mike Doyle to include more provision to prevent job 

leakage by giving free permits to domestic energy-intensive manufacturers 

5 
129 


27600.118

Declining Cap 

The 2012 cap is set at 4% below the 2005 emissions level. 

The 2020 cap is 20% below the 2005 emissions level. 

The 2050 cap is 83% 

below the 2005 

emissions level 

-

6 
130 


27600.119

B""-D CONSULTING 

How the Cap Works 

""""" """' ·-- .qulvahml 

. Each year's cap is expressed as ,.. ... ~. 

(11!1>1ltleton) toni) 

a total number of greenhouse Clition 

' .,. .. gas emissions allowances. ...... D 

Ml-olllllt ... HI'C·JJ 

KFC·1H ""' ..... 

Each emission allowance KFC-n.Y 

. HFC·1.&!a ...,. "" 

authorizes the emission of one HI'C·1$ZII ... HFC427u uz~ 

metric ton of C02-equivalent in HFC.Uibi t,l10 

HFC_.,1_ 1,140 

one year. "' 1,110 

CZFt ...... Cotl'1t I,UO 

CIF14 ..... '" ...... .... t1,* 

7 
131 


27600.120

How the Cap Works (cont'd) 

• Each covered electric power and industrial entity 

must hand over to EPA a number of allowances 

equal to the number of metric tons of C02-

equivalent that the entity emitted. 

• Each importer or refiner of transportation fuels 

must hand over to the EPA a number of 

allowances equal to the number of metric tons of 

C02-equivalent contained in the fuels that it put 

into commerce. 

8 
132 


27600.121

9 
133 


27600.122

B*.D 

CONSULTING 

Allocations in 2012 

• The draft bill leaves this section blank. 

Draft proposal is expected to be released April 24. 

10 
134 


27600.123

Auction Revenues: Where Do They Go? 

• The draft bill leaves this section blank. 

11 
135 


27600.124

Cost Containment 

• The draft has a number of cost 

containment measures: 

-Trading 

-Offsets 

-Banking 

-Borrowing 

- Strategic Reserve 

B4tD 

CONSULTING 

-Carbon Market Assurance and Oversight 

12 
136 


27600.125

B';\D 

CONSULTING 

Cost Containment: Trading 

Because cap-and-trade allows allowances to be bought 

and sold freely or saved for use in the future years, a market for allowances will develop and will create a 

uniform price. 

Covered entities with emission allowances may 

exchange, transfer or hold these allowances or ask the 

Administrator to retire the allowance. 

- The Administrator will establish a tracking system and all 

transactions must be reported. 

- Covered entities that cannot reduce their own emissions without 

incurring a cost (per-unit of GHG reduction) higher than the 

market price of an allowance will purchase allowances on the secondary market in lieu of reducmg their own emissions. 

13 
137 


27600.126

B41tD 

CONSULTING 

Cost Containment: Offsets 

The draft allows covered entities to increase their 

emissions above their allowances if they can obtain 

"offsetting" reductions at lower cost from other sources. 

The total quantity of offsets allowed in any year cannot 

exceed 2 billion tons, split evenly between domestic and 

international offsets. - This amount reduces as the years progress. 

Covered entities using offsets must submit five tons of 

credits for every four tons of emissions being 

14 
138 


27600.127

Cost Containment: Banking 

• A covered entity may use an emission 

allowance to meet the compliance 

obligation requirements for the vintage 

year of the allowance, or in any 

subsequent calendar year. 

-Allows unlimited banking. 

15 
139 


27600.128

B-a.D 

CONSULTING 

Cost Containment: Borrowing 

• Two types of borrowing: 

- Borrowing without interest 1 year in advance 

- Borrowing with interest between 1 to 5 years in 

advance 

• Interest is calculated using the formula of 0.08 ~mes the 

number of years between the calendar year in which the 

allowance Is being used to satisfy a compliance obligation 

and the vintage year of the allowance. 

• Borrowing is limited to 15% of compliance 

obligation. 

16 
140 


27600.129

Cost Containment: Strategic Reserve 

Once each quarter, the Administrator shall auction off 

allowances from the Strategic Reserve to covered 

entities. 

- The Administrator sets the minimum strategic reserve auction 

price. 

• Filling the reserve is done by saving: 

- 1% from 2012-2019 

- 2% from 202()..2029 

- 3% from 203()..2050 

- Unsold allowances 

• Proceeds are used to purchase additional allowances to 

replenish the reserve supply. 

• Compliance obligations may only constitute 10% from 

the Strategic Reserve. 

17 
141 


27600.130

Cost Containment: Carbon 

Market Assurance and Oversight 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 

regulates the cash market in emission allowances and offsets. 

The President delegates regulatory responsibility for the 

derivatives market to an appropriate agency (or agencies), 

based on the advice of an interagency working group. 

Any entity cannot control more than 10% of the allowance 

market. 

The President may recommend lowering the threshold for 

covered entities, llut not lower than 1 0,000 metric tons. 

The President may recommend increasing the number of 

allowable offsets. 

Creates an Offsets Integrity Advisory Board and an offsets 

registry. 

18 
142 


27600.131

B•~D CONSULTING 

Additional GHG Standards 

• Allows the EPA Administrator to set standards of 

emissions for stationary sources that have 

uncapped GHG emissions greater than 10,000 

tons of C02 equivalent and were responsible for 

emitting 20% of uncapped GHGs. 

• HFCs are in a separate auction. 

• EPA may use the CAA to regulate black carbon. 

I{PL- l~ fa1ks //~~~ fv 

~ lW ~ /L~ vLl-41~~ 

r~~'Jo 
143 


27600.132

B-&D 

CONSULTING 

Clean Air Act Preemption 

§831 - Criteria Pollutants 

- Provides that GHGs may not be listed as criteria air pollutants on the basis of their effects on climate change. 

§832 - Hazardous Air Pollutants 

- Provides that GHGs may not be listed as hazardous air pollutants on the basis of their effects on climate change. 

§833 - New Source Review 

- ~~~~~~~hat New Source Review does not apply to GHG 

• §834 -Title V Permits 

- Provides that GHGs won't be considered when determining whether a stationary source is required to operate pursuant to a permit under TITle V of the Clean Air Act. 

20 
144 


27600.133

Other Provisions 

B'o\D 

CONSULTING 

• Supplemental Emissions Reductions. Emissions are reduced further through international agreements to slow 

tropical deforestation (which accounts for a fifth of global 

carbon emissions), funded by auctioning a fraction of the 

emissions allowances. Critena are included to set 

declining rates of deforestation as the baseline for 

supplemental emission reductions. 

• By 2020, the goal is to achieve supplemental annual emission reductions equal to 10 percent of U.S. 2005 emission levels. 

Scientific Review. The National Academy of Sciences is 

tasked to review the targets periodically 1n light of the 

best available science, and the President is to 

recommend program changes to Congress. 

21 
145 


27600.134

B4lD 

CONSULTING 

More Important Provisions 

• §334 and 335 - State Authority 

- The draft bill strenuously protects state authority to establish 

GHG control programs that are more stringent ihan Federal 

requirements. 

• Except from 2012 through 2017, states do not have authority to preempt a Federal cap-and-trade program. 

• § 116 - New Source Performance Standards for new 

coal plants 

• New coal plants are capped at 1,110 lbs of C02 per MWh after 2015 and BOO lbs after 2020. EPA may impose stricter standards not later than 2025. 

• §336 - Citizen Suit Provision 

- The draft allows any person who "perceives some risk" from "any incremental increase in a greenhouse gas emission" to sue to stop the offending project under the Clean Air Act. 

Key Court Signals High Standing Bar For Activists' Climate Suits 

VVednesday,April22,2009 

http://www.insideepa.com/secure/docnum.asp?docnum=4222009 standing&f= 

epa 2001.ask 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit- the appellate 

court that hears most regulatory challenges- appears to have set a high bar 

for environmentalists and other citizens to sue the government over actions 

that worsen global warming, hindering their efforts to bring climate suits under 

a host of environmental laws. In its April17 ruling in Center For Biological 

Diversity [CBD] v. U.S. Department of Interior [DO/], the court ruled that the 

Supreme Court's landmark decision in Massachusetts v. EPA did not grant 

citizens standing to sue on the merits of their climate claims. The appellate 

court only granted plaintiffs standing to sue on climate matters when the 

government has violated a procedural requirement. 

22 
146 


27600.135

Policy vs. Politics 

• Legislative Prospects 

- Differing dynamics of House and Senate 

- Influential groups and caucuses 

- Bipartisanship and areas for compromise 

• Legislation Timing 

- House timetable vs. Senate timetable 

- Obama Administration 

- Copenhagen 

~D CONSULTING 

• EPA's Endangerment Finding 

-Administrator Jackson is at the GB Environment 

meeting 

Democralic lawmakers have touted an EPA analysis released Tuesday that expects carbon 

permits to be sold for between $13 and $17 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted. It does not, 

however, detail whether business would have to buy all or some of the allowances. "How were 

you able to do that analysis while the bill has no allocation-cost scheme in it?" Texas Rep. Joe 

L. Barton, ranking Republican of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, asked Mrs. 

Jackson. 

'We had to make assumptions," Mrs. Jackson said. Mrs. Jackson did not say whether the 

analysis included a determination of how many allowances would be sold, only saying that 

analysts assumed 40 percent of auclion proceeds would be returned to consumers. 

When she was pressed later by Rep. Steve Scalise, Louisiana Republican, she repeated the 

president's preference for selling all of the carbon permits. Mr. Obama spent Earth Day in Iowa 

touting a wind turbine manufacturing plant and the green jobs he hopes to create through 

investments in renewable energy projects, but said that a cap on carbon emissions is 

necessary to push the nation away from fossil fuels. 

Barton Eyes Air Act 'Performance Standard' As Cap-And-Trade Alternative 

Wednesday, April22, 2009 

http://www.insideepa.com/secure/docnum.asp?docnum=4222009 barton 

House Energy & Commerce Committee Republicans are drafting alternative legislation to 

Democrats' cap-and-trade plan that would impose a Clean Air Act "performance standard" on 

climate change pollutants that at least initially would be focused on new power plants, 

according to ranking member Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX). Speaking to reporters April22, Barton 

said that while he does not believe carbon dioxide is a pollutant "there are others that do [and] 

we are looking at a regulatory standard based on performance." Barton's comments come as 

the committee was holding three days of hearings on a cap-and-trade bill in advance of an 

energy and environment subcommittee mark-up possibly next week. 

23 
147 


27600.136

Questions? 

B"'-D 

CONSULTING 

Andy Ehrlich Andrew Wheeler 

andy .ehrlich@bakerd.com andrew.wheeler@bakerd.com 

202.312.7435 202.312.7424 

24 
148 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, I want to thank both of you very much 

for your testimony. Throughout the hearing and with questions for 

the record, Committee members will have an opportunity to learn 

more about your commitment to public service and your commitment to service to our nation. I would ask that throughout the 

hearing you please respond to the questions today during the hearing, as well as written ones for the record. 

I have to ask the following questions that we ask of all nominees 

on behalf of the Committee. 

Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this Committee or 

designated members of this Committee and other appropriate committees of the Congress, and provide information subject to appropriate and necessary security protections with respect to your responsibilities? 

Ms. WHITE. Yes. 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes. 

Senator BARRASSO. And do you agree to ensure that testimony, 

briefings, documents, and electronic and other forms of information 

are provided to this Committee and its staff, and other appropriate 

committees, in a timely manner? 

Ms. WHITE. Yes. 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, I will. 

Senator BARRASSO. And do you know of any matters which you 

may or may not have disclosed that might place you in a conflict 

of interest if you are confirmed? 

Ms. WHITE. No. 

Mr. WHEELER. No, I do not. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, with that, Mr. Wheeler and Ms. 

White—let me start with Mr. Wheeler, but it is the same question 

then to Ms. Hartnett White. Could you talk about what accomplishments in your career you are most proud of? 

Mr. WHEELER. Wow. I would say I have had a lot of major accomplishments in my career, and I can point to some large bills here 

in the Committee; the highway bills that I worked on, the WRDA 

bill, my time at EPA. But I would have to say I have been in this 

town almost 30 years, and I would like to think that I have kept 

my personal integrity the entire time, and it is working also with 

the people that I have worked with on a day to day basis. 

I know—when I walked up here from the back of the room—I see 

several former staff people that have worked with me over the 

years, and it is those friendships that I have developed and the day 

to day work that I have done, and I have kept my integrity, and 

I have kept my principles intact the entire time. 

Senator BARRASSO. Ms. White. 

Ms. WHITE. I think the professional experience that I would be 

most proud of was the magnitude of reduction of ozone producing 

emissions in the Houston-Galveston area. Remember, that is the 

seat of the largest petrochemical complex in the world, with a climate highly inductive to ozone formation. And we did all kinds of 

innovative things. Talk about a process that involved coordination 

of multiple agencies at the Federal and State and local level. 

In fact, I said if we are right in all these measures that have 

been the source of the ozone plan, we will attain. Most people 

wouldn’t have thought of it. We attained 2010, 2011. Of course, 

149 

EPA has since strengthened the standard. We are close to, not 

quite there, but even more reductions have been made. If that can 

be done in Texas, that can be replicated in the world. 

And I think one of the key things was the most robust science, 

science particular to the ozone chemistry in the Houston-Galveston 

area. And I think it is exciting, were I confirmed, to have a job 

where that kind of achievement can be replicated across the country. 

Senator BARRASSO. Let me follow up on that with both of you, 

because you have both chosen careers in environmental policy, so 

I ask why do you want to serve as the Deputy Administrator of the 

EPA, member and Chair of the CEQ in terms of continuing the 

work that you have done? 

Mr. Wheeler, if you want to start. 

Mr. WHEELER. Certainly. I really look at the career that I have 

had so far to date, and the timing of this position, as everything 

that I have done so far has led up to this at this point, starting 

as a career employee at the Agency, with my experience here. 

I really think I have some of the skills that would be useful to 

Administrator Pruitt and President Trump at the EPA. With Administrator Pruitt wanting to return to the basic programs of the 

EPA, I think I can be of help to him. I think I can be of help to 

President Trump, and I think I can be of help to the employees at 

EPA as we move forward in this new direction for the Agency. 

Senator BARRASSO. Ms. White. 

Ms. WHITE. I will try to articulate three reasons. Because my career has been so broad, it has allowed me to gain a lot of very useful, practical expertise with all environmental media; not just air 

quality, but water, waste, nuclear waste, in fact, as well across the 

many Federal environmental laws, and have had the challenge of 

making a very, very large bureaucracy function efficiently. I think 

to be able to apply what I have learned would be a great honor. 

The second is I am a great champion of getting rid of red tape. 

That is not saying anything, but this appears to be a time with the 

last two highway bills which this Committee approved, and the 

President’s interest and executive orders and permit timeframe reduction and all of that, that this is a unique opportunity to have 

a bipartisan, supported by the President, major effort across the 

agencies to reform much of the NEPA process. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much. 

I reserve the remainder of my time. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, welcome. A warm welcome to both of you two today. 

Ms. White, I was, frankly, surprised to hear the comments that 

you just shared with us with respect to ozone. In a number of articles and interviews, you have questioned whether ozone is even a 

harmful air pollutant. We heard a 2016—last year—radio interview 

for a program called What’s Up on the radio, and Ms. White, apparently you said that ozone isn’t harmful to human health unless, 

and I quote you, ‘‘you put your mouth over the tailpipe of a car for 

8 hours every day.’’ 

You also called on Congress to remove EPA’s funding for implementing the ozone air quality standards—this was last year—and 

150 

said that the standard should be 85 parts per billion. That is a 

good deal higher than the 75 parts per billion standard set by 

President Bush in 2008, and even higher than the 80 parts per billion standard set in 1997. 

So I just thought it was interesting, the comments that you made 

here today. 

I would just ask of you, Mr. Wheeler, the EPA’s current Web 

page says, with respect to ozone, ozone in the air we breathe can 

harm our health, especially on hot, sunny days when ozone can 

reach unhealthy levels. Even relatively low levels of ozone can 

cause health effects. And the Web page goes on to describe the increased risk of asthma, lung infection, other cardiopulmonary diseases that ozone exposure can cause. 

In your introduction, we learned that you have a combined biology major in college, spent a majority of your career working on 

clean air issues, and I know that from personal experience in working with you and Governor Voinovich. But what do you think about 

the adverse health impacts that are associated with the EPA? Do 

you agree with what is on that Web page that I just quoted? 

Mr. WHEELER. I am not familiar with the specific Web page that 

you have just quoted, but from what you said, I would agree with 

the health effects that you listed, yes. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Ms. White, in 2015 and in 2016, in several speeches and interviews and articles in The Federalist and in Focus Today, you compared the views of people who believe that carbon pollution is causing climate change to those of pagans, ideologues, and communists. 

After Pope Francis published his 2015 Environmental Encyclical, 

you wrote two articles for The Federalist that said that the solutions that Pope Francis was calling for would lead to poverty, socialism, and even concentration camps. 

And I would ask Mr. Wheeler, do you concur in those views? 

Mr. WHEELER. As a Presbyterian, I am not going to criticize the 

Pope. 

Senator CARPER. That is not our style. 

Mr. WHEELER. You are asking me if I agree with—I am sorry— 

the views? 

Senator CARPER. The characterization. Again, the articles that I 

quoted. Ms. White compared the views of people who believed that 

carbon pollution is causing climate change to those of pagans, 

ideologues, and communists, and said that the Encyclical that Pope 

Francis wrote would lead to poverty, socialism, and concentration 

camps. 

Are those views that you also embrace? 

Mr. WHEELER. I would not put it that way; no, sir. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Today, this week, representatives I think from every country in 

the world are gathered in Bonn, Germany, discussing how we can 

address climate change together. The leaders of every country in 

the world, except for the current President of the United States, accept climate science and are committed to do something about it. 

Ms. White, do you really believe that the views of all those countries’ leaders are properly compared to those of pagans, ideologues, 

and communists? 

151 

Ms. WHITE. No, I do not, Senator, and I think some of those 

words and phrases are taken out of context. I was, in that article, 

also quoting either the then-current or now recently stepped down 

head of the U.N. climate program, Cristina Figueras, who made a 

comment that a global agreement on climate change would provide 

the first example to destroy the economic model of the industrial 

revolution. 

Senator CARPER. Well, I hold in my hand your quotes, your comments verbatim, and I think they speak for themselves. It is good 

that you are here and saying these things today. I am also glad 

that we have these words that you said repeatedly in the past. 

My time has expired. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Senator Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just begin. I would like to begin with Ms. Hartnett White. 

Do you believe that the CEQ should play a role in administering 

the Renewable Fuel Standard, the RFS? 

Ms. WHITE. No, I don’t. I think the current arrangement under 

law that it is the primary authority of EPA to administer and implement the Renewable Fuel Standard program. 

Senator ROUNDS. Can you share a little bit with regard to the 

Renewable Fuel Standard, which, truly, in the upper Midwest, has 

provided tremendous economic opportunity to Midwestern farmers? 

The use of corn, we can grow corn like you can’t believe. As a matter of fact, the number of bushels per acre has continued to increase as good science has been utilized and as farming practices 

have continued to improve at a rapid pace. The American farmer 

has proven time and time again that they can produce and outproduce anybody else in the world. Investments have been made in 

the corn ethanol industry, and I want to make certain that this industry continues to thrive. 

Can you tell me your view of the economic benefits of the RFS 

and what it has provided to the Midwestern corn farmers? 

Ms. WHITE. Yes, I would, and I would like to begin by thanking 

Senator Ernst—I don’t believe she is here right now—for sending 

me some current data on a number of the points you just made, 

sir. I second the President. I am supportive of all of the above of 

energy sources; all have special purposes and fill important niches. 

As you know, the President recently clarified his support for the 

Renewable Fuel Standard program, and I solidly support his support. CEQ has no direct regulatory authority over the Renewable 

Fuel Standard program, and I, of course, will support the letter of 

the law. 

What I like to say about the U.S. agriculture, never underestimate the productivity and innovative capacity of U.S. agriculture. 

Senator ROUNDS. Let me go one step farther, then, to clarify this. 

You have criticized the RFS in the past and the impact that you 

believe that it would have on the global food supply. 

Ms. WHITE. Right. 

Senator ROUNDS. Can you elaborate on these statements and 

your belief today with regard to the RFS and any impact it would 

have on the global food supply? 

152 

Ms. WHITE. I would be happy to. I, in the early years of the program, made some particularly critical questions about whether ethanol would challenge the global food supply. Later, when I wrote 

a book, published 2 years ago, I erred by not assuring that I had 

current data, and the data that has been shared with me by Senator Ernst and others now, what a great victory; and I congratulate 

the corn industry. 

But the amount of increased productivity, how that has increased 

the supply of corn, that it appears now, on the basis of data now, 

there isn’t any kind of inherent attention. There is enough on the 

surfeit that it has been so productive, and I salute the industry. 

And as a child of rural America, I painfully observed over much 

of my lifetime the decline of once vibrant small towns and people 

who would so like to stay there, but there just is not the employment. And an industry like ethanol has really contributed to giving 

new life to rural communities and keeping families together and all 

those things. 

Senator ROUNDS. Very good. 

Let me ask this also of both of you; and I will begin with Mr. 

Wheeler, but I want both of you to answer this. In the prior Administration there were several instances in which regulations were 

promulgated based on what I believe to be questionable science or 

without asking the science advisory boards for their input. It increasingly seemed like politics were replacing the science in the 

regulatory process. 

I would like to know your views on sound science and on the role 

that it plays in the Federal regulatory process, and I am going to 

end with this, as well. It goes beyond just your view of sound 

science, but being able to release the information upon which environmental policies are being based so that we can gain confidence 

in those decisions. 

And I think—as Ranking Member Carper has indicated—I am a 

firm believer that when requests from a member of the U.S. Senate 

are made, if they are not responded to, that does not provide confidence that the decisions have been made appropriately. I don’t 

care whether it is a Republican or a Democrat Administration. 

That type of communication has to be respected. And I would like 

your thoughts on both of those, please. 

Mr. WHEELER. First, I am not a scientist, but I would certainly 

listen to the career scientists at the Agency and the outside science 

advisory boards to the Agency on what is the best available science 

at the time for any regulatory decisions. And I also agree with you 

and believe that all that should be out in the public for everybody 

to see, because I think when we make informed decisions, and we 

explain to the public why we are making the decisions, that is 

paramount to what we do at the Agency. 

Senator ROUNDS. Ms. Hartnett White. 

Ms. WHITE. I think it is key to have access to that data. That 

is the bedrock data from which all kinds of other programs and 

analyses occur. 

Senator ROUNDS. The second part of my question was what about 

communications between members of the U.S. Senate and your offices; what is the belief? Do you believe that those requests should 

be responded to? 

153 

Mr. WHEELER. Absolutely. I have a history on that with the Committee that would take me a while, but I worked with Senator Carper in 2001 to make sure that he had the Clear Skies data that 

he was looking for, and I worked with Senator Jeffords’ staff in 

2003 to try to make sure that they had the information that they 

were requesting from the EPA. 

Senator ROUNDS. Ms. Hartnett White. 

Ms. WHITE. And I agree, yes, I think that is essential to making 

the full Federal Government work. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Rounds. 

Senator CARPER. Chairman, can I ask unanimous consent for the 

record that the six times that Ms. White has called for the repeal 

of the Renewable Fuel Standard in the past decade, as recently as 

last year, be made a part of the record? 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

154 


27600.137

NEWS RADIO 59{) KLBJ- Breaking News Headlines and Video from 5 ... http:l/www.5901dbj.com/News/Story.aspx?ID"'l7263 

I 

Live Streaming 1)) 

Troubleshooting FAQ 

Most Visited Austin local News 

National News :'1'!1'!/f 

Sport News mwr; 

World News 

Jeff Ward Topics 

Alex Jones Videos f:t'4 

Morning Show Topics 

News On Demand 

KLBJVideos 

Weather 

Traff!cReports 

Austin Jobs 

KLBJ AM Shows Programming Schedule 

Austin's Morning News 

Neal Boortz 

Rush Umbaugh 

JeffWardShow 

Clark Howard 

Alex Jones Show 

Coast to Coast AM 

Rob Balon 

Weekend Programs 

Inside K LBJ AM Blogs 

Pod casts 

Campaign '08 

Interviews &Downloads 

Station History 

Meet the News Team 

Join the KLBJ AM 

"Know It All Club" 

Photo Gallery 

KLBJ Movie Club 

TheChatBox 

Community Calendar 

WideOpenw/Don Pryor 

WeatherStlowcase 

Contact Us 

Featured Links Old Schoof Arcade 

Lawn and Garden 

1()@ 

l\:NPO~ lt!UlJN:.ON C<,;lho.;!.VCHU<c.WI(~~ 

'HI11,>.\'',c..!.,\~,,_~;b'f,!C\ 

l of2 

Podcasts ;:;; Blt>gs Chat Contacts 

••• Austin Local News! Austin Morning News I The Ward Show I Alex Jones j Rush Limbaugh 1 Neal Boortz 

J&.B.~!L"lSi~I?J. f.'.lfl.t .. ~~2.mS~~IJ; CutDown <:I !bsofstomachFatevery2 

WeeksbyObey.,gtheselORules. 

Au-stioN!;lws 

f9.r9J'.1.11\!llJ!L~hid§ 

Resean:hFord'sU!1eofEthano!PQwell!d 

Vehicles. Ford. Drive one. 

Governor's Ethanol Request Sparks More Debate 8/8/2008 

Newsroom 

There's mixed reaction to the Environmental Protection Agency's denial of 

Governor Rick Perry's request to cut the federal ethanol mandate. 

Officials with the Texas Farm Bureau applaud the E-P-A's decision. Mike 

Barnett with the Bureau says farmers have never been on the same page 

withthegovemor.Ithinkwe'ddlsagreedw!ththegovernor'srequestalt 

along.Wethoughtthathighoi!priceswerebeh!ndthehighcostof 

everything, and you know, we still continue to believe that.'' 

The Texas Public Polley Foundation's Kathleen Harnett White says she doesn't 

see it that way. She says most ethanol proponents would Uke to attribute the 

Increase In food prices to fuel alone. She "their economic analysis is just plain 

off." 

To brldge the gap between the two camps, White says there should be "No 

subs!dles,nolmporttarirfs,nomandates.If 

grain-based fuels or bio~fuels are going to have a role in our energy supply, 

letthemcompeteinthemarketplace, .. and!etconsumerschoose." 

lastmodlf~ed: 8/7/100811:54:39 PM 

National News In Video 

Sign up now to be a KLBJ 

Know !tAll. 

By joining the 'Know It AU' dub, you will be ln 

the know with KLBJ Contests, Events and Special 

Promotions! 

You'll receive our monthly newsletter, with news 

about what's going onwlththestation as well as 

chances to win In every month. You'll also get 

special offers and advance notice about KLBJ 

contests and events! 

1Rule~ 

Cut DoM1371b$ of Slom!leh Fat in 3 Months By Keeping 

ltis 1 Rule. 

Wu.YiSourcecom 

.§.!}L3kiMNews 

Breaking New.;, TopStories&FreeVideoSegment:s-Vislt 

ABCNews.coml 

ABCNo!wscom 

Austin Brealdng News 

Gel Breaking flle'.M>, Headlines & Top Stories W161 The 

Free News Tootlar 

~!:QP.Af.£..!9..Qg.§~IJ_'!l<.!i£S! 

Mlflonsha'o@alreadytal<;entllsamazlngtesi.Whal'syour 

RealAge? 

Rea~ tom 

Home! Austin Local News j Uve Streaming ! Austin Morning News topics I The Ward Show Topics ! Blogs 

8/8/2008 9:38AM 
155 


27600.138
156 


27600.139

June 2014 

Texas Public Policy Foundation 

by Kathleen Hartnett White 

Table of Contents 

Preface ... . .............. 3 

A Story ... . ...................... .4 

Introduction: Mankind's Fossil-Fueled Energy 

Breakthrough.. . ......... .4 

Energy Fundamentals: A Question of the Sun 

with a Dash of Physics... . ............... 6 

The Human Energy Equation... . ...................... 7 

Energy in the Pre-Industrial World... . ............. 8 

Mankind's Release from the Malthusian Trap .......... 12 

Productivity Unleashed .. 

"A Farewell to Alms" ... 

. .................... 14 

. ....................................... 15 

Fossil Fuels and the Modern Agricultural 

Revolution..... . .................. 18 

The Versatility of Fossil Fuels: Synthetic Materials .... 20 

Environmental Benefits of Fossil Fuels.. . ......... .20 

Human Benefits of Fossil Fuels... . .......... .23 

Conclusion ..... . . .......................... 29 

Appendix ...... . . ................ 32 

Endnotes ... . . ................. .33 
157 


27600.140

Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

by Kathleen Hartnett White 

Preface 

Current policies to supplant fossil fuels with inferior energy 

sources need to incorporate a deeper understanding of the 

transformative role of energy in human society lest they jettison the wellsprings of mankind's greatest advance. 

The thesis of this paper is that fossil fuels, as a necessary condition of the Industrial Revolution, made modern living standards possible and vastly improved living conditions across 

the world. Humanity's use offossil fuels has released whole 

populations from ahject poverty. Throughout hwnan history, elites, of course, have 

enjoyed comfortable wealth. No more than 

200 years ago, however, the lives of the bulk 

of hwnanity were «poor, nasty, brutish and 

short;' in the words memorably used by 

Thomas Hobbes. 1 

This paper aims to articulate and explain 

some startling, but rarely acknowledged, 

facts about the role of energy in human 

history. Energy is so intimately connected 

to life itself that it is almost equivalent to 

physical life. Virtually everything needed 

to sustain the life of a human individual-food, heat, cloth~ 

ing, shelter-depends upon access to and conversion of energy. Modern, prosperous nations now access a seemingly 

limitless supply of energy. 'lhis cornucopia, however, is a 

very recent advance in mankind's history. Fossil fuels, methodically harnessed for the first time in the English Industrial Revolution, beginning in the 18th century and taking 

off in the 19th century, have been a necessary condition of 

prosperous societies and of fundamental improvements in 

human well-being. 

Adequate treatment of this topic is a daunting task for anyone. The unprecedented stakes in today's contentious enerwww.texaspo!icy.com 

gy policy debates about carbon, however, make it a morally 

necessary topic. As a former final decision-maker in a large 

environmental regulatory agency, I urge current officials 

and concerned citizens to reflect on energy policies within 

a broad but fundamental context: human history and the 

physics of material lives. 

My research was initially inspired by a comprehensively researched monograph by Indur Goklany titled "Humanity 

Unbound:'2 His paper took me to a dozen 

books and twice as many academic papers. 

With gratitude, I acknowledge the books 

listed below as the most enlightening, persuasive guides on the topic. And I highly 

recommend them for more thorough analysis than allowed by the confines of this 

paper. May those policymakers entrusted 

with the authority to make binding decisions about energy consider these books 

as "a look before an unreflective leap" that 

could unravel mankind's greatest achieve~ 

ment-the potential enjoyment of long, 

comfortable, healthy lives without the gnawing hunger of 

subsistence poverty. 

7he Improving State of the World, Indur Goklany. 

Energy and the English Revolution, E.A. Wrigley. 

Farewell to Alms, Gregory Clark. 

7he Rational Optimist, Matt Ridley. 

The Great Divergence, Kenneth Pomeranz. 

1 he Bottomless Well, Peter W. Huber and Mark P. Mills. 

Knowledge and Power, George Gilder. 

Energy and Society, Fred Cottrel. 

Energy Transitions, Vaclav Smil. 
158 


27600.141

Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

Introduction: Mankind's FossilFueled Energy Breakthrough 

Sorely missing from current policy debates about carbonrich energy is recognition of the inestimable human benefits of fossil fuels. Before any use of the newly minted metric 

called the social cost of carbon (SCC), consider tbe profound societal benefits of which fossil fuel are a necessary 

condition. Too few recall that the relatively recent Industrial 

Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries-dependent on 

fossil fuels-was one of the two greatest advances in human 

society since humans lived in caves and hunted for food. 

The other turning point was the Neolithic agricultural revolution when human groups began cultivating crops and 

domesticating animals.<~ 

June 2014 

phe"10rnertal inapr<>ve•nencts in human 

This paper highlights the role of energy in tbe English Industrial Revolution to focus on the role of energy in the 

unprecedented economic growth spawned by the Industrial Revolution. Questions of what caused the revolution 

or why it occurred where and when it did are beyond the 

scope of this analysis. 

Of course, many inter-related factors led to the Industrial 

Revolution and the prodigious economic growth in its 

wake. England's democratic legal institutions which protected private property rights and contractual transactions 

were and remain paramount, as does capital accumulation. 

Fossil fuel energy, however, was a necessary condition of industrialization's beginning and perhaps even more so, of its 

continued growth which has freed billions of human beings 

Texas Public Policy Foundation 
159 


27600.142

June 2014 

from poverty.~ The breakthrough known as the Industrial 

Revolution took off and continued when England methodically tapped the energy in fossil fuels. 

Harnessing the vast store of concentrated energy in fossil fuels allowed mankind, for the first time, to escape the narural 

world's energy limits-intractable constraints that had kept 

human lives of all but the most privileged in subsistence 

poverty.6 Before the Industrial Revolution, all societies were 

dependent on the limited flow of solar energy captured in 

living plants for subsistence needs such as food, fuel, and 

shelter. Physical living conditions differed across societies 

and eras, but there was no sustained upward trend. 

Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

The fixed supply ofland on which to raise food and harvest 

timber was regularly diminished by natural disasters and 

political upheaval, or overstretched by increasing population. As historian E.A. Wrigley documents: «The energy 

flow was insufficient to underwrite the increased output 

on the scale associated with an 'industrial revolution: Only 

by gaining access to a vast store rather than a limited flow 

of energy could this problem be solved:'' In England, coal 

first provided this vast store of concentrated energy. Natural gas derived from coal soon followed. Crude oil's first 

commercial use began in the mid 19th century. 8 

Figure 1: Global Progress, 1 A.D.- 2009 A.D. 

8,000 

c 

0 7,000 ~ 

~ c 6,000 

0 

~ 5,000 u 

~ 4,000 

~ 3,000 c· 

0 

-~ 2,000 

'5 

"-

ci' 1,000 

SOD 1000 1500 2000 

• • GDP/cap (1990 International$) Population (millions) 

- C02 (MMT-Carbon) - Life Expectancy 

Notes: Data are sporadic until1960. J h•s figure assumes :hat trends between adJacent data points are linear."' 

""Angus Madd1.:.on (1926-2010) was a British economist and a prominent world scholar on 

surement and analysis of economic growth and development. He did 

80 

70 

60 

50 ~ 'g 40 "- C'J 

30 Jl! 

::J 

20 

10 

data compiled by Maddison on income per capita, population, lifespan and other demographic factors is widely used across the world including by 

the Organizat1on for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Harvard Center for International Affairs, and World Bank for which he was a 

consultant. Maddison's data is the basis for most of the historical claims and "startling facts" in th1s paper. The data bases he developed are regarded 

as one of the most important sources for the analysis term economic growth and are w1de!y used across the world. His data used in this 

paper is also available in his "'The World Economy 1-2030 AD: Essays in Macroeconomic 

www.texaspollcy.com 
160 


27600.143

Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

Use of the energy in fossil fuels unleashed economic productivity on a scale previously unimaginable. V\lhen innovative minds developed a steam engine which could convert the stored heat energy in coal into mechanical energy, 

the economic limits under which all human societies had 

formerly existed were blown apart. A life of back-breaking 

drudgery was no longer the inescapable condition of the 

overwhelming majority of mankind. Figure 1 (previous 

page) depicts the dramatic upward trend. 

Life expectancy had changed little throughout all human 

history until the Industrial Revolution; it thereafter tripled. 

Income per capita has since increased 11-fold. Not coincidentally, man-made emissions of carbon dioxide have risen 

three-fold since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. 

Fossil-fuel powered mechanization revolutionized economic productivity, increased incomes, population, and life 

expectancy across all classes. 

Matt Ridley, author of I1ze Rational Optimist, captures the 

magnitude of the breakthrough: "By 1870, the burning of 

coal in Britain was generating as many calories as would 

have been expended by 850 million labourers. It was as if 

each worker had 20 servants at his beck and call. The capacity of the country's steam engines alone was equivalent to 

six million horses .... That is how much energy had been 

harnessed to the application of the division of labor. That 

is how impossible the task of Britain's 19th century miracle 

would have been without fossil fuels:'9 

Fossil fuel use and the consequent anthropogenic emissions 

of carbon dioxide (CO,) also have greatly expanded the 

global food supply. Fertilizer derived from natural gas has 

increased agricultural productivity by 40-60 percent. w fossil fuel-based fertilizers have saved vast natural ecosystems 

from conversion to cropland. Although combustion of fossil fuels releases pollutants, those emissions can be dramatically reduced far quicker through technological controls 

than can the reversion of cropland to natural ecosystems 

be achieved. Rather than ravaging the natural world as environmentalists assume, fossil fuels have allowed industrial 

civilizations to shrink the human footprint. And the increased atmospheric concentration of man-made C02 has 

enhanced plant growth and thus the world's food supply. 

Synthetic fibers derived from fossil fuels now account for 60 

percent of all fibers. 11 Basic materials such as plastic, vinyl, 

June 2014 

and fiberglass constitute the raw material in thousands of 

products in daily use. The prosperity supported by abundant fossil fuel energy allows investment in effective technologies to eliminate harmful pollution. 

Renewable energy still provides only a sliver of energy 

supply. In spite of the billions of dollars in subsidies, retail 

prices for renewables are still far higher than prices for fossil fuelsY In European countries which rushed too quickly 

to embrace renewable energy, families regress to burning 

wood for heat and cooking because electricity is unaftOrdable. German officials warn that soaring energy costs risk 

"dramatic deindustrialization:' 13 

At any cost, renewable energy from wind, solar, and biomass remains diffuse, unreliable, and parasitic, in that those 

intermittent sources rely on fossil fuels for back-up. And 

while nuclear fission provides energy comparable or superior to fossil fuels, it cannot provide the versatile benefits 

mentioned above. Additionally, the public remains resistant 

to broad deployment of nuclear generation. 

Energy-dense, abundant, versatile, reliable, portable, and 

affordable, fossil fuels provide over SO percent of the world's 

energy because they are superior to the current alternatives. 

Until energy sources fully comparable or superior to fossil 

fuels are securely available, policies to reduce emissions of 

CO, should proceed with caution lest they prematurely exhau~t the well-springs of mankind's greatest advance. 

Energy Fundamentals: A Question of 

the Sun with a Dash of Physics 

High energy use is the sine qua non of life in modern, prosperous societies. And it is only the population born after 

World War II that has reaped the full energy bounty now 

assumed in U.S. lifestyles. Abundant energy is so imbedded 

in every moment of our personal and working lives that its 

presence, action, and value go unnoticed. Far beyond the 

energy contained in the overflowing food in our grocery 

stores, consider the abundant energy in cooling, heating, 

transportation, appliances, clothing, medical devices, materials, and our omnipresent electronic devices. Bundles of 

concentrated energy are interwoven in almost every action 

we take and every physical object we use. 

Texas Public Policy Foundation 
161 


27600.144

June 2014 

Compared to the limited discretionary time enjoyed by 

our ancestors, the time we have left after feeding, clothing, 

sheltering, and financially supporting our families reflects 

the amount of work done-not by human muscle-but by 

stored energy. A single example of the profound benefits 

of energy: Imagine life without the indoor and outdoor illumination we enjoy 24 hours a day. More than two billion 

of the world's population still has no access to electricity. 

Energy: Definition and Metrics 

The term '"'energy" is commonly used, but with varied 

meanings, as elusive to the physicist as to the man on the 

street. r[he most common definition is "the capacity to do 

work:'14 In physics, "work" is defined as force multiplied 

by the distance through which it acts. The English word 

"energy" derives from the Greek words "er" meaning "at" 

or "in" and "ergon" meaning "work" "Power" in physics is 

defined as energy in motion or more precisely, the rate at 

which work is done. 15 

Europe measures energy in joules or newton-meters. In 

the U.S., work and energy are measured in units of footpounds. Unlike most other countries, the standard measure of energy most broadly used in the U.S. remains the 

British thermal unit (Btu). A Btu represents the amount of 

thermal energy (heat) necessary to raise the temperature of 

one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit. Btus, footpounds, joules, and calories are all convertible to one another. Watts, a measure of electric energy, is defined as one 

joule per second. 

The most telling measures are energy density and power 

density. Energy density is a measure of the amount of energy per unit of weight or volume. «Power density refers to 

the energy flow that can be harnessed from a given unit of 

volume, area, or mass:'16 Measurement of the power density 

of energy sources in watts per square meter (W /m2) reveals 

the comparative weakness of energy derived from so-called 

renewable sources such as wind, solar, plants or wood. The 

power density of wind is about 1.2 W/m2, whereas a natural gas well producing only 60.000 cubic feet of gas per day 

has a power densityof28 W/m2. 17 

The most familiar measure of energy is the calorie, which 

measures the amount of heat energy in food. For example, 

one loaf of bread contains roughly 1,400 calories or 5,714 

www.texaspolicy.com 

Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

Btus. As a measure of energy understood as "the capacity to 

do work:' one person would have to eat 22 loaves of bread 

to complete the same work as a car engine burning one gallon of gasoline, which contains 126,000 Btus. 18 

The Human Energy Equation 

A truth so basic that it is widely overlooked is that human 

life and all material production rely on the consumption of 

heat or mechanical energy. Photosynthesis, made possible 

by the sun, is the source of this energy. The American Heritage Dictionary briefly explains the process: 

Almost all life on earth depends on food made by 

organisms that can perform photosynthesis, such as 

green plants, algae and certain bacteria. These organisms make carbohydrates from carbon dioxide 

and water using light energy from the sun ... Almost all of the oxygen in the earth's atmosphere was 

produced as waste by photosynthetic organisms .... 19 

A lucky planet, the earth is the only planet in our solar system with enough atmospheric oxygen to support human 

and animal life. 

On the most fundamental physical level, life depends on 

food energy, without which human, animal, and plant life 

all cease. The sun provides 99.98 percent of the energy of 

the world's climate.20 The source of life-sustaining energy 

on this planet is the radiant energy of the sun. Through the 

chemical process of photosynthesis, plants convert a minute portion of the massive amount of radiant energy that 

the sun daily showers on the earth. The amount of radiant-or light-energy continuously flowing from the sun 

may average the energy equivalent of 20 million calories a 

day per acre surface of the earth. Through photosynthesis, 

plants convert to organic matter (carbohydrates) perhaps 

only 0.18 percent of the solar energyY 

lhus, the human body depends upon daily consumption of 

what was originally solar energy stored in food to sustain 

life. A masterful chemical reactor, the human body turns 

the solar energy stored in plants (as a result of photosynthesis), as well as the meats from animals nourished by plants, 

into chemical, heat, and mechanical forms of energy necessary for bodily function and locomotion. Even at complete 
162 


27600.145

Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

rest or in a comatose state, the human body depends on a 

minimal consumption of energy to sustain bodily function 

known as "the basic metabolic rate." 

The same solar energy captured in human food, in a vaslly 

more concentrated form, is stored in fossil fuels. Coal, crude 

oil, and natural gas are composed of the residue of once-living plants and animals, highly concentrated through geological compression for millions of years. Peat is a younger 

fossil fuel compressed over thousands of years. 

Fossil fuels can be characterized as a form of "ancient nature" because they originate from living nature-the products of recent photosynthesis. Not unlike the combustion of 

fossil fuel in a car, the human body chemically "burns" the 

energy in food-the gift of solar energy captured through 

photosynthesis in living plants. The growing plants viewed 

out the window and in our own bodies may become fossil 

fuels 300 million years from now. 

Energy in the Pre-Industrial World 

Prior to actively harnessing the energy stored in fossil fuels 

little more than 200 years ago, human societies depended 

on the limited and variable supply of energy annually capJune 2014 

tured in recent plant growth. Fuel was almost entirely derived from trees and woody plants. Food. clothing, shelter, 

and materials still depended on plant growth and animals 

dependent on plant grovvth that humans cannot digest.'* 

Unavoidably subject to nature's destructive whims such 

as drought, flood, and pestilence or to human foibles such 

as war, buman subsistence was a precarious and often lost 

gambit particularly for children and the infirm. Thirty percent of children died before reaching 15 years of age.22 

In England, real income per person was relatively static 

from 1200 until around 1850 when income rose sharply 

and steadily as shown in Clark's graph in Figure 2. 

Mankind's Energy History 

Obviously, the length of mankind's history is imprecise and 

is based on wide ranging definitions of "human~' Yet, for 

all but the last 200-250 years of that history, mankind lived 

under physical strictures comparable to animals. Humanity made its first energy advance around 8000 B.C., when 

human groups began to cultivate crops and raise livestock 

instead of hunting and gathering what unassisted nature 

might provideY "This Neolithic agricultural revolution augmented the supply of food and materials needed for human 

survival, but the gains were marginal and fleeting-inadFigure 2: Real Income Per Person in England (1200-2000) 

600 

8 500 

:= Industrial 

II Revolution 

~ 400 

c 

0 300 

~ c. 

"' c. 200 

e 

~ 100 

1200 1300 1"100 1500 1600 1/00 1800 1900 2000 

Source: Gregory Clark, A rarewe!l to Alms, p. 195 

~:he large dosses of mammals known as ungulates are herbivores thilt can convert g~asses-tndigestible to humans-mto meat t1ssue 

------------------------------------- Texas Public Policy Foundation 
163 


27600.146

June 2014 Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

Figure 3: Energy Consumption in England and Wales (1561-70) 

Compared with Italy (1861-70) 

1111 Coal 

Water 

OWind 

Firewood 

til Draught animals 

II Human 

England Italy 

Source: EA Wrigley, Energy and the English Industrial Revolution, p. 95. 

equate to support a continuously increasing population 

while improving living standards for the bulk of that population. 

Before England methodically tapped into coal, plant photosynthesis remained the dominant source of all energy as it 

had been for the hunter gatherers thousands of years earlier. 

Wind and water mills, although plentiful, did not significantly augment the energy supply.24 

Until the onset of the Industrial Revolution, human and 

animal muscle supplied mechanical power, and combustion of woody plants supplied almost all heat energy. At 

various times and in various societies. coal, natural gas, or 

crude oil was used when it was readily accessible near, or 

through outcrops on, the surface of the earth.25 The Neth~ 

erlands made highly productive use of peat -a relatively 

much younger fossil fuel and with far less energy density 

And then peat became scarce. 

As the Industrial Revolution neared, fossil fuel use began to 

increase. In the latter decades of the 17th century, England 

increased use of coal for heat energy but wood, draught 

www.texaspo!icy.com 

animals and human muscle still provided the majority of 

energy consumed. By the middle of the 18th century coal 

had become the predominant source for energy consumed 

in England.26 Fossil fuel use, however, was never converted 

to mechanical energy on a large scale until the Industrial 

Revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries. (Figure 3). 

Natural gas (mostly derived from coal) also was put to commercial use in the early stages of industrialization in England.* The commercial use of natural gas is relatively recent 

although natural gas seeping from the ground had been 

recognized in ancient Greece and Rome. Around 1785, 

England began to use the natural gas produced from coal 

to light houses and streets. In 1816, Baltimore, Maryland 

became the first city to light its streets with manufactured 

natural gas. Robert Bunsen's invention of the Bunsen burner in 1885 opened many opportunities for this versatile fossil fuel. 

Although Herodotus described oil pits near Babylon and 

Marco Polo described oil being collected near the Persian 

city of Baku in the 13th century, the first sustained commercial applications of petroleum did not occur until the mid-
164 


27600.147

Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

19th century in the United States-also the period when the 

internal combustion engine was invented. Petroleum is an 

extraordinarily versatile energy source. When refined, crude 

oil can be separated into different parts called fractions. 

From those fractions come propane, butane, multiple petrochemicals, gasoline, kerosene, diesel, jet fuel, home heating oil, ship fuel, lubricating oils, and asphalt. Perhaps 6,000 

different products in daily use derive from petrochemicalsP 

Wrigley explains the energy factor implicitly recognized by 

the classical economists but not so named: "As long as supplies of both mechanical and heat energy were conditioned 

by the annual quantum of insolation and the efficiency of 

plant photosynthesis in capturing incoming solar radiation, 

it was idle to expect a radical improvement in the material 

conditions of the bulk of mankind:'28* Wrigley also points 

out that the importance of coal in the Industrial Revolution 

was not that it caused a breakthrough at any one point in 

time, but that coal enabled increased productivity to continue. 

"The quantity of energy needed," Wrigley concludes "to underwrite the scale of material production reached in England by the middle decades of the 19th century would have 

been far beyond attainment in an organic economy and, in 

the absence of coal, this would have prevented growth on a 

comparable scale:'29 In other words, the many technological changes occurring during the 18th century in England 

are conceivable without coal but the sustained and rapid 

growth of the economy in the 19th century would have 

been impossible without coal. In this sense, coal was a necessary condition of the Industrial Revolution viewed in its 

sweep through three centuries. 

According to historian Gregory Clark: "The basic outline 

of world economic history is surprisingly simple. Indeed 

it can be summarized in one diagram , . Before 1800, income per person-the food, clothing, heal, light, and housing available per head-varied across societies and epochs. 

But there was no upward trend. A simple but powerful 

mechanism ... [known as} the Malthusian Trap, ensured 

that short-term gains in income through technological advances were inevitably lost through population growth."30 

June2014 

Clark paints a startling picture: "1he average person in the 

world of 1800 was no better off than the average person 

in 100,000 B,C, ..• Before 1800 there was no fundamental 

distinction between the economies of humans and those 

of other animal and plant species:'31 Clark's dramatic statement may seem an offensive oversimplification of global 

economic history, but recall that it only refers to the physical parameters of human life. In this context income means 

the amount of food, clothing, shelter, and materials available to the average person. Of course the wealthy elites in 

many societies enjoyed a higher standard of living, but the 

overwhelming majority of people did not. 

Certain societies over various periods in human history 

made significant gains in income per capita, technological 

innovation, commerce, and population as well as the arts 

and letters. Two fascinating examples include the great trading cultures of Italian city states between the 9th and 15th 

centuries and the ancient Phoenician city states between 

!200 and 900 B,C, Yet, these societies ultimately waned and 

did not achieve sustained economic growth on the scale of 

the English Industrial Revolution which benefited the bulk 

of population. Both the Italian and Phoenician city states 

relied on slave labor to perform much of the work that 

mechanization in the Industrial Revolution spared workers. 

Since the historical breakthrough known as the Industrial Revolution, man's ability to harness the energy of fossil 

fuels has secured unprecedented improvements in health, 

wealth, and living standards. Current policies to supplant 

the fossil fuels undervalue the magnitude of human improvement made possible by fossil fuels and overvalue current alternatives to fossil fuels. As Matt Ridley's story of energy shows, although mankind developed new sources and 

uses for energy, the gains were marginal until fossil fuels 

were tapped to provide mechanical energy. 

The Malthusian Trap 

The "Malthusian Trap" encapsulates the theory articulated 

by the Rev. Thomas Malthus in his "Essay on the Principles of Population" published in 1798."" Ironically, Malthus 

wrote this essay in the early stages of the English Industrial Revolution-a revolution in economic growth that his 

rpce1ved by thP earth Spcc~"ca!ly, the term refers to the rate of delivery of soiar 

10 Texas Public Polley Foundation 
165 


27600.148

June 2014 

theory precluded. At the core of his theory is the assumption that mankind's only portal to energy is circumscribed 

by the fixed extent of tillable land and timber. "Elevated as 

man is above all other animals by his intellectual faculties:' 

Malthus wrote, "it is not to be supposed that the physical 

laws to which he is subjected should be essentially different 

from those which are observed to prevail in other parts of 

animated nature:'33 How soon after he wrote that statement 

did inventive humans develop technologies to transcend 

what previously appeared to be the physical world's intractable limits! 

According to Malthus, when good harvests increased the 

food supply, income per capita would temporarily rise, 

only to be brought back down by increases in population. 

When drought or pestilence ravaged the supply of food 

and heat energy, famine would "cruelly" check growth. 

Incomes would decline; malnutrition would inevitably 

decrease fertility or shorten lifespan, and the population would decrease. In a Malthusian world, mankind 

is trapped by the same natural laws that apply to animal 

populations. 

According to Malthus, birth rate must match death rate. 

If it does not, nature inevitably will check growth by reducing the standard of living. As he argued, population 

expands geometrically (e.g. I, 2, 4, 16, 32, 64, 128, etc.) 

while food supply can only increase arithmetically acre by 

acre on an assumed fixed area ofland (e.g. I, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 

etc.). "The power of population is indefinitely greater than 

the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man:'34 

wwwJexaspolicy.com 

Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

In other words, increasing human numbers will inevitably outstrip the maximum productivity of a fixed extent 

of land. The huge gains in agricultural productivity later 

made possible by fossil fuel-based fertilizer, transportation and refrigeration were understandably unfathomable 

to Thomas Mal thus. 

Although Malthus did not explain the "trap'' in terms of 

energy, he was accurately describing the energy limits 

for societies before humans methodically tapped the vast 

store of concentrated energy found in fossil fuels. As such, 

human society, like animal societies, was still subject to 

the intractable constraints of mercurial nature and thus to 

a limited and variable supply of food and heat energy. As 

educated and culturally refined were the elites of 17th and 

18th century England and other European countries, their 

lives remained governed by an extremely limited flow of 

energy captured in recent photosynthesis in plants. 

The energy breakthrough that literally fueled the productivity for which the Industrial Revolution is known, of 

course, did not occur at a certain time, decade or even 

century. England and other countries, particularly in Europe had been using coal for heat energy from the late 

16th century onward. But the energy contributed by coal 

dwarfed energy delivered by human muscle, draught animals, and firewood combined by 1800 onward. (See Appendix I for breakdown of energy consumption by source 

from 1560-1860). 

11 
166 


27600.149

FossH Fuels: The Moral Case 

Select European countries, especially England, achieved 

some gains in agricultural productivity and thus a growth 

in population well before the Industrial Revolution. But 

the rate of population growth did not take off until 1850 as 

shown in Table 1 below. 

In 1750, England had one of the longest life expectancies 

at 35 years. Global average life expectancy, however, only 

rose from 24 to 25 years from 1000 to 1750-the period 

in which the world population tripled to 760 million. Income did not rise as rapidly as population. Global average 

income increased to $640 by 1750, only0.05 percent higher than in 1000 A.D. In contrast, average income in England increased annually at a rate of 0.36 percent during 

the 18th century according to Angus Maddison's Statistics 

June 2014 

on World Population. In food supply, population, lifespan, 

and a vast store of energy, England had progressed farther 

than any other country except the Netherlands and was 

primed to lead the Industrial Revolution.35 

Mankind's Release from the 

Malthusian Trap 

Historian E.A. Wrigley's "Energy and the English Industrial 

Revolution" documents the necessary role of fossil fuels 

in mankind's second-most momentous advance. '1\round 

1800, in northwestern Europe and North America, man's 

long sojourn in the Malthusian world ended .. , Between 

1770 and 1860 ... the English population tripled. Yet, real incomes, instead of plummeting, rose ... A new era dawned:'36 

Table 1: Population Totals of Selected European Countries 

1600-2000 and Related Growth Rates 

England The France Germany Sweden Italy Spain 

'1600 15 19.£ 6,7 

1650 5.3 L9 20.3 11] 7.0 

1700 *'z 1.9 22.6' 16.0 1.4 H-6 _1.4 

1750 5.9 L9 24.6 17.0 L8 15.8 8.6 

1800 8.l 1.1 29,3 24.5 24 18.3 W6 

1850 16.7 35.4 35 24.7 14.8 

;1000 57.ll 3S.5 

1600-50 ·0.29 0.08 

1650'1700 .030, 0.\1 

1700-50 0.25 0.00 0.17 0.12 0.55 0.30 0.30 

\751)-1®0 6.77 q.zo 0.35' 0.13 0.56 0.29 6.42 

1800-50 1.32 0.78 0.43 0.76 0.79 0.60 0.67 

185<};1000 'Mi fJO 0.3~ Q,55 0.62 0.56 -0~ 

Relative size of national populations England = 100 

ltiOO . . 37 471 .161 . 

1650 100 36 382 220 132 

1700 100 3& '434 307 26' 261 ·~4J 

1750 100 32 416 287 30 267 145 

1.®0' 100 24 338 2$3 27 211 122 

1850 217 212 21 148 88 

2000 120 168 .'1!! !18. sr 

Source: EA Wrigley, Energy and the English lndustn·at Revolution, p. 155. 

~~~~~------~--

12 Texas Public Policy Foundation 
167 


27600.150

June 2014 

Neo-Malthusian Perspectives 

Although the Industrial Revolution and the sustained 

growth it spawned disproved Malthus' predictions, Malthusian perspectives remain appealing to the pessimists among 

us. In spite of the continual growth in global population, 

food supply, energy resources, and income per capita, pessimists continue to predict resource depletion, world famine, 

increased poverty and now apocalyptic global warming. 

Modern Neo-Malthusians such as Paul Ehrlich and Lester 

Brown persist in their claim that the world's population will 

overcome food supply and natural resources.·" The many 

predictions of mass starvation and "peak oil;' voiced by 

Ehrlich and his ilk, have repeatedly failed to occur in spite 

of increased consumption by a growing world population. 

As economist Julian Simon and others have shown, human 

creativity is the ultimate resource capable of continually expanding the bounds of the master resource called energy.38 

www.texaspo!icy.com 

Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

Fossil Fuels: A Necessary Condition of the 

Industrial Revolution 

Wrigley and others persuasively regard fossil fuels as a necessary condition of the Industrial Revolution. How could 

the Industrial Revolution, which began in England around 

1800, spread to three continents? How could it now be 

growing in China and India, and still improving humanwell-being throughout the developing world? All this without the kind of energy held in fossil fuels? Coal, however, 

cannot be construed as a "sufficient condition" or a cause 

of the English Industrial Revolution. Historians still debate 

the multiple, reinforcing, and inter-related factors that led 

to the Industrial Revolution. Other factors include greater 

literacy, accumulation of knowledge, inventive technologies, efficiency gains, and legal institutions that protect 

property rights and contractual transactions that promote 

capital accumulation. 

13 
168 


27600.151

Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

Yet, without access to the vast store of dense and versatile 

energy in fossil fuels, the economic growth and human 

well-being rising since the early 1800s likely could not have 

occurred. If mankind's first major advance was the Neolithic Agricultural Revolution, then the second major advance 

known as the Industrial Revolution was at root an energy 

revolution for heat and mechanical energy. "[T]apping into 

the new energy source changed the production horizon in 

a fundamental fashion that had happened only once previously in human history, at the time of the Neolithic food 

revolution:'39 

Throughout human history, various societies developed 

technologies to enhance the supply of the energy provided 

by nature. But the progress was halting or temporary. All 

too often it regressed. The Neolithic food revolution made 

wealth and high culture possible for the elite, but grinding 

poverty remained the common lot of mankind. 

Productivity Unleashed 

"The Industrial Revolution is unique in world history:' writes 

historian Gregory Clark, «owing to the sudden appearance 

of a more rapid rate of efficiency advance than had been witnessed over sustained period by any earlier economY:'4fl 

Thomas Malthus, whatever the defects of his analysis, was 

one of the three men credited \vith articulating the structure 

of classical economics, the other two being Adam Smith 

and David Ricardo. The lives of these men coincided with 

the early decades of the Industrial Revolution although they 

were unaware of the game~ changing nature of the economic breakthrough going on around them. Malthus, Ricardo, 

and Smith agreed that an Industrial Revolution which could 

indefinitely sustain increasing population and income per 

capita was physically and economically impossibleY 

The Puzzle of the Industrial Revolution: 

Sustained Growth 

Most economists remain puzzled that the economic growth 

started by the Industrial Revolution has never stopped. In 

his recent book Knowledge and Power, George Gilder reflects on the perplexing magnitude of the growth. '"!he central scandal of traditional economics;' he writes, "has long 

been its inability to explain the scale of per capita economic 

growth over the last several centuries. It is no small thing. 

14 

June 2014 

'Ihe seven-fold rise in world population since 1800 should 

have attenuated growth per capita. Yet the conventional 

gauges of per capita income soared some 17-fold, meaning 

a 119-fold absolute increase in output in 212 years:·n 

Although economists struggle to explain the continually 

expanding growth, the events of this energy and industrial 

revolution are widely recognized. The hallmark of the revolu~ 

tion was, as Clark states above, a rapid and radical expansion 

of the productive powers of an economy. Efficiency is here 

understood as the ratio between the cost per unit of input 

and the cost per unit of output Efficient and profitable en~ 

terprises produce more output per unit of input and thus can 

generate profit. The magic of fossil fuels is that their input 

can exponentially increase output, and thus overall efficiency. 

Prodigious Gains in Productive Efficiency 

Consider textiles. According to Clark and Wrigley, the lextile industry accounted for over 50 percent of the increased 

productivity, and thus growth, in England during the entire 

19th century. "Efficiency in converting raw cotton to cloth 

increased 14-fold from the 1760s to the 1860s, a growth rate 

of 2.4 percent per year, faster than productivity growth in 

most modern economies:•u In 1760, transforming a pound 

of cotton into woven cloth took approximately 18 man~ 

hours. By 1860, the same work was completed in 1.5 manhours."ll1 Similar rate of gains were achieved across many industries. 

England first used coal to overcome the island's chronically 

limited supply of heat energy available from wood. During the 18th century, coal was increasingly used in homes 

and handicraft industries. Coal was also used to mine more 

coal, providing heat energy for the crude pumps used to 

extract the coaL "And once it had become dear that coal 

could provide heat energy on a scale and at a price which 

had no previous precedent, it was not surprising that attention turned to parallel problem with mechanical energy."45 

The Core of the Industrial Revolution: 

Mechanical Energy 

Ihe steam engine, which translated heat energy into mechanical energy, unleashed the seemingly unlimited productivity and inventiveness for which the Industrial Revo~ 

lution is known. Thomas Newcomen's first steam engine 

converted only 1 percent of the heat energy from burning 

Texas Public Po!lcy Foundation 
169 


27600.152

June 2014 

coal. James Watt's later engine-the symbol of the English 

Industrial Revolution-converted 10 percent of the heat 

energy and -was much faster.46 Not long after the development ofWatt's steam engines, inventors translated the vertical movement of the pistons into rotary motion. 

This advance made possible the application of fossil fuels 

to a huge range of devices and machines that increased 

manufacturing productivity by leaps and bounds and reduced hard labor. The steam engine and derivative devices 

mechanized production that previously was the hard labor 

of human or animal muscle. With mechanization, productive efficiency soared, and so did energy efficiency. 47 

Unprecedented Growth 

In contrast with Malthus, Ricardo, and Smith, some English 

economists fully grasped the energy equation in England's 

industrialization. William Jevons, whose life spanned the 

gathering speed of the English Industrial Revolution in the 

mid-19th century, correctly assessed the magnitude of the 

energy revolution taking place around him-mankind's liberation from the Malthusian trap. Jevons writes in The Coal 

Question: "With coal almost any feat is possible or easy; 

without it we are thrown back into the laborious poverty 

of earlier times:'48 As England used more and more coal, 

Jevons was concerned that eventual depletion of England's 

coal supply would drive up the price of coal and thus arrest 

the phenomenal growth. Coal, however, did not become 

scarce or more expensive. Indeed, using coal-fired energy 

begat more energy, productivity, and income. 

Every other boom in human history eventually hit a wall 

and then declined because resources dwindled-whether 

timber, cropland, pasture, labor, water, or peat. These resources, unlike coal, are renewable and so replenish themselves but at a pace far too slow to meet ongoing demand. 

Coal in the English Industrial Revolution was a different 

story. As England used more and more coal, it actually became more abundant and cheaper. Although not in principle renewable (save for another 300 million years of geological compression) fossil fuels remain abundant enough 

to sustain economic growth for at least centuries until fully 

comparable or superior energy sources are genuinely available at scale. 

www.texaspolicy.com 

Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

More output from less input remains the inherent dynamic 

of economic growth from fossil fuels. Modern societies get 

increasingly more work out of each ton of fossil fuel. According to recent EIA data, the carbon intensity of the U.S. 

economy has been declining since 1949.49 (See Figure 5) The 

U.S. now uses 50 percent less energy per unit of GDP than 

it did in 1950.50 

Less than 250 years ago, England was the first country to 

transcend what had been universal constraints on accessible energy and thus universal constraints on economic 

growth. Rapid growth no longer meant an inevitable regression. Mankind's Malthusian shackles were torn apart. 

"A Farewell to Alms" 

'!be greatest gift of the energy breakthrough, on which 

the Industrial Revolution still relies, is the release of entire 

populations from abject poverty. Unlike any previous economic boom, the poorest-not the already wealthy-were 

the greatest beneficiaries. "The plain fact is that the mechanization of production in the Industrial Revolution raised 

incomes across all classes;• remarks Matt Ridley. 51 

Princeton historian Gregory Clark titled his global economic history, A Farewell to Alms-a word-play on Ernest 

Hemingway's A Farewell to Anns. Both titles evoke the primal hope of mankind for a world without poverty or war. 

At the beginning of his history of the Industrial Revolution, 

Clark underlines his theme in startling terms: 

The Industrial Revolution, a mere 200 years ago, 

changed forever the possibilities for material consumption, Incomes per person began to undergo sustained 

growth in a favored group of countries. . .. Moreover 

the biggest beneficiary of the Industrial Revolution has 

so far been the unsk.illed:'52' 

Indur Goklany in Table 2 shows the barely measurable increase in global income per capita (as well as life expectancy) 

from I A.D. untill750 AD., around the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Note that the dramatic increase from 1750-

2009 is strongly correlated with what is the first sizeable increase in man-made emissions of CO2 in human history. 

IS 
170 


27600.153

Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case June 2014 

Table 2: Average Annual Rate of Increase for Various Time Periods 

1 A.D. -1 000 A.D. 1 000 A.D.- 1750 A.D. 1750 A.D. - 2009 A.D. 

o/o % % 

Income 

Population 

Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

0.01 

0.00 

0.02 

0.05 

0.14 

0.98 

0.88 

3.23 

Source· indur Goklany, Humanity Unbound, p. 6 

Clark"s figures for England in Pigure 2 (page 8) show what 

he characterizes as "the unprecedented, inexorable, all-pervading rise in incomes per person since 1800. The lifestyle of 

the average person in modern economies was not unknown 

in earlier economies: it is that of the rich in ancient Egypt or 

ancient Rome. What is diflfrent is that now paupers live like 

princes and princes live like emperors:'53 As Goklany summarizes these nwnbers: "Never in hwnan history had indicators of human well-being advanced so rapidlY:'s.1 

Industrialization of the more pervasively agrarian United 

States took off a little later than the English Industrial Revolution. Raw materials and foodstuffs from the U.S. significantly 

supplemented the needs of England's industries and growing population. Without these "ghost acres:' many historians 

question whether England's comprehensive industrialization 

would have been as successful. The U.S. story, however, is 

quite the same as England's: dramatic rises in life expectancy, 

population, GDP per capita and C02 emissions.55 

Greatest Gains to the Poor 

Income per capita calculated as an average may be highly 

misleading. But the most distinctive feature of the economic boom fueled by the Industrial Revolution is that the 

income gains accrued more to the poorest and the average 

worker than to the wealthy. The average English income 

headed upward around 1800. By 1850, it was 50 percent 

above the level in 1750 in spite of the fact that the population tripled. As Matt RidJey notes: "The rise was steepest for 

unskilled workers ... The share of national income captured 

by labour rose ... Real \\rages rose faster than real output 

throughout the 19th century. meaning that the benefit of 

cheaper goods was being garnered by the workers as consumers, not by bosses and landlords:'56 

i6 

The most distinctive feature ofthe 

economic boom fueled by the Industrial 

Revolution is that the income gains 

accrued more to the poorest and the 

average worker than to the wealthy. 

As the abundant heat and mechanical energy supplied by 

coal increased productivity, the supply of goods increased 

while the price declined. The winter jacket mentioned in 

RidJey's vignette at the beginning of this paper, which cost a 

month's wages, may have cost only a week's wages by 1850. 

As productivity increased, factory workers were better able 

to afford to buy the products they helped produce. A middle class emerged. 

Satanic Mills? 

The prevalent views of living conditions of workers during the first century of England's Industrial Revolution are 

grim. Perhaps the most memorable is Blake's poem lamenting the "dark Satanic Mills:'57 Karl Marx, Charles Dickens, 

anJ other writers decried the pollution, filth, and general 

squalor in the new factories and urban apartments. Later 

writers, however, point out that worse poverty, disease, pollution, and child labor certainly existed in England before 

the Industrial Revolution. Rural poverty may have been 

worse than urban poverty. 

Matt Rldley says, "In Gregory King's survey of the British population in 1688, 1.2 million laborers lived on four 

pounds/year and 1.3 million 'cottagers' -peasants-lived 

on two pounds/year. That is to say, half the entire nation 

lived in abject poverty; without charity they would starve. 

Texas Public Policy Foundation 
171 


27600.154

June 2014 Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

Figure 4: U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions, Population, 

GOP, and life Expectancy (190()..2009) 

II 

0 

0 

~ 

10 : 

7 j 

4 ! 

90 

80 

_,...-.~" 70 

I " ,..../ ,•' ., v • 60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

~ 

~ ~ 

c 

~ Cj 

"' :..::::; 

· ................................................................................................................................................... 0 

1900 1910 1920 1930 19'10 19SO 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 

• • C02 (LH) ~Population (LH) 

• Affluence -Life Expectancy 

Source: lndur Goklany, Humanity Unbound, p. 8. 

During the Industrial Revolution, there was plenty of poverty but not nearly as much as this nor nearly as severe:•ss 

'The violent protests of the 19th century textile workersknown as the Luddites-against the labor-saving machines 

were short-lived. Although factory workers in early stages 

of the Industrial Revolution may have worked, by modern 

standards, in dangerous and dirty work places, they lived 

lives better than their tenant farming ancestors, which is 

why they flocked to the factories from the farms. 'i9 

The poverty of early industrial England may be so memorable because it was the first time politicians and writers 

expressed concern. The prosperity that industrial growth 

made possible indeed increased and institutionalized compassion.ln 1807, the British Parliament at last passed William Wilberforce's legislation to abolish the slave trade. 

About the same time, the world's largest factory complex 

opened in Manchester, powered by coal and illuminated 

through steam and gas lights. 

www.texaspolicy.com 

The Great Divergence 

1he farewell to alms, however, has not spread to all countries. "Material consumption, in some countries, mainly in 

sub-Saharan Africa, is now well below the pre-industrial 

norm .... Just as the Industrial Revolution reduced income 

inequalities within societies, it has increased them between 

societies:· as Clark notes. The historical factors leading 

to this "Great Divergence'' are analyzed in a book by that 

name written by Kenneth Pomeranz. ~Ihe gap in incomes 

between tbe poorest and richest countries is now of the order of 50: I:'"' 

In the developing world, foreign aid and increased access to 

basic modern medicine have increased population without 

engendering a foundation for the legal institutions, capital 

accumulation, or affordable energy on which modern economic growth rests. By conditioning financing for energy 

infrastructure in developing countries on use of renewable 

energy, the U.S., the European Union, the International 

Monetary Fund, and World Bank immorally consign these 

populations to energy poverty. 

17 
172 


27600.155

Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

Fossil Fuels and the Modern 

Agricultural Revolution Fossil fuels are extraordinarily versatile energy sources. 

The most revealing example is the role that natural gas has 

played in increasing the food supply for a growing world 

population. 

Paul Ehrlich's Dire Predictions Were So Wrong 

Since 1800, agricultural productivity has increased by as 

much as the rest of the economy. The doom-saying predictions of Malthus, and in recent times of Paul Ehrlich and 

Lester Bmwn, of mass starvation by the end of the 20th century have not occurred. 'lhomas Malthus made his prediction of impending famine in 1798. Global population then 

doubled by 1923 and doubled again by 1973 without fulfilling Mal thus' prediction. The most well-known neo-Malthusian, Paul Ehrlich, in his 1968 best-selling book The Population Bomb, said «India couldn't possibly feed two hundred 

million more people by 1980;' and, further, that "Hundreds 

of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash 

prograrns:'61 Ehrlich's predictions did not materialize. 

In 1974, India became a net exporter of wheat.62 In the 

1960s, India produced about two tons of rice per hectare, 

a quantity that tripled by the mid-1990s. And the price of 

rice fell from about $550 per ton in the 1970s to about $200 

per ton in 2001. India is now a major rice producer and 

exported almost 4.5 miUion tons in 2006. 

Of course, millions of people in developing countries-and 

most harshly in sub-Saharan Africa-remain undernourished or malnourished. The international Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) estimates that over 870 million human beings are chronically undernourished.63 Food 

supply per person, however, has increased as the world's 

population increased. Also known as the Green Revolution, 

the Agricultural Revolution of the 20th century could not 

have occurred without abundant, affordable fossil fuels. 64 

Indeed, the modern agricultural upsurge can be considered 

a later chapter of the energy revolution on which the 19th 

century Industrial Revolution relied. 

Natural Gas Derived Fertilizer and 

Fossil Fuel Inputs 

The dramatic increase in agricultural yield began in the 

1920s with the commercial development of fertilizer made 

i8 

June 2014 

from synthesized nitrogen. ""!his energy intensive process 

fixes nitrogen from the air by reacting it under very intensive pressure with hydrogen (obtained from natural gas), 

generally over an iron catalyst:'65 

Abundant, affordable fossil fuels are essential to the productivity of 20th century agriculture. The fertilizers, pesticides, 

machinery, refrigeration, and efficient transport responsible for expanding and distributing food supply all rely on 

fossil fuels. And the elevated atmospheric concentrations of 

CO,, resulting from the use of fossil fuels, have significantly 

inc;eased plant productivity and drought resistance. 

Colossal Agricultural Productivity 

through Fossil Fuels 

Fossil fuels, indeed, have made the planet greener. Global 

warming alarmists refuse to acknowledge these fundamental facts about cqr In stunningly exaggerated rhetoric, U.S. 

Secretary of State John Kerry recently characterized manmade emissions of CO? as «perhaps even ... the world's most 

fearsome of weapons Hof mass destruction:'66 In shrinking 

man's footprint on the natural world and at the same time 

increasing the world's food supply, man's use of fossil fuels 

provides benefits of profound and far-reaching value. 

The numbers are staggering but totally ignored by President 

Barack Obama and his most senior policymakers. Without 

fossil fuels, the amount of land needed to grow crops to 

meet current global food demand would have to increase 

hy 150 percent." From !961-2007, the world population 

doubled from 3.1 billion to 6.7 billion, but food supply per 

person increased by 27 percent. The amount of cultivated 

cropland, however, increased by only 11 percent.68 "In effect, in 2007, the global food and agricultural system delivered, on average, two-and-a-half times as much food per 

acre of cropland as in 1961:'69 

Fertilizers derived from natural gas have vastly improved 

agricultural yield. The Agronomy Journal reports: "1he 

average percentage of yield attributable to [natural gasderived] fertilizer generally ranged from 40-60 percent in 

the USA and England and tended to be much higher in the 

tropics:'70 A study in Nature Geosciences found in 2008 that 

this same type of fertilizer so increased the productivity of 

cropland that it fed 48 percent of the world's population.71 

Texas Public Policy Foundation 
173 


27600.156

June 2014 

Pesticides are another energy-intensive input to high-yield 

farming. Agronomist E. C. Oerke estimates 50-77 percent of 

wheat, rice, corn, potatoes, and soybeans would have been 

lost over 2001-2003 vvithout the use of pesticides. Pesticides, 

according to Dr. Oerke, reduce the loss to 26-40 percent.71 

Constant movement of cereal grains, fresh produce, dairy 

products and meats across countries and across continents 

also extends the food supply and provides the rich diversity of fresh foods available 365 days of the year in aJ!luent 

countries like the U.S. More importantly, transport by air 

and road allows rapid movement of foodstuffs from areas 

of surplus to areas of scarcity and famine. Affordable fossil 

fuels make this transportation system possible. 

Refrigeration, packaging, and containers reduce food waste 

that can othervvise eliminate around one-third of food supply." Whether providing fuel for cooling and freezing or 

raw material for packaging, fossil fuels reduce loss of the 

food supply. 

Increased Atmospheric Concentrations 

of C02 Increases Agricultural Yield 

Carbon dioxide has been recognized as a plant food for 

more than two centuries and was first so recognized by the 

Svviss chemist Nicolas T. de Saussure.74 This should come 

www.texaspolicy.com 

Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

as no surprise when the process of photosynthesis is understood. C02 is the chemical compound used by plants 

to construct their tissues-the food source of animals and 

humans. The EPA may call CO, a dirty pollutant, but it remains the "gas of life" for living plants and likewise for humans, who depend upon plant growth for food. 

Human use of fossil fuels has increased the atmospheric 

concentration of CO2 from approximately 280 parts per 

million (ppm) at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution 

to approximately 393 ppm in 2013. According to hundreds 

of studies, this increased concentration of C02 has enhanced plant productivity, gro\Vth, moisture retention and 

resistance to pests. «For a 300 ppm increa'ie in the air's C02 

content ... herbaceous plant biomass is typically enhanced 

by 25 to 55 percenf' ·~ 

A workshop on Anticipated Plant Responses to Global 

Carbon Dioxide Enrichment at Duke University in 1977 

included a bibliography of 590 studies concerning C02 effects on plants.76 The C02 benefits reported in this research 

included: increases in plant photosynthesis, less water loss, 

greater leaf area, increase in plant branch and fruit. Another conference in 1992 concluded that a doubling of the 

atmospheric level of C02 would increase photosynthesis in 

plants by 50 percent. n 

19 
174 


27600.157

Fossil Fuels: The Mora! Case 

Although fertilizer, pesticides, irrigation and new plant varieties spurred the 20th century's Agricultural Revolution, 

significant credit may be attributed to the addition of manmade co~ to the atmosphere. This dramatic benefit is ignored in ;ecent methodologies developed to estimate the 

social cost-meaning the social harm-of carbon. Surely, 

the value of increasing food supply on the same amount of 

land is of high societal value. 

The Versatility of Fossil Fuels: 

Synthetic Materials 

Versatility is one of the distinctive advantages of oil, coal, 

and natural gas. The use of these minerals as the combustion fuel for transportation, industrial process, and electricity absorbs a huge volume of energy. Yet this is the tip of 

the iceberg. Supplanting fossil fuels with nuclear power or 

with renewable fuels like wind and solar is an imaginable 

(if currently impracticable) energy alternative. But with 

what materials would modern societies replace fossil fuels 

in the thousands and thousands of products of constant 

use in homes, business, industry, and medicine? Plastics, 

synthetic fibers, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, road and construction materials, steel, and a host of other materials are 

derived from fossil fuels. 

Plastic, Asphalt, and So Much More 

From petroleum or crude oil, when refined and separated, 

gasoline, kerosene, asphalt, chemical feed stocks, and pharmaceuticals can be made. The last two categories of uses 

cover almost all consumer products. Everything "plastic" 

derives from petroleum or natural gas. Consider a list of 

over 400 common products derived from petroleum byproducts.78 A miscellaneous selection from this list indudes: scotch tape, shotgun shells, soccer balls, guitar 

strings, pacifiers, aspirin, rubbing alcohol, artificial limbs, 

fabric softener, hair color, lipstick, shaving cream, electric 

tape, and Plexiglas. Coal is a vital source of carbon in more 

than 70 percent of steel production today. 

Textiles 

The majority of all textiles and clothing are now made of synthetic fibers derived from fossil fuels. Synthetic alternatives to 

natural materials are the primary reason for the mind-bog~ 

gling abundance of consumer goods. Clothing and house~ 

hold furnishings-the most personal consumer goods-are 

20 

June 2014 

a compelling example. Until the late 1800s, all clothing and 

textiles were made from natural materials such as plant fiber (cotton), wool from sheep, goats, or wild animals, animal 

skins, and silk from worms. Synthetic fibers derived from 

fossil fuels currently account for 60 percent of global fibers.79 

Polyester is the raw material for 80 percent of synthetic fibers, while vinyL nylon, and acrylic account for 18 percent 

of synthetics.80 All these fibers, derived from petroleum, have 

reduced the cost of clothing across the world and improved 

the warmth and aflordability of winter clothing. For specific 

uses such as insulation, water repellency, and lighter weight 

material, synthetic fibers are stronger than natural materials. 

Environmental Benefits of Fossil Fuels 

Global warming alarmists are misleading the public about 

C02 emissions. Whether emitted from the human use of 

fossil fuels or as a natural (and necessary) gas in the atmoM 

sphere surrounding the earth, carbon dioxide has none of 

the attributes of a pollutant. The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA)'s increasing characterization of man-made 

C02 as "dirty carbon pollution" is absurd. 

C02 Differs from Genuine Pollutants 

In contrast to the genuine pollutants enumerated in the 

Clean Air Act, current C02 levels in the ambient atmosphere have no direct effects on human health. A remarkable number of highly educated people even who question 

the IPCC science behind anthropogenic global warming 

alarmism (GWA), nonetheless, regard "carbon" or C02 as 

a dirty harmful pollutant. They evidently conflate genuine 

pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and benzene and mercury, etc., emitted in uncontrolled combustion of fossil fuels with C02

• 

In December 2009, EPA issued an "Endangerment Finding" regarding greenhouse gases.81 The Endangerment 

Finding concluded that C02 (and five other greenhouse 

gases) endanger human health and welfare, and are thus 

subject to regulation as "pollutants" under the Clean Air 

Act. In reaching this conclusion, the EPA relied on modeled 

predictions of warmer temperatures decades in the future. 

Yet both the EPA and President Obarna assert that "dirty 

carbon pollution" is harming human health right now, as a 

lethal inhalant could. This assertion is flatly wrong. 

Texas Public Policy Foundation 
175 


27600.158

June 2014 

Consider that the federal Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) sets a health effect level for C02 

concentrations in an enclosed space at 5,000 ppmY Current atmospheric concentrations of C02 are slightly less 

than 400 ppm-12.5 times lower. 

Fossil Fuel Use Shrinks Human Footprint 

on Natural World 

Fossil fuel use has substantially reduced the human footprint on the earth's glorious natural ecosystems and the animal and plant species which draw life from those natural 

systems. Human use of land for food, fuel, and materials 

always has been the greatest encroachment on our natural 

world As a form of highly concentrated solar energy stored 

underground, fossil fuels have checked human interference 

with the biodiversity of the natural world. 

This powerful benefit of fossil fuels has been entirely dismissed by organized environmentalism during the last 

four decades . .,. Policies to replace fossil fuel based electric 

generation with wind and solar generation necessitate significant land modification, habitat destruction, and harm to 

protected wildlife species. 

Since the late 1960s, the environmental left has vilified fossil fuels for their potentially harmful-but eminently reversible-impacts on air and water quality. As noted earlier, global cropland would have to increase by 150 percent without 

fossil fuel input 83 "This means that to maintain the current 

level of food production, at least another 2.3 billion hectares 

ofhabitat would have had to be converted to cropland 1his is 

equivalent to the total land area of the United States, Canada, 

and India combined:'s-~ Agriculture now has converted 1.5 

billion hectares of the surface of the earth to cropland. Without the productivity achieved through natural gas derived 

fertilizer, pesticides, and other modern agricultural machinery dependent on fossil fuels, the amount of land devoted to 

cropland would be as much as 3.8 billion hectares.85 

Replacing animal power with fossil fuel driven mechanical 

power also confers environmental benefit. Almost 30 percent of the U.S. crop harvest in 1910 was devoted to feeding 

27.5 million horses used for animal power on the farm and 

Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

for transportation."' Although U.S. food demand has grown 

with population over the last 100 years, the number of acres 

of American land devoted to agricultural crops has not increased since 1910. Had animal power not been replaced by 

fossil fuel-based power, the amount of cropland necessary 

to feed a population more than three times larger than that 

of 1910 would give environmental purists grave indigestion. 

Renewables Increase Human Footprint 

on Natural World 

Current wind and solar installations use much more land 

than coal, natural gas, or nuclear power plants. In spite of 

rapid development over the last five years, possible only 

through billions spent in federal subsidies, solar installations generate a mere two-tenths of 1 percent (0.2%) of 

electric power.87 For solar to meet total U.S. electric demand, 10,000 square miles of land would have to be given 

over to solar panels.88 

Consider the Ivanpah installation-the world's largest solar 

generating station, located in the Mojave Desert of southern 

California. This recently opened 377 megawatt (MW) facility occupies 3,500 acres. Wind farms also create a far larger 

human footprint than fossil fuel or nuclear fired power 

plants. Wind requires a land area roughly2,000 times larger 

than a nuclear plant comparable in generating capacity. 

Moreover, fossil fuels have been particularly kind to treesthe original source of almost all heat energy. The amount of 

timber needed to replace the volume of coal used by England in 1850 would have covered ISO percent of"England's 

green and pleasant land" (again to evoke William Blake)." 

Today's carbon emissions per unit of economic output are 

modest when compared to those of pre-industrial societies. 

Remarkable Environmental Improvement 

If not controlled, of course, the combustion of fossil fuels releases potentially harmful pollutants. Over the last 30 years, 

innovative emission control technologies have achieved 

enormous reductions of those pollutants. Although the 

EPA rarely acknowledges this environmental success, data 

on the Agency's own website documents the remarkable 

environmental improvement. (See Table 3, next page). 

~A rare exception has been lndur Goklany, who deserves pra1<;e for the attention he has brought to these issues 

www.texaspo!icy.com 21 
176 


27600.159

Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

Emissions from cars and trucks, now the predominant 

source of particulate matter and precursor emissions for 

ozone, have been reduced over 90 percent at the same time 

vehicle miles traveled have almost doubled. 90 Emissions of 

lead have declined by 97 percent." Additionally, the EPA:s 

Toxic Release Inventory documents a 65 percent reduction 

since 1988. New power plants emit 90 percent less sulfur 

dioxide than plants built in the l940s.92 The adverse envi~ 

ronmental impacts associated with fossil fuels can be reversed and have already been arrested. Reversing the ecological loss occasioned by conversion of natural ecosystems 

to cropland is typically far more difficult. 

Fossil fuel use, ironically, expedited development of the 

technologies which have so dramatically abated the pollution associated with fossil fuel use. The emission control technologies typically utilize considerable energy to 

operate. If energy was not abundant and affordable, use of 

these technologies would be limited. Additionally, the everincreasing efficiency made possible by fossil fuel-generated 

prosperity has allowed businesses and consumers to absorb 

the steep cost of comprehensive environmental controls 

now used in prosperous countries. 

Environmental Improvements: A Luxury for 

the Developing World 

Environmental quality remains an unaffordable luxury 

for much of the developing world. The most polluted cities in the world, according to the World Bank's list, are in 

June 2014 

developing countries and not in prosperous countries consuming huge volumes of fossil fuels." In the World Health 

Organization's list of 89 of the world's cities most polluted 

by sulfur dioxide (SO,), consider that Guiyang, China-the 

first city on the list-has SO, levels 45 times higher than Los 

Angeles-the last city on th~ list. Environmental protection 

has taken a back seat to rapid economic development in 

countries like China, where release from severe poverty has 

understandably been the first priority. 

China and India have begun to abate their air and water 

pollution. But to claim that China is launching significant 

initiatives to cap carbon, as President Obama asserts, is 

misleading. China's environmental priority is to cut genuine pollution that actually impairs human health from high 

ambient concentrations of contaminants such as smog and 

soot. China is not shuttering coal-fired power plants as is 

occurring in the U.S. due to EPA regulation. 

Matt Ridley reminds us that two billion people in the world 

have never seen an electric switch.94 Policies now implemented by the World Bank, the International Monetary 

Fund, and by the U.S. government, lo prohibit financing of 

affordable fossil fuel-fired electric generation in developing 

countries, cruelly delay and deny the world's poorest families light, heat, and cooling. The greatest environmental killers are contaminated water and uncontrolled sewage. Clean 

water and safe waste disposal require treatment systems that 

depend upon abundant electric power. 

Table 3: Air Quality Improvement 1980-201 0 

Ambient Ambient Emissions Emissions 

198(}-2008 198(}-2010 198(}-2008 198(}-2010 

Carbon MonoxidelCO) -79% '82% -58% -71% 

Ozone (03) -25% -28% -49% NCO 

Lead(Pb) -92% -90% -96% -97% 

Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) -46% -52% -40% -52% 

Particulates (PM10)• -31% -38% -46% -983% 

Fine Particulates (PM2.5)** -21% -27% -36% -55% 

Sulfur Dioxides (502) -71% -76% -51\%. -&9% 

NCO-No Current Data, *1990-201 o, **2000-201 0 

Source: U.S. Enwonmentai Protect:on Agency, "Air Quality Trends·-uan. 2012) 

22 Texas Public Policy Foundation 
177 


27600.160

June 2014 

U.S. Reduces CO, Emissions Without Mandates 

Through Market Driven Efficiency 

Reduced emission of CO2 is another coincidental result 

of highly efficient industrial processes. Still dependent on 

fossil fuels for SO percent of energy consumed, the U.S. is 

actually reducing emissions of C02 more than are many 

countries which have imposed carbon reduction mandates. 

On October 2013, the EIA announced that energy-related 

emissions of C02 had decreased 3.7 percent in 2012, to the 

lowest level since 1994.95 

And if carbon dioxide is considered a "dirty pollutant" instead of the "gas of life;· consider the graph below, which 

depicts the decreasing carbon intensity of the U.S. economy 

since 1949. As a measure of the amount of C02 generated 

per dollar of economic output, the carbon intensity of the 

U.S. declined 6.5 percent in 2012. 

Energy-rich, steady-state, controllable fossil fuels have 

made possible the increasing productive efficiency that 

scarce wood, as well as inherently intermittent wind or solar, cannot. 

Human Benefits of Fossil Fuels 

This paper has attempted to demonstrate how fossil fuels, 

first harnessed in the English Industrial Revolution and 

still supporting economic growth across the world, vastly 

improved the basic physical conditions of humanity and 

Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

helped release whole populations from subsistence poverty. 

Although the developed world has enjoyed higher rates of 

economic growth, the most impoverished people in the developing world are significantly better off than they were in 

!950. According to Goklany, "The poor in the developing 

world grew their consumption twice as fast as the world as 

a whole between 1980 and 2000. The Chinese are 10 times 

as rich ... 28 years longer lived than they were 50 years ago. 

... The United Nations estimates that poverty was reduced 

more in the last 50 years than in the previous 500."96 

Major Improvement in Basic Indicators of 

Human Well-Being Across the World 

Widely used indicators of living standards show the dramatic increase in life expectancy, income per capita, population, and caloric intake per person since fossil fuel supplanted woody plants as almost the sole source of energy. 

Figures in earlier sections of this paper chart the scale of 

improvements in living conditions and well-being. 

To review: 

Life expectancy was 20-25 years (largely as a result of 

high rates of infant and childhood mortality) for most of 

human history.97 During the middle of the 18th century, 

life expectancy in England was 35 years, much higher 

than in other countries. From that point, the world began to catch up. By 2009, life expectancy around the 

world was 69 years-and in the US., 79 years. 

Figure 5: Carbon Intensity ofthe US. Economy, 1949-2012 

1,500 

2 

~ 

~ 1,250 

"" "0 

'§ 1,000 

i5 

c 

0 

-.e 750 G 

c 

8 

u 

c 500 

~ 

250 ; .............................................................................................................................................................................. > ... 0 .. 1 ... > .... 

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (Oct 2013) 

www.texaspolicy.com 23 
178 


27600.161

Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

The world's population increased from 760 million 

people in 1750 to 6.8 billion people in 2009. Over the 

same period, emissions of C02 as a result of fossil fuel 

increased from 3 million metric tons to 8.4 billion metric tons. In contrast to Malthus' and Ehrlich's predictions 

of mass starvation, income and nutrition improved. 

From 1961-2007, world population doubled from 3.1 

billion to 6.7 billion. But modern agricultural methods 

using fossil fuel-based fertilizer and other energy-rich inputs achieved 2.5 more food per acre than in 1961. Higher atmospheric levels of CO2 as a result of fossil fuel likely 

increased agricultural yield by more than 25 percent. 

Over the last 250 years, global income per capita has 

risen 11-fold from $640 to $7,300 per year. Scores of 

studies have shown that the major measures of the quality of human life (nutrition, income, education, lifespan, 

health, and that ineffablt: measure known as happiness) 

grow as income rises. 98 

Prosperity certainly does not guarantee happiness, but 

eliminating chronic hunger is a good start! 

Less Harm from Extreme Weather 

And contrary to claims of global warming alarmists from 

inside and outside federal agencies, the world has become 

less vulnerable to extreme weather events. "Despite much 

more complete reporting of such events and associated casualties, aggregate mortality declined by 93 percent since 

the 1920s;' as Goklany's analyses demonstrate. "

9 Global 

death rates from drought-formerly the leading cause of 

weather-related mortalities-are down 93 percent since the 

1920s. roo Goklany's extensive research on the data refutes 

claims that man-made climate change is now causing extreme weather with unprecedented deaths and damages. 

The now more rapid and effective disaster response depends 

on fossil fuel-powered equipment and materials. According 

to Goklany: "In fact, it is inconceivable that successful and 

timely disaster management effort can be mounted today 

without diesel generators; petroleum-powered helicopters, 

trucks, earth-moving equipment ... [and] heavy duty tents 

made of lightweight petroleum-derived synthetic fi.bers:' 101 

24 

June 2014 

Light 

One of the greatest gifts of fossil fuels is perhaps the most 

assumed condition of modern life: lighting. Outdoor and 

indoor illumination is constantly available at our finger tips. 

George Gilder calls the fall in the cost of lighting "one of 

the most astonishing increases in wealth in the history of 

mankind, a million-fold increase in the abundance and affordability of light itself .. :'"" In 1800, six hours of work at 

the average wage bought one hour of light from a tallow 

candle. In 2009, one-half second of work paid for an hour 

of illwnination from a light bulb. This means the cost of 

light decreased to one-tenth of 1 percent the cost in England around 1800.w3 

Consider the extent to which this single factor-lightinghas contributed to education, medical procedures, safety, 

and ease. Yet, cheap, limitless lighting at the flip of a switch 

is a relatively recent and surprisingly fragile addition to living conditions. 

Time 

Another ineffable benefit of the abundant, affordable energy 

secured by fossil fuels is the gift of time. Our cars, computers, countless household appliances and machines do work 

that we otherwise would have to do ourselves. Not only is 

human muscle spared the physical exertion and drudgery. 

Greater freedom from compulsory work also allows individuals to choose how to spend more of their time. 

Before mankind harnessed efficient fossil fuel-based energy, the bulk of all previous human populations lived in 

poverty. People spent nearly all their time striving to meet 

subsistence needs. Thanks to the energy and economic revolution starring coal, oil, and natural gas, humans have far 

more discretionary time. Whether that time is devoted to 

edifying pursuits such as education, artistic expression or 

charitable activities, or recreation and rest, the expansion 

of human freedom is a most profound benefit of the seemingly limitless supply of energy generated by fossil fuels. 

The additional time has especially contributed to the 

wellbeing of women, whose child rearing and domestic 

proclivities, in the past, readily consumed all their time. 

"A woman's work;' according to the old maxim, "is never 

done." Labor-saving conveniences have done more than 

Texas Public Policy Foundation 
179 


27600.162

June 2014 

create for women the blessing of leisure; they have allowed 

many women to combine professional pursuits and family 

responsibilities. The elderly and the disabled also have benefitted from energy-intensive technologies that give them 

greater independence. 

No Comparable Alternatives 

to Fossil Fuels (For Now) 

Fossil fuels remain the dominant source of energy in the US. 

and throughout the world because they remain superior to the 

current alternatives. Many energy policies now championed 

or in the early stages of implementation, however, envision a 

rapid transition to renewables a.~ if all energy sources were of 

equal value and thus readily interchangeable. Whether based 

on naivete or fact-free political rhetoric, claims made by the 

President and his most senior federal officials that renewable 

energy can supplant fossil fuels within the next decade or two 

are not supportable. 

California intends-officially, at least-to derive 35 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. The 

state's energy policymakers might wish to chat with a 

physicist or with the number crunchers at the Department of Energy. Attempts to use the power of government 

and billions of taxpayer-funded subsidies to force a rapid 

energy transition from fossil fuels to inherently inferior 

renewable energy risks inestimable economic damage, societal regression, and human suffering. 

www.texaspolicy.com 

Fossll Fuels: The Moral Case 

Vilified But Still Dominant Because 

Superior Energy 

The animus against fossil fuels and supposed "dirty carbon 

pollution;' however, is widespread. Policies to eliminate 

fossil fuels obsess the mainstream media and the cultural 

elite. "Decarbonizing" the world is a core issue among leftof-center policymakers. President Obama refers to oil, coal, 

and natural gas as the fuels of the past as he extols wind 

and solar as the power of the future. In his first campaign 

for the presidency, he promised that "the country that faced 

down the tyranny of fascism and communism is now called 

to challenge the tyranny of oil:'''" The EPA is implementing the play book of the Beyond Coal campaign in heavyhanded regulation and is keeping the Sierra Club's playbook 

for Beyond Natural Gas in the offing. 

But, this incendiary rhetoric, now backed with government 

authority, has not measurably altered consumption of fossil 

fuels. The Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Energy Outlook 2014 shows that the source of 82 percent of the 

I 06 quadrillion Btu's annually consumed in the U.S. remains 

fossil fuel. 105 In their current Outlook, the EIA projects that 

the dominating role of fossil fuels will persist through 2040 

with little change except for moderately increased use of 

natural gas. After aggressive deployment in the last decade, 

wind and solar energy accounted for less than 2 percent of 

energy consumption in 2012. Solar-generated electricity, so 

highly touted by President Obarna, provided two-tenths of 

I percent (0.2%) in 2013.'"' 

25 
180 


27600.163

Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

After more than three decades of global warming alarmism and billions showered on renewable energy, fossils fuels 

remain supreme because they are preferable to consumers. 

Uranium may be the most energy dense and efficient fuel, 

but intense public resistance has long prevented widespread 

use of nuclear generation in the United States. Replacement 

of the generating capacity of the U.S. fleet of fossil-fuel fired 

power plants would mean building over a thousand nuclear 

power plants. 

Energy-dense, power-dense, abundant, affordable, controllable, reliable, versatile, portable, scalable and storable: fos· 

sil fuels have far more energy advantages than any other energy source at this point in time. Human history is a record 

of endless human innovation, most of which has improved 

the human condition. Who knows what energy sources and 

technologies of the future may trump the energy benefits of 

fossil fuels? 

Energy and Power Density 

Matt Ridley notes that the secret of the Industrial Revolution was the shift from current solar power to the far more 

concentrated solar power stored in fossil fuels. w7 Formed by 

millions of years of compression and heat in the earth, fossil 

fuels are packed with more energy than woody plants-the 

product of recent photosynthesis. 

Physicists define energy density simply as the quantity of 

energy that can be contained in a given unit of weight, volume, area or mass. The energy density of dry wood is approximately 17 megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg). Refined 

petroleum has a density of 42 MJ/kg, natural gas has a den· 

sity of 35 MJ/kg, and the energy density of coal is roughly 

24Mj/kg. 

The higher density means that less work is involved in extraction, transport, and storage. lhis opens up unlimited 

options for conversions. The scores of technological innovations that followed Watt's steam engine powered at first 

by coal, then also by oil and natural gas, would not have 

been possible with wood-derived heat energy, no matter 

how large the supply of timber. 

Power density is even more revealing. (See Table 4). The 

superior power density of fossil fuels exposes the inherent 

26 

June 2014 

weakness of currently favored renewable energy sources 

from wind, solar and biomass. Energy sources with lower 

power density typically utilize too much material or land 

area to supply power at a competitive price or at the scale 

necessary to supply a large city or industry 24 hours a day, 

seven days a week. 

If power is defined as the rate at which work is done, power 

density is defined as the rate of the energy flow that can 

be generated from a given unit of volume, mass or area. To 

understand the problem with current renewable policies, 

power density can be measured in Watts per square meter 

(Wm2). 

Table 4 shows that the power density of a marginal oil or 

natural gas well is over 20 times higher than wind. Wind 

and solar require expensive inputs such as large expanse 

of land and long transmission lines. A good example is the 

Competitive Renewable Energy Zones ( CREZ) in Texas. 

This project involves construction of the world's longest 

system of transmission lines dedicated to renewable energy. This recently completed project built over 3500 miles 

of transmission lines to connect the wind farms in the far 

western portion of the state to the population centers along 

Interstate 35, a distance at some points of more than 600 

miles. The total cost is around $7 billion and will be socialized across all ratepayers under Texas law. ws 

Inputs of this magnitude, coupled with the inherent intermittency of wind and solar, may undermine the viability of 

huge renewable solar installations recently completed or 

under construction thanks to huge grants and loan guarantees from the federal government. 109 

Abundance 

Less than 10 years ago, rising oil and natural gas prices, a 

result of soaring demand from developing giants like China 

and India coupled with political unrest in the Middle East, 

spread concern about declining global reserves. Yet within a few short years, the U.S. and global outlook reversed 

from increasing scarcity to rapidly increasing abundance. 

Developed by private-sector energy entrepreneurs in Texas, innovative technologies known as hydraulic fracturing, 

horizontal drilling, and seismic imaging have unlocked tbe 

massive deposits of oil and natural gas in shale rock. AlTexas Public Policy Foundation 
181 


27600.164

June 2014 Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

Table 4: Power Density in Watts per square meter (W/m2) 

Source: Robert Bryce, 'The Real Problem with Renewables; Forbes (11 May 2010). 

though U.S. production now dominates increasing supply 

of oil and natural gas from shale formations, the same geology occurs throughout the world. 

In 2007, the U.S. imported almost 60 percent of the petrolewn it needed. Higher domestic production has now dramatically reduced imports and increased exports of petroleum products. 1he EIA reported in February of 2014, U.S. 

imports of foreign oil declined from 60 percent in 2005 to 

less than 40 percent in 2012.110 Crude oil imports fell 9 percent in 2013, while exports of petroleum products rose by 11 

percent 111 Domestic oil production continues to increase so 

rapidly that the percentage of oil imports is declining faster 

than EIA can meaningfully estimate.* 

Natural gas has experienced a similar explosion in supply. 

In 2007, conventional wisdom held that natural gas supply 

in the U.S. would continue to dwindle.m Import terminals were planned for construction on all the U.S. coasts. 

"Through fracking, natural gas production has soared.m 

Those import terminals are now being retrofitted for exports of natural gas. And the U.S. has now passed Russia as 

the world's largest natural gas producer. (China actually has 

the world's biggest reserves of shale gas but is now in the 

early stages of production.) 

The world's current supply of hydrocarbons from oil and 

natural gas can meet demand on the basis of current technology for several centuries. 

Don't he misled by some of the metrics used to quantify the 

global or domestic energy supply. The Department of Energy's most recent estimate of «proved reserves" in the U.S. 

is only 25.2 billion barrels of oil.'" EIA defines "proven reserves" as known oil resources producible with government 

consent using current technology and commercial terms. us 

This number includes neither the vast store of oil now produced from shale nor other unconventional resources, access 

to which is blocked by the government prohibition. When 

"technically recoverable resources" are added to the proven 

reserves, the U.S. supply increases to the equivalent of2.2 trillion barrels. The total exceeds 2.5 trillion when all resources 

are considered.ll6 No one really knows how much oil, natural 

gas or coal under the earth is producible. The recent shale 

revolution justifies an extremely optimistic outlook. 

The world is also blessed with abundant coal: of which the 

U.S.-known as the Saudi Arabia of coal-has the largest 

reserves. The U.S. has 261 billion tons of coal in proved reserves. In the lower 48 states, the U.S. has 486 billion tons of 

coal in the demonstrated reserve base. This is enough coal 

to continue current rates of consumption for 485 years. 117 

Affordability 

Perhaps the best measure of the aflordability of fossil fuels is 

the vast volumes of energy consumed by all income groups 

in the U.S. and other prosperous countries. Gasoline prices, 

though considerably higher than 10 years ago, are tolerable 

for all but the lowest income households. Overall energy 

prices are rising in the U.S., in part as a result of the high 

costs of the EPA's aggressive regulation. In 2012, median 

income families spent 21 percent of their average after-tax 

income on energy. a slightly higher portion of income than 

spent on food. 118 

~The International Energy Agency based 1n Paris predicts the U.S. wi!l surpass Russia and Saudi Arab1a as the world's largest producer of oil by 

2015. 

www.texaspolicy.com 27 
182 


27600.165

Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

Countries which have aggressively supplanted fossil fuels 

vvith renewables in the last 10 years or less have incurred 

steep increase in energy prices. Germany, Spain, Denmark, 

and Great Britain offer examples. Germany's residential 

electric rates are three times the average U.S. retail rate. 

Earlier sections of this paper have drawn attention to the 

startling rise of energy poverty and the risk of rapid deindustrialization in Germany. 

Reliable and Controllable (Dispatchable) 

In contrast to renewable energy resources from wind, solar, 

and biomass, man can control access to and conversion of 

the energy held in fossil fuels. No machine or person can 

control when the wind blows or at what velocity. No one 

can control how much of the radiant heat of the sun will hit 

the earth on a given day or hour. Annual weather and the 

grovving cycle control the timing and quality of harvest of 

renewable biomass like corn for ethanol. 

The inherent intermittency of wind and solar is a major step 

backward for electricity-dependent societies. Not only does 

weather constantly shift from cloudy to clear days. The solar 

maximum period-needed for photo voltaic (PV) generation-is only from 9am to 3pm. 

Wind conditions not only follow sea.<.;onal shifts. Wind 

speeds also can change in an instant. Wind speeds too high 

or too low preclude generation. The over 12,000 MW of installed wind capacity in Texas generates the most electricity 

when Texas least needs it. West Texas, where most of the 

vvind farms were built, has little wind during the long, hot 

summer-the period of peak electric demand for the state. 

Wind and solar are what operators of electric grids call nondispatchable technologies. Since electric load on the grid 

must be continuously balanced or the grid ·will go into a tail 

spin, generating units whose output can be varied to meet 

fluctuating demand in real time are what provide constant 

reliability to modern systems of electric generation and 

transmission. Being non-dispatchable, electric generation 

from solar and vvind technologies can never provide reliability. In contrast, coal and natural gas fired (and to a certain extent, nuclear) electric generation can reliably meet 

peak demand and can be controlled to follow variations in 

demand in real time. 

28 

June 2014 

1be intermittency of wind and solar also makes it wastefully parasitic on generation provided by fossil fuels. Because 

wind and solar electric output can change in an instant, a 

back-up generating source is needed. Natural gas-based 

generation is particularly suited for this role. When a Mnd 

or solar facility is actually generating electricity, a natural 

gas plant, in an operational mode called "spinning reserves;' 

may be idling so that it can rapidly ramp up to give the grid 

stability. This is one reason for the much higher cost of renewable energy. Mandates that 20 to 50 percent of electricity must be from renewable sources are fraught with peril 

and pull society backward toward the preindustrial era. 

Technology has yet to invent a suitable battery for wind and 

solar power to store and later use the power generated by 

wind and sunshine. Effort to do so has been underway for 

years. But would not recharging such a massive battery consume the lion's share of the electricity generated by solar in 

the first place? 

Table 5: Capacity Factor 

(EIA Energy Outlook 2013) 

Source: Robert 13ryce, "The Reai Probiem with Renewables:' 

Advocates of renewable energy stack the deck. The typical 

boasts that a certain wind farm will provide electricity for, 

as an example, 250,000 households are misleading. Those 

high numbers served are invariably based on the "installed 

capacity:' Installed or nameplate capacity refers to the maximum amount of generation of which the facility is capable 

of operating continuously over a certain period of time 

-usually a year. The most important factor about renewable generation is the "capacity factor" understood as the 

amount of electricity actually generated in a year. 1he difference between installed capacity and capacity factor for 

wind and solar is glaring. 

Texas Public Policy Foundation 
183 


27600.166

June 2014 

Capacity factor reveals the far higher costs of renewable 

electric power and the folly of the massive subsidies accorded these projects. (See Table 5). Consider this simple 

math applied to the Ivanpah solar thermal facility recently 

completed in the Mojave Desert. 

Ivanpah is the largest thermal solar generating complex in 

the world. The $2.2 billion cost of Ivanpah was eased with 

a federal loan guarantee and likely a federal grant for 30 

percent of the cost of construction-more than $600 mil~ 

lion from U.S. taxpayers. The plants installed capacity of 

377 MW shrinks to 75.4 MW of actual generation when 

the capacity factor for solar thermal (20%) is applied. The 

claimed 140,000 homes to be powered by lvanpah shrink to 

28,000 homes. 1

'

9 

Versatility 

Much of this paper has attempted to point out the versatility of fossil fuels. In addition to providing the energy source 

for transportation and electric generation, fossil fuels have 

vastly expanded the world's food supply, material goods 

and services. 

Fertilizer derived from energy-dense natural gas stoked the 

natural photosynthetic process and immensely increased 

agricultural productivity. The list of products derived from 

petroleum appears endless. VVhat was once refuse mate~ 

rial left after the refining process has become the feedstock 

for plastic, synthetic fiber and industrial chemicals vital to 

modern medicine, hundreds of industrial processes and 

consumer products. 

The modern use of energy from the wind and sun is limited to generating electricity. What alternative to fossil fuels could replace 60 percent of all fibers, 48 percent of the 

world's food supply and all plastics? 

Portable and Scalable 

Fossil fuels are relatively easy to move around. Over a century, the U.S. has developed an elaborate distribution system for transporting oil, natural gas and coal. Whether 

through pipelines, transmission lines, rail or truck, these 

fuels or the power they generate can be moved to where 

they are in demand. Wind and solar are fixed in one place, 

typically occupying a large tract of property and usually at 

www.texaspolicy.com 

Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

a significant distance from demand. Transmission of the 

electricity generated by renewables usually involves long 

lines connecting generation at a great distance to end user. 

This is not only a significant additional cost but also inef~ 

ficient. Line loss over distance can eliminate 10 percent or 

more of the original generation. 

One of fossil fuels' most beneficial attributes is the capacity to expand and increase to meet demand on a vast scale. 

Indeed, cost declines and efficiency rises when fossil fuels 

are deployed on a larger scale. Renewables lack this elasticity and efficiency because of their intermittency. Wind- and 

solar -generated power has never been used at scale. 

1he massive solar facility in the Mohave Desert plans to 

achieve generation on a scale that could power Los Angeles. 

Time will tell. Simple math and physics, and the experience 

of Germany, do not bode well for "Big Solar" projects like 

Ivanpah. Much smaller scale applications of wind and particularly solar, for residential or commercial use, is a more 

likely niche for renewables. 

Conclusion 

"Notwithstanding their flaws;' Indur Goklany writes, "the 

fossil fuel-dependent technologies that stretched living nature's productivity and displaced some of its products not 

only permitted humanity to escape the Malthusian vice but 

saved nature itself from being overwhelmed by humanity's 

demands:' 120 

This paper has aimed to identify rarely acknowledged but 

profound historical facts about the role of energy in human 

history and the extent to which fossil fuel derived energy 

has improved human well-being across the world. As a necessary condition of the Industrial Revolution, the vast store 

of concentrated energy in fossil fuels unleashed sustained 

productivity and economic growth which in turn led to 

monumental improvements in human living conditions as 

measured by life expectancy, income per capita, caloric intake, clothing, shelter and fuels. And the greatest beneficiaries of this energy revolution known as the Industrial Revolution were average workers and the most impoverished. 

Increasing emission of man-made C02 is tightly correlated 

with this monumental achievement. 

29 
184 


27600.167

Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

Yet, senior leaders of the most highly developed nations and 

the non-governmental organizations (NGO) surrounding 

the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) decry 

the C02 emissions associated with fossil fuels as pollution 

so dangerous that it will overpower the physical dynamics 

of earth's climate system. co~. the gas that makes life possible on the earth and naturallY fertilizes plant growth, is now 

characterized by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry as "the 

most fearsome of weapons of mass destruction:·~~~ After 40 

years of such vilification, fossil fuels still dominate 80-85 

percent of the world's energy use because-at this point in 

time-these fuels are superior on many levels to the current 

alternatives. 

Predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming 

have gained global political traction over the last 25 years 

and recently have become shriller as evidence for dangerous 

warming weakens. The climate science developed through 

the United Nation's Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) concludes that global emissions of CO, 

must be reduced by at least 85 percent "to prevent dangerous 

interference with the climate system." 122 This policy finding 

is tantamount to elimination of fossil fuel use without energy alternatives fully comparable or superior to fossil fuels. 

Mandates to force an abrupt energy transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources are naive and fraught with peril for 

highly industrialized economies. As this paper detailed, energy sources are not necessarily interchangeable. In energy 

density, abundance, reliability, versatility, and other ad vantages, fossil fuels are far superior to wind, solar, and biomass. 

Evidence of the damage rapidly following a governmentforced transition to renewable energy emerges in Germany, one of the most highly industrialized countries in the 

world. German officials sound the alarms of "dramatic 

deindustrialization" while the media reports that hundreds 

of thousands of German homes now are without electricity 

because the cost is unaffordable. 123 Likewise, Britain-the 

cradle of the Industrial Revolution-recently announced 

that one in four households live in energy poverty. The Daily Mail warns of the risk of24,000 deaths of the elderly this 

winter who cannot afford to heat their homes. 124 That such 

a regression from modern living standards could occur so 

rapidly in these highly developed countries is a stunning 

30 

June 2014 

turn of events that U.S. policymakers would be wise to absorb. 

Relying on the vast store of dense, versatile energy in fossil 

fuels, the economic growth begun in the Industrial Revolution still offers the promise of an end to abject poverty. Policies which could undermine a necessary condition of mankind's greatest energy advance, surely, must rest on the most 

robust scientific justification. The IPCC science, however, 

founded on assumptions and speculative models, is increasingly contradicted by empirical evidence and thus remains 

unsettled. The growing doubt about catastrophic global 

warming was recently voiced in The Economist, formerly a 

staunch believer in man-made climate change: "If climate 

scientists were credit rating agencies, climate sensitivity [to 

increased COJ would now be on negative watch:' 125 

IPCC science claims of95 percent certainty that human activity is causing climate calamity are more like the dogmatic 

claims of ideologues and clerics than scientific conclusions. 

The IPCC's claim of certainty is made as if a measured statistical confidence level-a metric used throughout the 

IPCC science. This claim of 95 percent confidence however is pulled from thin air without any statistical analysis. 

Doctrinaire assertions of certainty have no place ·within the 

genuine scientific method. The IPCC science is a hypothesis whose accuracy, like all theories, must be corroborated 

by the evidence of measured observation. 

Increasing evidence about solar activity, natural variability, 

sea levels, Antarctic sea ice and extreme weather weakens 

the credibility of the IPCC's key assumption that man-made 

C02 emissions dominate the natural dynamics of the earth's 

climate. The 16-year lull in warming temperatures indicates 

that increasing C02 may not be dominating the climate to 

the extent that the IPCC assumes. Research on the natural climatic forces such as the sun is generally marginalized 

throughout three decades of IPCC science. Although 99.98 

percent of the energy in the earth's atmospheric system 

derives from the sun, solar activity plays almost no role in 

current climate modeling comprising the core of the IPCC 

science. This is not the quality of science that could justify 

supplanting the energy wellsprings of manklnd's greatest 

advance! 

Texas Public Policy Foundation 
185 


27600.168

June 2014 

Robust, empirical scientific research on the natural forces 

and natural variability of climate needs to be conducted 

before the industrialized nations of the world prematurely 

force an abrupt switch from fossil fuels to inferior energy 

resources. Research on the role of increased concentrations 

of man-made C02 should also continue but outside the 

highly politicized JPCC and the United Nations. 

This paper has attempted to identify the many profound 

human benefits made possible by the rich energy stored in 

this ancient nature known as fossil fuels. Although first harnessed not much more than 200 years ago, the energy riches 

on which economic growth and contemporary lifestyles 

now depend were not fully accessible until after World War 

II. Without ever living in an energy scarce world, the living 

generations of prosperous countries assume a massive, affordable supply of energy at their fingertips. 

Energy policy sits at a crossroads. Will living generations 

eschew high energy use made possible by fossil fuels to lower a risk of theoretically predicted global warming? Would 

voters choose an energy regression to less productive, efficient, comfortable, and healthy living standards? Multiple 

polls say no way! For the wealthy elites who make policy 

decisions-"the ruling class;' it appears to be another story. 

www.texaspolicy.com 

Fossil Fuels: The Mora! Case 

The vast human improvements flowing from the Industrial 

Revolution are still occurring in market driven economies 

under limited governments which uphold property rights 

and contractual obligation. Why would societies suppress 

fossil fuels-a necessary condition of the increasing efficiency inherent in productive economies and continually improved living standards? As Thomas Macaulay commented in the early days oflndustrial Revolution, "On what 

principle is it that, when we see nothing but improvement 

behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us:' 126 

Matt Ridley says it best "Non-renewable resources such as 

coal [natural gas and oil] are sufficiently abundant to allow 

an expansion of both economic activity and population to 

the point where they can generate sustainable wealth for all 

the people of the planet without hitting a Malthusian ceiling, and can then hand the baton to some other form of energy. 'Ibe blinding brightness of this realization still amazes 

me: we can build a civilization in which everybody lives like 

the Sun King, because everybody is served by (and serves) 

a thousand servants, each of whose service is amplified by 

extraordinary amounts of inanimate energy." 127 * 

31 
186 


27600.169

Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

Appendix 

Table 1 A: Energy Consumption in England and Wales(1561-70) 

Com pared with Italy ( 1 861-70) 

Annual energy consumption per head of population (megajou/es) 

England and Wa!es 1561··70 

Italy 18$1-70. 

22.8 

22.3 

32.4 

17.8 

330 

51.8 

0.3 

0.3 

08 

0.7 

10.6 

7.0 

100.0 

100.0 

June 2014 

32 Texas Public Policy Foundation 
187 


27600.170

June 2014 Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

Endnotes 

1 Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan {Richard Tuck, ed., Cambridge University Press, 1991) (1651) 89 

2 lndur M. Goklany, Humanity Unbound: How Fossil Fuels Saved Humanity from Nature and Nature from Humanity, Cato Institute (Dec. 2012). 

1 Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist (201 0) 13-14. 

~ "Neolithic Revolution; Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed Apr. 1, 2014. 

> !ndur Goklany, The fmproving State of the World (2007) 59-64. 6 Hobbes, supra note 1. Hobbes was of course referring to the condition of humanity in a theoretical state of nature. Yet in terms of average lifespan, 

nutrition, and disease, Hobbes' remarks describe preindustrial conditions for the average person. 1 EA Wrigley, Energy and the English Industrial Revolution (201 O) 235. 

e Ibid. 

9 Ridley, Rational Optimist, 231-32. 10 WM. Stewart, D.W. Oibb, A.E. Johnston, andT.J. Smith, "The Contribution of Commercial Fertilizer Nutrients to Food Production," Agronomy Journal 

Vol. 97 No. 1 (2005) 1-6. 11 Yarns and Fibers Exchange, World Fiber Report 2010. 

n "Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook, 20 J 3," U.S. Energy Information Agency (Jan. 2013). 

u Robert Bryce, "The Real Climate 'Deniers' Are the Greens; The Wall Street Journal (3 Feb. 2014). 14 Robert L. Bradley, Jr. and Richard W. Fulmer, Energy: The Master Resource (2004) 4. 

l'< !bid. 

16 Robert Bryce, "The Real Problem with Renewables," Forbes (11 May 2010). 

II Ibid. 

18 Bradley, Master Resource, 6. 19 American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Miffiin Company, 2006). 2

° FrltzVahrenholt and Sebastian Luning, The Neglected Sun (2013) 43. 

21 Fred Cottrell, Energy and Society(Revised ed. 2009) (1955) 32. 22 Gregory Clark, A Farewell to Alms (2007) 92. 

)l Jean-Pierre Bocquet-Appel"When the World's Population Took Off: The Springboard of the Neolithic Demographic Transition," SdenceVol. 333 no. 

6042,560-561 (2011). 24 Wrigley, Energy and the English Industrial Revolution, 14. 2

" !bid., 91-101. 

26 Ibid., 96-76. 

1' "History of the World Petroleum Industry (Key Dates)," accessed Mar. 24, 2014;#Gale Encyclopedia of U.S. History: Petroleum Industry," accessed 24 

Mar.2014. 

28 Ibid., 17. 29 Ibid., 101. 3

° Clark, A Farewell to Alms, 2. 

ll !bid., 2, 33. 

JL Thomas Robert Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population (Anthony Flew, ed., 1970) (1798). 

33 Thomas Robert Malthus, A Summary Vrew of the Principle of Population (Anthony Flew, ed., 1970) (1830) 225. 3

" Malthus, Essay, 4. 1

"' Angus Maddison, The World Economy: A millennia/ Perspective (Paris: OCED, 2001) 29-30. 

36 Clark,AFarewelltoA/ms, 193. 11 Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb (1970); Lester Brown, Beyond Mafthus (1999). 

38 Julian Simon, The Ultimate Resource 2 (1996). 

'

9 Wrigley, Energy and the English Industrial Revolution, 207. 

4

° Clark. A Farewef! to Alms, 231. 41 Wrigley, Energy and the English Industrial Revolution, 10-13. 

"' 1 George Gilder, Knowledge and Power (2013) 57. 41 C!ark,A farewell to Alms, 233. 44 Ibid., 234. 40 Wrigley, Energy and the English Industrial Revolution, 194. 46 Ridley, Rational Optimist, 244. 

"' 7 Wrigley, Energy and the English Industrial Revolution, 42. 

"

8 William Jevons, The Coal Question: An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal Mines (A.W. Flux, ed., 1 %5) 

(1865)2. 

49 Tom Randal, "America is Winning a Race That It Never Signed Up For;" Bloomberg (4 Nov. 2013). 

;o Ibid. 

11 Ridley, Rational Optimist, 218. 11 C!ark,AFarewelltoAims, 1-3. 

"Ibid., 195. 

wwwtexaspolicy.com 33 
188 


27600.171

Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

"" Gok!any, Humanity Unbound, 8. 

"Ibid. 

so Ridley, Rational Optimist, 219. 

"

1 William Blake, HAnd did those feet in ancient time," line 8. 

ss Ridley, Rational Optimist 21B. 59 Wrigley, Energy and the English Industrial Revolution, 60-ti3. 60 Clark, A Farewell to Alms, 3. For a full description of this divergence, see Kanneth Pomeranz, The Great Divergence (2000). 61 Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb (1970) 1. 

6

l Ridley, Rational Optimist, 143. 

"The State of Food Insecurity in the World," Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2012} B. 611 Ridley, Rational Optimist, 143. 65 Goklany, Humanity Unbound, 9. 66 Arshad Mohammed, "Kerry Calls Climate Change 'Weapon of Mass Destruction,"' Reuters (16 Feb. 2014). 6

' Goklany, Humanity Unbound, 17. 68 Ibid., 10. 69 Ibid. 

June 2014 

10 W.M. Stewart, D.W. Oibb, A.E. Johnston, and lJ. Smith, "The Contribution of Commercial Fertilizer Nutrients to Food Production," Agronomy Jour~ 

na!Vo!. 97 No.1 {2005) l-6. 71 Erisman, J.W., Sutton, M.A., Galloway, l, Klimont,Z., and Winiwarte, W. 2008. "How a century of ammonia synthesis changed the world." Nature 

Geoscience (2008) 636-639. 12 E. C. Oerke, "Centenary Review: Crop Losses to Pests: Journal of Agricultural Science 144 (2006) 31-43. 13 Jenny Gustavsson, Christel Cederberg, Ulf Sonesson, Robert van Otterdijk, and Alexandre Meybeck, Global Food Losses and Food Waste (Rome: 

FAD, 2011), p. v. 

~ Nicolas-Tiu§odore de Saussure, Recherches chimiques sur Ia vegetation (1804). 15 Cra1g D. Jdso, "'The Positive Externalities of Carbon Dioxide: Estimatmg the Monetary Benefits of Rising Atmospheric C02 Concentrations on 

Global Food Production; center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (Oct. 2013). 76 Strain, B.R. 1978 Report of the Workshop on Anticipated Plant Responses to Global Carbon Dioxide Enrichment. Department of Botany, Duke 

University, Durham, NC. 17 Lemon, E.R. (Ed.). 1983. C02 and Plants: The Response of Plants to Rising Levels of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (Westview Press, Boulder, CO). 78 "Things M~de From Oil That We Use Daily(~ partial list): 19 Goklany,HumanityUnbound, 11. 

8(1 Ibid. 

'' 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (15 Dec. 2009). 82 NChemical Sampling Information: Carbon Dioxide; United States Department of Labor. 

Bl Goklany, Humanity Unbound, 17. 

1>4 Ibid., 17-18. 

BS Ibid., 18. 

116 Ibid. 

81 #Monthly Energy Review; U.S. Energy Information Association (Feb. 2014) Table 7.2a. 

ss Bradley, Moster Resource, 39. 89 William Blake, nAnd did those feet in ancient time;llne 16. 90 Steven F. H~yvvard,201 /Almanac of Environmental Trends (2011) 350. 

gl lbid.,35. 

92 Ibid., 193. 91 lbid.,6B. 

"" Ridley, Rational Optimist, 233. 

% "Global Carbon emissions set to reach record 36 billion tonnes in 2013,"Phys.org {18 Nov. 2013). 915 Ridley, Rational Optimist, 15. 

g

7 Goklany, Humoniry Unbound, 4. 

9e See, e.g., Betsy Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, "Subjective Weii·Being and Income: Is There Any Evidence ofSatiationr Brookings (Apr. 2013). 

99 lndur M. Goklany, Wealth and Sofery.· The Amazing Decline in Deaths from Extreme Weather in an Era of Global Warming, 1900-2010 (2011) 6. 100 Goklany, Humoniry Unbound, 20. 101 Ibid 21 102 Gi!d~r, Knowledge and Power, at 59-60; seealsoWi!Ham D. Nordhaus, nDo Reai~Output and Real-Wage Measures Capture Reality?The History of 

Lighting Suggests Not," Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics at Yale University (199B). 

'm Ridley, Rational Optimist, 143. 

!Ool Barack Obama, #Remarks to the Detroit Economic C!ub"(7 May 2007). 

Hl5 "AE02014 Early Release OverviewHU.S. Energy Information Administration (Dec. 2013) 11. 100 »Monthly Energy Review; U.S. Energy Information Administration (Feb. 2014) Table 7.2a. 

101 Ridley, Rational Optimist, 214-216. 

34 Texas Public Policy Foundation 
189 


27600.172

June 2014 Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case 

108 Jlm Malewitz._ "$7 Billion CREZ Project Nears Finish, Aiding Wind Power," Texas Tribune (14 Oct 2013). 

109 Robert Bryce, "The Real Problem with Renewables,"Forbes (11 May 201 0). 

110 Barbara Powei!,"U.S. Was Net Petroleum Product Exporter for F'1rstTtme Since 1949," Bloomberg (29 Feh 2012). 

111 Kathleen Hartnett White, "U.S. Passes Saudis in 0\1 Output, No Thanks to White House," Investors' Business Daily(S Apr. 2013). 

112 Paul Davidson, "U.S. may be inching toward Oil Independence," USA Today (7 Feb. 2014). 

Ibid. 114 "U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Proved Reserves, 2011 ,"U.S. Energy Information Agency (Aug. 2013) 1. 

m lbid.,S. 116 Annual Energy Review 20 II, U.S. Energy Information Administration, Table 4.1 (Sept 2012). 

111 HardFacts,30. 118 Eugen Trisko, "Energy Cost Impacts on American Families, 2001-2012;'2 American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (Feb. 2012). 119 "lvanpah Project Facts;!vanpahso!ar.com, accessed 21 Mar. 2014. 120 Goklany,HumanityUnbound, 19. 

Arshad Mohammed, "Kerry Calls Climate Change 'Weapon of Mass Destruction,"' Reuters (16 Feb, 2014), 122 United Nation's Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article 2. 

'

23 "How Electricity Became a Luxury Good," Der Spiegel (4 Sept. 2013). 

Jenny Hope, "Fuel poverty in Britain: 24,000 will die from cold this winter and 6m fearthey cannot heat their home," DaifyMail (27 Oct. 2013). 

m "A Sensitive Matter," The Economist (27 March 2013). 

1

'

6 Thomas Maculay, #Review of Southey's Colloquies on Society; Edinburgh Review (1830). 

w Ridley, Rational Optimist, 217. 

www.texaspolicy.com 35 
190 


27600.173

About the Author 

Kathleen Hartnett White joined the Texas Public Policy Foundation in January 

2008. She is a Distinguished Senior Fellow-in-Residence and Director of the 

Armstrong Center for Energy & the Environment. 

Prior to joining the Foundation, White served a six-year term as Chairman and 

Commissioner of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). With 

regulatory jurisdiction over air quality, water quality, water rights & utilities, 

storage and disposal of waste, TCEQ's staff of 3,000, annual budget of over $600 million, and 16 

regional offices make it the second largest environmental regulatory agency in the world after the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Prior to Governor Rick Perry's appointment of White to the TCEQ in 2001, she served as then Governor 

George Bush appointee to the Texas Water Development Board where she sat until appointed to 

TCEQ. She also served on the Texas Economic Development Commission and the Environmental 

Flows Study Commission. She recently completed her term as an ofncer and director of the Lower 

Colorado River Authority. White now sits on the editorial board of the Journal of Regulatory Science, the 

Texas Emission Reduction Advisory Board, and the Texas Water Foundation. Her writing has appeared 

in numerous publications including National Review, Investors' Business Daily, Washington Examiner, 

Forbes, Daily Caller, The Hill, and maJor Texas newspapers. She most recently testified before the U.S. 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. 

About the Texas Public Policy Foundation 

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a 501 (c)3 non-profit, non-partisan research institute. 

The Foundation's mission is to promote and defend liberty, personal responsibility, and free enterprise 

in Texas and the nation by educating and affecting policymakers and the Texas public policy debate 

with academically sound research and outreach. 

Funded by thousands of individuals, foundations, and corporations, the Foundation does not accept 

government funds or contributions to influence the outcomes of its research 

The public is demanding a different direction for their government, and the Texas Public Policy 

Foundation is providing the ideas that enable policymakers to chart that new course. 

900 Congress Ave., Suite 400 I Austin, Texas 78701 I (512) 472-2700 phone I (51 2) 472·2728 fax I www.TexasPolicy.com 
191 


27600.174

Guest Commentary: Ethanol follies continue with Domestic and Alternative Fuels Act I Fuel Fix 

lilt Menu 

Guest Commentary: Ethanol follies continue with Domestic and 

Alternative Fuels Act 

Posted by h1<.:H \\.com Date: July 29, 20l3 

By Kathleen Hartnett White 

' 

As the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee considers the many fiascos caused by the federal Renewable 

Fuel Standard, let's hope they deep-six the Domestic and Alternative Fuels Act (H.R.1959), co-sponsored by several 

conservative stalwarts from the Houston area typically more supportive of market dynamics than government 

mandates. The bill would add ethanol dcrh·cd from natural gas under the renewable fuel standanl established by 

the Energy Independence and Security Act of2007. 

A comprehensive congressional review of the renewable fuel mandates is welcome after almost six years of 

counterproductive consequences. Infamous for transforming com- a staple among global food commodities- into 

an inefficient transportation fuel, the law is rooted in multiple miscalculations about the domestic fuel market and the 

viability of alternative fuels such as still commercially non-existent cellulosic biofuel. Unexpected in 2007, the 

historic upsurge in domestic oil and natural gas has brought the U.S. within sight of energy dominance in the global 

market. Corn ethanol deserves no credit for this stunning achievement. 

Supporters of putting ethanol from natural gas under the renewable fuel dictate contend this fuel would relieve the 

pressure on corn, and avoid the escalating costs on refiners forced to comply with the continually expanding dictate. 

In 2007, Congress mistakenly assumed that gasoline demand, and thus oil imports, would steadily rise. Annual 

consumption, in fact, has significantly declined as a result of more fuel-efficient engines and slack economic growth. 

With an annually increasing ethanol mandate but decreasing demand for gasoline, the renewable fuel mandate for 

http ://fuclfix.eom!blogf20 13/07/2 9/guest~commentary·elhanol-follies-continue·'With-the-domestic-and-altemative-fuels-act!{ 1117 !20 17 6:08:40 PM] 
192 


27600.175

Guest Commentary: Ethanol follies continue with Domestic and Alternative Fuels Act I Fuel Fix 

corn ethanol approaches a "blend wall." This is the point at which there is not enough gasoline in which to blend this 

year's mandated volume of 13.8 billion gallons of corn ethanol and remain under a 10 percent blending rate. The 

Environmental Protection Agency approved blends up to 15 percent ethanol but the major automakers will not extend 

engine warranties above the I 0 percent blend. Refiners also resist higher blends to avoid product liability claims for 

damaged engines. 

Ethanol from natural gas will not avoid these pitfalls. When adjusted for energy content, ethanol from corn or natural 

gas is a less energy·efficient product than petroleum-based gasoline. What percentage of consumers would choose a 

fuel with over 30 percent less miles per gallon and with perhaps more emissions than conventional gasoline? 

To be eligible for the market guaranteed under the renewable fuel standard for ethanol, the fuel must reduce emission; 

of carbon dioxide by 20 percent compared to a baseline petroleum fuel. Whether ethanol made from natural gas could 

meet this threshold is questionable. Natural gas has almost twice the energy density of ethanol. And while only 3 

percent to 4 percent of the energy content of raw natural gas is lost when converted to compressed natural gas, likely 

half is lost when natural gas is converted to ethanol. 

The EPA supposedly assesses these life-cycle emissions of alternative fuels but gives short shrift to carbon dioxide 

emissions released in the conversion process. As implemented, environmental impact now takes a back seat to the 

EPA's self-assigned role as economic master oftransportation fuels. Although a federal court admonished EPA that 

its jurisdiction is environmental and not economic, the agency persists in its new mission "to promote growth in the 

(renewable) industry." EPA's "market" replaces demand, supply and price with mandates, fines and wishful thinking. 

There are so many more valuable uses for natural gas than converting it to an alcohol! Now-abundant domestic 

natural gas spurs rapid growth in U.S. manufacturing, chemical, fertilizer, and steel industries. Demand for natural ga' 

in electric generation and for compressed natural gas as a transportation fuel has soared -without any federal 

mandates or subsidies. 

It is time to repeal the renewable fuel standard- not to expand or entrench this market distortion. Ethanol can be 

made from a wide variety of sources. Genuine snake oil, in fact, might be a more thermodynamically efficient source 

than natural gas or corn. 

White is the Distinguished Senior Fellow in Residence and Director for the Armstrong Center for Energy and 

Environment at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. 

http://fue! fi ;..:.comfb log/20 13/07/2 9/guest ~commentary-ethanoJ.fo!l ies·continuc·with·thc·domestic-and ·altemativc· fuels·act/[ ll /7/20 17 6: 08:40 PMJ 
193 


27600.176

The !-'oily of Food as Fuel J) Blog & Commentary ll Texas Public Policy Foundation 

THE FOLLY OF FOOD AS FUEL 

\HARE 

f 

'# 

mandatory federal renewable fuel standard for grain-based ethanol. 

A growing mountain of evidence reveals the economic and environmental folly 

of federal ethanol policy. Gov. Perry's requested 50% waiver and Sen. 

Hutchison's proposed freeze on the renewable fuel standard (RFS) would 

alleviate the pressure on corn for fuel. 

Texas is only beginning to see the rising food prices that federal ethanol policy 

could generate. Last year's more than 4% rise in food prices stems from the 

2005 Energy Policy Act. New energy law enacted in 2007 significantly 

enlarged the RFS. Food prices may increase as much as 8% this year. And 

consider where the largest price increases occurred. 

https://\..,vw.texaspo!icy.comtb!og/detaillthe-folly-of-food-as-fucl[lln /2017 6:15:01 PM] 
194 


27600.177

The Folly of food as Fuel l> Blog & Commentary>> Texas Public Policy Foundation 

The retail price of eggs increased 29% last year; cereal products, 6.5%; 

sweetened beverages, 4.5%; beef, 4.4%. All depend on corn-based 

ingredients or corn feed grains. One-fourth of the 2007 U.S. corn crop was 

converted to ethanol; the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) projects that 

30-35% of this year's crop will become ethanol. 

New energy law will force more corn to become fuel. Meeting the 36-billiongallon RFS mandate in 2022 will require 115% of last year's U.S. corn crop. 

Texas is the appropriate state to call for a change in federal ethanol 

mandates. The indirect costs of ethanol hurt Texans in the grocery store as 

well as key agricultural sectors of the state economy. All animal agriculturebeef cattle, dairy, swine, and poultry- uses corn-based feed grains. 

Four years ago before the RFS corn cost $2 per bushel; last year, it was 

$4. As Gov. Perry's letter to the U.S. Environment Protection Agency 

highlights, these higher corn prices cost the Texas economy at least $1.17 

billion. 

A hefty 51-cent-per-gallon tax credit and a 54-cent-per-gallon import tariff also 

artificially drive the ethanol boom. The tax credit cost the U.S. Treasury $5 

billion in 2006; that will rise to $10 billion in 2012. 

The U.S. fuel supply may not be able to absorb the mandated volumes of 

ethanol. Most of the approximately 240 million US vehicles cannot use 

gasoline with more than a 10% ethanol blend. Perhaps only 6 million are 

Flexible Fuel Vehicles capable of using 85% ethanol (E85). Only around 1,000 

of the 172,000 U.S. gas stations- mostly in the Midwest close to ethanol 

production- can dispense E85. The Big Three U.S. automakers recently 

pledged that half of their 2012 vehicles will be ftexible-fuel. Yet this amounts to 

only 2% of total vehicles on the road. It takes decades for a complete fteet 

turn-over. 

Ethanol is an ineffective means of reducing reliance on imported oil. While 

domestic production of ethanol doubled between 2003 and 2007, imports of oil 

and refined gasoline increased. A deficit in refining capacity and an 

approaching surfeit of ethanol production capacity will not increase the 

security of our gasoline supply or stability of gasoline prices. But what 

happens to a grain-based fuel supply during the next major drought? 

https:/lv.>.vw.texaspolicy.comfblog/detail/the~folly-of-food~as-fuel[ 11/7/2017 6: I 5:01 PM I 
195 


27600.178

The Folly of food as Fuel» B!og & Commentary>> Texas Public Policy Foundation 

Ethanol has two-thirds the energy value of petroleum-based fuels. A vehicle 

requires three gallons of ethanol for the mileage of two gallons of gasoline. 

Would today's consumers choose fuel 30% more expensive than gasoline? 

Producing one gallon of ethanol may well take more energy than the end 

product contains. With fertilizer, water. an energy-intense fermentation 

process, and transportation necessarily by rail or truck instead of existing 

pipeline. ethanol production utilizes much more energy than crude oil to reach 

the pump. 

While combustion of ethanol involves less C02 and particulate emissions than 

petroleum-based fuels, ethanol causes more NOx emissions- the main 

ingredient in ozone formation. And ethanol may increase net C02 emissions. 

A February 2008 article in Science magazine concludes that the C02 released 

from converting forest and grasslands to corn crops could amount to a 

doubling of C02 emissions from these lands. Millions of acres long enrolled in 

the USDA Conservation Reserve Program have now been tilled for corn. 

Intensive fertilization and irrigation impact water quality and supply. 

Perry and Hutchison deserve praise for recommending solutions to the folly of 

our current federal policy to transform a major foodstuff into a fuel. 

Kathleen Hartnett White is Director of the Center for Natural Resources at the 

Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute 

based in Austin. Texas. She served six years as Chairman and Commissioner 

of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. 

RELATED POSTS 

https://www.texaspolicy.comlblog/detail/the·fol!y"((f·food~a~"fuclfll/7/2017 6:15:01 PM] 
196 


27600.179

Statement by Kathleen Hartnett White J) Press Resources» Texa...;; Public Policy Foundation 

STATEMENT BY KATHLEEN HARTNETT WHITE 

SHARE 

f 

'J/1 

s+ 

ijl 

~ 

Mar 12. 2008 I PRESS RELEASE 

"The Governor is correct to call for at least a partial waiver of the federal 

mandate for grain-based ethanoL Our federal government's policies to 

subsidize and mandate the ever-expanding supply of ethanol are causing 

massive distortions in our economy, multi-billion dollar losses to our livestock 

producers, and severe hardships for Texas families. 

"It takes 21 pounds of corn to produce one gallon of ethanoL One person 

could be fed for an entire year from the corn that we're instead cooking for a 

single pickup tank of E-85. 

"This year, the United States will convert 30 to 35 percent of its corn harvest 

into ethanoL Federal mandates and subsidies for ethanol production are 

generating a supply that will be far beyond what the United States is able to 

use. 

"As the Governor noted, global food commodity prices have nearly doubled in 

the last three years, with corn rising even faster. Those higher prices are just 

now starting to show up on our grocery shelves, and Texas consumers are in 

for real pain unless we quickly move more corn back from our fuel supply to 

our food supply. 

"A 50-percent waiver of the ethanol mandate is a good immediate-term step to 

alleviate the pain from spiraling food inflation. But with each new day bringing 

stories about double- and triple-digit increases in the price of food staples, 

domestic food rationing, and Third World food riots, the solution will only come 

when the U.S. Congress wakes up and reverses its mad rush toward ethanol'' 

https:/1\vww.texaspolicy.com/press _relea~e/detaillstatement-by-kathlcen-hartnctt-whitc- 1{11!7 /2017 6:09:17 PM] 
197 


27600.180

Statement by Kathleen Hartnett White)) Press Resources)) Texas Public Policy Foundation 

-30-

https:/1\V\\'\V.tcxaspolicy .com/press_release/dctai!/statement-by-kathlecn-hartnett-white-llll/7 /2017 6:09:17 PM] 
198 


27600.181

Statement by Kathleen Hartnett White>) Press Resources)) Texas Public Policy Foundation 

STATEMENT BY KATHLEEN HARTNETT WHITE 

SHARE 

f 

'# 

g+ 

Aug 2008 I PRESS RELEASE 

"Today's EPA decision will increase food prices, drive up fuel costs, and 

reduce fuel efficiency at a time when Americans can least afford any of these. 

"The denial of Gov. Rick Perry's waiver request means the massive distortions 

in our economy will continue. Texas livestock producers will suffer billions of 

dollars in additional losses, and the financial hardships suffered by Texas 

families will intensify. 

"U.S. food prices rose almost 7 percent in the first half of 2008 because we 

are converting almost one-third of our corn crop into a motor fuel -one that is 

far less fuel efficient and the production of which generates far more C02 than 

gasoline. Ethanol is creating a global food crisis, with the World Bank and 

International Monetary Fund attributing three-fourths of the surge in food 

prices to international biofuel policy. 

"Since the EPA will not grant relief, Congress should act quickly to end its 

destructive food-as-fuel folly." 

About the Texas Public Policy Foundation: TPPF is a non-profit, free-market 

research institute based in Austin, Texas. 

About Kathleen Hartnett White: Ms. White is the Director of the Center for 

Natural Resources at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and the former 

Chair of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. 

-30 

https://wvvw.texaspolicy.com/press_releasc/detail/statement-by-ka1h!ccn-hartnett-white-2[ll/7!2017 6:15:44 PM] 
199 

Senator BARRASSO. I would also point out that under Ms. White’s 

leadership from 2001 to 2007, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality issued administrative orders that required payments of more than $47 million in penalties. During that time, the 

Texas Attorney General’s Office obtained civil judicial orders in 

cases involving TCEQ that required payments of more than $380 

million, and I also ask unanimous consent that we insert this into 

the record. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

200 


27600.182

,~,n ,~,ud!t Report on 

The Commission on 

Environmental Quality's 

Enforcement and 

Permitting Functions for 

Selected Programs 

December 2003 

Report tlo. 0-1-Q 16 
201 


27600.183

www.sao.state.tx.us 

To report waste.fraud, or abuse in state J;Overnment call the SAO Hotline· 1-800-TX-AUDIT. 
202 


27600.184

An Audit Report on 

The Commission on Environmental Quality's 

Enforcement and Permitting Functions 

for Selected Programs 

Overall Conclusjon 

For the air, water quality, and public water 

supply programs we evaluated, the Commission 

on Environmental Quality's (Commission) 

enforcement function does not consistently: 

J;> Issue enforcement orders or settle 

enforcement cases within its required 

timeframes. For the cases we tested, late 

enforcement orders included $299,489 in 

penalties and yielded economic benefits of 

$720,253 to the violators. 

J;> Classify supplemental environmental projects 

(SEPs) according to established criteria or 

monitor SEPs administered by third parties. 

The misclassification of the 2002 and 2003 SEPs 

we tested resulted in a loss of $319,590 to the 

State. 

J;> Calculate penalties accurately or fully collect 

delinquent penalties. As of May 2003, the 

Commission had outstanding delinquent 

penalties of $571,322. 

SAO Report No. 04-016 

December 2003 

Commission on Environmental 

Quality 

The Commission on Environmental Quality 

permits and regulates environmental 

activities in Texas. The Commission had 

approximately 3,000 employees, 16 

regional offices, and a $365.4 million 

annual appropriated budget for fiscal year 

2003. Most of this budget is funded by 

program fees. The Commission issues and 

enforces 101 types of penmits. In fiscal 

year 2002, the Commission collected 

$276 million in fee revenue, assessed 

$5.6 million in penalties, and arranged for 

violators to offset $2.2 million in penalties 

through supplemental environmental 

projects. 

Sources: General Appropriations Act, 2002 

Annual Financial Report, and 2002 Annual 

Enforcement Report 

If unaddressed, these inconsistencies could limit the Commission's ability to collect 

penalties on a timely basis, hold environmental violators accountable, and deter future 

instances of noncompliance. 

The Commission's permitting function for these programs generally operates in accordance 

with state statute and agency policy, although we noted some areas for improvement in 

the availability of information used for permitting. In addition, while the Commission 

complies with federal law regarding notification about pending air permits, the 

Commission's current process can reduce the effective public comment period to less than 

the federally required 30 days. 

Finally, we noted that the Commission's recent changes to its penalty policies may reduce 

their effectiveness as a deterrent to polluters. We also found that current statutes related 

to air emissions caps and policies for discounted fees could be modified to increase agency 

revenue by approximately $25 million per year. 

te 

This audit was conducted In accordancp with Government Code, Sections 321.0131 and 321.0132. 

lawrence F. Alwin, CPA For more information regarding this report, please contact Julie !vie, Audit Manager, at (512) 936-9500. 

St.<~te Auditor 
203 


27600.185

An Audit Report on 

the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04·016 

Key Pojnts 

The lack of timely enforcement orders and settlement of enforcement cases could 

allow violations to continue and slows penalty collections. 

The Commission does not consistently issue enforcement orders to alleged violators within 

required timeframes. Forty-five percent of the cases from 2001 to 2003 that we tested had 

enforcement orders that were not mailed out on time, exceeding the deadline by an 

average of 76 days. The assessed penalties for these cases totaled $299,489, and the 

alleged violations yielded economic benefits to the violators estimated at $720,253. In 

addition, the Commission does not always settle enforcement cases within its established 

timeframe. The Commission's philosophy is to promote voluntary compliance. The 

Commission reports that it works with entities to correct violations prior to finalizing the 

enforcement order and collecting the penalty. However, in accordance with the 

Commission's philosophy statement, a strong enforcement function is important in 

protecting the State's human and natural resources. Therefore, these delays in the 

enforcement process could result in violators' continuing to pollute and cause the State to 

lose the use of penalty funds. 

The Commission does not have an effective process for collecting delinquent 

penalties. 

The Commission's Financial Administration Division lacks an adequate process to collect 

delinquent administrative penalties. As of May 2003, the outstanding delinquent 

administrative penalties for air, public drinking water, water quality, and multimedia 

totaled $571,322. 

Misclassifications and inadequate monitoring of supplemental environmental 

projects reduces environmental benefits owed to the State. 

The misclassification of supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) that were started in 

fiscal year 2002 or 2003 resulted in a loss of $319,590 in environmental benefits. 

Additionally, while the Commission has an adequate process to monitor the SEPs directly 

administered by violators or by the Commission, the lack of adequate monitoring for thirdparty SEPs increases the risk that the associated funds could be used inappropriately, 

resulting in an overall loss of environmental benefits to the State. SEPs are an option 

available to violators to offset all or part of a penalty. Based on Commission records, the 

Commission assessed $67,896,295 in penalties from September 1995 through August 2003. 

Of this, $15,325,964 (22.6 percent) was offset by SEPs. 

The Commission complies with notification requirements for air permits but could 

better promote public participation for some citizens. 

The Commission complies with federal requirements regarding public comment for pending 

air permit applications. However, the Commission's policy establishing the beginning of 

the 30-day public comment period for prospective air permits could reduce the amount of 

time that some members of the public who miss the newspaper notice have to comment. 
204 


27600.186

An Audit Report on 

the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforceme-nt and Permfttfng Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04·016 

Poor file management limits the availability of information for public participation 

and permitting processes. 

The Commission is not properly maintaining the files in its central records. Many of the 

files we requested for testing purposes could not be located. There is a risk that these 

files may not be readily available for permitting and enforcement processes or for public 

review. 

Data used to monitor compliance with some water quality permits is not accurate. 

The Commission does not monitor or review data that a contractor enters and that the 

Commission uploads to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Permit Compliance 

System. We tested four months of 2003 data entry and found that 20 percent of the records 

contained errors or were not entered into the database. Ninety·seven percent of these 

errors were attributable to the contractor. The Commission provides this data to the EPA 

and also uses it to identify entities that have exceeded their discharge limits. 

Other Issues for Consideration 

Recent changes to penalty calculation policies may not deter violations. 

Recent changes to penalty policies may reduce their effectiveness as a deterrent to 

polluters. Violators often have economic benefits that exceed their penalties, which could 

reduce their incentive to comply. For 80 fiscal year 2001, 2002, and 2003 cases we tested, 

the total economic benefit gained by violators during the period of noncompliance was 

$8,647,005. However, these entities were fined only $1,683,635, which is approximately 19 

percent of the economic benefit gained from being out of compliance. 

Eliminating the air emissions fee cap could result in increased revenue and 

decreased emissions. 

Current statute (Health and Safety Code, Section 382.0621[d]) precludes the Commission 

from imposing a fee for certain air emissions over 4,000 tons. As a result, a facility that 

reports emissions of 4,000 tons of air pollutants pays the same fee as a facility that reports 

emissions of 85,990 tons, thus not providing an incentive for facilities to limit their 

emissions once they exceed 4,000 tons. Based on fiscal year 2002 data, we calculated that 

if the cap were eliminated, the Commission's potential revenue could increase by 

approximately $25 million per year. 

Summary of Management's Response 

The Commission generally agrees with our recommendations and has agreed to implement 

them. However, it does not agree with our conclusions in two areas, supplemental 

environmental projects and public comment for pending air permit applications. 
205 


27600.187

An Audit Report on 

the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04·016 

Summary of Information Technology Review 

During our fieldwork, the two information systems we reviewed did not require users to 

change passwords from their initial passwords, which are assigned by the Central Registry 

system administrator. The Central Registry contains general data about regulated entities. 

The Consolidated Compliance and Enforcement Data System (CCEDS) contains data about 

enforcement actions. Without periodic password changes, there is a greater risk that a 

password could be compromised and that an unauthorized individual could gain access. 

Also, the Commission lacks a business continuity plan, which leaves it unprepared for a 

disaster. 

Summary of Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

The primary objectives of this audit were to determine whether the permitting and 

enforcement functions for selected Commission programs ensure that the Commission 

(1) issues and enforces permits in accordance with state statutes and Commission policies 

and (2) collects and accounts for fees appropriately. 

Our scope generally included data and processes completed in fiscal year 2002, but in some 

cases we reviewed data from September 1, 2001, to May 31, 2003, as indicated. 

Our methodology consisted of gathering information by interviewing management and staff 

from the Commission's headquarters and regional offices, observing Commission 

operations, mapping permitting and enforcement processes, reviewing policies and 

procedures, testing controls and related documentation, and reviewing data from 

information technology systems. 

iv 
206 


27600.188

An Audit Report on 

the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04·016 

The Enforcement Division should: 

• Develop a system of benchmarks for meeting enforcement report dead tines. These deadlines should be closely monitored, 

and if a deadline is missed, the reason for the delay should be noted within the report. 

and overdue cases on a weekly basis and ensure that it issues enforcement orders within the timeframes 

The Commission should ensure that enforcement coordinators forward cases to the Litigation Division once settlement 

negotiations have exceeded 60 

The Commission should revise its poticy of destroying field notes and checklists and should retain these records to facilitate the 

review of inspection reports and data in CCEDS. 

The Commission should: 

• Expand the SEP categories to clarify in detait what qualifies as a direct environmental benefit, what qualifies as an indirect 

environmental benefit, and why. 

• Develop a classification system to account for projects that consist of both direct and indirect benefit characteristics to 

accurately apply offset values to SEPs. 

The Commission should: 

• Enter report due dates on SEP tracking sheets to increase visibility and aid in tracking. 

• Standardize reporting timeframes. 

• Standardize the format for reporting finandal information and expenditures to simplify and expedite the review process. 

• Incorporate third·party reporting requirement data into a monthly .. Pending SEPs for Required Reporting" log in order to 

generate a single report log that includes respondent and third·party reporting dates. 

The Commission should: 

• Ensure that all pertinent data from the respondent's file is entered into the SEP database. 

• Ensure that all data is merged into the SEP tracking sheet to assist in monitoring ongoing SEP projects. 

• Enter report due dates on SEP tracking sheets to assist in identifying delinquent reports. 

The Commission should: 

• Revise its review process to ensure that deferrals are offered in accordance with policies. 

• Revise and streamline its penalty policy and penalty calculation worksheet. 

• Develop and implement written policies and procedures for the handling of administrative penalties in default. These 

policies and procedures should include: 
207 


27600.189

An Audit Report on 

the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permlttins Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04-016 

Table of Results and Recommendations 

!;I, denotes entry IS related to mforma!ion technology 

• The frequency of sending out delinquency letters. 

• The circumstances and timing of warrant holds. 

• Guidelines on when to refer delinquent accounts to the Office of Legal Services. 

• Request tax identification numbers on permit, license, and registration apptlcation forms to facilitate placing default 

accounts on warrant hold. 

• Ensure that CCEDS data is current and complete so that the Commission can send delinquent letters to aU delinquent 

accounts. 

~b\~¢~~t!X)Ilcy.Qlll«i~~%lff~~'tql(\~t ~r!o<t.(~ei!!} 

The Commission should: 

The Department should establish better communication with the Commission in order to address any changes that may affect 

the process of transferring funds. 

In particular, the Department should take steps to: 

• Transfer funds using the Commission-requested Program Cost Accounts and fund numbers. 

• Transfer interagency transfer voucher sales on a regular basis. 

• Reconcile its monthly reports to its accounting system prior to providing them to the Commission. 

• Provide the Commission with appropriate documentation so it can independently determine its share of sales by certificate 

type. --·-·-------------' 

yj 
208 


27600.190

An Audit Report on 

the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04·016 

The Commission should activate the feature that prompts users to change their initial passwords when they first log in. Periodic 

changes to passwords should be required for the Central Registry. 

The Commission should finalize its business continuity plan and have it approved by executive management. The plan should be 

tested at least annually. 

~~~ 

~ ~~ ~iliiim: ------~~ 

vii 
209 


27600.191

Contents 

Detailed Results 

Chapter 1 

The Enforcement Process Does Not Consistently Ensure that 

Violators Are Held Accountable ............................................ 1 

Chapter 2 

Misclassification and Inadequate Monitoring of Supplemental 

Environmental Projects Reduces Environmental Benefits 

Owed to the State .....................•......•....•......•................... 5 

Chapter 3 

Inaccurate Penalty Calculations and Slow Collections of 

Delinquent Accounts May Weaken the Enforcement Process ......... 11 

Chapter 4 

The Commission Complies with Public Notification 

Requirements for Air Permits but Could Better Promote 

Public Participation for Some Citizens ...................•.........•....• 15 

Chapter 5 

Data Used to Monitor Compliance with Some Water Quality 

Permits Is Not Accurate ........••.......••................................. 18 

Chapter 6 

Fee Collection Processes Ensure that the Majority of Fees Are 

Collected, but Opportunities Exist to Increase Revenue ..•.....•..... 20 

Chapter 7 

Weak Password Controls and the Lack of a Business 

Continuity Plan Could Affect the Integrity of the 

Commission's Data .......................................................... 25 

Chapter 8 

Petroleum Storage Tank Rules Put the State at Risk of 

Overpaying for Leaking Tank Cleanups .................................. 27 

Chapter 9 

Issues for Consideration ..............................................•..... 28 

Appendices 

Appendix 1 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ...•.............•.•..•.............. 30 
210 


27600.192

Appendix 2 

Management's Response .................................................... 35 

Appendix 3 

Permitting Timeframe Reduction Project .......•..•................•... 36 
211 


27600.193

Detailed Results 

Chapter 1 

The Enforcement Process Does Not Consistently Ensure that Violators 

Are Held Accountable 

The Commission on Environmental Quality's (Commission) enforcement process 

does not ensure that enforcement orders are issued on a timely basis or that 

The Commission on Environmental 

Quality Mission Statement 

"The Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality strives to protect our state's 

human and natural resources consistent 

with sustainable economic development. 

Our goal is dean air, dean water, and the 

safe management of waste." 

The Commission's Philosophy Statement 

includes the following two approaches: 

"Ensure consistent, just, and timely 

enforcement when environmental taws 

are violated; 

"Promote and foster voluntary 

compliance with environmental laws 

and provide flexibility in achleving, 

environmental goats." 

Source: Commission's 2003-2007 Strategic 

Plan 

enforcement cases are settled by the established deadlines. In 

addition, the accuracy of final inspection reports cannot be 

verified because the Commission does not keep inpsection field 

notes. For the tiles we tested, the issuance of enforcement orders 

took an average of 76 days longer than the established 

timeframes of 30 days and 120 days (deadlines depend on the 

priority assigned to the case). The Commission's philosophy is 

to promote voluntary compliance, and it reports that it works with 

entities to correct violations prior to finalizing the enforcement 

order and collecting the penalty (see text box). However, in 

accordance with the second approach outlined in the 

Commission's philosophy statement, a strong enforcement 

function is important in protecting the State's human and natural 

resources. Therefore, these delays in the enforcement process 

could result in violators' continuing to pollute and cause the State 

to lose interest revenue on these penalties. 

There is currently no way for enforcement staff or other 

reviewers to verify the accuracy of final inspection reports or the reliability of data in 

the Consolidated Compliance and Enforcement Data System (CCEDS). The 

Commission does not keep the field notes used to write inspection reports and enter 

the data into CCEDS. The inspection reports are the basis for enforcement actions 

and penalties, and inaccuracies in these reports could affect the Commission's ability 

to settle these cases. 

Chapter 1·A 

The Lack of Timely Enforcement Orders May Allow Violations to 

Continue and Slows Penalty Collection 

The Commission does not consistently review and approve investigation reports or 

r----------------, issue enforcement orders to alleged violators within the 

Office of Compliance and 

Enforcement 

The Commission's Office of Comptiance 

and Enforcement oversees enforcement, 

emergency response, dam safety, 

monitoring activities, and the operation of 

16 regional offices across the state. 

timeframes established in its policies. A Notice of Violation 

notifies the business or other regulated entity of the alleged 

violation. An enforcement order is the notification that a penalty 

is due. Although the Commission reports that it works with 

violators to correct issues of noncompliance while the 

enforcement orders are being finalized, not issuing these orders 

on time may allow violations to continue and delays the State's 

receipt of penalty funds, which go into the General Revenue fund. Specifically: 

Of the investigation reports that we reviewed for air, public water supply, and 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04-016 

December 1003 

Page 1 
212 


27600.194

water quality programs, II percent were not approved by the required deadlines. 

There were 31,916 investigations in fiscal year 2002 and 2003. Commission 

policy requires that investigation reports be approved and entered into CCEDS 

within 60 days of the last day of the investigation. 

Economic Benefit 

The Commission calculates a violator's 

economic benefit during the penatty 

calculation process. The Commission's policy 

defines economic benefit as: 

Monetary gain derived from a failure to 

comply with TCEQ rules or regulations. 

Economic benefit may include any or aU of 

the following: (1) the return a respondent 

can earn by delaying the capital costs of 

pollution control equipment; (2) the return a 

respondent can earn by delaying a one-time 

expenditure; and (3) the return a respondent 

can earn by avoiding periodic costs. 

Source: Commission's Penalty Policy, 

September 2002 

Forty-five percent of the fiscal year 2001 to 2003 

enforcement orders for the air, public water supply, and 

water quality programs we tested were not mailed out by 

the established deadline. The overdue orders exceeded 

their deadlines by an average of 76 days. The assessed 

penalties for the overdue cases we tested totaled 

$299,489, and the alleged violations resulted in 

economic benefits to the violators estimated at $720,253 

(see text box). 

The deadline for mailing the initial draft of the "agreed 

order" depends on the severity of the alleged violations. The 

most urgent cases, Priority I and Priority 5, must be mailed 

within 30 days of case screening. Priority 2 and Priority 6 

cases must be mailed within 60 days of screening, and 

Priority 3 and Priority 4 cases have a 120-day deadline. 

Recommendations 

The Enforcement Division should: 

Develop a system of benchmarks for meeting enforcement report deadlines. 

These deadlines should be closely monitored, and if a deadline is missed, the 

reason for the delay should be noted within the report. 

Monitor upcoming and overdue cases on a weekly basis and ensure that it issues 

enforcement orders within the timeframes established in policy. 

Management's Response 

Staff resources routinely dedicated to this JUnction were used to develop the 

compliance histories. As a result of these activities, we did not meet the agency's 

self-imposed deadlines. 

Working with violators to correct conditions of non-compliance results in the desired 

outcome of increased compliance. An additional benefit is that we avoid the costs 

and time related to the hearings and judicial processes. Many violations are 

corrected prior to the culmination of settlement negotiations and as a direct result of 

them. 

We agree with the recommendations, and the Enforcement Division Director is 

responsiblefor implementation by January 30, 2004. 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Envfronrnentat Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04·016 

December 2003 

Page 2 
213 


27600.195

Chapter 1-B 

Delays in Settling Enforcement Cases May Affect the Timely 

Collection of Fines 

The Commission does not settle enforcement cases within its established deadline of 

60 days from the mailing of the draft agreed order. For the two most 

1660 Orders and Findings 

Orders 

common types of agreed orders, 1660 orders and findings orders (see 

text box), we found that from September I, 2001, to May 31,2003, it 

took an average of 134 days and 125 days, respectively, to settle cases 

for which there was no deferral of penalties. For this same time 

period, 1660 orders with a deferral of all or part of the penalty came 

closer to meeting the deadline, with an average settlement time of 68 

days. The time to settle findings orders with deferrals ranged from 

A 1660 order contains statements 

saying that: 

• The occurrence of any violation 

is in dispute and the agreed 

order does not constitute an 

admission of guHt. 

The agreed order will not be 

admissible against the 

respondent in civil proceedings. 

(The Attorney General's office is 

exempt from this requirement.} 

A findings order does not contain 

these statements and may be used 

against the respondent in civil 

proceedings. Findings orders are 

always used in default matters and 

for orders resulting from 

administrative hearings. 

I 06 days to I ,898 days. Only 14 findings orders with deferrals were 

settled during the time period our review covered. (See Chapter 3-C 

for a discussion of the financial impact of penalty deferrals.) 

If a case is not settled within the 60-day timeframe, Commission 

policy requires that the case be forwarded to the Litigation Division. 

It takes the Commission an average of 140 days to forward 1660 

orders to the Litigation Division and 131 days to forward findings 

orders. 

Delays in reaching settlements with respondents result in the loss of 

interest revenue (from uncollected penalty dollars) and coordinators' productivity, as 

they spend more time on each case that they continue to negotiate past the deadline. 

Recommendation 

The Commission should ensure that enforcement coordinators forward cases to the 

Litigation Division once settlement negotiations have exceeded 60 days. 

Management's Response 

Staff resources routinely dedicated to thisfimction were used to develop the 

compliance histories. As a result a_( these activities, we did not meet the agency's 

self-imposed deadlines. 

Working with violators to correct conditions of non-compliance results in the desired 

outcome of increased compliance. An additional benefit is that we avoid the costs 

and time related to the hearings and judicial processes. 

We agree with the recommendations to ensure that enforcement coordinators 

forward cases to the Litigation Division once settlement negotiations have exceeded 

60 days. The Enforcement Division director is responsible for implementing these 

recommendations by January 30. 2004. 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04-016 

December 2003 

Page 3 
214 


27600.196

Chapter 1-C 

Field Note Destruction Policy Prevents Accountability 

Enforcement field notes and checklists are used to write investigation and inspection 

reports and to enter data into CCEDS. The Commission's policy requires that these 

notes be destroyed within 60 days of the last day of the investigation. Destroying 

these notes and checklists prevents the Commission and outside reviewers from 

verifYing the accuracy of inspection reports and the reliability of CCEDS data. The 

inspection reports are the basis for enforcement actions, and penalties and errors in 

these reports could affect the Commission's ability to settle cases. 

Field Operations Division policy requires that the field notes remain part of the 

investigation package until the investigation report is finalized and has received a 

quality control review. In two regions we visited, we noted that field notes were not 

used to verifY the accuracy of the final reports. This creates a risk that if the report is 

not accurate, the field notes used to write the report would not be available for later 

review. 

Recommendation 

The Commission should revise its policy of destroying field notes and checklists and 

should retain these records to facilitate the review of inspection reports and data in 

CCEDS. 

Management's Response 

TCEQ agrees with the recommendation. The Field Operations Division Director is 

responsible for implementing this recommendation by January 30, 2004. 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04·016 

December 2003 

Page 4 
215 


27600.197

Chapter 2 

Misclassification and Inadequate Monitoring of Supplemental 

Environmental Projects Reduces Environmental Benefits Owed to the 

State 

In the sample of supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) that we tested, five 

were not correctly classified, resulting in a loss of $3 19,590 in environmental 

benefits. SEPs are an option available to violators that allows them to offset all or 

part of a penalty. The amount of offset depends on whether the SEP is classified as 

having a direct or indirect environmental benefit. Five of the SEPs in our sample that 

were classified as having a direct benefit did not meet the criteria for this type of 

benefit. There were 212 SEPs initiated during our review period of September 200 I 

through April2003. Of these, 209 were classified as having a direct benefit. 

Examples of the programs that did not have a direct environmental benefit include an 

educational program about water efficiencies for children in grade school and the 

purchase of equipment, repairs. vehicles. and vehicle maintenance for local fire 

departments. 

The Commission is also not adequately monitoring third-party SEPs to ensure that 

SEP funds are managed appropriately. Third-party SEPs are administered by nonprofit or governmental organizations. Sixty percent of the third-party SEPs we 

reviewed did not show evidence of appropriate monitoring. 

Based on Commission records, the Commission assessed $67,896,295 in penalties 

from September 1995 through August 2003. Of this, $15,325,964 (22.6 percent) was 

offset by SEPs (see Figure 1). 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04-016 

December 2003 

Page 5 
216 


27600.198

Figure 1 

Comparison of Penalties, Penalty Deferrals, and SEP Offsets 

1995 

1996 

1997 

~ 1998 & 

>-

~ 1999 £ 

2000 

2001 

2002 

1003 

10 

Dollars (in Millions) 

Source: Unaudited Commission enforcement reports 

Chapter 2-A 

Misclassification of SEPs Results in a Loss of Environmental 

Benefits 

Of the 71 SEP cases tested, 5 that were classified as having a direct environmental 

benefit did not meet the criteria for providing this type of benefit. These 

misclassifications resulted in a loss of$319,590 in benefits from environmental 

projects because the rate at which a SEP offsets a penalty varies based on the tax 

status of the entity and the environmental benefit the SEP provides: 

For a SEP to be classified as having a direct benefit, it must have an immediate 

environmental effect, such as cleaning up an illegal dump site or purchasing 

electric lawn mowers with reduced exhaust emissions. Each dollar spent on a 

SEP with a direct benefit offsets $1 of an assessed penalty. 

An indirect environmental benefit does not have an immediate environmental 

effect. Indirect SEPs include educational projects or research projects involving 

environmental enhancement. For indirect SEPs, every $3 spent on the project 

offsets $1 of an assessed penalty. 

Non-profit entities can have up to 100 percent of their penalties offset by a SEP. 

For-profit entities are limited to a 50 percent offset. 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04·016 

December 2003 

Page 6 
217 


27600.199

Examples of the misclassified SEPs include: 

A water usage educational program. This program provides educational 

information and faucet kits to children in grade schools. The Commission's 

policy for SEP classifications state that educational programs are not a direct 

benefit. This program was classified as a I: I offset when it should have been 

3:1. Four SEPs used this program; they represent $38,010 in SEP funds. 

Purchase of equipment and repairs for local fire departments. The purchases 

consisted of 20 pagers, an engine replacement for an emergency operations 

center vehicle, an emergency management vehicle, and other questionable items 

totaling $16,829. Many of the items are equipment that can be used for standard 

fire fighting operations and are not directly associated with environmental 

improvements or protection. The total for this SEP case was $121,785. 

Recommendations 

The Commission should: 

Expand the SEP categories to clarifY in detail what qualifies as a direct 

environmental benefit, what qualifies as an indirect environmental benefit, and 

why. 

Develop a classification system to account for projects that consist of both direct 

and indirect benefit characteristics to accurately apply offset values to SEPs. 

Management's Response 

TCEQ agrees that implementing the recommendations will improve and clarifj• the 

program. This type ofpolicy change is at the discretion of' the Commission. The 

Director ()lthe Litigation Division is responsible for presenting the following 

changes to the Commission for consideration by August 31. 2004: 

Expand the SEP categories to clarifY in detail what qualifies as a direct 

environmental benefit, what qualifies as an indirect environmental ben~fit, and 

why. 

Develop a classification system to account for projects that consist o.lboth direct 

and indirect benefit characteristics to accurately apply o.ffset values to SEPs. 

While we agree there is an opportunity to improve and clarifY the program, we 

believe each ()lthe SEPs reviewed by the SAO is correctly classified and that each 

reflects the appropriate offset percentage, according to TCEQ 's SEP guidance 

document. 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04-016 

December 1003 

Page 7 
218 


27600.200

Auditor's Follow-up Comment 

According to both the Commission's Regulatory Guidance (RG-367) document, Use 

of Supplemental Environmental Projects, provided to regulated entities and the SEP 

Standard Operating Procedures (April 2003), only SEP projects that directly benefit 

the environment are allowed a I: I offset. The SEP Standard Operating Procedures 

specifically state that environmental education is considered an indirect benefit and 

requires a 3: I offset. 

The Regulatory Guidance document, in discussing an indirect benefit, uses the 

example of a research project that seeks to find an alternative way to treat wastewater 

for reuse. It characterizes this project as indirect because it "may not result in the 

development of new techniques. Even if it did, there would probably be no way to 

guarantee (emphasis added) that those techniques would be implemented or used by 

others." 

In the case of the Waterwise program, the Commission has no way to guarantee that 

the students are installing the low-water devices (faucet aerators and low-water 

showerheads) in their homes. With certain exceptions, all plumbing fixtures sold after 

January I, 1992, are required by state law to be low-water devices, so presumably 

many children are already using low-water devices in their homes. 

The Regulatory Guidance document further states that exceptions to the SEP policy 

may be made only if there is "extraordinary benefit to human health or the 

environment that outweighs the considerations used in developing this policy." We 

do not believe that the Waterwise program meets this requirement. 

The purchase of pagers, vehicles, and vehicle repairs for a fire department also does 

not meet the stated criteria for a direct benefit to the environment or for an exception 

to the SEP policy. 

Chapter 2·B 

Monitoring of Third-Party SEPs May Not Ensure that Funds Are 

Used Appropriately 

While we found that the Commission has an adequate process for monitoring SEPS 

administered by the Commission or by violators, it does not adequately monitor SEPs 

conducted by third parties for compliance with the terms of their agreements. We 

reviewed the files for 10 third-party SEPs and found that 6 of them were not 

monitored on a timely basis. For example, one of the third-party SEPs was 

completed in December 200 I, but the Commission did not send a Jetter requesting 

the required report until January 2003. Inadequate monitoring of third-party SEPs 

reduces the assurance that the money entrusted to these organizations is being used in 

the most efficient manner to provide the greatest environmental benefit. 

The SEP coordinator and the SEP attorney are required to monitor SEPs until 

completion. This includes ensuring that reports are submitted as required, that 

reports contain the required evidence of completion, and that expenditures relate 

directly to the approved costs. The 10 third-party SEPs we reviewed offset $540,628 

in penalties. The fiscal year 2002 and 2003 third-party SEPs totaled $1,514,964. 

An Audit Report an the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04·016 

December 2003 

Page 8 
219 


27600.201

Recommendations 

The Commission should: 

Enter report due dates on SEP tracking sheets to increase visibility and aid in 

tracking. 

Standardize reporting time frames. 

Standardize the format for reporting financial information and expenditures to 

simplify and expedite the review process. 

Incorporate third-party reporting requirement data into a monthly "Pending SEPs 

for Required Reporting" log in order to generate a single report log that includes 

respondent and third-party reporting dates. 

Require refunds of SEP monies from third parties that are not complying with 

their agreements. 

Management's Response 

We agree with the SAO's recommendation to implement a standardized reporting 

form and to create a "Pending SEPsfbr Required Reporting" log. The Litigation 

Division Director will complete these actions by September 1, 2004. TCEQ will 

continue requiring payment ofSEP dollars to the General Revenue Fund by third 

parties who are not complying with their agreements, where appropriate. 

While we agree there is an opportunity to improve and clarify the program, we 

believe that third-party SEPs have been adequately monitored. Specifically, 30% of 

thefiles SAO pulled for this issue related to the third-party SEP perfbrmed by one 

entity. This entity has been in continuing discussions with the agency regarding its 

ability to perform the SEP withoutfimdingfor administrative costs. The entity 

recently received authorization from the Legislature to use SEP funds to cover 

administrative costs. With this development, the entity should be able to perform its 

projects. {(that is not the case, TCEQ is prepared to require the entity to pay any 

unused portion of the SEPfunds to the General Revenue Fund. 

Auditor's Follow-up Comment 

Regardless of whether the Commission was negotiating with the entity regarding the 

use of SEP funds, we saw no evidence in any ofthe files we reviewed that indicated 

that these negotiations were occurring. Part of monitoring should include making 

regular updates to files to indicate their current status. Presumably there was 

communication between the Commission and the entity regarding these negotiations 

that could have been included in these files but was not. This would have constituted 

a form of monitoring, as would notes of any verbal discussions. We selected a 

statistical sample of third-party SEPs, and 30 percent of the sample were projects 

performed by this entity. 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04-016 

December 1003 

Page 9 
220 


27600.202

We believe that the lack of monitoring of third-party SEPs creates a risk that funds 

are not used appropriately. We do not question the Commission's authority or ability 

to request that funds be returned if they are not used appropriately. However, these 

SEPs must be monitored in order for the Commission to be able to determine if funds 

should be repaid. Without effective monitoring, the Commission has no way to 

ensure that these funds are used appropriately. 

Chapter 2·C 

Information in the SEP Database Does Not Agree with the SEP 

Documentation 

Forty-one percent of the SEP cases we tested did not have the same information in 

the SEP database as in the permanent SEP case file. The information contained 

within the SEP database should accurately reflect the core information contained 

within the permanent SEP case file. The SEP coordinator uses the SEP database to 

produce a case tracking sheet to assist in monitoring and tracking. Failure to have an 

accurate flow of information from the case file to the SEP database reduces the 

overall effectiveness of using the SEP tracking sheet as a tool to assist in managing 

and monitoring SEP projects. 

Recommendations 

The Commission should: 

Ensure that all pertinent data from the respondent's file is entered into the SEP 

database. 

Ensure that all data is merged into the SEP tracking sheet to assist in monitoring 

ongoing SEP projects. 

Enter report due dates on SEP tracking sheets to assist in identifYing delinquent 

reports. 

Revise the current SEP tracking sheet to include the respondent/third-party 

reporting schedule. 

Management's Response 

TCEQ agrees with the recommendation. The Litigation Division Director will 

implement measures to ensure that database information and file documentation are 

consistent by September 1. 2004. 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04·016 

December 2003 

Page 10 
221 


27600.203

Chapter J 

Inaccurate Penalty Calculations and Slow Collections of Delinquent 

Accounts May Weaken the Enforcement Process 

Reviewing the accuracy of penalty calculations, considering the cost-benefit of 

penalty deferrals, and improving the process for collecting delinquent administrative 

penalties could help improve the Commission's process for deterring violators. 

Specifically, we found that: 

The Commission lacks an adequate review process for its penalty calculations. 

In four of the cases we tested, the Commission failed to correctly identify and 

adjust penalties for repeat violators. These four incorrect calculations resulted in 

a loss of$7,023. 

The Commission offers penalty deferrals to violators as a means of settling cases 

faster. However, the average time of all case settlements from September 1, 

2001, to May 31,2003, was 103 days, which exceeds the Commission's goal of 

60 days. The average time to settle 1660 cases in which a penalty was assessed 

but in which there were no deferrals was 134 days. Deferrals during this time 

totaled approximately $2.6 million, which is approximately 32 percent of the 

$8.1 million in penalties assessed. 

The Financial Administration Division lacks an adequate process for collecting 

delinquent administrative penalties. For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the 

Commission assessed approximately $5.9 million in penalties. As of May 2003, 

the delinquent administrative penalties totaled $571,322. 

Chapter 3-A 

Penalties Are Not Always Calculated Accurately 

The Commission does not consistently assess penalties in accordance with its policies 

and standards. The policies are complex, and it is difficult to calculate penalties 

accurately. Of the 73 fiscal year 2002 and 2003 penalty calculation worksheets we 

tested, 4 contained inaccuracies: 

In one case, the Commission offered a repeat violator a penalty deferral, which is 

against the Commission's policies. Unnecessary deferrals affect the collection of 

General Revenue-when the Commission grants a deferral, the State loses 20 

percent of the assessed penalty. This case resulted in a loss of$2.550 to the 

State's General Revenue fund. 

In two other cases, the Commission did not properly increase penalties for repeat 

violators. Failing to correctly identify and adjust penalties for repeat violators 

reduces the penalties' effectiveness as a deterrent to polluters. The State also 

loses interest revenue on the uncollected dollars. Title 30 of the Texas 

Administrative Code, Section 60.2, defines an entity as a repeat violator if it 

commits multiple major violations within a five-year period. If the entity is a 

repeat violator, the Commission is supposed to increase the penalty by 25 

percent. The two cases that lacked penalty enhancements resulted in a loss of 

$2,136 to the State's General Revenue fund. 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Sele-cted Programs 

SAO Report No, 04·016 

December 200] 

Page 11 
222 


27600.204

In one case tested, software problems with the penalty calculation worksheet 

resulted in an incorrect penalty. The assessed penalty was $2,337less than the 

penalty subtotal. This error occurred because the automated formulas in the 

calculation worksheet are not protected, allowing enforcement coordinators to 

inadvertently change them when using the worksheet. 

Recommendations 

The Commission should: 

Revise its review process to ensure that deferrals are offered in accordance with 

policies. 

Revise and streamline its penalty policy and penalty calculation worksheet. 

Management's Response 

TCEQ agrees to review our process to ensure deferrals are offered in accordance 

with policies. We also agree to review the penalty policy. However, please note that 

the statute requires the Commission to consider certain items, and we believe the 

policy addresses those items. Penalty policy must be flexible to accommodate 

hardship circumstances, and the Commission is authorized to exercise discretion. 

Discussion of the Penalty Policy will be the topic of an upcoming work session. 

Lastly, we will continue to seek a cost-effective solution to the penalty calculation 

worksheet concern. The Enforcement Division Director is responsible for 

implementing these recommendations by June 30, 2004. 

Chapter 3-B 

The Cost of Penalty Deferrals May Outweigh the Benefits 

The Commission's practice of deferring penalties for some violators may not be costeffective. The Commission deferred approximately $2.6 million of the $8.1 million 

in penalties assessed between September I, 200 I, and May 31, 2003. The average 

settlement time for cases with deferrals was shorter than those without deferrals. 

However, the Commission still did not settle cases with deferrals within the 

established deadline of 60 days. 

It took the Commission an average of 68 days to settle 1660 cases with deferrals 

compared with 134 days for cases in which penalties were assessed but in which 

there were no deferrals. Settlement of 1660 cases without deferrals ranged from 5 to 

2,637 days. 

The Commission offers a deferral to any violator that has not committed the same or 

a similar violation in the past. However, it is possible for violators with lengthy 

enforcement histories to qualify for the deferral as long as none of the previous 

violations were for the same or a similar violation. 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04·016 

December 2003 

Page 12 
223 


27600.205

Recommendation 

The Commission should determine whether the cost of deferrals is worth the benefit 

of shortening the settlement time, given that offering a deferral generally does not 

shorten the settlement time enough for the Commission to meet its deadline. 

Management's Response 

TCEQ agrees with this recommendation. The Executive Director will present the 

issue to the Commission for consideration during an upcoming Commission work 

session. 

Chapter 3·C 

The Commission Does Not Have an Effective Process for Collecting 

Delinquent Penalties 

The Financial Administration Division (Division) lacks an adequate process to 

collect administrative penalties that are delinquent. As of May 2003, the outstanding 

delinquent administrative penalties for air, public drinking water, water quality, and 

multimedia totaled $571,322. We tested 15 of81 delinquent accounts, which 

accounted for 72 percent of the total delinquent penalties. All 15 accounts were past 

due by more than 90 days, and the amounts due to the Commission ranged from 

$5,000 to $92,000. Testing showed that: 

The Commission did not place 5 of the 15 accounts on warrant hold because the 

Commission did not have the violators' tax identification numbers. The 

Commission placed seven other accounts on warrant hold one day after we 

requested this information. 

The Commission mailed letters to delinquent violators only twice during calendar 

year 2002. In addition, some of the delinquent violators did not receive letters. 

The Penalty Payment Database, which provides entities' names and addresses, 

has incomplete and obsolete data that prevents the Commission from ensuring 

that it mails the letters to all eligible accounts. In fiscal year 2002, the 

Enforcement Database was the source for the data in the Penalty Payment 

Database. Now, the Comprehensive Compliance and Enforcement Data System 

(CCEDS) is the source of this data. 

The Division does not have policies and procedures that directly address the handling 

of administrative penalties that default. As a result, the Division does not collect 

penalties owed to Commission in a timely manner. When these funds are not 

collected, the State does not receive money it is owed in interest on these funds. We 

did not test the process to collect other types of accounts in default. 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04-016 

December 2003 

Page 13 
224 


27600.206

Recommendations 

The Commission should: 

Develop and implement written policies and procedures for the handling of 

administrative penalties in default. These policies and procedures should 

include: 

The frequency of sending out delinquency letters. 

The circumstances and timing of warrant holds. 

Guidelines on when to refer delinquent accounts to the Office of Legal 

Services. 

Request tax identification numbers on permit, license, and registration 

application forms to facilitate placing default accounts on warrant hold. 

Ensure that CCEDS data is current and complete so that the Commission can 

send delinquent letters to all delinquent accounts. 

Management's Response 

TCEQ agrees with the recommendation to implement written policies and procedures 

for the collection of administrative penalties. The Financial Administration Division 

Director is responsible for implementing written policies and procedures for 

collection of administrative penalties by January 30, 2004. 

We currently solicit tax identification numbers when regulated entities complete all 

permit, license and registration applications via the core data form. However, TCEQ 

does not have authority to require customers' Social Security identification numbers 

(Social Security numbers are the tax identification numbers for many of our 

regulated entities) in permit, license, and registration applications. This does not 

preclude a regulated entity from voluntarily providing this information. TCEQ will 

explore options for identifYing customers for warrant hold other than through the use 

qfSocial Security identification numbers. 

Lastly, a data quality check has been programmed into CCEDS. This check requires 

a docket number, respondent name and address before the record can be saved. 

An Audit Report on the Commisslon on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs SAO Report No. 04-016 

December 2003 

Page 14 
225 


27600.207

Chapter 4 

The Commission Complies with Public Notification Requirements for 

Air Permits but Could Better Promote Public Participation for Some 

Citizens 

The Commission's permitting processes for the air, water, and public water supply 

permits comply with statute and Commission policy. The 29 air permits and 61 

general permits we reviewed had all ofthe required documents and were processed 

according to statute and policy. However, while the Commission complies with 

federal law regarding public notification, the current policies for public participation 

in the air permitting process could decrease the effective time available for 

commenting on the issuance of a permit. In addition, poor file management processes 

decrease the information available to the public and to permit writers. 

In April2002, the Commission embarked on a project intended to reduce the backlog 

in issuing permits. It developed aggressive time lines for the issuance of permits, and 

employees worked overtime to reduce the backlog from 1,126 permits in April2002 

to 276 in September 2003. According to the Commission's data as of September I, 

2003, the number of water quality permits exceeding the timeframe goals quadrupled 

since hitting low numbers in January 2003. We verified the September 2003 backlog 

against reports from the Commission's various automated systems, but we did not 

verify the accuracy of the data in these systems. (See Appendix 3 for additional 

information.) 

Chapter 4-A 

Public Comment Policy Could Reduce the Effective Comment 

Period 

The Commission's policies for infonning the public of pending air permit 

applications create a risk that citizens will miss the federally required 30-day 

comment period or have less than 30 days in which to comment. 

The public comment period begins when the permit applicant publishes a notice in a 

local newspaper. Permit applicants have up to 10 days after the date of publication to 

notify the Commission's Office of the Chief Clerk that the notice was published and 

that the public comment period has started. During those I 0 days, the Office of the 

Chief Clerk is not always aware that the public comment period has started or of 

when it is going to end. If citizens miss seeing the newspaper notice and ask the 

Office of the Chief Clerk for the dates of the comment period, they may not receive 

the correct information. This, in effect. shortens the time citizens have to comment. 

Federal law requires that the permitting authority provide at least 30 days for public 

comment. 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functlons for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04·016 

December 2003 

Page 15 
226 


27600.208

Recommendations 

The Commission should: 

Ensure that notices and letters contain instructions on how to contact the 

Commission about the dates of the public comment period so that citizens can 

find out when the comment period begins and ends. 

Ensure that the Office of the Chief Clerk and other applicable Commission staff 

are aware of the public comment period dates or know to whom to refer citizens 

when they have inquiries about public comment periods. 

Management's Response 

We agree with the recommendations. The TCEQ currently includes instructions on 

how to contact the Commission about the public comment process. We will continue 

this practice, and we will remind stqff on how to handle public participation inquires. 

Chapter 4·B 

Poor File Management Limits the Availability of Information for 

Public Participation and Permitting 

The Commission's Central Records office does not adequately control the files 

entrusted to it. In testing the enforcement and permitting functions, we observed that 

some case files were missing while others were incomplete. Commission staff use the 

files when drafting permits and monitoring entities' compliance; therefore, 

incomplete information can adversely affect the Commission's functions. Citizens 

use the files to Jearn about permit applicants and regulated entities in their 

communities. Investigation files are also available at regional offices, and these files 

are generally complete. However, they are not readily available to permit writers 

working in Austin or to the public seeking information from Central Records. 

In addition, the Central Records office's poor 

file management does not comply with 

Government Code, Section 441.183, which 

requires state agencies to establish and 

maintain a records management program (see 

text box). 

The Commission's Internal Audit Department 

addressed problems with Central Records in a 

May 2000 audit report. 

Our testing of 81 records for compliance with 

enforcement policies and procedures showed 

that: 

Per Government Code 441.183, Records 

Management Programs in State 

Agencies, agencies shall: 

(1) establish and maintain a records 

management program on a continuing 

and active basis; 

{2) create and maintain records 

containing adequate and proper 

documentation of the organization, 

functions, policies, decisions, 

procedures, and essential transactions 

of the agency designed to furnish 

information to protect the financial and 

legal rights of the state and any person 

affected by the activities of the agency. 

68 percent (55 of 81) of the records were missing investigation reports. 

55 percent (16 of29) of the records requiring notices of enforcement, notices of 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04-016 

December 2003 

Page 16 
227 


27600.209

violations, and general compliance letters were missing these documents. 

76 percent (16 of21) of the records requiring general correspondence letters were 

missing these documents. 

Additionally, while testing the perrnitting process we found that: 

22 percent (8 of37) of the tiles we requested could not be located. 

Current policy does not indicate how soon a file must be returned to Central 

Records for processing and inventory after completion of a perrnit project. 

Central Records has a significant number of records sitting on shelves waiting to 

be processed. 

Recommendation 

Central Records should enforce current policies and ensure that it addresses 

procedures for the creation, maintenance, and inventory of files. 

Management's Response 

TCEQ agrees with this SAO recommendation. In May 2003, the TCEQ Records 

Management ()fficer requested a facilitated review from the TCEQ qjjice of Internal 

Audit. The advisory service was conducted in October 2003 and provides additional 

recommendations for improved process control which are being implemented by the 

Central File Room. 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04·016 

December 2003 

Page 17 
228 


27600.210

Chapter 5 

Data Used to Monitor Compliance with Some Water Quality Permits Is 

Not Accurate 

The Commission does not monitor or review data that a contractor enters and that the 

Commission uploads to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Permit 

Compliance System (PCS). The data comes from water discharge reports submitted 

by regulated entities. In addition to providing this information to the EPA, the 

Commission uses it to identify entities that report that they exceeded their limits. We 

tested data for January and April2003 and found several errors, most of which were 

attributable to the contractor. 

In addition, the Commission's compliance-monitoring coordinators have the ability 

to modify permit limits in PCS. Although we did not find any incidences where this 

occurred, there is a risk that compliance-monitoring coordinators could increase 

permit limits to prevent a regulated entity from violating its permit. 

Chapter 5-A 

The Commission Does Not Monitor Contractor Data Entry for 

Accuracy 

A contractor enters the majority ofthe water quality self-reported data (see text box) 

for facilities classified as "minor." The Commission's Water Quality Monitoring 

Self-Reported Data 

The Commission collects 105 different 

types of self-reported data. Entities 

submit this data to the Commission as 

part of their permitting or enforcement 

requirements. Self-reported data is used 

for monitoring and analysis and can be 

used for enforcement actions. 

Team does not review the results of the contractor's data entry 

for accuracy. Testing ofthe data entered in the system 

identified a 7 percent error rate. In addition, 13 percent of the 

reports we tested had not been entered. Ninety-seven percent of 

these errors and omissions were attributable to the contractor. 

Inaccurate or incomplete data entry will prevent the Water 

Quality Monitoring Team from effectively monitoring water 

quality permits and identifying deviations from the approved 

permit limits. 

The Enforcement Division generates a monitoring report twice a week that identifies 

data that has been entered but not uploaded into PCS. A quarterly monitoring report 

identifies entities that reported exceeding their permit limits. However, neither 

monitoring report will identify information that is incorrectly entered in PCS ifthe 

entity has not reported exceeding its permit limit. 

Recommendations 

The Enforcement Division should: 

Implement a process to perform a quality review of data entry provided by 

contractors. 

Develop additional procedures to ensure that all of the submitted reports are 

entered into PCS. 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04·016 

December 2003 

Page 18 
229 


27600.211

Management's Response 

TCEQ does qua/i~y assure all monitoring data prior to initiating an enforcement 

action or issuing an NOV 

We agree with the recommendations. The Enforcement Division Director is 

responsible for implementing these recommendations by June 30, 2004. 

Chapter 5-B 

Allowing the Commission's Compliance-Monitoring Coordinators to 

Edit Permit Limits in PCS Creates a Risk of Unauthorized Edits 

The compliance-monitoring coordinators can change the permit limits in PCS. The 

coordinators review the self-reported data received from water quality entities 

monthly. They are responsible for identifying violations and processing notices of 

violations. The Commission's Permitting Division is responsible for entering permit 

limits and reporting requirements in PCS. 

The two functions of entering permit limits and requirements and of monitoring 

compliance are properly segregated within the Commission. However, the database 

access rights should be aligned with the functions to reduce the risk of unauthorized 

edits to PCS. 

Recommendation 

The Commission should request that the EPA modifY the user rights to reflect the job 

functions of entering permit limits and requirements and of monitoring compliance. 

Management's Response 

We awee with the recommendation andwillforward the SAO issue to the EPA for 

consideration. 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No, 04-016 

December 2003 

Page 19 
230 


27600.212

Chapter 6 

Fee Collection Processes Ensure that the Majority of Fees Are 

Collected, but Opportunities Exist to Increase Revenue 

Table 1 

In general, the Commission's assessment, billing, and fee collection process for the 

consolidated water quality, solid waste disposal, and air emissions fees is adequate, 

In fiscal year 2002, the Commission collected almost 99 percent of the fees assessed. 

According to Health and Safety Code, Section 382.062l(b), fees imposed by the 

Commission on Title IV and Title V air permits covered by the federal Clean Air Act 

should be at least enough to cover all reasonable costs ofthe permit program. We 

evaluated these fees and program costs for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 and 

determined that revenues for these programs were sufficient to cover expenditures. 

In general, the Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts (Comptroller) and the 

Department of Public Safety collect and transfer to the Commission its share of each 

fee they administer and collect on behalf of the Commission (see Table l ). 

The majority of the Commission's revenue comes from fees. Among the many fees 

the Commission assesses, six fees are expected to generate at least 70 percent of the 

Commission's revenue (see Table 1). 

Fee Details 

Air Emissions fees are based on allowable levels and/ or actual emissions, which the regulated entities report themselves. 

Solid Waste Disposal fees are assessed quarterly based on amounts the regulated entities report themselves. 

Consolidated Water Quality fees are assessed on authorized limits stipulated in permits. 

The Motor Vehicle Inspection (MVI) and Auto Emissions Inspection (AEI) fees are assessed during vehicles' annual safety 

inspections. The AEI fee applies only to vehicles registered in counties designated as non-attainment areas. The Commission 

receives $2 per MVIsticker, 20 percent of AEI fees, and $6 for On~Board Diagnostic tests. Funds are deposited in the ctean Air 

Act account. 

The Petroleum Delivery fee is assessed on the withdrawal of petroleum products. The Commission receives 98 percent of the 

fee, and it is deposited in the Petroleum Storage Tank Remediation account. 

The Lead~Add Battery fee is assessed on the sale, storage, use, or consumption of new or used lead-acid batteries, not for 

resale. The Commission receives 96 percent of the fee, and funds are deposited in the Hazardous and Solid Waste Remediation 

account. 

Sources: Unaudited information from the Comptroller of Public Accounts, the Department of Public Safety, Commission records, 

and the Uniform Statewide Accounting System 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs SAO Report No. 04-016 December 2003 Page 20 
231 


27600.213

Chapter 6-A 

Unauthorized Solid Waste Disposal Fee Discount Reduces the 

Commission's Revenue 

Since 1990, the Commission has granted federal facilities a 49 percent discount on 

solid waste disposal fees. For fiscal year 2002, the Commission forfeited $28,747 in 

solid waste disposal fees because of this discount. While we were not able to 

quantify the effect of the discount for the past 12 years, the revenue lost could be 

significant. 

Neither state statutes nor the Texas Administrative Code give the Commission 

authority for granting this discount. The lack of official authority opens the door for 

other facilities to request a discount. 

Recommendation 

The Commission should reconsider the discount granted to federal facilities. Ifthe 

Commission decides to continue the discount, it should update its current rules and, if 

necessary, request statutory authority to officially authorize the discount. 

Management's Response 

TCEQ agrees with the recommendation. The Deputy for the Office of Permitting, 

Remediation and Registration is responsible for implementing this recommendation 

by June 2005. 

Federal facilities may have a legally supportable claim that they are not required to 

pay the part of this fee that is dedicated for use by local governments and regional 

planning commissions. 

Chapter 6-B 

Delays in Annual Revenue Reconciliations May Prevent the 

Commission from Reporting Accurate Data in Its Annual Financial 

Report 

The Financial Administration Division (Division) has not reconciled fiscal year 2002 

collected revenue between Prophecy (the internal billing and accounts receivable 

system) and the Uniform Statewide Accounting System (USAS). Accounting Policy 

Statement No. 029 from the Comptroller requires agencies to reconcile their program 

and accounting records to USAS. 

USAS is the Commission's accounting system. Reconciling it with Prophecy would 

help ensure that revenue is properly recorded, accounted for, and reported in the 

Commission's Annual Financial Report (AFR). Reporting accurate and reliable 

information is essential as the AFR is used by both internal and external users for 

decision making. 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04·016 

December 2003 

Page 21 
232 


27600.214

Recommendation 

The Financial Administration Division should reconcile amounts recorded in 

Prophecy against USAS data in a timely manner to ensure that revenue is properly 

recorded, accounted for, and reported in its AFR. 

Management's Response 

TCEQ agrees with this recommendation, and the Financial Administration Division 

does reconcile Prophecy and USAS data on a monthly basis. FA performs an annual 

reconciliation between Prophecy and USAS after USAS closes for the fiscal year 

(November 20th of each year). USAS data is not available early enough to reconcile 

for the AFR. 

Chapter 6·C 

Outdated MOU Could Create Difficulties in Revenue Transfers 

The memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Department of Public Safety 

(Department) and the Commission regarding the handling and transfer of motor 

vehicle and auto emissions inspection fees received by the Department has not been 

updated since December !996. Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 30, Rule 7.!!0, 

requires the agencies to update this MOU at least every five years. 

The MOU covers the establishment, planning, implementation, oversight, and 

evaluation of primary responsibilities for these agencies. Without a current MOU, 

there is a risk of miscommunication regarding the handling and transfer of auto 

inspection fees, which could make it difficult for the Department and the 

Commission to carry out their responsibilities. 

Recommendation 

The Department and the Commission should update their MOU as required. The 

revenue directors and staff involved in the collection, transfer, and receipt of funds 

should meet annually to discuss changes that affect these processes. 

Department of Public Safety Management's Response 

DPS agrees with the recommendation. The Supervisor of Accounting Systems has met 

with TCEQ and is in the process of developing a team to address the MOU draft to 

resolve all current issues that outlines the current situation in appropriate detail. 

The MOU draft initial completion date is estimated on January 31, 2004 depending 

on scheduling of appropriate staff 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04·016 

December Z003 

Page ZZ 
233 


27600.215

Commission on Environmental Quality Management's Response 

TCEQ agrees with this recommendation. The CFO is responsible for implementing 

the recommendation by April 30. 2004. 

Chapter 6-D 

The Funds Transfer Process Between the Commission and the 

Department Could Be Improved 

The Department's process to transfer motor vehicle inspection and auto emissions 

fees to the Commission is adequate. We did not test the process used to collect the 

fees. However, there are opportunities to improve the process and to assist the 

Commission in tracking and allocating the corresponding fees: 

As of August 2003, the Department had transferred 99.26 percent ($37,288,120) 

of fiscal year 2002 sales to the Commission. The remaining 0.74 percent, or 

$278,742, was not transferred (see Table 1 on page 20). 

• . During fiscal year 2003, there was confusion between the Department and the 

Commission as to the correct number of Program Cost Accounts necessary to 

adequately allocate fees to the Commission's programs. 

Testing of fiscal year 2002 records shows that the Department waited until year 

end to transfer sales of certificates collected via interagency transfer vouchers. In 

addition, the amount transferred at year end does not reconcile to interagency 

transfer voucher sales recorded by the Department in the reports it provided to 

the Commission. At the end of the fiscal year, the Department transferred 

approximately $14,000 in these vouchers to the Commission. 

The report provided by the Department, which reflects monthly certificate sales 

by type, does not match transfer amounts recorded in USAS. 

These problems are a result of a lack of communication between the agencies' 

personnel. The Commission depends on information provided by the Department in 

order to allocate collected fees among its programs. For the on-board diagnostic 

(auto emission) fee, the Commission transfers 100 percent of revenue collected to 

counties that participate in the Low Income Repair Assistance Program (LIRAP). 

Without adequate information, the Commission spends unnecessary time and 

resources reconciling the information in USAS against monthly reports provided by 

the Department. 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04-016 

December 1003 

Page 23 
234 


27600.216

Recommendations 

The Department should establish better communication with the Commission in 

order to address any changes that may affect the process of transferring funds. 

In particular, the Department should take steps to: 

Transfer funds using the Commission-requested Program Cost Accounts and 

fund numbers. 

Transfer interagency transfer voucher sales on a regular basis. 

Reconcile its monthly reports to its accounting system prior to providing them to 

the Commission. 

Provide the Commission with appropriate documentation so it can independently 

determine its share of sales by certificate type. 

Department of Public Safety Management's Response 

DPS agrees with the recommendations and has already implemented weekly contacts 

with appropriate TCEQ personnel to enhance communications. The Comptroller's 

Office has made the requested coding changes to the Rapid Deposit system to 

accommodate TCEQ 's needs. Deposit reports are reconciled and monthly 

adjustment transfers are made on a more timely basis. 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04-016 

December 2003 

Page 24 
235 


27600.217

Chapter 7 

Weak Password Controls and the Lack of a Business Continuity Plan 

Could Affect the Integrity of the Commission's Data 

Central Registry and CCEDS, the two main information systems used for permitting 

and enforcement at the Commission (see text box), do not require users to change 

Central Registry and CCEDS 

The Commission has two primary data systems, 

Central Registry and the Consolidated 

Compliance and Enforcement Data System 

(CCEDS). 

Central Registry is a data repository that 

contains data that is migrated from smaller 

legacy systems each month. It contains 

descriptive information on customers (caUed 

core data), as well as their relationships to a 

regulated entity. Core data includes the name, 

address, phone number, customer number, 

regulated entity number, permits, and 

registrations for each customer and regutated 

entity that is, or has been, of environmental 

interest to the Commission. 

CCEDS is a system developed to replace the 

Compliance and Enforcement Division's legacy 

system. It contains information on 

investigations and enforcement actions. The 

Central Registry and CCEDS are linked. 

passwords from their initial passwords, which are assigned 

by the Central Registry system administrator. Without 

periodic password changes, there is a greater risk that a 

password could be compromised and that an unauthorized 

individual could gain access. Also, the Commission lacks a 

business continuity plan, which leaves it unprepared for a 

disaster. 

Chapter 7-A 

The Lack of Required Password Changes in the 

Central Registry and CCEDS Puts Data Security 

at Risk 

Passwords for the Central Registry and CCEDS are assigned 

to new users by the Central Registry team. Neither CCEDS 

nor the Central Registry require the users to change their 

initial assigned passwords. In addition, there are no 

requirements to periodically update passwords in the Central 

Registry. The systems have the necessary features 

programmed to require users to change their passwords; however, this feature is not 

turned on. Once new users log on, they should be prompted to change their 

passwords. There can be problems with accountability in a system where the users 

do not change the initial passwords assigned to them. In the case of erroneous or 

unauthorized changes to data, it would be hard to track who made changes. 

Recommendation 

The Commission should activate the feature that prompts users to change their initial 

passwords when they first log in. Periodic changes to passwords should be required 

for the Central Registry. 

Management's Response 

TCEQ agrees with this recommendation, and we are evaluating the policy and 

mechanism for changing passwords. 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04-016 

December 2003 

Page 25 
236 


27600.218

Chapter 7·8 

The Lack of a Business Continuity Plan Jeopardizes the 

Commission's Ability to Provide Services During a Disaster 

The Commission still does not have a complete and tested business continuity plan. It 

is aware of this deficiency and has reported that it is in the process of developing a 

plan. However, we also identified this issue in our Legislative Summary Document 

Regarding Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (SAO Report No. 03-360, 

January 2003). At that time, the Commission stated that it planned to have its 

business continuity plan developed and tested by August 31, 2003. The lack of a 

complete and tested business continuity plan leaves the Commission unprepared for a 

disaster, which could result in a delay in providing services to the public or in not 

providing services at all for an extended period of time. 

Texas Administrative Code (T A C), Title 1, Section 202.6 states that: 

Business Continuity Planning covers all business functions of an agency and it is 

a business management responsibility. Agencies should maintain a written 

Business Continuity Plan so that the effects of a disaster will be minimized, and 

the agency will be able to either maintain or quickly resume mission-critical 

functions. The agency head shall approve the Plan. The Plan shall be distributed 

to key personnel and a copy stored offsite. 

Recommendation 

The Commission should finalize its business continuity plan and have it approved by 

executive management. The plan should be tested at least annually. 

Management's Response 

The TCEQ agrees with this recommendation. The Business Continuity Plan (BCP) 

will be presented to Executive Management for approval by February 28, 2004. The 

BCP will be tested annually. 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04-016 

December 2003 

Page 26 
237 


27600.219

Chapter 8 

Petroleum Storage Tank Rules Put the State at Risk of Overpaying for 

Leaking Tank Cleanups 

At the Commission's request, we also reviewed the reimbursement rules for the 

Petroleum Storage Tank Remediation Program during our fieldwork in order to 

determine whether the rules apply to a contractor's actual costs. Based on our review 

of the reimbursement rules, we believe that the current rules relating to actual costs 

apply to the owner's or operator's expenses, not the contractor's. The Texas Water 

Code and rules set by the Commission indicate that the program is designed to 

reimburse eligible owners/operators for their remediation expenses. Therefore, the 

rules as currently constructed do not apply to a contractor's underlying operating 

expenses, such as overhead and indirect costs. 

As a result, it appears that contractors performing and managing remediation services 

under an owner or operator assignment can be reimbursed up to the maximum 

allowable rate regardless of the contractor's operating expenses. Under the 

Commission's current rules, as long as contractors' claims do not exceed the 

maximum reimbursement rates, contractors can be paid for expenses that would not 

be reimbursable had the owner/operator claimed them. This situation puts the State 

at risk of overpaying for the cleanup of leaking tank sites. 

Management's Response 

We appreciate the SAO's assistance in reviewing the PST rules. We have already 

initiated the rule making process and anticipate the proposed rule changes will be 

presented to the Commission in the next several months. 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04·016 

December 1003 

Page 17 
238 


27600.220

Chapter 9 

Issues for Consideration 

During our fieldwork, we noted the following issues that may warrant further 

consideration from the Commission or the Legislature: 

Recent changes to the penalty policy reduce penalty enhancements, which could 

weaken the Commission's ability to deter violations. 

The current air emissions cap does not provide an incentive for facilities to limit 

emissions once they exceed 4,000 tons. Current statute (Health and Safety Code, 

Section 382.062\[d]) precludes the Commission from imposing a fee for any 

amount of emissions over 4,000 tons per year from any source. The cap also 

causes the Commission to miss an opportunity to collect more fee revenue. 

Using fiscal year 2002 data, we calculated that if the cap were eliminated, the 

Commission's potential revenue could increase by approximately $25 million per 

year. 

Chapter 9-A 

Recent Changes to Penalty Calculation Policies May Not Deter 

Violations 

The Commission's revised 2002 penalty policy reduces penalty enhancements from 

their 1999 penalty policy levels for entities with long histories of prior violations. 

This new penalty policy has the potential to weaken the influence of enforcement 

actions on the regulated community, as well as decrease the penalty dollars assessed 

and collected. 

Culpability. Under its 1999 policy, the Commission evaluated an entity's culpability 

based on whether the entity had received a prior notice of violation (NOV) for the 

same or a similar violation. Under the 2002 policy, the Commission no longer 

considers NOVs when evaluating culpability but does consider them with regard to 

compliance history. Culpability is further limited to the existence and discovery of 

documentation suggesting prior knowledge of the deficiency. As a result, there is 

little evidence left with which to detennine culpability. Not using NOVs to 

detennine culpability will allow repeat violators to avoid paying penalty 

enhancements. 

Good-Faith Effort to Comply. The reduction for a good-faith effort to comply allows 

entities six months or longer to resolve violations and have their penalties reduced. 

Under established guidelines, the Commission has up to two months to issue an NOV 

and up to four months after screening to issue a draft order. If the violator addresses 

the violation during this time, the Commission reduces the penalty. The reductions 

result in a forfeiture of penalty dollars collected and interest revenue earned by the 

State. 

Compliance History. The 2002 policy added a consideration for compliance history, 

but NOVs considered as part of compliance history are now limited to those issued 

after September I, 1999, and 1660 orders are limited to those issued after February I, 

2002. As a result, entities with a long history of the same or similar violations may 

not be treated differently than an entity without a prior history. 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04·016 

December 2003 

Page 28 
239 


27600.221

Economic Benefit. The 2002 revision subjects all entities that receive more than 

$15,000 in economic benefits from noncompliance to a penalty enhancement of 50 

percent of the base penalty. The entities that are subject to the enhancement often 

have economic benefits that exceed their penalties, which could reduce their 

incentive to comply. The enhancement does not significantly increase the impact 

because the penalty enhancement is a percentage of the base penalty, not a 

percentage of the benefit gained by noncompliance. 

For example, if a violation with a base penalty of$2,000 allows an entity to save 

$20,000 during the period of noncompliance, the Commission increases the entity's 

penalty by 50 percent to $3,000. Even after paying the penalty, the violation provides 

the entity with a net economic benefit of$17,000. For the 80 fiscal year 2001, 2002. 

and 2003 cases tested, the amount of economic benefit gained by entities during 

noncompliance was $8,647,005. The Commission fined these entities a total of 

$1,683,635, which is approximately 19 percent of the entities' economic benefit. 

The Commission contends that the cost of making repairs or adjustments to come 

into compliance should be considered in the enforcement process, and the cost of 

coming into compliance is often greater than the economic benefit gained. However, 

because these repairs or adjustments are needed for the entity to operate legally, their 

costs should not be considered as part of the penalty. 

Chapter 9-B 

Eliminating the Air Emissions Fee Cap Could Result in Increased 

Revenue and Decreased Emissions 

According to the Health and Safety Code, Section 382.0621 (d), "The Commission 

may not impose a fee for any amount of emissions of an air contaminant regulated 

under the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 in excess of 4,000 tons per 

year from any source."' This allows some facilities to emit more than 4,000 tons of 

air pollutants without having to pay for more than 4,000 tons. For example, one 

facility reported emitting 85,990 tons of sulfur dioxide in fiscal year 2002 but paid a 

fee for emitting only the first 4,000 tons. 

This cap does not provide an incentive for facilities to limit their emissions once they 

exceed 4,000 tons, and the Commission misses an opportunity to collect more fee 

revenue. We estimate that the Commission forfeited approximately $25 million in 

additional revenue during fiscal year 2002 because of the 4,000-ton cap. 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04-016 

December 2003 

Pa~se 29 
240 


27600.222

Appendices 

Appendix 1 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

Objectives 

Our objectives were to detennine whether the pennitting and enforcement functions 

for selected programs at the Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission) 

ensure that: 

Permits are issued in accordance with state statutes, regulations, agency policies, 

and best practices. 

Current processes for Title V Air Permits allow for effective public participation, 

review, and comment. 

Enforcement functions are carried out in accordance with state statutes, 

regulations, agency policies, and best practices. 

Selected program fees are collected and accounted for appropriately. 

Current management information systems adequately support the regulatory 

structure. 

At the Commission's request, we also reviewed the petroleum storage tank 

reimbursement rules to detennine whether the Commission has a process in place 

that clearly identifies allowable costs. 

Scope 

We primarily analyzed data and processes completed in fiscal year 2002, but in some 

cases we reviewed data from September I, 2001, to May 31,2003, as indicated. For 

the fee work perfonned, we coordinated efforts with the Commission's Internal Audit 

Department. 

For the Permitting function, we reviewed the following pennits: 

Air Pennits Title V and New Source Review Construction (this included new 

pennits, renewals, amendments, and flexible pennits) and Site Operating Permits 

received, approved, completed, and issued between September l, 2001, and May 

31,2003. 

Water Quality: 

Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Multi-Sector 

General Stann Water Pennit TXR05000 

Wastewater General Permit TXG 11000 (which includes authorizations 

TXG II Discharges of facility wastewater and contact stonn water from 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04·016 

December 1003 

Page 30 
241 


27600.223

ready-mixed concrete plants; TXG34 -Discharges of facility wastewater and 

contact storm water from petroleum bulk stations and terminals; TXG83 

Discharges of petroleum contaminated water; and TXR05 Stonn water 

discharges associated with industrial activity). The population was composed 

of Notices oflntent that were completed, approved, and issued from 

September l, 2001, through May 31,2003. 

Air Permits subject to Public Participation These permits include Construction 

and Site Operating Permits. Our review covered new permits as well as renewals 

and amendments completed from September I, 2002, to May 31,2003. 

For the enforcement function, we focused on air, water quality, and public drinking 

water programs from the Houston, Beaumont, Corpus Christi, and Austin regions. 

Our population consisted of active enforcement cases from September I, 200 I, 

through May 31, 2003. Areas of emphasis included; 

Timeliness of issuing enforcement orders. 

The classification and monitoring of supplemental environmental projects 

(SEPs). 

Effectiveness of the penalty policy, which includes adjustments for economic 

benefit, repeat violator classification, culpability, good-faith effort, and 

compliance history. 

Some of the Commission's fees are administered and collected by other state 

agencies. The time period we reviewed was fiscal year 2002, except as noted. Our 

review also included processing of fee payments received and posted to the Prophecy 

system (the Commission's billing and accounts receivable system) and USAS. 

The Commission administers the solid waste disposal, air emissions, and 

consolidated water quality fees. The consolidated water quality fee became 

effective on October 6, 2002 (fiscal year 2003), and it replaces the water quality 

assessment and waste treatment inspection. For the most recent fee, our review 

included the fee assessment and billing processes because they are performed at 

the beginning of the fiscal year (fiscal year 2003 ). 

The Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts administers the petroleum 

storage delivery and lead-acid battery fees. 

The Department of Public Safety administers the motor vehicle safety inspection 

and auto emission fees. The auto emission fee also includes the on-board 

diagnostic fee, which is assessed only in certain counties and for vehicles newer 

than 1996. 

We also reviewed air, water quality, and public drinking water administrative 

penalties with agreed order dates from September 2001 to May 2003. 

The information systems reviewed include the Commission's Central Registry and 

the Consolidated Compliance and Enforcement Data System (CCEDS) applications 

as well as selected legacy information systems that transfer data to CCEDS. 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04-016 

December 2003 

Page 31 
242 


27600.224

Methodology 

Our methodology consisted of gathering information through interviewing 

management and staff from Commission headquarters and regional offices, 

reviewing policies and procedures, testing controls and related documentation, and 

reviewing data from information technology systems. 

Procedures and tests conducted included the following: 

Reviewed state laws, regulations, and the Commission's policies and procedures 

Reviewed the Department of Public Safety's (Department) policies and 

procedures 

Reviewed the Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts' (Comptroller) 

policies and procedures 

Reviewed prior State Auditor's Office (SAO) reports and the Commission's 

internal audit reports 

Reviewed working papers for the current SA 0 project "Controls Over the Tax 

Revenue System at the Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts" 

Reviewed the Commission's 2002 self-assessments for selected divisions 

Reviewed the Commission's fiscal year 2002 Annual Financial Report 

Review the Comptroller's 2002 Annual Cash Report 

Reviewed the Environmental Protective Agency Code of Federal Regulations 

Conducted interviews with Department and Comptroller management and staff 

Conducted interviews with public interest groups 

Observed various functions to gain an understanding and verifY the existence of 

controls 

Recalculated penalties assessed by the Commission and generated in Quattro Pro 

spreadsheets 

Analyzed SEPs' classifications 

Analyzed effectiveness of administrative penalties, including adjustments and 

deferrals based on previous and current policy changes 

Compared data elements for consistency between different information systems 

and hard copy data 

Determined Central Registry and CCEDS data accuracy and completeness 

Evaluated Central Registry and CCEDS access rights and system security 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs SAO Report No. 04-{116 

December 2003 

Page 32 
243 


27600.225

Reconciled data in the Enforcement Database against Financial Administrative 

Division (Division) records of administrative penalties due 

Reconciled Division records against data independently obtained from USAS 

Reconciled Division records against Comptroller and Department data 

Criteria used included the following: 

Texas statutes 

Texas Administrative Code 

General Appropriations Act (76th and 77th Legislatures) 

The Department's and the Comptroller's policies and procedures 

The following Commission policies and procedures: 

Penalty policies: fiscal year 2000 revision (effective January I, 1999) and 

fiscal year 2003 revision (effective September I, 2002) 

Penalty calculation worksheet instructions 

Enforcement Division standard operating procedures 

SEP standard operating procedures dated April 2003 

Field Operations Division's standard operating procedures 

Financial Administration Revenue Manual 

Information technology policies and procedures regarding access and 

security 

Other Information 

We conducted fieldwork from April2003 through September 2003. The audit was 

conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

The following members of the State Auditor's staff performed the audit work: 

Sandra Donoho, MPA, CISA (Project Manager) 

Ileana Barboza, MBA (Assistant Project Manager) 

Allen Ackles 

Romeo Diaz 

Shaniqua Johnson 

Robert Kiker 

Patricia Penne, CPA 

Juan Sanchez, MPA 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04-016 

December 2003 

Page 33 
244 


27600.226

Serra Tamur, MPAff, CISA, CIA 

Rene Valadez 

Leslie Ashton, CPA (Quality Control Reviewer) 

Julie !vie, CIA (Audit Manager) 

Frank Vito, CPA (Audit Director) 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quatlty's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04·016 

December 2003 

Page 34 
245 


27600.227

Appendix 2 

Management's Response 

Kathl~e11 ltarlll~U \·Vhik ChafnrttJii 

R. ~t '"Ralph" ~larqucz. Commissioner 

L<1rrv R. Sm'o'ard. Commissiomn 

.'-!M~.n·et HoffnMn. h'xecutire f)ircctor 

TEXAS C01'1M!SSION ON ENVI!WNMENTAL QUALITY 

l:lt.'i:cmbcr 8, 2003 

Mr. Lawrence F. Alwin, CPA 

Office of the State Auditor 

P.O. Box 12067 

Austin. Texas 78711-2067 

Dear Mr. Alwin: 

Thank you fOr the opportunity to review the draft. An Audir Report mr The lonum:"fsiou mt Environmental 

Qualif)1 's EnjOrcemelll ami Pennirting Funcrion.">.ffJI' Selected Programs. The TCEQ generally agrees wlth 

the SAO recommendations and has already imtiated implementation. While we agree with the 

rec-Ommendations. we have not seen adequate evidence to support the SAO's conclusions in two areas. 

Specifical1y. white there is room for programmatic improvement. we believe project classification and 

monitonng in the Supplemental Environmental l)rojcct program has been appropriate. Additionally. we 

agree w lth the SAO conclusion that our permitting processes comply with statute and agency policy; 

however. we do not agree that our public comment policy could reduce the effective comment period. 

We are grateful to Julie I vie. Sandy Donoho and the entire audit team. Their cfTorts wi1l be helpful as we 

move forward In our work to protect our state's precious human and natural resources, consistent wtth 

sustainable economic development. 

Sincerely. 

Executive 

~!~~ Director 

Attachment 

ec: Kathleen Hartnett White, Chairman. TCEQ 

R.B. "Ralph" Marquez, Commissioner. TCEQ 

Larry R. Soward. Commissioner, TCEQ 

Steve Goodson, CIA. C1SA. CGAP, Chief Audit Executive, TC'EQ 

Frank Vito. CPA. SAO A.ssumnces Services D1rector 

Julie I vie. CIA. SAO Audit Manager 

Sandy Donoho, ClSA, SAO Project Manager 

P.O. Box 1308'1 • Austir~. Texas 787ll<~O~i • 512/2:l9-1000 • Internet address: w.~. ... v.tr~q.s.t.:lt~.t:cu~ 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04·016 

December 2003 

Page 35 
246 


27600.228

Appendix 3 

Permitting Timeframe Reduction Project 

The following information is based on unaudited information provided by the 

Commission. 

Due to a significant backlog of I, 126 permit applications, in April 2002 the Office of 

Permitting, Remediation and Registration (Office) initiated a Permitting Timeframe 

Reduction (PTR) program to address this backlog. The PTR program had two goals: 

To evaluate and establish the maximum number of days to complete permits 

internally 

To implement streamlining measures in order to meet those deadlines 

The Office started by setting maximum target dates for the completion of permit 

actions to meet its first goal. In addition, projects were 

Project Classification 

Priority One projects are those projects 

that require an action on behalf of the 

Commission before an applicant can 

proceed with construction or modification. 

Priority Two projects are those projects 

for which action on behalf of the 

Commission is not a prerequisite to 

beginning or continuing business 

operations. 

Applications receiving a hearing request are 

not included in the above categories due to 

staff's inability to influence their closure. 

categorized as either Priority One or Priority Two projects (see 

text box). 

To meet its second goal, the Office implemented a number of 

streamlining measures. Some of the highlights include: 

Requesting duplicate applications so that the technical review 

could begin while the application was undergoing the 

administrative review. 

Developing general permits for water quality and wastewater 

needs and standard permits for air sources. 

The Office also established monetary bonuses and overtime where appropriate for 

high performers and employed interns. 

As ofJanuary 31, 2003, the Office was able to reduce the Priority One backlog from 

1,126 applications to 106 (a 91 percent reduction). Based on information provided 

by the office, as of September I, 2003 (seven months later), the backlog increased 

160 percent from 106 to 276 permits, or the equivalent of25 percent of the original 

April 2002 backlog (see Figure 2). 

Since January 2003, the most significant increases (based on percentage) have 

occurred in the Water Quality Division, with an increase from 29 applications to 119, 

and in the Water Supply Division, with an increase from 3 permit applications to 35 

exceeding their time frames. However, it is the Air Division, with 77 applications, 

and the Water Quality Division, with 119 applications, that account for 71 percent of 

the September 30, 2003, backlog of 276 permit applications. 

We were not able to project how long it will take for the backlog to build up to a 

degree similar to that of April2002 because the Office does not track the progress of 

overdue permits each month and because we did not audit the data the Office was 

able to provide. In addition, the data is derived from various data systems that were 

not in the scope of our information systems audit work. We did trace the September 

2003 numbers back to the automated reports from these systems. 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04·016 

December 2003 

Page 36 
247 


27600.229

Figure 2 

Permit Applications Backlog by Month 

1,200 

1,000 

·~ BOO 

~ 

0. 600 

0 

0 400 :z: 

200 

Apr·02 Dec·02 Jan-03 Feb· OJ May· OJ Aug·03 Sep·03 

Total Permits Exceeding Timeframes by Month 

Source: Unaudited data from the Office of Permitting, Remediation and Registration, Commission on 

Environmental Quality 

Figure 3 graphs the number of permits exceeding the time frame goal according to 

category by month/year since April I, 2002. The graph indicates that the number of 

permits exceeding the timeframe goals has evened out after hitting low numbers in 

December 2002. 

Figure 3 

Priority 1 Projects Trends 

600 - ,._ ·Air Permits Divisioo 

·~ 500 -·· 

&. 

- • -Waste Permits Division 

--A--Water Quality Division 

~- .... - Water Supply Division 

~ 400 

'E 

~ 

> )00 0 

0 

:;; 200 .c 

; 

:z: 100 

.~-~ .-·-·- .-: ;11:-. -:-• ---- .,.._..,., 

Apr1, 02 Dec 31,02 Jan 31,03 Feb28,03 May1, 03 Aug 1, 03 Sep 1, 03 

Month/Year 

Source: Unaudited data from the Office of Permitting, Remediation and Registration, Commission on 

Environmental Quality 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No. 04·016 

December 2003 

Page 37 
248 


27600.230

Figure 4 excludes the air permits because they appear to be skewing the trends. A 

review of the trends in this graph indicates that the overdue water quality permits 

have risen to approximately 50 percent of the April2002 level. The number of 

overdue water quality permits has quadrupled since hitting low numbers in January 

2003. The number of overdue water supply permits has risen as well. 

Figure 4 

300 

~ 250 

<>. 

. 

. 200 

1: "

. 150 > 0 

'0 

:;; 100 

" E 

" z 50 

Priority 1 Projects Trends (Excluding Air) 

- * -Waste Permits Division 

___...,__Water Quality DIVision 

-- +-- Water Supply Division 

Apr1,02 Oec31,02 Jan31,03 Feb28,03 May1,03 Aug1,03 Sep 1, 03 

Month/Year 

Source: Unaudited data from the Offlce of Permitting, Remediation and Registration, Commission on 

Environmental Quality 

An Audit Report on the Commission on Environmental Quality's Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs 

SAO Report No, 04·016 

December 2003 

Page 38 
249 


27600.231

Copies of this report ha. e been distributed to the follo~ing: 

Legfsladwe Audit Committee 

The Honorable Tom Craddick, Speaker of the House, Chair 

The Honorable David Dewhurst, Lieutenant Governor, Vice Chair 

The Honorable Tee! Bivins, Senate Finance Committee 

The Honorable Thomas "Tommy" Williams, Member, Texas Senate 

The Honorable Talmadge Heflin, House Appropriations Committee 

The Honorable Ron Wilson, House Ways and Means Committee 

Office of the Gowemor 

The Honorable Rick Perry, Governor 

Commission on Enwlronmental Quality 

Ms. Kathleen Hartnett White, Chairperson 

Mr. R. B. "Ralph" Marquez, Commissioner 

Mr. Larry R. Soward, Commissioner 

Ms. Margaret Hoffman. Executive Director 

Department of Public Safet:r 

Ms. Colleen McHugh, Chairperson 

Mr. James B. Francis, Jr., Board Member 

Mr. Robert B. Holt, Board Member 

Colonel Thomas Davis, Executive Director 

Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts 

The Honorable Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Comptroller of Public Accounts 

Mr. Billy Hamilton, Deputy Comptroller 
250 


27600.232

This document is not copyrighted. Readers may make additional copies of this report as 

needed. In addition, most State Auditor's Office reports may be downloaded from our Web 

site; WNW.sao.state.tx.us. 

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this document may also be requested 

in alternative formats. To do so, contact Production Services at (512) 936-9880 (Voice}, (512) 

936·9400 (FAX), 1·800-RElAY-TX (TDD), or visit the Robert E. Johnson Building, 1501 North 

Congress Avenue, Suite 4.224, Austin, Texas 78701. 

The State Auditor's Office is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate on the 

basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability in employment or in the 

provision of services, programs, or activities. 

To report waste, fraud, or abuse in state government call the SAO Hotline: 1·800-TX-AUDIT. 
251 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank both of our nominees for their willingness to 

serve in a very important public position. 

Mr. Wheeler, I particularly want to underscore the message you 

made in your opening statement to the career people at EPA. I 

very much appreciate that statement. And I was impressed by your 

highlight of maintaining your integrity, which, to me, is not always 

easy. It is a proud accomplishment. It is always good to see a person from our staff move on, so it is good to see you here. 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. I want to first ask consent that a letter signed 

by 47 conservation, environmental, and public health organizations 

to members of this Committee in opposition to Ms. White’s confirmation be made part of the record based upon that she should 

not be placed in such a pivotal position in an agency whose mission 

she clearly does not believe in. I would ask unanimous consent. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

252 


27600.233

350.org • Alaska Wilderness League • American Rivers • Animal Welfare Institute 

Bold Alliance • Center for Biological Diversity • Center for Food Safety 

Clean Water Action • Climate Hawks Vote • ClimateTruth.org • Defenders of Wildlife 

Delaware Ecumenical Council on Children and Families • Earth justice 

Endangered Species Coalition • Environment America • Environmental Protection 

Information Center • Food & Water Watch • Friends of the Earth • Grand Canyon Trust 

Green for All • GreenLatinos • Hip Hop Caucus • Indivisible • Information Network for 

Responsible Mining • Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy • International Fund for 

Animal Welfare • International Marine Mammal Project, Earth Island Institute • Klamath 

Forest Alliance • League of Conservation Voters • Natural Resources Defense Council 

NextGen America • Oceana • Pesticide Action Network • Power Shift Network 

Public Citizen • San Juan Citizens Alliance • Save Animals Facing Extinction • Save EPA 

Sierra Club • Turtle Island Restoration Network • Union of Concerned Scientists 

Waterkeeper Alliance • Western Environmental Law Center • Western Watersheds Project 

WildEarth Guardians • Wilderness Workshop • Wildlands Network 

November 7, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Opposition to the Nomination of Kathleen Hartnett White as Chair of the Council on 

Environmental Quality 

Dear Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, 

On behalf of our organizations and millions of members, we strongly urge you to reject the 

nomination of Kathleen Hartnett White to be the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ). Ms. White has been a consistent science-denier regarding the overwhelming scientific 

consensus on human-fueled climate change, making her unfit to lead an office charged with 

coordinating how the federal government analyzes and discloses climate change impacts in 

environmental reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). That same 

climate change denial would also make her a dangerous person to lead conversations about 

adapting our national infrastructure to stronger and more frequent climate impacts like the recent 

superstorms we saw in the Gulf and Atlantic this year. Additionally, Ms. White has been a 

demagogic opponent of the Endangered Species Act, opposing protections for critically 

imperiled animals and plants in Texas. Ms. White has built her career aligning herself with the 
253 


27600.234

fossil fuel industry and favoring big corporations and special interests over the health of the 

public and the environment. If confirmed, she would be placed at the fulcrum of federal 

interagency policy discussions on energy and environmental matters, making her one of the most 

powerful and dangerous environmental officials in the Trump administration. 

In her current position at the Texas Public Policy Foundation-a conservative think tank that has 

received huge donations from fossil fuel interests that include Koch Industries, ExxonMobil and 

Chevron, and whose board of directors includes oil industry executives 1

-Ms. White has 

promoted tactics for undermining the Endangered Species Act (ESA), claiming its protections 

for endangered wildlife imperil economic prosperity. In a 2015 policy paper, she argued that the 

ESA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been "ineffective at helping endangered 

species to recover," and that the Service has been more effective "in blocking needed 

infrastructure and industry."2 However, these fossil fuel industry talking points have been 

debunked time and again. The ESA has been more than 99 percent effective at saving species 

under its protection from extinction and has put hundreds more on the road to recovery. 3 It also 

rarely ever blocks development projects. A 2015 paper analyzed over 88,000 ESA consultations 

since 2008 and found that no projects were stopped because of endangered species.4 Ms. White 

has also previously stated that the ESA is "making natural disasters worse,"5 and has argued 

against a Texas bill that would have given expert wildlife biologists authority for the state's 

response to candidates for ESA listing. She called this the "wrong approach," and said that the 

"current framework is working." However, the framework she refers to vests authority to the 

Interagency Task Force on Economic Development and Endangered Species, where the 

Comptroller of Public Accounts-an agency that manages state fiscal and tax matters and lacks a 

single staff biologist or other scientist-is charged with leading the Task Force. 

As Chair of CEQ, Ms. White would be given broad statutory responsibilities to not only oversee 

implementation ofNEPA and its substantive policies, but also provide critical recommendations 

to the President on proposed legislation and environmental policies. Notably, among the 

responsibilities of CEQ outlined in NEPA, the Chair is charged with ensuring the Federal 

Government "recognize the worldwide character of environmental problems and ... lend 

appropriate support to initiatives, resolutions, and programs designed to maximize international 

cooperation in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality of mankind's world 

environment."6 Not only has Ms. White failed to recognize the global threat of climate change 

on vulnerable communities, she has actively opposed international cooperation compacts like the 

1 See Forrest Wilder, Revealed: The Corporations and Billionaires that Fund the Texas Public Policy Foundation, 

The Texas Observer (2012) available at: https://www.tcxasobserver.org/revealed-thc-corporations-and-billionaircsthat-fund-the-texas-public-policy-foundation/ 

2 Kathleen Hartnett White, The Endangered Species Act and Texas: A Look Ahead, Texas Public Policy Foundation 

(2015). 

3 See News Release, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA Propose Actions to Build on Successes of Endangered 

Species Act (May 2015), available at: https://www.fws.gov/news!ShowNews.cfm?ID~7CA2994B-D4A6-1658-

411D5635AAB69560 

4 See generally Jacob W. Malcom & Ya-Wei Li, Data Contradict Common Perceptions About A Controversial 

Provision of the US Endangered Species Act, 112 PNAS 15844 (2015). 5 The Endangered Species Act and Texas, supra note 2, at 2. 

'See 42 USC § 4332(F). 
254 


27600.235

Paris Climate Accord and aggressively pursued an industry funded agenda which will accelerate, 

rather than prevent, a decline in quality of the environment. 

Ms. White has also challenged the scientific conclusions of international experts on the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)-a volunteer group of scientists whose 

findings are considered the gold standard of climate science-and criticized the Supreme Court's 

2007 ruling that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants that can be regulated 

under the Clean Air Act. In a June 2016 op-ed titled "Restrain the imperial EPA,"7 she advocated 

for legislation that would deny the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to 

regulate carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases. She has also called renewable 

energy "unreliable and parasitic,"8 and global warming "a creed, a faith, a dogma that has little to 

do with science."9 And she has described efforts to combat global warming as little more than an 

attack on the fossil fuel industry. 

Ms. White has also frequently argued that carbon dioxide is not an environmental hazard, stating 

last year that "carbon dioxide is an odorless, invisible, harmless and completely natural gas 

lacking any characteristic of a pollutant." 10 As an outspoken critic of the science that underpins 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's climate rules, she ardently fought against the 

agency's 2009 endangerment finding that greenhouse gases are harmful to human health and 

welfare. This finding triggered important EPA rules that would limit emissions from sectors like 

power plants, oil wells, landfills and automobiles. Ms. White has also unapologetically argued 

there is a moral case for expanding the development of fossil fuels regardless of carbon dioxide 

emissions, and has even gone as far as claiming that fossil fuels are to thank for abolishing 

slavery. In a 2014 blog post, she wrote about the connection between "the abolition of slavery 

and humanity's first widespread use of energy from fossil fuels," and that "fossil fuels dissolved 

the economic justification for slavery." 11 

As this Congress prepares to invest billions oftaxpayer dollars to repair our Nation's crumbling 

infrastructure, CEQ will play a critical role in ensuring that our roads, water systems, and energy 

infrastructure are not only resilient to climate change but also safeguard those communities that 

continue to disproportionately suffer the adverse human health and environmental impacts of 

climate change. Through oversight ofNEPA, the CEQ Chair has the unique responsibility to 

ensure that federal agencies are fulfilling their legal duty to analyze and disclose the impacts of 

federal projects on climate change as well the impacts of climate change on federal projects. Ms. 

White's persistent disavowal of climate science, her determination to ignore the overwhelming 

public support for action on climate change, and active opposition to policies that will protect the 

health and welfare of vulnerable communities makes her demonstrably unfit to oversee the 

NEPA review process. At its core, NEPA is about listening to the public voice and using the 

best available science to analyze the impacts of federal decisions. Ms. White's history of 

7 Kathleen Hartnett White, Restrain the imperial EPA, The Hill (June 2016) available at: 

http:/ithehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/283931-restrain-the-imperial-epa 

8 Kathleen Hartnett White, Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case, Texas Public Policy Foundation (2014) available at: 

https:/lwww.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/2014-06-RR03-FossilFuelsTheMoralCase-KathleenWhite-ACEE.pdf 

9 See Kathleen Hartnett White, Stephen Moore, Fueling Freedom (2016). 10 Restrain the imperial EPA, supra note 6. 11 Kathleen Hartnett White, Energy and Freedom, Blog post, Texas Public Policy Foundation (2014) available at: 

https://www.texaspoliey.com/blog/detaillenergy-and-freedom 
255 


27600.236

prioritizing industry profit over the overwhelming public consensus and scientific evidence on 

the need to act on climate change demonstrate she is unfit to oversee our national environmental 

policy outlined in NEPA. 

Ms. White should not be placed in such a pivotal position in an agency whose mission she 

clearly does not believe in. If confirmed, she would bring a clear bias in favor of industry and is 

likely to undermine the implementation of our nation's core environmental laws. An extreme 

denier of mainstream climate science, a hero of those who oppose urgent action on global 

warming, and a person who believes that "there is no environmental crisis," and that "there's 

almost no major environmental problems," 12 Ms. White is unfit to hold the highest 

environmental post in the government to advise the president on the most pressing environmental 

issues our nation faces. 

We strongly urge you to oppose Ms. White's nomination as Chair of the CEQ. 

Sincerely, 

350.org 

Alaska Wilderness League 

American Rivers 

Animal Welfare Institute 

Bold Alliance 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Center for Food Safety 

Clean Water Action 

Climate Hawks Vote 

ClimateTruth.org 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Delaware Ecumenical Council on Children and Families 

Earthjustice 

Endangered Species Coalition 

Environment America 

Environmental Protection Information Center 

Food & Water Watch 

Friends of the Earth 

Grand Canyon Trust 

Green For All 

GreenLatinos 

Hip Hop Caucus 

Indivisible 

Information Network for Responsible Mining 

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy 

International Fund for Animal Welfare 

International Marine Mammal Project, Earth Island Institute 

Klamath Forest Alliance 

12 Americans for Prosperity Forum (November 2011), video available at: https://vimeo.com/31646143. 
256 


27600.237

League of Conservation Voters 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

NextGen America 

Oceana 

Pesticide Action Network 

Power Shift Network 

Public Citizen 

San Juan Citizens Alliance 

Save Animals Facing Extinction 

Save EPA 

Sierra Club 

Turtle Island Restoration Network 

Union of Concerned Scientists 

Waterkeeper Alliance 

Western Environmental Law Center 

Western Watersheds Project 

WildEarth Guardians 

Wilderness Workshop 

Wildlands Network 
257 

Senator CARDIN. Ms. White, I want to follow up on some of Senator Carper’s points about your comments. Just last Friday, the 

Trump administration released the fourth National Climate Assessment for the U.S. Climate Research Program, reiterating that 

human activity is the dominant cause of global temperature rise. 

Now, I say that in that COP 23 is convening this week in Bonn, 

Germany, the twenty-third opportunity for the international community to come together on climate issues, and I particularly was 

concerned about an article you wrote that contains much of what 

Senator Carper was referring to. The article was Signing the Paris 

Agreement Is the Worst Way to Celebrate Earth Day. 

Now, when the climate agreement was signed, there were two 

countries that did not participate; the rest of the global community 

did. Those two countries have since now joined the Paris agreement, so it was the entire global community that came together, 

and now there is one country that is backing off of it: the United 

States. 

So I have a responsibility, as the Ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which has primary responsibility 

over the international global discussions on climate. So I questioned Secretary nominee Rex Tillerson as to his views on this, and 

he was very open and said, yes, the United States should be sitting 

at the table during climate discussions with the international community, and yes, climate change is real. There may be different 

ways of dealing with it, but it is real, and we have to deal with 

it. 

It seems to me that you don’t believe climate change is real. 

Ms. WHITE. I am uncertain. 

Senator CARDIN. You are uncertain. 

Ms. WHITE. No, I am not, I am sorry. I jumped ahead. Climate 

change is of course real. 

Senator CARDIN. Does human activity affect climate change? 

Ms. WHITE. More than likely, but the extent to which I think is 

very uncertain. 

Senator CARDIN. Have you relied on scientists to give you that 

answer or not? 

Ms. WHITE. No, I had the question for a very long time. 

Senator CARDIN. So you have a distinguished background in academics and humanities and religion. 

Ms. WHITE. Yes. 

Senator CARDIN. Which is fine. It is a wonderful field. You are 

not a scientist, are you? 

Ms. WHITE. No, I am not a scientist, but in my personal capacity 

I have many questions that remain unanswered by current climate 

policy. I think we indeed need to have more precise explanation of 

the human role and the natural role. 

Senator CARDIN. And where do you get that information from? 

Ms. WHITE. A wide range of information. The IPCC is a very 

good source. 

Senator CARDIN. What is that? 

Ms. WHITE. United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change that has been the vehicle for ongoing assessment of climate 

change. 

Senator CARDIN. What role do scientists play in this? 

258 

Ms. WHITE. Many of them are the authors. There are thousands 

of them involved in the whole, but they are, of course, they are scientists. 

Senator CARDIN. Would you support the EPA allowing its scientists to fully participate in all discussions? 

Ms. WHITE. I don’t see why not. I think science should overwhelmingly guide assessments and all of that, but I don’t think 

they dictate policy results. 

Senator CARDIN. Do you stand by your statement that carbon dioxide, greenhouse gases are not dangerous at all to our environment? 

Ms. WHITE. I would characterize it differently, but I would say 

that, as I did earlier, it is likely that CO2 emissions from human 

activity have some influence on the climate, but again, not to the 

extent, but CO2 in the atmosphere has none of the characteristics 

of a pollutant that contaminates and fouls and all of that that can 

have direct impact on human health. As an atmospheric gas, it is 

a plant nutrient. 

Senator CARDIN. One last question, Mr. Chairman, and that is, 

you disagreed with the Supreme Court decision that said that the 

EPA had a responsibility because of the impact of greenhouse gases 

on public health. Are you now changing that or do you still—— 

Ms. WHITE. That was styled as the Massachusetts decision in 

2007. That is the Supreme Court’s ruling. That is the law of the 

land. 

Senator CARDIN. But you think it was based on the wrong scientific information? 

Ms. WHITE. No. I thought it was based on an overly expansive 

reading of the definition of an air pollutant in the Clean Air Act. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record materials relating to Ms. White’s views that 

higher carbon dioxide levels are not harmful to our environment. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

259 


27600.238

Kathleen Hartnett White on the environmental benefits of C02 

In a 2015, YouTube video titled "Kathleen Hartnett White discusses the benefits of C02," Ms. 

Kathleen Hartnett White talks about her book and how it discusses the benefits, among which are 

the "greening of the earth" which is being picked up by satellites. 
260 


27600.239

Kathleen Hartnett White 

Speech Excerpts for the Record 

1. According to the C02 Coalition's website: "More carbon dioxide levels will help 

everyone, including future generations of our families." And "Such [climate] policies 

furthermore threaten to deprive mankind of the benefits of carbon dioxide, an essential 

component of life and well-being." And according to these videos, what we need to do to 

save the bees is pollute more. Hartnett-White is a member. 

https:/ /www. voutube.com/playl ist?l ist=PL9Xa0 B LOflJ bA 4C9 X4 TOfS6A 9 JaN sowz U 

2. July 11, 2015 International Conference on Climate Change, The Heartland Institute 

After quoting Alice in Wonderland: "Pure propaganda ... the word 'carbon' can mean 

chemical basis of life or it can mean a weapon of mass destruction, according to our 

secretary of state" https://www. voutube.com/watch?v=U Lc-.ltBm6b Y 

3. CPAC conference: "No, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and fossil fuels are not the 

agents of death," Hartnett White told the receptive audience. 

https://www.faccbook.com/Energv.Environment.Legal/vidcos!vb.529782830430730/l27 

69482523 8084 7/?tvpe= 3 &theater 

4. During an interview on The Paradigm Shift Kathleen Harnett White said, "because I 

don't think it's a vexing problem. Global warming. I find that to be such extraordinary 

human arrogance. to imagine at this point in time that we could reengineer the climate 

system in which this planet operates. I think, and what a waste of science." [Paradigm 

Shift, YouTube, 8:30. https://www .voutube.com/watch?v=5Dvn2pRuxj8 

5. Communism would be a much better system for decarbonizing" May 24,2016 

https://www.voutube.com/watch?v=jvlsBqN8Wbl 

6. Speech that said that the United Nations has "revealed themselves" as advocating for 

communism as "the only system of government which effectively would reduce carbon 

dioxide." https://www. voutube.com/watch ?v=B XgebG 5u Xgk 

7. Hartnett White appeared on "The Right Perspective," an online conservative radio show, 

in September 2016 when she made the comments talking about a "dark side" to belief in 

global warming. "There's a real dark side of the kind of paganism-- the secular elites' 

religion now-- being evidently global warming," Hartnett White said. 
261 


27600.240

http://www.cnn.com/20 17 II 0/19/politics/ktile-kathleen-hatinctt-whitcpaganism/index.html 

8. When asked on the What's Up Radio Program is there any evidence fi·acking 

contaminates water, White stated, "The society for petroleum engineers in a report 

concluded that ... that at least one million wells have used hydraulic fracturing. And over 

that time in those over one million wells there's never been an instance where fracking 

process itself contaminated ground water above it. 

http://www.terrvlowry.com/audio/121221 Kathleen White l.mp3 (3:33) 

9. Americans for Prosperity Conference video Extreme Power Abuse- The EPAs Job 

Crushing Regulatory Assault, about 2011 (when Lisa Jackson was administrator)-

"People do not die from particulate matter levels." https://vimeo.com/31646143 

10. July 2, 2015- The Blaze "Particulate matter is twice or three times as higher when you're 

inside a building because of the fibers on your clothes" 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh3-05ee0c0 

11. When asked on the What's Up Radio Program, ·'Is ozone, though. a harmful pollutant 

that kills millions and millions of Americans and other citizens around the world?"' Ms. 

Kathleen Hartnett White answered, '"The answer is NO, with a couple of qualifications. 

At certain levels, and certain amounts of exposure. a very high ozone concentration can 

be harmful to health. At the level it is at now because of the improvement I just 

mentioned, it is not harmful to human health. Unless. you put your mouth over the 

tailpipe of a car tor eight hours every day. When you go inside, ozone levels drop maybe 

two-thirds or more. And most people. there are still people the work outside all day long. 

but the overwhelming majority go inside. So it's not, it's not a basic health risk." 

http://www.terrvlowry.com/audio/160520Kathlecn White.mp3 (statiing at 3:54) 

12. "EPA thinks it is, by saying oh gee, the same efforts to reduce ozone will reduce another 

pollutant that EPA calls fine particulate matter, but dust would be a good example and 

industrial operations also produce tiny, tiny, almost microscopic bits of matter. But that 

pollutant too has been so reduced almost the entire country meets the current federal 

standard. But EPA says almost two-thirds of all the benefits they calculate from this new 

ozone standard would be what they call coincidental benefits from also reducing fine 

particles. And fine particles have already been reduced! (5:26) 

http://www.tcrrvlowrv.com/audio/ 160520Kathlccn White.mp3 
262 


27600.241

13. T: Is ozone, though, a harmful pollutant that kills millions and millions of Americans and 

other citizens around the world? 

KHW: The answer is NO, with a couple of qualifications. At certain levels, and certain 

amounts of exposure, a very high ozone concentration can be harmful to health. At the 

level it is at now because ofthe improvement I just mentioned, it is not harmful to human 

health. Unless, you put your mouth over the tailpipe of a car for eight hours every day. 

When you go inside, ozone levels drop maybe two-thirds or more. And most people, 

there are still people the work outside all day long, but the overwhelming majority go 

inside. So it's not, it's not a basic health risk. (4:40) 

http://www .terrylowrv .com/audio/160520Kathleen White.mp3 

14. "No, I think without access to a cheap, abundant reliable source of electricity, economic 

growth in those developing countries would either be glacially slow or impossible. Those 

that so believe that renewables, and I'm thinking predominantly wind and solar, can 

replace fossil fuels and still give the same performance at the same price are just not 

being open and upfront about renewables. They are far more expensive. Most of the 

studies that come up now claim they are cheaper than conventional fuels that's because 

they don't calculate what's the largest share of the cost. Like the subsidies of some good 

data has come out recently that suggests, in the last eight years or something the federal, 

state, and local government combined have extended 175$ billion for renewable 

subsidies ... not just to operate them but installation and to operate them." 8:12 

http://www.terrvlowry.com/audio/l60621 Kathleen Whitel.mp3 
263 


27600.242

White: Climate change policies driven by power, not science 

b81° D 

White: Climate change policies driven by power, not 

science 

- By Kathleen Hartnett White- Special to the American-Statesman 

Posted: 3:49p.m. Monday, June 20. 2016 

White is director of the Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment at the Texas Public Policy 

Foundation and former chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. She is co-author 

of the new book "Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy." 

The technologies that drove the shale revolution are neither new nor high risk. Fracking has been 

around since 1947 and horizontal drilling since the 1980s. The historic breakthrough that led to the 

shale revolution was George Mitchell's combination of the two technologies in 1998: !racking in the 

horizontal well bore, targeting the plentiful but previously noncommercial tighter hydrocarbon bearing 

zones. 

As has been the case for decades, a large contingent of 

environmentalists treat oil and natural gas as inherently villainous. Yet, these fuels are integral to 

modern prosperous societies, have lifted billions out of poverty and offer the chance for health and 

economic growth in the poorest countries on the earth. Fossil fuels have amplified our food supply. 

Natural gas-based fertilizer accounts for 40-60 percent of the global supply. Well over half of the 

materials and fibers that fill our homes, offices and hospitals are made out of fossil fuels. We are so 

swathed in energy services that we don't even notice their presence. Even our small, clean 

smartphones are energy guzzlers, consuming more electricity than all of global aviation. 

The crucial fact omitted from the debate surrounding man-made global warming is that there are no 

0 

http:/AV\Wr'.mystfltesman.com/news/opinion!white-climate-change-policies-driven-power-not-sciencc/no28EgEZvGb2MhFZfH6JPP/{ll/7/20 17 I 0:35:16 AM} 
264 


27600.243

alternative energy sources that can replicate the performance of fossil fuels right now. Lavishly 

subsidized renewables cannot provide the concentrated, abundant, affordable, reliable, versatile and 

controllable energy that fossil fuels can. Consider how Germany's aggressive deployment of 

subsidized wind and solar facilities turned electricity into a "luxury good." With retail electric rates now 

three times higher than the U.S. average, almost a million German homes no longer can afford 

electricity and have reverted to burning wood. Using taxpayer money to subsidize renewables to the 

tune of perhaps $175 billion over the last ten years in the U.S. is transfers wealth from the poor to the 

rich. Meanwhile, the private sector-driven shale revolution has spurred a U.S. energy renaissance 

while creating tens of thousands of jobs and dramatically lowering the cost of energy. 

Americans now use around two hundred times more energy than in 1800, and all but a trace of this is 

derived from fossil fuels. Since fossil fuels were first harnessed less than two centuries ago, our life 

expectancy is now three times longer and average income per person has risen ten- to twentyfold. As 

late as 1900, the workweek was 72 hours 12 hours per day for six days. The colossal productivity 

made possible by fossil fuels shortened the workweek and increased per capita income, leading to the 

emergence of an enduring middle class with upward mobility. Do we really want to reverse this 

trajectory and restore the misery of pre-industrial societies when a small sliver of elites enjoyed the 

fruits of energy while the majority of society was trapped in gnawing poverty? 

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and carbon is certainly not a poison. Carbon is the chemical basis of 

all life on earth. Our bones and blood are made out of carbon. A natural, trace gas in the Earth's 

atmosphere, invisible and odorless, carbon dioxide does not contaminate the air as genuine pollutants 

can do. Ambient C02 has zero health impacts. This falsely maligned natural gas is better known as 

the "gas of life" because it is a necessary nutrient for plant growth the food base of life on the planet 

earth. 

No genuine empirical science is ever settled. Science begins with a theory that must then be validated 

by observational measurements. In the case of climate modeling, the United Nation's predictions of 

dangerous warming have been at odds with NASA's more sophisticated satellite and balloon 

temperature measurements. Although you won't hear this from politicians and activist scientists, the 

UN's most recent climate report admits this discrepancy and suggests that the models assumed too 

much climate sensitivity to man-made C02. Wihile a modest correlation between C02 and temperature 

has been observed throughout history, it appears that rising C02 follows rising temperatures, 

suggesting that C02 may not be the cause of warming but instead a symptom of it. And we still know 

little about how other natural variables impact climate. What role does our sun play? The sun is the 

source of over 99 percent of the energy in the earth's climate. 

Since its inception 30 years ago, the U.N. has politicized and driven climate change alarmism. Climate 

science should continue but under normal scientific transparency. The current state of the UN science 

is not validated and politically corrupt. It's truly remarkable that some propose it as justification for 

dismantling our fossil-fueled energy system that our very lives depend on. As with so many politicized 

issues, the climate issue is not about the weather, the environment or energy. It's about power, over 

http;//W>vw.mystatesman.com/news/opinionlwhitc~dim<~te·changc·policies.drivcn·powcr-not·SCicnce/no28EgEZvGb2MhFZffi63PP/{Il/7 /2017 1 0:35:16 AM J 
265 


27600.244

White: Climate change policies driven by power. not science 

our economy and over our lives, at the expense of liberty and the human condition. 

White is director of the Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment at the Texas Public Policy 

Foundation and former chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality She is co-author 

of the new book "Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy." 

Reader Commentsiiiii ... 

Next Up in Opinion 

Facebookcomments: Nov. 5, 2017 

hy Stujf, S'pecinl to the llmf!'ican-Statesnwn 

As reported by the American-Statesman's Katie Hall, Austin-Travis County Emergency Medical Services lost 

its employment contract after negotiations with the city came to an impasse this week. Representatives for the 

agency could not agree with Austin officials on issues such as compensation and credentialing, and city 

officials decided to stop .. 

Mike McCrary's 'Steady Trouble' is a Hollywood action 

film in print form 

by Kirkus Redews 

A woman's recent addition to a trust fund could earn her a windfallprovided the other beneficiaries don't kill her first- in Mike 

McCrary's "Steady Trouble." Texas bartender Theodora, better 

known as Steady Teddy, has had trouble with her memory since she 

sustained brain trauma when she was 18. Her injury ... 

Herman: The yard signs of our times 

by Ken Herman. :1mericmh9tatesmwl Stttff 

I've been remiss as of late in engaging in one of America's favorite 

http:/iwv.w.mystatesman.com/news/opinion/white*climate*change·policies·driven*power·not·science/no28EgEZvGb2MhFZJH63PP/l11n 12017 I 0:35:16 AMj 
266 


27600.245

Here's What Will Not Be Discussed at the Upcoming U.N. Climate Conference in Paris 

ll1liDAILYBAL : . ~~ :S .. f}3FLl"J ' i]"'"F~:!:',..,..,. ~ 

~- -==~~~~~--'?~~= =-=--~~ ---=-==---=-~-=--;:-:::~_?-~~~~~=:._-=-~~-~==-__:o-~----==-~-=--~-=-=--.:::------=- ----::;;;-~ 

=--=~== '=..----.£:-=::.._-=::-- ~ ~ =---::-~~-~ =:=-:=----=- ~----=._ --=~~=~~~~~~~~~::=c::=-===~ 

ECONOMY I 

COMMENTARY 

Federal Housing 

Administration Should 

Not Terminate 

Mortgage Insurance Premiums 

ENERGY/COMMENTARY 

ECONOMY/NEWS 

Why This State 

Lawmaker Wants the 

State and Local Tax 

Deduction Repealed 

~···· 

SOCIETY I COMMENTARY 

What This Disabled 

Navy Veteran Told 

NFL Team When They 

Tried to Honor Him 

Here's What Will Not Be Discussed at the 

Upcoming U.N. Climate Conference in Paris 

Kathleen Hartnett White I November 18. 2015 I 

http:/ /dai!ysignal.com/20 15/11 /18/heres~what~\vill~not-be-discussed-aHhe-upcoming-u-n-c!imate-con ference-in-paris/[ 1117/20 t 7 9:46:26 AM] 
267 


27600.246

Here's What Will Not Be Discussed at the Upcoming U.N. Climate Conference in Paris 

An employee installs a sticker with the logo of the upcoming COP21 Climate Change Conference on a Nissan LEAF 

electric car in Boulogne-Bi/lancourt. near Paris. France. Nov. 16. 2015 (Photo: Beoit Tessier/ReuterS!Newscom) 

COMMENTARY BY 

Kathleen Hartnett White 

Kathleen Hartnett White is distinguished senior fellow-in-residence at the Armstrong 

Center for Energy and the Environment at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. 

As the Obama administration prepares to leave for the U.N. climate treaty negotiations in 

Paris on Nov. 30, Texas Public Policy Foundation's Kathleen Hartnett White outlines 

important climate questions: 

Q: What are some ideas missing in the global warming policy conversation? 

A: The official science driving global warming alarmism is based on models built to assume 

http;//dailysigna!.eom/20 15/ 11/18/heres-what-will-not-be-discussed-at-the-upcoming-u-n-c!imate-conference-in-paris/[ 1117/2017 9:46:26 AM] 
268 


27600.247

Here's What Will Not Be Discus...'led at the Upcoming U.N. Climate Conference in Paris 

that natural climate variables are extremely sensitive to a relatively small increase in 

atmospheric C02 from human activity. But facts on the ground contradict the climate models' 

assumption. 

Temperatures have not warmed as predicted by the models over the last 18 years. And 

extreme weather events have not been more frequent or more intense than in the 20th 

century. 

The current concentration of C02 in our atmosphere is around 400 parts per million. To put 

that in perspective, greenhouses inject C02 to around 1200 parts per million to stimulate plant 

growth. 

In previous geological eras, C02 concentration was in the thousands of parts per million and 

plant life flourished. Many agronomists think that the currently much lower levels are almost 

starving plant growth. 

Q: What are some of the benefits of carbon dioxide emitting energy resources? 

A: The kind of energy available in fossil fuels- abundant, affordable, concentrated, versatile, 

reliable, controllable, storable- was and remains a necessary condition of monumental 

improvements in human welfare and economic growth that emerged around 1800. Since 1900 

energy consumption rose 17 fold and gross world product rose 16 fold. 

Synthetic materials, fibers, pharmaceuticals, plastics, and the like derived from fossil fuels 

represent 60 percent of all materials we use today. Before fossil fuels, all these materials had 

to be harvested from the natural world using millions and millions of acres. 

From 1960-2007, the world population doubled from 3.1 billion to 6.7 billion, but food per 

person increased by 27 percent thanks to natural gas-based fertilizer and other fossil fuel 

inputs. Without fossil fuels, the amount of land needed to grow crops would have to increase 

by 150 percent. 

And most don't realize that a "carbon foot print" allows mankind to shrink its physical footprint. 

Wind and solar facilities can require land areas 100-1 ,000 times more than coal, natural gas 

or nuclear plants and also use far more steel, concrete, and other industrial materials than a 

coal or gas plant does per megawatt. 

Q: You've talked about climate as being a 'moral' issue- what do you mean? 

http://dailysignal.com/2015/llll8/heres-whatNwill-not-be-discusscd-at-the-upcomingNu-n-c!imatc-confcrence-in-paris/fll/7/2017 9:46:26 AM] 
269 


27600.248

Here's What WiJl Not De Discussed at the Upcoming U.N. Climate Conference in Paris 

A: The growth from the Industrial Revolution is unique in all history in that the greatest 

benefits were gained by the poor and not the already rich elites. An enduring middle class 

emerged for the first time in human history around the time of the Industrial Revolution. The 

economic growth performed for the people and, not as always before, for the privileged. 

Since 1800, the human life span has tripled and real income per person has increased 10-20 

percent. Western countries have gained the most but the improvements in the material 

condition of human life is global in reach. The U.N. concludes more people have been 

released from acute poverty in the last 50 years than in the last 500 years. 

Policies to supplant fossil fuels- without a fully comparable substitute proven at scale- are 

immoral. 

Increased energy prices hurt middle and low income families the most. Germany's green 

energy policies have made electricity "a luxury good" for the poor with average retail electric 

rates three times higher than the average U.S. rate. 

Hundreds of thousands of homes can no longer afford electricity and have reverted to wood 

for home use. The UK is actually subsidizing purchase of wood burning stoves in their 

renewable fuel initiative. 1.3 billion people in the world still lack access to electricity. They 

don't need subsidized solar panels- they need affordable, efficient, reliable electricity. 

Q: What is the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan regulation? 

A: The Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to set emission limits at individual power plants. But 

in the Clean Power Plan, the EPA asserts control over the nation's entire electric system 

(energy source. generation, distribution and individual consumption). 

States have had almost exclusive authority over electric utilities since law was enacted in 

1930. The CPP, constructively, federalizes electric utilities. 

The CPP also fundamentally transforms the operation of the electric grids. No longer will cost, 

reliability and safety be the factors that determine what electricity flows on the line. The CPP 

will make the carbon content of the generating fuel the determining criterion for dispatch. 

Policies of this national consequence must be the decision of the U.S. Congress- not the 

EPA. 

http:/ /dailysignal.com/20 l 5/11 I 18/heres~what ~will~not ~be-d iscusscd~at -the~upcoming -u~JH!im ate-con ferencc~in-parisl[ 1117/20 17 9:46:26 AM J 
270 


27600.249

Here's What Will Not Be Discussed at the Upcoming U.N. Climate Conference in Paris 

Further, the EPA's assumptions about the amount of additional renewable energy that could 

be deployed in the next few years is dream land and destructive. For only the state of Texas, 

the CPP envisions installation of 45,000 new wind turbines. This will disfigure millions of acres 

of open space. 

Q: Why is the U.N. Paris climate meeting so important? 

A: As 195 nations will be considering a binding global agreement in Paris to essentially 

eliminate fossil fuels, the recent shale revolution has achieved access to vast store of oil and 

gas - a development with prodigious economic opportunities for the entire world. 

Nixing fossil fuels without a fully comparable substitute is an energy regression. This has 

already begun in select nations that are returning to wood. The shale revolution that has led to 

lower fuel prices already has helped every household in the U.S. 

We don't need to supplant fossil fuels at this point in time. We need to help developing 

countries increase energy availability for their people and use emission control technologies 

to manage real pollutants. 

Q: What should U.S. leadership look like in Paris at the climate confrence? 

A: President Obama is the first and only U.S. president to advocate a binding global 

agreement. And he has imposed damaging, unjustified, counter-productive regulatory 

mandates on our country merely to serve as a symbol of U.S. leadership. 

The EPA christened C02 as "pollutant" in 2009, hours before Obama flew to Copenhagen for 

the last major U.N. Conference of the Parties on Climate Change. And by the way, Obama 

will fly to Paris with the ink still wet on the final Clean Power Plan. 

Congress several times considered, but ultimately rejected, giving the EPA any authority to 

regulate C02. 

So, the EPA created C02 as a pollutant and under the highly prescriptive and enforceable 

Clean Air Act. 

The most important action the U.S. Congress could take in a very short bill would be: "C02 is 

not a pollutant within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Clean Air Act." 

http://dailysignal.com/20 15/11/18/heres~what~will-notAbc~discussed·aHheAupcomingAu-n-climatc·conference-in-paris/flln /2017 9:46:26 AMl 
271 


27600.250

Here's What Will Not Be Discussed at the Upcoming U.N. Climate Conference in Paris 

The Texas Public Policy Foundation will host an "At the Crossroads: Energy and Climate 

Summit" in Austin, Texas. The Summit will bring together more than 20 of the nation's top 

energy and environment thought leaders to discuss important topics such as "Earth's Climate 

History," "Energy Poverty," and ''The Politics and Economics of Climate." For more information 

on the Texas Public Policy Foundations' conference, please visit http://crossroadssummit.com/ 

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now 

TRENDING 

Join The Discussion 1 · 

Back to Top 

0THEDAILYSIGNAL 

http:/ /dailysignal.com/20 1 S/11/18/heres~what-v.ill~not ~be-discussed~at-the~upcoming-u~n-climate-con ference-in~paris/[ 1117/2017 9:46:26 AM] 
272 


27600.251

Trump taps climate skeptic for top White House environmental post~ The Washington Post 

Sectrons o Q!be WtUlbingttm Jlolit I~ DemO(IQCtJ Dtes m Dark11ess 

Energy and Environment 

Trump taps climate 

skeptic for top White 

House environmental 

post 

By Brady Dennis and Chris Mooney October 13 

https://\V\\w.washingtonpost.com/ ... 17/1 0/!3/trump-tapNiimate-skeptic·for-top-whitc-house..environmental-posU?utm_tenn""'.f64706747eb7[lln /2017 9:44:00 AMl 
273 


27600.252

Trump taps climate skeptic for top White House environmental post- The Washington Post 

Surrounded by miners, President Trump signs an "energy independence'- executive 

order at the Environmental Protection Agency in March. (Jim Watson/AFP/Getty 

Images) 

This story has been updated. 

President Trump on Thursday tapped Kathleen Hartnett-White, a 

former chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, to 

head a key White House office that coordinates environmental and 

energy policies across the government. 

The nomination of Hartnett-White to chair the administration's Council 

on Environmental Quality is not entirely surprising - she previously 

had been considered to head the Environmental Protection Agency -

but nevertheless is sure to infuriate environmental advocates. 

https://-..vww.washingtonpostcomJ ... I7 /1 0113/trump-taps-climate-skeptic-for-top-white-house-envlronmenta!-postJ?utm_ tcrm=.f64706747eb7[ll/7/20 17 9:44:00 AM J 
274 


27600.253

T mmp taps climate skeptic for top Wh.ite House environmental post- Th.e Wash.ington Post 

Kathleen Hartnett-White arrives at Trump 

Tower in New York last November. (Drew 

Angerer/Getty) 

Like other members of the 

Trump administration, she has 

long questioned the 

overwhelming scientific 

consensus on human-fueled 

climate change and 

has criticized the findings of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC), a 

volunteer group of climate 

scientists whose findings are considered the gold standard of climate 

science. And she has described efforts to combat global warming as little 

more than an attack on the fossil fuel industry. 

"I am not at all persuaded by the IPCC science that we are standing on 

some precipice," Hhrtnett-White told The Washington Post last 

October, referring to the urgency to combat global warming. "We're not 

standing on a cliff fi·om which we are about to fall off." 

[New EPA document reveals sharply lower estimate of the cost of 

climate change] 

Hartnett-White is a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, 

an organization whose board of directors includes oil industry 

executives and GOP activists. Koch Industries, an oil-based 

conglomerate that has funded a variety oflibertarian political groups, 

was among the group's broad range of original donors. 

From her post at the foundation, Hartnett-White often has challenged 

the conclusions of international experts on climate change science, as 

well as criticized the Supreme Court's 2007 ruling that carbon dioxide 

and other greenhouse gases are pollutants that can be regulated under 

h.ttps://www.wash.ingtonpost.com/ ... 17 /10/13/trump-taps-climate-skeptic-for-top-white-house-environmental-post/?utrn ~tenn"".f64706747eb7[11/7120t7 9:44:00 AM\ 
275 


27600.254

rrump taps climate skeptic for top White House environmental post- The Washington Post 

the Clean Air Act. 

"I take issue with that," she told The Post last fall. "Carbon dioxide has 

none of the characteristics of a pollutant that could harm human 

health." 

She has displayed similar contempt for international climate efforts, 

calling scientific conclusions from United Nations panels "not validated 

and politically corrupt." Hartnett-White has also questioned the idea 

that carbon dioxide is a pollutant at all, calling it "an odorless, invisible, 

beneficial, and natural gas." 

"Our flesh, blood and bones are built of carbon," she wrote in 2016. 

"Carbon dioxide (C02) is the gas of life on this planet, an essential 

nutrient for plant growth on which human life depends." 

She made similar arguments in a book she co-authored in 2016, titled 

"Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy," as well as in 

numerous essays questioning climate change, including one last year in 

which she called President Barack Obama's efforts to slow global 

warming by reducing carbon emissions "dduded and illegitimate." 

The Council on Environmental Quality or CEQ, formed in 1970, doesn't 

just coordinate environmental policy at the White House. It plays a 

central role in the implementation of the National Environmental Policy 

Act, or NEP A, which requires an assessment of the environmental 

impacts of many proposed federal actions before they are undertaken. 

That's where Hartnett-White could have a lot of influence in an 

administration that has called for speeding up infrastructure projects 

and cutting down on holdups due to environmental requirements. 

https:/hNw\v,washingtonpost.com/. .. 17/1 0/13/trump-taps-climate-skeptic-for-top-white-house-en\"ironmental-post/?utm_tenn=.f64706747eb7f 11/7/2017 9:44:00 AMl 
276 


27600.255

Trump taps climate skeptic for top White House environmental post~ The Washington Post 

"The new chair has wide latitude to weaken NEPA in an effort to speed 

oil and gas and other project approvals, which could undermine a key 

tool to understand and potentially mitigate environmental harms," said 

Jason Bordoff, director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at 

Columbia University and a former CEQ staffer in the Obama 

administration. 

But James Connaughton, who held the role for which Hartnett-White 

has been nominated in the George W. Bush administration, argued that 

at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in the 2000s she 

presided over an impressive period in which economic growth and 

energy infrastructure expansion - particularly for wind energy and 

shale gas drilling was nevertheless matched by continuing 

environmental protection. 

"It's a great track record of effective planning, effective decision-making, 

while still meeting and sustaining environmental requirements," 

Connaughton said, calling Hartnett-White "highly qualified." 

Connaughton also argued that at CEQ, Hartnett-White could 

successfully streamline project approvals without undermining 

environmental protections. "The Clean Water Act is still there, 

Endangered Species Act is still there, all of those substantive laws are 

still on the books and NEPA helps organize the process of getting 

through all that," he said. 

Critics of Hartnett-White, however, have long seen her as far outside the 

mainstream, a denier of well-established science who would reflexively 

side with fossil fuel interests. 

"Her ill-conceived policies would put the health of our families at risk 

and increase the deadly impact of climate change," Gene Karpinski, head 

https://wwvc.washingtonpostcom/ ... 17/1 0/13/trump~taps-climate-skeptic-for-top-v.rh.ite-house-environmenta!-postl?utm _ tcnn"".f64706747eb7[11/7/2017 9:44:00 AM} 
277 


27600.256

Trump taps climate skeptic for top White House environmental post~ The Washington Post 

of the League of Conservation Voters, wrote last fall. 

Christy Goldfuss, vice president of energy and environmental policy at 

the Center for American Progress and a former managing director of the 

White House Council on Environmental Quality, called Hartnett-White's 

nomination a win for the industry interests. 

"She advocates for the moral case for developing fossil fuels, which flies 

in the face of the responsibilities of the chair to engage the public on 

environmental issues and advise the president on how to protect the 

public from the greatest environmental threats," Goldfuss said in a 

statement. "As communities rebuild across the country from climate 

fueled wildfires and hurricanes, her stated alliance with the fossil fuel 

industry makes her unfit to hold the highest environmental post in the 

government to advise the president on the real moral threat to our 

country: climate change." 

Even with the nomination of Hartnett-White, who must be confirmed by 

the Senate, the Trump administration has left empty dozens of key 

scientific posts throughout the government. The positions span highlevel science advisory jobs in the White House, the National Science 

Foundation and the Department of Energy. 

Steven Mufson contributed to this report. 

Read more: 

Trump's eneq,'y policy team includes climate change skeptics, freemarket advocates 

Over 2,000 scientists urge Trump to respect 'scientific integrity and 

independence' 

Fancy dinners, far-flung speeches: Calendars detail EPA ehiefs close ties 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... 17/1 0/13/trump-taps~climate-skcptic-for-top-whitc-housc-environmental~post/?utm _tenn=.f64706747eb7[11/7/20 17 9:44:00 AM J 
278 


27600.257

Kathleen Hartnett White I DeSmogBiog 

., .. DESMOG 

Kathleen Hartnett White 

Credentials 

• M.A., Humanities & Religion, Stanford University. [1], [2], [3] 

BA Humanities & Religion, Stanford University. [1], [2], [3] 

Attended Doctoral Program in Religion, specializing in East Asian 

and comparative Religions, Princeton University. [1], [3] 

Completed first year of law school, Texas Tech University. [1], [3] 

Background 

Kathleen Hartnett White is the distinguished senior fellow-in-residence 

and director of the Anmstrong Center for Energy & the Environment at the 

Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF). Hartnett White previously worked 

as Chairman and Commissioner of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Prior to 2001, she served as thenGovernor George W. Bush's appointee to the Texas Water Development 

Board, where she sat until appointed to TCEQ. [1] 

reg C02 i project 

also seeks to"End the regulation of C02 as a pollutant" She is also a 

member of the Advisory Committee for the C02 Coalition, formerly known 

as the George C. Marshall Institute, a group that maintains that 

https 11'-'<vrw desmogblog.comlkath!een-hartnett~whitefll n120 17 ll· 55 02 AM] 

*:F'd·"-

D!S!f.lf···o ... ifl. M .. · .....~Xto~ l1J. DATAIIASE··~ 

ON DESMOG 

B.C. Using Kltlmat SmelterWOf1l.erv as 

'GulneaPigs'forAirPollutlonMonltorlng, 

Union Says 

ON DESMOG 
279 


27600.258

Kathleen Hartnett White I De:SmogBlog 

increased C02 is beneficial for life on Earth. [4], [5], [6]. [7] 

In October 2017, Trump tapped Hartnett White to lead the White House 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), pending confirmation. She was 

also a member of Trump's "economic advisory team" in 2016. [51], [12] 

Hartnett White has also held positions as the Director of Private Lands 

and the Environment for the National Cattlemen's Beef 

Association (NCBA) in Washington, D.C. She has served as director of the 

Ranching Heritage Association. Notably, NCBA opposed the EPA's 

endangerment finding rule in 2010. She was a special assistant in the 

White House Office of the First Lady Nancy Reagan. [1]. [8] 

Kathleen Hartnett White is co-author, with Stephen Moore, of Fueling 

Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy where she argues against 

the shift to renewable energy. According to a review of the book in 

American Thinker, "Rather than worrying that carbon energy resources 

are destroying the planet and looking to renewable energy as an 

alternative, the authors suggest we should celebrate the vast contributions fossil fuels made during the past century." Rolling 

Stone described Fueling Freedom as "a hymnal to all things fossil fuels, 

the dirty-energy, non-satirical equivalent of Thank You for Smoking." [1]. 

[9], [10] 

The Texas Observer found that the TPPF has been funded 

by ExxonMobil, Chevron, the Koch network, RJ Reynolds, the Heartland 

Institute, and others among what they describe as the "Who's Who of 

Texas polluters." [11] 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 

From 2003 to 2007, Hartnett White was the leader of the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) appointed by Rick Perry. 

The Texas Observer noted that as TCEQ leader. Hartnett White voted to 

construct a new coal plant near Dallas despite opposition from mayors 

and officials in 24 cities and countries. When judges reviewed the plant's 

air permit, telling TCEQ that its pollution controls would be 

insufficient, Hartnett White argued that the owner of the plant was "under no obligation to prove its pollution controls would work." [52] 

A 2003 Texas State Audit found that the TCEQ did "not consistently 

ensure violators are held accountable" and polluters "often have 

economic benefits that exceed their penalties, which could reduce their 

incentive to comply." [53] 

Emails from the TCEQ revealed that Hartnett had led the group while it 

was involved in what one government watchdog group described as "conspiracy at the TCEQ of the highest order." Despite clear rules 

dictating federal limits on radiation in drinking water, KHOU 11 News 

reported that "the agency's top commissioners directed staff to continue 

lowering radiation test results, in defiance of federal EPA rules." [54] 

Before he chose her to become chairman of TCEQ. then-Governor Rick 

Perry had also appointed her to the Texas Water Development Board. 

https://www.desmogblog.com/kathleell><hwtnett~white[lln/2017 11:55:02 AM] 

I 

I 

I 

I 

CHizeM Group Calla for Irish Govammant 

to Taka Strong AcUon on Climate Change 

1 Ireland's political response to climate 

'I change has received a stinging rebuH" from 

a group ot citizens participating in an 

I 

innovative new govemment~supported 

policy forum. 

I The partlamenk. 

I 

' 

····-----~-~~ 

MOST POPULAR ITEMS 

Poll Shows Majority Of Americans Want 

Govemmen1 To Act On Climate Change, [Jut 

Fonner Head otf:nergy,£nwononentslAlEC, 

Todd Wynn, H1red by Tntml) Interior 

Oepanr~enl 

In Photos The Canadian Mining Boom You've 

Nl'lll€fSeen Before 

RDifflr Pipehne S6ts Reoord for Envirorlm<!ntM 

Vltlla110f1S 

lmtisible Horseman: An Interview with 

Pho\ogmpherTrnyMolh 
280 


27600.259

Kathleen Hartnett White I DeSmogBlog 

[52] 

Donald Trump's Economic Advisory Team 

Kathleen Hartnett White was named as a member of Donald Trump's 

"economic advisory team' in 2016. The team promised to "get the 

American economy back on track." Trump, who also added fellow 

climate change denier Myron Ebell to his team in September 2016, has 

called global warming "bullshit" and promised he would "cancel" the Paris 

climate agreement as well as roll back President Obama's actions on climate change. [12], (13] 

"I think a lot of things are way too premature to try to characterize 

meaningfully, but it would be my lifelong work- it would be an honor to serve in his administration," said Hartnett White. [14] 

Hartnett White said that her book, Fueling Freedom, was a primary 

reason she was asked to join Trump's team, "along with her work as an 

environmental regulator and their shared devotion to the oil shale (or 

tracking) revolution." [1 OJ 

Hartnett White has long called for restraint of what she called the 

"imperial EPA." and in June 2016 she promoted the bill H.R. 3880, "The 

Stopping the EPA Overreach Act," while describing carbon dioxide as a 

"necessary nutrient for plant life." Later in 2016, Hartnett White said that 

while we need not necessarily do away with the EPA as Trump has 

planned, still "we don't need regulation; we're already doing a good 

JOb." [15), [16] 

F'lolling Stone comments that when Trump announced that his 

"environmental agenda' would be "be guided by true specialists in 

conservation" that "He may well have meant Hartnett White," given her 

experience in government regulation working on the Texas Water 

Development board under then Governor George W. Bush, as well as 

chair of the Texas Environmental Quality Commission under Governor 

Rick Perry. Hartnett White told Rolling Stone that she would 'love to 

serve' in a Trump administration if given the opportunity. (1 0] 

Stance on Climate Change 

Kathleen Hartnett White has said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores natural causes of climate change. She 

has also argued that Carbon Dioxide has been wrongfully regulated as 

a pollutant. 

October 19, 2016 

Speaking with Ars Technica, in her role as a Trump campaign advisor, 

Kathleen Hartnett White suggested the IPCC has ignored natural causes 

of climate change: [17] 

https://W'.\>W.desmogblog_comlk:athleen·hartnett-white[Jint2017 11:55:02 AM] 
281 


27600.260

Kathleen Hartnett White I DeSmogOiog 

"[The IPCC] never really takes on an explanation of how the other 

variables in climate affect climate. [ ... ]It never takes on the Sun. 

There are a number of very, very senior atmospheric physicistsone I think of in particular, Fritz Varenl1olt, who wrote a book 

called The Neglected Sun. As a scientist, he's just appalled that 

better knowledge about the role of the Sun would not be a part of 

the science." [17] 

September 29, 2015 

Writing at Townhal/.com, Kathleen Hartnett White described what she 

calls "propaganda" surrounding the climate change issue, what she 

suggests is a wrongful description of carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and 

she contends co2's impact on climate remains a "question": [18] 

"Carbon dioxide {C02) is the gas of life on this planet, an 

essential nutrient for plant growth on which human life depends. 

How craftily our government has masked these fundamental 

realities and the environmental benefits of fossil fuels!" Hartnett 

White said. "Notwithstanding the unscientific declaration of 

absolute certainty surrounding the politically official science, the 

climate's sensitivity to the relatively small increment of humaninduced C02 remains the central unsettled question surrounding 

the climate issue." [18] 

June,2014 

In a June 2014 TPPF policy document, titled "Fossil Fuels: The Moral 

Case· (PDf-), Kathleen Hartnett White wrote: [19] 

"IPCC science claims of 95 percent certainty that human activity is 

causing climate calamity are more like the dogmatic claims of 

ideologues and clerics than scientific conclusions." [19] 

Key Quotes 

November, 2016 

Speaking with the Waslnngton Examiner, Kathleen Hartnett White 

discussed Donald Trump's plans to revive the coal industry. [20] 

"[Trump]'s very much for clean air and clean water" Hartnett 

White said. "But the better home for considering this discussion 

about carbon dioxide and climate is in the Department of Energy." 

[20] 

According to Hartnett White, climate change concerns "are really 

a discussion about energY., not really a discussion about 

environmental protection.' She described C02 regulations as "the 

killer for coal." [20] 

Speaking of the Clean Air Act's regulation of C02, Hartnett White 

https"//v.N.'W.desmogb!og_comlkathleen-hartnett-whtte[! 1 n/20! 7 1 ! :55:02 AMJ 
282 


27600.261

Kathleen Hartnett Wh1te I DeSmogB!og 

said that the Clean Air Act "was never designed to control a 

pollutant that ubiquitous that has no adverse environmental 

impacts on people." She said that "Carbon dioxide has no 

adverse impact in the air we breath at all. It's a harmless trace gas that is actually an essential nutrient for plants." [20] 

September, 2016 

Speaking with Rolling Stone, Hartnett White declared: [10] 

"We're not a democracy if science dictates what our rules 

are." [10] 

September, 2016 

While Kathleen Hartnett White has said that we don't need to dismantle 

the EPA entirely, she did say to SNL that "we don't need regulation" and 

that rather the EPA would only be needed to "maintain the achievements 

reached": [21] 

"A basic recommendation I would make to anyone running for 

president is we need to review this avalanche of rules that has 

been promulgated aver the last eight years and possibly rescind. 

[ ... ]and replace [them] with new rules," Hartnett White said. 

"Again this doesn't mean we don't need EPA; we don't need 

regulation; we're already doing a good job. No. Just to 

maintain the achievements reached [ ... 1 is a very important 

function for an administrative agency [like the EPA]" (Emphasis 

added). [21] 

July, 2016 

in the National Hartnett White declared: [22] 

"Now, the plentiful, reliable, and affordable energy source that is 

coal can be regarded as clean." [22] 

March 30, 2016 

Writing in Tile I-liff, Hartnett White said: 

"Renewables are a false hope that simply won't work." [23] 

"[ljntermittent renewables are parasitic on back-up power from re iable fossil fuels" [23] 

November 2011 

At a forum convened by Americans for Prosperity 

the Koch Family Foundations, Harnett-White said: 

funded by 

"There is no environmental crisis-in fact, there's almost no major 

https'//www desmogblog comJkath!een-hartnett-white[lln/20[ 7 11.55·02 AM] 
283 


27600.262

Kathleen Hartnen Wh1te I DeSmogBlog 

environmental problems." 

Extreme Power Abuse from AFPhQ on Vimeu. 

Key Deeds 

October 12, 2017 

As first reported by Hannah Northey on Twitter and later at E&E News, 

President Donald Trump named Kathleen-Hartnett to chair the Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ), pending approval. Rick Perry, who 

previously appointed Hartnett White to the role she held at the Texas 

Council on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) from 2004 to 2007, had 

advocated for her to run for the position at [55]. [56], [51], 

As head of the CEQ, Hartnett White would be in charge of 

coordinating interagency science, climate, and environmental policy and oversee things such as the Natrona! Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) review process and agency compliance with that law. [S1] 

"Though CEQ oversees the NEPA process, it remains unclear how 

seriously Hartnett White will take the NEPA review process, for decades 

seen as a bedrock of u.s. environmental regulation since NEPA became 

law in 1970," OeSmog's Steve Horn reported. [51] 

Hartnett White will go through a u.s. Senate confirmation hearing 

process, where she will likely face questions regarding her history of 

promoting fossil fuels and denying climate change. The Environmental 

Working Group (EWG) released a press statement critical of Hartnett 

White's appointment: [51] 

"At least Butch and Sundance had to put some effort into robbing 

banks and trains," Ken Cook, EWG's president, said in a press 

statement. "If Hartnett White joins Administrator Pruitt, polluters 

will stroll through the front doors of both the EPA and the White 

https /Jwww.desmogblog eom/k:ath!een-hartnett-whiteflln/20!7 J I :55·02 AM] 
284 


27600.263

Kathleen Hartnett Wh1te I DeSmogBiog 

House, no questions asked, as the rampant looting of 

environmental and public health protection 

policies continues." [59] 

February 24, 2017 

Kathleen Hartnett White was a speaker on a discussion panel sponsored 

by the C02 Coalition at the 2017 Conservative Political Action 

Conference (CPAC). Tony Heller moderated the panel, and it also 

featured Craig ldso of the C02 Coalition. View video of the event at 

the Energy & Environment Legal institute's Facebook page. [50] 

Hartnett White describes the C02 coalition as "very very meaningful 

source," and later says that the group has inspired her and given her 

hope: [50] 

"I'm very hopeful because of organizations like the C02 

Coalition," Hartnett White said. "The board composed of just the 

top of the heap of science on this issue. Brilliant. Not a B team at 

all, but an A-plus team. So, I think in a way, the long debate that 

we were told was settled -was unequivocally settled, 

incontrovertible settled [ ... ] Look, I think that debate, that crazy 

debate, deluded denial of that debate, I would say it's over. But 

there's a crack in the door." [50] 

According to Hartnett White, "Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant, nor are 

fossil fuels the agent of death." She later describes it as "an invisible 

trace qas that has no impact on human health even at very high 

levels.' [50] 

"I like to say that C02 or fossil fuels, they originated-{;ertainly 

fossil fuels-originate in life, and they're really the compressed 

and heated concentration of life, and they come back to amplify 

human life," she said. [50] 

She later describes climate change policies as a "civilizational threat," 

and claims that "All the climate policies to date are futile." [50] 

"President Obama and his lieutenants repeatedly said that the 

greatest global civilizational threat is the threat of man-made 

~lobal warming, in his views caused by fossil fuels" she said. 

I submit that climate policies, not fossil fuels nor C02 is actually a 

civilizational threat. That's what the book [Fueling Freedom] has 

kind of been about." [50] 

Hartnett White concludes that she hopes President Trump will usher in 

new policy: [50] 

"It's hard to imagine how all this could shift, given the extent to 

which, not only in regulation, but just diffused throughout culture, 

assumptions that carbon dioxide is inherently harmful. Just hard 

to imagine how that can happen. I so hope-and this is the only 

https://v.ww.desmogblog.com/kathleen-hartnett-whitc(lln/2ol7 J\·55.02 AM] 
285 


27600.264

Kathleen Hartnett Wh1te j DeSmogB\og 

opportunity I've seen in 20 years-a real redirection. [ ... ] There's 

become this gap where the planet itself has some value higher 

than human life on this. And that means, really, some pretty 

simple things about policies at issue here and policies 

championed very consistently by President Trump and his 

campaign. Employment has got to be a key factor on any cost- benefit analysis." [50] 

In the Q&A Session following her discussion, Hartnett White discussed 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and how its focus on C02 

emissions has been a supposed "distraction" from more important 

issues. The EPA has "lost their sense of real priorities," she said. [50] 

She continues on the EPA. saying their risk assessment on C02 was 

based on "heinously bad science." "Even the American Academy of 

Sciences and their review panel have mocked EPA," she adds "They're 

not a little bit bad. They're really bad. And they do nothing but serve to justify often truly infeasible standards, you know." [50[ 

In her closing remarks, Hartnett said: [50] 

"I think the department of energy could take very strategic steps 

on a lot of the things we've been talking about if the decision 

makers are willing to make some 180-degree turns." [50] 

December 8, 2016 

Kathleen Hartnett White spoke at, "At the Crossroads 111: and 

Climate Policy Summit," an event co-hosted by the Texas Policy 

Foundation (TPPF) and the Heritage rc·oundation. At the Crossroads 

describes itself as "the premier energy-and-climate policy event in 

America," and, as before, promises to attract a range of prominent 

climate change deniers. [24] 

The event description invites attendees to "Join national policymakers, 

leading energy experts, and the field's most innovative minds to explore 

what's next in energr, policy, what's coming in climate science, and how 

you may affect both.' [24] 

The agenda lists the following speakers: [24] 

Brooke Rollins, President, Texas Public Policy Foundation 

Becky Norton Dunlop, Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow, 

The Heritage Foundation 

The Honorable Mike Lee (R-UT), Member, Senate Committee on 

Energy & Natural Resources, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Water & Power 

The Honorable Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman, House Committee 

on Science, Space and TechnoiO!JY 

The Honorable Pete Olson (R-TX), Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Energy & Power, House Committee on Energy & Commerce 

• The Honorable Gary Palmer (R-TX), Member, House Committee on 

Science, Space and Technology 

https //VIl\vw.dcsmogb!og comlkath\een-hartnett-white[lln/2017 11 ·55:02 AM] 
286 


27600.265

Kathleen Hartnett Wh1te I DeSmog81og 

Michael Needham, Chief Executive Officer, Heritage Action for 

Amenca -Moderator 

The Honorable James lnhofe (R-OK), Chairman, Senate 

Environment & Public Works Committee 

The Honorable Kathleen Hartnett White, Director, Armstrong Center 

for Energy & the Environment TPPF 

Stephen Moore, Distinguished Visiting Fellow, 

The Heritage Foundation 

Bud Brigham, Chairman, Brigham Resources, and Founder, Anthem 

Ventures- Moderator 

David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow, Center for Data 

Analysis, The Heritage Foundation 

• Patrick J. Michaels, Director, Center for the Study of Science, 

Cato Institute 

Mark P. Mills, Chief Executive Officer, Digital Power Group; Senior 

Fellow, The Manhattan Institute; and Faculty Fellow, McCormick 

School of Engineering and Applied Science, Northwestern University 

Horace Cooper, Adjunct Fellow, Natrona! Center for Public Policy 

Research -Moderator 

Patrick Forkin, Vice President Strategy & Global Energy Analytics, 

Peabody Energy 

Allen Gilmer, President, Texas Independent 

Petroleum Producers Association 

Karen Harbert, President, Institute for 21st Century 

Energy, U S. Chamber of Commerce (Invited) 

Nick Loris, The Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow, The Heritage 

Foundation- Moderator 

Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, MIT 

Dr. Willie Soon, Astrophysicist and Independent Scientist 

Andrew M. Grossman, Co-Founder, Free Speech in Science 

Project- Moderator 

Dr. William Happer, Emeritus Professor of 

Physics, Princeton University 

Dr. Craig ldso, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide 

and Global Change 

Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, University of 

Alabama in Huntsville 

Doug Domenech, director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation's 

"Fueling Freedom" project, wrote about the proceedings at The 

II;//. Domenech outlined the common climate change denial message 

shared among the speakers: "Is climate change real? Yes, it has 

happened in the past and will happen in the future. Is man making an 

impact on the climate? Perhaps but in very small ways. But the 

overarching consensus remains the climate change we are experiencing 

is by no means catastrophic." [25] 

October 22, 2016 

Speaking at a Fueling Freedom event with fellow speaker Stephen 

Moore, Kathleen Hartnett White emphasized coal as a preferred fuel 

source over other sources: [26] 

https"//\','\\-W.desmogblog.com!kath!een-hartnett-white[l !n/2017 11:55.02 AM} 
287 


27600.266

Kathleen Hartnett White I DeSmogB!og 

"You can't compete with heat value and density of coal, natural 

gas and petroleum." [26] 

Moore and Hartnett White provided a list of reasons to combat the idea 

of using green energy sources like wind and solar as the sole means of 

power. emphasizing the supposed unreliability of such sources. [26] 

According to Hartnett White, "Germany is five to 10 years ahead 

of the United States (when it comes to renewables)," Hartnett 

White said. "It is the most aggressive country on renewables, and 

their energy bill is three times the rate in the u.s.- not 30 

percent, three times." [26] 

They also said that pushing developing countries to use renewables is 

like keeping them in a "16th century energy mindset." [26] 

October 7, 2016 

In an interview with the Orlando Sentinel, Kathleen Hartnett White 

discussed her views on the EPA. Clean Power Plan, and renewable 

energy. [27] 

"An invisible, harmless trace gas in the Earth's atmosphere, C02 

is a plant food" Hartnett White said. "In the long geological/ 

climatological history of the Earth, there were long periods when 

atmospheric levels of C02 were hundreds of times higher than 

the current level of around 400 parts rer mission. For context, 

consider that man-made emissions o C02 now account for 0.02 

percent of all atmospheric gases. Slightly hi~jher levels of human 

mduced C02 have increased plant productivity especially in arid 

regions as shown by satellite imagery. Greenhouses inject C02 to 

reach levels over 1000 ppm to increase plant growth." [27] 

"Even the EPA recognizes that carbon cuts mandated by the rule 

would reduce the rate of warming predicted by the United 

Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change by only 

0.02 percent- an amount so miniscule it is immeasurable." [27] 

"Even without an aggressive climate plan, the u.s. is reducing 

C02 more than any other country." [27] 

"There is nothing inviolable about fossil fuels. Who knows what 

alternative sources innovative human minds will develop that can 

benefit humanity as much or more than oil, natural gas and coal. 

Right now however. there are no alternatives capable of providing 

the benefits of fossil fuels." [27] 

September 27, 2016 

In an interview with CNBC, Hartnett White defended Donald Trump's 

temperament as "humanizing and they [supporters] can actually identify 

with his style much more than they can with the very, very scripted 

approach Mrs. Clinton has." [28] 

https./1'-'<wW desmogblog comlkathleen-hartnett-white[lll7!2017 11:55·02 AM] 
288 


27600.267

Kathleen Hartnett Wh1te! DcSmogB!og 

September 23, 2016 

Kathleen Hartnett White told Global Intelligence her 

recommendations for the EPA. which included that many rules would be 

cut: [16] 

"A basic recommendation I would make to anyone running for 

president is we need to review this avalanche of rules that has 

been promulgated over the last eight years and possibly rescind 

[ ... ]and replace [them] with new rules.[ ... ] Again this doesn't mean we don't need EPA; we don't need regulation; we're already 

doing a good job. No. Just to maintain the achievements 

reached ... is a very important function for an administrative 

agency [like the EPA], she said. [1 6] 

According to S&P Global Intelligence, during the interview Hartnett White 

"attacked the EPA's 2009 finding that carbon dioxide emissions pose a 

threat to public health and welfare," which had been a prompt for the 

EPA's formation of the Clean Power Plan. Hartnett White claimed that the 

EPA overstretched its mandate: [ 16] 

"Policies of that magnitude to me must be a decision of the u.s. 

Congress or we don't really function like a democracy anymore, if 

we have agencies that through very strained interpretation of 

existing law can impose such bold measures," she said. [16] 

August 9, 2016 

Ouoted in the far-right news source Breitbart, Kathleen Hartnett White 

praised Donald Trump's economic plan, focusing on his plans to reduce 

regulation on the energy industry. [29] 

"The manner in which energy is developed and unitized, in just 

endless different ways in our economy, can provide an 

extraordinary stimulus to economic growth," said Hartnett White. 

"The surest path to job creation in my judgment is through taking 

advantage of the energy." [29] 

Hartnett White also promoted the Keystone XL pipeline, declaring that 

"the very fact of the access we now have to worlds of oil and natural gas 

in this country and also in Canada, but we lack really the key 

infrastructure to take the maximum effiencent [sic] use of it because we 

don't have pipelines in certain places, the Keystone Pipeline is as 

important to North Dakota and those states- Pennsylvania- all of 

those as it is to Canada." [29] 

She went on to praise Trump's proposal to rescind the Climate Action 

Plan, the Waters of the United States Rule, and cancellation of the Paris 

Climate Agreement while denouncing President Obama's policies, saying 

that Obama's regulatory authority had been "proliferating." [29] 

June 17, 2016 

https://www.dcsmogblog.com/kath!een-hartnett-wh!te[lln!2o\7 11:55:02 AMj 
289 


27600.268

Kathleen Hartnett Wh!te) DeSmogBlog 

Kathleen Hartnett White wrote an article in The Hill calling for restraint of 

the Err,." White promotes bill H .R. 3880. ·rile Stopping 

Act." The bill would prevent the EPA from regulating 

carbon dioxide, methane and three other greenhouse gases. According 

to White, the EPA's treatment of carbon dioxide as a pollutant is an 

example of "regulatory overreach." [15] 

"The truth is that our bodies, blood and bones are built of carbon! 

Carbon dioxide is a necessary nutrient for plant life, acting as the 

catalyst for the most essential energy conversion process on 

planet earth: photosynthesis," she writes."[ ... ] How do our 

national leaders square their public vilification of carbon dioxide 

with fundamental scientific and economic realities? Such political 

propaganda has now educated at least two generations of 

Americans who think carbon is a killer instead of the stuff of life on the earth." [15] 

June 6, 2016 

On June 6, 2016, the authors spoke at an event co-hosted by the Texas 

Public Policy Foundation and the Heritage Foundation to discuss the 

release of their new book. (30] 

Also in June, Kathleeen Hartnett White spoke on Tile 

Energymakors show to discuss Fueling Freedom, where she 

declared: [31] 

"The core of the science of the IPCC is based on a set of 

assumptions about how the natural climate system responds to 

what is really, in terms of a percentage of atmospheric gas, tiny. 

[ ... ]There is a growing gap between observed (measured) 

temperature, and the predictions of the IPCC." [31] 

~'Extreme weather events are currently no more extreme or no 

more frequent than recently. Those two core claims: that the 

temperatures would increase at a certain rate[ ... ] and that this 

will create weather havoc, if you will, have not occurred." [31] 

May 26,2016 

Kathleen Hartnett White, director of the Armstrong Center for 

Energy & the Environment at the TPPF. went on the One America News 

Network's Tipping Point to discuss Hillary Clinton's energy policies. [32] 

"A significant part of [Hillary's] party is at a predominately extreme 

posilion on energy," Hartnett White says. [32] 

https //www.dcsmogblog comlkathleen-halinett-white{ 1117/2017 11.55 02 AMl 
290 


27600.269

Kathleen Hartnett White I DeSmogB!og 

May 23,2016 

Kathleen Hartnett White is the co-author, with Stephen Moore, of Fueling 

Freedom Exposing the Mad on Energy. The Amazon description of 

the book reads as follows: [33] 

"Fossil fuel energy is the lifeblood of the modern world. Before 

the Industrial Revolution, humanity depended on burning wood 

and candle wax. But with the ability to harness the energy in oil 

and other fossil fuels, quality of life and capacity for progress 

increased exponentially. Thanks to incredible innovations in the 

energy industry, fossil fuels are as promising, safe, and clean an 

energy resource as has ever existed in history. Yet, highly 

politicized climate policies are pushing a grand-scale shift to 

unreliable, impractical, incredibly expensive, and far less efficient 

energy sources. Today, 'fossil fuel' has become such a dirty word 

that even fossil fuel companies feel compelled to apologize for 

their products. In Fueling Freedom, energy experts Stephen 

Moore and Kathleen Hartnett White make an unapologetic case 

for fossil fuels, turning around progressives' protestations to 

prove that if fossil fuel energy is supplanted by 

'green' alternatives for political reasons, humanity will take a 

giant step backwards and the planet will be less safe, less clean, 

and less free." [33] 

The Heartland Institute, which hosted Stephen Moore for a talk on his 

book, describes how the authors "argue that if fossil fuel energy is 

supplanted by 'green' alternatives for political reasons, humanity will take 

a giant step backwards and the planet will be less safe, less clean, and 

less free." [34] 

Hartnett White and Moore were quoted in The Patriot Post, where they 

had described in their book that renewable energy is "inconsequential": 

"Green energy remains an inconsequential source of energy in 

America despite more than $80 billion in direct federal taxpayer 

subsidies under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack 

Obama." [35] 

Roiling Stone describes the book, noting that the authors deride "weak 

and parasitic renewable energy," mock the "green job craze," electric 

cars, and biofuels. Global warming is dismissed meanwhile as 

"exaggerated nonsense[ ... ] a creed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do 

https://www.desmogblog.com/kathleen-hartnett-white[lln/2017 11:55:02 AM] 
291 


27600.270

Kathleen Hartnett Whtte I DeSmogBiog 

with science." [1 0] 

According to the book, green-energy policies that "undermine human 

progress" and "are not really clean at all," we should fear people who 

want us to "build windmills and ride our bicycles to work." [1 OJ 

From Fueling Freedom, which Hartnett White co-wrote with Stephen 

Moore: [33] 

"Contrary to false reports in the media, virtually no documented 

environmental problems have been associated with trackingever." [33] 

April 22, 2016 

Writing in The Federalist, in an article titled 

.Ligreement Is The Worst Way To Celebrate 

said: [36) 

The P<Jrls 

" Hartnett White 

"What will be labeled a global triumph will in reality likely be, if 

actually implemented, a tragedy for rich and poor countries alike 

and especially for the poor wherever they reside. The Paris 

agreement represents the first energy regression in mankind's 

history. It's a regression imposed by the ruling elites of the world's 

most prosperous and educated countries, abetted by legions of 

UN functionaries and their kin in non-governmental organizations 

(NGOS)." [36] 

Hartnett White claims that global warming is last on a list of "a dozen 

genuine public priorities," and that the signing of the Paris agreement 

would signal "a return to pre-industrial days." She adds that the idea that 

renewable energy could replace fossil fuels is a "grand delusion of 

climate policy". t3G] 

April 21, 2016 

Kathleen Hartnett White gave a talk at the April Luncheon of the Society 

of Petroleum Engineers (SPE). Fort Worth Section. Her talk was titled 

"The C3reat Energy Enrichment." [37] 

March 3, 2016 

"[M'ounting evidence invalidates the modeled predictions of the 

IPCC- the official scientific anchor of the crusade. For decades, 

the IPCC models have failed to accurately forecast temperature 

as observed by the most sophisticated technology: NASA's 

remote sensing satellites and balloons." [38] 

"Like it or not, prosperous countries are utterly dependent on the 

abundant, affordable, versatile, reliable, concentrated, 

controllable, and portable energy available from fossil fuels. At 

this point in time, the intermittent, and far more expensive, 

renewable energies cannot provide the countless energy services 

on which our long, healthy, affluent, and comfortable lives with 

https:f/www desmogblog.com/kath!een-hartnett-white{lll7/20!7 11·55·02 AM} 
292 


27600.271

Kathleen Hartnett Whtte ! DeSmogB\og 

personal freedom depend." [38] 

November 19, 2015 

Kathleen Hartnett White was a keynote speaker at the Texas Public 

Policy Foundation (TPPF)-sponsored event, "At The Crossroads·· climate 

conference. She presented in Session 11, in a talk tilled "Not a Pollutant: 

C02 is the Gas of Life." Video below. [39] 

November 18, 2015 

Shortly before the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris 

(COP21) Kathleen Hartnett Wh1te was interviewed by TIJe 

Daily Signal where she "outlines important climate questions." According 

to Hartnett White, there hasn't been significant global warming in 

18 years: [40] 

"Temperatures have not warmed as predicted by the models over 

the last 18 years. And extreme weather events have not been more frequent or more intense than in the 20th century." [40] 

She argues coal, natural gas, and nuclear power are superior to wind 

and solar, claiming they have a smaller "physical footprint" and that 

the EPA's Clean Power Plan would "disfigure millions of acres of open 

space" with wind turbines. [40] 

"The kind of energy available in fossil fuels- abundant, 

affordable, concentrated, versatile, reliable, controllable, storable 

https:/lwv.w.desmogblog.com!kathleen-hartnett-white[J Jn/1017 ! l :55·02 AM] 
293 


27600.272

Kathleen Hannen White I DeSmogl3!og 

-was and remains a necessary condition of monumental 

improvements in human welfare and economic growth that 

emerged around 1800," she said. "Policies to supplant fossil fuels 

-without a fully comparable substitute proven at scale- are immoral." [40J 

With reference to the UN COP21 climate conference, she writes that "We 

don't need to supplant fossil fuels at this point in time. We need to help 

developing countries increase energy availability for their people and use 

emission control technologies to manage real f>OIIutants." She concludes 

that the U.S. Congress should recognize that' C02 is not a pollutant 

within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Clean Air Act." [40] 

Responding to the question "What are some ideas missing in the global 

warming policy conversation?" Hartnett White says: [40] 

"The official science driving global warming alarmism is based on 

models built to assume that natural climate variables are 

extremely sensitive to a relatively small increase in atmospheric 

C02 from human activity. But facts on the ground contradict the 

climate models' assumption," She adds that Temperatures have 

not warmed as predicted by the models over the last 18 years. 

And extreme weather events have not been more frequent or more intense than in the 20th century." [40] 

September 29, 2015 

Kathleen Hartnett White writes in Townhall that Pope Francis's visit to 

America "is a reminder of the extent to which pure propaganda now 

circumscribes public discourse about climate change.' [18] 

"The climate issue, in all its many dimensions, is not about air 

pollution as Pope Francis's recent speeches labeled the issue 

and as the media parroted his words. The climate change issue is 

about energy derived from fossil fuels," White writes. 

June 11,2015 

Kathleen Hartnett White was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's Tenth 

International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, DC where 

she discussed "the economic impacts of federal climate policy" on a 

panel titled "Energy Realities." Video below: [41] 

https //www desmogb!og,com/kath!een-hartnett-white[llniZOI7 1 !·55·02 AM] 
294 


27600.273

Kathleen Hartnett Whlte I DeSmogBiog 

November 30, 2014 

With Stephen Moore, Kathleen Hartnett Wihite co-wrote an article in 

the Washington Times titled "EPA's goofy green-energy rules." Together, 

the authors argue against the EPA's Clean Power Plan: [42] 

"The EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan regulations are the most 

expansive and economically disruptive rules in four decades from 

an agency that is notorious for its reckless disregard for the 

financial consequences of regulation under the Clean Air Act, " 

Moore and Hartnett White write. "As an act of total desperation, 

the EPA is now playing the race card. The agency is adopting the 

theme that shutting down coal plants and other fossil fuel 

development is necessary to secure 'climate justice for 

communities of color.' Ms. McCarthy pitched this gibberish in 

August: 'Carbon pollution standards are an issue of justice. If we 

want to protect communities of color, we need to protect them 

from climate change.' This is just short of derangement." [42] 

September 25-26, 2014 

Kathleen Hartnett Wihite spoke at the Texas-Public-Policy-Foundationhosted "At the Crossroads: Energy & Climate Policy Summit." According 

to the event description, Sessions will explore the latest in climate 

science; current federal regulations and litigation; the history, politics, 

and economics behind man-made global warming; energy alternatives to 

fossil fuels; and how energy factors into prosperity and poverty. [43] 

Speakers included: [43] 

Matt Ridley- Author of The Rational Optimist 

Mark P. Mills- Senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute 

Dr. Frank Clemente- Professor emeritus at Penn State University 

Governor Rick Perry 

State Senator Dan Patrick (Houston) 

June, 2014 

Kathleen Hartnett Wihite authored a study at the Texas Public Policy 

Foundation tilled "Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case." [1 9] 

White says that her research was inspired by a "comprehensively 

researched monograph" written by fellow climate change denier lndur 

Goklany titled "Humanity Unbound." [ 19] 

Wihite describes the thesis of her paper as that "fossil fuels, as a 

necessary condition of the Industrial Revolution, made modern living 

standards possible and vastly improved living conditions across the 

https"//www desmogb!og.com/kalh!een"hartnett-white[l !n/20! 7 ! 1·55:02 AM] 
295 


27600.274

Kathleen Hartnett Wh1te I DeSmogBlog 

world." [19] 

"[ ... ]the greatest beneficiaries of this energy revolution known as 

the Industrial Revolution were average workers and the most 

impoverished. Increasing emission of man-made C02 is tightly 

correlated with this monumental achievement." [19] 

According to White, "[fossil]fuels are superior on many levels to the 

current alternatives." With reference to climate change, she claims that 

evidence for dangerous climate change "weakens" over time. [19] 

"Mandates to force an abrupt energy transition from fossil fuels to 

renewable sources are narve and fraught with peril for highly 

industrialized economies. As this paper detailed, energy sources 

are not necessarily interchangeable. In energy density, 

abundance, reliability, versatility, and other advantages, fossil 

fuels are far superior to wind, solar, and biomass. [ ... ]" 

"IPCC science claims of 95 percent certainty that human activity is 

causing climate calamity are more like the dogmatic claims of 

ideologues and clerics than scientific conclusions. "she 

writes. [19] 

Hartnett White spoke about the study at an event hosted by the Heritage 

l"oundation. See video below: 

May 30,2014 

Kathleen Hartnett White is the author of an open letter to Jolin 

Hennessy, President of Stanford University where she criticizes the 

university's divestment from coal: [2] 

"I regret that the Board has endorsed a highly politicized, 

dogmatic point of view that is not in the interest of maximizing 

returns on the endowment investments, the abject needs of 

billions of people across the world or, indeed, the environment," 

httpsPwww.desmogb!og.wmlkath!een-hartnett-white[11 n/20 17 11:55:02 AM] 
296 


27600.275

Kathleen Hartnett Whtte j DeSmogBiog 

Hartnett White writes. "Stanford's decision to divest in coal is a 

symbol for the elite that regrettably reflects indifference to the 

poor across the world who has never seen a light switch." [2] 

March 14, 2008 

Kathleen Hartnett White published an article in the opinion pages ofT/1fJ 

!-lays Dillly /llews (PDF) where she claims that she made the decision to 

approve the first coal-fired power plant in Texas in 20 years because 

"[E]quipped with groundbreaking emission controls [the new plant], was a 

net environmental benefit for Texas," reports Desmog. [44], [45] 

"Lost in the outcry over carbon dioxide are these considerations," 

Hartnett White said. "C02 represents only 5 percent of global 

greenhouse gas. C02 added by human activity such as power 

plants constitutes only 3.4 percent of all C02. 

As predicted by the reigning science of the United Nations 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the risk of global 

warming from human-induced greenhouse gases such as C02 is 

an uncertain, remote, gradual risk with impacts predicted in 100 

years or more." [45] 

The Eagle's Editorial bloq responded: 

She [Harntett White] also makes misleading, unsupported 

assertions on science, claiming that the U.N. Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change portrays global warming as an 

'uncertain, remote, gradual risk with impacts predicted in 100 

years or more.' To the contrary, the panel's study is unequivocal 

on the high risks of warming, the environmental damage already 

under way, and the urgency of controlling carbon and 

greenhouse gases now." [45] 

2004-2007 

The Dol/as Morning /Vows wrote an editorial discussing Hartnett White's 

departure as chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality: [46] 

"She [Hartnett White] has been an apologist for polluters, 

consistently siding with business interests instead of protecting 

public health. Ms. White worked to set a low bar as she lobbied 

for lax ozone standards and pushed through an inadequate antipollution plan. She also voted to approve rxu's pollution-intensive 

Oak Grove coal units, ignoring evidence that emissions from the 

lignite plant could thwart North Texas' efforts to meet air quality 

standards," the editorial reads. [46] 

Environmental groups had put up a billboard and website pushing for 

Hartnett White to be removed from the position. White said that her exit, 

which came when her term expires, had always been planned. [46] 

https-//W'.'.w.desmogblog cnmlkathleco-hartnett-whtte[! ln/2017 11:55:02 AMl 
297 


27600.276

Kathleen Hartnett Wh1te I DeSmogB!og 

During her time at TCEQ, where she had been appointed by Rick Perry, 

Hartnett White approved a new coal plant despite widespread opposition. 

When judges reviewed the plant's air permit and concluded controls 

would be insufficient, Hartnett While said the owner of the plant was "under no obligation to prove its pollution controls would work." [52] 

A 2003 Texas State Audit found that the TCEQ did "not consistently 

ensure violators are held accountable" and polluters "often have 

economic benefits that exceed their penalties, which could reduce their 

incentive to comply." [53] 

According to a set of em ails released in 2011, TCEQ under Hartnett 

White had also directed staff to lower radiation test results, in defiance of 

federal EPA rules. [54] 

The TCEQ maintained the practice of subtracting off each test's margin of 

error, making the resulting radiation levels appear lower than they 

actually were, while the EPA had said as early as 2000 that states should 

not subtract this margin of error. The emails show that by October, 2007, 

TCEQ staff began questioning the senior directors about whether it was 

appropriate to defy this federal regulation. [54] 

The TCEQ drinking water team lead was told, "I believe there may been 

some EPA guidance on not subtracting, but can't remember back that far 

for sure. This has been the practice in Texas since day one of 

radionuclide monitoring. This option was thoroughly discussed with the 

commissioners and the (executive director) staff when the reg was being 

adopted. We were directed to maintain the current methodology for 

subtracting the counting error at that time." [54] 

The same team leader had presented testimony on behalf of TCEQ that 

showed TCEQ was aware of the federal rule, noting that the federal 

agency had "issued guidance for calculating radionuclide levels for 

compliance." Kathleen Hartnett White was present at a discussion of the 

TCEQ testimony in a June 7, 2004 meeting with the Texas Water 

Advisory Council, minutes from the meeting showed. [54] 

Kathleen Hartnett White, who also sat on the Texas Water Advisory 

Council at the time, told KHOU news that the decision to continue the 

subtraction was a good one: [54] 

"As memory serves me, that made incredibly good sense," she said. [54] 

December, 2003 

A 2003 state auditor report (PDF) found that the Texas Environmental 

Quality Commission (TEQC) under Hartnett White consistently failed to 

hold violators accountable for breaking its laws, applied fines that 

amounted to only about 40 percent of the profits the companies made 

breaking the law, and introduced policies that weakened its own regulations. [47] 

Hartnett White "was put in that position by the governor for that very 

reason," Luke Metzger, director of the non-profit Environment Texas told 

Rolling Stone. "Gov. Perry had received hundreds of thousands of dollars 

https.l!v.rww.desmogblog comll:athleen-hartnett-white[l !n/2017 I 1:55:02 AM] 
298 


27600.277

Kathleen Hartnett White I DeSmoglllog 

in campaign contributions from these very businesses who had an 

incentive to make sure there was as weak a regulatory structure in place as possible. She definitely filled that role to a tee." [10] 

Affiliations 

Texas Public Policy Foundation- Senior fellow-in-residence. 

Director, Armstrong Center for Energy & the Environment. [1] 

C02 Coalition- Member, Advisory Committee. [6] 

Donald Trump Presidential Campaign (2016)- Member, 

Economic Advisory Team. (12] 

• The Fueling Freedom Project- Director. [25] 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)-

Chairman (November 2001-August 2007). [3] 

• GenT ex Power Corporation- Board Member (201 0-2013). [3] 

Other Affiliations 

• Hartnett & Evans- Managed a family-owned ranging, farming, and 

oil and gas business (1980-1985). [3] 

• Texas Water Foundation- Board Member. [3] 

• National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA)- Former Board 

Member. [3] 

• Texas Water Development- Board Member (1999-2001). [3] 

• Texas Strategic Economic Development Planning Commission 

-Board Member (1999-2001). [3] 

• Cattlemen's Legal Defense Fund- Former Board Member. [3] 

Texas National Resource Foundation- Former Board 

Member [3] 

International Boundary and Water Commission- Former Board 

Member. [3] 

Bi-National Working Group on Environment- Former Board 

Member. [3] 

Ranching Heritage Foundation- Executive Director (1993-

1994). [3] 

National Cattlemen's Association- Director of Private Lands and 

Environment (1987-1993). [3] 

Environmental Flows- Member. Advisory Committee (2006). [3] 

Social Media 

While Kathleet Hartnett White does not appear to have a personal social 

media account, the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) maintains 

several accounts that make mention of her work: 

• 1PPF on Facebook 

TPPF on Linkedln 

• ·1 Pf'F on Twitter 

httpd/\\IWW.desmogblog.eom/kath!een-hartnett-white[lln/20!7 11·55:02 AM] 
299 


27600.278

Kathleen Hartnett White I DeSmogB!og 

Publications 

A search of Google Scholar for articles by Kathleen Hartnett White does 

not return any publications authored in peer-reviewed journals. However, 

the search does return a number of policy documents written by Kathleen 

Harntett-White and largely published by the Texas Public Policy 

Foundation. For example: [48] 

Fossil Fuels The Moral Case" (PDF), Texas Public Policy 

Foundation, 2014. [1 9] 

'E,~A's Pretense of Science Regulating Phantom Risks· (PDF), Texas 

Public Policy Foundation, 2012. 

"The Clean Air Act: Reform Proposals· (PDF), Texas Public Policy 

Foundation PolicyPerspective, October 2012. 

"Inglorious Mess," National Review Online, 2012. 

"The New Value of Water," Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2004. 

(Part of the TPPF report "Choppy Waters: Understanding the 

Challenges to Texas Water Policy.") 

KH White, LR Soward, G Shankle. "Harvesting, storing, and treating 

rainwater for domestic indoor use," Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality, 2007. 

"Texas' Ozone Success: Changing Standards Mask Texas' Air 

Quality Achievements," Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality, 201 0. 

"Who Regulates the Regulator: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Texas 

State Agency Rulemaking," Hein Online, 2012-2013. 

as Overlord of us. Electric Power" (r•DF), Texas Public Policy 

Foundation, October 2014. 

Kathleen Hartnett White and Mario Loyola. ··ErA's Regulatory 

Barrage and the Lone Star State·· (PDF), Inside ALEC. 

November/December 2010. 

Other Publications 

A TPPF "Media Expert" backgrounder on Kathleen Hartnett White lists 

Hartnett White as making regular media appearancesin the Natwnal 

f-ievrevv (print and online), Investors' Business Daily the Washington 

Examiner, Daily Caller, Forbes, Houston Chronicle, and Dallas Morning 

News. Some sample articles below. [49] 

"EPA's Approaching Hegulatory Avalanch" (PDF), Texas Public Poilcy 

Foundation, February, 2012. 

"The Fracas on Fracking," National Review, February 16,2011. 

"Taming the Fourth Branch" The Daily Caller, September 12, 2011. 

"The Ruse of Regulatory Reform," National Review Online, February 

16,2011. 

"Environmental Poiicy Constraints on U.S. Oil Supply," Texas Public 

Policy Foundation, May 22, 2008. 

Resources 

https 1/www desmogb!ogcomlkathleen·hartnctt·white[lln/2017 1 !:55·02 AMJ 
300 


27600.279

Kathleen Hartnett Whtte j DeSmogl3!og 

1. "Kathleen Hartnett White. Distinguished Senior Fellow-In-Residence 

& Director. Armstrong Center for Energy & the Environment," Texas 

Public Policy Foundation. Archived July 4, 2016. Archive .is 

URL: https:i/archive. isl2mZEt 

2. "An Open Letter to President Hennessy," Texas Public Policy 

Foundation, May 30, 2014. Archived November 28,2016. Archive .is 

URL: https:/larchive.islug5VU 

3. ··coMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 114 th Congress Disclosure 

Form As required by and provided for in House Rule XI. clause 2(g) 

(5)'' (PDF). Retrieved from u.s. House of Representatives Document 

Repository. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. 

4. "Home," Fueling Freedom. Archived November 13,2016. Archive.is 

URL: https:i/archive.is/y99w1 

5. "What We Do .. ." Fueling Freedom. Archived November 13, 2016. 

Archive.is URL: https:llarchive.is/g8bgS 

6. "About," C02 Coalition. Archived Apri114, 2016. Archive.is 

URL: https:l/archive. islgFCJk 

7. Gayathri Vaidyanathan. "Think tank that cast doubt on climate 

change sere nee morphs into smaller one," Climate Wire, December 

10, 2015. Archived July 4, 2016. Archive.is 

URL: h!tps:llarchive.rslfTPko 

B. Kirsten Korosec. "Food Fight Big Beef Cl1allenges EPA Climate 

Change Finding," CBS. January 4, 2010. Archived February 15,2017. 

Archive.is URL: httpsliarchive.islyPWxl 

9. Janet Levy. "Green Energy Revolution Folly," American Thinker, 

September 19, 2016. Archived November 13, 2016. Archive .is 

URL: https:/larchive.islxJOAx 

10. Antonia Juhasz. "President Trump's Energy Policy Would Be a 

Nightmare," Rolling Stone, September 29,2016. Archived November 

28, 2016. Archive.is URL: httpsi/archive islc68oe 

11. Forrest Wilder. "Revealed: The Corporations and Billionaires that 

Fund the Texas Public Policy Foundation," Texas Obsetver, August 

24, 2012. Archived November 28, 2016. Archive.is URL: 

https :i I archive. isiTovci 

12. (Press Release). "EXPANSION TRUMP ECONOMIC ADVISORY 

COUNCIL," PR2016.org, August 11, 2016. Archived September 28, 

2016. Archive.is URL: httpsllarchive.isl5h88Y 

13. "Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic to Lead EPA Transition," Scientific 

American, September 26, 2016. 

14. "Among Texans, race is on for jobs in Trump administration," The 

Texas Tribune, November 10, 2016. Archived November 14, 2016. 

https·//www.desmogblog com!ka.thleen-hartnett-whlte[llnl2017 I !:55·02 AM] 
301 


27600.280

Kathleen Hartnett White j DeSmogOiog 

Archive.is URL: https:llarchive.isloObdJ 

15. Kathleen Hartnett White. "Restrain the imperial foP!\," The Hill, June 

17,2016. Archived July 4, 2016. 

Archive.is URL: https:llarchive.islgjgJh 

16. ! 1ndrew Topf. ·•If Trump wins, he'll scrap Clean Power Plan and go 

after EPA." Mining. com, September 23, 2016. Archived November 13, 

2016. Archive.is URL: httpsllarchive.is/tSWfG 

17. "Hillary Clinton vs Donald rrurnp on science, energy. and the 

climate," Ars Technica, October 19,2016. Archived November 14, 

2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/vv2kEp 

18. Kathleen Hartnett White. "Clearing the Air on Change," 

Townha/1, September 29, 2015. Archived July 4, 2016. Archive.is 

URL: https/larchive isltsqtp 

19. Kathleen Hartnett White. "Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case· (PDF), 

Texas Public Policy Foundation, June 2014. Archived .pdf on file 

at DeSmogBiog. 

20. John Siciliano. "Trump's plan to bring back coal country places EPA in 

cross hairs." Washington Examiner, November 2016. Archived 

.pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URL: 

21. Kip Atkinson Keen and Molly Christian. "To stoke growth. Trump 

adviser calls for overhaul of environmental regulations," S&P Global 

Market Intelligence. Retrieved from SNL.com. Archived .pdf on file 

at DeSmog. 

22. "The GOP Platform Is Right Coal Is Clean," National Review, July 21, 

2016. Archived November 14, 2016. Archive.is URL: 

https:i/archive. isie2xrs 

23. "Renewables are mcapable of replacing hydrocarbons at scale," The 

Hill, March 30, 2015. Archived November 14, 2016. Archive.is 

URLI https:i/archive.isiGPGju 

24. "At the Crossroads 111: Energy and Climate Policy Summit" The 

Heritage Foundation. Archived November 24, 2016. 

Archive.is URL: https://archive.isiKTgct 

25. Doug Domenech. "Climate change: Speaking truth to power." The 

Hill, December 13, 2016. Archived December 21, 2016. 

Archive.is URL: https:/larchive.islzAEH5 

26. Stewart Doreen. "Fueling Freedom speakers: There needs to be a 

tight over future energy sources," MRT. October 22, 2016. Archived 

November 14, 2016. Archive.is URL: https:l/archrve.islol]qi 

27. "/':...defense of foss1l fue!: Renewable energy doesn't hold candle to 

it," Orlando Sentinel, October 7, 2016. Arhchive.is 

URLI https:l/archive.is/XyPVG 

28. "Trump aide: Trump's temperament 'humanizing.' Clinton's 'very. very 

httpd/v.'\\-W.desmogblog.com/kathleen-hartnett-white[lln/2017 l\:55:02 AM) 
302 


27600.281

Kathleen Hartnett White I DeSmogBiog 

scripted'," CNBC, September 27, 2016. Archived November 13,2016. 

Archive.is URL: https:l/archive.is/6Un0 

29. Alex Swoyer. Praises Trump's Economic Plan: 

'Surest Path to ," Breitbart, August 9, 2016. Archived 

November 14, 2016. Archive.is URL: https:i/archive.is/mxSIQ 

30. "Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy," The Heritage 

Foundation, June 6, 2016. Archived November 14, 2016. Archived 

.mp4 on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URL: https:i/archive.is/FyYGu 

31. "EPISODE 245: Kf\ THLEEN HARTNETT WHITE," The Energy Makers 

Show. Archived November 14, 2016. Archive. is URL: 

https:/larchive.is/fFpvp 

32. "Kathleen Hartnett White on Tipping Point with Liz Wheeler," 

YouTube video uploaded by Javelin oc, May 26,2016. Archived 

.mp4 on file at DeSmog. 

33. Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy HardcoverMay "Amazon.ca. Archived July 4, 2016. Archived .pdf on 

file at DeSmog. 

34. Nancy Thorner. "Stephen Moore Exposes the Mad War on Energy," 

The Heartland Institute, July 1, 2016. Archived July 4, 2016. 

Archive.is URL: httpsJ/archive is/z7PWs 

35. Ken Blackwell. "Green Energy Policies May Haunt Democrats This 

Fall,' The Patriot Post, July 2, 2016. Archived July 4, 2016. Archive. is 

URL: https:l/archive. isiPE2Mk 

36. Kathleen Hartnett White. "Sif]ning The Paris Agreement Is The Worst 

Way To Celebrate Earth Day," The Federalist, April 22, 2016. 

Archived November 14, 2016. Archive.is 

URL: https://archrve.isiE51:~NY 

37. Luncheon- Katl1leen Hartnett White. 'The Great Energy 

." SPE International Fort Worth Section. Archived July 4, 

2016. Archive.is URL: https:l/archive.is/887r3 

38. Kathleen Hartnett White. "Is the Climate Crusade Stalling?" National 

Review, March 2016. Archived July 4, 2016. Archive .is 

URL: 

39. "/\t the Crossroads. Session Not a Pollutant: C02 is The Gas of 

Life," You Tube video uploaded by user Texas Public Policy 

Foundation, November 19,2015. 

40. "Here's What Will Not Be Discussed at the Upcoming U.N. Climate 

Conference in Paris," The Daily Signal, November 18,2015. 

Republished by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Archived 

November 13, 2016. Archive.is URL: httpsl/archrve.rs/wRm6K 

41. "1PPF's Kathleen Hartnett White to Participate in International 

Conference on Climate Chango," Texas Public Policy Foundation, 

https:I/Mvw.desmogblog.com!kathleen·hartnett·white[ll nno! 7 11 :55·02 AM] 
303 


27600.282

Kathleen Hartnett White 1 DeSmogBlog 

June 11, 2015. Archived July 4, 2016. Archive.is 

URL: https/larchive.isl2f,qJx 

42. "EPA's goofy green-energy rules," The Washington Times, November 

30, 2014. Archived November 14, 2016. Archive.is 

URL: https:/larchive.is/48qBN 

43. (Press Release). "Tomorrow: TPf"F Hosts 'At the Crossroads: 

Energy ,'1, Climate Policy Summit' Featuring Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. 

Dan Patrick," Texas Public Policy Foundation, September 24, 2014. 

Archived July 4, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive is/sEGLX 

44. Kathleen White. "'Holcom holds environmental promise·· (PDF), The 

Hays Daily News. Retrieved from Newspapers.com. Archived .pdf on 

file at Desmogblog. 

45. Kevin Grandia. "Texas Pollution Apologist Weighs in on Kansas Coai 

Hght," Desmog, March 13, 2008. 

46. "Clean Air Awaits: Gov. Perry should seize this chance to reshape 

TCEQ," The Dallas Morning News, July 23, 2007. Archived August 

27, 2007. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBiog. Archive.is 

URL: https.llarduve.is/LmZJ 

47. on Environmental Quality's 

for Selected Programs·· (PDC:), 

State Auditor's Office, December 2003 (Report No. 04-016). Archived 

.pdf on file at DeSmog. 

48. Google Scholar Search for author '·Kathleen Hartnett White .. OR 

··Kathleen Hartnett White." Performed February 10,2017. Archived. 

pdf on file at DeSmog. 

49. ""Media Expert: Kathleen Hartnett White' (PDF), Texas Public Policy 

Foundation. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBiog. 

50. "LIVE from Conservative Polrtical Action Conference (CPAC) When 

Politics Meets Climate Forecasting with Tony Heller. Kathleen 

Hartnett White. and Craig ldso," Facebook post by 

Energy & Environment Legal Institute, February 24, 2017. Archived 

.mp4 on file at DeSmog. 

51. Steve Horn. "Trump Names Climate Denier Kathleen Hartnett White 

to Head White House Envrronmental Councrl," DeSmog, October 

13,2017. 

52. "Texas Environmentalists: Kathleen Hartnell White Would be 

"Drsaster" as EPA Chief," Texas Observer, November 30, 2016. 

Archived October 13. 2017. Archive.is URL: hltps:l/archive.isladi1 g 

53. 

State Audito~s Office, December 2003. 

54. "Texas politicians knew agency hid the amount of radiation in 

drinking water," KHOU 11 News, May 19, 2011. Archived May 28, 

https.//v,.v.w.desmogblog com!kathleen-hartnett-white(J Jn/2017 11:55:02 AMJ 
304 


27600.283

Kathleen Hartnett White I DeSmoglllog 

2014. Archive.is URL: https:/iarchive.is/EqiSh 

55. "Trump nominates Kathleen Hartnett White to be a member and 

upon confirmation chaiJWoman of the Council on Environmental 

Quality," Twtlter post by user @HMNOrthey, October 12,2017. 

56. Robin Bravender. "Trump taps C02 defender to head CEQ," E&E 

News, October 13,2017. 

57. Alex Guillen and Andrew Restuccia. "Trump eyes climate skeptic for 

key White House environmental post," Politico, April12, 2017. 

Archived October 13, 2017. Archive.is URL: https:/larchive.is/iluPG 

58. "Extreme Power Abuse," Vimeo, uploaded by user AFPhq. 

59. "For Top White House Environment Job. Trump Taps Carbon Dioxide 

Fan," EWG, October 13,2017. Archived October 13.2017. Archive.is 

URL: https:l/arcllive.is/CdZqE 

Other Resources 

Exxon Secrets Factsheet: Kathleen Hartnett White. 

Jim Marston. "Hartnett White and Pals Twist Science for Sake of 

Fossil Fuel Interests," Environmental Defense Fund, August 24, 

2015. Archive.is URL: https:/iarchive.is/OfXDD 

Related Posts 

Trump Plck for \1\ktite House Environmental Council Profited from Oil Drilling, Energy 

Industry Speak1ng Fees 

The Trump Admm1stration Js 

Koch Industries and Frackmg Catanzaro To Lead Trump Energy Team 

DESMOG 

FEATURES 

... BUY CLIMATE COVER-UP NOW! 

... DISINFORMATION DATABASE 

ABOUT 

... ABOUT US 

... DESMOG MANIFESTO 

... OI.,IR COMMENT POLICY 

... OUR PRIVACY POLICY 

... SITES WE READ 

https-//www.desmogblog.com/kathleen-hartnett-white[! tn/2017 I 1:55:02 AM] 

KEEP IN TOUCH 

... FEEDBACK? SEND US AN E-MAIL 

... MEDIA RESOURCES 

... SUBSCRIBE TO RSS FEED 
305 


27600.284

• 

Restrain the imperial EPA 

262 

The growing power of the administrative state is the defining feature of this era 

Federal regulations now touch almost every area of American lil'e, and almost all 

economic activity. Aggressive regulatory bodies like the Environment Protection 

Agency (EPA) increasingly impose these mandates by seizing what is the 

exclusive legislative power Of Congress. 

A~ns care about restraining this lav.rtess assertion of federal regulatory 

power, the most important bill in Congress right now is H.R 3880, introduced 

late last year by Rep. Gary Palmer {R-Aie.). The Stopping the EPA Overreach 

CONTRIBUTOR'$ SIGI'lUP 

Sfgn up to ble<>me a COntributor 
306 


27600.285

Act now has 147 co-sponsors Through clear language and only four pages, the 

bill would deny the EPA the authority to regulate carbon dioxide. methane and 

three other greenhouse gases The EPA now treats carbon dioxide- a 

ubiquitous byproduct of almost all human activity- as a dangerous pollutant 

controlled under the authonty of the 40-year-o!d Clean Air Act. This regulatory 

overreach is the root of the energy pobcy morass in which our country IS now 

m1red 

The EPA again and again relies on the "Endangerment Fmding'' to force 

President Obama's Climate Action Plan among new mandates, which includes 

the methane rule and a moratonum of coal development on federal lands. Yet 

the EPA's expanding climate crusade is bereft of legally meaningful justification 

The agency merely asserts that the uneqUivocal "dictates of science" and the 

social cost of carbon to legi!im1ze new rules Without further explanation. Neither 

current findings on what is regarded as the official climate science of the U.N 

nor the social benefits of atmospheric carbon dioxide are ment1oned. Our 

president and his functionaries across the federal go.,.emment, however, persist 

in trumpeting the view of more radical climate alarmists who declare that manmade global warming of apocalyptic proportion is upon on right now. W1en 

questioned about justification, the EPA typically defaults to a moral imperative to 

supplant fossil fuels regardless of costs or futility. And zap goes the rule of law 

The Supreme Court has recently rebuked the EPA for several overreaching air 

quality rules such as the "tailoring," mercury and Clean Power Plan rules. Yet 

meamngful judicial restraint remains rare and mild when it occurs. Only 

Congress can effectively reclaim the broad, lawmaking authority that the EPA 

has seized over carbon dioxide. Po!ic1es of such national consequence must 

remain the prerogative of our elected representatives, not Washington 

bureaucrats, and Palmer's bill is on pam! 

Such a bill is necessary because although Congress has consistently rejected 

delegating to EPA authority to regulate carbon diox1de. the agency now 

exercises that authority in a host of federal actions W1en the masswe 

Waxman+Markey b11! to a.~rb greenhouse gases failed Senate passage in 2009, 

the EPA went ahead and made the Endangerment F1ndmg that carbon d1oxide 

is a pollutant endangering lluman health and welfare- and thus subject to 

regulatory control under the Clean Air Act W1at Congress refused to do, the 

EPA did on its own 

Seven years later, most people are inured to tt1e EPA's expandmg carbon 

agenda But it's worth considering tt1e unchecked authority tha EPA now wields 

In one of 1ts first carbon rule-makings, the agency adm1tted that the 

Endangerment Finding would expend tts ragu!atory universe from 14,700 to 

more than 6.1 million entities. Hospitals, schools, hotels, apartment complexes, 
307 


27600.286

office buildings and small business would now be subject to the Clean Air Act's 

top-down, inflexible dictates. In a later e<;~rbon 11.1le kno'lt'n as the Clean Power 

Plan rule, the EPA arrogates the authonty to re-eng1neer the nation's entire 

electnc system. Under the agency's centralized plan, cost, safety and reliability 

would take a back seat to reduclng cerbon 

It's hard to overstate the consequences of regulatory scope of this magnitude. 

As a result of the EPA's legal censure of carbon dioxide, major U.S. coal 

companies have declared bankruptcy, thousands have lost their jobs, the 

Keystone XL pipeline was nixed, natural gas is under ossaun, energy assets 

once valued in the trillions are now stranded and the middle class is shrinkmg 

Obama and his !teutenants, such as Secretary of State Jo~n .K.errx, now 

demonize carbon as "perhaps the world's most fearsome weapon of mass 

dest11.1ct1on." The truth IS that our bodies. blood and bones are built of carbon! 

Carbon dioxide is a necessary nutrient for plant life, acting as the catalyst for the 

most essential energy conversion process on planet earth· photosynthesis 

Carbon dioxide is an odorless. invisible, harmless and completely natural gas 

lacking any charactenstic of a pollutant !t doesn't contaminate or defile the air, 

as actual pollutants do. Ambient le~~els of carbon diox1de in the air we breathe 

have zero ad~~erse health effects, 1n contrast to high levels of genuine pollutants 

listed in the Clean Air Act like lead and mercury. Wth good reason, the EPA has 

not set health-based limits on the ambient concentration of e<;~rbon dioxide. The 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration {OSHA) does set some advisory 

lev{'l!s for prolonged exposure to carbon dioxide in tightly enclosed spaces, but 

they are set at more than 10 times the current level to which humans are 

routinely exposed 

Carbon dioxide is also a key ingredient in our food supply, about 60 percent of 

which depends upon fossil fuel-based fertilizers. How do our national leaders 

square their public vilification of carbon dioxide with fundamental scientific and 

economic realities? Such political propaganda has now eduCCited at least two 

generations of Americans who think carbon is a killer instead of the stuff of life 

on !he earth 

In the second decade of the 21st cant\Jry, humanity sits atop two centuries of 

major advances 1n physics. biology and chemistry that have applied 

hydrocarbon compounds for mankind's benefit. Yet the climate doomsayers of 

our age employ the term "carbon" as if it were a poison threatening the survival 

of civilization. 

ln one of the !ate Supreme Court Justice Anton in Scalia's last majority opinions, 
308 


27600.287

he articulated a constitutional hmtt to regulatory overreach "W'hen as Agency 

cla1rns to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate a 

Significant portion of the economy, we expect Congress to speak cleeriy tf 11 

wished to assign to agencies dedstons of such vast economic and political 

stgnificance." The EPA's expandmg regulatory scheme to decarbonize our 

country, unquestionably, has such vast economic sigmficance Rep. Palmer's 

legislation to nullify the EPA's Endangerment Finding provides the "clarity" 

Scalia said would be needed when une!ected bureaucrats usurp the lawmaking 

power held by Congress alone 

\l'v1lite is the distinguished senior fellow-in-residence and director of the 

Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment at the Texas Public Policy 

Foundation She is the co-author of"~ Frees!£.rr( (Regnery Publishing, 

May 2016) along with Steve Moore 
309 


27600.288

Coal: Clean Energy It Is-- GOP Platfonn Is Right i National Review 

(\lk'\!k B!V!I NATIONAL f)()N\!1 

REVIEW 

The GOP Platform Is Right: Coal Is Clean 

by KATHLEEN BAR TNETT WHITE ,J11fv 

Carbon dioxide has none of the characteristics of a real 

pollutant. 

s orne in the media are alarmed that the just-approved Republican-party 

platfonn takes a positive view of fossil fuels. "The platform tosses aside an 

environmental regulatory structure built on congressional legislation and 

judicial rulings over more than four decades,'' wrote Steven Mufson of the 

Washington Post. It's no surprise that mainstream media and its friends on the 

political left would feel that way - especially after they have been vilifying oil, gas, 

https:/iweb.archivc.org!web/20161114014422/h.ttp:/y""W.nationalreview.com/article/43&177/coal-cle:m-energy-republican-party-p!atfom1(1l/7/2017 11:54:17 AM] 
310 


27600.289

Coal: Clean Energy It Is~~ GOP P!atfonn Is Right i National Review 

and especially coal for more than a generation. It's on that last fuel that the platform 

takes perhaps its most remarkable position, declaring coal "an abundant, clean, 

affordable, reliable domestic energy resource." 

It docsn 't meet with the approval of the environmentalist Left- but it does happen 

to be true. 

Although this Environmental Protection Agency never acknowledges it, a slew of 

state-of-the art technologies has led to dramatic reductions in emissions from coalfired power plants. In this respect, coal is quite clean. Since 1970, emissions of key 

pollutants per kilowatt hour (electric) have fallen 89 percent. Use of!owNOx boilers, selective catalytic reduction, wet and dry electrostatic precipitators, 

scrubbers, and sorbent injection, while not popular topics at cocktail parties, have led 

to huge reductions in genuine pollutants that impact human health under certain 

concentrations and exposures. 

In 2007, during my tenure as chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality, I signed the first permit for a lignite-fired coal-power plant in more than two 

decades. The elaborate emissions controls for this new plant have achieved amazing 

efficiencies comparable to those of plants powered by natural gas, and they continue 

to reduce real emissions. Yet EPA's Clean Power Plan may force closure of this 

modern plant, trashing the hundreds of millions invested in reducing real pollutants. 

Although now viewed by the EPA as dirty carbon pollution, carbon dioxide (C02) 

lacks any of the characteristics of a real pollutant. C02 is an odorless, invisible, and 

beneficial natural gas and the catalyst for photosynthesis, the most vital energy 

conversion in our biosphere. How soon we forget eight-grade science! C02s lifeamplifYing potency is why greenhouses pump C02 to levels over four times that of 

the natural concentration in the air we breathe. 

Officialdom's constant use of the word 

https://web.archive.org/web/201 61114014422/http:/~w.nationalreview.com/artic\c/438177/coal-clean~encrgy-repuhlican·party·p!atform[ 11/7/2017 II :54:17 A Ml 
311 


27600.290

Coal: Clean Energy It Is·· GOP Platform !s Right 1 National Review 

"clean" masks the many details about 

energy that keep the lights on. In most 

cases, '"clean energy" is a general 

designation for low-to-zero carbonenergy resources, the most prevalent 

forms being wind and solar power. The 

public has been led to believe that coal 

and other fossil fuels are dirty and that 

wind and solar are clean. 

RELATED: $40 Oil and the Twilight of 'Scarcity Ideology' 

But just how clean are the steel and concrete used in the fabrication and operation of 

wind and solar installations? The amount of rebar packed under the ground to anchor 

the wind turbines is an eye-opener. Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University 

calculates that a typical wind system uses around 460 metric tons of steel and 870 

cubic meters of concrete per megawatt (electric). A natural-gas combined-cycle 

power plant of the same capacity uses only three metric tons of steel and 27 cubic 

meters of concrete. "You can make wind turbines with steel, but you can't make steel 

with wind turbines," as Chris Homer ofthe Competitive Enterprise Institute put it. 

Coal remains essential to making steel. 

Coal has long been the mainstay of reliable generation. We are so accustomed to 

electric power delivered at the touch of a finger that most people are unaware of the 

intricate system of bulk power that provides this marvel: cheap, versatile, and 

controllable electricity. Unlike other energy carriers, electric generation must exactly, 

and almost instantaneously, adjust to demand for electricity. This constant balance 

https://web.archive.org/web/20161114014422/http:/wv.w.nationalreview.com/anicle/438177/coal...:learJ.energy-republican-party-platforrn[I 1/7/2017 11:54:17 AM! 
312 


27600.291

Coal: Clean Energy It Is .. GOP Platform Is Right i National Review 

between generation and demand is critical to keeping the electric grid stable. This is 

what energy doyen Mark P. Mills of the Manhattan Institute refers to as "the 

incredibly weird physics of the electric grid." 

In contrast with wind and solar power, coal, as well as natural gas, can ramp 

generation up and down in split-second response to demand and thereby balance the 

grid. And the massive transmission and voltage infrastructure of our electric system 

was designed around the availability of coal and other dispatchable energy sources. 

In stark contrast, the variability of wind and solar cannot be controlled. In other 

words, the availability of wind or solar power has no correlation to demand. This is a 

rarely admitted but huge challenge for renewable energy. 

RELATED: Democrats Ignore Inconvenient Math on Nuclear Power 

The antidote to this inherent limitation is reliable backup power typically provided by 

coal. When wind speeds fluctuate, coal generation can increase or decrease 

generation to meet demand. Wind and solar lack this flexibility and therefore 

reliability. Backup or redundant power, however, is a highly wasteful and expensive 

way to generate and deliver electricity. Germany has found that a completely 

redundant supply of flexible power operating in a form of idling is necessary at a 

certain level of wind energy dispatched on the grid for every megawatt of wind and 

solar power dispatched. This has forced Germany to increase the use of coal and 

wood- not exactly a goal of their clean-energy revolution. As a consequence, 

Germany's average electric rates are three times higher than the current U.S. rates. 

MORE ENERGY 

As inherently variable energy sources, 

wind and solar can also generate power in 

excess of demand at unpredictable 

moments. In these instances, grid operators 

have to intervene within seconds to 

rebalance power supply and demand. And 

https://wcb.archive.orglweb/20 161114014422/http:/1.'.'ww.nationalreview.com/articlei438177/coal-clcan-energy-rcpub!ican-party-platfonn[ 111712017 11:54: 17 AM] 
313 


27600.292

Coal: Clean Energy It Is .. GOP Platform Is Right I National Review 

THE OIL WAR IS OVER, AND WE 

WON 

DEEPWATER HORIZON AND 

EVERYDAY HEROES 

HILLARY TAKES THE NUCLEARENERGY OPTION 

here arises the incredibly ironic economics 

of intermittent renewables. As a result of 

unpredictable surges in wind power in 

2015, the German government paid grid 

operators and wind generators $548 

million to abruptly shut down to avert a 

collapse of the grid. 

The U.S. Congress is addicted to ballooning energy subsidies. But we must ask 

ourselves what energy breakthrough of enduring, universal value has resulted from 

the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to these pipedreams. Just look to 

the free market for two overlooked energy miracles. The recent shale revolution has 

given us access to the mother lode of oil and natural gas long thought forever locked 

in shale, while innovative engineers have developed technologies to reduce genuine 

pollutants by as much as 90 percent. Now, the plentiful, reliable, and affordable 

energy source that is coal can be regarded as clean. 

-Kathleen Hartnett White is Distinguished Senior Fellow-in-Residence at, and the 

director of, the Armstrong Center for Energy & the Environment at the Texas Public 

Policy Foundation. She is a coauthor of the new book Fueling Freedom: Exposing the 

Mad War on Energy. 

https:/Aveb.archive.orglweb/20 1611140 14422/http:/www.nationalreview.com/article/438177 /coal~clean~encrgy-republican~party·platforrn[ll/7 /2017 ll :54: 17 AM] 
314 


27600.293

Ckanng the A1r on Chmate Change- Kathleen Hanneu Whne 

Clearing the Air on Climate Change II Kathleen Hartnett White 1 Posted: Sep 29,2015 9;08 AM -

Trending 

Stephen Moore 

Why the Left Has Been so 

Wrong About the Trump 

Boom 

Kurt Schlichter ~~ 

Democrats Drive Toward the 

ClifT and Hit the Gas 

[] 

0 

Pope Francis's visit to America this past 

week is a reminder of the extent to which 

pure propaganda now circumscribes public 

discourse about climate change. The 

climate issue, in all its many dimensions, is 

not about air pollution as Pope Francis's 

recent speeches labeled the issue and as 

the media parroted his words. The climate 

change issue is about energy derived from 

fossil fuels. Michael Brown l!ll 

Why So Much Hatred Against Iiiii Christians in America Today? No matter how many times, the President, 

EPA and the media rant about "dirty carbon 

pollution," there is no pollution about carbon itself! As a 

dictionary will tell you, carbon is the chemical basis of all life. 

Our ftesh, blood and bones are built of carbon. Carbon 

dioxide (C02) is the gas of life on this planet, an essential 

nutrient for plant growth on which human life depends. How 

https 1/tow-nhalt comlcolumnists/kathleenhartlJcttwhitc/2015/09/29/clearing-the-air-on-chmate-change-n2058517[1! '7'20!7 !2 44 !2 PMj 
315 


27600.294

Cleann[!. the A1r on C11mate Change~ Kathleen 1-lannett Wh11c 

craftily our government has masked these fundamental 

realities and the environmental benefits of fossil fuels! 

C02 is an odorless, invisible, beneficial, and natural gas 

lacking any characteristics of a pollutant. C02 in no way 

contaminates or defiles the air as genuine pollutants can. A 

trace gas, C02 accounts for only around 0.04 percent (400 

parts per million-ppm) of the atmosphere surrounding the 

earth that is dominated by nitrogen and oxygen. Even the 

IPCC's most recent Assessment Report admits that the 

dynamics of our climate may not be as sensitive to the 

relatively small addition of man-made C02 as official science 

previously assumed. Notwithstanding the unscientific 

declaration of absolute certainty surrounding the politically 

official science, the climate's sensitivity to the relatively small 

increment of human-induced C02 remains the central 

unsettled question surrounding the climate issue. 

Yet, one fact about C02 is settled. Ambient 

levels of C02 in the air we breathe have zero 

adverse health effects in contrast to genuine 

pollutants such as benzene and sulfur dioxide, 

as listed in the Clean Air Act. With good 

reason, EPA has set no health-based limits on 

the ambient concentration of C02. The 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) does set some advisory levels at 

5,000 ppm for prolonged exposure to C02 in a 

tightly enclosed space -more than ten times 

the current level to which humans are 

exposed. To put this in context, the Navy sets the safety limit 

for breathing inhaled air in a submarine at 8,000 parts per 

million! 

Although the EPA rarely admits it, the U.S. has achieved a 

dramatic reduction in real pollution over the last few decades. 

https i/town"ha!l eom.'cnlmnnists'kathlecnhartncn'll-hHc'2015 '09'29'dearing-the-alr-on-dimatc-changc-n2058517[1l '7 2017 12·44 !2 P~lj 
316 


27600.295

Clear111g the A•r on Chmate Change- Kathleenl!artnert W!me 

Between 1990 and 2010, EPA's most recently compiled data 

shows a 59 percent reduction in total emissions from the six 

major "criteria," pollutants regulated under federal law. 

Reductions of many individual pollutants are much higher. Air 

emissions of benzene, a well-known carcinogen and the 

most widespread hazardous air pollutant, has declined by 

more than 88 percent since 2013. Tailpipe emissions from 

vehicles-the predominant source of pollution from 

particulate matter and ozone -was reduced by 95 percent 

from 1980 to 2013. This is an astonishing environmental 

success. 

The industrialized nations that utterly depend on the 

consumption of fossil fuels have not amplified environmental 

degradation of the natural world, as the Pope's speeches 

and encyclical claim. In fact, the highly concentrated energy 

in carbon-rich fuels have decreased human encroachment 

on the natural world. For a radical departure from the current 

canon of political correctness, consider that mankind's 

carbon footprint has shrunk mankind's physical footprint on 

the glorious earth. 

Agriculture has now converted 1.5 billion hectares of the 

surface of the earth to cropland. Without the productivity 

achieved through natural gas-derived fertilizer and other 

energy inputs dependent on fossil fuels, the amount of land 

devoted to cropland would be as much as 3.8 billion hectares 

-enlarging the physical human footprint by almost threefold. 

In 1910 before the internal combustion engine replaced 

animate horse power, almost 30 percent of the U.S. crop 

harvest was devoted to feeding the 27.5 million horses used 

for muscle power on the farm and for transportation. Cars 

h!!ps' 'itownha!l.comfeo!umnistsikath!eenharrnettwhitei20J5109/291c!earing-the-atr-on-c!imme-chan,ge-n2058Sl7[1lt7/2017 12 44.12 P~l] 
317 


27600.296

C!carmg the A1r on C'hmate Change- Kathle<:nl!anneu Wlute 

and trucks soon replaced the horse. Although U.S. food 

demand has grown with the population over the last 100 

years, the number of acres of American land devoted to 

agricultural crops and pasturing horses has not increased 

since 1910. 

Policies to replace fossil fuel-based electric 

generation with wind and solar generation necessitate 

massive land modification and habitat destruction. 

Renewable installations can require hundreds to thousands 

more acres of land than a coal, natural gas or nuclear power 

plant to produce the same power. In contrast to pre-industrial 

eras when forests were a primary source of energy, the 

density and efficiency offossil fuels have been kind to trees -

shrinking mankind's physical footprint on the surface of the 

earth. 

The meaning of "climate change" now includes so many 

disparate matters that the phrase is virtually meaningless. 

Stretching the phrase to include pollution is tactually incorrect 

and grossly misleading to the public. As the evidence for 

unprecedented warming temperatures, extreme weather 

events, declining arctic ice, and rising sea levels wanes, the 

entrenched warmists' grasp for familiar tags such as 

"pollution" or "environmental protection" to sanitize their 

grand schemes to decarbonize human societies. 

Consideration of the fundamental physical realities about 

energy and the environmental benefits of fossil fuels, which 

enrich human well-being across the world, are dangerously 

absent from the public square. 

Share th1s on Facebook 

https· ','!ownhal! com 'colmnmsts•'kathk-enhannettv;hHe.'20!5i09·29:deanng-the-a1r-on-dimate-changc-n2058517[! 1 I 2017 124-t 12 P'-11 
318 


27600.297

l'mmp·s energy policy team includes climate change skeptic. free-market advocate· The \Vashington Post 

sect1ons li:l)~ \Unsl)ington fJost I\ '!I , 1 H u j), ~ n fJ u1 II<~ 

Trump's energy policy 

team includes climate 

change skeptic, freemarket advocate 

https://w\'-/\V,washingtonpost.comr.-.t-adYocate/20 I 6/ II /29186e52004-b5a4-lle6-b8df-600btl9d38a02 .. story .html?utm _ tcml""'.05c 1 f5c2d448[ II i7 120 I 7 ! I :29:03 A\1 J 
319 


27600.298

rrump's energy policy team includes climate change skeptic. fi"ec-markct advocate· !he Washington Post 

Donald Trump delivers remarks at the Shale Insight energy conference in Pittsburgh 

on Sept. 22. (Jonathan ErnsUReuters) 

By Steven Mutson 

Donald Trump's transition team may have taken steps to distance itself 

from lobbyists, but the president-elect continues to get advice on energy 

policy from people working for think tanks heavily funded by oil 

companies. 

These advisers could influence Trump's choice of personnel for Cabinet 

jobs for Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and 

the Energy Department. And they could reshape a host of environmental 

policies and limits on mining and drilling. 

On Monday, Trump met with Kathleen Hartnett-White, a former 

chairman and member of the Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality who is now a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy 

Foundation. The foundation has a board of directors stacked with oil 

industry executives and GOP activists. Koch Industries, an oil-based 

conglomerate that has funded a variety oflibertarian political groups, 

was one of a broad range of original donors. 

Trump's transition team for energy also includes Thomas Pyle, head of 

American Energy Alliance (AEA), a wing of the Institute for Energy 

Research. Both groups have strong ties to the oil industry, including 

Koch Industries, for whom Pyle worked as a lobbyist eight years ago 

before heading the AEA. Neither returned calls seeking comment. 

They join Myron Ebell, another non-lobbyist who has spent more than a 

decade working for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has 

received money from ExxonMobil in the past and more recently from an 

ultra-conservative funding entity called Donors Trust, staffed largely by 

people who have worked for Koch Industries or a nonprofit financed by 

https://\\l.Vw.washingtonpost.com' .t-ad>ocatcr2016/ll i29i86e52004-b)a4-11c6-b8df-600bd9d38a02 _story htm!'!utm_terrn-=.05cl f5c2d448[1J/712017 II :29:03 AMJ 
320 


27600.299

Trump's energy policy team includes climate change skeptic. free-market advocate- The Washington Post 

brothers Charles Koch and David H. Koch. 

Gone are the registered lobbyists who did not want to agree to the 

transition's 13-point ethics guidelines for transition team members, 

including a six-month ban on lobbying after the transition or a five-year 

ban if they were to serve in the new administration. 

But Norman Eisen, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and President 

Obama's ethics adviser, said the restrictions should be broader: "What 

good is a five-year lobbying ban if you're going to let all the non-lobbyist 

swamp creatures frolic in the murky waters of special influence?" 

Hartnett-White, Pyle and Ebell have all expressed doubt about climate 

change and have criticized the findings of the International Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC), a volunteer group of climate scientists whose 

findings are considered the gold standard of climate science. The IPCC 

not only issues forecasts, but also gathers and assesses data that have 

shown a steady trend of global warming and rising sea levels. 

"I am not at all persuaded by the IPCC science that we are standing on 

some precipice," !Thrtnett-White told The Washington Post in 

October. "We're not standing on a cliff from which we are about to fall 

off." 

Hartnett-White argued the United States had "the mother lode of all 

hydrocarbon reserves" and that the nation should not curtail 

development of those resources for the sake of climate concerns. 

She also criticized the Supreme Court's 2007 decision allowing the 

Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide as a 

pollutant under the Clean Air Act. "I take issue with that," she said. 

"Carbon dioxide has none of the characteristics of a pollutant that could 

harm human health." 

https://w.,.,w.washingtonpost.com/ .. .t-advocatc/2016/ll!29/86e52004-b5a4-lle6-b8df-600lxl9d38a02. story.html?utm~ tenn=.05e I f5c2d448fll f7n.017 II :29:03 AMl 
321 


27600.300

Trump's energy policy team includes climate change skeptic, tree-market advocate- The Washington Post 

"When you stare at the words of the Clean Air Act, almost anything 

could be a pollutant," she added. 

Hartnett-White said she was not in favor of reducing the EPA to an 

advisory body, as some Trump advisers have recommended. But she 

said the agency should leave major decisions such as climate ones to 

Congress and should leave other regulation to the states. 

Though Hartnett-White had not spoken to Trump at the time of the 

October interview, she praised his written policy. "He really wants the 

market to work," she said. "That means that the government steps back, 

not forward." 

She also condemned other strategies for curbing carbon emissions. She 

said a carbon tax "is like taxing food" not only because food includes 

energy costs but also because of energy's "value to human welfare." And 

she said the Clean Power Plan would "rip up this trillion dollar finely 

tuned electrical system to shut the coal plants." 

New to the transition team is Pyle, president ofthe American Energy 

Alliance, an advocacy group that promotes free-market energy policies. 

He replaced Mike McKenna, president of firm MWR Strategies, who 

stepped aside after the transition team asked advisers to drop their 

lobbying clients. Pyle earned $365,000 in 2014 from the nonprofit AEA 

and its sister group Institute for Energy Research. 

AEA's website argues that Obama's Clean Power Plan, which promotes 

energy efficiency and places strict limits on coal plants, fails on several 

fronts. "Without immediate action by our elected officials to protect your 

state sovereignty, Americans could face diminished living standards and 

an uncertain future," it said. 

https://"""w.washingtonpost.com/ ... t-advocate/20 l6/ll/29/86e52004-b5a4-\\e6-b8df-600bd9d38a02_ story.html?utm_ term=.05e I f5c2d448[ ll/7 /2017 11:29:03 AM] 
322 


27600.301

Trump·s energy policy team includes climate change skeptic, free-market advocate· The \\'a<;hington Post 

The group said Obama's new five-year plan to lease sites for drilling 

offshore was the "most anemic" in U.S. history. 

The group wants to end the renewable fuel standard for ethanol, end 

"wind welfare" by cutting tax credits that are being phased out, and calls 

the Obama administration's tightening of ozone standards "the costliest 

regulation in U.S. history" and "all pain, no gain." 

The IER's website says the Obama administration "violates rule oflaw" 

by holding up the Dakota Access pipeline in North Dakota. It advocates 

an end to "costly" regulations, including a relaxation of federal fuel 

economy mandates that have shaved as much as 2 million barrels a day 

from U.S. oil consumption. 

The group proclaims its devotion to "freely functioning energy markets." 

https://W\\w.washingtonpost.corn! ... t~advocatc/2016/ll/29/86e52004-b5a4~ lle6-b8df:.600bd9d38a02 _story .html?utm ~temr'.05el f3c2d448[ lln/2017 ll :29:03 AM j 
323 


27600.302

! rump's plan to bring back coal country places EPA in crosshairs 

/Cl/ 

Trump's plan to bring back coal country 

places EPA in cross hairs 

II 

'"Jcncy woulri be eli~ led back srrictly con 

http:/ h~ ww. washingtoncxamincr.com/trumps~p!an-to-bring-back-coal~counti)'-Places-epa-in-crosshairs/articlcl2607222rl1/7 /20 17 12:00: 15 P:vt] 
324 


27600.303

Trump's plan to bring back coal country places EPA in crosshairs 

"genuine pollutants" that pose immediate harm to 

public health, and not carbon pollution blamed for 

caus1ng manmade global warming, said Kathleen 

Hartnett-White, a member of Trump's economic 

advisory council, in an interview with che Washington 

Examiner. 

"He's very much for clean air and clean water," she 

said. "But the better home for considering this 

d1scussion about carbon dioxide and climate is in the 

Department of Energy" 

Over the last eight years of the Obama administration, 

the EPA "used the legal rubrics of the Clean Air Act 

realiy to pursue a low-carbon energy policy and really 

not to further environmental protection," she said 

The climate concerns "are really a discussion about 

energy, not really a discussion about environmental 

protection," she said 

She explained that regulating C02 "is the killer for 

coa'." So, pulling back the two principal regulations 

directed at the coal industry will help that resource the 

most, she said. "The two direct rec;ula:ions for n2w 

sources and for existing sources are both direct 

regulations, and are also the ones that I think have 

constitutional problems," she said. 

Both regulations are undergoing court review and are 

expected to go to the Supreme Court before a final 

demion 1s made on their legality Over half the states 

in the country are opposing the centerpiece of the 

regualtions, ca'!ed the Clean Power Plan, by arguing 

that EPA leas overstepped its legal authority under the 

Clean Air Act to regulate C02. 

Tr1e Supreme Court put a hold on the EPA power plan 

on Feb. 9 as it makes its way through a lower federal 

appeals court 

"Carbon dioxide has no adverse impact in the EJir we 

breath at all," Hartnett-Wh;te said. "It's a harmless 

http;/ /www.washingtonexaminer.comitnunps-plan-to-bring-back-coal-country-places-epa~in~crosshairs/article/2607222{ ll/7/20 17 12:00: 15 PM] 
325 


27600.304

Trump's plan to bring back coal country places EPA in crosshairs 

trace gas that is actually an essential nutrient for 

plants." 

The Clean Air Act "was never designed to control a 

pollutant that ubiquitous that has no adverse 

environmental impacts on people," she added 

If the government wants to address C02, then the 

'US Congress should be the ultimate arbiter of this," 

she said. "That to me 1s a decision that Congress 

makes and not experts at EPA" 

She noted that Bob Murray, the CEO of Ohio-based 

Murray Coal, recently said "he does not envision that 

the entire coal industry will be back in place, but a 

level playmg field to allow coal" to compete under a 

Trump administration. 

She sa1d coal companies can be clean and remain 

competitive by focusing on cutting criteria pollutants 

iikc nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and the other 200-

plus toxic a1r polltants. Those pollutants can be 

controlled with available and affordable technologies, 

which is not the case for carbon diox1de 

Trying to force coal plants to use technologies that 

aren't commercial and only halfway developed, as 

EPA is forcing thern to do under the climate rules, is 

cost-p1·ohibit1ve and will put thern out of business, 

according to Hartnett-White. Even the cleanest coal 

plants in the country are at risk of shutting down if the 

Clean Power Plan is allowed to move forward, she 

explained. 

"There is very important role for environmental 

protection, but you can do so in a way that is not 

based on implausible worst-case scenarios and 

onerous, onerous regulat;ons," Hartnett-White said 

"The entire eight years of the Obama administration, 

they used the legal rubrics of the Clean Air Act really 

to pursue a low-carbon energy policy and really not 

to further environmental protection," she said 

http://www.wa_<;hingtoncxarniner .com/trurnps~plan~to~bring~back-coal-country~places-epa-in~cro:;shairs/article/2607222[ ll/7/20 17 12:00: 15 PM] 
326 


27600.305

I rump's plan to bring back coal counlry places EPA in cro.sshairs 

Hartnett-\rVhite was asked Friday to join the presider•rclect's transition team. She has already oeen an 

adv1ser to his carnpaiqr. on energy and regulatory 

reform bnsed on her· experience serving on Texas 

e1W01rnent cornrn'ssion, which she nol2s is the 

iargcst environrnenta< regulatory borly rn the world, 

second only to EPA 

sr'e led a nur11ber of crucial environmental fights 

betweer~ Texa:; and EPA over the yecns, especia!iy 

vvhen 1t came to \Nash1ngton trying to dictate terrns 

on the slat:: shouid cio to cut em~ss·ons 

1\!~;..lcugh she rot certain exactly where the 

:m:cs'dent~,e!ect w:ll come down on his poky on how 

:o aL~dress EP/\ overreach, she told the Exarniner that 

the focus wiii be on what is achievable under- the law 

to guard huJ'lan heoith. 

·rvvo of the fcur of Donald Trump's economic policies, 

which consistently fro1'Y1 the vE?ry beginn1ng of his 

and his wntten statements," have focused on 

energy and IT'gulations, she expiained 

"l here's taxes, anrl thue's trade reforn1, but the other 

two of qual mportance arc the energy factcr, taking 

great advantage of new!y accessed vast energy 

c:nd the fourth is regu!atory reform," she 

Share with friends. 

http://W\\'W.\vashingtoncxamincr.com/trumps~plan-to-bring-back-coal~country~places-epa-iJl-crosshairs/artic!e/2607222[ 11/7/2017 12:00: 15 PM] 
327 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you both for being here today. 

Mr. Wheeler, I appreciated you coming to meet with me, and in 

our meeting we did discuss the importance of the RFS to my State 

and to the viability, I believe, of all of rural America. 

The Deputy Administrator plays an important role in ensuring 

that the Renewable Fuel Standard functions according to congressional intent. How familiar are you with the President’s commitment to the RFS and to biofuel production, and will you uphold the 

President’s commitment to the RFS? 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you, Senator. I enjoyed our visit and talking about this issue in your office. 

The RFS is the law of the land, and I fully support the program. 

I have not had specific conversation with the President on this 

issue, but from all accounts, fully supports the program and the intent of the program, and I support both the law and the intent of 

the RFS program. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you very much. 

Ms. White, as I discussed in our meeting, I do have serious concerns with numerous factually incorrect statements you have made 

about the RFS. I worry about your lack of understanding about the 

purpose of the law, which is to provide market access for renewable 

fuels and to promote agriculture and to promote rural America. As 

I have stated multiple times, I support an all of the above energy 

policy, but I worry about your extremist views and your role as an 

advisor to the President. 

We are all aware of your statements and position on the RFS. 

However, it is the law of the land. Should you be confirmed, I 

would ask you will you echo President Trump’s support for the 

statute and uphold the congressional intent of the RFS? 

Ms. WHITE. Yes, I would. That is what I understand as upholding the rule of law. 

Senator FISCHER. Do you think it is important to provide the 

President with accurate, factual information when you provide him 

with options on issues, if you are confirmed? 

Ms. WHITE. Absolutely. And that advice needs to be based on the 

most solid, informed, robust science and data. 

Senator FISCHER. In our conversation in my office, and in your 

answers to Senator Rounds, you did state that you used flawed 

data as recently as 2014, as recently as 2016 with regards to the 

RFS in making statements such as ethanol policies of the United 

States have led to food riots in several countries over the last few 

years. That was in 2014. 

I would ask you if you can guarantee in any way to us that you 

will check data, that you will check facts, that you will, in your capacity, if you are confirmed in this position, to always, always 

check and make sure you are providing that accurate information 

to the President of the United States when you give him options? 

Ms. WHITE. The specific question, please? 

Senator FISCHER. Will you use facts when you are presenting options? 

Ms. WHITE. Oh, of course. 

Senator FISCHER. And current data. 

328 

Ms. WHITE. And the 2014 statements you are talking about was 

a part of the book. 

Senator FISCHER. Will you use current data and facts? 

Ms. WHITE. Yes, I will, unquestionably. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. 

I would remind people that we are talking about more than corn 

here. Of course, when we talk about the RFS and renewable fuels, 

we are looking at second generation biodiesel. We are looking at 

our soybean growers, as well. This is a huge issue for rural America, and we need to take it seriously. 

As a follow up, Ms. White, there have been press reports about 

some interest in altering the RFS before 2022. I would ask would 

you commit to me today that, should you be confirmed, you would 

not support opening up the RFS before 2022? 

Ms. WHITE. I would support the President’s position in that. 

Senator FISCHER. So you will not commit that to me at this 

point? 

Ms. WHITE. I can’t really prejudge that. 

Senator FISCHER. OK. 

Ms. WHITE. And I might also add it is not because, at another 

time, I would feel comfortable making a clearer position. 

Senator FISCHER. OK, fair enough. Thank you. 

Mr. Wheeler, we also discussed the importance of communication 

between the EPA and stakeholders that are impacted by regulations. For many years I have heard a lot of frustrations from constituents about the lack of dedication at the EPA to assist with 

compliance requirements for communities and for businesses. 

Sometimes we have seen in the previous years really an agency 

that I think works on a gotcha mentality instead of looking at a 

collaborative approach. So I would ask you if you would look at 

using collaborative or cooperation with federalism in working with 

States and local communities, and really being an agency that assists States and local communities to meet and be in compliance 

with regulations that are so very important for us. 

Mr. WHEELER. Absolutely, Senator. Administrator Pruitt’s commitment to cooperative federalism I think goes right along with 

what you just said, and I am looking forward to helping him implement that. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you so much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Fischer. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, can I make a unanimous consent request that a number of references in recent years to paganism, communism, relating that to climate change from Ms. White 

be entered into the record, please? 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

329 


27600.306

! rump pick for top environmental post called belief in global wanning a 'kind of paganism'- CN:\Polltlc.;; 

Trump pick for top environmental post called 

belief in global warming a 'kind of paganism' 

http:t/www.cnn.com/20 17/! 0/!91politicsrkfilc-kathlcen-hartnctt·White-paganism/indcx.htmlf 11/7120! 7 ! 2:50:39 P\.fJ 
330 


27600.307

Trump pick for top environmental post called belief in global warming a 'kind of paganism'~ CNNPolitics 

STORY HIGHLIGHTS 

Kathleen Hartnett White described the 

belief in "global warming" as a "kind of 

paganism" for ''secular elites." 

As head of the Council on Environmental 

Quality, Hartnett White would oversee 

environmental and energy policies across 

the government. 

(CNN)- President Donald Trump's nominee to be the 

White House senior adviser for environmental policy in 

2016 described the belief in "global warming" as a "kind 

of paganism" for "secular elites." 

Trump last week nominated Kathleen Hartnett White, 

who previously led the Texas Commision on 

Environmental Quality, to head the White House 

Council on Environmental Quality, a post that requires 

Senate confirmation. Hartnett White, currently a senior 

fellow at the conservative think tank Texas Public Policy Foundation, has long expressed 

skepticism about established climate science and once dismissed the idea that carbon dioxide is 

a pollutant, calling it "the gas of life on this planet" 

As head of the Council on Environmental Quality, Hartnett White would oversee environmental 

and energy policies across the government 

Hartnett White appeared on "The Right Perspective," an online conservative radio show, in 

September 2016 when she made the comments talking about a "dark side" to belief in global 

warming. 

"There's a real dark side of the kind of paganism --the secular elites' religion now -- being 

evidently global warming," Hartnett White said. 

To illustrate her point, Hartnett White pointed to comments made by the former executive 

secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres. 

Figueres told Bloomberg News that on combating climate change and reducing pollution, China 

was "doing it right," adding that the country was able to enact key tough climate policies 

because of its political system. In the same interview, Figueres said that the divided US 

Congress was "detrimental" to combating climate change. 

http://www.cnn.com/2017 /I 0/19/po!iticsikfile-kathleen-hartnen-white-pagunism/indcx.htm!fll/7120 17 J 2:50:39 PMl 
331 


27600.308

Trump pick for top environmental post called belief in global warming a 'kind of paganism'· CNNPo!itics 

Hartnett White also referenced comments made by Figueres in which she spoke about 

intentionally changing "the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 

years, since the industrial revolution." 

Hartnett White characterized these comments as admissions by believers in climate change of 

an intent to create a "one-world state ruled by planetary managers." 

"Some of the leaders, totally open, like the just stepping down head of the United Nations 

climate change program, Christiana Figueres, from Costa Rica, openly says that communism is 

the best system and maybe our only last chance to use-- and she uses China as some good 

example as the way we can avert global warming," Hartnett said. 

She continued, "On other occasions [Figueres] says, 'we have, the first time, a clear opportunity 

using climate policy, climate plans, to undermine the system of economic growth and 

industrialization that began a couple hundred centuries ago.' I mean totally open. We're talking 

about, you know, one-world state ruled by planetary managers, you know to kind of allocate our 

little portion of grub and energy, but they're open and adamant about it" 

Hartnett White did not respond to a request for comment A representative for the White House 

also did not respond to an email requesting comment 

Hartnett White has drawn condemnation from environmentalists, who view her nomination as a 

threat to enacting policies that would combat climate change. If confirmed, Hartnett White would 

join several other Trump administration officials, including EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, who 

are skeptical of climate change and have opposed regulations that seek to stymie its effect 

http://-www.cnn.com/2017/l 0/19/po!itics/kfile-kathlcen-hartnett-white-paganism/index.hunlf 11/7/2017 12:50:39 PM] 
332 


27600.309

Fncrg) and Freedom » Blog & Commentary l> Texas Pub he Policy Foundation 

particularly embedded in the Left's secular religion: Apocalyptic Anthropogenic 

Global Warming. Check out MSNBC's Chris Hayes's Sidney-Award-winning 

article in The Nation entitled "The New Abolitionists." This lengthy article 

analogizes the abolition of slavery to the abolition of fossil fuels, as demanded 

by the "climate justice movement" of which Hayes professes to be an ardent 

member. 

A! several junctures, Hayes disavows any moral equivalency between 

enslavement and fossil fuel combustion, but the protestation is belied by the 

central conceit of the 3,600-word piece. Hayes emphasizes that it is the 

methods used to abolish slavery that "climate justice" must use lor the 

abolition ol fossil fuels: primarily forfeiture of property. Hayes calculates this as 

https:I''H\w.texaspolicy.comlb!og/detailiener~y-and-fr~cdnmfl 1/7/2017 1:27:36 PMl 
333 


27600.310

Energy and Freedom)> B!og & Comment.arJ )) Texas Public Pol it} Foundation 

a neatly convenient $1 0-trillion loss incurred as a result of the abolition of 

slavery in the U.S. - and $10 trillion Joss from leaving 80 percent of the world's 

fossil fuel reserves in the ground. Hayes's plan for keeping this planet 

habitable, as he puts it, is forcible suppression of the extraction of oil, natural 

gas, and coal. 

Chris Hayes might have devoted as much research to the economic history of 

energy as he does to what he calls the "political economy of slavery." Had he 

done so, he may have discovered a real relationship between fossil-fuel use 

and human enslavement. Hayes acknowledges that slaves were a major 

source of mechanical energy throughout human history, but he neglects to 

explore why this is no longer the case. There is, in fact, a historical connection 

between the abolition of slavery and humanity's first widespread use of energy 

from fossil fuels. First harnessed in the English Industrial Revolution, fossil 

fuels spawned unceasing economic growth- an unprecedented productivity of 

most benefit to the poor until then consigned to poverty and enslavement 

across the world. 

In 1807, the British Parliament finally passed William Wilberforce's bill to 

abolish the slave trade in the British Empire. In the same year, the largest 

industrial complex in the world powered and illuminated by coal opened in 

Manchester, England. Thus began the century-long process of converting 

mankind's industry from the power of muscle, wood, wind, and water to stored 

solar energy in fossil fuels. 

Fossil fuels dissolved the economic justification for slavery. When the 

concentrated and versatile energy stored in fossil fuels was converted to 

mechanical energy, the economic limits under which all societies had formerly 

existed were blown apart. A life of back-breaking drudgery was no longer the 

inescapable condition of the overwhelming majority of mankind. The 

productivity made possible by fossil fuels led to the institutionalization of 

compassion and respect for the inalienable rights of each human individual. 

In the Rational Optimist, Matt Ridley captures the magnitude of the energy 

breakthrough. "By 1870," he writes, "the burning of coal in Britain was 

generating as many calories as would have been expended by 850 million 

labourers. It was as if each worker had twenty servants at his beck and call.. 

That is how much energy had been harnesses to the division of labor. That is 

how impossible the task of Britain's 19th century miracle would have been 

without fossil fuels." 

https::/\\1\\V.tcxaspo!icy.comrblog/det.ail-'c:ncrgy-and-freedom[l 1/7/2017 1:27:36 PM] 
334 


27600.311

Energ)' and Fr(!cdom >> B!og & Commentar} >> rcxas Public Polk) Foundation 

Fossil fuels have fundamentally improved human living conditions. Before 

methodical application of the energy supplied by coal, natural gas and 

petroleum, the human life expectancy of about 25 years had changed little 

throughout human history; lifespan has now tripled. Income per capita has 

increased eleven-fold. World population increased from 760 million in 1750 to 

6.8 billion in 2009. From 1961 to 2007, the world population doubled while 

food supply per person increased by 27 percent thanks to fossil fuel inputs 

such as natural-gas based fertilizer. 

Hayes, acknowledges that coercing dispossession of $10 trillion worth of 

hydrocarbon assets will likely require more forcible disruption than persuasion! 

No less a theft, however, is what Hayes contends that the "climate justice 

movement is rightly demanding," and apparently without concern for the 

harshly regressive impacts on society or whether the renewable alternatives 

are up to the job. 

Hayes' recommendation to avert global warming, like most warmist policies, 

toys with the greatest advance made by mankind. Energy poverty already 

emerges in highly developed countries like England and Germany which have 

placed excessive faith in renewable alternatives to fossil fuels. It's a curious 

case for a self-described progressive, to advocate the abrupt end to progress, 

but this is the intellectual cul-de-sac at which the Apocalyptic Anthropogenic 

Global Warming cult has arrived. 

Energy sources are not readily interchangeable. Power-dense, abundant, 

versatile, reliable, controllable, portable, storable and affordable: fossil fuels 

provide over eighty percent of the world's energy because they are superior to 

present alternatives. Who knows what future innovation will generate as 

alternative energy sources fully comparable or superior to fossil fuels ? 

Liquidating a key wellspring of mankind's release from abject poverty and 

enslavement demands far more robust science than the IPCC's highly 

politicized and speculative science increasingly contradicted by empirical 

evidence. The abolition of slavery was the most morally justified forfeiture of 

assets in human history. Abolition of fossil fuels, as Hayes' proposes it, would 

be the most morally objectionable. 

is the Distinguished Senior Fellow-in-Residence and 

https://w\\w.texaspolicy.comlblog/detail!energy~and-frccdomfll/7/20!7 1:27:36 PM] 
335 


27600.312

l~nL:rgy antl heedom "Bing & Comrncntaf) ,, ! c'\a~ l'ubla: Po!Jc: I oundatmn 

Director of the Armstrong Center for Energy & the Environment at the 

. She served a six-year term as Chairman and 

Commissioner of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Her 

research study: "Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case," will be released in June 2014. 

RELATED POSTS 

http~:,',\\\\\\ .tc.\a~pOI!C} .comihlog!dctai!/c>nergy-and-frceJomf lli7/20 17 1·27·36 1'\-1! 
336 


27600.313

Pope rrancts's Poverty. Envmmment Ideas Will Worsen Both 

ECONOMICS 

Socialism, fascism, and one-world government are not solutions to poverty and environmental degradation, as 

Pope Francis's encyclical seems to suggest 

As a lifelong Catholic with graduate degrees in religious studies and a long stint as 

the head of an environmental agency second in size only to the Environmental 

Protection Agency, I am deeply troubled by Pope Francis' encyclical "Praise to You, 

Lord (Laudato, Si'): On Care of Our Common Home," Long anticipated for revelation 

of the pope's support for a global climate treaty, the encyclical is, and is not, focused 

hnps:l/thefcderalist com/20 15/06.'25/popc-franctss-poverty-and-cnvironment-tdeas-\\-ill-worscn-bothl!l 117/20 I 7 1 :09:33 P~lj 
337 


27600.314

Pope Francis's PoH~rt}- tm.1ronment !d~as W!ll Worsen Both 

JUNE25, 2015 

on global warming. 

On the one hand, this lengthy, many-layered papal letter can be understood as a rich 

theological reflection on the human individual's relationship with the natural world 

through the eyes of the pope's namesake-the ascetic and mystic St. Francis of Assisi 

(1182-1226). On the other hand, much of the text reads like an anti-capitalist 

polemic. 

Excuse Me: Capitalism has Drastically Reduced Poverty 

https·i/thefederalist.com/2015/06i2Sipope+franciss-(Xlv~rty-and-cnwonmenHdeas-\l i11·1\orsen·bothi[! 1 /7/20!7 1 09 3:1 PMl 
338 


27600.315

Pope Francis's Poverty, Environment Ideas Will Worsen Both 

Whether explicitly or implicitly, the thrust of the text, however, focuses on global 

warming in urgent calls to reverse the "disfigurement and destruction of creation" 

and to heal the earth "now burdened and laid waste" by human sin. In language 

topping the hyperbolic rhetoric ofmostwarmists, the pope contends that 

industrialization over the last two centuries has so "hurt and mistreated" our home 

that the earth is now "an immense pile of filth." Is the pope oblivious to the vast 

improvement in human welfare and environmental quality flowing from modern 

economic growth? 

Since 1800, global human life expectancy has increased more than three-fold. Percapita income has increased eleven-fold, and global population has increased eightfold. From 1960-2007, the world population doubled. Instead of the mass starvation 

predicted by Neo-Malthusian Paul Ehrlich, the food supply per person has actually 

increased by 27 percent. Hunger is no longer a question of food supply, but of access 

to the supply. Of course, there is a huge divergence between developed and 

developing countries, but improvements are global in reach. The United Nations 

estimates that poverty has decreased more in the last SO years than it had in the 

previous 500 years. 

The economic growth that has made this colossal advance possible was driven by 

market economies and the abundant, concentrated, and affordable energy in fossil 

fuels. Natural-gas-based fertilizer is responsible for huge gains in our food supply. 

Fossil fuels remain a necessary condition of the soaring productivity that 

distinguishes the Industrial Revolution and its aftermath from all previous eras. This 

economic growth has most benefitted the average worker, allowing the emergence 

of a middle class for the first time in human history. A hasty rush to inferior energy 

sources threatens this most momentous advance in the physical conditions of human 

society. 

Capitalism has also Improved the Environment 

This prosperity has led to dramatic environmental improvements. Sustained 

economic growth enabled huge investment in innovative technologies that have 

dramatically reduced air pollution and water contamination. In an understandable 

rush to electrify, China has severely polluted urban air quality, but is beginning to 

install emission controls. Studies such as the Environmental Performance Index 

demonstrate that countries with market economies and related legal institutions 

achieve the highest environmental quality. 

https·//thefedcra!ist.com/20 15/06/25/popc-franeiss-poverty-and-cnvironmenHdea.~-wil!-worsen-both/{ 111712017 1·09·33 PM] 
339 


27600.316

Pope !·rancls·s Povert). Env~ronmcnt [tleas W1ll Wor~cn Both 

Fossil fuels have shrunk the human footprint on the 

magnificent natural world. Without them, woodlands 

would be felled and crop land vastly expanded. The 

environmental "filth" of which Pope Francis speaks does 

not describe mature industrialized market economies, 

but all pre-industrial societies in which streets and water courses were packed with 

excrement and putrefied waste. 

The pope's position on anthropogenic global warming admits no doubt. "A very solid 

consensus of science indicates that we are witnessing a disturbing warming of the 

climatic system." Without further explanation, the encyclical reiterates the orthodox 

ideology of the most extreme warmists. Humanity's use of fossil fuels and 

"compulsive consumption"-which includes things like air-conditioning-is the 

overwhelming cause of an apocalyptic "crisis" now at the "breaking point." The letter 

overlooks the nearly 20-year pause in warming temperatures and the United 

Nations' most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientific 

assessment reports finding that allegedly unprecedented weather events are neither 

unusual nor likely caused by global warming. 

One-World Government Is an Awful Idea 

The most disturbing aspect of the pope's letter is his solution for the "deep crisis"-

global governance with teeth. The encyclical recommends creation of a "one world 

common plan" implemented by a "true world political authority" (quoting his 

predecessor Benedict XVI). This international institution is to enforce the global plan 

through "functionaries who are appointed fairly in agreement by national 

governments and empowered to impose sanctions." 

Pope Francis may repeatedly disavow the Catholic 

Church's meddling in matters of science and politics, 

but this encyclical puts his office inside those domains. 

He openly acknowledges his hope that his letter will 

influence the outcome of negotiations for a global treaty 

to be sealed this year in Paris. On the day the Vatican 

released the encyclical, Catholic bishops held a press 

conference followed by congressional briefings in DC It 

appears the last time the church became so embroiled 

in science was when Pope Urban VIII arrested Galileo in 1632. 

h!tps /!thcfCdcra!ist com/2015!06r25/p<lpC·francJss·poverty·and-env!ronmenHdcas-\\!l!-v.or.>cn-both'[! 1/7/2017 ! 09 33 P!\.1] 
340 


27600.317

Pope ITanc1s'~ Poverty, Env1ronment Ideas W11! Worsen Both 

Also disquieting is the pope's failure to recognize that his favored policies to avert 

global warming are increasing the very poverty he seeks to alleviate. The renewable 

energy he supports to "replace fossil fuels without delay" has left roughly 800,000 

households in Germany without electricity because they are unaffordable at prices 

now three times higher than the average rate in the United States. The World Bank 

and International Monetary Fund inhibit or deny financing for affordable electricity 

from fossil fuels in developing countries, consigning the poorest of the world to lives 

of continued misery. 

Setting aside these sharp contours, Pope Francis' encyclical does offer a powerful 

message about the state of our culture damaged by moral relativism. His reminder of 

what it means to value the dignity of each human being made in the image of a loving 

God "takes us to the heart of what it is to be human." As a Catholic, I mourn the 

absence of one vital factor in the pope's letter: human liberty guided by a clear moral 

compass and the rule of law. As the twentieth century so tragically demonstrates, 

"common plans" inevitably enforced through totalitarian polity lead to 

environmental squalor, poverty, and denial of inherent worth of the individual. On 

this matter, let us pray that the encyclical evokes vigorous dialogue. 

Kathleen Hartnett White is director of the Armstrong Center for Energy and the 

Environment at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. White also sits on the editorial board of 

the journal of Regulatory Science, the Texas Emission Reduction Advisory Board, and the 

Texas Water Foundation. 

Copyright© 2017 The Federalist. a wttolly Independent div1s1on of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved 

~-- -_ --_-= -_ -::---- --=- -_- ~;-=---=--~=--=-~~- ~--=-- -=-----_ ~ ---=-=-----=- -=:: 

~-':::~-.:- i!~!-~~~~~~~~:~_- :. httrs:/!thefedcraiJst com/2015106/25/pope-franciss-poverty-and-cnvironment-ideas-\'J!!-\\orscn-bothl! 11/7/2017 I 09·33 PMJ 
341 


27600.318

Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy 

By Kathleen Hartnett White 

Selected Quotes 

I. "We would also submit that fundamental judea-Christian principles regarding the value 

of the human person also played a powerful role ... " 

2. "It is, perhaps, not merely a coincidence that in 1807, when the British Parliament finally 

passed William Wilburforce's bill to end the English shave trade, the largest industrial 

complex in the world using steam power and lighting generated by coal opened in 

Manchester, England." 

3. Book jacket: "Why the cruel green agenda will keep billions of people in grinding 

poverty and threatens the world with mass starvation." 

4. "The world faces a stark choice between unprecedented prosperity fueled by abundance 

energy or self inflicted poverty." 

5. "Anti-industrialism would send us to a Planet of the Apes future where energy is rationed 

-though elites could opt out by buying paper carbon credits to avoid the austerity 

imposed on the rest of us," 

6. "The climate crusade is indeed a mad war on human welfare." 

7. "Anyone who talks about decarbonizing our economy is talking about demodernizing it 

as well." 

8. "Without abundant, affordable, reliable, and versatile energy, economic growth will be 

undermined. The productivity achieved through man's relatively recent energy 

enrichment, commonly known as the Industrial Revolution, will be unraveled. Poverty 

will increase and the middle class will shrink, a trend already occurring across the world, 

even in the United States. The ruling elites will go unscathed, protected as they were 
342 


27600.319

before the Industrial Revolution, while the rest of mankind reaps the bitter harvest of 

false green hopes." 

9. "[Western environmental policies] seem more interested in carbon dioxide levels than in 

life expectancy." 

10. "Comparing doomsaying neo-Malthusians like Paul Ehrlich with doomslaying 

humanitarians like Norman Borlaug, we might ask ourselves whose team we'd want to 

join. Ehrlich's remedy for food shortages, pollution, and now supposed Man-made global 

warming is for all-powerful government to reduce the number of human beings, who are 

despoiling the natural world, going so far as to oppose emergency shipments of food to 

alleviate crises until the rulers of those starving people get "the population under 

control." His followers supported some of the most inhumane acts of genocide in history, 

their population-control ideology leading to forced abortions, sterilizations, one-child 

policies, and other statist dictates on human reproduction .... Says "Ehrlich stands in a 

grand apocalyptic tradition, beginning with Malthus in the eighteenth century and 

continuing with AI Gore in our own day." 

1 I. "Unless feeding the world's seven billion human residents is not a priority, the increased 

atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide attributable to human activity is 

unquestionably a huge social benefit." 

12. "The ethanol mandate has achieved none of its objectives- reducing oil imports, 

displacing gasoline, improving air quality, and reducing carbon dioxide ... , what the 

ethanol mandate did accomplish was reduction of the global food supply in what is still 

the basic source of calories for much of the world's population- grains." 

13. "Ethanol policy is a prime example of counterproductive, outdated, and ethically 

offensive federal energy policy." Pg.48 

14. "The ethanol policies of the United States, which transform a basic food into an optional 

fuel, have been widely condemned by international institutions developed to eliminating 

hunger." (pp. 159-60) 
343 


27600.320

15. "Promoters of ethanol pitch it as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, yet research 

has shown that ethanol probably increases such emissions." p.l61 

16. "It is nearly impossible for a candidate from either party to win the Iowa caucuses 

without supporting ethanol mandates. This political factor alone has perpetuated the 

counterproductive and ethically dubious Renewable Fuel Standard." 

17. "Only the elite in the most affluent countries, insulated from the human face of 

subsistence poverty, could devise and mandate policies to shrink the supply of basic food 

commodities like corn." 

18. "At any cost, renewable energy from wind, solar, and biomass remains diffuse, 

unreliable, and parasitic, in that those intermittent sources rely on fossil fuels for backup." (p. 6) 

19. "You can't power a $15 trillion economy with wind and solar," she explains in the book. 

"Most green energy policies undermine human progress. They are regressive, 

disproportionately hurting low and middle class income families by driving energy prices 

higher, thus eroding our standard ofliving." 

20. "Replacing fossil fuel energy w the medieval technologies of wind, solar power, and 

biomass is a dangerous fantasy." 

21. "The grand prize winner in the government subsidies sweepstakes was the wind industry, 

which received $5 billion." 

22. "Contrary to false reports in the media, virtually no documented environmental problems 

have been associated with fracking- ever." 
344 


27600.321

ON 
345 


27600.322

LING FRUDOM 

All rip.br~ re;crvcd. Nn p.trr o! thi~ rublk:mnn ma~ be r~proJu~«:·d or 

tr:UJ,mlrr~·d in >l!lr torm or by ,tny mt>JrJS de.;.t.rnnic or m~-chamcaL ioduding. 

ph"m<.1!py, n:;:urdint;. or au.¥ wformation ~toraw and rctriM•al sy~tem now 

konwo nr t<J be hwen.tcd, Without pcrmJ!.SiOil in wridn_g from the publi~hn, 

<"«ept hF ,\ rc~·it.werwhl}Wbh~-s to q1totc brief pas~ages intunn~'l:tion with 11 

n:•lew wriro.'Ili(.lt tndmion in a Illd.g<llinc, newspaf'l'[, website, Of broa<kast. 

R~nery110 is a registrred rradem.1rk of S.1!em Communk,J.tkms Holding 

Coq>orJcion 

1!)9!P654Ht 

Bnoksart><ll'ailablt:in(!liJ.llrity fnrpnl1notJ(ltlalorpn'l'nimn ~. f;winfnnrmhon 

on discnnnl" ,,nJ t~•nn,;, [lbL-.e vr;ir ~mr website: www.RqltH"ry.~oJ>!ll. 

Di\tnbllt~'tl roth<•mlde h} 

i'<:cr-cu$[)i~Hii:Jution 

250Wc;r57thStn•er 

Nl'w Y11rk. NY Hl\07 

--Kuhken fLlrwett White 
346 


27600.323
347 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Hartnett White, I am very concerned about environmental 

justice issues in our country, and I have this belief—which I don’t 

think is radical—that every American should have access to clean 

air, clean water, even clean soil to plant in. Because of the issues 

of urban areas, I live in the central ward of Newark and see how 

challenging the exposure to particulate matter is for children in my 

city that I was mayor of; asthma rates off the charts, teachers complaining about even just being able to educate kids because of the 

level of kids’ missing school because of asthma. 

But this is not just a New Jersey problem. I have traveled, since 

I have been on this Committee, to Duplin County, North Carolina, 

where people who live around CAFOs have alarming rates not just 

of cancers, but also of respiratory diseases. A few months ago I was 

in a place unfortunately nicknamed Cancer Alley in Louisiana, between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, where again, particulate 

matter released by petrochemical plants has people literally gasping for air at alarming rates. 

A lot of my colleagues have already mentioned some of your 

alarming rhetoric on some of these issues, but I just really have an 

urgent concern about your views of the dangers of particulate matter in some of your past statements. I was really shocked when my 

staff pulled documents that showed that at an Americans for Prosperity conference in 2011, you publicly stated that ‘‘people do not 

die from particulate matter levels.’’ Then again in 2013 you testified actually before a House subcommittee and said that ‘‘In the 

last 5 years, EPA’s regulatory initiatives have been preoccupied 

with particulate matter as if it was a source of major risk to premature mortality.’’ 

I look at a lot of the data and studies, and I had my staff pull 

for the hearing, and they pulled one study, which is one of the most 

comprehensive, really an unprecedented study that was published 

in the New England Journal of Medicine from Harvard University, 

which looked at 60 million Medicaid participants, 60 million people 

over a 12-year period, longitudinal study of an unprecedented nature, with far more statistical power than any previous analyses 

done. 

The researchers looked at every American over 65, including people in rural places like I named and urban places like I live in, and 

the analysis unequivocally linked long term exposure to ozone and 

fine particulate matter to an increased risk of premature death. 

The study found, in fact, no evidence of safe levels of exposure to 

particulate matter. It really sounded the alarm. 

And I will tell you what is disturbing to me is how this particulate matter seems to affect low income people. It affects poor folks, 

and as a result, disproportionately people of color. And they show 

that the higher risk of premature deaths for African-Americans, for 

example, are three times higher. Three times higher. 

So I just really need to understand your position on the urgency 

of particulate matter and dealing with this environmental justice. 

So maybe the specific question, first of all, do you think the New 

England Journal of Medicine is wrong in this study about the crisis 

of particulate matter? 

348 

Ms. WHITE. Senator, I would have to read it before I answer that. 

But if I may, I would like to tell you about some work I am proud 

of regarding environmental justice in Texas. 

Senator BOOKER. You will forgive me, but I only have a minute 

and 10 seconds left, so I just would like to push you a little bit. 

So you think the New England Medical Journal of Medicine might 

publish a study that isn’t scientifically sound? 

Ms. WHITE. I think there’s all different kinds of methodologies, 

and if I were still at TCEQ, I would gather my chief toxicologist 

and his staff, the professionals, to completely absorb that and brief 

me on it. 

Senator BOOKER. So I think what I am trying to get at is do you 

or do you not believe that we have a crisis of particulate matter 

in the United States of America in certain communities now, especially low income communities? 

Ms. WHITE. Why, when the bulk of the country attains the national ambient air quality standard for fine particulate matter, 

that, to me, is confusing, if there is a crisis. 

Senator BOOKER. Well, I don’t find it confusing; I find it really 

concerning, as we have a nation right now with the No. 1 reason 

why kids miss school, medical reason, is asthma; that we see that 

disproportionately in communities that are dealing with real problems with particulate matter, whether it is highways, airports, 

CAFOs, or the like. 

I find it deeply, deeply concerning your past statements and your 

inability right now to say for the record that you think there is a 

crisis in this country with particulate matter and the respiratory 

diseases that are affecting so many of our children. To take a position that is supposed to be protecting people to a fundamental 

American right of clean air, clean water, I have grave concerns 

about your nomination. 

But my time has expired. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent 

that Ms. White’s views be entered into the record relating to her 

view that particulate matter does not harm human health, please? 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

349 


27600.324

!nsideClimate News: Groups Raise A!am1 O"cr Climate Denial Creeping into Trump's Team 

Groups Raise Alarm Over Climate Denial Creeping 

into Trump's Team 

oppose Trump nominees 

BY MARIANNE LAVELLE, INSIDECLIMATE NEWS 

https:!!insidcclimatenews.org/ncws/02122016/dona!d-trump-climatc-dcnial-appointmenl<>·Scnate-enivrorunent(ll/7/2017 11:56:59 AM] 
350 


27600.325

1n~ideC!imatc Nc\\S. Groups Raise Alarm Over Climate Denial Creeping into frump's Team 

As transition unfolds, the names of more climate science deniers emerge daily as 

contenders for cabinet spots. This prompted leaders of 30 environmental groups on Thursday to urge the 

Senate to block nominees who would reverse progress on global warming. 

"lithe president-elect...chooses to nominate individuals who deny climate science or would seek to gut our 

bedrock environmental protections or roll back recent climate progress, we urge you to vote against their 

confirmation," they said sent to senators. is one of the most pressing domestic 

and global challenges we face, and the president-elect's nominees should recognize the need for 

immediate action." 

Blocking Trump's nominees will be an uphill battle, because only of the Senate is 

required to approve them. Republicans will have a 51-48 majority and Vice President Mike Pence will be 

able to break a tie, so at least three GOP votes would be needed to sink a nominee. In the past, it took 60 

votes to confirm presidential nominees, but new rules adopted by the Senate in 2013 changed that. Only 

nominations to the Supreme Court face the 60-vote hurdle. 

It is a bitter pill for Senate Democrats, who lowered the bar when they were in the majority and were 

frustrated by the GOP blocking President Obama's nominees. Under Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, 

https:/linsideclimatene\\ s.org/news/021220 16/donald~trump·climate·denial·appointments·sen<:~te~enivronmentl 1117 !2017 11 :56:59 AMl 
351 


27600.326

lnsiJeC\imate News: Groups Raise Alann O-ver Climate Denial Creeping into Trump's Team 

they pushed through a rule allowing presidential appointees, except for Supreme Court nominees, to be 

approved by simple majority. Now Trump will benefit from that lower bar. 

Although Trump has not yet named nominees for the key environmental posts leading the Environmental 

Protection Agency, or the departments of Energy and Interior, the rumored names are deeply concerning 

to many environmentalists, said Tiernan Sittenfeld, senior vice president for government affairs for the 

League of Conservation Voters (LCV), one of the organizations that coordinated the letter. 

She said the letter purposefully did not name names. But Trump met with several potential EPA nominees 

in the past two weeks who have been outspoken critics of environmental regulation. 

Kathleen Hartnett White, a fellow in residence at the conservative think tank : 

has called EPA officials who attempted to rein in particulate pollution, a known cause of lung cancer, as 

"mandarins brandishing their scientific credentials." Carbon dioxide is "the gas that makes life possible on 

the earth and naturally fertilizes plant growth," she has ignoring the consensus science that an 

atmospheric overload of the gas is harmful to life on Earth. In an interview, she told that 

she wants to cut renewable energy subsidies. 

Another potential EPA nominee, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, is a leader of the legal fight 

against President Obama's signature climate initiative, the Clean Power Plan, and his Waters of the U.S. 

rule, which is bitterly opposed by the oil and gas industry. In a 

forward to "regulatory rollback" under Trump. 

Pruitt said he was looking 

Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, who served as a stalwart Trump surrogate during the 

campaign, also is a rumored EPA contender who met with Trump last week. She also is a fierce critic of 

the agency, and is fighting not only the Clean Power Plan but also that would curb 

power plant pollution. Another regulatory critic and loyal Trump supporter, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, 

is rumored for a number of positions, including the Interior Department and the Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

Environmentalists also were rocked by a rumor first reported Thursday by 

:vto}i ottli• that Trump was considering Exxon's chief executive, Rex Tillerson, as a possible secretary 

of state, fueling the controversy around that contentious post. Exxon has a long history of opposing climate 

action, despite a similarly long history of studying the reality of climate change, as detailed in 

"It seems like a bad joke, but it's not funny at all," said Sittenfeld. "Any of those people would have no 

business running a federal agency, and certainly not one with the mission of EPA" 

Sittenfeld, who said she was speaking for LCV only and not all of the groups who signed the letter in 

addressing particular candidates, also said that many of the cabinet nominees that Trump already has 

named to agencies that do not focus exclusively on the environment are troubling. Her list includes Rep. 

Mike Pompeo of Kansas, nominated as CIA director, who has a 4 percent lifetime voting record on 

environmental issues by LCV calculations: Tom Price, nominee for Health and Human Services, with a 5 

https://insideclimatcnews.orglnews/021220 16/Jona!d-trump-c!imate-denial-appointmenl>-senate-cnivronmenl! 1117/2017 11 :56:59 AMl 
352 


27600.327

lnsideClimatc !\ews: Groups Raise Alarm Over Climate Denial Creeping into Trump's ream 

percent LCV score, and Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, nominee for Attorney General, with a 7 percent 

LCV score. "I think for someone to be enforcing our laws who has utter disregard for public health and the 

environment is alarming," Sittenfeld said. 

Under the Constitution. appointing top government officials is a power shared by the president and the 

Senate. Nominees are typically referred to one or more committees for hearings, and then the decision is 

made by a full Senate vote. 

Environmental groups decided it was important to air their concerns, despite the difficulties they might face 

in blocking any ofthe appointments. 

"We wanted to make crystal clear the importance of climate change and protecting air. land, and water," 

said Sittenfeld. Among those signing the letter in addition to Gene Karpinski, president of LCV, were 

leaders of large groups like Michael Brune, executive director of Sierra Club, as well as small groups, like 

Mark Magana, president of Green Latino. The signers also spanned the political spectrum from Fred Krupp, 

president of the Environmental Defense Fund, a group known for working closely with industry on 

solutions, to Annie Leonard, executive director of Greenpeace USA, known for its anti-industry rhetoric and 

sometimes flamboyant actions. 

There was no immediate response to the letter from members of the Senate, but Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse 

(D-R. I.), a vocal advocate of climate action did urge Trump to discredit 

"A strong majority of Americans want their government to act on the climate crisis," Whitehouse said in an 

email to lnsideCiimate News. "In fact, not long ago, Donald Trump and three of his children went on record 

in a full-page ad in the New York Times calling climate change 'irrefutable' and its consequences 

'catastrophic' and 'irreversible'. Instead of bowing to the Koch brothers and stocking his administration with 

fossil fuel insiders, he should listen to the Donald Trump from that ad, to his own children, and to the 

majority of Americans who expect agencies like the EPA to protect public health, not corporate profits." 

Signs on Capitol Hill. however, are ominous for advocates of climate action. On Thursday, the official 

Twitter feed of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee 

•:~;,m111H•tmv from the right-wing publication Breitbart News, "Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence 

From Climate Alarmists." 

In fact, 2016 has for wannest on record, as did the two prior years. 

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders "Where'd you get your PhD? Trump University?" 

In the past, it would have been unusual, to say the least, for government officials to cite Breitbart News, a 

publication known for its racist, anti-Semitic and sexist slurs, as well as misinformation on climate change. 

But the website's posts now are part of mainstream political discussion, since its former executive 

chairman, Steve Bannon. ran Trump's campaign and has been named his White House strategist. His post 

does not require Senate approvaL 

https://insidcclimatencws.orginews/021220 16/donald-trump-climatc-dcnia!-appointmcnts-senate-enivronmentf 11/7/2017 II :56:59 AM J 
353 


27600.328

!nsidcC!imatc News: Groups Raise Alarm Over Climate Denial Creeping into Trump's 'I earn 

In their appeal to the Senate, it is clear that environmentalists are hoping to win over at least some GOP 

votes to block Trump nominees< "There is a broad and bipartisan acceptance among the American people 

of the scientific facts that climate change is real and that it is greatly impacted by human activities," they 

said. 

Correction· An earlier version of this story misquoted Bernie Sanders' tweet questioning a House Science 

Committee tweet. He said PhD, not degree. 

First Name 

Email 

MOST POPULAR 

Subscribe to 

lnsideCiimate News 

Last Name 

This Coastal Town Banned Tar Sands and Sparked a War with the Oil 

Industry 

Antarctica's Winds Increasing Risk of Sea Level Rise from Massive Totten 

Glacier 

https:i/insidcc!imatcncws.org/ncws/021220! 6/donald-trump-climatc-denia!-appointments-scnate-cnivronment( I ! /712017 ll :56:59 AM J 
354 

Senator BARRASSO. I would also like to point out that Dan Patrick, the Lieutenant Governor of Texas, has written in support of 

Ms. White’s nomination. He goes on to say, ‘‘Ms. White has over 

30 years’ experience on environmental issues, served as Chair of 

the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and as Director 

of the Texas Water Development Board and the Lower Colorado 

River Authority.’’ He goes on to say, ‘‘Her record is outstanding.’’ 

Unanimous consent to enter this into the record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

355 


27600.329

DAN PATRICK 

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR 

The Honorable John Barasso 

United States Senate 

307 Dirksen Senate Oft1ce Building 

Washington, DC. 205!0 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

United States Senate 

513 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington. DC 205! 0 

Dear 

November 7, 2017 
356 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Ernst. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And thank you to our witnesses and nominees today. 

While campaigning, then-candidate Trump made numerous 

pledges to support biofuels and the Renewable Fuel Standard. You 

see it has been a topic that has been brought up a lot this morning. 

And he had reiterated those commitments as President, as well. He 

understands the value of an all of the above approach to energy 

production that helps our nation unlock all of our bounty—regardless of where that comes from—from oil and gas to wind, solar, and 

biofuels. 

Specifically, biofuels form the bedrock of our rural communities 

and support our farmers, while helping to further our domestic energy independence. We are producing and consuming more biofuels 

now than ever before, and yet the price of corn and soybeans, the 

primary feedstocks for producing biodiesel and ethanol, are at the 

lowest levels in decades. 

Right now, at the Merc, in Red Oak, cash corn is right around $3 a bushel, and soybeans are under $9, and both of these numbers 

are well below our cost of production. So, today, as my husband sits 

in the tractor helping my sister and brother-in-law with harvest, 

they are finding that their return on the investment is very, very 

low. The prices are so low that farmers working around the clock 

to bring in this huge crop are losing money on every acre. And I 

think this should put the food versus fuel debate to rest for good. 

EPA Administrator Pruitt has already done so much to help our 

farmers and ranchers, including rolling back the onerous WOTUS 

rule. He has also committed to me on several occasions, including 

in front of this Committee, to uphold both the spirit and the letter 

of the law, and I want to thank both of you for making that commitment, as Senator Fischer had asked, in front of this Committee 

today. So thank you for doing that. 

Ms. White, during our meeting last week, I had the chance to ask 

you about your qualifications for this role, as well as your past 

criticisms of the RFS and biofuels, particularly the food versus fuel 

argument, which is something I believe Senator Rounds also addressed. In light of the current market forces at work in the ag 

economy, which I touched on in my opening, has your position on 

this changed? 

Ms. WHITE. On the food? 

Senator ERNST. Food versus fuel. 

Ms. WHITE. Yes. This data, you know, is great news, because the 

ethanol program doesn’t somehow create some problem with meeting global food demand. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you. And if confirmed, you will be working closely with the President in your advisory role at CEQ. The 

President has made clear on numerous occasions that he intends 

to uphold both the spirit and the letter of the RFS. Do you envision 

any scenarios out there in which you would offer advice to the 

President or support policies that run contrary to his agenda or 

campaign promises? 

Ms. WHITE. There is none that comes to mind, but you know, 

matters change, so I couldn’t, you know, exactly predict what would 

be the variables involved. 

357 

Senator ERNEST. Should those variables change, though, you will 

do your best to work with varying points of view to make sure that 

the information is accurate and presented appropriately to the 

President? 

Ms. WHITE. Absolutely. 

Senator ERNST. OK, thank you. 

And also for Mr. Wheeler, the primary concern that many of the 

opponents of the RFS have raised is the price of compliance credits, 

or the RINs, and one way we have suggested to mitigate that is 

to address the Reid vapor pressure, or RVP, issue, which would 

make E15 and higher blends of ethanol available year round nationwide. There is some debate as to whether or not this RVP issue 

can be addressed administratively or whether it requires legislation, such as the bill that was introduced by Senator Fischer. 

If confirmed, would you commit to issuing a determination on 

whether the EPA can do this administratively? 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes. I just want to make sure that I am not committing to predetermine what the outcome would be. 

Senator ERNST. Exactly. 

Mr. WHEELER. But if I understood your question correctly, then, 

yes. 

Senator ERNEST. Yes or no, yes, that you could do it administratively. We need to know that. 

Mr. WHEELER. Not prejudging that yes or no, yes, I could commit 

to providing one of those at the appropriate time. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you. I appreciate that, because we need 

that determination from the EPA. If you are not able to handle the 

RVP issue administratively, then we need to turn to a bill or do 

it legislatively, such as Senator Fischer has presented, so we would 

need to work that issue through Congress. And I do look forward 

to working with you on this issue. I think we do need to make E15 

available year round, and again, work on our energy independence, 

as the President has made this one of his goals. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for my time. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Ernst. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, can I make another unanimous 

consent request? 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. If I could submit for the record a November 7, 

2017, letter from the Delaware Riverkeeper Network to members 

of our Committee. The letter urges the Committee to reject Ms. 

White’s nomination on the basis that her record is of loyalty and 

bias in favor of the fossil fuel industry. The letter states, ‘‘Someone 

who claims that ‘there are no major environmental problems’ facing 

our country has no business developing and implementing environmental policy at a time when our nation is facing the greatest environmental threats as ever encountered.’’ 

That is the end of the quote. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

358 


27600.330

DELAWARE 

RIVERKEEPER NETWORKNovember 7, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Opposition to the Nomination of Kathleen Hartnett White as Chair of the Council on 

Environmental Quality 

Dear Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, 

On behalf of our 20 thousand members through the Delaware Watershed, including Pennsylvania, New 

Jersey, New York, and Delaware, we write in strong opposition to the nomination of Kathleen Hartnett 

White to be the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). At a time when the U.S. should be 

redoubling its efforts to address the myriad of threats facing our environment, we cannot allow a climate 

change denier and loyal friend of the fossil fuel industry to direct federal environmental efforts. Ms. White's 

nomination would mark a devastating reversion of the progress our nation has made in addressing climate 

change and many other important environmental issues. 

The CEQ was established by Congress as a part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 

for the purpose of overseeing NEPA implementation, coordinating with agencies and the White House to 

develop environmental and energy initiatives, and advising the president on important environmental policy. 

Given her history and prior experience, Ms. White is clearly unfit to fulfill the critical responsibilities of the 

head of this important council. In her current position as a Fellow at Texas Public Policy Foundation-a 

conservative think tank funded by fossil fuel interests that include Koch Industries, Exxon Mobil and 

DELAWARE RtVERKEEPER NETWORK 

925 Canal Street, Suite 370! 

Brislol, PA 19007 

Office: (21 S) 369-1 188 

fax: (215)369-1181 

drn@delawareriverkeeper.org 

www.ddawarenverkeeper.org 
359 


27600.331

Chevron, and whose board of directors includes oil industry executives'- Ms. White has consistently 

denied scientific findings and proven facts that conflict with their interests. Having spent her professional 

career defending the fossil fuel industry and promoting the interests of big corporations over public health 

and the environment, Ms. White cannot be expected to direct federal U.S. environmental policy in a manner 

that is consistent with the best interests ofthis country and the priorities of the CEQ. 

The Chair of the CEQ is entrusted with the important responsibility of overseeing federal agency 

implementation of environmental impact reviews, as required by NEPA. As a consistent climate-change 

denier, Ms. White is not fit to perform the Chair's duty of ensuring that federal agencies are fulfilling their 

legal responsibility to accurately analyze and disclose the impacts of federal projects on climate change as 

well the impacts of climate change on federal projects. These reviews are an integral part of deciding when, 

how, where, and sometimes if, to build roads, approve energy projects, construct water systems, and 

construct energy infrastructure that protect the communities in which they are built. Fully understanding the 

climate changing ramifications of a project allows project design and location to include elements that 

ensure resiliency in the face of catastrophic storm events such as hurricanes, floods and wildfires. It also 

ensures that there is not an overinvestment in infrastructure construction, thereby inflicting avoidable harms 

on communities. Fracked gas pipelines are significant contributors to climate change- releasing pollution 

through leaks, compressor operations, and the inducement offracking that is devastating communities. The 

mass proliferation of pipelines cutting across this nation, and taking private and public property rights 

through the misuse of eminent domain authority, is devastating communities for an energy source that is 

discharging significant quantities of methane, one of the most dangerous greenhouse gases when looking at 

the next 20 years, the short time frame we have to prevent our world from hitting the devastating tipping 

point of global warming and climate change. 

As head ofthe Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Ms. White adopted a pro-industry 

approach in her environmental policy decisions. Not only did she vote to allow a new coal plant !50 miles 

south of Dallas while arguing that the owner of the plant "was under no obligation to prove its pollution 

controls would work,"2 but she also prioritized industry profits over Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

protections. Ms. White has falsely claimed that ESA protections inhibit development projects. Ms. White 

fails to recognize the economic, environmental and moral value of protecting endangered species. Many 

species on the brink of extinction, when at healthy levels, supported vibrant ecotourism, food, and 

agricultural benefits to our nation. We also owe a duty to future generations to allow them to enjoy the 

beauty ofthe birds, bees, plants, bats and animals that enrich our lives- to take actions that will knowingly 

decimate a species is, quite simply, selfish and immoral. Given her work at TCEQ, Ms. White's industryfocused approach would likely follow her to CEQ. 

As a trusted advisor who develops and recommends national environmental policies to the President, the 

Chair of the CEQ should be someone whose decisions are rooted in science and are consistent with 

scientific consensus on environmental issues. However, Ms. White's blind loyalty to carbon and the fossil 

fuel industry have led to her contradict overwhelming scientific consensus on several important 

environmental issues. She has challenged the scientific conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

1 See Forrest Wilder, Revealed: The Corporations and Billionaires that Fund the Texas Public Policy Foundation, The Texas 

Observer (2012) available at: https://www.texasobservcr.org/revealcd~the-corporationswand-billionaircs-that-fund-the-texasfublic-policy-foundation/ 

Sadasivam, Naveena. "Texas Environmentalists: Kathleen Hartnett White Would Be 'Disaste( as EPA Chief." Texas Observer, 

30 Nov. 2016. 

Page 2 of 3 
360 


27600.332

Climate Change (IPCC) that there is 95% certainty that human activity is causing climate change,' and she 

has denied that there are any negative environmental impacts associated with [racking.' Additionally, Ms. 

White has repeatedly demonstrated her loyalty to carbon by consistently asserting that carbon dioxide is 

neither a pollutant nor an environmental hazard. 5 At a time when we should be moving away fossil fuels and 

towards renewable energy sources, Ms. White has also argued that renewable energy "remains diffuse, 

unreliable, and parasitic."6 These repudiations of scientific facts are a concerning departure from the 

scientific insight one would expect from the Chair of the CEQ. 

Ms. White is not fit to head one of the most important environmental agencies in the country. Given her 

clear hostility to scientific fact, her loyalty to the fossil fuel industry, and her denial of mainstream climate 

science, Ms. White's work as chair of the CEQ would be inconsistent with goals and purpose of the agency. 

Someone who claims that "there are no major environmental problems"' facing our country has no business 

developing and implementing environmental policy at a time when our nation is facing the greatest 

environmental threats it has ever encountered. 

We strongly urge you to oppose Ms. White's nomination as Chair of the CEQ. 

Sincerely, 

Maya K. van Rossum 

the Delaware Riverkeeper 

3 Kathleen Hartnett White. ''Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case" {PDF), Texas Public Policy Foundation. June 2014. Archived .pdf on 

file at DcSmogBlog. 4 "Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy Hardcover- May 23 2016." Amazon. ca. Archived November 3, 2016. 5 ''LIVE from Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) When Politics Meets Climate Forecasting with Tony Heller, 

Kathleen Hartnett White, and Craig [dso," Facebook post by Energy & Environment Legal Institute, February 24, 2017. 6 Kathleen Hartnett White, Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case, Texas Public Policy Foundation (2014) available at: 

https:/ /Mvw .texaspol icy .com/! i brary /doc! i b/20 14-06-RROJ-Fossi!FuelsTheMoralCase-Kathleen White-A CEE.pdf 7 Americans for Prosperity Forum {November 2011), video available at: https://vimeo.com/31646143. 

Page 3 of 3 
361 

Senator BARRASSO. Also for the record, I would like to introduce 

by Dr. Bryan Shaw, the Chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, that was written in support of Ms. White’s 

nomination. Dr. Shaw explains, ‘‘As the current TCEQ Chairman, 

I have a unique perspective on her contribution to this agency. 

Serving as the TCEQ chairman is no easy feat, and she served the 

State of Texas with grace and poise.’’ He goes on to say, ‘‘As evidenced by her career and background in environmental regulations, 

Kathleen is more than capable to serve as the Chairman of the 

Council on Environmental Quality.’’ 

Ask unanimous consent. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

362 


27600.333

Bryan\\'. Shaw, Ph.D., P.E .. Clwirnwn 

Tohy Bnkcr, Commissionet 

.Jon ~iermann, Commissiol/('1' 

Rit'hanL\. Hyde, P.F, l£xecuth•c l!i;·cctor 

TEXA.S COMMISSION ON EJ'.:ITIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Protectiny Texas hy Ueduciny am! Prcl.'t:nlillp Pollution 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

United States Senate 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 205 J 0 

November 7, 2017 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

United States Senate 

513 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Chairman Ban·asso, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on 

Environment & Public Works, 

Please let this letter serve as my endorsement of Kathleen Hat1nett White's appoinnnent as the next 

Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. 

Kathleen served as the Chainnan of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for 

approximately 6 years. As the current TCEQ Chairman, I have a unique perspective on her contribution 

to this agency. Serving as the TCEQ Chairman is no easy feat, and she served the state of Texas with 

grace and poise. 

During her time at the TCEQ, Kathleen played a role in the management of the Texas Emission 

Reduction Program, and she contributed to the development of State Implementation Plans for the state of 

Texas. As one of the largest environmental agencies in the world, the TCEQ had approximately 3,000 

employees and an operating budget of over $500,000,000. As both the Chairman and as a Commissioner 

she had a wide range of responsibilities, including oversight of multiple interstate river compacts and 

streamlining the permitting process. 

Additionally, I have had the pleasure of working with Kathleen in her current role at the Texas Public 

Policy Foundation (TPPF), where she plays an integral part as a Distinguished Senior Fellow-inResidence and Director of the Armstrong Center for Energy and Environment. Her contribution to policy 

development at TPPF is invaluable and appreciated. 

As evidenced by her career and background in environmental regulation, Kathleen is more than capable to 

serve as the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality. I respectfully encourage you to swiftly 

confirm her appointment. 

Sincerely, 

~~::.~~ Chairman 

P,O. Box 13087 • Anstin, Texas 78711-3087 • 512·2~i9-lOOO • tcr:q.texas.goY 

HmY i:; our customer service? tccq,texas.go"jcustomcrsm\'CY 
363 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Ms. White, your positions are so far out of the mainstream that 

they are not just outliers, they are outrageous; and from my perspective, you have a fringe voice that denies science and economics 

and reality. So I would like to turn to a subject here that you have 

commented on, and that is the renewable industry. You said in 

2016, ‘‘Renewables are a false hope that simply won’t work.’’ In the 

same piece you said, ‘‘Intermittent renewables are parasitic on 

backup power from reliable fossil fuels.’’ 

Well, wind power is now up to 7 percent of all of our electricity. 

In 2020 we are projected to have 120,000 megawatts of wind, and 

we now have over 100,000 Americans working in the wind industry. By 2020 we are going to have half a million Americans working in the wind and solar industry—half a million Americans. Most 

of them are good paying, blue collar jobs. These are roofers, they 

are electricians, they are steel workers, they are people who are 

going to be engineers working on the turbines. 

Are you saying that these 500,000 people are parasitic, that they 

are working for an industry that is parasitic and harming America? 

Ms. WHITE. I would like to make two points of clarification. The 

false hope phrase comes from one of the several engineers hired by 

Google to come out with a plan where you could really be powered 

by 90 percent by renewables when that was their conclusion, that 

as a matter of physics renewables—— 

Senator MARKEY. Do you think the wind and solar blue collar 

workers are working for a parasitic industry? 

Ms. WHITE. In using the word parasitic, I was only referring to 

the fact that when you have an intermittent energy source, you 

have to have a backup with a steady state reliable source. I was 

not talking about any employees. 

Senator MARKEY. Well, the impression you leave is that this is 

not a real industry, that wind and solar are not actually playing 

a vital part in producing new energy in our country, whether it be 

in Iowa, which is now upwards of 35 or 40 percent of all electricity 

with wind, and State after State. So I just think it is an unfortunate and cruel characterization of all of these workers, and it will 

be a half a million by 2020, at the current pace, most of them blue 

collar. 

If it was 50,000 coal miners, you would never say that about coal 

miners. But why would you say it about the 500,000 blue collar 

workers who are in the renewable energy? It is just absolutely 

wrong, and calling them inconsequential is even more wrong in 

terms of your economic analysis. It is a very real addition, and it 

is growing, and that is what is most fearful in the hearts of the 

coal industry. But you can’t characterize them in a way, these 

workers; that is so painful, I am sure, to hear them be described 

as working in industries that aren’t contributing dramatically to 

American economic growth. 

Mr. Wheeler, as a former lobbyist for Murray Energy, you have 

made a career working on behalf of the fossil fuel industry to eviscerate regulations designed to protect public health and the environment. Murray Energy has sued EPA to stop clean air and water 

protections. Five of those cases are ongoing. As EPA Deputy AdVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:17 Dec 20, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00369 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\27600.TXT SONYA
364 

ministrator, you would be in a position to serve as plaintiff, defendant, judge, and jury of these ongoing five lawsuits. 

Will you agree to recuse yourself from these lawsuits which Murray Energy brought against the EPA not just for 1 year, but for the 

entirety of the time that you are the Deputy Administrator of the 

EPA? Will you commit to recusing yourself from any of those matters? 

Mr. WHEELER. Two points. First of all, I am not sure which of 

the five. My law firm did not represent Murray in any of the litigation against the EPA. I have talked to the career ethics officials at 

the Agency, and I have had preliminary discussions with them on 

my recusals, what I would have to do, and I am going to follow the 

guidance that they have given me, and I will not be meeting with 

my former clients or my former law firm, in following the advice 

and guidance of the career ethics officials at the Agency. 

Senator MARKEY. Will you recuse yourself from the lawsuits, 

which are still ongoing, that have been brought by the interest that 

you were representing before you were nominated for this position? 

Mr. WHEELER. Again, Senator, I will abide by the guidance and 

requirements given to me by the career ethics officials at the Agency on what I would have to recuse myself from. At this point, in 

discussions with them, I don’t anticipate needing any waivers. I 

will be recusing myself from any work where there is a conflict 

going forward. 

Senator MARKEY. I am just afraid you are going to wind up as 

the plaintiff, defendant, judge, and jury in one of these five matters, and I just think it would be wrong. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

First of all, right now I don’t think I will ask any questions of 

Andrew Wheeler since he worked with me and for me for 14 years. 

There is nothing I could ask that I don’t already know. You will 

be a great, great help to the EPA. 

I would like to make one observation though. All the discussion 

on this side has discussed the RFS. The RFS, in fact, is really in 

the jurisdiction of the EPA and not the CEQ. Actually, Andrew, 

that is your problem and not hers. 

Let me say to Ms. White, I understand several of the extremists 

are driving a narrative that you hate the environment and worked 

to give cover to polluters when you were at Texas Commission 

CEQ. However, I was looking at the enforcement numbers of the 

Texas CEQ during your tenure. To me, it looks like a number of 

administrative orders and amounts of penalties increased significantly. I think that is very important because you had a job to be 

agnostic in terms of who you were criticizing and blaming and so 

forth. Would you address that? 

Ms. WHITE. I would be happy to. I might share with you an example of my commitment to environmental protection. I really 

think totally in terms of fundamental protection of human health 

and welfare. Risk to children particularly motivates me. 

In response to an environmental justice issue, we had a program 

where we went to key plants within the vast Houston industrial 

petrochemical complex and really increased the amount of air monitors so we could really know what we were dealing with. We reVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:17 Dec 20, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00370 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\27600.TXT SONYA
365 

quired that operators of the industries in question had fence line 

monitors, very expensive things to do. We got the data. We had 

sensors on the families who were most concerned or who had demonstrable health impact so we could get that information. We 

worked back to the industry to operate in a way that minimized 

or eliminated the troubling pollution. 

Senator INHOFE. How about penalties? 

Ms. WHITE. Yes, and a lot of those were following Federal Clean 

Air Act, Federal Clean Water Act, very important and essential 

portions of environmental protection. I took that very seriously. 

I think, regrettably, part of the reason why we were able to reduce emissions so much was that there was certain enforcement, 

if there was any departure from their permits that could possibly 

have been controlled. 

Senator INHOFE. Information that I have, which I think needs to 

be in the record, is that you have penalized companies that did not 

comply with the very thing that has been emanating from the other 

side of the aisle. 

Ms. WHITE. We have 16 regional offices in Texas, and almost all 

are devoted to investigations and enforcement actions if they are 

needed. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. 

We have had 8 years of an Administration that does not want 

fossil fuels, coal, oil, and gas, and does not want nuclear. Yet sometimes you just have to appeal to logic and ask the question. If well 

over 80 percent of the energy it takes to run America is either fossil fuels or nuclear, and you extract that from all of the above, how 

do you run the machine called America? Another way of putting it 

is, are there risks associated with solely relying on renewable energy? 

Ms. WHITE. We have seen in other countries that is the case in 

Germany and the UK. I might qualify by saying I am not as current on these numbers as previously, but the average retail electric 

rates in Germany are two to three times higher than the average 

retail rates in this country in significant part for the reason that 

they are very aggressive. 

Senator INHOFE. I would further say you have actually been criticized for some of the penalties that have come from your office in 

the State of Texas. I know that is true because I know some of the 

individuals. 

As chair of the Texas CEQ, one of your responsibilities was to review applications for new electricity generation. Can you tell us 

about the process you used when deciding whether to permit new 

electricity generation? 

Ms. WHITE. We followed the law, first of all, importantly, the 

Clean Air Act as interpreted by EPA. We required all kinds of 

maybe more data, meaningful modeling, and robust science as a 

part of that. 

They are permits that derive from the Federal Clean Air Act, but 

we did the permits in a very, very strict way. 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate that very much. My time has expired. 

366 

I wanted to show and demonstrate what you, as the Administrator of the Texas CEQ, did in following the law regardless of who 

was responsible. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO [presiding]. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, there is another voice from Texas that has a rather different view of Ms. Hartnett White. That is the Dallas Morning News, the local newspaper which under the headline, Trump 

Errs in Naming Climate Denier and Former Texas Regulator to 

Environmental Post, went on to say, ‘‘Her performance as an environmental regulator in Texas suggests that she would lock step in 

dismantling vital environmental protections.’’ 

They described her record as, ‘‘abominable.’’ They described her 

as ‘‘an apologist for energy interests.’’ They concluded by saying, 

‘‘The nation needs a White House advisor who respects science and 

seeks a reasoned balance between energy needs and environmental 

protections. Kathleen Hartnett White does neither.’’ 

They went on to put in a kind of special extra section with a list 

of bullet points on why Kathleen Hartnett White is wrong for the 

job. I would ask unanimous consent that the Texas editorial be put 

into the record. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Wheeler, was anything happening 

when you climbed Kilimanjaro that relates to fossil fuel emissions? 

Mr. WHEELER. The air was very thin, if you are referring to the 

glacier. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am asking you, was anything happening 

on Kilimanjaro? 

Mr. WHEELER. The glacier is still there on top. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. That is not answering my question. 

Mr. WHEELER. I did not understand your question, then. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Was there anything going on that you are 

aware of, did you learn anything about what was happening on Mt. 

Kilimanjaro that relates to fossil fuel emissions? 

Mr. WHEELER. No, sir. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Nothing. OK. 

You are a lobbyist for Murray Energy? 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, Murray Energy is one of my clients. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The head of Murray Energy, Bob Murray, 

has said that he has a 3-page plan that is being implemented by 

Scott Pruitt at the EPA. He said they are already through the first 

page. What can you tell us about Bob Murray’s 3-page plan that 

he claims Scott Pruitt is implementing at the EPA? 

Mr. WHEELER. I did not work on that, and I do not have a copy 

of that memo. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Would you be able to get your hands on 

one? 

Mr. WHEELER. I also have client confidentiality concerns with my 

clients as well. I don’t have a copy of the memo, no. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We also have disclosure interests when 

you are a candidate for a significant Federal position. Are you asVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:17 Dec 20, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00372 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\27600.TXT SONYA
367 

serting that there is attorney-client privilege between you and 

Murray Energy Corporation with respect to the 3-page plan? 

Mr. WHEELER. I have deregistered representing him as of August. I don’t have one in my possession. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Have you seen it? 

Mr. WHEELER. I saw it briefly at the beginning of the year, but 

I don’t have a copy of it. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Do you recall anything about it? 

Mr. WHEELER. No. I don’t even know how many pages it was. I 

think you said it was three pages? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. That is what Bob Murray said it was. I 

have never seen it, so I would not know, but he said he had a 3- 

page plan that Scott Pruitt is implementing for him at the EPA 

and that he is through the first page for Bob Murray already. I am 

trying to inquire about that. 

You said you have seen it. Does it look like three pages, two 

pages, or four pages? You are the one who saw it. 

Mr. WHEELER. Somewhere around there. I did not have it in my 

possession. I looked at it and handed it back to him. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Do you remember where you were when 

you looked at it and what the context was for that conversation? 

Mr. WHEELER. No, actually, I don’t. It may have been in our offices, but I don’t remember. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. ‘‘Our offices’’ meaning your law firm? 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I guess I will try to follow that up further 

with questions for the record because I think it is something of a 

significant situation if the CEO of a regulated industry is saying 

he has given his regulator a 3-page plan and takes credit for having gotten through the first page of it already. We have a candidate 

for Deputy Administrator who said he has seen it and confirm that 

it exists. 

I think the American people are entitled to an EPA that is not 

following a coal company’s 3-page plan but is following wherever 

the best interests of the American people lead, wherever the best 

interests of real science leads. 

I hope the Chairman will allow us to consider pursuing how we 

get our hands on this 3-page plan that Mr. Wheeler has seen and 

that evidently, according to Mr. Murray, is now driving what happens at EPA. 

I have one question for Ms. Hartnett White. Are you aware of 

anything that is happening in the oceans that relates to fossil fuel 

emissions? 

Ms. WHITE. There are probably a number of them. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Name a few. 

Ms. WHITE. I have a very superficial understanding as far as 

that. Acidification issues are one. I have not read widely or deeply. 

I have read some with different perspectives, some of which suggest that it is a very, very fragile set of changes in acidification and 

others that say for long eons in geological history, there are certain 

places where certain oceans may have changes in acidification levels but not others. 

Changes up or down are not inherently a problem, but no, I cannot speak as an authority on that. I am aware it is one of the mulVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:17 Dec 20, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00373 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\27600.TXT SONYA
368 

tiple key issues as far as potential impacts of manmade global 

warming. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for letting me go over about 50 seconds. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for being here and your willingness to serve. 

I just came back from the floor of the Senate. I was speaking 

about a veterans’ bill that myself and Senator Wyden had worked 

on together and were successful in getting it eventually put into 

another bill and passed. It is an important thing that really will 

make a difference for several individuals in the military. 

Over the years, Mr. Wheeler, you have been an integral part of 

helping this Committee pass many important pieces of legislation. 

Like the Veterans Committee, this Committee has areas where we 

do not have a lot of agreement, but we have other areas where we 

have tremendous agreement. You have played a big part in helping 

us put those together. 

A lot of people don’t understand how difficult it is getting a comprehensive, bipartisan piece of legislation passed. How do you feel 

your role as a staff member at the EPW Committee has prepared 

you to bring people from all walks of life to the table to develop 

and implement important EPA regulations? 

Mr. WHEELER. Working here for 14 years, I worked on a number 

of different bipartisan bills, including three different highway bills, 

several WRDA bills, the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act with Senators Carper and Inhofe, and brownfields legislation. 

Throughout the time I spent here, I met with a wide variety of 

people with concerns and problems before the Federal Government 

that needed help from Congress, not just legislative help but help 

with agencies. 

It ties back to my time when I worked at the EPA at the beginning of my career. I think between my time here working on the 

different bipartisan bills and trying to work across the aisle, there 

were a number of bills that we tried to work across the aisle that 

we just were not able to get over the finish line over the years. 

I learned lessons not only from our accomplishments but also 

from some of our failures. I think what I learned most of all is that 

both sides come to the table with strong views sometimes, but 

wanting to do the right thing. 

It is important to try to work past some of the politics to get to 

solutions that help the American people. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. 

You mentioned just now your time at EPA and EPW and got 

some good environmental outcomes that also provided regulatory 

certainty for the country. Can you talk about the benefit to the environment and economic benefits when you have regulatory certainty? 

Mr. WHEELER. Absolutely. I think regulatory certainty is very 

important. In my time working with a number of different clients 

and different industries, it is not that people are out there trying 

to figure out what to do wrong or how to break a rule or regulation. 

They want to know what the rules are and want to know with cerVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:17 Dec 20, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00374 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\27600.TXT SONYA
369 

tainty as they move forward with projects, what they have to do 

and what the requirements are. 

I think it is incumbent upon the EPA to make sure that is clear 

for anyone trying to do business in the United States. I don’t think 

we would have as many violations if everyone understood what the 

requirements were and what they had to do. 

Senator BOOZMAN. A criticism of EPA during the previous Administration, in fact I would say Administrations in general, was 

the Agency’s disconnect with rural America. Many hardworking 

Americans in rural States felt they did not have a voice with past 

Administrations and that their opinions did not matter. 

If confirmed, what would you do to facilitate a stronger level of 

trust between EPA and rural America? 

Mr. WHEELER. I have an absolute respect for rural America. In 

my first year working for Senator Inhofe, I went out to Oklahoma 

and put 1,000 miles on a rental car driving all over the State and 

a lot of small communities. I understand the problems they face. 

I understand the need for EPA to work with the States, through 

the regions with the States and the local communities to make sure 

everyone understands what the environmental priorities are, what 

the environmental requirements are, and to work with people to 

make sure we can have a clean and safe environment, protect the 

public health and environment, and have job security and economic 

growth. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wheeler, you noted that your client, Murray Energy, showed 

you a 3-page plan on how to dramatically change the EPA. At the 

time you saw that plan, were you already a nominee for this position? 

Mr. WHEELER. No, I was not. 

Senator MERKLEY. Did the client express interest that he hoped 

you would be able to help advance that plan? 

Mr. WHEELER. No. 

Senator MERKLEY. Why did your client show you that plan? 

Mr. WHEELER. This was back in either December or January, almost a year ago. 

Senator MERKLEY. Was it in the interest of having your help to 

promote it? 

Mr. WHEELER. No, it was just to look at it, to see what they had 

put together. 

Senator MERKLEY. Ms. White, you said ‘‘There is no environmental crisis. In fact, there is almost no environmental problem.’’ 

Do you still believe that? 

Ms. WHITE. I would not put it that way. 

Senator MERKLEY. You did put it that way. Do you still agree 

with that statement you made previously? 

Ms. WHITE. I would qualify it. That is not what I intended to say. 

Senator MERKLEY. What do you consider to be the top three environmental problems? 

Ms. WHITE. Air quality, and I think a very current one, increasing risk from failing wastewater or drinking water treatment infraVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:17 Dec 20, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00375 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\27600.TXT SONYA
370 

structure, and I would say for the importance of an issue, climate 

change. 

Senator MERKLEY. You are telling us today that you believe that 

air quality is an issue even though you previously said you don’t 

think particulates are a problem and that the ozone problem is 

solved? 

Ms. WHITE. I don’t know from what documents you are finding 

those statements but they may be out of context. I said or have intended to say, talking about the very significant improvement and 

the positive trends. 

Senator MERKLEY. You do believe that lead and arsenic in the 

water, mercury in the air, particulates in the area are significant 

problems that need to be improved? 

Ms. WHITE. At certain exposures. 

Senator MERKLEY. But currently, there is pollution that needs to 

be reduced? 

Ms. WHITE. Again, given that I have not been inside. 

Senator MERKLEY. No, no, you are an expert on air quality. Do 

you believe there is air around the country that has pollutants that 

need to be reduced? 

Ms. WHITE. There are certain areas. 

Senator MERKLEY. Particulates, fine particulates, do you believe 

that? 

Ms. WHITE. Different pollutants implicated in different places. 

Senator MERKLEY. Fine particulates, do you believe they need to 

be reduced? 

Ms. WHITE. At certain exposures. 

Senator MERKLEY. Coral reefs around the world are dying. Do 

you consider that an environmental problem? 

Ms. WHITE. If they were. 

Senator MERKLEY. You said if they were? 

Ms. WHITE. If they were, I have no knowledge of those issues. I 

know it is an issue, but I have no specific knowledge. 

Senator MERKLEY. Of course, you are not a scuba diver, you 

haven’t gone to the coral reefs yourself, but you are asking us to 

confirm you for an environmental position. When we talked in the 

office, I raised the issue of coral reefs, and you said, ‘‘I am not a 

scientist.’’ You are not a doctor either, but you go to the doctor, 

right? 

Ms. WHITE. Right. 

Senator MERKLEY. Scientists are telling us coral reefs are dying, 

and you say, if it is happening. Don’t you believe it is happening 

based on the reports from around the world? 

Ms. WHITE. I would need to read some statement of that science. 

Senator MERKLEY. Are you familiar with the dramatic drop in ice 

in the Arctic and the impacts on the environment there? 

Ms. WHITE. Yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. In that case, you do believe what scientists 

are reporting? 

Ms. WHITE. No. 

Senator MERKLEY. You do not believe what scientists are reporting? 

Ms. WHITE. I need to study and learn and look at that. It is from 

multiple science. 

371 

Senator MERKLEY. Do you believe the scientists when they talk 

about the melting permafrost? 

Ms. WHITE. Yes, but I would like to finish my sentence. I am 

aware of the shrinking ice sheet in the Arctic, but the expanding 

ice sheet in the Antarctic. 

Senator MERKLEY. Are you familiar with the Red Zone? 

Ms. WHITE. Red Zone? 

Senator MERKLEY. Red Zone of dying trees? 

Ms. WHITE. Off coast, right. 

Senator MERKLEY. Yes, dying because pine beetles are doing so 

much better in warm winters. When you say those who are concerned about global warming are paganists, totalitarianists, and 

Marxists, do you believe Oregon’s farmers who are concerned about 

three worst ever droughts with the impact of climate changes are 

Marxists or totalitarians or pagans? 

Ms. WHITE. I believe those words, Senator, with all due respect, 

have been taken out of context. 

Senator MERKLEY. They are words directly from your writings. 

How about Oregon’s timber workers who are very concerned about 

the pine beetles killing the forests? Are they pagans because they 

see the impact of climate change destroying the forests? 

Ms. WHITE. To answer yes or no, no. 

Senator MERKLEY. No, you don’t. Why did you say these things 

then? It is not just one quote; it is multiple quotes calling environmentalists Marxists and those concerned about climate change as 

pagans? 

Ms. WHITE. I think I submitted about 100 pages of either commentaries or research studies I have done in that entire purpose. 

There may be some mistakes. 

Senator MERKLEY. Here is my summary. Do you believe the planet is getting warmer? 

Ms. WHITE. Yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. Because it can be measured. Do you believe 

carbon dioxide levels have gone up dramatically? It can be measured. Scientists measure it every day. 

Ms. WHITE. No, I would not say they have gone up drastically. 

I know they have risen from pre-industrial times. 

Senator MERKLEY. They went up from 295 ppm to over 408 ppm, 

and the rate of pollution has gone up from 1 ppm per year to 3 ppm 

or nearly 2.5 to 3 ppm per year. You are unfamiliar with the details of that? 

Ms. WHITE. No, I am familiar with those. 

Senator MERKLEY. I have a chart behind me. 

Senator BARRASSO. We are going to have a second round, and 

your time has expired. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will come to 

those. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

We will head to the second round of questions. 

Mr. Wheeler, before your time on Capitol Hill, I know you spent 

time working at the EPA as a career official. This fact caught the 

attention of my friend, Senator Carper, who said in a recent interview about you, ‘‘I think having worked in the agency, he actually 

372 

cares about the environment, the air we breathe, the water we 

drink, and the planet on which we live.’’ 

Can you talk a bit about how your time as a career official with 

the agency would shape your leadership style as deputy administrator at the EPA? 

Mr. WHEELER. I would say my time at the agency, having worked 

with the career employees there, plus my legislative time here on 

how laws are drafted, and then my time over the last 8 years on 

how they are implemented, has really helped me understand a better, full picture. 

I was very pleased with the work I did at the Agency. I worked 

on the Toxics Release Inventory and the Right to Know law, I 

worked on expanding that. I worked on getting TSCA information 

out to the public. I won a few awards while I was at the agency. 

I understand the power of the data and information that the 

agency has and the importance of getting that out to the public for 

people to know about the chemicals released where they live and 

the impacts that could have on public health and the environment. 

I think the time I spent in the Right to Know Program at the 

agency was very formative in my development as an environmental 

attorney. 

Senator BARRASSO. Ms. White, different Administrations obviously have different priorities for the CEQ. Could you talk a bit 

about what you and the Administration you hope to join see as the 

CEQ’s role in formulating environmental policy? 

Ms. WHITE. Given the two Acts passed not long ago, the highway 

bills, I always get the acronyms wrong, I recognize a real problem 

we have with the links of permit timeframes, the cost of environmental reviews, and impediments they present to urgently needed 

infrastructure. 

I think the infrastructure package, if you will, some of which has 

been created in new laws, some of which has been expressed in executive orders, most recently the mid-August executive order from 

President Trump about reducing permit timeframes with quite a 

bit of detail, this could well be a time, and I would welcome the 

challenge to make very significant changes in environmental review, mostly to shorten the process, reduce the cost and uncertainty, duplication and all those things. 

I think that is not a small task. Lots of people have tried to do 

similar things in different Administrations. It is really hard to 

change the way agencies operate to move the ball forward, but I 

think that would be very important and could be of historical importance. 

It takes 50 permits, 9 years, and $7 billion, and then the investors withdraw from the project. We are in trouble in this country 

if we cannot permit needed infrastructure in a timely manner. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Mr. Wheeler, during your over 25-year career, you have had an 

opportunity to work on environmental issues impacting lots of different areas of the country. Senator Boozman asked you about 

rural communities, and you talked about all the time driving 

around in rural areas. 

Can you talk a bit about how you will work to ensure that the 

EPA treats rural States, like my home State of Wyoming, fairly 

373 

and equitably when developing and enforcing environmental policies? 

Mr. WHEELER. Absolutely. First, I would say everyone I met in 

rural areas of our country cared deeply about the environment 

where they live. In fact, they are some of the best stewards of the 

environment we have. 

Again, working with Administrator Pruitt on his cooperative federalism, working with the States, working with the local governments, I think is vital to going forward and making sure that everyone understands the need to protect the environment and what 

are the requirements from the EPA so we can work together. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. White, I was about to show you a chart which I will show 

you now. That chart shows the information that has come from the 

fourth National Climate Assessment put forward by the Trump administration, by the combined work of the EPA, NOAA, the Department of Energy, and several other agencies within the Government. 

It shows their estimate of the best work of their scientists of the 

impact of human activity versus natural activity on climate change 

or climate disruption. Can you see that OK? 

Ms. WHITE. Yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. The first red column is a human caused impact from the Trump administration’s EPA and fellow agency report, solar flare activity which is often raised, and volcanic activity, 

which is often raised. Which of these bars, the red, orange, or the 

green, is the highest? 

Ms. WHITE. Obviously, the red. 

Senator MERKLEY. The red, the human caused activity. Is it dramatically different from the impact of solar caused activity? 

Ms. WHITE. Could you briefly summarize what methodology was 

used to measure that increment of human activity? 

Senator MERKLEY. Yes, I can, but as an expert on the atmosphere, I would think you actually have a better command of that. 

The scientists looked at the carbon dioxide and its impact on raising temperatures and how much was created by volcanic activity 

or how much temperature indirectly was caused by solar activity, 

solar flares, and so forth, and then human activity. 

The primary function, there are some other global warming 

gases, and I am sure you are familiar, but the primary activity is 

the burning of fossil fuels and the production of carbon dioxide. Is 

there a dramatic difference between the human caused impact and 

the solar impact? 

Ms. WHITE. Yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. I know you said before you are not a scientist, 

but this is the Trump administration’s report. Do you accept the results of this report? 

Ms. WHITE. I view this report really as the product of the past 

Administration and not of the present. It was, I think, up for a certain draft of it before. 

Senator MERKLEY. When you told me that you would look to the 

scientists for insight and the scientists produced these numbers, 

you are now rejecting them? 

374 

Ms. WHITE. There are all different types. There are many differences, a credible difference of opinion among climate scientists. 

Senator MERKLEY. This is the combined work of the Administration released by the Trump administration that you are asking to 

work for, but you are rejecting their findings? 

Ms. WHITE. I think we need more of a precise explanation of the 

role of the human contribution. 

Senator MERKLEY. Mr. Wheeler, how about you? Do you reject 

the findings of the Trump administration scientists? 

Mr. WHEELER. No, I do not reject it, Senator. I believe, though, 

the report issued on Friday was put out for notice and comment. 

I would not want to prejudge anything. I agree with you that the 

red bar is much higher than the other two. 

Senator MERKLEY. Does that generally reflect your understanding of the impact of human activity versus solar or volcanic 

activity? 

Mr. WHEELER. Looking at this chart, it appears that human 

causes is much greater. Again, I don’t want to go too much into the 

report since it is open for notice and comment at this point. 

Senator MERKLEY. Does that generally reflect your viewpoint, or 

is this radically different than your viewpoint? 

Mr. WHEELER. I would have to look at the information. 

Senator MERKLEY. I know but I am asking about your viewpoint. 

Do you believe human activity is driving the temperature increases 

on the planet? 

Mr. WHEELER. I believe man has an impact on the climate, but 

what is not completely understood is what the impact is. 

Senator MERKLEY. You don’t accept, if you will, the general finding of the Trump administration scientists that it is dramatically 

more the impact of human activity than solar or volcanic activity? 

You are not sure of that? 

Mr. WHEELER. I have not read the report yet. Since it is open for 

notice and comment at this point, I don’t think I should comment. 

Senator MERKLEY. No, there are many other sources for this information. 

Mr. Wheeler, you have been working as a lobbyist for a company, 

for a private company? 

Mr. WHEELER. A number of different companies. 

Senator MERKLEY. Yes, sir, but significant activity on behalf of 

the coal industry. You were shown the secret 3-page plan on how 

to destroy the EPA when you were lobbying for them. 

When candidate Trump said he was going to drain the swamp, 

did he mean to take the lobbyists and put them in charge of policy? 

Is that what he meant by ‘‘drain the swamp’’? 

Mr. WHEELER. First of all, I believe there are a number of lobbyists that worked in the Obama administration. 

Senator MERKLEY. I am not asking about the Obama administration; I am asking about candidate Trump’s argument that he is 

going to ‘‘drain the swamp’’ and get rid of the powerful special interests and the lobbyists running things. Is that what you think he 

meant by that? Or what did he mean by that? 

Mr. WHEELER. I am not sure what he meant by that. 

Senator MERKLEY. My time is up but I do think there is quite 

a contrast in that. I do think when the Trump administration’s sciVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:17 Dec 20, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00380 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\27600.TXT SONYA
375 

entists put out this information, boy, it bears paying attention to 

it. 

Ms. White, you said you are going to look to what the scientists 

say. This is what they say, and yet you reject it. I don’t see how 

that makes you possibly qualified to serve in this capacity. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Merkley. 

I would point out for the record, a story dated November 2, 2017, 

an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal under the headline, A Deceptive New Report on Climate. This is by Dr. Steven E. Koonin who 

had served as the Under Secretary of Energy for Science in the 

Obama administration. 

He goes on in his op-ed to report, ‘‘The world’s response to climate changing under natural and human influences is best founded upon a complete portrayal of the science. The U.S. Government’s 

Climate Science Special Report does not provide that foundation.’’ 

Instead, he goes on to say, ‘‘It reinforces alarm with incomplete information and highlights the need for more rigorous review of climate assessments.’’ 

I would ask unanimous consent that this be entered in the 

record. Without objection, it is done so. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

376 


27600.334

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. 

A Deceptive New Report on Climate 

True, the U.S. has had more heat waves in recent years-but no more than a century 

ago. 

Wall Street Journal 

By Steven E. Koonin 

Nov. 2, 2017 

The world's response to climate changing under natural and human influences is best 

founded upon a complete portrayal of the science. The U.S. government's Climate 

Science Special Report, to be released Friday, does not provide that foundation. 

Instead, it reinforces alarm with incomplete information and highlights the need for 

more-rigorous review of climate assessments. 

A team of some 30 authors chartered by the U.S. Global Change Research Program 

began work in spring 2016 on the report, "designed to be an authoritative assessment of 

the science of climate change." 

An early draft was released for public comment in January and reviewed by the National 

Academies this spring. 

I, together with thousands of other scientists, had the opportunity to scrutinize and 

discuss the final draft when it was publiclzed in August by the New York Times .While 

much is right in the report, it is misleading in more than a few important places. 

One notable example of alarm-raising is the description of sea-level rise, one of the 

greatest climate concerns. The report ominously notes that while global sea level rose 

an average 0.05 inch a year during most of the 20th century, it has risen at about twice 

that rate since 1 993. 

But it faits to mention that the rate fluctuated by comparable amounts several times 

during the 20th century. 

The same research papers the report cites show that recent rates are statistically 

indistinguishable from peak rates earlier in the 20th century, when human influences on 

the climate were much smaller. The report thus misleads by omission. 

This isn't the only example of highlighting a recent trend but failing to place it in 

complete historical context. The report's executive summary declares that U.S. heat 

waves have become more common since the mid-1960s, although acknowledging the 

1930s Dust Bowl as the peak period for extreme heat. 
377 


27600.335

Yet buried deep in the report is a figure showing that heat waves are no more frequent 

today than in 1900. This artifice also appeared in the government's 2014 National 

Climate Assessment, which emphasized a post-1 980 increase in hurricane power 

without discussing the longer-term record. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently stated that it has been 

unable to detect any human impact on hurricanes. 

Such data misrepresentations violate basic scientific norms. In his celebrated 1974 

"Cargo Cult" lecture, the late Richard Feynman admonished scientists to discuss 

objectively all the relevant evidence, even that which does not support the narrative. 

That's the difference between science and advocacy. 

These deficiencies in the new climate report are typical of many others that set the 

report's tone. Consider the different perception that results from "sea level is rising no 

more rapidly than it did in 1940" instead of "sea level rise has accelerated in recent 

decades," or from "heat waves are no more common now than they were in 1900" 

versus "heat waves have become more frequent since 1960." 

Both statements in each pair are true, but each alone fails to tell the full story. 

Several actions are warranted. First, the report should be amended to describe the 

history of sea-level rise, heat waves and other trends fully and accurately. 

Second, the government should convene a "Red/Blue" adversarial review to stress-test 

the entire report, as I urged in April. 

Critics argue such an exercise would be superfluous given the conventional review 

processes, and others have questioned even the minimal time and expense that would 

be involved. 

But the report's deficiencies demonstrate why such a review is necessary. 

finally, the institutions involved in the report should figure out how and why such 

shortcomings survived multiple rounds of review. 

How, for example, did the National Academies' review committee conclude that the 

chapter on sea level rise "accurately reflects the current scientific literature on this 

topic'? 

The Academies building prominently displays Einstein's dictum "one must not conceal 

any part of what one has recognized to be true." 

Mr. Koonin was undersecretary of energy for science during President Obama's first 

term and is director of the Center tor Urban Science and Progress at New York 

University. 
378 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank both our witnesses today. 

Ms. White, I will start with you. Let me start by apologizing in 

not getting here earlier. I was over on Commerce where we were 

having another hearing, so I did not get to hear your statement 

and the questions. If this has been asked before, I apologize. 

We have had, over the last several years, particularly during the 

last Administration, a real battle between State regulators and the 

EPA and the policies emanating from the White House with a lot 

of our State regulators suing in court, adding comments to potential court decisions in opposition to the direction the Administration was going, some successful, some not. Then somewhere the 

State regulators would be invited in to help craft a decision and 

then basically being ignored when they would weigh in. 

Where do you see the cooperation between the State and what 

your office of Environmental Quality would do and how you might 

be able to bridge some of those bridges that have been burned over 

the last several years? 

Ms. WHITE. As I understand it, CEQ has been used as an entity 

that can convene local agencies, State agencies, and Federal agencies and try to coordinate and resolve conflict. I actually think that 

process, which CEQ has used, I don’t know whether it has ever 

been done on a State-Federal authority issue, but I think there has 

been some meaningful use of the convening story of CEQ. 

On the other hand, we are still at the beginning of this Administration, challenging decisions from the last Administration which 

some construe as maybe assisting the agency in reforming the 

agenda. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Mr. Wheeler, I was very pleased to see that the EPA announced 

their hearings on the Clean Power Plan. I think one of the first, 

if not the first, meeting is to be convened in Charleston, West Virginia, my hometown and obviously in the heart of coal country in 

the State of West Virginia and that region. 

For the last years, from this dais, I have asked that our voices 

be heard at the EPA. The last time they went around the country, 

the closest we could get them was Pittsburgh, but they could go to 

San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, and cities that might not be quite 

so friendly or have the same voice. 

I would like to ask you, in the position you would assume at 

EPA, to keep all voices at the table. I would not advocate that you 

only come to coal country to talk about coal. You have to go everywhere. 

I would say to Administrator Pruitt, thank you for that, for being 

willing to come and listen. It is going to be a rollicking hearing, I 

can tell you that. I would like to know your perspective on that because I know you have done some work in the coal area and how 

you perceive that. 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you, Senator. 

As you know, my family is from West Virginia. I go there every 

year, so if you would like me to come to West Virginia, I will be 

there next June, the third weekend in June, I know for sure. 

379 

I think it is important for EPA to get out and meet with the people, particularly those they are regulating. I am glad one of the 

first meetings will be in Charleston, West Virginia. I think it is a 

sign that Administrator Pruitt means what he says when he wants 

to work with the States and the communities. I look forward to 

working with him going forward. 

Thank you. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Let me ask you this. I know you are familiar with the bureaucracies. I noticed in your statement, in terms of EPA, that you did 

take some time to appreciate the long term service of many people 

in EPA and many of the hard workers. I think we have a tendency 

to think all the bureaucrats are just running amok. 

How do you see that in terms of EPA, in terms of the power more 

bureaucratic people have over the political winds that change every 

8 years, or how do you bridge that gap? 

Mr. WHEELER. I do think the career employees at the agency are 

very dedicated. I think you go to work at the EPA because you are 

concerned about the environment. I applaud them for their work 

and what they have done. 

My criticisms in the past have been directed at some of the political people at the agency and not the career people. I am looking 

forward to returning to the agency to work with them again. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Capito. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Wheeler, I spent a little time in the Boy 

Scouts, raised a couple of boys, as the Chairman said here, who became Eagles and learned a lot from it. When I was a Scout growing 

up in Virginia, we would go on camping trips. We took our own 

sons and their Scout troop on any number of those over the years. 

I have here the Scout laws. A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, 

friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, 

and reverent. I don’t know you well enough to know if you measure 

up on all of those. I would like to think I do and my colleagues and 

I do. I hope we do, but it is a high standard to set. 

One of the things we always tried to teach our Scouts was that 

we had an obligation to this planet. It was given to us by God. We 

are its stewards, and we have a moral obligation to turn it over 

from one generation to the next in as good shape or maybe better 

shape. How do you feel about that? 

Mr. WHEELER. I completely agree with you, sir. I was saying 

them, while you were saying them, quietly to myself. I try to live 

up to those ideals of scouting every day of my life. I agree with you 

that we have a responsibility in the stewardship of the planet to 

leave it in better shape than we found it for our children, grandchildren, and nephews. 

Senator CARPER. It is possible to actually make the actually 

make the air and water cleaner, preserve our natural resources, 

and do so in a way that does not diminish jobs or employment but 

actually enhances it. You know how much I loved George Voinovich 

and his bride. We were Governors together and Senators here for 

many years. 

380 

Now the Republican banner on the Diesel Emissions Reduction 

Act is carried by Senator Inhofe. I will never forget the day George 

Voinovich came to me and said, we have all these diesel emissions. 

The great thing about diesel engines is they last a long time; the 

bad thing is they last a long time, and the older ones are terribly 

polluting. 

We can actually use American technology to clean up the emissions and do so in a cost effective way and get a lot of partners involved and not only create jobs but tens of thousands of jobs. We 

can also use American technology and export the technology across 

the world. I hold that out as an example of the way we ought to 

work and work together for the common good. 

I want to talk with Mr. Wheeler about EPA employees breaking 

the law. Ms. White served on the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The commission staff was told to under-report the 

levels of radiation in drinking water, violating the EPA’s rules. She 

later defended these actions telling the reporter, ‘‘We did not believe the science of health effects justified EPA setting the standard 

where they did.’’ 

I would just ask, Mr. Wheeler, do you agree it is appropriate or 

inappropriate to direct staff to violate Federal law, regulations, or 

reporting requirements? 

Mr. WHEELER. I am not sure where the quote came from and 

what Ms. White would say about that quote today. I do not think 

it is appropriate to direct staff to ignore laws, no. 

Senator CARPER. In our personal meeting, you noted that you 

were once an EPA career official. 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. During your time there, you found the EPA career staff are dedicated employees who want to make a difference 

with their lives on behalf of other people on the planet on which 

we live. In materials you submitted for the record, you also stated, 

‘‘If I am confirmed, I hope to earn their respect.’’ 

My question is, do you agree that censoring, disregarding, or excluding career staff views would actually earn their respect? Would 

you describe some steps you plan to take, if you are confirmed, to 

improve the manner in which EPA career staff is respected in a 

way that shows them respect? 

Mr. WHEELER. I will turn to the career staff and ask their advice 

and listen to them. I think I have to best answer that question by 

saying they will see it in my daily actions, how I interact with 

them, and how I go forward with them. 

Senator CARPER. I have one last one, if I can, Ms. White. 

In congressional testimony and articles, you have referred to 

EPA employees as ‘‘Federal mandarins brandishing their scientific 

credentials’’—as ‘‘Federal mandarins brandishing their scientific 

credentials.’’ Those words suggest you may not agree with Mr. 

Wheeler that EPA career staff are dedicated employees who want 

to make a difference in the environment. 

I always try to treat other people the way I want to be treated. 

What would cause you to describe people like Andy Wheeler, when 

he was working at the EPA, as a Federal mandarin brandishing 

scientific credentials? What would make you talk that way about 

him? 

381 

Ms. WHITE. A rather exaggerated way to reflect the anger that 

I see in people and the amount of power that Federal employees 

have garnered as opposed to all of you, our Congress, that is where 

that came from. 

Senator CARPER. I am sorry, my time has expired. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I have one last unanimous consent request to 

submit additional materials for the record pertaining to Ms. 

White’s views on public health and the environment that would include a letter from 56 members of the House, parties to the nomination and a letter signed by many environmental organizations 

who also oppose her nomination. I ask unanimous consent. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

382 


27600.336

The President 

The White House 

Washington, DC 20500 

Dear Mr. President: 

<!Iongrcsu of tl~c lluitco $tatcu 

II!usl1ittytou, IH!r 20515 

November I, 2017 

We write to express our concerns with your nomination of Ms. Kathleen Hartnett-Whitc to head 

the White House's Council on Environmental Quality. 

The Council on Environmental Quality was created by President Richard M. Nixon to coordinate 

the development of environmental policies and initiatives among the federal agencies. The Chair 

of this Council, who is also the chief environmental advisor to the President, should rely on wellsupported science and facts when implementing decisions that impact the safety and well-being 

of American citizens. As such, we question her qualifications to head the Council on 

Environmental Quality. 

As an example of Ms. Hartnett-White's dismissal of science, she is on record as denying the 

negative impacts associated with the growing levels of carbon dioxide on our planet. In her June 

2014 paper, "Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case," Ms. Hartnett-White summarily concludes: 

Global warming alarmists are misleading the public about C02 emissions. Whether 

emitted from the human use offossil fuels or as a natural (and necessary) gas in the 

atmosphere surrounding the earth, carbon dioxide has none of the attributes of a 

pollutant. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)'s increasing characterization 

of man-made C02 as 'dirty carbon pollution' is absurd. 

And contrary to claims of global warming alarmists from inside and outside federal 

agencies, the world has become less vulnerable to extreme weather events. 1 

Science has proven that too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a dangerous thing. 

NASA, tor example, continually recognizes carbon dioxide as a contributor to global warming 

and climate change: 

While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is 

also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth's atmosphere, 

has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood 

for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. 

'Kathleen Hartnctt-Whitc, "Fossil Fuels: The Mom] Case," Texas Public Policy Foundation, June 2014, available at 

!!tJL>~:/i'~'ywJ~~""JWitcy&<!!l'ijthmry!<J'2'cliQ120jtHtli.:BJlJD:f!cSsjlft!e.!s111.CM<>.mlC:?.s.''·:Kr!Jb.\>.~tlW}ti_t!b~!ifdl.!l.!~ 

PR!NTW ON RECYCLED PAPER 
383 


27600.337

The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting 

glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events2 

Thus. even with our plants absorbing some carbon dioxide, half of the atmosphere's carbon 

dioxide remains/ contributing to increased global temperatures, rising sea levels, melting 

glaciers, and other changes to our planet's ecological systems. During a recent study, NASA 

found that the Earth experienced the largest annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide 

concentration seen in at least 2,000 years, and the levels of concentration are only expected to 

rise. 4 

In addition, at an event hosted by Americans for Prosperity, Ms. Hartnett-White stated that 

chemicals released from burning fossil fuels have "no impact on human health even at very high 

levels."5 However, the National Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academies 

of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, concluded that chemicals and byproducts offossil fuel 

use have negatively affected air quality, contributed to the spread of diseases, and impacted our 

ability to produce food, clothing, and shelter in light of changing weather.6 

Ms. Hartnett-White's unwillingness to objectively consider peer-reviewed reports and studies in 

the energy community also risks our country's future investments in energy diversification and 

supply. In a 2016 interview with the Orlando Sentinel, Ms. Hartnett-White disparaged alternate 

energy sources as "largely useless for tackling the main power challenges for the world's poor" 

and opined that there are "no commercially feasible technologies to directly reduce C02 

cmissions.''7 

As of May 2017, over 260,000 people work in the solar industry in the United States8 and 

employment in solar and wind energy jobs increased by 25 percent and 32 percent, respectively, 

from the previous year. 9 Renewable energy remains one oft he fastest-growing job sectors of our 

economy. The growth of these industries should be supported at the highest levels to 

complement existing and emerging energy infrastructure. To dismiss the progress of these 

industries is not only short-sighted, but detrimental to our economy. 

2 Samson Reiny, "Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds," NASA, Apri126, 2016. 

!!t1!l.l'i!fu::-y"y,nit~lh&!lYIJs;l!rnl£1'gmli~Ltll+Q!.fll.;i!r!l!lll:sllQl;i\!~::l§r!ilj.zg!i<iJ!:gr£Q11il•g:c.arth. 1 Dwayne Brown and Alan Buis, "NASA Pinpoints Cause of Earth's Recent Record Carbon Dioxide "NASA, 

October 12, 2017, llt\:il&iJ~ti:YYJl'l:!ih!mYir>D~l'!i:!9.~~~,o;<2'!ll!!il!.:llJU·RQl,H\~:llili~.:Qf:.C.'!I:l!1:~::!:<:£Qt;J!:t<O~-<JltQ:f!!I .. b.9Jlc 

<lil>xi~lk 4 Reiny, "Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greeaing Earth, Study Finds." 5 Kathleen Hartnett-White, "Extreme Power Abuse," posted by Americans for Prosperity, November 2011, 

!JJ!~ts:£.~ml<R·.£9t11!,l.l§'1fl1'f}. 6 "Advancing the Science of Climate Change," National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2010 

available at hl~lL!,t.~Y~~~um&if!!Lf:~atalQg[L27S2/advnm::!n&:.the~scienflt.Qf:flitn~!§::~llilllt!&· 7 Michael Joe Murphy, "A defense offossil fuel: Renewable energy doesn't hold a caadle to it," Orlando Sentinel, 

October 7, 20 1 6, llllPdl. \~\¥_w_&r1~1JflOJ!~!!tin'1!&Q!!!/Qlli!li!'!lL'l~:~:Qi!:JL~:Imnt:JJ.w:ntt.hs!lLt11QU1:~\QQ',Illm). 8 Matt Egan, "Solar Jobs Growing 17 times faster than US Economy," CNN, May 25, 2017, 

h.tlJ:!;IIn)Q!W.Y,t:Jln&91JJif,Ql.7ill~£2:1L!l~vsloconQ~!2illf-iobs-us-coaliwdex.html. 9 2017 U.S. Energy and Employment Report, Department of Energy, January 2017, 

!l\l!l~zi!Jc!li;IID:,ll.<:'YJ@~JQ!l.d"~Z(lJ 1.:(1S-CO.l;ffiY:l!!lC!:Qll!Pl(>.\:'fl)!;l]Hd~JlQJ:!. 
384 


27600.338

The American people need a Council on Environmental Quality that objectively reviews and 

considers scientific facts and evidence to formulate effective policy that will positively impact 

the health of our planet and our lives for years to come. In the wake of natural disasters such as 

the hurricanes that ravaged the Caribbean and Southeast United States, as well as the wildfires in 

California, it is clear that our planet's climate is changing. Absent leadership that recOf,'llizes 

these changes and is able to take immediate action, millions oflives and our nation's economic 

security will be negatively impacted in the immediate future. 

As such, we urge you to rescind Ms. Hartnett-White's nomination and put forth a nominee who 

considers scientific evidence and the health, safety and well-being of the planet and the 

American people. 

NilciT:""" Member of Congress ~ 

Bill Foster 

Member of Congress 

Member of Congress 

-~ Mark Pocan 

Member of Congress 
385 


27600.339

ffi~& ~aM. Velazquez 

_,,-/ MemberofCongres 

{t ;41!4( II. IV Jth N 

'eanor Holmes Norton 

Member of Congress 

Member of Congress 

Carol Shea-Porter 

Member of Congress 

Ted W.Lieu 

Member of Congress 

)c..~~cl ~f~ A. Donald McEachin 

Member of Congress 

,9,61 (A 

Member of Congress 

~mrG. 

( -~e~- Eshoo 

Member of Congress 
386 


27600.340

~ Daniel W. Lipinskt 

Member of Congress 

Member of Congress 

Brenda L. Lawrence 

Member of Congress 

/l!'b~ -l0Khat1Ila 

Member of Congress 

Member of Congress 

Member of Congress 

~-~::£- Timot . Wah: 

Member of Congress 

:J.J_L~­ ~~~ 

M-:o'l· /J ____ _.,__~_ McGovern 

of Congress 
387 


27600.341

~ [2'13-

Member 

fttetFeftazB~an of Congress 

~ 

Member of Congress 

JVll 

Mike Doyle 

Member of Congress 

£j;dr.. 

Member of Congress 

;;) k5···· ~to Member of Congress 

~ lJkW\.C~, Bonnie Watson Coleman 

Member of Congress 

Doris Matsui 

Member of Congress 

Member of Congress 

Er a eth H. Esty 

ber of Congress 

Steve Cohen 

Member of Congress 

CC: The Honorable John Barrasso, Chairroan, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper, Raoking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on 

Environment aod Public Works 
388 


27600.342

Trump taps climate change denier White as envirorunenta! adviser· ~y Daily News 

as 

http:/lwww.nydailyncws.com/ncws/politics/trump·taps·dimute-change·denier·white·environmcntal·adviser-articlc·l.3562813[11i7!2017 5:32:24 PM1 
389 


27600.343

Trump taps climate change denier \\-"hitc: as emironmenta! adviser- NY Dail) Ne>~s 

A climate change denier who believes carbon dioxide is a harmless gas and once said there are 

"almost no major environmental problems'' has been nominated by President Trump to serve 

as a top environmental adviser. 

Kathleen Hartnett White served under former Texas Gov, Rick Perry, now Trump's energy 

secretary, for six years on a commission overseeing the state environmental agency. 

She is a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank that has 

received funding from fossil-fuel companies that include Koch Industries, ExxonMobil and 

Chevron. 

Speaking at a Americans for Prosperity forum in 2011, White said that in the U,S, "there is no 

http:ilw\\ w.nydailynews.com/new:v'po!itics/tmmp-taps-c\imatc~change-denier-\\hlte-environmental-adviscr-article-1.3562813[ 11/7/2017 5:32:24 P:\11 
390 


27600.344

rmmp taps climate changl.': denier \\'hite as environmental adviser· :-.<Y Dail) ?"ews 

environmental crisis --in fact, there's almost no major environmental problems.'' 

http:/fv..>•,rw.nydailynews.com/ncws/po!itics/trump-taps*climatc·change-dcnier·whitc-environmental-adviser*article-1.3562813fll/7/20 17 5:32:24 PM} 
391 


27600.345

rrump taps climate change denier \Vhitc as emironmcnta! mhiser • :-.IY Dai!) !\ews 

-_ =- -- -=-!_~-~ -_ ~ _-- ~i 

The Kansas native, who studied East Asian studies and comparative literature at Stanford 

University, has praised the burning of coal and petroleum for "vastly improved living 

conditions across the world" and blasted renewable energy as "a false hope that simply won't 

work." 

White House spokeswoman Kelly Love said White is "eminently qualified." 

With News Wire Services 

DONALD TRUMP GUMArE CHANGE 

htlp:l/\\.,\ ... v.nydail}news.comine\\s/politics/trump·taps~clunatc·changc·dcnicr-\\hitc-cm ironmcntal-adviscr-mticlc-1.3562813[ 11/711017 5:32:24 PMl 
392 


27600.346

Obama's deluded and illegitimate 

battle against climate change 

499 

Rarely and only superficially discussed among the current raging policy debates 

rs the prohferallon of federal measures "to battle climate change ' 

Wthout much scrutiny, this Admm.stralfon keeps ratchetrng up the scope and 

stnngency of executive "cl~mate action" now rnstltutionalized across the federal 

government Step-by-step, these "climate actions" are drsmanllmg the energy 

systems on whrch modern economrc growth and rmproving human welfare rs 
393 


27600.347

utterly dependent 

Therubnc"ctimatechange"Jssovagueandthecutpnt---carbondtoxlde-so 

ubtquttous that government actions to "tackle climate change" are limitless For 

example, a single act1on wtth huge ram1ficat1ons, EPA m July declared that the 

en\lreavtaiiOn sectorw!llbenowsubtecttocarbon cuts 

AflerthefailureofthemassJvec.apandtradebllltopasstheSenate~n2013,the 

President noted "!here 1s more than one way to skin a cat" and has proceeded 

to e;.:ecute almost every tlem in the \Ml1te House's Climate Action Plan He IS 

nowaccelaratmgrad!Calacllonstothee;o,:pand~ng climate edifice 

To name a few 1lems that have already engaged the United States in the mad 

decarbontzmg project cons1derthe followmg e;.:eculive act1ons. EPA's SeiZUre of 

the authonty to regulate carbon d1ox1de under the light-fisted Clean Air Act 

rejectton of the Keystone P1petme, regulatory Initiatives to k1il coal, 1ead1ng to 

closureofover244coalplantsandbankruptclesoflhemaJorcoalcompanieS;a 

mandatory plan to re-eng1neer the natmnal electnc system known as the Clean 

Power Plan (CPP), a crackdown on methane·-the primary component of natural 

gas, the first gtobal Pans agreement to decarbontze; and an o"erlook.ed but 

extremely broad tnlatera! effort known as the Three Am1gos {US Cenada and 

Mex1co) aclimateplantomc!udea perplex1ng"genderrespons1ve approach" to 

chmateac!ion 

Some of the more rad1cal climate polic1es currently being discussed mirror the 

Three Am1gos' agreement. 1ncludmg generalion of fifty percent of electnc1ty from 

renewablesw1thmtenyears. meetingone-hundredpercentofresJden\lalenergy 

needswlthcleansourcesby2030andinstallal!onof500millionsolarpanels 

W1lh1nfouryears 

Data from the Energy Information Admm1stration would ennch the public's 

understanding of the futilitY of those policieS After rece1vmg subSidieS smce 

1992, wmd power ger~erated only 4 7 percent of total U.S electnc1ty in 2015 

Solar power accounted for only 0 6 percent Globally. wmd produced only 2 6 

percent of generat1on Wind and solar hardware may be rapidly grow1ng on the 

ground.butasashareoftotalpower.actualgeneratlonmcreasesatasnalrs 

pace The mstalled generatmg capac1ty ofwmd and solar is only 88 6 gigawatts 

(GW) of total U S capac1ty (1005 GW) !factual generatmn 1s calculated 

accord1ng to EIAs average capac1ty factor, wmd only contnbuted 26 GWof 

actualgenera\lon 

lnstalltng 500 million solar panels Wlthin a fe-w years With a goallo meet all 

res1dent1al demandwithzero-carbonenergyby2030 isanexorb1tantp1pe 
394 


27600.348

dream The cost of fabncatmg and mstalling that many solar panels could 

approach one tnllion dollars How many voters would support such a public 

mvestment with a national debt of almost $18 tn!hon, decllmng middle·class 

mcomes, and the weakest economic recovery s1nce 1949? 

The global goal of the grand chmate plan IS to diSplace eighty percent of fossil 

fuelswlthzero-carbonenergysourcesby2050 Themamtact1c:smass1ve, 

subsidized deployment of w1nd, solar and biomass Unless modern societies Will 

acceptaregress10n lothelevelofenergyconsumptlonmtheearly 18th century 

With a much smaller food supply, a much larger population and far more 

centralized govemment, the decarbonizing prOJeCt is Simply not feasible 

These w1ldly tlrief t1me frames are 1ssued by would-be planetary managers who 

refuse to acknowledge the economic damage following the rush to renewables 

1n Germany, Bntam and Spam The day after Bnta1n's new Prime Mmister 

Theresa May assumed office, the Departmel'll of Energy and Climate Change 

was dissolved Wthtn the same week, Germany announced an end to major 

renewable subs1d1es and put a cap on renewables to avo1d a !'f1eltdown of the 

gnd 

lfl.'ithout an ·'energy miracle," as Bill Gates and Google concluded. current 

renewable technology simply cannot replace fossil fuels at the scale env1s1ol1ed 

Yet, the US accelerates the climate crusade 

Unlike European countries, the US never enacted new laws to authorize a 

sweepmg energy revolutiOn Yet theAdmm!stratlon IS handily Implementing a 

comparable plan on the bes1s of strategy and tact1cs formulated Without mput 

from Congress. The "fight agamst climate change" will not merely mcrease 

electnc bills by a modest amount as EPA contends Th1s IS an epochal 1ssue 

thatdemandsfarmoresubstanl1aldtscuss1on lnthepubhcsquare 

The cautious nght IS typically reticent about the climate 1ssue and when 

questioned o~en sw1tches the top1c to more low-nsk 1ssues like job creatron. The 

left. meanwhile. spews bombastiC propagai!da about savmg "the one planet that 

we've got 'Secretary of State John Kerry's recent statement that "a1rcond1t1onmg IS a greater threat to- CIV1-hzat10n thar, ISIS' may have backfired 

Such absurd, climate hype at the highest levels of government IS offensive to a 

w1deswathofthee!ectorate 

The baSIC data compiled by the U S Energy lnformetion Admm1stratlon deserve 

the light of day to ensure Americans are wellmformed on how these policies will 

affect them Cruc1al are the vo1ces of the engmeers who make energy work 

M1chae! Kelly, Pnnce Ph1l1p Professor of Engineering and Technology at the 
395 


27600.349

Umvers1ty of Cambndge, offers sound adv1ce. "the scole and the different 

sngmeenngchallengesofthedecarbonlzatlan praJectarewlthautprecedentm 

humanh1story Analtogethermoresophtslicatedpubllcdebatelsurgentiy 

needed anappropnateactlonsthatconslderthethreatstohumamtyandwelgh 

more car<lfully both the upsides and downsides of takmg any act1on [on climate] 

andofnattakmganyachon" 

Current renewable technolog1es cannot replace the goods and serv1ces now 

delivered by the concentrated, abundant, cheap, reliable, versatile, and 

controllable energy m fossil fuels without maJOr damage to econom1es, major 

reduct1on of the global food supply, maJOr decl1ne in basic human welfare and 

major d1srupllon of global geopolitics The chmate crusade 1s no longer a 

penpherai asp1rat10na1 matter Executive acllon Without popular consent has 

enlisted our country 1n th1s mad "battle agamst climate change" It's t1me to be 

upfront and engage m a battle agamst deluded energy pol1aes 

Hartnett WhJte IS D!slmgu,shed Semor Fel/ow-m- Resrdence and Director of the 

Armstrong Center for Energy & the Environment at the Texas Public Polley 

Foundatron and former Chairman of the Texas Comm1ssion on Enwonmentel 

Quality She is co-author of the new book Fuelrng Freedom Exposing the Mad 

War on Energy (Regnery, 2016) Follow heron TW!tler@fy~~~(!Bf.reedom 

The v1ews expressecf by contnbutors are their own and not the v1ews of The H11/ 
396 


27600.350

Signing The Paris Agreement Doesn't Celebrate Eanh Dlly 

ENV1RONMENTAL1SM 

What will be labeled a global triumph will in reality likely be a tragedy for rich and poor countries alike, and 

especially for the poor. 

Friday marks the forty-sixth Earth Day, but this year will be different This year the 

United Nations has decided to hold an elaborate ceremony to gather the signatures 

of the countries who endorsed the Paris climate agreement last December. Of the 

196 countries that attended the Paris confab, more than 130 countries and 60 heads 

of state are expected to sign the pact at the UN's headquarters in New York City. 

http:lithcfcderalistcom/20 !6/04. 22 'slgmng-the-paris-agrecmcnt-Js-the-worst-way-to-;;e!ebra\c-carth-day, {! 1, 7·20 17 ! .39:49 PM j 
397 


27600.351

Signmg The Paris Agreement Doesn't Celebrate Earth Day 

r1v Kathleen Hartnett White 

Alarmists will herald Earth Day 2016 as the moment all humanity joined together to 

save the planet from man-made global warming-also known as human profligacy 

wrought by high energy consumption, individual liberty, and economic freedom. 

That a majority of the world's nations would sign an agreement "recognizing that 

climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat" requiring an 

accelerated, "deep reduction" in global greenhouse gas emissions is, indeed, an 

unprecedented but tragic event in mankind's history. 

http:/lthefederalist.com/20 16/04/22/signing-the-paris-agreement -is-the-worst -way-to-ce!ebrate-earth-day/f 11/7120 17 I :J9 :49 PM] 
398 


27600.352

SJgmng The Pan~ Agreement Doesn't Celebrate Emth Day 

What will be labeled a global triumph will in reality likely be, if actually 

implemented, a tragedy for rich and poor countries alike and especially for the poor 

wherever they reside. The Paris agreement represents the first energy regression in 

mankind's history.lt's a regression imposed by the ruling elites of the world's most 

prosperous and educated countries, abetted by legions of UN functionaries and their 

kin in non-governmental organizations (NGOs). 

Multiple public opinion polls in developing and developed countries, however, show 

that action to combat alleged global warming is last on a list of a dozen genuine 

public priorities such as employment, education, and health. 

A Return to Pre-Industrial Days 

Accelerating a transition from fossil fuels to renewables means subsidizing and 

mandating a return to pre-industrial energy scarcity when the energy upon which 

fundamental human welfare depended was far more expensive but less efficient, 

versatile, and reliable. The grand delusion of climate policy is the assumption that 

renewable energies can now supplant fossil fuels and still affordably provide the 

myriad of services, goods, and food handily provided by the highly concentrated and 

controllable energy in hydrocarbons. As Google's engineers concluded, renewables 

are a "false hope." 

For decades, the UN's Convention on Climate Change 

(UN CCC) has unsuccessfully tried to forge a globally 

binding agreement to curb man-made greenhouse 

gases. The poorer countries of the world have 

As Google' s engineers 

concluded, rcnewables 

arc a 'false hope.' 

understandably refused to jeopardize the energy availability necessary to reduce 

poverty and power economic growth while richer countries have refused to cede 

sovereignty and shackle their prospering economies with onerous carbon cuts. 

The Paris agreement evidently overcame this impasse by making the carbon cuts 

each country pledges voluntary. Yet this change from a binding to a voluntary plan 

makes the Paris agreement futile if avoiding the wrath of the weather gods is the real 

goal of the enterprise. The aggregate reduction of greenhouse gas emissions each 

nation pledges through what the agreement calls "Intentional Nationally Determined 

Contributions" is not at all enough to avoid the dangerous warming predicted by the 

reigning science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "Much greater 

emission reductions will be required," states the agreement, if catastrophic warming 

is to be averted. 

http://thcfedera!ist.com'2016'04/22:sJgning-the-pans-agrccmcnt-is-thc·worst-way-to-cdebrate-earth-day![! ln 7.017 l :39·49 P\1] 
399 


27600.353

S1gnmg The Pm1s Agreement Doesn't Celebrate Eanh Day 

Developing and developed countries finally united to support the agreement because 

prosperous countries, for the first time, caved to the demands of the poor countries. 

In the Paris agreement, rich countries agreed to undertake "economy wide absolute 

emission reduction targets," while poorer countries promised to develop less 

economically onerous programs for adaptation to climate change. 

Developing Countries Get a Free Pass, Others Handicaps 

Unlike mandatory carbon cuts enforceable under the rule of law as in the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Clean Power Plan, the developing 

countries' individual pledges to reduce greenhouse gases are conditional. Most 

developing countries pledged carbon reductions only if such measures do not 

constrain economic growth. 

While EPA rules drive 

major 

companies 

bankruptcy and destroy 

thousands of U.S. jobs, 

China now building 

368 coal plants. 

On that note, the likelihood of actual implementation of 

developing countries" pledges is slim. While the media 

extols the Paris Agreement as a global agreement to end 

the era of fossil fuels, more than 2,400 coal-fired power 

plants are under construction or planned, according to a 

study by four institutes for climate research. While EPA 

rules drive major U.S. coal companies into bankruptcy 

and destroy thousands of U.S. jobs, China is now 

building 368 coal plants; India has 297 coal plants under construction. 

The prosperous countries even acceded to another developing-bloc demand that had 

long been an insuperable barrier: climate payola from rich to poor countries. The 

Paris agreement institutionalizes a Green Climate Fund to be financed by annual 

contributions of $100 billion from developed countries. Given weak economic 

growth and increasing geopolitical tensions across the world, the likelihood of 

contributions reaching $100 billion every year is also slim. 

It's Not about Climate, But Redistribution 

Everybody loses on the path laid out in the Paris agreement, both the rich countries 

embracing the decarbonizing but awash with energy or those beginning the grand 

energy transformation without full access to electricity. Man-made energy scarcity 

will stymie existing economic growth in developed countries and constrain if not 

preclude economic growth in developing countries. 

http://thcfedernlist.com'2016/04/22/signing-the·paris-agrccment-1S-the·worst-way·10-celebrate--earth-day'[l !17r20!7 1:39:49 PM] 
400 


27600.354

Stgnmg "!he Pan~ Agrecmem Doe~n't Celebrate Earth Day 

There is nothing inviolable about fossil fuels. Who 

knows what energy innovations creative human minds 

will achieve? At the moment, however, there is no 

comparable substitute for fossil fuel or the massive, 

seamlessly operating energy infrastructure built around 

these rich hydrocarbons across the world. 

The Paris agreement formalizes wealth redistribution 

on several levels: from rich countries to poor countries policy.' 

and from poor people to rich people. Former UN climate official Ottmar Edenhofer 

candidly the "One has to free oneself from the illusion that 

international climate policy is environmental policy .... We redistribute de facto the 

world's wealth by climate policy." Subsidizing and mandating still far more 

expensive renewables forcibly redistributes the earnings of the poor to the rich 

elites who can afford higher energy prices. 

UN Climate Program chief Christina Figueres admits her program now creates the 

political and organizational wherewithal to replace the economic system that made 

modern economic growth possible. As she comments: "This is the first 

time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally 

within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has 

been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution." 

If fully executed, the Paris agreement would slow or arrest the still-growing 

advances of the last century that have extended the average human lifespan and 

increased per capita income 10 to 20 times over. The Paris agreement may be futile, 

but this climate chimera is dangerously political and morally offensive. 

Kathleen Hartnett White is director of the Armstrong Center for Energy and the 

Environment at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. White also sits on the editorial board of 

the journal of Regulatory Science, the Texas Emission Reduction Advisory Board, and the 

Texas Water Foundation. 

UN Climate Change 

http://thefederslist .com/20 16/04/22/signing-the-paris-agreement-is.the-worst -way-to-celebrate-eanh-day/[ II 17120 17 I :39:49 PMJ 
401 


27600.355

I ~ntiona!Revicw 

SECTIONS THE CORNER NATIONAl REVIEW LOGIN 

The Fracas about Fracking 

by KATHLEEN HARTNETT WHITE 

From the June 20, 2011, issue ofNR 

A major boom in domestic oil and gas production is under way, 

brought about by breakthrough refinements of a 1940s 

technology known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." 

Hydraulic fracturing involves pumping water, sand, and some trace 

chemicals under high pressure into a completed wellbore to create 

fissures in relatively impermeable geologic formations such as shale. The 

fissures allow oil or natural gas to flow into the well. The sand props the 

fissures open, preventing the resealing of pathways. Combined with 

horizontal drilling at depths of one to more than two miles below the 

earth's surface, hydraulic fracturing has unlocked vast stores of natural 

gas. 

Fracking is also now widely used in vertical and horizontal drilling in oil 

reservoirs with low permeability. Conventional oil reservoirs with 

permeable geologic formations allow oil to flow to the well bore as a 

result of natural pressure. But in many wells, as much as 75 percent of 

the oil and gas may be left in place. Fracking is one of several new ways 

http:/I\VW\v.nationa!revlew.wm/artic!e/270893/fraca..'i-about-fracking-kathleen-hartnett-whitelll/7/2017 4:12:33 PM] 
402 


27600.356

I National Review 

to get at the ample resources remaining after natural pressure subsides. 

In these ways, human ingenuity, catalyzed by market dynamics, has 

foiled predictions of irreversible decline in domestic oil and natural-gas 

resources. Official estimates of the amount of recoverable oil and natural 

gas have soared. Last year, global natural-gas supplies rose 40 percent. 

From 2010 to 2011, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) 

doubled its estimate of recoverable natural gas in the U.S. The EIA 

increased its estimate of Texas's natural-gas reserves by 70 percent 

between 2005 and 2008, and Texas also is doing prolific fracking in oil: 

Producers now have access to 2 billion barrels in the Wolfberry 

formation in the Permian Basin. The Eagle Ford fields in South Texas 

increased oil production fourfold in the first ten months of 20 I 0. And the 

Haynesville-Bossier fields, straddling Texas's border with Louisiana, 

increased reserves of natural gas by 9.4 trillion cubic feet while 

increasing production twelvefold. 

The EIA also believes that natural gas in the Marcellus formation of New 

York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia contains more BTUs of energy 

than do the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Drilling is well under way in 

Pennsylvania, where 141,000 new jobs in the "gas patch" have been 

created in the last few years. New York has declined to accept its energy 

wealth and instead imposed a de facto moratorium on fracking, pending 

the completion of an environmental-impact statement- thus deferring 

the creation of hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs. 

Enormous new oil production is 

opening up in the Bakken fields of 

http://www.nationalreview.com/articlc/270893/fracas~about~fmcking-kathleen-hartnett-white{ 11/7/2017 4:12:33 PM] 
403 


27600.357

I National Review 

the Williston Basin, covering the 

Dakotas and Montana. In 2008, the 

U.S. Geological Survey estimated 

that the Bakken contained up to 4 

billion barrels of technically 

recoverable oil. Current estimates 

range as high as 24 billion barrels. 

Oil production made possible by fracking is not now as prodigious as 

that of natural gas, but this could change, especially if the federal 

government allows oil-shale development in the Rocky Mountain West, 

where 70 percent of recoverable oil shale lies beneath federal land. Most 

of the currently surging oil and gas production is on private land, where 

federal permission is not required and state governments are supportive. 

A rapid increase of domestic supplies of oil and gas at a time of painful 

gas prices; high-paying new jobs; expansion of thousands of businesses; 

increased federal, state, and local tax revenues: What's not to like? And 

the lion's share of the fracking boom has been in natural gas-the socalled bridge fuel to the green-energy economy that President Obama 

promotes at every turn. 

A fierce anti-fracking movement is nonetheless growing. According to 

its most zealous critics, fracking may even kill you. They claim that the 

technology may transform the water from your faucet into fire, make 

your house explode, cause earthquakes, or poison you with toxic 

chemicals. Just watch the Oscar-nominated documentary film Gas land, 

shown on HBO and sure to join the canon of sensationalist 

http:/f\.vww.nationalreview.com/article/270893/fracas-about-fracking·kathlecn-hartnett-white[l 117/2017 4:12:33 PM] 
404 


27600.358

I National Review 

environmental documentaries of which AI Gore's An Inconvenient Truth 

is the classic. 

Gas/and is packed with major errors, half-truths, distortions, and 

exaggerations. The narrator explains that the fracking process "blasts a 

mixture of water and chemicals 8,000 feet into the ground. The fracking 

is like a mini-earthquake ... [with] a mix of over 596 chemicals." This is 

a serious mischaracterization. The hydraulic fracturing, in fact, creates 

small fissures with an average thickness of I millimeter- as a result not 

of blasts, but of carefully engineered electric pulses. 

As mentioned above, the fracking material is a mix of water, trace 

chemicals, and sand. Of the fracking fluid, over 99.5 percent is water and 

sand. Perhaps 0.5 percent is a mix, not of"596 chemicals" but of just a 

few, such as guar gum, an emulsifier commonly used in ice cream. And 

remember: These chemicals are diluted in millions of gallons of water. 

The list of environmental perils attributed to hydraulic fracturing is long: 

contamination of drinking water, wastewater pollution of rivers, 

groundwater depletion, air emissions of toxic pollutants and greenhouse 

gases, radiation, and even earthquakes. But, with the exception of 

groundwater depletion, no causal connection between hydraulic 

fracturing itself and any of these environmental problems has been 

demonstrated. Faulty well construction, breaches in cemented and heavysteel-encased wellbores, and accidents could, of course, lead to adverse 

environmental impacts. But there is no evidence that fracking itself is 

inherently damaging. 

http:/ /wv.w .nationalreview.com/articlc/270893/frae~s·about· fracking·kathleen-hartnett-whitc[ 1117/2017 4: 12: 3 3 PMl 
405 


27600.359

I National Review 

Highly audible critics offracking have attributed all ofthe environmental 

risks noted above to natural-gas production in the Barnett shale area 

around Dallas-Fort Worth, now the most productive fracking effort in 

the country. AI Armendariz, the regional administrator of the EPA- an 

Obama appointee and an environmental activist has amplified public 

alarm through his heavy-handed actions against a natural-gas company 

called Range Resources. Steven Lipsky, a Dallas landowner, complained 

of natural-gas (methane) contamination of his water wells to state 

authorities (who have primary regulatory jurisdiction on the matter) and 

to the nearby regional office of the EPA. State officials already were 

investigating, but the regional EPA opted to issue a rarely used 

emergency order of"imminent endangerment" against Range Resources, 

whose fracking wellbore was 4,000 feet below Lipsky's wells. Most well 

water comes from groundwater no more than 1,000 feet below the 

surface. Migration of contaminants from an oil or gas well often over a 

mile deeper is practically impossible. The Society of Petroleum 

Engineers estimates that over the last 60 years, more than I million oil 

and gas wells in the U.S. have used hydraulic fracturing. During this 

time, it has never been connected to groundwater contamination. 

At a televised press conference, Armendariz claimed he had to act fast 

because two houses could explode at any moment. In fact, Lipsky and 

the owner of the other house had disconnected their drinking-water well 

from their houses, eliminating any potential that methane in the water 

might, under pressure in the water pipes, cause explosions in the houses. 

Extensive testing proved that the natural gas produced by Range 

Resources had a different chemical signature than that of the natural gas 

http://wV.'l.V,nationalrevicw,com/artide/270893/fracas-about·fracking·kalhleen·hartnett·white[1117/201 7 4:12:33 PM] 
406 


27600.360

!National Review 

in Lipsky's wells, which came from a shallow formation immediately 

below them. Local water-well drillers and residents testified that there 

always had been noticeable natural gas in the wells. Texas authorities 

have fully exonerated Range Resources -but the EPA hasn't. The 

company is challenging the EPA's action in federal court but remains 

subject to fines of$16,500 per day. 

Worries about some other dangers are equally unfounded. Air emissions 

from drilling sites have been the most persistent public concern in the 

Barnett shale area. Studies by the Texas Department of Health and the 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality have confirmed that the 

emissions do not exceed levels protective of human health, but this 

conclusion has not allayed public fears because one of the pollutants 

involved is benzene- a widely known carcinogen at certain levels and 

exposures. In fact, the monitored benzene levels attributed to natural-gas 

drilling in the Barnett shale are not harmful to human health, but, 

pressured by state legislators, the usually pragmatic state environmental 

regulators adopted a I ,000-page rule imposing onerous controls on the 

drilling sites that would be more appropriate for a large refinery. 

The one credible concern is the extremely high volume of water used in 

the fracking process. Quantities vary, but 2 million gallons per day 

appears to be an average use. Draw down of aquifers used for drinking 

water occurred in the Haynesville shale area in Louisiana, but the 

problem was resolved by shifting to water sources not used for drinking. 

Methods are now under development to reduce freshwater use by 

recycling wastewater after treatment. 

http://v.ww.nationalreview.com/artic!e/270893/fmca~wabouMrackingwkathleen-hartnett-white[l 1!7/2017 4:12:33 PM] 
407 


27600.361

~National Review 

The practice of fracking has also been put at risk by recent academic 

studies. Headlines claim that Duke University researchers "prove[ d]" that 

hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania has contaminated domestic water 

wells with high levels of methane. Even the relatively cautious Wall 

Street Journal reported on May l 0 that the study shows that fracking 

"appears to be allowing potentially explosive methane gas to seep into 

drinking-water wells." Closer review shows that the study did not reach 

this conclusion at all. It found a correlation between proximity to drilling 

activity and higher levels of methane in water wells, but did not attribute 

this to subsurface migration of natural gas from hydraulic fractures. 

The study's primary author, Rob Jackson, concluded that the methane in 

the water wells tested in the study was far more likely to have come from 

faulty construction of the natural-gas well than from hydraulic fracturing. 

A major weakness in the study was its lack of baseline data. What was 

the level of methane in the wells before hydraulic fracturing? The authors 

also acknowledged that methane is naturally present in almost every 

private well used for drinking water, livestock water, and irrigation in the 

region. Geologists point out that comparatively higher levels of methane 

are usually found in the soil and groundwater of areas with oil and 

natural-gas resources. 

In deciding on a policy on fracking, we should not wait for a 

congressionally mandated EPA report on the impacts of hydraulic 

fracturing on drinking water, due in 2012. A congressional hearing held 

in May revealed fatal flaws in what was supposed to be a definitive, 

vigorously peer-reviewed study. For one thing, it will be an inside job 

from the EPA; the study's review panel excludes anyone with 

http://www .nationa!rcview .com/article/2 70893/fraca~·about·fracking~kath!een·hartnctt~wbitef 11/7/20 17 4: 12:3 3 PM] 
408 


27600.362

I National Review 

professional expertise in current industry practices or the technology of 

hydraulic fracturing. Under the current administration, industry experts, 

like highly credentialed professors of petroleum engineering, are 

assumed to be shills for greedy enterprises. 

The EPA study has some other serious defects. It will cherry-pick only 

four wells, out of hundreds of thousands, for full forensic analysis, and it 

has excluded representatives of state regulatory agencies- which have 

six decades of experience in regulating this practice, which began in 

1948 from its review panel. Nor do the researchers seem aware of the 

difference between, on one hand, models ofthe assumed effects of 

hydraulic fracturing and, on the other, physical measurements of the 

results of hundreds of actual [racking treatments. To learn the 

fundamentals ofthis issue, the EPA would have to bother to speak with 

experts on the technology. 

The study seems designed to substantiate a predetermined conclusion: 

that hydraulic fracturing poses grave risks. Therefore the EPA must 

either assert regulatory control on all drilling using this technology, or 

issue a "temporary" moratorium- as in the aftermath of the 2010 Gulf 

spill -until further study is complete. If fracking is delayed or 

discontinued, massive resources will remain untapped, hundreds of 

thousands of jobs will not be created, and billions of dollars of potential 

federal, state, and local tax revenues will be lost. 

Risk can be managed and reduced, but never eliminated. Over the last 30 

years, the on-shore oil and gas industry has had a sound environmental 

record. The many risks- more uncertainties than palpable dangershttp://v .. ""'-w.nationalreview.com/article/270893/fracas-about-fracking-kathl!:!en-hartnett-white[J117/2017 4: 12:33 PMl 
409 


27600.363

I National Review 

attributed to hydraulic fracturing have not occasioned serious 

environmental harms. But, in only a few years, [racking has allowed 

recovery of approximately 7 billion barrels of oil and 7 trillion cubic feet 

of natural gas. Vast stores remain, and almost all new wells will need 

hydraulic fracturing. 

The U.S. has far more energy resources than any other country, yet no 

other country so limits and blocks access to its own energy supply. The 

opposition to fracking displays this unfortunate mentality. 

Kathleen liar·tnett White is director of the Armstrong Center 

fm· Energy & the Envimnment at the Texas Public Policy 

Foundation. She previously served,for six years, as chairman of 

the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the secondlargest enviT'Onmcntul regulatory agency in the world. This 

urlicle originally appeared in the June 20, 2011, issue q(Nxno'<·IL 

RLVIF\\. 

MORE STORIES 

http://v.ww.nationalreview.com/article/270893/fraca~~about-fracking-kathlccn-hartnctt-whitc[ I t/7 /2017 4:12:33 PMJ 
410 


27600.364

National Review 

SECTIONS THE CORNER NATIONAL REVIEW LOGIN 

The Ruse of Regulatory Reform 

by KATHLEEN 

Obama assures business leaders that he feels their 

pain. They don't believe him. 

p resident Obama's speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce last 

week did anything but signal a rapprochement with America's 

demoralized private sector. The Chamber has tirelessly assailed 

the Obama EPA's many new rules, which burden industries with 

onerous regulations and could cost more than a trillion dollars yearly. 

Obama's attempts to mollify the organization- chiefly by touting a 

review of federal regulations that is not likely to bring relief from any of 

them fell flat. 

Most of the president's speech to the Chamber was typical: He scolded 

businesses for not being thankful that he had preserved existing tax rates, 

and berated them for not investing precisely where and how he wanted 

them to. The only tangible relief he offered was the delay of new EPA 

greenhouse-gas rules for "biomass" -which affect probably far fewer 

than 1 percent of private businesses. 

This speech to the Chamber was one in a series of what appear to be 

http://wv,rw. n ationalreview, com/arti cle/259823/ruse~regul atory~rc form~kathleen-hartnctt ~whitcf 11!7/20 I 7 5:50:4 0 PM] 
411 


27600.365

I National Review 

carefully designed, symbolic overtures to the private sector- overtures 

along the not-so-economically-astute lines of"I really like business and I 

get it that you must have profits." A revealing item in this series is the 

president's January 18 executive order on "Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review," which ordered the aforementioned review of 

business regulations. The order begins with the usual rhetoric that that 

"our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety and the 

environment while promoting economic growth ... and job creation"-

but it also says the system must use the least burdensome tools and "take 

into account benefits and costs" to avoid chilling job creation. This 

language is reminiscent of Ronald Reagan, who first required costbenefit analysis of proposed rules in 19 81. In presenting the order to the 

public, Obama echoed Reagan even more closely, writing in the Wall 

Street Journal that America's free markets are "the greatest force for 

prosperity the world has ever known." He directed his agencies to find 

the "proper balance between free commerce" and necessary regulations. 

The order reads as if an ardent champion oflimited government wrote it, 

except for one glaring caveat. When calculating costs and benefits, the 

order instructs, agencies should consider "values that are difficult or 

impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness and 

distributive impacts." This loophole swallows the entire review. How 

might the amorphous, politically charged value of"fairness" figure into a 

debate about a proposed rule for industrial boilers that would cost $1.2 

billion and put 798,0000 jobs at risk? The injection of"values" into costbenefit analyses replaces reasoned analysis with the preferred policy of 

the executive branch. This is especially true because the order tasks the 

agencies themselves with conducting the reviews. If Congress will not 

http://v.-.....w.nationalreview.oom/article/259823/rusNcgulatory·reronn·kathleen-hartnett-white[ll/7/2017 5:50:40 PM) 
412 


27600.366

!National Review 

redistribute income according to this administration's preferred formula, 

then "redistributive impacts" evidently can be addressed through agency 

rulemaking. 

Notions of fairness and redistributive impacts already have reared their 

head in some of EPA's rulemakings of the last two years. In a July 2010 

memo, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson issued new regulatory guidance 

directing EPA to integrate environmental justice "into the fabric of EPA 

process" so that each EPA action has "a particular focus on 

disadvantaged or vulnerable groups." Indeed, social justice was part of 

EPA's justification for the endangerment finding that greenhouse gases 

are pollutants harmful to human health. Climate change, EPA claimed, 

will "add further stress to an existing host of social problems in cities" 

that "accentuate disparities ... in the American health care system." 

With this progression from carbon dioxide to inner-city problems to 

health care, EPA creates a smooth, extra-legal path to unlimited federal 

jurisdiction, with values as the impetus. 

The ruse in the president's 

"Regulatory Review" is transparent 

among EPA decisionmakers. 

Shortly after the president signed 

his order, EPA expressed 

confidence that the agency would 

not need to change any current or 

pending rules. Because the Clean 

Air Act requires exclusively healthbased regulatory standards independent of cost, EPA can readily claim 

http://ww\'•.nationalreview.com/artic!c/259823/ruse-regulatory-reforrn-kath!een-hartnctt~wbite[ll/7120l7 5:50:40 PM) 
413 


27600.367

I National Review 

that most of its rules are immune to restraints based on economic impact. 

In addition, much as the Obama administration estimated "jobs created or 

saved" to defend the stimulus, EPA regularly estimates comically huge 

macroeconomic "cost savings" from the public-health benefits of its 

regulations: "In fact, EPA's rules consistently yield billions in cost 

savings that make them among the most cost-effective in the 

government." 

Although they are regrettably now accepted by the Office of 

Management and Budget, EPA's methods of estimating the economic 

benefits of its rules are pitifully vague and speculative. For example, 

EPA calculates the dollars "saved" from a heightened ozone standard by 

estimating how much air quality will improve under the new standard, 

estimating the effects that better air will have on health, and then 

assigning dollar values to the number of work days and lives "not lost" as 

a result of the new standards under these estimates. 

But their methods of estimation are remarkably flawed. To estimate the 

effect of air quality on health, EPA collects hospital records from a 

sample of cities and then counts the number of patient treatments or 

deaths that can be vaguely tied to pulmonary or cardiological conditions. 

EPA then conflates causation with murky correlation: It assumes that if 

these visits and deaths are more prevalent in areas with higher ozone 

levels, the disparity must be caused by the higher ozone levels. Among 

the glaring flaws in this approach is that EPA assumes people breathe the 

highest monitored ozone level24 hours per day. In fact, indoor ozone 

levels, in which most people live and work, are 90 percent lower than the 

outdoor values monitored by the EPA. 

http://\\ww.nationalrcview.eom/article/259823/ruse~regu!atory-reform-kathleen-hartnett-white[l !/7/2017 5:50:40 PM] 
414 


27600.368

I National Review 

And sometimes the science EPA relies on undermines its own 

conclusions. One of the major epidemiological studies that EPA is using 

to justify the proposed new ozone standard (as low as 60 parts per 

billion) looked at hospital records in 95 cities over 14 years. Of those 95 

cities, only six had both unusually high ozone levels and unusually high 

premature mortality. Los Angeles, the city with the worst ozone problem, 

was not among the six. Such flimsy science prompted a former chairman 

ofEPA's Scientific Advisory Committee to testify before Congress that 

EPA's decision to lower the ozone standard "is a policy judgment based 

on a flawed and inaccurate presentation ofthe science that should inform 

policy decisions." 

Meaningful, rigorous cost-benefit analysis of EPA rules could deter 

environmentally unnecessary and overly burdensome regulationwhich is just what Obama claims he's trying to do. The parameters and 

metrics of such analyses, however, must be objective. The president's 

formal addition of"values" into the matrix for analysis of cost, benefit, 

and effectiveness defeats the entire purpose of such an analysis. 

Kathleen Hartnell fVhitc was commissioner and chairman of 

the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality from 2001 to 

2007 and is senior fellow and directm· ()f'the Armstrong Center 

j(JI' Energy and Environment at the Texas Public Policy 

Foundation. 

MORE STORIES 

http://W\vw.nationalreview,com/articlc/259B23/ruse·regu!atory·reform-kathlccn·hartnett·whiter! 1/7/20175:50:40 PM] 
415 


27600.369

For EPA's ozone standard, no cost is 

too high, no risk too low 

0 

The Environmental Protect1on Agency's (EPA) expandmg regulatory domm~e>n 

apparently knows no bounds The science behind the EPA's current CnJsade, 

however, 1s a statiStical house of cards Although iess stnngent than ant1c1pated, 

the new nat1onal ambient air quality standard (NAAOS) for ozone set at 70 

partsperb1lhon(ppb}, maybethestrawthatbreaksthebackofourstrugglmg 

economy 
416 


27600.370

,,oTN!,,rWM~iY adopted standard, wh1ch has been pending s1nce 2011 when the 

Wlite House yanked back the rule at a cost of $90 billion annually, jams at 

least 20 other EPA rules of unprecedented scope, stnngency and cost 

promulgated under the Obama adm1nistretion Long conSidered lt1e most 

burdensome of the EPA's a1r quality programs, the new ozone standard Wlll 

substantially add to the burgeoning costs already Imposed by the EPA's torrent 

of rules The need. however, for a tougher ozone standard IS highly 

questionable 

The 1mpact the agency has on the economy IS no longer confined to prtcey yet 

marginal costs of production In prev1ous adm1mstrat1ons, the EPA's big rules 

earned costs m the several millions- nOW", it 1s in the tens of billions The result 

of the agency's mfeas1ble demands are business closures and JOb losses No 

longer a meddler but a folal, look: to the EPA to understand why the economy 

has stalled at 2 percent growth and labor farce part1c1pat1on rata approaches a 

recordlownotseensmce 1977 

Perhaps wo~e than increasing the costs of doing busmess, the rismg stack of 

EPA rules cumulatively smothers the fundamental dynamics of profitable 

enterpnse The EPA's regulatory reg1me makes businesses operate more like 

bureaucraclesratherthanefficlent.creativeandproductive enterprises. Only 

mass1ve bureaucraCies !ike the EPA could design such labyrinthine, meff1cient 

systems Under the EPA's cham mail, business act1v1ty must defer to the 

compliance process Th1s typically requires spending as much or more t1me on 

paperwork than actual com~1ance with the rule 

The EPA's new ozone standard and the other new dictates come at an odd lime 

mthehlsloryofenvironmentalregulation.AJthoughrarelyacknowledged,alr 

quality m the U S. has dramatically Improved overt)1e last 30 years while the 

economy grew by 200 percent. Tm!p1pe em1ss1ons- a major source of ozone 

precursors-have been reduced by more than 95 percent from 1980 to 2013 

while vehicles' miles traveled have increased by 178 percent Pollutants have 

fallen across the board A few of the many examples· Amb1ent levels of sulfur 

diOXIde declined by 82 permnt between 1980 and 2010. Emissions oflead have 

fallen by 96 percent Benzene- a well-known carcinogen - has declmed by 

88 percent 

After Ellr quality improvements of this magnitude, on what bas1s does the EPA 

JUStify the need for all these aggressive rules to protect us from "early death"? 

The EPA maintains the it reviewed 1.000 sc1enlific studies m determming the 

ozone NAAQS. Yet the ozone standard ulhmately reli€1d on two weak, outdated 

ePldemio!og1cal studies and an 1mplaus1ble methodology that 1mputes health 

nsks at pollutant levels below natural background levels to zerol By use of th1s 

methodology, kllO'Wn as "no-safe-threshold" statiStical analysis, the Sf'~ 
417 


27600.371

§lBf.~po!aled health nsks four l1mes higher than prevtousJy estabilshed 

Such no-safe-threshold methodology ts also a way to mask the EPA's pnmary 

agendato"endtheeraoffoSSII fuels."lfthecostsofthenewozonestandard 

outweigh the esl1mated health benefits, the EPA simply conjures some 

comctdental benefits from reducing other pollutants that might occur whole 

reducing ozone. Sucll "co-benefits" account for approximately 70 percent of the 

health benefits that the EPA claims for the new ozone standard 

The EPA maintams that the new ozone NAAQS wtll reduce the rismg inadence 

of asthma. a widely accepted datm. Yet, even at face value, the EPA's clatms 

about asthmo arB dub1ous Over the last 30 years, wh1le ozone and other 

pollutants were decllnmg. mctdence of osthma has nsen 100 percent So how 

wtll further reduclton of ozone reduce asthma? Dato from Texas hospttals show 

that asthma-related adm1ss1ons are much higher In wmter than m summer, when 

ozone levels are the htghest Constder exposure Ozone levels declme by 

roughly 90 percent when indoors but the EPA assumes people ore exposed to 

the highest momtored ozone level24 hours per day- an tmplaustble worstcase soonano 

Our country has demonstrated tnat robust economic growth and environmental 

quality are not only compatible, but Interdependent The prospenty achieved in 

th1s country has made possible a successful investment in Improved a1r quality 

under the highly protective terms of the Clean Air Act The EPA's mampulallon 

ofsc1ence, however, demes pol1cymakers. and the publtcthe information needed 

to we1gh the many trade-offs involved In soctetal decis1ons about unacceptable 

enwonmenta!risks 

Protection of air quality is an essential and ongomg responsibility, but the 

1mpacts of thiS EPA's expandmg universe have become a substantial but 

unjustified drag on our economy EPA act1on 1s now killing jobs. Economic 

1mpact does matter and 11 matters to health. Income and employment strongly 

correlate with human well-being and lifespan 

Several years ago. a Ne!1onal Academy of Soences review of the EPA's risk 

assessments concluded that the EPA's sciance "was on the rocks" Sound 

sc1enoo and ObJective sc1enbsts abound If the EPA was reqwred to uttlize more 

ngorous sc1ence, a1r quality would contmue to 1mpmve but at a far lower cost 

VW!ite is a dtslmguished semor fe!low-m-restdence and director of the Armstrong 

Center for Energy & the EnVIronment at the Texas Pub ftc Policy Foundaltan 

She ts a former chamnan of the Texas Commissron an Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ) 
418 


27600.372
419 


27600.373

February 2012 

Texas Public Policy Foundation 

by Kathleen Hartnett White 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ... .. . 3 

EPA's Regulatory Onslaught .... 

Ten Mega~Major New EPA Rules<>··· ..... 5 

SIDEBAR Where Is FFRG ................................................... 8 

SIDEBAR: Mercury Facts and Figures ·--···· ...................... 9 

Conclusion ..... . .. iS 

Endnotes .. ····--· ........................................................................ 16 
420 


27600.374

EPA's Approaching Regulatory Avalanche 

''A Regulatory Spree Unprecedented in U.S. History'' 

by Kathleen Hartnett White 

Executive Summary 

The U.S. economy, struggling to find a path back to sustained 

growth, stands in the cross-hairs of the Environmental Protection Agencfs heavy-handed regulatory onslaught. EPA, 

under the Obama administration, is churning out new rules 

unprecedented in speed, number, scope, stringency and costs. 

Yet the new rules have marginal, if indeed measurable at all, 

health benefits. Nor are they supported by credible science. 

The National Academy of Science and the EPA's own scientific 

advisory panels have sharply criticized regulations they see as 

framed on the basis of weak, manipulated scientific evidence. 1 

For most of its 40-year history, EPA has promulgated regulatory standards in a relatively incremental manner, allowing 

some balance between environmental goals and economic 

reality. Huge environmental improvements have followed. 

Regulation played a role, but market-driven efficiencies and 

creative technologies drove the dramatic reductions in pollutants. Current EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, however, irresponsibly enflames public fears with public statements such 

as "Don't breathe the air. It may kill you:'' After decades of 

improvements, air quality is healthier than it has ever been:1 

Cumulatively, EPA rules scheduled to become effective in the 

next three years could cost more than $1 trillion and destroy 

hundreds of thousands of jobs. Four ofthe rules, directed at 

electric generation, threaten the fundamental viability of continued coal-fired generation-now the mainstay of the nation's 

electric power. The Federal Energy Reliability Commission 

(PERC), the National Electric Reliability Council (NERC), 

and multiple studies conclude that these four EPA rules risk 

the involuntary retirement of over 80 gigawatts (G\V) of electric capacity by 2015.' 

lhe possibility of losing up to 8 percent of the country's current 1,010 GW of electric generating capacity should be a 

wake-up call as to the magnitude ofEPAs regulatory agenda. 

On EP.As current schedule, there is not sufficient lead time to 

replace this amount of the nation's electric power supply. 

www.texaspolicy.corD 

Power outages, higher electric rates, job losses, sharply regressive impacts on families with low or fixed incomes, and therelocation of U.S. industries to foreign countries are highly likely 

outcomes under EPA's regulatory plan. 

The current EPA is misusing the Clean Air Act (CAA)-enacted to protect human health-to force an anti-fossil fuel energy policy repeatedly rejected by Congress. Under cover of the 

broad law-like authority delegated to EPA in the CAA, the EPA 

increasingly acts like a fourth branch of government-one unaccountable to the three constitutional branches.' By ironic coincidence, innovative technologies now provide access to historically game-changing stores of domestic fossil fuels. 

This paper reviews 10 EPA rules now adopted, proposed, or 

scheduled for proposal: 

1. Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR); 

2. Electric Utility Maximum Available Control Technology 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (Utility MACT); 

3. Industrial Boiler MACT; 

4. Portland Cement Kiln MACT; 

5. Cooling Water Intake Structure Rule (CWIS); 

6. Coal Combustion Residuals Rule (CCR); 

7. Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS); 

8. Particulate Matter (PM) NAAQS; 

9. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Regulation of Stationary Sources; 

10. GHG Regulation of Mobile Sources. 

RECOMMENDATION: Reform the CAA to accommodate 

air quality improvements and to prioritize future challenges, 

to restore the state's primary authority in air quality management, to restore congressional accountability for major policy 

decisions now made by EPA, to establish clear, minimal criteria for hea)th-effects science, risk assessment, and regulatory 

impact analyses, to utilize performance standards, and to establish integrated multi-pollutant strategies. 
421 


27600.375

tPA's Approaching RegL.Iatory Avaianche 

EPA~He<~u!a~>rylJnsJauoJnt 

Never in its 40~year history has EPA simultaneously promulgated so many major environmental rules characterized by 

converging effective dates, massive compliance costs, and 

mandates exceeding existing technological controls. Nor has 

EPA before relied on such speculative, manipulated science 

to justify this most aggressive regulatory agenda to date. 

EPA also has asserted more control over state authorities, 

particularly in Texas, than in the past. The Agency's bid to 

force an automatically effective Federal Implementation Plan 

on Texas in December 2010 was without precedent in EPA 

history. Furthermore, the final decision-maker of the EPA, 

Administrator Lisa Jackson, grossly misleads the public. In 

comments on HBO, Administrator Jackson said, "We are actually at the point in many areas of this country where on 

a hot summer day, the best advice you can give is don't go 

outside. Don't breathe the air. It may kill you:'" This, while 

EPA's own website documents remarkable, nationwide improvements in air quality.' 

An assessment of the current EPA's aggressive regulatory 

agenda must begin with recognition of the remarkably successful record of air quality improvement in the U.S. As EPA 

itself documents, over the last 40 years, and particularly 

over the last 20 years, the quality ofiJ.S. air has dramatically 

increased.8 

February 2012 

Change in National Average Ambient Levels 

and Emissions 1980-2008 

t\itr8gen Dioxide (N02) 

Source: Environmentai Protection Agency 

Since 1970, aggregate emissions of the six criteria pollutants 

regulated under the CAA have decreased 53 percent. This environmental achievement occurred while the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased over 200 percent. Virtually 

the entire country has attained the NAAQS for four of the six 

criteria pollutants. Urban areas in some states continue to exceed the NAAQS for ozone and particulate matter but the levels of exceedance and the number of these non-attainment areas is rapidly falling. In !997, EPA classified 113 metropolitan 

areas as non-attainment for ozone. 'lbat number has fallen to 

below 30 areas. Once on the list of the most polluted areas, 

the huge urban region around Houston, Texas-home of the 

world's largest petro-chemical industrial complex-attained 

the federal ozone standard in 2009 and 2010.' 

Eight-Hour Ozone Design Values for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) Area 

loo 

' i oo ..:?_NAA.;:,s:.:~ --------------

fexas Public Po!icy Foundation 
422 


27600.376

February 20:2 

Emissions from cars and trucks, now the predominant source 

of particulate matter and ozone precursor emissions in most 

areas have been reduced over 90 percent while vehicles miles 

traveled increased 165 percent. Ambient concentrations of 

lead decreased 97 percent between 1976 and 2008, largely a 

result of eliminating lead in transportation fuels. Hazardous 

or toxic pollutants have also undergone dramatic reduction. 

EPA's Taxies Release Inventory documents a 65 percent reduction since 1988. And mercury emissions have declined 

by 58 percent between 1990 and 2008. 

This paper reviews ten of the major rules now promulgated 

by EPA. The first two rules will be covered in more depth because of the magnitude of their near-term impacts. A federal 

rule is called "major'' when compliance cost estimated by the 

rulemak.ing agency is $100 million or more per year. All of 

the EPA rules examined in this paper arc major rules involv~ 

ing projected annual costs in the billions of dollars and thus 

worthy of being called "mega~major" rules. 

l. Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 

2. Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) 

Standards for Mercury and Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) from Electric Utilities (Utility MACT) 

3. MACT for Industrial Boilers 

4. MACT for Portland Cement Kilns 

5. Coal Combustion Residual Rule (CCR) 

6. Cooling Water Intake Structure Rule (CWIS) 

7. National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for 

Ozone 

8. NAAQS for Particulate Matter (PM) 

9. GHG Regulation for Stationary Sources 

10. GHG Regulation for Mobile Sources 

Most of the EPA regulations reviewed in this paper were 

scheduled for adoption by the end of201l. EPA has nevertheless delayed several rules as the deadlines approached and 

federal court has stayed implementation of two rules pend~ 

ing the court's full review on the merits. In a highly unusual 

move, President Obama announced at the White House his 

request that EPA delay a new federal standard for ozone until20l3. New standards for industrial boilers were adminiswwwtexaspolicy.com 

EPA's ApproJching Regulatory Avalanche 

tratively delayed soon after adoption in response to intense 

opposition from hundreds of congressmen, industries, and a 

coalition of labor unions. In late November, 2011, EPA an~ 

nounced delay of the first hard-edged emission limits for 

GHG until20 12. Environmental groups have challenged the 

legality of these delays in federal court. On December 9, the 

D.C. Court of Appeals stayed a portion of the rule for Portland cement kilns. Less than 48 hours before the effective 

date ofjanuary 1, 2012, the same federal court enjoined EPA 

from implementation of CSAPR on December 30, 2011. 

Presently, the GHG rules and the Utility MACT have full 

legal force. CSAPR and EPA's GHG rules are challenged in 

the courts by 20-30 states. These 10 rules would have convergent effective dates within the 2013 ~ 2016 timeframe, with 

the highest impacts in 2015. EPA has not considered their 

duplicative requirements or cumulative impacts. 

I, Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 

"This rule represents another case where EPA has inad~ 

equately rationalized the need for a complex regulatory 

scheme to solve a non~existent problem:' said the chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 

Brian Shaw, in testimony before the U.S. House Energy and 

Commerce Committee. 10 The Cross~ State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR), finalized in July 2011, was to become effective 

on January 1, 2012-less than six months after adoption, in 

contrast to the normal timetable of two to three years. 11 Under this brief timetable for compliance, CSAPR's aggressive 

mandates jeopardize electric reliability and would likely lead 

to power outages in 2012. NERC recently reiterated its finding that EPA rules pose the greatest threat to electric reliability for the next five years. 12 

Public Utility Commissions and regional entities managing 

electric grids from 10 states claim that CSAPRlikely will increase electric rates by 20 percent while leading to rolling 

blackouts.'-' CSAPR, in combination with the Utility MACT 

rule, are the two EPA regulations most threatening to the viability of coal-fired electric generation, which presently pro~ 

vide 50 percent of net electric generation in the U.S. Some 20 

states have challenged CSAPR in the First Circuit Court of 

Appeals, Washington, D.C. The court's last hour stay of this 

rule on December 30, 2011 has, at least temporarily, eased 

the risk to electric reliability in 2012. 
423 


27600.377

FPA's Approaching Regulatory Avalanche 

']ne objective of CSAPR is to reduce the transport of pollutants from "upwind" locations that cross state lines and affect 

air quality in "downwind" states. Specifically, the rule mandates steep reductions of sulfur dioxide and/or nitrogen oxides in 27 upwind states deemed by EPA's models to adversely 

affect the downwind states' attainment or maintenance of the 

federal standards for fine particle matter (PM 2.5) and ozone. 

EPA considers S02 a surrogate for PM. Nitrogen oxides are 

key precursor emissions in ozone formation. CSAPR has a 

program to reduce SO, and another to reduce NOx. For reasons of brevity, this an;lysis focuses exclusively on the so2. 

Since 1980, emissions ofS02 have declined by 56 percent nationwide, partly as a result of the 20-year EPA program created by Congress to reduce acid-rain and a previous rule toreduce interstate transport of emissions. 14 In CSAPR, EPA now 

mandates a 20-46 percent reduction in remaining S02 emissions within two years. With SO, emissions already reduced 

by more than half through three decades of work, reductions 

of20-46 percent v-rithin two years are practically unachievable 

for many coal-fired power plants.~'> 

EPA stresses the environmental urgency of this rule intended 

to help the downwind states attain the federal standards for 

PM and ozone. Oddly, however, the downwind states targeted 

in the rule violated the 24-hour fine PM standard less than 

one-half percent of the time from 2007-2009Y' In fact, more 

than 80 percent of the downwind areas that CSAPR considers as now violating (or in risk of violation) the federal standards for ozone or PM already attain the air quality standards 

in question. EPA, however, still finds risks and calculates the 

monetized health benefits at emission levels below the federal 

standards set to protect public health. 

At the proposed stage of the rule, EPA did not find that emis~ 

sions from Texas reached a threshold to trigger impacts on 

downwind states. At adoption, EPA decided Texas emissions 

affect just one monitor in Madison County, Illinois. That 

monitor, however, is in attainment of the relevant federal 

standard and is projected to maintain the standard under existing regulation! Furthermore, Texas attains the federal stan~ 

dard for the emission in question. Such is the "non-existent 

problem" created by unrealistic assumptions in EPA's model 

as identified in Chairman Shaw's testimony. 

Originally adopted as the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CA!R) 

under the Bush administration, the rule was remanded to 

February 2012 

EPA by a federal court. lhe original rule (CAIR) to reduce interstate transport of emissions operated as a kind of cap and 

trade system. In the new CSAPR rule, EPA not only tightened 

the emission caps but also nominally disallowed trading of 

the previously banked emission credits, rendering the utilities' billion dollar investments worthless. 

Riddled \'lith data errors and unrealistic worst-case assumptions, EPA's complex modeling posits air quality problems 

that are inconsistent Mth the actual state of air quality as 

physically measured at monitors. The multiple errors are 

concealed in the rule's thousands of pages of numeric codes 

for individual computer runs of the modeL EPA, however, 

has mandated emission limits with a stringency, and timeline unprecedented in the four decades of the Clean Air Act 

regulation. 

In response to more than 30 petitions for reconsideration of 

the rule, and to lawsuits from over 20 states to enjoin implementation ofCSAPR, EPA proposed to make selective "technical adjustments" to the rule. These adjustments, however, 

would not carry the full force of law that the adopted language of the rule alone holds. EPA, to date, has refused to reconsider CSAPR or to provide time for a period of new notice 

and comment for states such as Texas not included in the proposed rule. EPA's technical adjustments do not offer legal assurance, guarantee the proposed flexibility, correct the many 

data errors in CSAPR or provide sufficient time for compliance. EPA says in so many words: "try to comply with the rule 

and if you can't, come talk to us; we might work something 

out" This is a troubling departure from the rule oflaw. 

Many of the large coal-fired power plants impacted by 

CSAPR have already installed state-of-the-art emission controls. Coal-fired generators have already invested as much as 

$95 billion to meet EPA requirements. 17 Since 1970, S02

, NOx 

and PM from coal plants have been reduced by 84 percent 

per kilowatt-hour. 18 

EPA's assumption that generators can quickly install addi~ 

tiona! controls, switch to lower sulfur coals, or build natural gas-fired power plants overnight are wholly unrealistic. 

On September 12, 2011, Luminant, the largest generator in 

Texas, announced it would idle 1,200 MW of generating capacity, dosing three Texas lignite coal mines, and laying-off 

500 employees. 19 On June 9, 2011, American Electric Power 

announced permanent closure of five coal-fired plants and 

Texas PLbllc Policy Foundation 
424 


27600.378

r ebruary 2012 

reduced operations at eight plants, actions affecting seven 

states.20 Similar announcements have been made in oth~ 

er states affected by CSAPR and the Utility MACT. EPA 

claims that the industries are crying wolf. Public disclosure, 

however, of plans to idle power plants or reduce generation 

are typically required by state and regional reliability organizations as well as by the Securities Exchange Commission 

for merchant generators. 

EPA apparently believes that power plants designed to burn 

one kind of coal can readily switch to another kind. Yet Texas power plants that now burn lignite, a coal native to Texas, 

cannot merely switch.1he plants have first to be redesigned, 

re-permitted, and re-constructed-a process requiring two 

to four years. And the supply of lower sulfur coals may be 

limited by increased demand created by the new rules. EPA 

assumes that \Vyoming's Powder River Basin could increase 

production of low sulfur coal by 40 percent next year and 

perhaps 100 percent in 2013. On the basis of this and other 

unrealistic projections, EPA dismisses any threat to electric 

reliability. 

The regulatory record, however, does not support this position. A recent review of the hundreds of thousands of pages 

in the rule docket revealed a section in the preamble sent 

to the Office of Management and Budget on February 19, 

2011, that stated: "this regulation may detrimentally affect 

the reliability ofthe electric grid:'" 

1his section was missing in the final version of the proposed 

rule signed on March 16,2011. And Administrator Jackson 

persistently states that EPA "doesn't require shutting down 

of any plant:'" Her statement echoes the frequently quoted 

statements of presidential candidate Barack Obama that his 

energy policy would not force closure of coal-fired power 

plants but would make it so expensive to operate the plants 

that there would be no alternative to closure.23 

A closer look at EPA's reliability modeling reveals fundamental errors and apparent ignorance of the local and regional constraints in which transmission and the electric 

grid operate.u In modeling impacts in Texas, EPA assumed 

that the state's 10,000 MW of installed wind capacity would 

translate to 10,000 MW of actual electric generation. In 

glaring contrast, the U.S. Department of Energy assigns a 

generous capacity factor to wind of 25 percent to 30 percent of installed capacity. The Electric Reliability Council 

www.texaspolicy.cofl' 

fPA's Approachmg Regulatory Avalanche 

of Texas (ERCOT) derates wind to 8.7 percent of capacity 

because Texas v.ind is unpredictable and weak during summer's peak demand. EPA calculated the total generating 

capacity in Texas at roughly 90,000 MW, whereas ERCOT 

calculates approximately 72,000 MW. 

Unlike EPA, both the Federal Energy Reliability Commission (FERC) and the National Electricity Reliability Council 

(NERC) have voiced concern that CSAPR, in conjunction 

with other EPA rules aimed at power plants, could lead to 

rolling black-outs in many states. FERC initially informed 

Congress that CSAPR and the other rules, could lead to "40 

GW of coal-fired generating capacity likely to retire, with 

another 41 GW 'very likely' to retire:'25 1his total 81 GW at 

risk amounts to 8 percent of the nation's installed generating capacity and 25 percent of the coal-fired fleet. A NERC 

study in 2010 reached a comparative, if somewhat more 

modest, conclusion." In Fall 2011, NERC identified EPA 

regulation as the greatest threat to electric reliability over 

the next five years.F 

1he operators of regional electric grids are well placed to 

evaluate the real-world impacts ofEPA:s regulatory control of 

electric generation. Such entities as the Southern Power Pool 

(SPP) and ERCOT conclude that compliance with CSAPR 

could cause cascading outages and rolling black-outs within 

a year. Reliability modeling conducted by SPP found up to II 

GW of electric generation within SPP's footprint would be 

unavailable. "In those cases, SPP cannot be compliant with 

NERC's planning standards without placing its generation 

owners in violation of EPA standards;' wrote SPP. 23 

ERCOT, the operator of Texas' electric grid, which carries 

85 percent of the state's electric load, found that under the 

mandates of CSAPR, ERCOT could incur a reduction in 

generation capacity of up to 3,000 MW in the spring, !400 

MW in the summer peak load months and 5,000 MW during the fall. "The implementation timeline;' noted the ERCOT study, provides ERCOT an extremely truncated period in which to assess the reliability impacts of the rule 

and no realistic opportunity to take steps that could even 

partially mitigate the substantial losses of available operat~ 

ing capacity. "lt is clear that had the EPA rules been in effect [during the record hot temperatures in the summer of 

2011] Texans would have experienced rolling outages and 

the risk of massive load curtailment."29 
425 


27600.379

EPA's Approaching Regulatory Avalanche 

EPA estimates the annual cost of compliance with CSAPR 

at $7 billion. EPA:s speculative estimate of monetized health 

benefits, based on «statistical lives and work days" not lost, 

is $111 billion to $294 billion annually. EPA:s claims that 

CSAPR annually will prevent 34,000 deaths, 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks and 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma 

are unsupportable and implausible. "I here is not one dot of 

empirical evidence supporting these billion-dollar health 

benefits and thousands of saved lives. Federal regulation 

which imposes annual compliance costs of $7 billion, risks 

power outages, and threatens thousands of jobs merits justification far more rigorous than EPA now offers. 

Congress, in multiple hearings during 2011, took note of 

EPAS exaggerated claims. EPA arrives at such staggering 

fmancial benefits by assuming that emergency room visits 

(morbidity) or hospital deaths (premature mortality) related to pulmonary and cardiological conditions were caused 

by the current or speculatively predicted future level of the 

pollutant in question. EPA then assigns a dollar figure to 

the value of the work days or lives lost and asserts that the 

regulation will prevent this loss in the future. A death certificate from a hospital noting cause of death as heart failure-\\rithout any medical records or patient history-has 

no meaningful connection to ambient levels of particulate 

matter or ozone. EPA also double or triple counts the same 

r ebruary 20i 2 

hospital visits or deaths by using the same data in cost-benefit analyses for different pollutants.33 

A former faculty member of the Harvard School of Public 

Health testified to Congress that indoor levels of PM can 

be far higher than outdoor levels.''' And while childhood 

asthma has sharply increased in recent times, air quality 

has dramatically increased.33 The issue has become highly 

polarized. EPA Administrator Jackson claims that a stricter 

standard for PM would be more valuable for human health 

than a cure for cancer! EPA:s saved lives are statistical fictions with no accompanying demonstration that PM has 

ever caused a single death. 

Nationally accredited scientific bodies, medical experts 

and toxicologists increasingly question the credibility of 

EPA's grandiose declarations about health benefits. '!he 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Research Council, EPA's scientific advisory bodies, and a 

gro-wing number of experts now harshly criticize EPXs 

misuse of science. Dr. 'Ihomas Burke of the Bloomberg 

School of Puhlic Heath at John Hopkins University and 

Chairman of a recent NAS review of EPA:s chemical risk 

assessments stated, "EPA's science is on the rocks ... if you 

fail, you become irrelevant and that is kind of a crisis:''6 

Texas. Public Policy Foundation 
426 


27600.380

February 20~ 2 

2. Electric Utility Maximum Achievable Control 

On December 21, 2011, EPA adopted a more than 1,000 

page regulation to reduce mercury (Hg) emissions from 

Electric Generating Units (EGU's) by 9! percent and to 

control a wide range of metals and gases listed as ha7...ardous air pollutants (HAPs)." The Utility MACT carries far 

higher costs and risks to the country's electric power supply than the other new EPA rules. The value of this rule to 

human health is highly questionable. Since 1990, mercury 

emissions associated with electric generation in the U.S. dedined by 60 percent. Emission controls required for the six 

criteria pollutants under the NAAQS coincidentally reduce 

emissions of mercury and many hazardous air pollutants to 

be regulated under the Utility MACT 

EPA acknowledges that the Utility MACT is the agency's 

most expensive rule to date, admitting at the same time that 

benefits of controlling mercury in this rule are marginal to 

non-detectable. The agency finds that direct reduction of 

mercury accounts for only $6 million-just 0.004 percent 

-of EPA:s estimated $!40 billion in health benefits." EPA 

attributes the remaining 99.996 percent of benefits to coincidental reduction of fine particulate matter (PM2.5)-

already regulated for 15 years as a criteria pollutant under 

the NAAQS and a questionable surrogate for reducing the 

health risks associated with mercury. 

www.texaspolicy com 

FPA's Approaching Regulatory Avalanche 

'lhe most expensive rule in EPA's history not only Jacks measurable health benefits but threatens the continued viability 

of coal-the energy source that now provides 50 percent of 

net electric generation in the U.S. and thousands of jobs. 

EPA openly justifies the rule on the basis of an absolutist 

version of the precautionary principle. As EPA stated in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, "[W]e may determine it is 

necessary to regulate under section 122 even if we are uncertain whether [the rule] will address the identified hazards .... We believe it is reasonable to err on the side of regulation of such highly toxic pollutants in the face of such 

uncertainty." ~ (emphasis added) 

The Center for Disease Control's (CDC) National Health and 

Nutrition Examination Survey actively monitors evidence 

of mercury exposure. The CDC's current study shows that 

from 1999-2008, blood mercury levels steadily decreased to 

an average level now well below EPA's extremely conservative safe limit knmvn in toxicology as the "reference dose:'·10 

EPA, however, used outdated information from the previous 

CDC survey in 2000 to exaggerate the current risk to exposure. EPA's statements to the contrary seriously mislead the 

public.41 A well-known neurotoxin at certain levels, mercury 

can retard brain development of children and in vitro. 
427 


27600.381

EPA's Approaching Hegt..:Jatory Avalanche 

'I he stringent emission limits in the Utility MACT are based 

upon a standard (called a reference dose) of EPAs own devising-a standard of risk that is tv.,ro to three times more re~ 

strictive than those of the leading national and world health 

organizations. EPi\'s mercury limits dismiss the toxicological studies on which the World Health Organization, the 

U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and 

the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have established a 

safe limit for mercury. 

EPA bases its exceptionally low reference dose on a single 

study in the Faroe Islands, located jn the North Atlantic 

Ocean, halfway between Iceland and ScotlandY The small 

island population studied eats pilot whale meat and blubber 

that contains mercury and other toxic chemicals. EPA, then, 

established a mercury limit that is 10 times lower than the 

subtle health-effects level found in the Faroe Island study. 

rihis diet, and thus this study, is irrelevant as a measure of 

the exposure risk."! to the U.S. population. 

After major studies in 1998 and 2005, EPA concluded that 

the levels of non-mercury hazardous air pollutants from 

power plants did "not pose hazards to human health" and 

thus direct regulation was not warranted. And these studies 

included projections of hazardous pollutant levels in 2010 

(wrongly) assuming far more coal-fired power plants than 

in tact came on line. 

The emission controls now in place to reduce criteria pollutants such as ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide 

also reduce mercury and HAPs. The baghouses and electrostatic precipitators, already installed on many EGUs, have a 

removal efficiency of 99 percent. 

EPA estimates that compliance with the 'Utility MACT rule 

will annually cost approximately $1 l billion. Edison Electric Institute estimates compliance costs approaching $100 

billion. Generators of coal-fired electricity have invested as 

much as S95 billion through 2010 to meet current regulation under the CAA. H Such investment has decreased emissions of the three major criteria pollutants (sulfur dioxide, 

nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter) by 84 percent per 

kilowatt hour. 

The costs of the Utility MACT rule extend much farther 

than the regulated entities. A study by the National Economic Research Association (NERA) found that average 

10 

February 101) 

retail electric rates could increase by 12 to 24 percent accompanied by annual job losses of 180,000 between 2013 

and 2020." 'lhe Utility MACT will impact approximately 

1,300 electric generating units and require a wide range of 

extremely expensive control technologies-if compliance is 

achievable at some electric generating units. Full compliance with this rule is statutorily required within three years 

of adoption. This time frame is inadequate for completion 

of upgrades affecting over 1,000 generating units. 

NERC conservatively estimates this rule could force premature retirement of 15 GW of U.S. generating capacitymore than under any of the other train \\'Teck rules. 46 NERA 

Economic Consulting and others recently estimated that 

the Utility MACT rule, in conjunction with CSAPR, will 

force involuntary retirement of up to 48 GW of coal units. 47 

In comments submitted to EPA, the Texas Commission 

on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) notes that the Utility 

MACT rule is unlawfully using the CAA as a "mechanism 

to drive national energy polit-y."·ls Under the CAA, emission 

limits must be technologically feasible. TCEQ concludes 

that "the proposed rule is not technologically feasible for 

coal-fired units. Based on the current state of technology, 

the TCEQ anticipates that no new coal-fired EGU's will 

be built in the country if the EPA adopts the rule as proposed and that many existing coal-fired EGUs will be shut 

down:' '~ 

3. Maximum Achievable Control Tecllnolagy(MACT) 

for Industria/Boilers 

The four inter-related rules under this heading could lead to 

the highest job loss among all EPA's current rulemakings.' 1 

1he original proposed rule covered approximately 200,000 

boilers. As adopted in February 2011 v.rith minor cost-saving modifications, the regulation imposed the maximally 

stringent emission limits and monitoring requirements on 

a range of potentially hazardous air pollutants from !3,800 

boilers and heaters widely used by industries, manufacturers, mining, and refining, as well as from some commercial 

boilers in malls, laundries, apartments, restaurants, hotels, 

hospitals, and universities. 52 

In response to opposition from hundreds of congressional members, industry and organized labor, EPA again 

narrowed the scope of the new rule to cover only the apTexas Public Policy rounaat1on 
428 


27600.382

~ebruary 2012 

proximately 13,000 largest boilers. EPA estimates the cost 

of compliance with the final rule at $3.8 billion. By contrast, the Council on Industrial Boilers puts the cost at 

over $14 billion, with potential loss of230,000 jobs across 

26 sectors.~' 

In contrast with emission controls based on Best Available 

Commercial Technology-understood as well-established 

and commercially used technology-the new EPA rule dictates Rolls Royce-like technology supposedly based on the 

"best performing" units in existence. Yet many of the businesses identified as the "best performing" claim the emission limits-set at barely detectable levels-are not achievable. 'The United Steel Workers and other unions claim the 

rule could send 700,000 current U.S. jobs to other countries. The pulp and paper industry contends that this rule 

will force closure of30 mills and end 17,000 US. jobs." 

After final issuance of the rule, pressure from Congress 

and organized labor increased. EPA accepted a petition for 

reconsideration of the rule. In early December 2011, EPA 

proposed a new version of the rule further narrowing the 

scope of the new standards to the largest 5,500 industrial 

boilers. EPA estimates the cost at $2.3 billion.5

s 

4. Portland Cement Kiln Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standard.s 

The u.s: economically essential cement industry competes 

with low-cost cement from China, produced with far tCwer, if any, environmental restraints. Finalized in September 

2010, EPA:s harsh new dictates would bind 165 of the 181 

Portland cement kilns operating in the U.S. 56 Many in the 

cement industry argue that no cement kiln in the U.S. has 

ever actually achieved the level of control EPA now mandates as MACT. 57 Weaknesses in EPA's justification of the 

Utility MACT equally apply to these MACT standards for 

industrial boilers and cement kilns. 

The Portland Cement Association finds that, under the 

new rule, up to 18 plants may close, causing Chinese cement imports to increase from a current 20 million tons to 

48 million. Even EPA admits the rule will decrease U.S. cement production by 8 to 15 percent. 5

8 This is an example of 

an EPA regulation that may not only cost many American 

workers their jobs, but which will actually be worse for the 

global environment in the long run, by moving industrial 

wwwtexaspol1cy.corr; 

EPA's Approaching Regulatory Avalanche 

production to the countries without strictly enforced emis~ 

sion controls. 

On December 9, 2011, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals 

stayed a portion of the new regulation. 59 The cement kiln 

rules are the first of the cluster of new EPA rules to be reviewed on the merits by the federal courts. The court found 

EPA's failure to give adequate notice to the cement manufacturers was an "arbitrary and capricious" violation of the 

Administrative Procedures Act governing federal rulemaking. As the court noted in overturning the cement rule, 

"reasonable decision~making is not a dispensable part of 

the administrative machine that can be blithely discarded 

even in pursuit of a laudable goal. EPA badly needs to be 

reminded of this fact:'@ 

5. Power Plant Cooling Water Intake Structure 

(CWIS)Rule 

Many coal, nuclear, oil, and gas steam power plants use 

cooling systems that withdraw surface water to condense 

steam, allow cooling in holding ponds, and then return the 

water to the river or stream. EPA plans to require far costlier closed-cycle technology such as cooling towers for all 

steam-generating power plants to replace the cooling ponds 

and other site-specific facilities now authorized by state 

agencies.61 EPA:s new one-size-fits-all performance standards may cost an estimated $64 billion, affect 444 plants 

(30 percent of the existing U.S. electric generating capacity), 

and reduce net generation up to 4 percent. The new requirements would force major retrofits of those 444 plants.62 

There are no human health impacts involved. Acting under the Clean Water Act, EPA's concern is "impingement" 

mortality of fish and "entrainment" of their eggs and larvae, 

reduction of which, according to EPA's dictated methods, 

may cost $64 billion and jeopardize electric reliability. An 

offer by the electric power industries to replenish fish numbers fell upon deaf ears at EPA. Adoption of this rule is anticipated in the spring of2012. 

6. Coal Combust/an Residual Rule 

This rule covers fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag and synthetic 

gypsum-all valuable residuals after coal combustion. EPA 

proposed a rule in june 2010 but has not yet decided whether the fly ash remaining after coal-fired generation should 
429 


27600.383

f::PA's Approaching Hegulatory Avalanche 

To date, regulatory to meet 

the federal ozone standards have affected 

more states and cost businesses, states, 

and local governments far more than any 

other EPA regulatory program, 

continue to be recycled as a commercially valuable mate~ 

rial in cement, road surfacing, and dry wall or whether EPA 

should mandate disposal as a solid or hazardous waste.6

·

1 

Estimated compliance costs in the event of a solid waste 

classification are about S43 billion; in the case of a hazard~ 

ous waste classification, more than $80 billion. These costs 

do not reflect the lost revenue from sale of the residuals, a 

recycling that reduces electric rates, and the purchase price 

of road and building materials. EPA has scheduled adop~ 

tion of this rule in july 2012. 

7. New National Ambient Air Quality Standard for 

Ozone64 

To date, regulatory obligations to meet the federal ozone 

standards have affected more states and cost businesses, 

states, and local governments far more than any other EPA 

regulatory program. No sooner do states near compliance 

with one standard than EPA strengthens the standard. Un~ 

der a White House directive to revisit rules adopted by 

the George W Bush administration, EPA proposed a new 

ozone standard in January 2010, reversing the standard adopted less than two years earlier by reinterpreting existing 

data.65 

After multiple delays, EPA sent the final ozone rule pack~ 

age to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

final review in the summer of 2011. Adoption of the rule 

was anticipated in late August 2011. On September 2, 20!1, 

President Obama, against general expectations, asked EPA 

to withdraw the pending owne standard until 2013-the 

year after the presidential election.66 

EPA later stated that the agency would begin implementation of the 75 parts per billion (ppb) ozone standard adopted in 2008 under the Bush administration that was never 

February 2012 

implemented. 'lhe legal authority for EPA:s withdrawal of 

the proposed standard after the final rule was sent to OMB 

is questionable. Environmental organizations now challenge in federal court EPA:s v.ithdrawal of the standard. 

Many states, business associations, industries and a coalition called Unions for Jobs and the Environment commented that the proposed standard "would lead to significant job 

losses during a period of high unemployment." EPA estimated the implementation costs of the proposed standard 

at $90 billion."' 

Many toxicologists and physicians challenge EPXs scientific 

justification for an ozone standard lower than the current 

85 ppb."' As with the Utility MACT and other new regulations, EPA relies on inconsistent, cherry-picked, and vague 

epidemiological studies and on a reinterpretation of a clinical trial to justify tightening the ozone standard. Dr. Roger 

McClellan, former chairman of EPA's Clean Air Scientific 

Advisory Committee (CASAC), testified before Congress 

that lowering the standard below 85 ppb "is a policy judgment based on a flawed and inaccurate presentation of the 

science lhat should inform policy decision:'69 

According to the Congressional Research Service, EPAS 

current proposal for a standard as low as 60-70 ppb would 

increase the number of federally shackled non-attainment 

counties from currently 85 to as many as 650 (out of 3,000 

American counties).70 A federal ozone standard as low as 

60 ppb could mean as many as 12 non~attainment areas in 

Texas. Yet states lack the legal authority to control the remaining emissions driving ozone formation from mobile 

sources such cars, trucks, and construction equipment. Af~ 

ter imposing strict controls on stationary industrial sources 

of ozone emissions, it is the mobile-not industrial-sources that now predominate. Regulation of mobile sources 

through engine and fuel standards is a federally preempted 

power. EPA needs to accept responsibility for the mobile 

source emissions that are beyond state conlrol. 

After EPA adopts a new ozone standard, the agency designates certain counties-and more often entire Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)-as being in attainment 

or non-attainment of the standard. A federal ozone non~ 

attainment designation shackles economic growth by establishing a ceiling on otherwise natural economic growth 

rexas P1..blic Policy FoLndation 
430 


27600.384

February 20:2 

by imposing a cap on ozone precursor emissions. 'Jhcse 

precursors are nitrogen oxides and volatile organic com~ 

pounds-emissions resulting from combustion of fossil 

fuels. 

The CAA requires that states develop and implement fed~ 

erally enforceable State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to attain the NAAQS. On pain of sanctions to the states-loss 

of highway funds, a freeze on road construction, or revocation of state authority through imposition of a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP)-EPA must approve the SIPs. 

EPA also uses its authority over SIPs to control any state 

program or regulation remotely connected to air quality. In 

late December 2009, EPA issued an automatically efifctive 

FIP on Texas because the Texas Commission on Environ~ 

mental Quality refused to regulate GHG under what the 

state considered were EP& unlawful terms and timetable. 

Promulgated as an "Interim Final Rule:' without a process 

for notice and comment as required by the CAA, this automatic FIP is the first in EPA history. 71 

Continually expanded by EPA, the SIP process has become 

an expensive and administratively formidable burden on 

states, without much corresponding benefit in air quality. 

A 2004 study by the National Research Council concluded 

that the complexity of the SIP process is counter-produc~ 

tive, "The process now mandates extensive amounts of time 

and resources in a legalistic, often frustrating proposal and 

review process which focuses primarily on compliance with 

intermediate process steps. 'I his process probably discourages innovation and experimentation at the state and local 

levels; overtaxes the limited financial and human resources 

available ... and draws resources away from the more germane issue of ensuring progress towards the goal of meeting the NAAQS:'n 

8. New Particulate Matter 2..5 (PM) NAAQS73 

EPA may propose a new particulate matter (PM) standard 

that is twice as strict as the current standard. As the chief 

toxicologist for the TCEQ testified to the U.S. Congress: 

"1here is no scientific basis for supporting a reduction of 

the current standard, let alone a hvo-fold reduction."74 

EPA used a single study epidemiological study which "suggested" that exposure to PM at levels lower than the current 

standard had adverse health effects. EPA then assumes that 

r:PA's Approaching Regulatory Avalanche 

PM levels below the current standard ''caused" the health 

effects. EPA discounted or entirely disregarded the many 

other toxicological or clinical studies that found the current 

standard to be protective of human health/'' 

EPA calculates enormous benefits from stricter PM standards. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson went so far as to 

claim that a new PM standard would "be more valuable 

than a cure for cancer:'76 In the last several years, U.S. deaths 

attributed to cancer have exceeded 500,000 per year. When 

asked by Congress to verify such a claim was based, Jackson 

said the data were not publicly available. Congress has since 

begun a series of hearings to question EPA about the science on which it relies to establish human health risks and 

to receive recommendations to reform EPA science. Since 

2009, EPA has vastly magnified the level of health risks it 

correlates with lower and lower levels of pollutants. EPA has 

begun to calculate risks even below the background levels 

of pollutants, particularly for fine PM. This approach of assigning risk from ambient exposures way below the safe 

range established in the NAAQS is not credible." 

Significant controversy concerns whether EPA will regulate 

country dust-now called "coarse particulate matter" -under the new standard. Is this one infinitely wealthy country or what? EPA has long regulated PM 10 (particles of 10 

microns or less) as a criteria pollutant but exempted country dust until a standard change in 2006 that also included 

a standard for fine particulate matter {particles of 2.5 microns or less). It looks as though public health soon will 

require the paving or watering every country road in the 

United States. EPA's rules for Portland Cement and fly ash 

will make that pavement much more expensive. 

9. (ireenhouse Gas Regulation under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA)-Stationary Sources 

EPA's Endangerment Finding in December 2009 that GHG 

is harmful to human health and thus within the legal jurisdiction of the CAA triggers an unprecedented expansion of federal regulatory power.7

s Congress has repeatedly 

declined to pass law authorizing mandatory reduction of 

GHG. 

EPA began regulation of GHG under the CAA last January 2011 after rushing six successive rules over the finish 

line within a year. To assert regulation of GHG so quickly, 

----------·---··-----------·-----------------·---· ··----- -·----- www.texaspolicy.com 13 
431 


27600.385

l:PA's Approaching Regulatory Avalanche 

EPA ran roughshod over basic restraints of the Administrative Procedures Act and re\vrote the black letter language 

of the CAA. Because EPA concluded that regulation of 

GHG under the CAA would be absurd-increasing a current permitting universe of 14,700 to 6.1 million and adding $21 billion and 230,000 new employees in administrative costs-EPA "tailored" the applicability oflaw to narrow 

the scope?' EPA's Tailoring Rule triggers regulation only of 

large stationary sources like power plants and heavy industries annually emitting more than 100,000 tons of carbon 

dioxide equivalent. Current law mandates regulation of 

sources annually emitting more than 100 tons of traditional 

pollutants. 

EPA didn't bother to estimate the costs involved because the 

agency deemed its "tailoring" to be a "deregulatory" action. 

These initial rules for the largest sources are only "Phase 

I" of what the relevant science dictates would ultimately be 

mandatory reduction of 80 to 85 percent of carbon dioxide-a level not seen since the late 1890s. If the federal court 

overturns EPA's Tailoring Rule and upholds the Endangerment Finding, EPA will have no choice hut to regulate those 

6 million sources to include retail stores, hotels, hospitals, 

and large residences. The House of Representatives passed 

legislation hlocking EPA regulation of GHG under the 

CAA, but the Senate is not so inclined. At least 25 states 

have already chaUenged the regulations in federal court 

Apparently to mute controversy, EPA designed the initial 

phase ofGHG regulation to require relatively modest mea~ 

sures for energy efficiency based on Best Available Technology (BACT). EPA, however, retains the authority to dictate 

requirements on a case by case basis.80 This includes forcing 

a fuel switching from, for example, coal to natural gas. lhis 

perspective conflicts with EPA's 40-year implementation of 

the CAA's directive to regulate the specific process selected 

by the private party according to the BACT. 

The current EPA's regulatory method is tantamount to 

economic engineering-using CAA authority to protect 

public health in order to dictate the means of production. 

Although EPA has begun regulation of GHG with a light 

hand, it may soon be forced by the courts to up the regulatory ante with specific emission limits known as New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS). 

Fcbrcary 70' 2 

EPA's assertion of regulatory authority over GHG under the 

CAA generates regulatory uncertainty that is already chilling investment and job creation. The American Council 

of Capital Formation has estimated that for 2011 this first 

phase of EPA's GHG regulation would decrease business in~ 

vestment between $97 billion and $290 billion.s1 Much of 

that capital investment-and the jobs associated with itwill now move to countries without comparable environmental constraints. 

Green Nouse Gas Emission under the Clean Air 

Act"- Mobile Sources 

In November 2011, EPA issued GHG emission standards 

for passenger cars and light trucks for model years 2017-

2025.82 The standards are designed as a "corporate average 

fuel economy (CAfE) standard" or fleet average for each 

automaker. These emission limits are tantamount to fuel 

economy standards, because reducing the amount of fuel 

consumed is the only way to reduce CO,-that which remains after complete combustion of the tr;nsportation fuel. 

Set at an average of 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2025, 

EPA:s new tailpipe standard is twice as strict as the 27 mpg 

standard currently in effect. '!his new standard follows the 

first GHG standard issued in May 2010 for model years 

2012~2017. 

For 35 years, Congress, not a regulatory agency, has legislated specific fuel economy standards through a CAFE pro" 

gram and tasked the National Highway Traffic Safety Ad" 

ministration (NHTSA) with implementing the standard.8 ' 

In 2007, Congress increased the CAFE standard to 35 mpg 

by 2020. Congress directed NHTSA to balance vehicle 

safety, consumer demand, and economic impacts ·with fuel 

economy in the CAFE program. 

EPA issued the new GHG standards for vehicles in conjunction with NHTSA, but EPA apparently dominated the 

process, giving no consideration to safety, consumer preference, technological limits, or cost 

EPA calculates the cost of the GHG fuel standards at $157 

billion, but this amount covers only the automakers' investment in developing new technology. This industry, already 

fexas Public i)oiicy foundation 
432 


27600.386

February 70' 7 

struggling to meet the 35 mpg standard, predicts that EPA:S 

new standard will increase the cost of a vehicle by $3,100 

in 2025. Today's lower-priced vehicles may be priced out of 

existence. And safety will be compromised by the necessity 

of reducing the mass of a car by 15 to 25 percent. 

'lhe Obama administration's confidence that hybrids and 

electric vehicles will make compliance with a CAFE standard as high as 54.5 mpg readily achievable is increasingly 

dubious. The sale ofhyhrid vehicles reached a high point of 

3 percent of new sales in 2008 and has been steadily declining. 1he outlook for increasing sales of electric vehicles is 

similarly grim. 

Conclusion 

Congress should reclaim its constitutional authority to control EPAs implementation of the CAA and return to the 

states the primary authority to implement the law. Under 

this now 40-year old statute, EPA keeps finding discretionary latitude to expand regulatory scope and to impose infeasible standards on the basis of weak science, "\vith fewer 

legitimately measurable benefits for human health. In the 

CAA and other federal environmental laws, Congress delegated broad law-making authority to EPA. 

Under the current administration, EPA is stretching that 

broad authority to drive an energy policy repeatedly rejected by Congress. Regulatory impacts of the magnitude 

likely under EPAS agenda-compliance costs in the billions, loss of coal-fired electric generation threatening the 

sufficiency of the nation's bulk power supply and job loss in 

the hundreds of thousands-are ultimately policy choices, 

certainly not purely scientific decisions. lhe elected members of Congress, not unelected federal employees at EPA, 

should make these momentous decisions. Federal legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in the fall 

o£2011 offers a simple but game-changing means of restoring congressional accountability within the federal system. 

'lhe Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny 

Act (REINS Act) requires that a major rule of the executive 

agencies "shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution [of approval] is enacted into laW.'84 

www.texaspo!icy.com 

EPA's Approaching Regulatory Avalanche 

Regulatory impacts of the magnitude 

likely under EPA's agenda-compliance 

costs in the billions, loss of coal-fired 

electric generation threatening the 

sufficiency of the nation's bulk power 

and job loss in the hundreds 

of thousands-are ultimately policy 

choices, certainly not purely scientific 

decisions. 

1he CAA also could be strategically amended to establish more rigorous scientific standards and regulatory impact analyses, to utilize performance standards, to require 

multi-pollutant regulatory coordination, and to reaffirm 

the CAJI.s original federalist structure." The CAA clearly 

stipulates that EPA will set national environmental standards and that the states will make the decisions on how 

to implement and attain the standards. This division of authority has eroded over the years and in the last 24 months 

discarded. EPA treats states as regional offices of the federal 

government.i!6 The states' primary authority to manage air 

quality needs to be restored and strengthened. 

EPA's multi-pronged regulatory assault is too much, too fast 

and lacks sufficiently robust science and measurable benefits to justify this "regulatory spree unprecedented in U.S. 

history:'"'* 

15 
433 


27600.387

EPA's Approaching Regulatory Avalanche February 2012 

Endnotes 

~ North American Electric Reild:JIIi~y Corporation, "201 0 Speoal R:eliab:l1ty Scenario Assessme'l1: Resource Adequacy lmpacb of Potential US Enwonmenta' Regulatio'ls" (Oct 201 0) 

' Kathleen HartnettWh:te,"Tamlng :he caurth Branch ofGovernment;'Texas Public Poi•cy =ounda:·on Pol1cy Perspective (Oct. :?011). 

'Jac~son Gets Real," PolmcoMorning Energy (24 Oct. 2011) 

' UP:ted States Environme'l1al ProtectiOil Agercy, Office of Air QJal ty Pla>:rJwg and S:andards, "Our Nation's Air, Smtus and 7 rends Througr 2008;· 

(2010) 

8 1- !aywa~d. JO 11 Almaf1ac of Enwonmental Trends 

21 "Aud1o: Ooama :e·ls SF Chro'licle He Wil 3an-<'t..Dt Coa: lnd\.,stry;· Newsbusters (2 Nov. 2008) iF. 

Lo.-,g Term Reliabili:y Assessment" 

:A Southwest Power Dool. :nc to The Ho'loran:e L:sa Jackson \20 Sept 2011); See also Public Service CommiSSIOn of South Caro':rJa to the Federa 

3

'' Peter A. Valberg, Ph.D, 

(Outdoor) A1r"(8 Sept. 2011) 

Sept.2011.) 

'" Michael Honeycutt, Ph 0, ~exas Commission on fnv;roromental Qualt:y. "Comments Regarding the Pr:mary National Ambient Air Quality S:andards 

for OLOne and ?M, a'ld the Util"ty MACT""(40ct. 2011) 

l6 

'

8 !bid 

l'! Ibid 

July201 1 ) 

Center for Disease Contra: and Prevent1on (CDC) 2009. Nat'onal Heaith and Nut'""it:on Examination Survey (NHANES). 

E1v1ronmenta Quality, Response to questions '>t..bm:r::ed for the record by mem-

\fS:-'AP Rule, Foo .. s1"9 on Mercury :='T'iSSion Issues;' Sci-

"Econom:c :m:Jacts of E;JA's Transoor: Rule and t'le Utility MACT Ruic"(JU'le 2011). 

Texas Public Policy Foundation 
434 


27600.388

February 2012 EPA's Approaching Regulatory Avalanche 

00 76 Fed. Reg. 28662 (18 May 2011) 

William Kovacs, Se'liorV,ce President of U.S. Cha'l!ber of Commerce to the Honorable Oa•rellssa (19 Dec 201 0). 

"~ 75 f:ed Reg. 54970 {9 Sept 2010) 

'

1 "The Economic Impacts of Cement 1"ldustry 'iegu!atiO!lS; The Proposed Portland Cement NESHAP Rule," Bernard We1'iste1n, Maguire Energy !nstitute, Southern Methodist University (Feb. 201 0). 

'" 75 Fed. Reg. 5<1970 {9 Sept. 2010) 

>Q Portland Cement Ass'n v. EPA, No.1 0-1358, 2011 

June 20'0). 

6' 75 Fed. Reg. 2938 {19 Jan. 201 0) 

Requirements for Cooling Water ntake Structures at Existing Faci;ities;EPA fact sheet (28 Ma·. 2011)_ 

6

° Kathleen Hartnett Wh1te, "Texas'OzorJe Success: Cha'lgmg Standards Mask Texas· Air Quality Achievements;' Armstrong Center for Energy & Enwon~ 

Public Policy Fou'ldation (May 2010) 

5 Kathieen Hartnett Wh1te,"Texas'Ozone Success: Changmg Standards Mask Texas' Air Quality Ac'llevements;' Armstrong Center for Energy & Environ-

'llent, fex.as Public Policy Foundat1on (May 2010). 

(•) Ibid. 

·~ Ibid. 

'

1 40 CFH Part 52. 

'" Testimony of EPA Administrator L1sa Jackson before the Un1ted States House of Representative Committee on Energy and Commerce {22 Sept. 

2011). 

Anne E. SmiP\ Ph D., "An Evaluaton of t'"\e PM?.S tlealth Benefits Est: mates 1n Regulatory !"'pact A.1alyses for RE'ccnt A1r Rcgdanons."National 

Econom1c Research AssoCiates {20 Dec. 2011) 

" 7 4 Fed. Reg. 66496 (i 5 Dec. 2009) 

'

9 75Fed.Reg.31514(3June2010) 

¥~ Dav1d 

~(· Steve Nov·c..; and Gill Westerfield, 

18, Issue 2, Ar~1c,e 2 (1994) 

Poi!t:cs," The Wall Street Journal (8 Mar. 2011). 

www.texaspolicy.com 17 
435 


27600.389

About the Author 

Kathleen Hartnett White JOined the Texas Public Policy ~oundation 1n January 2008. She is a Distinguished Senior Fellowin Res1oence and Director of the Armstrong Center for t:nen;;y & the f:nwonf'lent 

Prior to JOining the Foundation, Wh1te served a six year terf'"'l as Cha1rman and CommiSSioner of the Texas Commission on 

EnvironfT',ental Quality (TCtQ). With regulatory jurisdiction over air quality, water auality, water rights & utilities, storage 

and disoosai of waste, TCfQ's staff of 3,000, annual budget of over $600 million, and 16 regional offices make ,t the second 

largc:st mvironmcntal regulatory agency 1n the world a:ter the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Pnor to Governor Rick Perry's appointment of White to the TCEO in 2001, she served as then Governor George Bush 

appomtee to the Texas Water Development Board where she sat until appointed to TCEQ. She also served on the Texas 

Economic Development Commission and the Lr.v·ronrnentc:l Flow) Study Commission. She is '"'OW servi:-'g in her fifth 

gubernatorial appo1n:ment as an officer and director of the: :_ower Co! ora do 1Ner Author·ty. 

Wr ·te IS also co-owner of Wh1te llerelords and a partner With her hus~and 1n a 1 )5 year-old ranching operation in Jeff 

Davis and Presidio counties. She also is V1ce Cha1rman of the Texas Water Foundation and sits on the board 0: the Texas 

Natural Resource Fot..ndation. She recently rece1veo the 2007 Texas Water Conservation Assooation's President's award, the 

Colorado River roundation's Fnend of the River Award ana the lcxas Chemical Council's leadership Award 

A writer and const.;ltant on enwoniT'entallaw<;, rrce rrarket natural resource policy, private property rights, and ranching 

history, White received her bachelor cur> laude and master oegrees from Stanford University where for three years she 

held the Elizabeth Wheeler lyman Scholarship ~or an Outstanding Woman in the HumanitieS. She was also awarded 

a Danforth National Fellowship 'or doctoral work at Princeton Un1vers1ty in Comparative Religion and there won the 

Jonathan rcwaras Award for Acadcrtic Excellence. She also stuo1ea law Uflcer a Lineberry FoLndation Fellowship at Tech 

University 

Texas Public Policy Foundation 

The icxas Public Policy r oundat1on is a 501 (c)3 non-pro<:;t, non-oartisan research institut2 "'he r.:oundation's miss!on is 

to promote and defend liberty personal responsibility, and free enterprise 1n Texas and the nation by eaucating ana 

affecting policymakers and thP rexa<, public policy deoate 'Nth academically sound research and outreach 

I unded by thousaflds o: individual<>, foundations, and corporations, the roundation aocs not accept government +uncs 

or contnbutions to mfluence the o~Jtcome<; of its ~eseare: 

I he public !'.i dc:manding c1 different din-'Ciion for thc1r government r1nd the lexds '\_:bile Policy Foundation is provid:ng 

the ideas that enabk, policymakers to chart that new COL1rse 
436 


27600.390

Kathleen Hartnett White: The EPA's regulatory avalanche 1 Commentary! Dallas 1\'ews 

Topics 

EDITORIALS COMMENTARY LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 

DALLAS' NORTH-SOUTH GAP 

Don't miss a story. Like us on Face book. 

Contact 

Us 

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion!commentary/20 12/02/05Jkathlcen-hartnett-'l.vhite-the-epa.Hegulatory-avalanche[ 11/7/20 l7 5:43:29 PMl 
437 


27600.391

Kathleen Hartnett White: I'he EPA's regulatory avalanche I Commentary Dallas News 

The nation's most powerful regulatory agency. the Environmental Protection Agency, is on a collision course 

with America's still-fragile economic recovery. As I outline in a report published Monday by the Texas Public 

Policy Foundation, 10 to 25 major EPA rules are scheduled to take effect over the next few years, each with a 

multibillion-dollar price tag and highly debatable benefits for public health. 

In 2010, EPA regulations accounted for $23 billion of the estimated $26 billion total cost of new federal 

regulation. Expect a far higher tab from this new batch. 

Consider the mercury rule restricting emissions from power plants, finalized last Dec. 21. At $11 billion, the rule 

is the EPA's most expensive ever. 

An independent analysis by the National Economic Research Association found that the rule could increase 

average retail electric rates between 12 and 24 percent and lead to 180,000 annual job losses through 2020. 

The National Electricity Reliability Council concluded that the rule, in conjunction with other EPA rules, could 

force the closure of 8 percent of the nation's total electric generation. 

For such a costly rule to be justified, common sense begs for commensurate benefits. Although the EPA claims 

huge benefits from the rule, only $6 million, or 0.004 percent of the $140 billion of alleged health benefits, 

comes from reducing mercury. The rest supposedly derives from coincidental reductions in fine particulate 

matter (i.e, dust) long regulated by the EPA at a level fully protective of human health. 

Even total elimination of mercury emissions from U.S. power plants would not decrease the risk of mercury 

exposure at harmful levels. Deposition of mercury is a global phenomenon to which U.S power plants 

contribute less than 0.5 percent. Natural sources such as volcanoes and fires dwarf all man-made releases. 

Nevertheless, the EPA devised a safe mercury limit two to three times stricter than the World Health 

Organization and the federal Food and Drug Administration. 

The mercury rule is just the beginning. Using the same faulty analysis, the EPA has cranked out new 

restrictions on everything from cement kilns to industrial boilers and new federal ozone standards approaching 

or below natural levels that would exist without human activity 

The EPA has also asserted authority to regulate carbon emissions. It is now treading lightly on greenhouse 

gases, but federal courts may force the EPA to regulate as the law requires. This means, by the EPA's own 

estimate, regulation of more than 6 million facilities- including hotels and schools- and the need for 230,000 

additional EPA employees. 

The sheer volume. stringency and speed of EPA's new regulations might suggest that America has an air 

https:ih>vv.·.dal\asnews.com/opinion!commcntary/20 12/02/05/kathleen·hartnett·..,.hitc-the-epas-regulatory·avalanchcfll/7/20 17 5:43:29 PM] 
438 


27600.392

Kathleen Hannett White: The EPA's regulatory avalanche! Cr>mmentary! Dallas News 

quality crisis. Indeed, this is exactly the impression that the agency's top brass conveys. On HBO's Real Time 

With Bill Maher, Administrator Lisa Jackson said: "We are actually at the point in many areas of this country 

where on a hot summer day, the best advice you can give is don't go outside. Don't breathe the air. It may kill 

you.' 

The reality is quite different. As the EPA's own data indicates, the last several decades have seen remarkable 

improvements in air quality in the United States. Since 1970, aggregate emissions of the six criteria pollutants 

regulated under the Clean Air Act have decreased 53 percent. The EPA's Taxies Release Inventory documents 

a 65 percent reduction since 1988. And mercury emissions have declined by 58 percent between 1990 and 

2008. 

The EPA's actions over the past three years represent a disturbing departure from the relatively balanced 

Incremental, scientifically justified regulations evolving over the 40-year history of the Clean Air Act. The act. 

however. no longer furthers cost-efficient regulation based on rigorous science. And its broad delegation of 

authority to the EPA is easily manipulated by activist regulators determined to impose energy policies 

repeatedly rejected by Congress. 

Absent decisive congressional action, it may be many years before our economy digs out from the crushing 

cost of the EPA's regulatory avalanche. 

Kathleen Hartnett White is director of the Armstrong Center for Energy and Environment at the Texas Public 

Policy Foundation. Slw was commissioner and chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

from 2001 to 2007. She may be contacted at khwhite@texaspolicy.com. 

Get the Most Important D-FW News in Your In box 

Sign up for our daily email newsletters 

I your@emaiLcom I 

Get Headlines, Business, SportsDay, and Guide live. 

0 

Daily Headlines 

0 

Business Report 

0 

SportsDay 

0 

Guide Live (weekly) 

https://,nvw.dallasnews.com/opinion/cr>mmentary/20 12/02/05/kathlccn-hartnett-white-the-cpas-regulatory-ava!anche{l ! 17/2017 5:43:29 P\-11 
439 


27600.393
440 


27600.394

May 2010 

Kathleen Hartnett White 

Armstrong Center for Energy & Environment 

Texas Public Policy Foundation 

Table of Contents 

executive Summary ... . ..... 3 

Introduction .................................................................. 4 

SIDEBAR: What is Ozone' .................................................... 5 

Ozone Levels Dramatically Reduced Across 

Texas: 1999· 2009 ... . .............. 6 

Federal Ozone Standards: 

A Constantly Moving Target ... .. ................... 10 

Consequences forT exas: EPA's Proposed New 

Ozone Standard 60-70 ppb..... . ........ 10 

The Quality of Science Matters ....... ._ ............................ 12 

Conclusion ... . ................................... 14 

Endnotes .. . ............ 16 

Appendix: Texas Ozone Reduction Efforts ........ 17 
441 


27600.395

Texas' Ozone Success: Changing Standards 

Mask Texas' Air Quality Achievements 

"Establishing a new more stringent air quality standard for Ozone will 

significantly increase the number of ozone non-attainment areas nationwide 

and many counties within these areas will, for the first time, experience the 

stigma and compliance challenges of being Ozone Non-Attainment areas, 

including restrictions on growth, jobs and sustained economic development:' 

'I he National Conference of Black Mayors, Resolution of May 4, 2007. 

Executive Summary 

I

n January 2010, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced 

plans to change the ozone standard for the 

third time in the last six years. The agency's proposal of an ozone standard from 70 parts per 

billion (ppb) to 60 ppb would, if adopted, have 

widespread impacts across Texas and the nation. Among the 3,000 counties in the United 

States, 85 violate the current federal standard. 

Under an ozone standard as low as the EPJ\s 

proposed 60 ppb, that number would likely increase to 650 counties-every county with an 

ozone monitor. 

To meet the new standard, the state must develop and submit an elaborate State Implementation Plan (SIP) to demonstrate attainment 

by the requisite date. Failure to develop an approvable SIP and to meet the standards at the 

attainment date can trigger multiple sanctions 

imposed on the state including loss of federal 

highway funds, federal regulatory controls, and 

a freeze of road construction. 

www.texaspolicy.com 

Although the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) gives 

the EPA broad technical discretion to evaluate 

science and set standards, the weaknesses in the 

science behind the January 2010 proposal merit 

judicial review. To avoid litigation is a dangerous precedent, conceding unlimited scope to 

the EPJ\s regulatory jurisdiction. 

Ozone non-attainment status shackles state authority and economic growth. 1be scientific justification of the EPA:s actions must be thoroughly reviewed and legally challenged if necessary. 

The CAA should be amended to set minimal 

criteria for scientific rigor and risk assessment. 

Cost-effectiveness analvses must be a factor in 

establishing the Natio~al Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). Equally important, the 

process for developing State Implementation 

Plans must be streamlined. 
442 


27600.396

f exas' Ozone Success: Changing Stancards Mask lcxas' Air Quality Achievements May 2010 

Introduction 

America is a rare nation, prosperous enough to 

impose federal air quality standards protective 

of human health regardless of cost. However, the 

question remains, what ozone level provides adequate protection? The EPA can't quite decide 

where to set the federal ozone standard and so 

keeps raising the bar. 1 Many prominent scientists 

and medical doctors maintain that the standard 

currently in effect provides requisite protection 

of human health. 

"!he federally binding ozone limit remains the 

eight-hour, 85 ppb standard. On the basis of 

2009 monitored data, all but one Texas urban 

area now meet this standard. Texas has achieved 

an extraordinary improvement in air quality. 

Ozone (03), one of six federally regulated criteria 

pollutants, has long been the greatest air quality 

challenge in Texas urban areas. (See Sidebar: 

What is Ozone?) Ozone is a not a directly emitted 

pollutant but is the result of a photochemical 

reaction between oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Tailpipe 

emissions and common industrial processes 

produce NOx and/or VOCs. At certain levels 

and exposures, ozone is a respiratory irritant for 

sensitive groups. 

Texas, however, has improved ozone levels across 

the state. Against formidable odds, Texas has 

achieved a rare "win-win"-one for the environment and one for the economy. Over the last I 0 

years, while Texas has enjoyed record -setting economic growth, ozone lcvds have declined far more 

than in most other states. Over the same period, 

ever-green California has declined economically 

and lags far behind Texas in reducing ozone. 

From 1998-2008, the Texas economic growth rate 

of 38.8 percent out-performed the U.S. overall 

rate of 28 percent. Over the same period, ozone 

levels in the Houston region decreased from 120 

ppb in 1999 to 84 ppb in 2009. Houston met the 

operative federal ozone standard for the first 

time-an accomplishment few predicted. (See 

Figure I) At the same time that Texans' incomes 

and numbers were increasing, Texas air quality 

was improving. 

Figure 1: Eight-Hour Ozone Design Values for the 

Houston-GalvestorH3razoria (HGBl Area 

110 

100 

200'S NAAQS: 75 ppb 

-----------------

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 200fl 1007 2008 2009 

Note: /009 de'lign values based on average of 200710 2009 data, Design values as of November 13, )009 and are subject to change. 

Source: TCEQ Fmrssion fnven/Ory, Air Quality DrvJsion. AMOA: 2010 

fexas Pubiic Policy Founcation 
443 


27600.397

May 2010 Tcxas'OLOnc Swccess: Changing Standards Mask Texas' Air Quality Achievements 

The phenomenal Houston accomplishment, 

however, means much to air quality but nothing to the EPA. In January 2010, the EPA announced plans to change the ozone standard for 

the third time in the last six years. "!he agency's 

proposal of an ozone standard from 70 ppb to 

60 ppb would, if adopted, have widespread impacts across Texas and the nation. Among the 

3,000 counties in the U.S., 85 violate the current 

federal standard. Under an ozone standard as 

www.texaspolicy.corn 

low as the EPA's proposed 60 ppb, that number 

would likely increase to 650 counties-every 

county with an ozone monitor. 2 

Ozone non-attainment status shackles state authority and economic growth. The scientific justification of the EPA's actions must be thoroughly reviewed and legally challenged if necessary. 
444 


27600.398

lcxas' Ozone Success: Changing Standards Mask Texa:: A1r Quality Achlever'',ents lvlay 70'0 

Ozone Levels Dramatically 

Reduced Across Texas: 1999-2009 

Consider the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 

(HGB) region, home of the largest concentration of petrochemical industries in the nation 

and with an optimal climate for ozone formation. Ozone readily forms in the presence of 

heat and sunlight and, thus, is predominantly 

a summer phenomenon. The interaction of 

such factors in Houston as long hot summers, 

gulf wind trajectories, petrochemical industrial 

emissions, and a large population readily maximize ozone formation. 

'lhe magnitude of Houston's ozone-reducing 

accomplishment cannot be explained away by 

unusual weather and wind trajectories, For 

years, HGB vied with Los Angeles as the most 

ozone-polluted, Le,, dirtiest, city in the country. Complex and coordinated efforts, however, 

drove a dramatic improvement in Houston's 

air quality. With monitored ozone levels of 84 

ppb in 2009, the HGB region attained the eighthour, 85 ppb federal standard. 

Over the last decade, Texas undertook a major 

effort to reduce ozone, Many elements worked 

together to produce this highly successful effort 

including: investment from industry and state 

and local governments; cutting-edge ozone science developed by the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ); multiple layers of stringent but creative TCEQ emission 

controls; and innovative technology and finetuned management. (See Appendix: Texas 

Ozone Reduction Efforts) 

Although Houston's improvement is the most 

dramatic, ozone levels have steadily decreased 

across the state, In each of the seven Texas regions with a past exceedance of the standard, 

ozone levels have steadily declined, (See Figure 

2 and Table 1) Indeed, all but one of the seven 

Texas regions with past ozone problems met the 

legally binding limit in 2009: an ozone design 

value under the eight-hour, 85 ppb standard.' 

Although ozone in the Dallas-Fort Worth region (DFW) has decreased far more than in 

most Texas areas, DFW is still slightly above 

Figure 2: Eight-Hour Ozone Design Values by MSA 

"" 

110 

50 

so 

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Note: 2009 design values based on averaqe of 2007 to 2009 data. Design values as of November ! 3, )009 and are subject to change, 

Source· TCEO Ern15510n Inventory, Atr Quality DiVISIOn, AMDA; ?0 ,1 0 

Texas Public Policy f oundanon 
445 


27600.399

May 20C 0 Texas'O?One Success. Changing Standards Mask 1exas' Air Quality Achievements 

Table 1: 2009 Ozone Design Values 

Source: /CEO Emrssion Inventory 

the standard, with a design value of 86 ppb in 

2009. (See Figure 3) By lowering the ozone 

level from 96-86 ppb in less than four years, 

DFW remains an outstanding example of air 

quality improvement. The challenge for DFW 

is more intractable than other Texas areas. An 

area heavily dominated by mobile sources of 

ozone emissions and with relatively few major 

industrial sources, DFW has limited means of 

directly reducing the majority of ozone forming emissions. 

'!be EPA distinguishes between stationary 

"point" source emissions (e.g., industrial facilities) and "mobile" source emissions (e.g., cars, 

trucks, and engines). Mobile sources include 

on-road tailpipe emissions from vehicles and 

off-road emissions from moveable equipment 

like cranes and bulldozers. Of critical importance, regulatory control of mobile sources is a 

federally preempt (i.e., exclusive) authority. '!be 

EPA regulates mobile sources largely through 

engine standards, tailpipe emission standards, 

and fuel specifications. 

Figure 3: Eight-Hour Ozone Design Values for the Oallas·Fort Worth Area 

iso 

! 

J SO !_,OOS_!AA!_S:!!~- ...... -"""" - .....,. -....., - - - ._ _.. _. 

70 Pmposed NMOS 70 ppb 

60 

50 

1900 :200!) '2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2006 2009 

Note: 2009 design vaiues based on average of 2007 to 2009 data. Design values as of November 13, /009 and are subject to change. 

Source: TCEQ Emission Inventory, /ur Quality Division, AA!JOA; 2010 

www tcxaspolicy.corn 
446 


27600.400

rexas· Ozone Success: Chonging Standards Mask rexas' Air Q~al!ty Ach1eve~ents May 20'0 

Federal law gives Texas the authority 

to regulate emissions from stationary 

or "point" sources, but the federal 

government retains exclusive 

authority over mobile sources. 

Federal law gives Texas the authority to regulate emissions from stationary or "point" sources, but the federal government retains exclusive 

authority over mobile sources. Although the 

state of Texas must comply with the ozone standard, the state does not have the legal authority to directly address the bulk of the problem. 

·n,e engine and fuel standards are appropriately 

of national, not state, provenance. State~only 

"boutique" fuels, of which California is so fond, 

have limited environmental effectiveness and 

undermine market economics for refiners and 

automakers. 

If a state cannot act to reduce emissions from 

the lion's share of the emissions creating ozone, 

the state is unlikely to attain a stricter standard in a short time frame. According to a 2008 

TCEQ emissions inventory, 79 percent of NOx 

emissions in DFW derive from mobile sources; only 10 percent derive from point sources. 

However stringently the state might control 

those 10 percent of industrial emissions, the 

volume of reductions potentially realized falls 

short of the volume necessary for attainment 

of the ozone standards. How can Texas attain a 

stricter ozone standard when 79 percent of the 

problem is outside the state's authority? 

Even in HGB, with a far larger volume of industrial emissions than DFW, mobile sources 

now dominate at 72 percent of NOx emissions. 

Emissions from the massive industrial facilities 

in the Houston petrochemical complex already 

are so effectively controlled that industrial NOx 

emissions now comprise only 22 percent of regional NOx emissions. (See Figures 4 & 5) 

However impossible, the state's attainment of 

the EPA standard is mandatory. If the state does 

not meet the federal limit by the prescribed date, 

the EPA can impose multiple sanctions including withdrawal of federal highway funds. To get 

around this legal impasse, the Texas Legislature, 

the TCEQ, and local governments throughout 

the nine-county DFW non-attainment region 

devised creative means to reduce mobile source 

emissions. 

EPA had adopted cleaner engine standards but 

the effective dates were not aligned with key 

ozone attainment dates. Thus, TCEQ sought 

and received special exemptions from EPA to 

require Texas Low Emission Diesel (TXLED), 

a low-NOx fuel. By TCEQ rule, all diesel sold 

east of 1-35 must meet the TXLED specifications. An expensive, complicated requirement 

for refiners, TXLED now provides limited, if 

any, emission benefits because a federal lower 

emission diesel is now in effect. 

The Texas Legislature also established a fund to 

incentivize early replacement of diesel-burning 

engines. 'Ihrough this Texas Emission Reduction Program (TERP), TCEQ has given grants 

in excess of $1 hillion for retrofit or replacement 

of engines, construction equipment, and trucks. 

'The TERP program grants originally motivated 

early purchase of the cleaner engines, not yet required by EPA's standards. For example, TERP 

grants of around $50 million went to railroads 

for replacement of switcher engines. The EPA 

has adopted requirements for these locomotive 

engines but the effective dates still remain in 

the future. The source of TERP funds is a surcharge of $15-$20 on new vehicular title fees. 

If the EPA had assumed its statutory responsibility to address mobile sources, e.g., through 

timely engine standards for locomotives, Texans could have kept this money. 

Texas Public Policy Fo~ndalion 
447 


27600.401

ON-ROAD 

ON-ROAD 

MOBilE NON-ROAD 

l\IIOBILE 
448 


27600.402

Texas' Ozone Success: Changing Standards MaskTexas'Air Quality Achievements May 2010 

10 

Federal Ozone Standard: 

A Constantly Moving Target 

Major reduction of ozone throughout Texas, unfortunately, is a fleeting achievement. In the last 

few years, the EPA has tightened the standard 

three times. For almost 25 years (1979-2004), 

the standard stayed the same. Since 2004, the 

EPA has promulgated three different standards: 

85 ppb, 75 ppb, and now a proposed standard 

between 60-70 ppb. 

Until the EPA finalizes the proposed standard 

and begins implementation by designation of 

non-attainment area, the eight-hour, 85 ppb 

standard sets the legal bar. Initially adopted by 

rule in 1997, the 85 ppb standard was not given 

legal force until 2004 with the designation and 

classification of non-attainment areas. 1be first 

attainment dates under the 85 ppb standard in 

Texas begin in 2010. 

Welcome to SIP Worldinefficient and arcane, long on 

convoluted process, short on 

results, and without Aexibility. 

Welcome to SIP World-inefficient and arcane, 

long on convoluted process, short on results, 

and without flexibility. In the summer of 2007, 

less than a month after Texas adopted the massive State Implementation Plans for compliance 

with the 85 ppb standard, the EPA formally proposed a lower 75 ppb standard. A wide range of 

credentialed scientists formally questioned the 

EPKs scientific justification for the change. In 

March 2008, however, the EPA adopted that 75 

ppb standard. Now it wants to set the standard 

far lower. Under a White House directive to reconsider rule changes made by the Bush Administration, the EPA proposed in january 2010 an 

ozone standard within a 60-70 ppb range. Final 

adoption is expected in August 2010. 

TCEQ's development of ozone SIPs is a herculean administrative and scientific task involving several years of preparation. A legally approvable SIP requires major state expenditures, 

complex photochemical modeling, reams of 

technical analyses, heaps of emission inventories, and adoption of multiple rules to impose 

enforceable control measures. Far from being 

a minor amendment to an existing SIP, a new 

ozone standard means starting all over again. 

Complex SIP control measures mean local governments and private businesses must scrap 

current SIPs and plan anew for regulations, expenditures, and technologies likely necessary 

under a stricter standard. In january 2010, less 

than one month after Texas ozone monitors 

showed attainment of the 85 ppb standard, the 

EPA changed the standard. 

Consequences for Texas: 

EPA's Proposed New Ozone 

Standard 60-70 ppb 

Among Texas urban areas, only DFW remains 

in non-attainment status measured under the 

current 85 ppb standard. Yet, only a few of the 

many ozone monitors in DFW recorded levels 

above the standard. Thus, air quality throughout most of the DFW region meets the standard. 

The gradual turnover of the vehicle fleet should 

bring DFW below the 85 ppb standard without 

any additional control measures. Exhaust from 

new cars emits up to 88 percent less NOx than 

cars manufactured in 2000.4 

A federal ozone standard of 75 ppb or lower, 

however, would mean non-attainment status in 

many areas of Texas-as many as eight if the EPA 

changes the standard to 70 ppb, up to I2 if the 

standard is 60 ppb, the lowest figure on the EPKs 

proposed range. Astonishingly, these 12 areas 

would include Brewster county in Big Bend, one 

of the most sparsely populated counties in the 

Texas, Public Policy Foundation 
449 


27600.403

May 2010 Texas' Ozone Success: Changing Standards Mask Texas' Air Quality Achievements 

United States. A standard of 60 ppb approaches 

natural background ozone levels in parts of Texas. (See Figure 6) 

Under the still operative 85 ppb standard, the 

EPA tagged three Texas areas-HGB, DFW, and 

BPA-for non-attainment. Areas such as Austin and San Antonio were labeled Near NonAttainment Areas, a status with relatively light 

regulatory implications. The EPA draws nonattainment boundaries with a broad brush, typically including entire Metropolitan Statistical 

Areas (MSAs) surrounding one or several core 

urban counties exceeding the standard. Thus, 

the DFW non-attainment area now comprises 

12 counties around Dallas and Tarrant counties. These 12 may not have monitored violation 

of the standard but, when legally designated as 

non-attainment areas, all federal requirements 

apply. 

Federal ozone non-attainment 

status has major consequences for 

the public and private sectors. 

Federal ozone non-attainment status has major 

consequences for the public and private sectors. 

The administrative and technical requirements 

imposed on state and local governments create 

an ongoing and costly burden. 1he cost to private business is substantial, involving layers of 

regulation, emission control technology costing billions of dollars, and limits to growth. A 

federal non-attainment designation for a multicounty MSA like HGB or DFW immediately 

sets a ceiling on otherwise natural economic 

growth. The EPA's proposed stricter standard 

could lead to a non-attainment area beginning 

at the Texas-Oklahoma border above Dallas, extending through Austin to below San Antonio. 

Figure 6:2009 Primary Ozone Design Values by Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) 

MSA 

DFW 86 --------------

HGB 84 

BPA 77 

TLM 75 

ELP 75 

AUS 75 

SAN 74 

WACO 72-

cc 69 

l009 Design 

Values (ppb) 

Note: n Waco Mazanec 0037 monitor wif! not have three complete years of data until April 2010. 

***Brewster county, where Big Bend is located, is not part of an MSA. 

Source: TCEQ Emission fnvemory, Air Quality Division, AMOA; 207 0 

www.texaspolicy.com 11 
450 


27600.404

Texas'Ozor1e Success: Changing Standards Mask Texas' Air Quality Achievements May 2010 

12 

Non-attainment status requires "offsetting" 

emission reductions. Among multiple regulations, any new source of industrial emissions 

must come up with a volume of emission reductions equal to or greater than expected 

emissions from the new or expanded source. 

Offsets are usually purchased at a high price if 

they can be found. When industries plan to relocate or open a new plant, they typically avoid 

a site within a non-attainment area. 

Emissions from industries in HGB, DFW, and 

BPA already are stringently regulated with 

state-of-the-art control technologies. (See Appendix) Consequently, most remaining ozone 

emissions are from mobile sources. Only two 

of the eight Texas areas likely destined for nonattainment status under the EPXs proposed 

standard have more industrial emissions (point 

sources) than mobile sources. (See Table 2) 

Under a 75 ppb or lower standard, the state 

has few emission sources under its jurisdiction 

which could yield more meaningful reductions. 

Expensive controls on minor sources (e.g., boilers at schools and hospitals), although encouraged by the EPA, produce only minute reductions. "New" is, perforce, "cleaner:' Purchase 

of new vehicles and cleaner-burning engines 

is by far the most effective, least costly means 

of reducing mobile emissions of ozone. Mobile source emissions will naturally decline as 

fleet turnover occurs, but the EPA, to date, will 

not coordinate attainment dates with engine 

standards or the projected timetable of fleet 

turnover. 

The Quality of Science Matters 

The EPA does not have sufficiently rigorous science to justify an ozone standard lower than 

85 ppb. The EPXs previously adopted 75 ppb 

standard, like the proposed 70-60 ppb standard, relies on inconsistent, speculative, and 

largely epidemiological science. This body of 

science indicates vague correlations between 

adverse health effects and specific ozone levels. 

The EPXs 2008 and 2010 standard changes are 

not based on significant advancements in the 

relevant sciences. Federal regulatory decisions 

of the magnitude now proposed by the EPA 

should be supported by state-of-the-art science 

demonstrating a causal connection between 

ozone levels and health effects. 

Table 2: Mobile Source Emissions Drive Ozone Formation 

Texas Regron MObile Source Pomt Source 

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) 72% 22% 

/!lallascf'oit Worth (DFW) 79% 10% 

San Antonio (SAN) 62% 33% 

76% 18% 

El Paso (ELP) 72% 21% 

Northeast Texas {NtTX) 37% 29% 

Corpus Christi (CC) 40% 44% 

Beaumont-Port Arthur (SPA) 46% 49% 

Source: TCEQ Emission Inventory 

Texas Public Policy Foundation 
451 


27600.405

May 2010 Texas' Ozone Success: Changing Standards Mask Texas' Air Quality Achievements 

The CAA requires that the EPA periodically review the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), of which ozone is one. The 

EPA must reassess the owne NAAQS every 

five years to assure that the numeric limit "accurately reflects the latest scientific knowledge 

useful in indicating the kind and extent of all 

identifiable effects on public health or welfare:'' 

The EPA must set the ozone standards at a level 

"which in the judgment of the Administrator ... 

and allowing for an adequate margin of safety 

are requisite to protect the public health:'' But 

an owne level needed to protect public health is 

not necessarily a level which avoids all risks or 

reduces ozone to non man-made background 

levels.7 

Cost cannot be a factor. The U.S. Supreme Court 

has concluded that the economic costs of attaining the standard cannot be a balancing factor 

when establishing this exclusively health-based 

standard.' Only scientific data about effects on 

human health drive the EPA decision. 

Many credentialed scientists and medical doctors publicly challenged the scientific basis for 

the EPA:s 2008 change of the standard from 85 

ppb to 75 ppb. This criticism would apply even 

more forcibly to the EPA's current proposal to set 

the standard far lower. The EPA:s january 2010 

proposal is not based on new scientific data but 

on a reinterpretation of existing science. 

Dr. Roger McClellan, former chairman of the 

EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee 

(CASAC), testified before Congress that the 

EPA's lowering of the standard from 85 ppb to 

75 ppb "is a policy judgment based on a flawed 

and inaccurate presentation of the science 

that should inform policy decision:'' A single 

new clinical study (measuring lung function 

in controlled exposure to ozone) found no 

statistically significant impact at ozone levels 

below the 85 ppb standard. 10 EPA staff reversed 

the author's conclusion with a methodology that 

www.texaspolicy.com 

the EPA typically rejects. A medical doctor and 

member of CASAC remarked that the EPA:s 

reinterpretation of this clinical study "amounts to 

attempting to find effects in a very few individuals 

when the statistical effects are not significant ... 

a very dangerous precedent ... a pitiful number 

on which to attempt to base policy."'' 

When setting the national ozone standard, the 

EPA relies on epidemiological, toxicological, 

and clinical studies as well as various risk -assessment methodologies. The EPA:s conclusion 

rests most heavily on the epidemiological studies. These studies can show weak correlationsbut no demonstrated causation-between 

monitored ozone levels and adverse health impacts, including premature mortality. On closer 

review, many of the epidemiological studies are 

inconclusive or contradictory. 

The largest study-looking at 95 U.S. cities over 

14 years-found only six cities with a "statistical relationship" between ozone levels and premature mortality. Los Angeles, with the worst 

ozone problem, was not among the six. 12 A fiveyear California study found that children living 

in high ozone areas had a 30 percent lower incidence of asthma than children in low ozone 

areas. 13 Texas Inpatient Hospital Discharge data 

from 1999-2001 showed fewer hospital visits 

for asthma during the peak summer ozone season than during the winter low ozone season. 14 

The epidemiological studies on which the EPA 

so critically rests its decision have multiple scientific flaws. Of critical importance is the difference between actual and imputed exposure 

to ozone. The EPA-favored studies correlate 

health effects with monitored outdoor ozone 

levels rather than with personal (largely indoor) exposure. 

13 
452 


27600.406

Texas' Ozone Success: Changing Standards Mask Texas' Air Quality Achievements May 2010 

14 

Additionally, the EPA attributes any identified 

health effects (from hospital records versus patient histories) to the monitored ozone level. 

This approach does not consider potential effects from other pollutants (e.g., particulates 

and toxins) and assumes the ozone level caused 

the health impact. 

Outdoor ozone levels at a monitor site are not 

an accurate measure of what the average individual breathes. And recall that high ozone 

levels are a summer problem. Personal indoor 

exposure is more likely about 10 percent of the 

outdoor monitored level. 15 

The problem of personal exposure was stressed 

by the CASAC in 2006. "It is known that personal exposure to ozone is not reflected adequately, 

and sometimes not at all, by ozone concentrations measured at central monitoring sites . ... 

Therefore it seems unlikely that observed associations between short-term ozone concentrations and daily mortality are due solely to ozone 

itself.'" 

Dr. Michael Honeycutt, Ph.D., Chief of Toxicology at the TCEQ, summarized the weakness 

in the EPXs scientific justification for a new 

ozone standard. "What this means is that the 

epidemiological studies used by the EPA to set 

the health-based ozone standard are not scientifically rigorous enough to be used as the basis 

for this important policy decision. These studies are based on the supposition that people 

breathe outside air 8-24 hours each day while 

the scientific data clearly show this is not the 

case:' 17 

The unrealistic level at which the EPA set the 

Policy Relevant Background (PRB) is another 

key factor. PRB is the "uncontrollable" ozone 

produced by natural processes and transport 

absent man-made emissions. Underestimation 

of background levels results in overestimation 

of risk. Because the EPA is setting a regulatory 

standard, the EPA purports to estimate health 

effects from ozone only from "controllable" 

ozone generated by man-made emissions. 

1he level above the PRB is supposed to be the 

ozone caused by human activity. When the 

EPA adopted the 75 ppb standard in 2008 and 

again in the 2010 proposal, the EPA lowered the 

PRB by as much as 60 percent, thus attributing a greater percentage of total ambient ozone 

to man-made emissions. For the 85 ppb standard, the EPA used monitored data to set a PRB 

of 40 ppb. Instead of monitored data, the EPA 

now uses a widely challenged global simulation 

model to set the PRB as low as 15 ppb. 

By lowering the PRB level, the EPA increased 

the risk assessment of ozone levels and premature mortality by 50 percent to 100 percent. Again the EPXs own CASAC noted that 

the EPA Final Ozone Staff Paper did not justify 

such a low PRB." A former CASAC member 

testified to Congress that EPA staff's low PRB 

results in "unrealistically high mathematical 

projections of mortality and morbidity from 

low concentrations of ozone with excess risks 

being inappropriately attributed to ozone from 

anthropogenic precursors:119 

Conclusion 

The EPA's scientific justification for establishing 

an ozone standard below 85 ppb is inadequate. 

A policy decision with repercussions this significant-federal non-attainment status in 666 U.S. 

counties, including remote Brewster County, 

Texas-should be based on more substantial science. Remote correlations between ozone levels 

and adverse health effects may provide useful 

information. Science used to impose a mandatory ozone standard as low as 70-60 ppb, however, should demonstrate a causal connection 

between higher ozone levels and health effects. 

Texas PubPc Poiicy Foundation 
453 


27600.407

May 2010 Texas' Ozone Success: Changing Standards Mask Texas' Air Quality Achievements 

The EPA's January proposal confines the final 

standard to a point between 70 ppb at the highest and 60 ppb at the lowest. Although the CAA 

gives the EPA broad technical discretion to evaluate science and set standards, the weaknesses 

in the science behind the January 2010 proposal merit judicial review. To avoid litigation 

is a dangerous precedent, conceding unlimited 

scope to the EPA's regulatory jurisdiction. 

Dr. Roger McClellan has advised the EPA on 

health-effect based air quality standards since 

the EPA was founded over 40 years ago. He 

served for four years as Chairman of the Clean 

Air Act Scientific Advisory Panel. His stark 

judgment of what he calls a "blatantly political 

process" behind the EPA's january 2010 proposal to dramatically lower the ozone standard is 

noteworthy. 

«In my experience, the actions of 

Administrator jackson in developing the 

proposed ozone rule are without precedent 

and are not being proposed in accord 

with the legal requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) nor past EPA practices . 

. .. Administrator jackson is proceeding 

in an arbitrary and capricious manner to 

develop a 'reconsideration' NAAQS that 

is without precedent in the four decade 

old history of the CAA. The CAA has no 

provisions for revising a NAAQS based on 

scientific information that is four years out 

of date . ... The new scientific information 

is abundant and compelling. It may well 

be the basis ... for a policy decision to 

revise the primary [ozone] standard to a 

level as high as 0.084 ppm:'20 

The CAA should be amended to set minimal 

criteria for scientific rigor and risk assessment. 

Cost -effectiveness analyses must be a factor in 

establishing the NAAQS. Equally important, 

the process for developing State Implementation Plans must be streamlined. 

www.texaspolicy.com 

The EPA's proposed new ozone 

standard is one of several national 

issues raising critical questions 

about the role of science in 

public policy decisions. 

As the National Research Council noted in 

2004: "The SIP process now mandates extensive amounts of local, state, and federal agency 

time and resources in a legalistic, often frustrating proposal and review process, which focuses 

primarily on compliance and intermediate process steps. This process probably discourages 

innovation and experimentation at the state 

and local levels; overtaxes limited financial and 

human resources available to the nation's Air 

Quality Management System:'21 

The EPA's proposed new ozone standard is 

one of several national issues raising critical 

questions about the role of science in public 

policy decisions. The EPA's recent endangerment finding on greenhouse gases also brings 

the question to the forefront." Science should 

guide and ground policy decisions. However, 

as the societal and economic stakes escalate, 

the quality of the science must be assessed by 

policymakers. * 

15 
454 


27600.408

Texas' Ozone Success: Changing Standards Mask Texas' Air Quality Achievements May 2010 

16 

Endnotes 

l M. Fumento, "The Hole in the EPA's Ozone Claims:' Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/26/environmental-protection~ 

agency-ozone-science-opinions-contributors-michael-fumento.html. 

2 Ozone Air Quality Standards: EPA's Proposed January 2010 Revisions, Congressional Research Service Report to Congress 

(1 Feb. 2010) CRS, 7-5700, R41062, http://www.crs.gov. 3 An Ozone design value is the legal ozone measure of compliance 'Nith the federal standard: a three year average of each 

year's fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration. 4 Over the last 10 years, the EPA's engine standards for new cars- or exhaust emission standards-) have progressively tightened. From 1996-2000, standards for NOx emissions were 0.6 grams per mile (g!m). From 2000-2004, new cars had to meet 

a 0.3 g!m. Automobiles manufactured after 2004 have a standard of0.07 g/m. This progression amounts to an 88% reduction 

in NOx emissions per mile when comparing a 2000 model year car to a 20l0 model year car. See also http://www.epa.gov/ 

otaq/ cert/veh-cert/bOOOO l.pdf. 

s CAA 108 (a) (2). 

6 Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, ("AT A''), 531 US. 457,466 (2001). 7 Lead Industries Association v. EPA, 647 F .2d 1130, 1155 (D.C. Cir. 1980). 8 Ibid. 

9 Testimony before Clean Air Subcommittee of the US. Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee (ll July 2007) 

Dr. Roger McClellan, former member of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee. Advisor, Toxicology and Human Health 

Risk Analysis, Albuquerque, NM. 

l(l WC. Adams, "Comparison of Chamber 6.6 Hour Exposures to 0.04+0.08 ppm Ozone Via Square-Wave and Triangular 

Profiles on Pulmonary Response" Inhalation Toxicology 18, 127-136 (2006). 

tl Dr. Sverre Vedal, CASAC Critique of the Ozone OAQPS Staff Paper (Henderson2007b) at C-30. 

u M.L. Bell, A. McDermott, S.L. Zeger, J.M. Samet, and F. Dominici, "Ozone and Short-Term Mortality in 95 U.S. Urban 

Communities" Journal of the American Medical Association 292: 2372-2378. 13 W. James Gauderman et al, "The Effect of Air Pollution on Lung Development from 10-18 Years of Age" New England 

Journal of Medicine 351 (2007) 1057-67. 14 Edwards et al, Air Quality, Ozone Level, Respiratory Response and Acute Pediatric Admissions (2002) Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi College of Nursing and Health Sciences. 

!SR. McClellan et al, "Critical Consideration in Evaluating Scientific Effects of Ambient Ozone: A Conference Report:' Inhalation Toxicology 21,52 (2009) 1-36. 16 Testimony before Clean Air Subcommittee oft be U.S. Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee (11 July 2007) 

Dr. Roger McClellan, former member of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee. Advisor, Toxicology and Human Health 

Risk Analysis, Albuquerque, NM. 17 Dr. Michael Honeycutt, Ph.D., Chief Toxicologist, TCEQ. From TCEQ Press Release {2 Feb. 2010) regarding oral testi+ 

many, EPA field Hearing on proposed ozone standard, Houston, TX. 18 Dr. Allen S. Lofohn, Ph.D., "Major Issues Inadequately Addressed in the Final Version of the EPA's Ozone Staff Paper" (28 

Feb. 2007) 6-8. 19 Lead Industries Association v. EPA, 647 F .2d 1130, 1155 (D.C. Cir. 1980}. 20 Dr. Roger 0. McClellan, Comments on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Proposed Rule, Federal 

Register, Vol. 75, No.ll (19 Jan. 2010) 2938-3052. 21 Air Quality Management in the United States, National Research Council of The National Academies, "Designing and 

Implementing Control Strategies Through the SIP Process" (2004) Chapter 3:74. 22 Petition for Reconsideration of Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 

202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Greg Abbot, Attorney General of Texas (16 Feb. 2010). 

Texas Publ1c Policy Foundation 
455 


27600.409

May 2010 Texas' Ozone Success: Changing Standards Mask Texas' Air Quality Achievements 

Appendix: Texas Ozone Reduction EffortsControls, Creativity, Science, Technology, and Cooperation 

Through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Texas has enacted among the most 

targeted, effectiVe, and stringent regulatory controls to reduce ozone producing emissions from stationary (industrial) sources. Texas also has created some of the most creative and generous incentives 

to reduce mobile source emissions. The state has developed state-of-the-art ozone science to discover 

which factors specific to individual regions in Texas drive ozone formation. For example, ozone forms 

differently in the Houston region than in the Dallas-Fort Worth region. Use of cutting-edge technology-like remote sensirlg techrlology and infrared cameras-also played a key role in the state's successful effort Years of cooperative interaction with industry, universities, local governments, and all 

stakeholders forged a team effort. Industry investments in cutting-edge control technology and in 

enhanced operational management were key to the Texas success. 

See also "Texas Air Quality Success," http} /www.tceqstate.tx.us/implementation/air/airsuccess/ 

airsuccess. 

Stationary Sourc:e Ozone Controls 

Over the last 10 years, TCEQ has enacted more than 50 different regulatory controls to reduce ozone 

precursor emissions: oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Major control 

strategies include: 

• MassNOx Emission Cap & Trade Program in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area. This program reduced NOx emissions from major industrial sources by 80 percent from 2002-06. 

• A suite of rules for the Dallas-Fort Worth area for NOx reductions from kilns, power plants, industrial 

sites, and stationary engines. 

• Enhanced monitoring of fiares, cooling towers, and other sources of highly reactive VOCs. 

• Annual and short-term limits on highly reactive VOCs in Harris County. 

Air Quality Research 

Texas has invested more money in air quality research over the last 10 years than any state In the 

country. State financial resources and in-kind contributions from national organizations and universities 

supported an almost $50 million scientific effort Through two major field studies (Texas Air Quality 

Study 2000 and Texas Air Quality II), the state developed targeted control strategies. 

www.texaspo!icy.com 17 
456 


27600.410
457 


27600.411

TEXA~PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION November 2012 

Armstrong Center for Energy PolicyPerspective & the Environment 

by Kathleen Hartnett 

White 

-

The Clean Air Act: The Case for Reform* 

Executive Summary 

For decades, the U.S. Environmental Pro~ 

tection Agency (EPA) has incrementally expanded regulatory authority under the Clean 

Air Act. The current EPA, however, is on an 

unprecedented regulatory spree jeopardizing 

electric reliability, jobs, state economies, U.S. 

competitiveness, and national security. This 

exponential expansion of EPA's regulatory 

authority is not justified by any reasonable 

standard. In fact, America's air quality has 

dramatically improved over the past 40 years. 

In recent years, however, the EPA has aggressively exceeded its authority under the federal 

Clean Air Act to regulate conventional pollutants with the objective of supplanting fossil 

fuels from which 85 percent of our energy use 

derives. 

EPA is now mandating emission reductions 

of conventional pollutants at levels approaching or below natural background levels. Further, EPA has arrogated the law-making powers of Congress in the Endangerment Finding 

to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants under the existing Clean Air Act (CAA). Once a 

marginal increase in the cost of production, 

EPA regulatory fiats now alter the fundamental dynamics of the energy sector and thus the 

entire economy. Job losses in the thousands 

already have occurred. 

The CAA is in urgent need of reform. 

To this end, this paper recommends five strategic reforms of the CAA. These reforms will 

not rollback existing, effective protection of 

air quality but will foster more rapid, costefficient management of genuine air quality 

challenges. This paper also provides background on improvements in air quality, the 

basic structure of the Clean Air Act, and the 

evolution of the EPA's sweeping, law-like authority to control basic economic activity and 

private conduct. The reforms are as follows: 

1. Congress should reclaim its constitutional 

authority to make the fundamental policy 

decisions about air quality; such as determination of the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards and approval of major 

regulations. 

2. The CAA should reaffirm and strengthen 

the states' primary authority in air quality 

management. 

3. The CAA should require objective and 

more rigorous and transparent science. It 

must, further, relegate science to its proper 

role as a critical tool to guide policy decisions about environmental risk but not as a 

means of dictating policy decisions. 

4. The CAA should incorporate the dynamism of the free market by encouraging 

performance-based standards. 

5. The structure of the CAA and the organization of the EPA should be streamlined 

through integrated multi-pollutant programs. 

*The paper is an updated and expanded version of"Ciean AirThmugh Liberty: Reforming the Clean Air Act" published as Chapter IV of Environmental Conservation: Eight Principles of the American Conservation Ethic by the Heritage 

Foundation, Juiy 2012. Kathleen White was one of seven people who helped formulate the Eight Principles almost 

20 years ago under the auspices of NWI, a free market conservation organization, led by Robert Gordon now Senior 

Strategic Advisor for the Heritage Foundation 

continued on next page 
458 


27600.412

The Clean A1r Act: The Case for Reform 

After 40 years of air quality 

management under the CAA, federal 

policies need to absorb the dramatic 

improvements in our nation's air-a 

condition quite different than when 

the CAA was enacted. 

Introduction 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) needs strategic reform. This law 

no longer provides an effective, scientifically credible or 

economically viable means of air quality management. 

Under the current administration, EPA is abusing the 

broad authority of this law intended to protect human 

health to force a centrally-controlled, economically darnaging anti-fossil fuel energy policy rejected by the U.S. 

Congress. 

The CAA needs major reform. Over the last four decades, 

EPA gradually extended the scope and stringency of air 

quality regulation. Over the last four years, EPA has exponentially expanded its regulatory regime to the point 

of jeopardizing the reliability and atfordability of the nation's electric power and transportation fuels, thus impairing U.S. competitiveness. 

After 40 years of air quality management under the CAA, 

federal policies need to absorb the dramatic improvements in our nation's air-a condition quite different than 

when the CAA was enacted. Congress should reclaim its 

constitutional authority to make policy decisions about 

air quality in order to forestall the unnecessary economic 

and human damage now flowing from the current EPA's 

reckless aggression. 

Congress, through the terms of CAA, has delegated 

broad law-like authority to the EPA to make policy decisions of national importance. In constitutional principle, Congress unquestionably retains authority to restrain the EPA. In practice, however, EPA operates with 

unlimited discretion. In our constitutional scheme, the 

courts are supposed to keep agency actions within the 

bounds of the law passed by Congress. "Yet, judicial review does not delve into the policy choices that agencies 

November 2012 

make-nor should it. Whether a given agency is following the best course is ultimately a decision for the political branch:' 1 To preserve our constitutional democracy, 

Congress must enact measures that limit the discretionary policymaking authority of unelected federal employees of the EPA. 

Congress should also restore and strengthen the CAA's 

original recognition that states are the primary authorities in air quality management. The state and local governments' direct accountability to real people has catalyzed far more creative and cost~effective solutions than 

EPA:s approach, which is dominated by heavy-handed 

control, bureaucratic process, and the phantom of national consistency. Regions with interstate environmental 

problems are few. Those regions with interstate air quality 

problems can address them regionally through interstate 

compacts or other legal mechanisms. 

1he CAA should relegate science to its proper role as a 

critical tool to inform policy decisions but not as a force 

for dictating regulatory action. To limit EPA's increasing 

misuse of science, the CAA needs to stipulate minimal 

criteria for vigorous health-effects science and credible regulatory impact analyses of costs, benefits and 

outcomes. To weld free market principles to air quality 

improvement, the CAA should facilitate measurable environmental results through flexible performance standards. The structure of the CAA and the organization of 

EPA need to be streamlined through integrated multipollutant strategies. 

Most critically, federal policies about air quality need 

to incorporate fundamental principles of individual liberty, private property, and the free market. The air quality improvements over the last 40 years were driven by 

innovation, efficiency, and economic growth. Economic 

freedom has powerful environmental benefits, because 

liberty promotes objectivity, creativity, investment, and 

problem-solving. 

1hat the CAA needs reform is a beliefincreasingly shared, 

at least outside EPA and environmental activist organizations. A four-year project enlisting the input from 40 

environmental experts from across the ideological spectrum concludes that the CAA has statutory arteriosclerosisF 

Texas Public PoliCY Foundation 
459 


27600.413

November 2012 

State of the Air Today: A Remarkable Record of 

Success 

Any discussion of reforming the CAA must begin with 

recognition of the significant improvements in our na~ 

tion's air quality. Over the last 40-and particularly over 

the last 20-years, the quality of U.S. air has dramatically 

improved. 3 

The table below documents the remarkable record of 

improving air quality. Although infrequently noted, the 

data is easily accessible on EPA's own website. The table 

shows the magnitude of improvement from 1980~2010. 

The condition or trend of air quality is measured in terms 

of ambient levels in the air and emission volumes. The 

ambient levels are the key measure of health impacts 

because they are a physical measurement of the actual 

concentrations of pollutants in the air to which humans 

are exposed. Emissions are an estimate of the volume of 

pollutants released to the air by human activities. Ambient levels are physically measured by monitors across the 

country, while emissions are estimated by models. 

This is a success story rarely told and more often utterly 

denied. The current EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, 

repeatedly tells the public that outdoor air in the country "may kill you."' EPA's own data, as used in the Table 

below, from "Our Nation's Air-Status and Trends 2012;' 

documents a radically different condition of air quality in 

the U.S. 5 Since 1970, aggregate emissions of the six criteihe Clean Air Act: The Case for Reform 

ria pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act have de~ 

creased 53-60 percent.6 This environmental achievement 

occurred while the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 

increased over 200 percent. Virtually the entire country 

has attained the NAAQS for four of the six criteria pollutants. 

Urban areas in some states continue to exceed the NAAQS 

for ozone and particulate matter, but the levels of exceedance and the number of these non-attainment areas are 

rapidly falling. In 1997, EPA classified 113 metropolitan 

areas as non-attainment areas for ozone. That number 

has fallen to below 30. The once highly polluted region 

around Houston, Texas-home of the world's largest 

petro-chemical industrial complex-attained the federal 

ozone standard in 2009 and 2010.7 Emissions from cars 

and trucks, now the predominant source of particulate 

matter and precursor emissions for ozone, have been reduced over 90 percent, while vehicles miles traveled have 

increased 165 percent. Emissions of lead have declined by 

97 percent, largely a result of eliminating lead in transportation fuels. EPA's Toxics Release Inventory documents a 

65 percent reduction since 1988. And mercury emissions 

have declined by roughly 60 percent between 1990 and 

2008.8 New power plants emit 90-95 percent less sulfur 

dioxide than power plants built in the 1940s.' Under existing regulations, the long-term trend in cleaner skies is 

certain to continue with the turnover of old equipment 

and refinement of technologies. 

Air Quality Improvement 1980..2010 

C<i'rb~ri Monoxide (C0) 

Ozone (03) 

lead(Pill 

Nitrogen Dioxide N02 

Partictil~tes (PMjQ)• 

Fine Particulates (PM2.5)** 

*1990-2010 

**2000·2010 

Ambtent Ambient EmiSSions Em1sstons 

1980 2008 1980 2010 1980 2008 1980 2010 

-79%. :.sJ% 

-25% -28% 

-92% -90% 

-46% -52% 

-31% ·l8% 

-21% -27% 

"ss% 

-49% 

-96% 

-40% 

-46% 

-36% 

<n% 

NCD 

-97%~ 

-52% 

--83% 

-55% 

US. Environmental Protection Agency_ "Air Quality Trends," January 2012, 

httpJ/www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrendsNmf (April 18, 2012). 

www.texaspolicy.com 
460 


27600.414

The Clean Air Act The Case for Reform 

Indeed, "the learning curve is green:' The competitive 

private marketplace spurred technological innovations. 

Market~driven operational efficiencies, to avoid costly 

wastes, simultaneously reduced emissions and conserved 

energy use. Privately-owned enterprises, acting in a free 

market under a predictable and limited government, 

prospered and were thus able to absorb the steep costs of 

environmental controls. 

As the Environmental Performance Index,10 the Heritage 

Foundation Index of Economic Freedom, the Fraser Institute, and other studies 11 consistently demonstrate, those 

countries which structurally enshrine economic liberty 

under the rule of clear and limited laws also achieve environmental success. Environmental quality remains an 

unatfordable luxury for most of the developing world 

and an elusive goal for countries that deny or undermine 

property rights. 

1he remarkable improvement in air quality across this 

country is a major public policy success to which major 

media rarely give even lip service. The CAA played a significant role, but the main engine of progress was technoNovember 2012 

logical improvements in efficiency and in emission controls. The EPA's regulatory dictates may have prompted 

some technological advance, but the main driver was 

economic growth within the dynamics of the free market. 

Objective science, innovative technology, entrepreneurial 

investments of capital and rapid information exchange: 

these hallmark,<; of the free market maximize continual 

environmental enhancements. 

Reform of the Clean Air Act The CAA, now 40 years old, is in need of reform on multiple levels. 

The CAA gave broad discretionary authority to EPA to 

make what are now decisions jeopardizing the health of 

the entire economy and the livelihoods of real people, 

with sharply regressive impacts on low-income families. 

Rising food and energy prices, coupled ,vi,th high unemM 

ployment, have pushed poverty rates to the highest levels 

in 52 years. Morbidity (illness) and shortened lifespan 

(premature mortality) are far more directly correlated 

with poverty and unemployment than with air quality, 12 

A Comparison of Crime Rate, Welfare, and Air Pollution, 1970-2007 

60.0% 

40.0% 

20.0% 

0.0% 

·20.0% 

-40.0% 

-60.0% 

_,.,....,,b of Population on 

Welfare 

-m-cnme R8:t8 -

~Aggregate Emissions 

Source: Steve Hayward,2011 AfmanocofEnvironmento/Trends, (Apr. 2011); 

FB! Uniform Crime Reports. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, EPA. 

----------··-·--·-··----··-··--·-·--------- --------·----- Texas Pub!ic Pol1cy Foundation 
461 


27600.415

November 2012 

There is no readily available means of legally restraining the EP.A:s unprecedented regulatory spree. Unless the 

EPXs authority is limited by amendments to the CAA, the 

courts have sparse legal ground to restrain the Agency. 

And many states now must devote finite resources to 

challenging the EPXs encroachment of fundamental state 

authority rather than to the hands on job of protecting air 

quality. 

Compelling evidence comes from the National Academy 

of Science's recent conclusion that the EPA's sciencepurportedly the foundation of the Agency's regulatory 

decisions-"is on the rocks:' The recommendations that 

follow address widely recognized problems now the subject of legal challenge to the EPXs actions in hundreds of 

lawsuits. If the CAA is to guide a broadly supported and 

effective response to the air quality challenges of the future, meaningful reform is essential. 

I. Restore Congressional Authority and Accountability 

As articulated in federal law, the definition ofhealthy air is 

a matter of policy for the elected branches of government. 

In the CAA, the Congress delegated this responsibility to 

the EPA with the belief that objective experts would make 

rigorous scientific decisions. Science under the aegis of 

government employees, however, is easily politicized. The 

current EPA misuses science to propagandize the need for 

ever-stricter regulatory mandates. 13 While science should 

critically inform government decisions about air quality 

necessary to protect human health, science is inherently 

incapable of dictating the final policy decisions. These involve a complex balancing of interests, risks, costs, diverse 

benefits, relative effectiveness, and inherent scientific uncertainties. 

When Congress has given the EPA specific statutory orders through amendments to the CAA, instead of general 

direction about healthy air, the environmental outcomes 

were superior. Indeed, the most effective federal air quality programs to date were stipulated by Congress in the 

Clean Air Act and not left to EPA's discretionary designs. 

Congress not only created the programs but specified 

the extent of emission reductions, the timetable, and the 

parties expected to bear the burdens. Further, Congress 

also permitted regulatory flexibility through the creation 

of market-like mechanisms for emission trading. These 

programs were; the acid rain program, which cut relevant 

emissions by 50 percent; the elimination of lead in gasoline; new engine standards which cut 99 percent of three 

criteria pollutants from tailpipe emissions; and the stratowww.texaspol1cy.com 

The Clean Air Act The Case for Reform 

There is no readily available means 

of legally restraining the EPA's 

unprecedented regulatory spree. 

Unless the EPA's authority is limited 

by amendments to the CAA, the 

courts have sparse legal ground to 

restrain the Agency. 

spheric ozone program. 14 Flexible regulatory mechanism 

combined with clear regulatory goals for measurable environmental benefits are the most effective. 

To restrain the EPA's over-reaching actions, the Congress 

should: 

Reclaim the legislative authority delegated to EPA 

to set the federal air quality standards for the criteria pollutants and the emission limits for hazardous 

pollutants. "It is axiomatic:' the U.S. Supreme Court 

has held, "that an administrative agency's power to promulgate legislative regulation is limited to the authority 

delegated by Congress."15 What authority Congress has 

delegated, Congress can reclaim. 

Exercise authority to approve all the major rules proposed by EPA. The Regulation of Executives in Need of 

Scrutiny Act (REINS) already passed by the House of 

Representatives, should be fully enacted. To avoid the 

constitutional infirmity of the legislative veto and the 

weakness of the Congressional Review Act, the REINS 

Act requires bicameral approval "'-'ith presentment to 

the President of all "major" or "economically significant" regulation. REINS also imposes an expedited 

procedure for congressional decision to avoid political 

roadblocks. 

Require annual advisory reports that contain cumulative regulatory impact analyses of risk, cost, effectiveness and benefits based on a methodology and 

scope determined by Congress and conducted by a 

third party. The Transparency in Regulatory Analysis 

of Impacts on the Nation Act (TRAIN), already passed 

by the House of Representatives, should become law. 
462 


27600.416

The Clean Air Act: The Case for Reform 

Recent federal court decisions have 

sharply rebuked EPA for denial of 

state authority in rulings upholding 

the original CAP:s strict division of 

authority between federal and state 

governments. 

EPA should function in a far more advisory and less 

regulatory role. To inform Congressional decision, 

Congress could require EPA to submit annual or biannual reports to contain stipulated information, data, 

types of studies on health impacts, air quality data, 

progress reports, risk assessments, priority risks, and 

alternative implementation strategies. Numerous bills 

filed in the 112th Congress would require far more 

comprehensive and regulatory impact analyses including impact on jobs, electric rates, electric reliability, 

U.S. competitiveness as well as cumulative impacts of 

multiple regulations. 16 For example, the increased electric rates projected as a result of EPA's rules impacting 

electric generation, would have harshly regressive impacts on low-income familiesY The nature and scope 

of what counts as a regulatory benefit must be defined 

to prevent EPA from transforming minute statistical 

associations into human deaths. 18 

II. Restore State Authority 

The EPA's micro-management of state authorities impedes efficient management of air quality. A 2004 National Research Council study concluded that the inflexibility 

and complexity of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

process imposed on states is counter-productive. Said the 

Council: "The process now mandates extensive amounts 

of time and resources in a legalistic, often frustrating 

proposal and review process, which focuses primarily on compliance with intermediate process steps. This 

process discourages innovation and experimentation at 

the state and local levels; overtaxes the limited financial 

and human resources available to the nation's [air quality 

management system] at the state, local and federal levels; 

and draws attention and resources away from the more 

germane issue of ensuring progress towards the goal of 

meeting the NAAQS:'" The NRS reached this conclusion in 2005 and yet no actions to date have been taken to 

streamline the SIP process. 

November 2012 

The original CAA wisely asserted that "prevention and 

control of air pollution is the primary responsibility of 

the States and local government:' because "those closest 

to the resource are best able to [effectively] manage it:•zo 

EPA, however, increasingly treats state agencies as instruments of the federal government rather than as partners, 

much less as equal sovereigns. Under the current regime, 

the states have the responsibility, on pain of sanctions, to 

do whatever EPA dictates. 

Recent federal court decisions have sharply rebuked EPA 

for denial of state authority in rulings upholding the 

original CA.!\.s strict division of authority between federal and state governments. In a complete vacature of the 

Cross State Air Pollution Regulation (CSAPR), the D,C, 

Court of Appeals noted: "Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Federal Government sets air quality standards, but the 

States retain primary authority ... for choosing how to 

attain those standards within their borders."21 

To re-establish state authority, Congress should: 

Clearly re-affirm the CA.Xs original allocation of 

federal and state authorities in law. As stated in 1977, 

"Congress carefully balanced State and national interests 

by providing for a fair and open process in which States 

and local governments, and the people they represent, 

will be free to carry out the reasoned weighing of environmental and economic goals and needs:'12 The EPA 

has obviously strayed from this statutory framework. 

Congress should forcibly restate the CA!\s original allocation of federal and state powers in the CAA. 

Abandon the current State Implementation Plan 

process. SIPs now must contain a mass of information: 

elaborate emission inventories, reams of photo-chemical modeling runs and all control measures needed to 

attain the NAAQS in question. States must complete 

separate SIPS for each criteria pollutant and other 

federal programs, none of which are coordinated, although all data and programs are interconnected. EPA 

micro-manages each step of the increasingly cumbersome process in which administrative requirements 

take precedence over creative, effective state actions to 

attain the federal standards. The SIP process must be 

abandoned or greatly simplified. 

Eliminate the EPA's authority to disapprove of State 

Programs. Through SIP approval authority, the EPA 

asserts command and control authority over state governments. IfEPA now disapproves a state program conTexas Public Policy Foundation 
463 


27600.417

November 2012 

sidered a required component of the SIP, EPA can take 

over the state authority through a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), impose freezes on road constructions 

and withhold highway funds owed to the state. The Supreme Court's recent ruling in the Patient Protection 

and Affordable Care Act, which called unconditional 

pre-emption an unconstitutional commandeering of 

state government, may be applicable to the CAA.23 

Rescind the EPA's authority to compel state actions. 

With primary authority under the CAA to implement 

federal standards, States should be entitled to choose 

whether to seek EPA counsel on air quality management. EPA's Guidance Documents, however, should 

not be binding, nor should every state regulation be 

subject to EPA approval. States may elect to form regional interstate compacts to combine resources or to 

address interstate air quality issues as several state legislatures already have done. 24 

11/. Encourage Performance Standards: Monitors Trump 

Models 

EPA's implementation of the CAA increasingly emphasizes command of administrative process and dictation 

of the means of production at the expense of achieving 

measurable and meaningful environmental benefits. And 

after four decades of prescriptive emission standards, air 

quality regulation should emphasize historically successful performance standards that focus on concrete, measurable environmental results. 

Congress should require that the EPA: 

Use Performance Standards based on measurable 

results. Performance standards require objective, 

measurable results of what must be achieved in lieu of 

rigid, complex requirements that dictate precisely how 

the entity will operate and certify compliance. Performance standards allow more flexibility in operation, 

maximizing the incentives of property rights and sitespecific adaptation. The permit holder may choose 

how to operate and even expand production as long 

as the standard is met. Performance standards include 

plant-wide emission caps, emission trading schemes, 

and other systems that incorporate market-like mechanisms and property rights. Cap and trade schemes may 

work for some traditional pollutants, but the trading 

system must be carefully designed to minimize pitfalls 

typical when government creates and manages a market. Continually changing the rules of the market and 

price controls undermine market dynamics. 

www.texaspolicy.com 

The C1ean A1r Act: The Case for Reform 

When scientific knowledge is 

objective, transparent, and rigorous 

in accordance with the scientific 

method, it provides a critical tool to 

inform final regulatory decisions. 

IV. Restore Objective, Rigorous, Transparent Science 

EPA justifies its regulatory actions on the basis of what it 

construes as scientific edicts. Yet scientific findings alone. 

inherently incomplete and uncertain, are incapable of 

weighing the complex policy considerations that shape 

the law in a democracy. Unless the CAA stipulates criteria to assure rigor and objectivity in the EPA's risk assessments, regulatory excess cannot be restrained.25 

Science offers both the promise and the demise of meaningful management of air quality to protect human health. 

But when developed and applied by a government body, 

science is easily manipulated to justify a predetermined 

policy preference. 

When scientific knowledge is objective, transparent, and 

rigorous in accordance with the scientific method, it provides a critical tool to inform final regulatory decisions. 

Scientific findings are, however, categorically different 

than policy judgments based on reasoned weighing of 

societal trade-offs and relative risks. The wide body of 

environmental science existing today should inform the 

major regulatory decisions under the CAA but never 

dictate policy decisions about air quality. The more substantive scientific disciplines, such as toxicology, must be 

given prominence over the purely statistical sciences such 

as ecological epidemiology. 

To restore objective, rigorous and transparent science, 

Congress should: 

Mandate that regulatory actions be supported by 

third party, peer-reviewed analysis of cost-benefiteffectiveness. The CAA requires that ambient air quality standards must be protective of public health with 

an adequate margin of safety-regardless of cost. EPA 

increasingly uses this statutory rubric to legitimize 

unachievable regulatory mandates as if no risks were 

too low and no costs too high. For decades, EPA has 
464 


27600.418

The Clean Atr Act The Case for Reform 

A single, flexible management plan 

with integrated strategies to reduce 

multi-pollutants could facilitate 

cost-effective results. 

adopted increasingly stricter NAAQS that now approach naturally-occurring-thus unpreventablebackground levels. When objective and comprehensive, cost-benefit-effect analyses can provide critical 

information to policy makers and would check the 

implausible charade of the current EPA's regulatory 

justifications. 

Include cost in determination of NAAQS. 1he CAA 

should acknowledge that consideration of the cost to 

society is a necessary, valuable and ineluctable factor. 

Reject the no-threshold linear regression model to 

impute risk. EPA implausibly now assumes that a positive, linear, no-safe-threshold (causal) relation exists 

between any concentration of a pollutant above zero 

and risk of premature death. Piling assumption upon 

assumption, EPA attributes a 100 percent probability-translated as absolute certainty-to the premise 

that there is no ambient level at which human health is 

adequately protected. This statistical methodology has 

enabled EPA to calculate health benefits far surpassing 

regulatory costs. When, in 2009, EPA began extrapolating risks at natural background levels of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5), the number of mortality risks 

EPA attributed to this pollutant almost quadrupled 

from 88,000 to 320,000 deaths."' 

Abandon absolutist version of the precautionary 

prindple.27 Vague statistical correlations between death 

rates and pollutant levels cannot be transformed into 

causal connections. Costs and political interests invariably affect EPA's decisions, but the law's absolutist terms 

shield EPA's pretensions from judicial scrutiny. rlbe 

CAA should acknowledge that consideration of the cost 

to society is a valuable and ineluctable factor. 

Establish minimal criteria for scientific risk assessment of health effects. Many scientific bodies have 

harshly criticized the weakness of EPA's current sciNovember 2012 

ence. The National Academy of Science, National 

Research Service, and EPXs own Scientific Advisory 

Board, Board of Scientific Counselors and the Clean 

Air Act Advisory Council voice grave concerns about 

the integrity of the science upon which EPA now relies. Dr. Thomas Burke, chairman of a recent National Academy of Science (NAS) review panel on EPAs 

chemical risk assessment told EPA officials that "EPA 

science is on the rocks ... if you fail, you become irrelevant, and that is kind of a crisis:'28 EPA's chemical 

risk assessment for formaldehyde set the health-effects 

level several times lower than the natural level of formaldehyde in human exhalation. 2

" 

Minimal criteria fo.r health-effects risk assessment 

would include the following: 

.. EPA's health effects studies must be peer-reviewed 

by an independent body. 

.. Toxicological studies and clinical trials demonstrating a causal connection between pollutant exposures and health effects carry more weight than ecological epidemiological studies indicating statistical 

correlations. 

.. Health-based standards must incorporate average 

exposure and not implausibly assume that all people are exposed to the highest monitored level 100 

percent of the time. 

... Physical measurement through monitored readings 

trumps models. 

... Health-effects findings must include a plausible 

biological mechanism. 

.. EPA's risk assessments must be judicially reviewable 

under a clear standard of plausibility and rigor. 

V. Multi-Pollutant Strategies by States, 

Most of the criteria pollutants and many hazardous pollutants share sources, precursors, and control strategies. 

A single, flexible management plan with integrated strategies to reduce multi-pollutants could facilitate costeffective results. State and local authorities are far better situated than EPA to devise and implement effective 

multi-pollutant plans. 

Texas Pubi1c Policy Foundation 
465 


27600.419

November 2012 

To achieve this, Congress must: 

Allow states to develop multi-pollutant strategies. 

The current SIP process should be replaced by a single 

integrated multi-pollutant plan devised by states. Such 

a comprehensive management plan should encompass 

both criteria pollutants and select hazardous pollutants. 

Re-evaluate priorities for research and regulatory 

programs. After 40 years of all but exclusive focus 

on criteria pollutants and attainment of the NAAQS 

through the SIP process, EPA should focus more on 

select hazardous emissions in localized areas. Now that 

the criteria pollutants affecting urban areas across the 

country have been substantially reduced, EPA's predominant emphasis on the NAAQS is no longer justified. EPA should prioritize health risks in localized 

areas among the 189 hazardous chemicals stipulated 

by Congress in the 1990 amendments to the CAA. 

Break down EPA's bureaucratic silos to allow for integrated strategies. Acting under an organizational 

structure modeled on the statutory structure of the 

CAA enacted in the 1970s, EPA promulgates individual federal air quality standards (NAAQS) for each of 

the six criteria pollutants in administrative silos. EPA 

similarly compartmentalizes the national emission 

standards (NSPS) for hazardous air pollutants, permitting regimes and other programs. And the air, water, 

and waste programs operate independently, as if hermetically sealed from each other. Yet, air pollutants, 

water contaminants, and waste issues are all interconnected. EPA's bureaucratic silos impede environmental 

improvements and create massive administrative burdens for state and local governments. 

Unprecedented Regulatory Overreach 

Using and often exceeding the broad authority of the 

CAA, the current EPA is on a regulatory spree unprecedented in U.S. history.3

{1 EPA is churning out a torrent 

of new rules with unparalleled speed, scope, stringency, 

costs, and job loss hut without rigorous scientific justification or measurable benefits. Since 2009, EPA has assumed-without supporting data-health risks at pollutant concentrations already far below the established 

federal standards to protect human health. The science 

underlying the current EPA's regulatory onslaught is 

deeply flawed. 

www.texaspol1cy.com 

The Clean A1r Act The Case for Reform 

Over 20 new regulations, collectively 

known as the EPA train wreck 

because of converging effective 

dates within the next three years, 

augur cumulative economic impacts 

of a magnitude never before 

experienced. 

Over 20 new regulations, collectively known as the EPA 

train wreck because of converging effective dates within 

the next three years, augur cumulative economic impacts 

of a magnitude never before experienced.31 The National 

Electric Reliability Council (NERC) predicts that four of 

the rules aimed at electric utilities could mean the abrupt 

loss of 8 percent of the country,s electric generation capacity by 2015.32 The economic and human damage from 

EPA's reckless agenda already emerges. Over 100 electric 

generating plants have announced closure. Coal-fired electric generation has fallen to 36-40 percent of U.S. electricity from 50 percent only two years ago. Utilities have announced sharply higher electric rates for consumers. 

In late September 2012, approximately eight coal mines 

shut dowo. Thousands of jobs directly and indirectly tied 

to these mines have been lost As many as 200 coal-fired 

power plants may cease generating electricity by early 

2013. Slightly more than one-half of U.S. households 

(with a median income of$50,000) spent an average of21 

percent of their after-tax income on energy-an amount 

slightly higher than food." If the EPA:s many new rules are 

fully implemented, the price of electric power will escalate. 

CAA History: Evolution of EPA's Vast Authority 

The first version of the CAA was enacted in 1967 more 

as a general policy statement about the societal value of 

healthy air than as the regulatory juggernaut of today. The 

law assumed its current form in 1970 as a broad but prescriptive template for controlling the sources of air pollution capable of impairing human health. The CAA was 

strengthened in 1977 and again in 1990 by major amendments. Although EPA has incrementally enlarged regulatory scope and stringency over the last 30 years, the current EPA's regulatory aggression stands alone. 
466 


27600.420

The Clean Air Act: The Case for Reform 

One of the country's most intricate, 

sweeping, and rigidly prescriptive 

laws, the CAA is one of the first 

statutes to authorize administrative 

bureaucracies to operate as a federal 

master throughout the economy. 

The CAA articulates five fundamental programs, the first 

three of which are the subject of increasing controversy. 

The Act lists six major "criteria" pollutants for which EPA 

must set standards: carbon monoxide (CO), lead, sulfur 

dioxide (S02), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter 

(PM) and ground level ozone (03). The law directs the 

EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for each of the criteria pollutants, formulated 

as the maximum allowable atmospheric concentration 

for each pollutant necessary to protect public health 

"with a requisite margin of safety:' The CAA precludes 

the consideration of cost as a balancing factor when determining the NAAQS. 'The statute mandates that each 

state attain the NAAQS by means of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that "demonstrates" that the state will 

meet the NAAQS at the specified date. 

The CAA also requires that EPA develop National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

from a list of 189 chemicals which Congress enumerated 

in the 1990 amendments to the Act. Other programs in 

the law require reduction of air emissions 1) contributing 

to regional haze (visibility) over national parks and wilderness areas; 2) causing acid-rain; and 3) associated with 

stratospheric ozone depletion. 

One of the country's most intricate, sweeping, and rigidly prescriptive laws, the CAA is one of the first statutes 

to authorize administrative bureaucracies to operate as 

a federal master throughout the economy.34 Under the 

CAA, Congress delegated broad authority to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect human 

health and the environment by regulation of economic 

activity, consumer products, and private conduct. A rule 

binding private conduct carries the force of law. When 

the CAA directs the EPA to formulate national air quality 

November 2012 

standards adequate to protect health regardless of cost, 

Congress effectively delegated law-making authority to 

unelected federal employees. 35 

The objective was to allow scientific experts, rather than 

elected lawmakers, to make the difficult policy decisions 

inescapably connected to highly technical subject matter 

such as atmospheric chemistry and toxicology. "The scientization of American political life;' writes Prof. Angelo 

Codevilla, "was just beginning. Between the 1950s and 

2000, social policy was taken away from the voter because courts and 'independent agencies' took them over. 

Beginning in the 1970s, courts and agencies began to take 

control of economic life through the pretense of scientific 

environmental management:'36 Rule by an administrative 

state directed by unelected experts, however, undermines 

the basic function of our constitutional democracy.37 

The EPA's recent assertion of regulatory authority over 

greenhouse gases under the CAA-a policy repeatedly 

rejected by the Congress-gives this single federal agency 

unparalleled power over basic economic activity. 

EPA and C02 Regulation 

Under the EPA:s 2009 Endangerment Finding-in unquestioned deference to the U.N:s Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) 4th Assessment Report-that greenhouse gases are pollutants, EPA's power to control the economy and private conduct became 

all-encompassing. Unlike emissions of actual pollutants 

which in certain concentrations can adversely impact 

human health, carbon dioxide (C02) is a ubiquitous byproduct of natural processes and human activity with no 

adverse ambient health effects. And unlike conventional 

pollutants measured in parts per million or billion, C02 

is so ever-present it is measured in tons. As a result of the 

Endangerment Finding, EPA has estimated that the number of businesses subject to new regulatory requirements 

would increase from 15,000 to 6.1 million. EPA estimates 

the cost to governments and business at more than $100 

billion just in the ftrst few years. 

EPA admits that regulatory scope of this magnitude would 

be "absurd" because administratively infeasible. Thus, the 

agency justified narrowing the statutory emission thresholds so that the new rules would apply only to the largest 

industrial facilities. In this action (Tailoring Rule), EPA 

re~wrote the black-letter law of its enabling statute. The 

intended restraint of this Tailoring Rule, however, is temporary because this is only the initial phase of regulation. 

Texas Public Policy Foundation 
467 


27600.421

November 2012 

Preventing levels of atmospheric C02 that IPCC science 

considers dangerous, the crux of the endangerment finding, would require an 85 percent reduction of C02 emissions, to a level not seen since the late 19th century. 

In April 2012, EPA proposed the first hard limits for 

C02 emissions from power plants-a de facto ban on 

new coal-fired electric generating units (EGU). In a 

rule violating the technology-based limits of regulation enshrined in the CAA, EPA effectively mandated 

combined-cycle natural gas fire EGUs for new electric 

generation across the country. EPA finds that because 

the rule is not expected to reduce C02-and thus has 

no environmental benefits-it has no costs. This rule 

unabashedly uses environmental regulatory authority 

to dictate the means of production-a case of pure economic engineering. 

In june, a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected challenges to the Endangerment finding and Tailoring Rule. A petition for rehearing is now pending. Given the Supreme Court's prior decision in Massachusetts v. 

EPA38 and the Circuit Court's unqualified ruling that the 

EPA's rules were compelled by statute, overturning those 

regulations will likely take either congressional action or 

Supreme Court reversal of Massachusetts. 

The Regulatory Cliff: Expanding Bureaucracy, 

Escalating Costs, Immeasurable Benefits 

Perhaps no other federal agency has such discretionary 

authority to issue prescriptive dictates across the economy. Says David Schoenbrod: "Two-thirds of the cost imposed by major rules issued by all federal agencies over 

the past decade (1995-2005] has come from rules issued 

by EPA:'" Ofthe $26 billion cost of major federal regulations issued in 2010, EPA regulations accounted for over 

$23 billion.'" In the early decades of the Clean Air Act, 

EPA's dictates did not necessarily compel a reduction in 

economic output. The language of the Act avers that EPA 

regulation must be achievable through existing techno1-

ogy.41 Thus regulated entities developed creative emission 

controls to meet EPA's limits. Increased production carried higher costs, but growth was not precluded. 

But after decades of increasingly stricter regulations, the 

current EP& exponentially more stringent limits now 

entail reduced production, compulsory change of the 

means of production, and business closure or relocation 

to a country lacking such onerous regulations. Such economic engineering is operational in a recently adopted 

www.texaspolicy com 

The Clean A!r Act The Case for Reform 

After decades of increasingly stricter 

regulations, the current EPA's 

exponentially more stringent limits 

now entail reduced production, 

compulsory change of the means of 

production, and business closure or 

relocation to a country lacking such 

onerous regulations. 

EPA rule called the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. After 

reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions by 69 percent, EPA 

now mandates further reduction of more than 50 percent 

of the remaining S02 within two yearsY These mandates 

are infeasible for many sources and would not result in 

any measurable health benefits. CSAPR was initially 

scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2012. A motion 

to stay granted on December 30, 2011. On August 21, 

2012, the rule was completely vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that EPA had denied the state authority guaranteed by the CAA and had 

mandated an amount of emission reduction that vastly 

exceeded an upwind state's contribution to air pollution 

in downwind states. 

For the first time in EPA history, the reliability of the 

nation's electric supply is at risk. Electric generators in 

multiple states have announced closures of power plants, 

reduced operation, or switched to different fuels. 43 As a 

founding trustee of the Environmental Defense Fund 

noted as early as 1988, "The EPA's regulation has grown 

to the point where it amounts to nothing less than a 

massive effort at Soviet-style planning of the economy 

to achieve environmental benefits:'44 EPA's current regulatory agenda is filled with major rules carrying multibillion dollar annual costs by EPA's own conservative 

estimates. Even before the effective dates for these new 

mandates, the unprecedented impacts ofthe EPA's agenda already emerge. During 2012, many states have experienced job loss, declining electric capacity, and sharply 

higher electric rates. 

11 
468 


27600.422

The Clean Air Act: The Case for Reform November 2012 

12 

Conclusion 

Harsh criticism of the current EPXs administration of 

the CAA in no way amounts to advocacy of a rollback of 

meaningful environmental protections nor of a slackening of future efforts to address air quality challenges. The 

reforms recommended above would, indeed, support 

more effective, efficient and meaningful management of 

air quality necessary to protect human health. 

As one observer noted, the EPA speaks flexibility but 

practices rigidity. Left unchecked, the EPA has become 

a centralized economic planning agency in pursuit of an 

energy policy precluded by math and physics. EPA:s regulatory agenda would not only "fundamentally change the 

economy;• as Preside Obama has promised. The unelected technocrats at the EPA would also undermine our 

form of democratic governance in which elected representatives, not federal employees, make the major policy 

decisions affecting the country and real people.* 

Appendix: Eight Principles ofthe 

American Conservation Ethic 

1. People are the Most Important, Unique and Precious Resource 

2. Renewable Natural Resources Are Resilient, Dynamic and Respond Positively 

to Wise Management 

3. Private Property Protections and Free Markets Provide the Most Promising 

Opportunity for Environmental Improvements 

4. Efforts to reduce, Control, and Remediate Pollution Should Achieve Real 

Environmental Benefits 

5. As We Accumulate Scientific and Technological Knowledge, We Learn How to 

Get More from Less 

6. Management of Natural Resources Should be Conducted· on a Site-andSituation-Specific Basis 

7. Sound Science Should Be Employed as a Tool to Guide but Not to Dictate Public 

Policy 

8: 'Ihe Most Successful Environmental Policies Emanate From Liberty 

Source: Eight Principles of the American Conservation Ethic, Heritage Foundation (Aug. 2012). 

Texas Public Policy Foundation 
469 


27600.423

November 2012 The Clean Air Act The Case for Reform 

Endnotes 

1 Jonathan H. Adler, uwould the REINS Act Rein In Fed era! Regulationr Cato Institute Regulation (Summer 2011). 

2 David Schoenbrod, Richard B. Stewart, and Katrina M. Wyman, #Breaking the Logjam: Environmental Reform for the New Congress 

and Administration;' Project Report (Feb. 2009). 

3 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, "Our Nation's Air: Status and Trends 

Through 2008,"(2010). 

4 #Jackson Gets Rea!; Politico Morning Energy (24 Oct. 2011). 

5 EPA, supra note 15. 

6 Hayward, supra note 5. 

7 Kathleen Hartnett White, "Texas' Ozone Success: Changing Standards Mask Texas' Air Quality Achievements;' Armstrong Center for 

Energy & Environment, Texas Public Policy Foundation (May 201 0). 

8 Hayward, supra note 5. 

9 Gregg Easterbrook, A Moment on Earth: The Coming of Age of Environmental Optimism (Penguin 1995). 

10 Environmental Performance Index (7 Feb. 20 12). 

11 Terry Miller, Kim R Holmes, and Edwin J. Feulner,20721ndexofEconomicFreedom (Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation and 

Dow Jones & Company, Inc., 2012) 155. 

12 Eugene M. Trisco, UEnergy Cost Impacts on American Families 2010-2012 for American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy." 

13 Kathleen Harnett White, "EPA's Pretense of Science: Regulating Phantom Risks,"Texas Public Policy Foundation (May 2012). 

14 David Schoenbrod and Melissa Witte, "Statutory Arteriosclerosis: Should the EPA set an air quality standard for greenhouse gases? 

And why the arguments to the contrary prove the Clean Air Act is obsolete; The Environmental Forum, Vol. 28, No.5 (Sept/Oct 2011 ). 

15 Bowen v; Georgetown Univ. Hasp., 488 U.S. 204 (1988). 

" H.R. 10, S.299, Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act ("REINS") Act (2011); H.R. 2401, Transparency in Regulatory 

Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act ("TRAIN") Act (2011); S.602, Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens ("CURB'1 Act (2011); 

S.1030, Freedom from Restrictive Excessive Executive Demands and Onerous Mandates (HFREEDOM'') Act (2011); S.358, Regulatory 

Responsibility for Our Economy Act (2011); S.1189, Unfunded Mandates Accountability Act of2011 (2011); H.R. 527, Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act (2011); 5.474, Small Business Regulatory Freedom Act (2011). 

17 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey 2009 (Oct. 2010). 

18 White, supra, note 14. 

19 National Research Council of the National Academies, Air Quallty Management in the United States (Jan. 2004-). 

" Air Pollution and Control Act of 1967, Pub. L. No. 90-148, {2 84 Stat. 485,485 (enacting 101 (a)(3)) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C 

7401(a)(3)) 

" EME Homer City Generation, eta! v. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17535 *62 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 21 2012). 

22 H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, at 46 (1977). 

3 Jonathan H. Adler, ncould the Health Care Decision Hobble the Clean Air Act?" The Percolator (July 2012). 

'

4 H.B. 2545, 82nd Leg. Sess. (Texas 2011). 

1

' Michael Honeycutt, Ph.D., Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, #Comments Regarding the Primary National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for Ozone and PM, and the Utility MACT;' (4 Oct. 2011 ). 

26 Anne Smith, Ph.D. "An Evaluation of PM 2.5 Health Benefits for Regulatory Impact Analysis of Recent Air Regu!ations,"NERA (Dec 

2011) and Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, Jr., "Reassessing Human Health Benefits from Clean Air," Risk Analysis (Nov. 2011). 

27 lndur M. Goklany, The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal of Environmental Risk Assessment {Cato 2001). 

2s White, supra note 14. 

n Michael Honeycutt, Ph.D., Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, "Comments Regarding the Use of Science in, and Implications of, EPA's Chemical Risk Assessments; (4 Oct. 2011 ). 

30 ~~Boiler Room Politics: Fake Restraint from the EPA as It Issues a Damaging New Rule;' The Wall Street Journal (4 Mar 2011). 

31 Kathleen Hartnett White, Testimony Before the House Select Committee on State Sovereignty Regarding House Bill 2545 and 

Texas Participation in a Regional Air Quality Compact (7 Apr. 2011). 

32 North American Electric Reliability Corporation, "201 0 Special Reliability Scenario Assessment: Resource Adequacy Impacts of 

Potential U.S. Environmental Regulations,"(Oct. 2010). 

33 Trisko, supra, note 13. 

www.texaspolicycom 13 
470 


27600.424

The Clean A1r Act: The Case for Reform November 2012 

34 Steven F. Hayward, The Age of Reagan: The Fall of the Ofd Liberal Order, 1964-1980 (Three Rivers Press 2001 ). 

~ Jonathan H. Adler, uwou!d the REINS Act Rein in Federal Regulation?" Cato Institute Regulation (Summer 2011). 

Angelo M. Codevilla, "Scientific Pretense v. Democracy;· The American Spectator (Apr. 2009). 

37 Kathleen Hartnett White, "Taming the Fourth Branch of Government;'Texas PubHc Policy Foundation Polley Perspective (October 

2011). 

'" 549 us 497 (2007). 

39 David Schoenbrod, Saving Our Environment from Washington, 62 (Yale 2005). 

40 James L. Gattuso, Diane Katz, and Stephen A Keen/Red Tape Rising: Obama'sTorrent of New Regulation,nHeritage Foundation 

Backgrounder, No. 2482 (26 Oct 201 0). 

,. See, e.g., Section 112(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act, codified at 40 USC § 7412. 

41 Kathleen Hartnett White, "EPA's Power Sapper," National Review Onfine (13 July 2011). 

43 Kathleen Hartnett White, "EPA's Capricious Lignite Rule Threatens Texas' Electricity Supply; The Dallas Morning News (8 July 2008). 

44 Schoen brad, supra note 10, 244. 

14 Texas Publ1c Policy Foundation 
471 


27600.425

About the Author 

Kathleen Hartnett White joined the Texas Public Policy Foundation in January 2008. She is a 

Distinguished Senior Fellow-in-Residence and Director of the 

Armstrong Center for Energy & the Environment 

Prior to joining the Foundation, White served a six-year term as Chairman and Commissioner 

of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). With regulatory jurisdiction over air 

quality, water quality, water rights & utilities, storage and disposal of waste, TCEQ's staff of 3,000, 

annual budget of more than $600 million, and 16 regional offices make it the second largest 

environmental regulatory agency in the world after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Prior to Governor Rick Perry's appointment of White to the TCEQ in 2001, she served as then 

Governor George Bush appointee to the Texas Water Development Board where she sat until 

appointed to TCEQ. She also served on the Texas Economic Development Commission and 

the Environmental Flows Study Commission. She is now serving in her fifth gubernatorial 

appointment as an officer and director of the Lower Colorado River Authority. 

Texas Public Policy Foundation 

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a 501 (c)3 non-profit, non-partisan research institute. 

The Foundation's mission is to promote and defend liberty, personal responsibility, and free 

enterprise in Texas and the nation by educating and affecting policymakers and the Texas 

public policy debate with academically sound research and outreach. 

Funded by thousands of individuals, foundations, and corporations, the Foundation does not 

accept government funds or contributions to influence the outcomes of its research. 

The public is demanding a different direction for their government and the 

Texas Public Policy Foundation is providing the ideas that enable 

policymakers to chart that new course. 

Texas 

900 Congress Ave., Suite 400 I Austin,Texas 78701 I (512) 472-2700 phone I (512) 472-2728 fax I www.TexasPolicy.com 
472 


27600.426

IHAR£ 

f 

'# 

r·:;\lTl~o :j,l::,l:i1:jJ;iiiJ'ili\' C.:n :tt:;,ili :L;.l,8. c;,,;;;r\fD·i';r~·~·iil:,•'it;,\i'l ;:~=n::;te·<:.tivn f:.g-.t•.:rrcy':> (EPfl\) 

misuse of science from my six-year former experience as a final regulatory 

decision-maker for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEO), 

the world's second largest environmental regulatory agency after !he EPA 

itself. was a commissioner and chairman, of TCEQ from 2001-2007. My 

responsibility for making final decisions on regulations, permits, and 

enforcement actions necessarily involved my judgments about the rigor, 

accuracy, and relative uncertainties in diverse scientific studies, statistics, 

modeling protocols, and technical analyses. I viewed this "science" as a 

critical tool to inform-but not !o dictate-what were ultimately legal and policy 

decisions. Various members of the scientific community claim that nonscientists, like me, cannot challenge !he credibility of the EPA's use of 

science. This view maintains that credentialed scientists can critique the 

work of other credentialed scientists. If that is !he case, so much the worse for 

representative democracy. 
473 


27600.427

EPA's Pretense of Science l> Content l> Texas Public Policy Foundation 

Government by popularly elected representatives on the one hand and 

government by federal administrators swearing by the authority of science, on 

the other hand, are contradictory notions. I would call the latter, moreover, an 

acutely dangerous notion. Regrettably, in the modern United States these two 

incompatible policy-making models clash often, and with dire results. Elected 

officials trying to carry out their public duties-e.g. maximizing access to clean, 

affordable energy-meet stubborn opposition from federal mandarins 

brandishing their scientific credentials. The magnitude of the EPA's current 

regulatory agenda has elevated the importance of these issues. 

VIEW FULL PUBLICATION > 

RELATED POSTS 

https://\\ww.texaspolicy.com/content/detail/epas~pretense~of~science[ 11/7/2017 6:03: 19 PMl 
474 


27600.428

President Trump's Energy Policy Would Be a Nightmare w Rol!ing Stone 

News Video Music Politics TV Movies Video Games RS Country 

TRENDING Jay-Z: Meek Mill Prison Sentence 'Unjust 

and ... 

President Trump's 

Energy Policy Would Be 

a Nightmare 

More~ 

Joni Mitchell Talks E 

Candid .. 

Trump adviser and potential EPA head gives a glimpse into what one aspect 

of his administration would look like 

h!tps://v.ww.rol!ingstone.com/politics/features/presidcntwtrumps-energy~policy-would~be-a~nightmare-w442625fli/7/20I7 6:18:06 PM J 
475 


27600.429

By Antonia Juhasz 

At the Shale conference last 

numsr~n a roomful of executives and stalwarts, 

like me so much, you that business, You are 

Donald 

RELATED 

Out His Plan: the 

He toned down his rhetoric on Muslim immigrant ban NATO support, 

said Clinton lacks 'stamina' and 'temperament" be president 

energy advisor and rumored for 

and that the 

the 

drove the 

6: !8:06 PM1 
476 


27600.430

President Trump's Energy Policy Would Be a Nightmare- Rolling Stone 

Hamm and asking a lone New York shale-producing hopeful to stand 

and be recognized for his continued perseverance despite a statewide 

tracking ban. 

This was a telling episode, showing what to expect from a Trump 

presidency. Trump has an exceptionally limited policy background, 

forcing voters, like the nominee himself, to look to his advisers for policy 

specifics. 

Not that he hasn't had a few choice positions on oil to share, such as 

when he said of taking on ISIS, "I'd bomb the hell out of the oil fields .... 

I'd then get Exxon, I'd then get these great oil companies to go in -they 

would rebuild them so fast your head will spin." A "ring" of U.S. troops 

would then surround the wells, protecting the oil companies, Trump 

said. 

But that was a year ago. Today, Trump's policy prescriptions are far 

more scripted. And he's learning that he will not, in fact, run the entire 

federal government himself. 

Trump has amassed a long and highly instructive list of advisers; many 

of them are also his leading campaign contributors. They're a wily bunch 

of extremist climate-change denialists, fossil-fuel supremacists, and at 

least one Koch Industries lobbyist, as well as Gordon Gekko-types who 

buy distressed oil companies, strip them for parts and sell them for a 

tidy profit. And they're all looking to cash in on some extremely well 

timed pro-oil hoopla from the GOP nominee. 

Take Kathleen Hartnett-White, rumored pick to head Trump's 

Environmental Protection Agency. She's a senior fellow and director of 

the Armstrong Center for Energy & the Environment at the Texas Public 

Policy Foundation (TPPF), a leading right-wing climate denialist think 

tank that has been funded by the likes of the Koch brothers, Exxon, 

Chevron, ConocoPhillips, the Heartland Institute and a slew of small 

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/presidenHrumps-energy~policy~would-bc-a-nightmare-w442625f 11/7/2017 6: 18:06 PM] 
477 


27600.431

President Trump's Energy Policy Would Be a Nightmare- Rolling Stone 

tracking oil-field players- "a Who's Who of Texas polluters," as the 

Texas Observer described the group's donors in 2012. TPPF's 

president and CEO, Brooke Rollins, is also a Trump adviser. 

In Pittsburgh, Trump surprised many by announcing he has an 

"environmental agenda" that would "be guided by true specialists in 

conservation." He may well have meant Hartnett-White. Unique among 

his advisers, she's a former government regulator, appointed by then 

Gov. George W. Bush to the Texas Water Development Board and by 

Gov. Rick Perry as chair of the Texas Environmental Quality 

Commission, "the second largest environmental regulatory agency in 

the world after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency," according to 

her bio. 

In an interview, Hartnett-White assures Rolling Stone that, if asked, 

she'd "love to serve" in a Trump administration. What draws this 

longtime breeder of National Champion Jack Russell Terriers to Trump 

is "his optimism"- the kind of optimism that will propel him to fully 

exploit America's "extraordinary energy bounty." The Republican 

nominee surely has not disappointed, pledging in speeches to lift 

restrictions on all sources of American energy production, implement a 

moratorium on new, more onerous federal regulations, and eliminate the 

worst of those already on the books, starting with President Obama's 

signature climate policy, the "so-called Clean Power Plan," as Trump 

identified it. 

As with so many energy policies Trump has discussed on the campaign 

trail, each of these is found in Fueling Freedom, Hartnett-White's 2016 

book co-authored with fellow Trump adviser Stephen Moore, an 

economist and Heritage Foundation fellow. 

Fueling Freedom is a hymnal to all things fossil fuels, the dirty-energy, 

non-satirical equivalent of Thank You for Smoking. Hartnett-White says 

the book is a primary reason she was asked to join Trump's team -

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/president-trumps-energy-policy-would-be-a-nightmare-w442625f 1 117120 J 7 6: 18:06 PM j 
478 


27600.432

President Trump's Energy Policy Would Be a Nightmare~ Rolling Stone 

along with her work as an environmental regulator and their shared 

devotion to the oil shale (or tracking) revolution. 

Hartnett-White's is no hippy-dippy free love energy strategy like the "all 

of the above" policies touted by Obama and Jeb Bush. There's no 

"weak and parasitic renewable energy" here, no "green job craze," 

electric cars or biofuels. And there's certainly no shared global sacrifice 

to tackle the "exaggerated nonsense" of global warming. Quoting 

Charles Krauthammer, she and Moore write, "Global warming ... is a 

creed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do with science." 

This is an "America First" energy strategy that will double the amount of 

oil tracked in the United States, untap 1.5 trillion barrels of oil in states 

like Alaska, California, Colorado, Texas and Utah as well as offshore, 

and propel the U.S. to become the dominant oil producer in the world, 

exporting so much that we'd replace Saudi Arabia as the world's swing 

producer. Doing so would unleash what the authors dub "the Master 

Resource": fossil fuels. 

Trump would join a relatively short list of white men (including Hamm) 

praised in the book for harnessing the Master Resource over the 

centuries to gain dominion over our more savage tendencies, just like 

the humans in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, they write. 

Worried about harmful side effects of tracking? Don't! "Contrary to false 

reports in the media, virtually no documented environmental problems 

have been associated with tracking- ever." Want to balance the federal 

budget, eliminate our trade deficit and retire our entire national debt? 

Done! Royalties from oil, natural gas and coal resources from massively 

increased production on federal lands and waters have you covered. 

Worried about the carbon dioxide emissions of burning so many more 

fossil fuels? Pshaw! Increased concentrations of C02 in the atmosphere 

are good for you! "Spread the news!" they write. "Man's carbon footprint 

shrinks his physical footprint on the earth." 

https :/ /www .rollingstone.com/politics/features/president ~trumps-energy ~poli cy~would~be~awnightmare~w442625 [ 11/7/20 I 7 6: 18: 06 PM] 
479 


27600.433

President Trump's Energy Policy Would Be a Nightman!~ Rolling Stone 

What about "climate justice for communities of color"? "Irrelevant," they 

assure. Concerned for Native Americans fighting oil infrastructure or 

production projects, such as those opposing the Dakota Access 

Pipeline? Don't! As Hartnett-White explains, it turns out these, as well as 

"Canadian Native Americans," might just be paid-off pawns of the 

Russians trying to undermine American oil production. Phew. 

There is reason to be afraid, according to the book, and danger comes 

in many forms. There's the Environmental Protection Agency, the United 

Nations, California, green-energy policies that "undermine human 

progress" and "are not really clean at all," people who want us to "build 

windmills and ride our bicycles to work" and, of course, science. "We're 

not a democracy if science dictates what our rules are," Hartnett-White 

tells Rolling Stone. 

What do these ideas translate to in practice? Luke Metzger, director of 

the non-profit Environment Texas, has spent years going head-to-head 

with the Texas Environmental Quality Commission. As chair, HartnettWhite "embodied the philosophy at the agency, which was to put the 

interests of big polluters ahead of public health and the environment," 

Metzger tells Rolling Stone. 

He cites a 2003 state auditor report finding that TEQC under HartnettWhite consistently failed to hold violators accountable for breaking its 

laws, applied fines that amounted to only about 40 percent of the profits 

the companies made breaking the law, and introduced policies that 

weakened its own regulations. 

Hartnett-White "was put in that position by the governor for that very 

reason," Metzger says. "Gov. Perry had received hundreds of 

thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from these very 

businesses who had an incentive to make sure there was as weak a 

regulatory structure in place as possible. She definitely filled that role to 

https://...,v.w.rollingstone.CQm/politics/fcatures/president~trumps~energy~policy~wou!d~be-a~nightmare-w442625[ 1117/2017 6:18:06 PM I 
480 


27600.434

President Trump's Energy Policy Would Be a Nightmare~ Ro!Hng Stone 

a tee." 

There is also a pure propaganda value to all of this, Hartnett-White 

admits. Sure, she concedes, the world is currently suffering from an oil 

glut, with supply outpacing demand. Demand for oil will increase, she 

explains, simply by the United States stating its intention to increase 

production. (If the world believes the U.S. isn't going to follow the 

"climate change evangelists," then policies won't be adopted reigning in 

fossil fuels, and demand will grow.) 

Enter Trump, heralding the good news about America's pending fossilfuel world domination. You can just feel the anticipatory hand-rubbing 

not only of Hamm, but of Wilbur Ross, John Paulson, Steve Feinberg 

and Carter Page, Trump's hedge-fund and private-equity crony 

advisers, ready to cash in. 

Their ilk, however, have a particularly bad reputation in the Bakken -

America's most notorious tracking field -due to their exclusive focus on 

the bottom line and profits, to the detriment of safety and lives, forcing 

companies to cut corners and do more with less (including tens of 

thousands of fewer workers), and contributing to a worker death rate in 

North Dakota that is seven times the national average, Kevin Pranis of 

the Laborers International Union of North America tells Rolling Stone. 

Nonplussed, Hartnett-White is effusive about the seemingly boundless 

job growth the Master Resource will bring. Citing a figure also found in 

Fueling Freedom, Trump pledged in Pittsburgh that freeing America's 

energy sector would add 500,000 jobs annually (after earlier declaring 

that "oil and natural gas production employs some 10 million 

Americans," when the actual number is less than 170,000). "All the 

workers that get put to work, they're going to love Donald Trump," he 

said. 

But America's oil workers aren't biting; across the board, they're backing 

https:!/www.rollingstone.com/po1iticslfeaturcs/president-trumps..energy-policy~would-be-a-nightmare-w442625{ll/7 /2017 6:18:06 PMJ 
481 


27600.435

President Trump's Energy Policy Would Be a Nightmare- Rolling Stone 

Hillary Clinton. Even the United Mine Workers of America, representing 

the nation's coal workers, aren't supporting Trump. 

The International Union of Operating Engineers Pittsburgh Local 66 

even went so far as to withdraw its sponsorship of the Shale Insight 

conference in protest of Trump's appearance. "There's just no way that I 

was going to associate Local 66 with any function that gives this guy an 

avenue to speak," Jim Kunz, business manager for the union, told the 

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, calling the GOP nominee "a snake oil 

salesman." 

More News 

• 5 Conservative Newspapers That Went 'Never Trump' 

• Meet the Black Women Defending Trump's Record on Race 

• Donald Trump, Debate Loser, Makes Sad Attempt at Damage Control All Stories» 

-

Topics: 

Don't Miss a Story 

https://vvv.\v.rollingstonc.com/po!itics/featurcslpresidcnt·trumps·energy-po!icy-wou!d-be·a·nightmare·w442625[ I !17/2017 6:! 8:06 PMj 
482 


27600.436

Donald Trump's potential EPA pick wants to cut renewable energy I McClatchy Washington Bureau 

NfcClatchv .I 

~-- WHITE HOUSE CONGRESS NATION CARTOONS 

The Total Port Arthur in Port Arthur, Texas. Potential EPA 

head Kathleen Hartnett White wants to end subsidies for 

renewable energy if picked to lead the agency. David J. 

Phillip- ASSOCIATED PRESS 

POLITICS & GOVERNMENT 

Texan who could lead 

Trump's EPA wants to end 

renewable energy 

subsidies 

BY ALEX DAUGHERTY 

adaugherty@mcclatchydc. com 

• 

WASHINGTON A Texan under 

consideration to lead the Environmental 

Protection Agency wants to end subsidies for 

renewable energy and said it's not clear how 

much human activity contributes to global 

warming. 

Kathleen Hartnett White, the head of a 

conservative Texas think tank, confirmed to 

McClatchy that she is being considered to lead 

the EPA after meeting with President -elect 

Donald Trump on Monday. 

VIDEOS 

California congressman skips moment of 

silence to talk gun control 

California 

congressman skips 

moment of silence 

to talk gun control 

Steve Bannon: 

From White House 

exit to 'war' on 

GOP establishment 

Democrats face 

hurdles in quest to 

reclaim the House 

and Senate 

VIEW MORE VIDEO [] 

MORE POLITICS & GOVERNMENT 

Latest: 2013 sex assault case involving 

gunman under review 

http:/h.o,ww.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics~govemmentfarticle 117904943.html{ 11!7/2017 6:04:J6 PM] 
483 


27600.437

Donald Trump's potential FPA pick wants to cut rencwab!eenerg_y 1 McClatchy Washington Bureau 

The EPA is one of Trump's biggest targets, and 

White, whose record shows an interest in 

cutting regulations, said she is under official 

consideration for the agency's top job. 

"Trump asked me all kinds of different 

questions on energy, environmental regulations 

and the EPA," White said in an interview. "It 

was a very pleasant, very easy meeting." 

White described her meeting with Trump as a 

"conversation" and that they went back-andforth after she stated her positions and ideas on 

how the EPA should be run. 

(Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt is also 

under consideration to lead the EPA and met 

with Trump earlier this week.) 

When asked by McClatchy whether humans 

contribute to global warming and if there are 

any steps humans can take to reduce it, White 

initially said, "I don't have enough time to 

explain that." 

White, an energy adviser for the Trump 

campaign and the director of the Armstrong 

Center for Energy and the Environment at the 

Texas Public Policy Foundation, then said it is 

possible human involvement can reduce global 

warming. 

"As a matter of physics it is possible but to what 

extent it is not clear," White said. "Before really 

pursuing the elimination of fossil fuels we need 

to very carefully look at the risk involved. As a 

matter of rule oflaw, our Congress needs to 

speak on that and not just a federal agency." 

White also wants to cut federal subsidies for 

Republicans look to ax tax credit that 

Reagan embraced and Trump sought 

Excerpts from recent editorials in 

newspapers in Illinois 

APNewsBreak: Anti-gay-marriage clerk to 

seek re-election 

The Latest: Arkansas Supreme Court 

blocks inmate's execution 

MORE POLITICS & GOVERNMENT u 

http://wv.·w.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-govemmenllarticle 1 17904943.htm![l117 /2017 6:04:36 PM} 
484 


27600.438

Donald Trump's potential EPA pick wants to cut renewable energy I McClatchy Washington Bureau 

renewable energy, which totaled $7.3 billion 

according to a 2013 report by the Congressional 

Budget Office. 

"All energy sources would be welcome, but they 

need to have a level playing field in which to 

compete," White said. "The extent of the 

subsidy in terms of wind and solar is so high. 

The economic operation of renewables are 

totally welcome, but I doubt as a matter of 

physics if they'll be able to power mega cities. 

They've been subsidized since the early 1990s 

and should compete on their own terms." 

Trump mentions the EPA as the source of "our 

most intrusive regulations" on his campaign 

website. 

"We will also scrap the EPA's so-called Clean 

Power Plan which the government estimates 

will cost $7.2 billion a year," the website said. 

White said the methods the EPA uses to 

determine the harmful effects of pollutants on 

humans are "weakened and manipulated" and 

that she wants to change the agency's rules on 

mercury and the ozone. 

During the campaign, Trump said that the EPA 

would be gutted if he's elected, and that 

environmental protection duties should be 

turned over to states, something White agrees 

with. 

RELATED STORIES FROM MCCLATCHY DC 

Trump choice for HHS secretary 

could repeal free birth control 

without act of Congress 

Trump taps vocal Obamacare 

critic, Tom Price, for health and 

http://"'v.w.mcclatchydc.com/ncws/politics-govemment/article ll7904943.html[ll/712017 6:04:36 PM] 
485 


27600.439

Donald Trump's potential EPA pick wants to cut renewable energy I McClatchy Washington Bureau 

human services secretary 

Department 

Trump taps Goldman Sachs 

movie mogul to head Treasury 

Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo, an 

Army veteran, will become 

Trump's CIA director 

DeLay 

Trump's pick for White House 

counsel once represented Tom 

"An easy way to address major problems with 

the EPA is to actually reinstitute an amount of 

authority," White said. "The EPA sets federal 

standards that were mandatory across the 

country but states figured out how to ... execute 

and get the job done." 

But White, who described the EPA as 

"arrogant" under President Barack Obama, 

stopped short of saying the EPA should be 

eliminated. 

"I have an open mind about that," White said. 

"The job ofthe administration is to execute the 

president's policies. I have an opinion about it, 

but the decision should be made by the 

president and Congress." 

White has experience in environmental policy. 

She led the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality the second-largest 

environmental regulatory agency in the world 

after the EPA- for six years under Gov. Rick 

Perry. 

But her record as a regulator has drawn the ire 

of environmental groups in Texas. 

"We can't really stomach her," said 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-govcmment!articlell7904943.htmllll/7/2017 6:04:36 PM! 
486 


27600.440

Donald Trump's potential EPA pick wants to cut renewable energy 1 McClatchy Wa<>hington Bureau 

Environment Texas director Luke Metzger. 

"Just compare her to President (George W.) 

Bush's first EPA administrator Christine Todd 

Whitman; she accepted basic science. 

Unfortunately what we've seen with Ms. White 

is that she bends over backwards to deny the 

science. We can't even have a reasonable 

discussion with her." 

Metzger said White "routinely sided with big 

polluters" while leading the Texas Commission 

on Environmental Quality, known as TCEQ, 

and failed to levy reasonable fines for 

companies that damaged the environment. 

Current TCEQ commissioner Bryan Shaw 

declined to comment on White's tenure as an 

environmental regulator. 

White defends her environmental record. 

"There are plenty of things that I got done that 

were extraordinarily effective," White said. "The 

Houston-Galveston area was once most 

polluted, and under the last state plan I signed, 

Houston in fact obtained ozone standards in 

2010. I was one of the few folks who thought 

that could happen." 

Environmental groups opposed Houston's 

ozone plan, which was approved by the EPA in 

2001 and upheld in federal court two years 

later. 

Metzger said states like Texas rely on the EPA 

to set the floor for environmental regulations, 

and that White's likely scaled-down version of 

the federal agency would be a "step back 

entirely and lets the states do whatever they 

want." 

http://v.'Ww.mcclatchydc.com/ncws!politics·govemment/artlcle 117904943.htmlfll/7 /2017 6:04:36 PM] 
487 


27600.441

[)(lnald Trump's potential EPA pick wants to cut renewable energy i McClatchy \Vashington Bureau 

Instead of federal regulations, White said, 

private sector technology should be the driving 

force behind improving the environment, with 

an emphasis on air and water quality. 

She also praised Trump's emphasis on energy. 

"That President-elect Trump puts energy at the 

core of his economic policy is very, very 

exciting," she said. 

White voted as a member of the state 

commission in favor of a coal plant 150 miles 

south of Dallas in 2007 despite questions over 

air quality, and the plant's parent company is 

now trying to shed its tax obligations in the 

wake of decreasing profits. 

Her approval of the coal plant led to 

environmental groups putting up billboards 

titled "Get White Out." 

'1 think she's worked for an industry-funded 

think tank attacking clean energy, trying to put 

a moral sheen on fossil fuels and ignoring the 

public health problems she had in Texas," 

Metzger said. 

Alex Daughertz): 202-388·6049, 

@alextdaugherty 

COMMENTS 

http:/fwww.mcdatchydc,comfncws/po!itlc$~govcmment/artide1 I 7904943.httnl{ !!17120 17 6:04:36 PMj 
488 


27600.442
489 


27600.443

La\~makers,pundttsreactto 

Bannon,PnebusWh!te 

House roles 

dNeverTrump GOP 

organizer Hope for peace, 

prepare for war 

!vanatoTrump·Makeme 

CzechRepublicdtplomal 

A~~m.al<:ers mtent on 1mposmg a swtft end to the era of foss1l fuels, such as 

President Obama and §!~~~.~~a~y, admtmstrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). are etther unaware or Indifferent to the colossal scale, 

futility and economic risks of a forced transition from energy-dense fossil fuels to 

the relatively diluted renewable energy sources (wmd, solar and biomass} 

The U.N pact sealed m Paris, as we!! as the chmate goals of the EU, California 

and the V\'hite House, assume that carbon dtox1de emissions - a ubiquitous 

byproduct of human ac!M!y- can be reduced 95 percent by 2050 

For a dose of reality, consider master energy number-cruncher Vadav Smil's 

estimate of a cost approaching $2 5 trillion to build enough new wind and solar 

facilities in the United States to replace the 1,100 gigawatt (GW) generating 

capactty of our fossil-fueled electnc system. And couple that colossal sum with 

another $2 trillion 1n capttal assets now imbedded 1n fossil-fueled generating 

hardware and related infrastructure. With a national debt of $19 trilhon that is 

increasing $2 trilhon a year, an anemic economy and a shrinking m1ddle c!ass, 

how can taxpayers afford to subs1d1ze such wasteful projects? 

The viability of plans to power our energy-mtens1ve soc1ety exclusively with 

renewables IS defied by simple anthmetic and bas1c physical laws Yet, policies 

to avoid dangerous global warming a!! assume that a mass deployment of 

renewable energ1es can replace fossil fuels and st1H provide abundant, 

affordable and diverse energy services on which modern societies are utterly 

dependent The climate scientists and policy wonks who developed these 

energy plans remain oblivious to what IS mcreasingly obvtous to the engineers 

who make such lh1ngs work. As the eng1neers tasked by Google to develop a 

realistic, affordable plan to decarbonize conclud~: Renewables are a false 

hope that simply won't work 

Michael Kelly, Prince Philip Professor of Engineering at Cambridge University 

and member of Bntam's Royal Society, ~- "If the climate saenttst community 

was to learn that engineering will not be able to 80% mitigate C02 emiss1ons by 

2050 Vilthout inRicting massive harm on the global economy and mankmd 1n 

general, it might improve the quality of the public debate." Renewable energy 

from wind, sunshme and biomass are Inherently 1ll-su1ted to replace the energy 

service now handily dehvered by coal. natural gas, od and uranium Renewables 

are inherently diffuse and uncontrollable 1n energy content and power density, 

while fossil fuels are highly concentrated. rellable and versatde 

Over the last decade, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars heve been spent 

to substdtze aggressive tnstallabon of renewable facilities in Europe and the 

United States Yet, the share of energy contnbuted by wtnd and solar farms 

Seething liberals vow r"volution ... 
490 


27600.444

remains mmute. In 1990, wtnd and solar energtes accounted for 0 45 percent of 

global primary energy. In 2010, after deployment of thousands of wind turbines, 

the renewable share rose only to 0. 75 percent of the energy pie. By 2014, the 

renew-able share rose only to 1 percent- barely a dent in th.e world's energy 

mix still dominated by fossil fuels contributing 65 to 90 percent of global energy. 

In spite of 20 years of subsidy, lavishly amplified over the last seven years by 

the prestdent's almost $800 billion stash of stimulus funds, wind and solar in the 

U.S. supplied slightly less than 2 percent of energy consumption in 2013 

As a generating system, renewabtes cannot claim zero-carbon status. Wnd and 

sunshine may be carbon-free, but they require more hardware to generate 

electricity than energy-dense fossil fuels. As Professor Jesse Ausube! of 

Rockefeller University notes: "Although a present natural gas-fired combined· 

cyde plant uses aboul3 metric tons of stesl and 27 cubic meters of concrete 

per average megawatt electric, a typical wind-energy system uses 460 metric 

tons of steel and 870 cubic meters of concrete." 

Because Wind and solar are intermittent and unpredictable, it takes two to three 

units of wind generating capacity to replace one unit of capacity from reliable 

fossil fuelS. Renewable advocates tout the "installed capacity" of wind or solar 

-a measure of the maximum sustained output of electnc power from a given 

facility. They typically omit, however, the far lower numbers for "capacity factor" 

-a measure of actual generating performance. Coal and nuclear plants can 

generate electricity all night long. any time of1he year. Wnd- and solar-fueled 

electric generation obvtously cannot do so 

For this reason, intermrttent renewables are parasitic on back-up power from 

reliable fossil fuels- a hidden but highly expensive Inefficiency. VVith years of 

experience in Europe, the EU estimates the average capacity factor for wind at 

onty 20 percent For the United Slates, the U.S. Erlergy Information 

Administration (EIA) ~ e capacity factor of 90 percent for nudear power 

plants, 60 to 70 percent for coal plants and 30 percent for wind facilities 

The much larger spatial requirements for wind and solar generating facilitiescovering areas thousands of times larger than needed for hydrocarbon or 

nuclear fueled plants -do not bode we!! for using renewables to power huge 

dtias or to preserve natural ecosystems. The EPA's Clean Power Plan 

envisions new-wind farms that would cover 7 million acres of the U.S., but they 

would only meet a small fraction of total alectnc demand. 

Living generations are the first beneficiaries of a vast energy system developed 

across tile world over the last century. The components of th!S system number 

in the tens of thousands. Mines, oil and gas 'Nells, pipelines, transmission and 
491 


27600.445

distributiOn lines, electnc gnds, fuel termma!s, ports, tratns, trucks, tankars, 

fueling stations, extraction hardware. processing and refinmg facilities, power 

plants, petrochemical manufactunng: This energy mfrastructure is aU designed 

around fosstl fuels The systam IS present in all prosperous cnuntnes and 

developing countries long to replicate such Infrastructure 

Prevailing dimate policies presume we wi!! simply abandon fossH fuels and the 

existing energy systam. Mass operat1on of renewables would demand that 

extensive new infrastructure be designed to concentrate the diffused energy in 

contrast to the current system designed to diffuse the energy 1n fossil fuels 

As Lewis Page notes in The Register 

Far from achieVing massive energy savings. which most plans for a 

ranewable future re-ly on implir;Jtly, we would end up needtng far more 

energy, which would mean even more vast renewable farms- and even 

more materials and energy to make and mamtain them and so on. The scale 

of the building would be like nothm~ ever attempted by the human race 

A wholesale shift from hydrocarbons to renewables presage energy scarcity and 

exorbitant price, as has already occurred 1n Germany and the UK As Smil 

reminds us. "Any rapid substitution by low power renewable densities is illusory 

WJthout dismanthng existing urban societies," and such is the path on which 

developed wor1d has now set Jtself 

The cbmate crusaders need to listen from the engineers and to be upfront about 

the scale, ns.ks, costs and likely futility of grand green plans. Economy-wide 

impacts and human pain are already palpable in European countries, whose 

officials are nonetheless determined to pursue even more dracon!an climate 

goals like prohibiting vehicles powered by the internal combustion engine! 

Although the US. Supreme Court has stayed the legal fate of EPA's Clean 

Power Plan likely fur a couple of years. the wind industry is accelerating 

instaHatJon of renewable facilities owing to the mu!tt-year extensJOfl of re-newable 

substdies approved by Congress In the spending package for 2016. Likely a 

political tradeoff for repeahng the 40-year ban on oil exports. the substdies for 

wind and solar mask wMat the engineers have revealed 

lfv'ithout subsidies, renewable systems could find useful niches. but if they are 

deployed as a means o1 replacing fossil fuels, they simply won't woril. Just ask 

the almost 1 million households in Germany that no longer can afford electricity 

at rates three t1mes higher than the everage U S rate 

White joined the Texas Public Policy Foundation In January 2008. She is a 
492 


27600.446

Exposing the Mad War on Energv ,,. (Rffgne;y 
493 


27600.447
494 


27600.448

Bald Eagles Gone wHh the Wmd- Kath!eenllartne1t Whnc 

The bald eagle is probably the most honored and protected 

wildlife species in U.S. history. Initially protected in 1940 

under the Bald Eagle Protection Act, the majestic bird was 

one of the first species listed under the Endangered Species 

Act in the late 1960s. When first listed, perhaps only four 

hundred breeding pairs existed. When officially delisted in 

2007, the bald eagle population had increased to 10,000 

pairs that mate for life. The noble bird is still protected by the 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 

With the new rule, the Service apparently aims to legitimize 

what has become politically selective enforcement of wildlife 

protection laws under the Obama administration. The feds 

have largely given renewables energy facilities a pass on 

bird and other wildlife kills while repeatedly trying to nail oil 

and gas operations with criminal prosecution and onerous 

fines for the inadvertent kills of a few common birds. In 2012, 

a federal judge in North Dakota threw out the Department of 

Justice's criminal indictments of three oil and gas companies 

on the grounds that the law was too vague to criminalize 

basic commercial activity. 

Various industrial operations including wind 

turbines inadvertently kill hundreds of 

thousands of birds every year. Feral and 

domestic cats may kill five hundred million 

birds. There is something heinous, however, 

about authorizing the slaughter of over 4,000 

bald eagles every year for thirty years to 

promote renewable energy-a diffused, 

parasitic form of energy, wholly dependent on 

subsidy- at the expense of our redoubtable 

bald eagle. Emblazoned on the Great Seal of 

the United States adopted in 1887 and only 

de listed from the Endangered Species Act in 2007, does not 

the American Bald Eagle deserve a pride of place among 

https· 'ltownha!l comicolumnists/kathleenhanneuwhite'2011:1'l\5'20'bald-eagles-gone-w!lh-the-wmd-n2 165709[1! '7 '2017 6 07.00 P\.1] 
495 


27600.449

Bald Eagles Gone w1th ll1e Wmd- Katllleen Hannen Wlllte 

protected wildlife in our country? 

On the other hand, disregard for our national symbol is 

consistent with our president's policy toJ:timinisbJhe strength 

and clout of the United States. If renewable energy systems 

on a mass scale could "save the one planet we have," then 

farewell to the living symbol of our country. It's becoming 

increasingly undeniable, however, that renewables are not 

capable of providing the energy services on which our 

society is utterly dependent and cannot displace 80-90 

percent of our fossil fueled-energy supply without creating 

extreme energy scarcity. Even Google's green engineers 

regrettably .Q.QllQl.u.ctedJhat existing renewables are a "false 

hope." As aJlemlaiLnflWSill!ReLPUt it, renewables are a 

"blunder with ugly consequences." And the most ugly impact 

is the unimaginable scale on which the planned renewable 

build-out would damage and disfigure the environment. 

Replacing fossil fuel-based electric generation with wind and 

solar generation requires massive amounts of land and the 

destruction of natural habitats in return for less energy at a 

higher price. In contrast, fossil fuels, whose density and 

reliability far exceed those of renewable energy fuels, have 

reduced the size of man's footprint on the earth, while 

technology has greatly reduced polluting emissions from the 

combustion of fossil fuels. 

Wind and sunshine may be free, but the many indirect costs 

of concentrating the diffuse and variable ftows from these 

energy sources drives the cost per unit of electricity far 

higher than fossil fuel generation. For solar to meet total U.S. 

electric demand, ten thousand square miles would have to 

be given over to solar panels.[i] And renewables are not as 

clean and green as promoted. 

llttps· /

1

townhal! comlecrlumni~t~.'kathlecnhartnettwfute/20 l6/05/20/t>a!d-eagles-gone-wlth-the-wind-n2l65709[ ll /7/20 17 6 07·00 PM] 
496 


27600.450

ilald Eagles Gone w1th the Wmd- Kathleen Hartnett \\1ntc 

Current renewable systems require massive material use. 

For example, an average wind system uses 460 metric tons 

of steel and 870 cubic meters of concrete per megawatt of 

electricity to anchor the turbines. In~. a natural gas 

combined cycle plant of comparable capacity uses about 

three metric tons of steel and twenty-seven cubic meters of 

concrete. Although likely regarded as punishable heresy by 

the climate crusaders, mankind's carbon footprint has shrunk 

the physical footprint of human societies on the natural world. 

It's time to lift the veil on renewables. The preoccupation with 

carbon emissions risks major gains in genuine environmental protection and now would trash our 

national symbol-the American Bald Eagle. 

Wait-Could These Virginia Races 

Also Shed Light On The 2018 

Midterms'! 

Mall Vespa J 

Former PA Gov, MSNBC Panel 

Deliver A Punch To The Gut To VA 

Democrats On Governor's Race 

Shdlc tlw; on I dccbook 

Dems Apparently OK With Having a 

Convicted Felon in Their Ranks 

Guy Benson 

Carlson: CNN Told Hosts to Discredit 

Donna Brazile Over Clinton-DNC 

Revelations 

llttps , 'towolmll com,cohnnnists,'katllleenhartnettv.llite'20!6,05·'20'bald-eag!es-gone-v.Jth-the-wmd-n2165709fll ·"'' '2017 6 ()7·00 PMJ 

Angus King a Hard No On Assault 

Rifle Ban 

Chnst:ne Rousselle I 
497 


27600.451

SHARf 

f 

, 

Texas. The 

projects. 

bill tagged least $110 billion energy 

The Penesoal Wind Farm TX (near Corpus Christi) recently received 

a $114 million stimulus grant. Penescal Developers wili use the money to 

double the size of the facility. Under the program Section 1602 of ARRA, 

federal government will rebate percent of the construction cost The 

subsidy also includes accelerated depreciation reduce taxes. 

Wind farms already are subsidized, without which there would be few If 
498 


27600.452

Wind Industry IJ!owing Away Our Tax Dollars>> Blog & Commentary>> Texas Public Policy Foundation 

any on the ground. When federal subsidies lapsed in 2000, 2002, and 2004, 

wind farm development ceased. According to the U.S. Energy Information 

Agency, total federal subsidies for electric generation from wind in 2008 were 

$22.37 per megawatt hour, compared to 25 cents for natural gas. 

The developers of the wind farm in Sarita, TX claim the expansion made 

possible by the taxpayers' stimulus check will provide power to 70,000 homes. 

Seven thousand homes might be a more accurate figure. The 84 additional 

turbines at the Sarita facility will increase the installed capacity by 200 

megawatts, but the actual electricity generated by wind farms is much lower 

than their installed capacity. According to the Electric Reliability Council of 

Texas, Texas wind farms generated electricity at 8.7 percent of installed 

capacity in 2008. Wind blows intermittently and at variable speeds. 

Sarita developers claim the federal rebate will produce more than 200 jobs. 

Dividing the $114 million rebate by the 216 jobs, one arrives at a cost of more 

than $500,000 for each job! And are not most of the jobs for temporary 

construction? According to our state comptroller's employment data, each 100 

megawatts of installed wind generation supports no more than eight 

permanent jobs. 

Investment bankers are all aflutter with the onset of stimulus money for 

renewable energy projects according to the August 31 Wall Street Journal. 

After a long lag, numerous firms have again invested upwards of $100 million 

in wind farms. Investors are attracted by the quick returns made possible by 

the hefty federal grants and tax benefits. 

The growing subsidies for wind power mask wind's high cost and inherent 

limitations, but only for so long. As of this summer, an average residential 

electric bill in Austin Energy's GreenChoice retail program was $152, 

compared to $93 for its standard program. Indeed, the price of Austin's 

GreenChoice electricity had doubled since early 2008. With almost no new 

subscribers for GreenChoice, in August, the Austin City Council directed the 

utility to slash GreenChoice rates and spread the higher cost of wind energy 

among all Austin Energy ratepayers. 

Although appealing to many, wind power is an extremely expensive, 

inefficient, and unreliable source of electricity, incapable of providing base 

load power. Wind's intermittency, variability, line loss, necessary back-up 

generation, transmission needs, and dispatch complexity limit the amount of 

electricity wind can secure. Ever larger mandates and subsidies will not make 

https://v.'\vw.texa<;policy.comfblog/detaillwind~industry-blowing-away-tlur-tax-do!lars{ I I /7/20 I 7 6:05:! 2 PM J 
499 


27600.453

Wind Industry Blowing Away Our Tax Dollars>> Blog & Commentary» Texas Public Policy Foundation 

wind power more economically viable, as the European experience now 

demonstrates. 

A recent study in Denmark, allegedly the world's titan of wind power, reveals 

that wind met only five to 10 percent of electric power demands in the past five 

years, instead of the widely touted 20 percent. Danish utility rates are the 

highest in the European Union. And each "wind job" created by government 

subsidy cost Danish taxpayers between $90,000 and $140,000, figures similar 

to Spain's subsidized wind industry. 

Renewable energy may provide a welcome contribution to the Texas and 

national energy portfolio. Consumers, however, must demand the hard facts of 

the matter. Wind power must shed the government supplement and meet the 

tests of the free market place to find its appropriate niche. 

Kathleen Hartnett White is Distinguished Senior Fellow in Residence and 

Director of the Armstrong Center for Energy & the Environment at the Texas 

Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in 

Austin. White is the former Chair of the Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality. 

RELATED POSTS 

Eliminating renewable 

energy subsidies is key to 

increasing prosperity 

--

COMMENTARY 

\ \latter of Priorities: 

Houston's $260 k Sh(mers 

Special session ma~ be a 

good im cstmcnt for I cxans 

https://www.texaspolicy.com!blog/detail/wind-industry-b!owing-away-our-tax-do!lars[ll/7/2017 6:05:12 PM] 
500 


27600.454

Texas Enviros: Kathleen Hartnett White would be a 'Disaster' as EPA Chief 

[J 

Texas Environmentalists: Kathleen Hartnett White Would 

be 'Disaster' as EPA Chief 

White has a long record of siding with industrial polluters in Texas and holds 

some extreme views on matters of science. 

by Naveena Sadasivam 

cl~mcenaSt\am 

Wed, Nov 30,2016 at 8:30am CST 

Kathleen Hartnett White's vote to allow 

construction of a new coal plant !50 miles 

south of Dallas was the final straw for 

environmental groups. Mayors and 

officials in 24 cities and counties opposed 

the Oak Grove coal plant. Residents of 

Robertson County took out ads in the paper 

and held protests opposing it. And 

administrative law judges, who reviewed 

the plant's air permit, told the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ) that the plant's pollution controls 

https://www.texasobscrver.org/texa'i~environmentalist~kathleen~hartnett~white~disaster~cpa-chief/fl117 /2017 5:27:13 PM] 
501 


27600.455

Texas Enviros: Kathleen Hartnett White would be a 'Disaster' as EPA Chid 

Kathleen Hartnett White, a climate change denier, is 

being considered by Trump to lead the Environmental 

Protection Agency. TEA'AS PUBLIC POLICY FVC.l\''DATJO,\: 

couldn't "reasonably be expected to work." 

But in the summer of2007, then-TCEQ 

Chairman White argued that Oak Grove's 

owner, TXU Corp., was under no 

obligation to prove its pollution controls would work. The commission voted 2-1 to issue 

the air permit. For longtime environmentalists in the state, White's vote typified her attitude 

on environmental issues side with industry no matter what. 

In the decade since the permit for Oak Grove was approved, coal has become uneconomical 

and the plant's parent company, Energy Future Holdings, is now desperately trying to shed 

its tax obligations. White should have seen the writing on the wall for coal and listened to 

the researchers and citizens who warned her against greenlighting a coal plant, said Neil 

Carman, a former TCEQ inspector who now works for the Sierra Club. 

"She acted like everything was rosy," said Carman. 

https:iiw\.,.W.tcxasobservcr.orgltexas~environmentallst-kathleen~hartnett-whik'-disaster.cpa-chief/[1 l/7i2017 5:27:13 PM] 
502 


27600.456

Texas Enviros: Kathleen llartnett White would be a 'Disaster' !IS EPA Chief 

The Oak Grove vote was among the final decisions White made as chairman ofTCEQ, 

which she led from 2003 to 2007. By then, environmental groups, tired of White's industryfriendly practices, purchased a billboard near TCEQ headquarters in Austin urging thenGovernor Rick Perry to "Get White Out!" and campaigned to ensure she wasn't reappointed 

to the commission. 

During her time at TCEQ, White was consistent in her positions: Trying to curb carbon 

emissions is "futile," renewables are "a false hope" and "carbon dioxide has none of the 

attributes of a pollutant." Among her stranger beliefs is that "fossil fuels dissolved the 

economic justification for slavery" and that the United Nations has ""revealed themselves" 

as advocating tor communism as "the only system of government which effectively would 

reduce carbon dioxide." 

White is reportedly now being considered to head the EPA. On Monday, Trump met with 

White as well as Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt, who is also in the running for the 

position. If she is passed over for the top job, industry watchers say she could be appointed 

EPA Region 6 administrator in Dallas or head of the Council on Environmental Quality in 

the White House. 

The proposition of White being in 

any position with oversight of 

national environmental policy 

horrifies Texas enviros. White has 

been a particularly fierce critic of the 

"imperial EPA" and she falls within 

the fringe of climate deniers. During 

Commissioner White's Decisions Endanger 

Public Health and Our Climate. 

www.l!~~l:nm 

The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen paid for a 

bit! board asking then~Governor Rick Perry to ·'Get White 

Out!" PUBUCC!TIZEN 

her six-year tenure on TCEQ, she rebuffed proposals to strengthen smog rules and 

repeatedly allowed large polluters to increase emission limits. 

https:/iwww.tex!lsobserver.orgftexas-environmentalist~kllthleen~harlnett·white-disaster-ep!l..chief/{ll/7/2017 5:27:13 PM] 
503 


27600.457

Texas Enviros: Kathleen Hartnett White would be a 'Disaster' as EPA Chief 

"Kathleen Hartnett White would be one of the biggest unnatural environmental disasters the 

nation has ever experienced if she were appointed to run the EPA,'' said Tom "Smitty" 

Smith, the outgoing head of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen-Texas in an 

emailed statement. "She was a disaster as the chair of the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality." 

White, an avid breeder of Jack Russell terriers, grew up in Salina, Kansas. She attended 

Stanford, where she received her bachelor's and master's degrees in East Asian studies and 

comparative literature. Her early appointments were in the Reagan administration. She took 

a position in the U.S. Department of Agriculture and was later appointed as a special 

assistant to Nancy Reagan. 

White comes from a long line of ranchers and told the Bir; Bend Sentinel in 2003 that her 

appointment to TCEQ was in part because she would "represent agricultural and rural 

Texas issues.'' Her resume includes a stint with the National Cattlemen's Beef Association 

as director of private lands and the environment. Before tapping her for the TCEQ position, 

Governor Rick Perry appointed her to the Texas Water Development Board. 

She now directs the Armstrong Center for Energy & the Environment at the Texas Public 

Policy Foundation, an Austin-based conservative think tank thm receives money from 

ExxonMobil. Chevron and other oil and gas giants. The group has also received at least 

$220,000 from the Koch brothers since 2010, according to the Center for Media and 

Democracy. 

White did not respond to repeated requests for an interview. A spokesperson for the Texas 

Public Policy Foundation said she was unavailable until after the publication deadline. 

https://www.texasobscrver.org/tcxa<>·cmironmentalist·kathlccn·hartnett-whitc-disao;tcr·cpa·chicf/[ lli7 /2017 5:27: 13 PMl 
504 


27600.458

Texas Enviros: Kathleen Hartnett White would be a 'Disaster' as EPA Chief 

Though Texas' environmental community sees her as overly friendly to industry, White's 

record could prove to be a significant advantage as she vies for the EPA job. Trump has 

promised to bring the "coal industry back I 00 percent" and boost shale gas. He has also 

said the EPA is "a disgrace" and that he wiii "cancel job-killing restrictions on the 

production of American energy." 

White's experience in Texas could help the Trump administration meet those goals. TCEQ 

is the second-largest government environmental agency after the EPA, employing about 

3,000 people in 16 regional offices during the time she was commissioner. 

Among the most significant decisions during her time on TCEQ is her handling of a 2003 

audit of the agency. The report found that for 80 enforcement ca~es TCEQ pursued between 

2000 and 2003 the agency could have issues $8.6 million in fines, but instead it settled for 

about $1.6 million. As a result, "violators often have economic benefits that exceed their 

penalties, which could reduce their incentive to comply," the report's authors noted. 

After a lengthy review process, when the agency's executive director proposed reforming 

the penalty structure for polluters, White opposed the change. 

Luke Metzger, director of Environment Texas, said White and the other commissioners 

"deliberately shifted resources" from the enforcement department to divisions in charge of 

permitting. 

"That had the clear consequence of not having the resources to enforce the law when a 

company violates it and puts out dangerous pollution," Metzger said. "Her greatest legacy 

at TCEQ was that kind of clear shift in priority." 

Metzger painted a dire picture of what White would bring to the EPA. He warned that with 

https://v.,..vw.texasobservcr.org/texas..environmentalist~kathlcen~hartnctt~whitc~disasteHpa~chief/[11 /7/2017 5:27: 13 PMJ 
505 


27600.459

Texas Enviros: Kathleen Hartnett White would be a 'Disaster' as EPA Chief 

White in charge, the Trump administration could severely hobble the agency by slashing 

staff, shifting focus from enforcement to streamlining the permitting process. The agency 

could repeal Obama-era environmental protections and stack the Clean Air Science 

Committee with pro-industry science skeptics such as TCEQ Chief Toxicologist Michael 

Honeycutt, who has questioned the link between ozone pollution and adverse health effects. 

White has also gone head-to-head with the EPA. As chairman ofTCEQ, White was 

responsible for approving the state implementation plan to reduce ozone levels. During the 

process, White advocated to loosen limitations on ozone-forming pollutants. She supported 

submitting a plan that would fail to reach the goals set by the EPA. When the regional EPA 

administrator pushed back, While chose to submit the plan as is. 

As a think tank policy director, she has developed her anti-environmental bent to include 

the popular notion among conservatives that power ought to be devolved to the states. In a 

2010 policy paper for a publication of the American Legislative Exchange Council, White 

wrote that "the originally envisioned relationship of cooperation between the EPA and state 

environmental agencies has been replaced by federal command and control over states." 

The state implementation plan for air pollutants, for example, has given the EPA 

"essentially dictatorial authority over all state regulations remotely related to air quality." 

"She would be interested in seeing a collaborative effort with the states taking the lead" if 

White were to be appointed to lead the EPA, said Buddy Garcia, a former TCEQ 

commissioner who served with White and mostly voted in lockstep with her. The EPA 

would provide oversight instead of trying to dictate policy and ''saying you're going to do 

what we want,'' he said. 

"She took her job very seriously and looked at the science and whether the rules were 

achievable or not," Garcia. who now works as a consultant on energy and environmental 

https ://\\ ~w.texasobserver.org/texas-cnvironmentalist-kath lecn-bartnett ~whitc·disaster-cpa~chicf/lll/7/20 17 5:27: 1 3 PM} 
506 


27600.460

Texa<> Enviros: Kathleen Hannett White would be a 'Disaster' as EPA Chief 

issues, said. "She's a very sharp lady." 

White, however, does not accept basic established science. She believes that climate change 

is the "dogmatic claim of ideologues and clerics" and has blamed natural variability and 

solar activity for increasing temperatures. On smog, she has pointed to a study that found 

hospital visits for asthma in Texas decreasing during the ozone season as evidence to 

abandon stricter smog regulations. And she has claimed that there have been vitiually no 

cases of fracking contaminating \Vater sources. 

Trump's stated views on climate change have ranged from calling it a Chinese-perpetrated 

hoax to, more recently, saying there might be "some connectivity" between climate change 

and human activity and that he is keeping "an open mind·· on the Paris climate accord. If 

Trump does decide to take a hard-line against climate science, White would seem to be a 

perfect pick. 

Get the latest Texas Observer news, analysis and investigations 

via Faccbnok, TYvittcr and our weekly newsletter. 

Enter your email 

Submft 

Read More: EPA, Kathleen Hartnett White. TCEQ 

You May Also Like: 

https://www.texasobserver.org/texas~cnvironmcntalist~kathleenwhartnett~whitc-disaster-epa-chiefllll/7/20 17 5:27:13 PM] 
507 


27600.461

TEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION February 2015 

Center for Energy and the Environment PolicyPerspective 

by Kathleen Hartnett 

White 

Key Points • The federal 

Endangered Species 

Act provides an 

antiquated and 

hidebound statutory 

framework for 

protecting endimger<!d 

species.lt is 

economically hannful 

withOut substantial 

environmental benefit. 

• Between now imd 

2018, the federal government will decide 

whether to list 1,000 

neW species under the 

EsA, inducting around 

a 100 species in Texas. 

• Texas has successfully 

resisted listings usin9 

a combination of 

litigation andvotunt3ry 

conservation plans 

that protect landowner 

conft(ientlality and 

private property rights. 

-

The Endangered Species Act and Texas: 

A look Ahead 

Introduction 

The economy of Texas has thrived in recent 

years. Whether through vibrant cities, a 

booming oil and gas industry, or continued 

strength in manufacturing and agriculture, 

development has been strong. 

Yet today, that prosperity is imperiled by an 

unusual source. Whether it is infrastructure, 

residential expansion, or the development of 

water supplies or oil and gas, endangered species regulations have proven time and again to 

be a formidable obstacle to development. And 

with the number of listed species in Texas 

likely to increase dramatically, the state needs 

to prepare itself for the challenges ahead. lbis 

paper looks at some of the dangers that ESA 

listings pose to Texas' continued success, and, 

more importantly, suggests how the state can 

move forward to meet these challenges without jeopardizing economic growth. 

How the ESA Works 

Enacted by Congress in 1973, the goal of the 

Endangered Species Act is "to halt and reverse 

the trend toward species extinction, whatever 

the cost." 1 This absolutist approach is reflected 

in the text of the ESA. Under the Act, species may be added to an official "endangered" 

or "threatened" list if the federal government 

determines them to be under threat of extinction. Listing decisions are made by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service or, in some cases, by 

the National Marine Fisheries Service (collectively "FWS"). However, in addition to government initiated listing decisions, individuals or 

organizations may also petition the agencies 

to consider listing of a particular species, and 

may file lawsuits to compel them to do so. 

A species may be determined to be endangered 

or threatened because of any of the following 

factors: 1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat 

or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy 

of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other 

natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.2 

If FWS does not find a species to be endangered, it may instead list a species as "threatened" if it determines the species is likely to 

become endangered in the foreseeable future. 

Once a species has been listed, FW'S must also 

designate the species' "critical habit:' which are 

the specific geographic areas necessary to sustain the species. 

The decision whether to list a species as endangered must be "based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available:':>. Note: 

the standard is based on the "best scientific and 

commercial data available:' There is no requirement that the data meet any minimum standards for quality or reliability. Listing decisions 

may be and are made based on incomplete or 

low quality scientific data if no better data is 

available. In keeping with the ESA:s "whatever 

the cosf' approach, economic considerations 

can play no role in the listing decision.* 

*By contrast, in designating a species' critical habitat, FWS may"tak[e} into consideration the economic 

impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area 

as critical habitat:' 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(2). 
508 


27600.462

The Endangered Species Act and Texas: A look Ahead 

How the ESA Hurts 

Official listing under the ESA has been largely ineffective in 

helping species recover. In the 40 years since the ESA was 

enacted, only 2 percent of listed species have recovered to 

the point that they qualify for delisting. And some of these 

cases have been based on errors by FWS in deciding to list 

in the first place. For example, FWS listed as endangered the 

Johnson frankenia, a species of Texas plant, claiming that 

only 1,500 specimens remained in existence. Subsequent 

to listing, however, FWS discovered that their estimate was 

slightly off. In reality, there are more than 4 million individual Texas frankenia plants. Despite this, FWS did not move 

to delist the species for more than a decade;1 

But while FWS has been ineffective at helping endangered 

species to recover, it has been quite effective in blocking 

needed infrastructure and industry. Listing can result in 

broad regulatory restriction on private land use by the federal government. For this reason, the ESA is increasingly 

used by environmental activists to limit development. 

In 2010, for example, a group of environmentalists brought 

suit against the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), claiming that TCEQ's management of Texas 

surface waters had led to the deaths of several dozen endangered whooping cranes. According to the suit, diversion 

of surface water under vested water rights authorized by 

TCEQ had increased the salinity of the freshwater inflows 

into Aransas Bay in the lower Guadalupe River basin. Higher salinity, argued the plaintiff, reduced the blue crab population in the area that served as a major food source for the 

migratory whooping cranes. Of the 23 claimed bird deaths 

at issue in the case, only four were based on discovered 

carcasses. The other 19 deaths were estimated by comparing bird sightings in 2008-2009 to numbers from previous 

years, and assuming that any reduction was due to death. 

The following year, FWS' population survey indicated that 

19 new birds mysteriously showed up. 5 

Nevertheless, in March of 2013, a federal district court in 

Corpus Christi found that TCEQ was legally responsible for 

the death of the birds, and ordered an immediate halt to new 

water permitting in the Guadalupe and San Antonio River 

basins. The district court decision was ultimately reversed 

on appeal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Yet had the decision stood, it would have mooted most of the water projects 

February 2015 

listed in Region L of the State Water Plan (which includes 

San Antonio). ~Ihe environmental plaintiff plans to take this 

suit to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

To see how things might have turned out very differently, 

one need only to look westward to California, which is facing its own severe drought conditions right now. 1he acute 

water shortages occurring in California are caused, in large 

part, by the release of huge volumes of water from reservoirs 

on behalf of the welfare of the purportedly endangered Delta Smelt. An initial analysis by Berkeley Economic Consulting found that the short run economic damage alone from 

the diversions could be as much as $3 billion a year during drought periods. 6 The diversions have been particularly 

hard on farmers in California's Central Valley. Unemployment in the city of Mendota, to give one example, exceeds 

40 percent.7 

Environmentalists are now preparing to use the same tactics 

to thwart the oil and gas industry. According to recent reports, efforts are underway to stop export of fracked natural 

gas along the South Texas coast by citing the potential effects on the endangered ocelot, a species of wild cat.8 

ESA-imposed restrictions have also hampered disaster relief 

efforts. In 2011, fires in Bastrop County burned 34,000 acres 

ofland and destroyed 1,700 homes. The cost of clearing debris alone was in the millions. Yet progress on the debris 

removal was delayed due to concerns that "soil disturbance" 

caused by removal of dead trees would affect the endangered Houston Toad during its mating season. Bastrop 

County Commissioners estimate that accommodating the 

toad doubled the county's cost and time. The largest population of the Houston Toad resided in Bastrop State Park, 98 

percent of which was consumed by the fire.9 

Ironically, the Houston 1bad is not the only example ofESA 

making natural disasters worse. According to a recent report by the Endangered Species Act Congressional Working 

Group, ESA litigation has "increased the federal government's inability to control catastrophic wildfires~'HJ 

The working group found that in Montana, lawsuits by environmentalists aimed at blocking habitat improvement have 

resulted in the accumulation of driftwood and unhealthy 

vegetation, leading to the area being identified as at a "sigTexas Pu~lic Pnli,cv f,nnnrl>';,nn 
509 


27600.463

nificant risk of wildfire:' The ESA has also limited the use 

of wildfire~fighting technologies, such as aerial retardant 

heavily mechanized equipment, and has restricted the use 

of water in some fire-fighting efforts "due to concerns about 

potential impacts to other ESA-listed species, such as salmon:'15 Of course, endangered species are themselves at risk 

from wildfires, As noted in the report: "Endangered species 

www.texaspolicy.com 

habitat destruction was a reality last year, when the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department noted that two major fires resulted in the destruction of 20 percent of Mexican spotted 

owl nests known to exist in the world:'16 But the hidebound 

strictures of the ESA make no allowances for such unintended consequences. 
510 


27600.464

Danger Ahead 

The challenges from currently listed species are already sub~ 

stantial. But they could become much worse in the near future. As noted above, listing proposals under the ESA may 

be initiated by petitions filed by private activist groups. Over 

time, a flood of petitions by environmentalist groups has led 

to a large backlog of candidate species. In 2011, FWS entered into a court~approved, multi-year work plan to make 

final determinations by 2018 on over 1000 species that are 

the subject of environmentalist driven listing petitions. Currently, 1215 species are listed as «endangered" by FWS, while 

an additional 348 are listed as "threatened:' 17 Thus, FVVS' 

settlement has the potential to nearly double the number of 

listed species in the next four years. 

More than 100 of these species are in Texas. Every county in 

Texas contains habitat for at least two of these species, and 

some counties contained as many as 29.* 

How to Fight Back 

Attempts to rein in the ESA have been varied. At the federal level, political will has been building for ESA reform. In 

August, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 4315, 

the Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness 

Act. HR4315 requ.ires data used by federal agencies for ESA 

listing and proposed listing decisions to be made publicly 

available and accessible. The bill also requires the interior 

secretary to report and comprehensively track all litigation 

costs associated with the Act. Furthermore, the bill caps 

hourly fees paid to attorneys that prevail in cases filed under 

ESA, consistent with current law. 

The ESA is a much weaker law politically than many people 

realize. In fact, the law has not been reauthorized in several decades. Congress annually appropriates funds without 

an authorizing bill because less than half of Congress supports the ESA in its current form. Yet while reforming the 

ESA will ultimately require Congressional action, there are 

things Texans can do to prevent or limit the damage from 

additional species listings. 

First, because listing decisions are made based on the best 

"available" science, research can play a pivotal role in fighting back against listings. In 2009, the Texas Legislature created the Interagency Taskforce on Economic Development 

and Endangered Species, which conducts research into 

the economic impacts of potential listings and coordinates 

strategy for protecting species without harming economic 

growth. When FWS announced its listing plans for the 

Dunes Sagebrush Lizard, this task force was able to quickly 

coordinate scientific research on the lizard's habitat. This 

privately funded research was key to avoiding federal listing 

oft he lizard. 

Second, where conservation plans are developed, multiple plans-including voluntary landuwner implemented 

plans-are preferable to a single state driven plan. No state 

agency will ever have the same incentives to protect private 

property and enterprise as the affected landowners and industries themselves. Long experience shows that no conservation plan can be successful if it doesn't have the support 

of the landowners themselves. The state's role should be to 

foster robust science, alternative plans and voluntary collaboration between landuwners, industry, academia, and governm~nt, rather than in dictating a one size fits all approach. 

Finally, legal challenges can and should be used to fight listing decisions when necessary. Yet even a successful legal 

challenge can drag on for years, doing potentially severe 

dan1age in the interim. Where possible, it is better to fight a 

listing before it happens, or to defend a FWS decision not to 

list, tben it is to try to reverse a FWS decision to list in court. 

The Wrong Approach 

During the last legislative session, legislation was filed that 

would have restructured the state's response to listings. HB 

3509 would have given the Texas Park and Wildlife Department (TPWD) an expansive authority to enable and enforce 

federal land use controls on private land under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Such regulatory authority over 

basic land use-like grazing, brush clearing or constructing 

drilling pads-has been long denied to the TPWD. 

Texas differs from both the federal government and some 

other states in that state law does not provide regulatory authority for an endangered species protection program. Several state statutes do prohibit the killing, hunting, or trapping 

of any species on the state's Nongame, Exotic, Endangered, 

Threatened & Protected Species list, but violation is a misdemeanor otlence with a modest fine of a couple hundred 

• A list of these species adapted from data on the Texas Comptroller's website !s included as an appendix. 

Texas Public Polley Foundation 
511 


27600.465

February 2015 

dollars. These few statutory provisions do not require affirmative obligations on landowners to protect habitat. 

By contrast, HB 3509 would have transformed TPWD from 

a state agency respecting private property rights and promoting voluntary private conservation to an agency which 

enforces federal mandates. 'lhe bill stipulated that TPWD 

"shall provide the state's scientific response to proposed 

[species'] listings:' Because science drives decisions under 

the ESA, HB 3509 would have made TPWD's wildlife biologists the ultimate authority for the state's response to candidates for ESA listing. 

House Bill 3509 would have been the wrong approach for 

Texas. As the example of the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard nonlisting shows, the current framework is working. EtTective 

conservation plans can be developed and coordinated within the state's existing inter-agency task force without going 

through any single state agency. Further, by transforming 

TPWD into a regulatory enforcer of FWS rulings, the bill 

would have created an adversarial relationship between 

TPWD and landowners. This would inevitably have eroded 

the trust necessary not only to effectively respond to official 

listings, but also to promote voluntary conservation on private land. 

The Endangered Species Act and Texas: A Look Ahe.ad 

HB 3509 was vetoed by the governor. Nevertheless, during 

the interim TPWD began in certain respects to operate as if 

the bill had become law. A case in point is TPWD's involvement in efforts of the Western Association ofFish and Wildlife Agencies to develop a multi-state conservation plan for 

the Lesser Prairie Chicken, another potentially listed species. 

The plan could encumber 41 million acres ofland across five 

states, 7.8 million acres of which exist in Texas. This Western 

Association-not the state of Texas-would sign and oversee implementation of the plan in Texas. TPWD would implement on the ground. All this despite the fact that Texas 

law does not give TPWD jurisdiction over federally listed 

endangered species. 

Conclusion 

If properly executed, Texas has the capacity to effectively 

stem the tide of the nearly I 00 pending ESA listings, blunting the impact on the state's social and economic life. To do 

this, however, the state cannot afford to rely on any single 

strategy. Pursuing a decentralized approach will allow the 

nimbleness needed to protect any genuinely threatened 

wildlife, private property rights, and the economic engine 

that remains vital to the state's prosperity.* 
512 


27600.466

The Endangered Species Act and Texas: A Look Ahead 

Endnotes 

' Tennessee Valley Authorityv. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 184 (1978). 

' 16 U.S.C. §1533(a)(1). 

3 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1 )(A). 

'76Fed.Reg.66018(250ct.2011). 

5 Lee Wilson, "Analysis of the Science: The Whooping Crane Decision,' Texas Public Policy Foundation (May 2013). 

6 'Economic Impacts of the Wanger Interim Order for Delta Smelt;' Berkeley Economic Consulting (8 Dec. 2008). 

7 Paul Feine,"Delta Smelt vs. Central Valley Farmers: The Battle Continues;' Reason (29 Feb. 2012). 

February 2015 

8 Asher Price, "Environmental clash in South Texas city: Gas exports over ocelots?"Austin American Statesman (27 Oct. 2014). 

9 Kathleen White, "OfToads and Humans in the Aftermath of the Bastrop Fire;' Washington Examiner (16 Mar. 2012). 

10 "Report, Findings and Recommendations;' Endangered Species Act Congressional Working Group (4 Feb. 2014). 

" Proposed Rule: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for Dunes Sagebrush Lizard, 75 Fed. 

Reg. 77,801,77,813 (14 Dec. 2010). 

12 Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule to List Dunes Sagebrush Lizard, 77 Fed. Reg. 36,872, 36,887-89 (19 June 2012). 

13 Ibid. at 36,895. 

" Defenders of Wildlife v.Jewell, No. 2013-0919 at 17 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 30, 2014). 

15 Ibid. 

"Ibid. 

" 'Summary Listed Species, Listed Populations, and Recovery Plans as of Friday 31 Oct. 2014,"U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Environmental Conservation Online Service (accessed 31 Oct. 2014). 

Texas Public Policy Foundation 
513 


27600.467

About the Author 

Kathleen Hartnett White joined the Texas Public Policy Foundation in January 

2008. She is a Distinguished Senior Fellow-in-Residence and Director of the 

Armstrong Center for Energy & the Environment. 

Prior to joining the Foundation, White served a six-year term as Chairman and 

Commissioner of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). With 

regulatory jurisdiction over air quality, water quality, water rights & utilities, 

storage and disposal of waste, TCEQ's staff of 3,000, annual budget of over $600 million, and 16 

regional offices make it the second largest environmental regulatory agency in the world after the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Prior to Governor Rick Perry's appointment of White to the TCEQ in 2001, she served as then Governor 

George Bush appointee to the Texas Water Development Board where she sat until appointed to 

TCEQ. She also served on the Texas Economic Development Corn mission and the Environmental 

Flows Study Commission. She recently completed her term as an officer and director of the Lower 

Colorado River Authority. White now sits on the editorial board of the Journal of Regulatory Science, the 

Texas Emission Reduction Advisory Board, and the Texas Water Foundation. Her writing has appeared 

in numerous publications including National Review, Investors' Business Daily, Washington Examiner, 

Forbes, Daily Caller, The Hill, and major 1exas newspapers. She most recently testified before the U.S. 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. 

About the Texas Public Policy Foundation 

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a 501 (c)3 non-profit, non-partisan research institute, 

The Foundation's mission is to promote and defend liberty, personal responsibility, and free enterprise 

in Texas and the nation by educating and affecting policymakers and the Texas public policy debate 

with academically sound research and outreach. 

Funded by thousands of individuals, foundations, and corporations, the Foundation does not accept 

government funds or contributions to infiuence the outcomes of its research. 

The public is demanding a different direction for their government, and the Texas Public Policy 

Foundation is providing the ideas that enable policymakers to chart that new course. 

Texas o l i CJ 

900 Congress Ave., Suite 400 I Austin, Texas 78701 I (512) 472-2700 I (512) 472-2728 fax I www.TexasPolicy.corn 
514 


27600.468

lop 

TPPF 

about 

factories in 

to do 

they do 
515 


27600.469

Top TPPF Analyst: Coal Ended Slavery- The Texas Observer 

This being Texas, a respectable think tank needs Big Ideas about energy. The group's 

message for the most part-and the message of the Houston conference-is that fossil 

fuels are Good, and we should use more of them. Even global warming is good, if you look 

at it in the right light, if you were to stipulate that it's even happening, which it isn't. 

At TPPF, this wholesome message is mostly propagated these days by Kathleen Hartnett 

White. Before TPPF, White led the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality from 

2001 to 2007. If you lived in Texas in the last decade, it was White's ostensible 

responsibility to safeguard your lungs and general well-being, and to carefully weigh and 

balance those concerns against the demands of economic development-a weighty 

responsibility. 

White has become an energy analyst at a fascinating time. Here's the crux of Texas' 

problem: We've discovered a new ocean of gas and oil under the state, which can make a 

significant number of people here-and to a lesser degree, our cash-strapped state in 

general-very rich. At the same time, the scientific community is more sure than ever 

before that burning those fuels will hurt us in very real ways. Some of us can live large 

now, but many others will pay a heavy price. 

How can we navigate these complex questions? Into the rain-sodden arena of doubt drives 

White, in a coal-rolling Hum vee upon which another Hum vee has been delicately stacked, 

like a pair of mating dragonflies. Other conservative thinkers have questioned the economic 

efficiency of renewable energy. That meeker argument is becoming less powerful every day 

-even though White still calls renewable energy "parasitic," unlike, one supposes, the 

heavily subsidized fossil fuel industry. 

White's flooring the gas pedal. Her magnum opus, "Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case," takes 

the position that burning coal and oil is in fact a moral imperative. Coal and oil-cheap 

https://wv.w.tcxasobserver.org/top-tppf-analyst-coal-ended-slavery/{ll/7/2017 I :34: II PMl 
516 


27600.470

Coal 

prosperity. 

the 

But \\'l1ite's been 

\vas star 

wil! reduce 

what 

As 

power grid 

to agrarian 

question of balancing prosperity 

constant subject 

""'"'""~'c~,,•, done !he rounds 

week, Rick 

l'~ll 

been a 

and 

the 

it 

deigned 
517 


27600.471

Top TPPF Analyst: Coal Ended Slavery w The Texas Obsener 

to speak. And she's proud of it: When White presented her paper at the Heritage Foundation 

in June, she told the crowd that writing the paper led her to "some fascinating books," and 

that her curious wanderings included the discovery of"ajillion papers in academic 

journals." 

But her footnotes come from a mix of places: They range from the British tabloid The Daily 

Mail, an authoritative source on nothing. to the 17th century English political philosopher 

Thomas Hobbes. White re-reads Hobbes' Leviathan and concludes that his theoretical 

concept of a pre-society, pre-government "state of nature" accurately depicts "preindustrial 

conditions for the average person." Hrn. There are actual journal articles-mostly from 

other think tankers. But there's also reference to less auspicious sources. 

It's a beautiful distillation of a worldview that shuns complexity in all forms. 

The paper contains extensive block quotes and citations from The Rational Optimist: How 

Prosperity Evolves, a 2011 popular science book by Matt Ridley-otherwise known as 

Matthew White Ridley, 5th Viscount Ridley, a Conservative Party member of the United 

Kingdom's House of Lords. In some circles, Ridley is most famous for helping to tank the 

British bank Northern Rock, where he served as chairman. Northern Rock's spectacular 

implosion in 2007 was one of the precipitating events of the global financial apocalypse. 

Several years later, Ridley was awarded the Manhattan Institute's Hayek Prize, for his 

ongoing contributions to the unimpeachable cause of the free market. In other circles, 

Ridley is most famous for his viral Ted Talk, '·When Ideas Have Sex:· Ridley gave a 

https://\V\Vw.texasobservcr.org/top~tppf·analyst·coal-ended-slavery/fll/712017 I :34: J I PM! 
518 


27600.472

Top TPPF Analyst: Coal Ended Slavery ·The Texas Observer 

keynote at the Houston conference. 

But in lieu of a longer dissection of the paper, let's consider White's weirdest extrapolation 

of her argument. On page 17, she notes that the abolitionist movement in Britain happened 

concurrently with coal-fired industrial growth, and posits that the rise of factories "indeed 

increased and institutionalized compassion." 

In a post on TPPF's website called "Energy and Freedom," she expands on her case: 

First harnessed in the English Industrial Revolution, fossil fuels spawned 

unceasing economic growth-an unprecedented productivity of most benefit to the 

poor until then consigned to poverty and enslavement across the world. 

In 1807, the British Parliament finally passed William Wilberforce's bill to abolish 

the slave trade in the British Empire. In the same year, the largest industrial 

complex in the world powered and illuminated by coal opened in Manchester, 

England. Thus began the century-long process of converting mankind's industry 

from the power of muscle, wood, wind, and water to stored solar energy in fossil 

fuels. 

Fossil fuels dissolved the economic justification for slavery. 

There's some bad history in this passage, but it's so much more than that. It's a beautiful 

distillation of a worldview that shuns complexity in all forms. 

Sure, there's a discussion to be had about the reasons for the success of abolitionism in 

England. Was it a political and social movement, emerging from the Enlightenment, which 

succeeded in advancing a moral case, or did it happen merely for economic or practical 

https://www.texasobserver.orgltop~tppf-analyst-coal-ended-slavery/[1117/2017 1:34:11 PMJ 
519 


27600.473

Top TPPF Analyst Coal Ended Slavery- The Texas Observer 

reasons? At any rate, black Britons like Ignatius Sancho and Olaudah Equiano, who were 

seminal figures in the movement, were active decades before the period White describes, 

The major first touchstones in the eventual abolition of slavery in the British Empire 

happened either well before the industrial revolution, or at a point when the industrial 

revolution was in its absolute infancy. 

But the key thing: In tying the abolition of the slave trade to the growth of industrial 

Manchester, White gets it exactly backwards. The fossil-fueled industrial revolution she's 

describing didn't "dissolve the economic justification for slavery," it made slavery more 

lucrative. It made slavery worse. 

Here's why: the new factories in England White describes were producing manufactured 

goods. Incidentally, many of them-along with many of the touchstones of the industrial 

revolution, like James Watt's steam engine-were flnanccd with money from the slave 

trade. But those factories, most of which were producing textiles, needed raw materials. 

Foremost among those raw materials was cotton. 

Manchester's new ability to make cheap clothes for the English working class meant that 

the factories needed a lot more cotton-so demand for the blood-drenched crop exploded. 

Manchester's industrial growth was enabled by slavery-something people in the north of 

England arc well aware o[ And it fed slavery, too. True, Britain outlawed the slave trade in 

1807-but they kept slaves in the colonies until 1833. Afterward, they depended on 

American slavery. When the fruit of American slavery was finally disrupted at the points of 

the bayonets of the Army of the Potomac, Northern England plummeted into depression. 

As industrial Manchester grew, the American institution of slavery ballooned in scale and 

scope. In 1800, American slaves produced 156,000 bales of cotton-in 1860, they produced 

more than 4 million bales. From 1790 to the start of the Civil War, the American slave 

population likewise multiplied from 700,000 to 4 million, due in large part to new industrial 

https://w\\'\vJexasobservL>r.org/top-tppf~ana!yst-coal-ended-slavery/[ 1117/2017 1:34:11 PM} 
520 


27600.474

Top TPPF Analyst: Coal Ended Slavery~ The Texa'> Observer 

efficiency facilitating demand for cotton-including American contributions like the cotlon 

gin. 

Take the words of South Carolinian Thomas Cooper, who warned the British about the 

price of abolition in 1838. "Every slave in a southern state is an operative for Great Britain. 

We cannot work rich southern soil by white free labour," Cooper wrote, ''and if you will 

have Cotton Manufacturers, you must have them based upon slave labour." 

So White got it exactly backwards: The coal-fired industrial revolution exacerbated the 

problem of slavery. Does that mean that fossil fuels are evil? No, that would be 

extraordinarily silly-as silly as saying the opposite. 

What it does show is that development is a double-edged sword. Things are almost never 

wholly good, or wholly bad. They're complicated. They embody complex trade-offs. They 

have unintended consequences. That's what the people of Texas asked White to consider 

when she was the head ofTCEQ. 

The environmental problems we face today-they are vast, and time for 

consequential action, knowledgable people tell us, is running short-are very complicated. 

Texas, as a capital of sorts for global energy development, has an outsized role to play 

in either our success or failure to cope with them. The people of the state deserve better than 

meager propaganda. At last week's summit, in the belly of downtown Houston, White and 

colleagues got the space to explain to some of Texas' more powerful people that 

"America's energy is the right and moral solution" to the world's problems. 

Modernity-medicine, travel, leisure-is a nice thing. Slowly cooking the planet is not so 

nice. Helping us navigate trade-offs-taking the measure ofthe good and the bad of an 

issue, and finding a path that takes the most of the former and the least of the latter-is the 

https://w"'w.texasobserver.org/top-tppf-analyst-coal-ended-slavcry/[11/7/2017 1:34: II PM] 
521 


27600.475

Top TPPF Analyst: Coal Ended Slavery- The Texas Observer 

highest possible service intelligent people in public life can render. If think tanks have any 

role to play, it's that. But don't go looking for it at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. 

Get the latest Texas Observer news, analysis and investigations 

via FWC!..'book, Tn ittcr and our weekly nnvslett~r. 

Enter your email 

Submit 

Read More: dimatc t'hangc. coaL Kathleen flJ1inctt White, niL Texas Puhlic Polic:y roundation 

You May Also Like: 

With Trump Cuts, 

Obamacare Enrollment is 

a Volunteer Affair in 

Rural Texas 

In Bastrop County, advocates 

have about$/ 00 to get the word 

out to tens (~/thousands of 

Texans. 

by Sophie ;\mack 

Abbott Supports 

Removing Inaccurate 

Capitol Displays. Do 

Slavery-Denying Plaques 

Count? 

In debate over Confederate 

marker, Ahhott "H:on 't say whether 

it's "substantially inaccurate'' to 

deny slave1y 's connection to the 

Civil War. 

by \liLlmd Baraja" 

https://v.·ww.texasobserveLorg}top-tppt:.analyst-coal-cnded-slavcry/llli7/2017 1:34: II PMJ 

Texas Toxicologist Who 

Rejects Basic Science 

Appointed to EPA Science 

Board 

The Trump administration 

continues to scout Texas officials 

who've repeatedly attacked the 

very policies that they're now 

charged with implementing. 
522 

Senator BARRASSO. Also, Carol Baker with the Texas Water 

Foundation, President and CEO, stated this: ‘‘Ms. White is a committed public servant, has been a wonderful advocate on behalf of 

water issues for decades in her role as Chair of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, was a champion on natural resource issues and admired for her commitment and tenacity. She 

is very collaborative and always interested in listening to all the 

details on the issues and a great team leader. I highly recommend 

and support this very qualified candidate, Kathleen Hartnett 

White.’’ 

I ask unanimous consent that we introduce that. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

523 


27600.476

Tl·'.\., \S\\; \FW~. C!W.i 

September 6, 2017 

To: Senate Environment & Public Works Committee 

Re: Kathleen Hartnett White, Nominee for White Council on Environmental Quality 

I have had the honor of knowing and working with Kathleen White since 1998. She joined the 

Texas Water Foundation Board in 1998 and served as a member until2007 and she served as 

Vice-Chair from 2007 until 2015. She is a committed public servant and has been a wonderful 

advocate on behalf of water issues for decades. In her role as Chair of the Texas Commission 

on Environmental Quality, she was a champion on natural resource issues and admired for her 

commitment and tenacity. She is very collaborative and always interested in listening to all the 

details of the issues, a great team leader. 

I highly recommend and support this very qualified candidate, Kathleen Hartnett White. 

Sincerely, 

Carole D Baker 

President/CEO 

Texas Water Foundation 

www.texaswater.org PO Box 13252 Austin, TX. 78711-3252 
524 

Senator BARRASSO. Let us turn to Senator Inhofe. 

It seemed you were trying to answer something. If it is all right 

with Senator Inhofe, I would like to give you a chance to respond. 

Ms. WHITE. Yes, I was. I understood his question was about an 

issue of naturally occurring radionuclides in soil and as characterized, that somehow, I or another CEQ employee was telling field 

staff don’t show the extent of the problem; just mute it back a little 

bit. Evidently EPA was claiming that. 

This is one of these technical issues, about technical issues and 

interpretative guidance with EPA. I would never, ever tell staff to 

under-report health hazards. That is the only statement I wanted 

to make. Health hazards like this need to be addressed ASAP. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me make one comment. Since all they want to talk about on 

the other side is global warming, it is kind of interesting. Someone 

pretty smart on the other side, back when they were talking, and 

their whole concept was the world is coming to an end, and it is 

due to anthropogenic gases. Do you remember that, Mr. Wheeler? 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. We heard it over and over again, but it did not 

sell. The people did not buy it, so they changed it and started using 

climate change. Climates always change. In fact, we voted unanimously that everyone agrees that climate has always and always 

will change. In all the historical, scientific, and scriptural evidence, 

that is a fact. 

That gives the opportunity to say anyone who does not believe 

the world is coming to an end because of global warming does not 

believe that climate changes. Very clever. I don’t have any reason 

for saying that but somebody has to say it. 

Besides that, when they talk about all the scientific evidence, 

Richard Lindzen is a good example. Richard Lindzen with MIT is 

recognized as one of the top scientists in the country on this and 

other subjects. 

I don’t have the whole quote written down, but I think I have 

it memorized. He said, ‘‘Regulating carbon is a bureaucrat’s dream. 

If you regulate carbon, you regulate life.’’ Have you ever heard that 

quote, Mr. Wheeler? 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, sir, I have heard you say that many times. 

Senator INHOFE. I would also like to have you address one other 

thing. There is this idea out there that somehow in taking care of 

your own land, for example, that the Government needs to do it for 

you. 

You might recall that during the past Administration—I don’t remember his name but I had asked him to come out and talk to our 

farmers in Oklahoma to determine whether or not he really thinks 

we need to have them looking after the environment on their own 

property. They came back with a report. This came from several 

places in Oklahoma that they had never seen such enthusiastic 

support by the owners of the land that was far greater than anything they had ever heard from the bureaucracy. Do you remember 

that? 

Mr. WHEELER. I do, sir, yes. 

Senator INHOFE. I think that is really worth talking about. 

525 

I know we are kind of coming to a close, but the other side of 

the dais has been focusing on your writings, Ms. White, as a private citizen and have been furthering the myth that you have 

helped polluters get away from polluting while at the Texas Commission CEQ. 

I want to show them that while you were at the Texas Commission CEQ, the Texas air quality dramatically improved. What role 

did you play in that result? 

Ms. WHITE. As the chairman, it all circled around the State implementation plan that states, those who have non-attainment 

areas must submit to EPA. Like a lot of Government documents, 

it is not 10 pages; it is six volumes and thousands of pages. 

I was the chairman, so that was the most important issue in the 

entire agency. I think you could generally say I was directing the 

team that was developing the full State implementation plan which 

is, like I said, a huge document with reams of things people might 

call science or technical analysis, control measures and all kinds of 

things. 

It was through really implementing that plan that the dramatic 

reduction, not just in ozone which is not a directly emitted pollutant, but also other pollutants that as a result of the measures addressing ozone, we had beneficial impact on other pollutants. 

Senator INHOFE. The bottom line is, in looking at this, you have 

been very successful in accomplishing those things for the Texas 

CEQ. 

Ms. WHITE. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there any reason you believe you would not 

be equally successful in performing some of those results? 

Ms. WHITE. No. That is why I would be so delighted were I nominated to take on this job at CEQ within a different framework than 

a regulatory agency but lots of the same issues. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Ms. White. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Wheeler, there has been a recent request by Secretary Perry to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to provide certain regulatory favors, to provide regulatory 

priority to, among other things, coal plants. 

To your knowledge, was either Mr. Murray or Murray Energy involved in making a recommendation of any kind to Secretary Perry 

on that subject? Were you personally involved in any way in any 

activities that led up to Secretary Perry’s request to the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission? 

Mr. WHEELER. Certainly, Murray Energy has been supportive of 

that effort. I did attend a meeting with Murray Energy at the Department of Energy where this was discussed months ago, but I deregistered in August. I have not been involved in anything over the 

last few months on this issue. This issue has been front and center. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Was your participation in the preparation 

for the Perry request, if we call it that, is that a fair enough description? Do you know what I am talking about if I say the Perry 

request? 

Mr. WHEELER. I think I know what you mean. I did not work on 

putting that together. As I said, I was in a meeting at the Department of Energy. 

526 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Was that the limit of your participation in 

that, to attend one meeting at the Department of Energy? 

Mr. WHEELER. I also believe I attended one Hill meeting on that 

as well. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. One meeting on the Hill, one meeting at 

the Department of Energy, and nothing further, no memos that you 

authored, no paper trail, nothing else? 

Mr. WHEELER. No, sir. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Ms. Hartnett White, I went down to 

Texas. I go to a lot of States to try to figure out what is going on 

there in terms of climate change. I had a scientific panel with scientists from the University of Texas at Austin; from Texas Tech, 

and Katherine Hayhoe, who I am still somewhat in touch with, 

who is by the way, not pagan, she is evangelical; Texas A&M, the 

Aggies, were present; and Rice University. 

They said that Texas was in harm’s way from climate change on 

a whole variety of fronts, including sea level rise along the coastline and so forth. They were pretty much in unanimous agreement 

with each other about what was going on. 

They also said they were unaware of any support in their universities for some counter-science in which this isn’t really happening. 

Have you been in touch with any of those universities about climate change and about what it means for Texas? Is there any 

record of your contact with those universities? 

Ms. WHITE. I don’t know whether there would be any records, 

but over the years, attending a conference or a panel or that sort 

of thing. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Do you know how much of the excess heat 

that has been captured by greenhouse gas emissions has been absorbed by the oceans, roughly, say to the nearest 10 percent? 

Ms. WHITE. I do not have numbers like that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Even to the nearest 10 percent? Do you 

know if it is more than 50 percent or less than 50 percent? 

Ms. WHITE. I am sorry, but could you ask the question one more 

time? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Of the additional heat that has been captured in the atmosphere as a result of greenhouse gas emissions, 

do you know how much of that excess has been captured in the 

ocean? Is it more or less than 50 percent? Do you even know that? 

Ms. WHITE. No. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. No. OK. 

Ms. WHITE. But I believe there are differences of opinions on 

that, but there is not one right answer. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Really? Do you think there is actual serious difference of opinion whether it is below 50 percent? 

Ms. WHITE. Unless I am mistaken, yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You think there is serious difference of 

opinions as to how much of that has been captured by the ocean? 

You think there is serious scientific opinion that it is below 50 percent? 

Ms. WHITE. Yes, unless I am mistaken. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK, wow. Do you think if the ocean 

warms, it expands? Does the law of thermal expansion apply to sea 

water? 

527 

Ms. WHITE. Again, I do not have any kind of expertise or even 

much layman study of the ocean dynamics and climate change 

issues. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Just enough to know that you think there 

is not science that establishes clearly how much of the heat has 

been taken up by the oceans? You knew that, right? You said you 

knew that. 

My time has expired. I am sorry. I hear the gavel knocking. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator Sullivan. 

Senator CARPER. Could I ask for one unanimous consent before 

Senator Sullivan? 

Senator BARRASSO. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. I would submit for the record statements Ms. 

White made in February of this year on a panel hosted by the CO2 

Coalition, an organization that promotes misinformation about climate change. 

The Coalition claims ‘‘Climate policies deprive mankind of the 

benefits of carbon dioxide.’’ Ms. White stated the CO2 Coalition is 

‘‘a very, very meaningful source.’’ 

Thanks very much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

528 


27600.477

Kathleen Hartnett White 

2017 Conservative Political Action Conference 

Panel Sponsored by the C02 Coalition 

February 24, 2017 

On February 24, 2007, Ms. White was a speaker at the 2017 Conservative Political Action 

Conference on a panel sponsored by the C02 Coalition. The entire panel discussion, including 

comments made by Ms. White, can be found at the following link, 

https://www.facebook.com/Energy.Environment.Legal/videos/vb.529782830430730/127694825 

2380847/?type=3&theater. Below are transcriptions of most of her comments. 

[32m in] 

"Good Afternoon and thank you for coming. We were worried that we would have a small 

audience and look at everyone here, it's great. I also want to thank the C02 Coalition for 

sponsoring this event and giving me the opportunity to speak. I know that it has been said 

before, but go to the [C02 Coalition] website. I can't tell you the quality ofthe information, 

across the board on many different topics, a very very meaningful source. No, carbon dioxide is 

not a pollutant. And nor are fossil fuels the agent of death as the kind of phrases we hear now. I 

could hear Craig's [Idso] presentation over and over again, it is really kind of a marvel. 

From a very different angle, in the book that I wrote, Fueling Freedom, Exposing the Mad War 

on Energy, in attempt to try show all kind of ways, yes, the benefits of the atmospheric C02, but 

also from fossil fuels. 

We are the first generation, well there are probably three generations representing in this room, 

but let's just say those that are enjoying life here on this planet all of our lives swathed in energy, 

massive amount of energy. For a long time, until very, very recently, was 90% of as energy fuel 

was fossil fuels across the world. I like to say that C02 or fossil fuels, they originatedcertainly fossil fuels--originate in life, and they're really the compressed and heated 

concentration of life, and they come back to amplifY human life. That is certainly true in many 

ways, or haven't sunk in ... 

[34:20] 

"President Obama and his lieutenants repeatedly said that the greatest global civilizational threat 

is the threat of man-made global warming, in his views caused by fossil fuels. Climate policies, 

not fossil fuels or C02, is a civilizational threat. That is what the book is all about. That is what 

we mean about madness ... 

[37:12] 

Take a little step in the regulatory realm. Most people know in here that in 2009 EPA without 

any kind of reference in law, made the legal finding that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the 
529 


27600.478

very strict tight fisted, federal Clean Air Act. I won't go into details of how it came about. 

Someone asked if the acknowiedge ... [inaudible] ... In the development, which was again never 

subject of public comment, of the so called social cost of carbon, no mention ofthe social 

benefits of carbon, like lifespan and increased food supply. And there is just nothing in the 

context of the law, in the Clean Air Act, that can make carbon dioxide a pollutant. It is an 

invisible trace gas that has no impact on human health, even at very high levels .... 

[39:02] 

None of the characteristics in the law that surround a pollutant does C02 in anyway have. 

[46:33] 

To reach, crunching the numbers from the IPCC, to reach that 80-85% [reductions in C02] 

would involve reducing current [energy] consumption by about 80%, either in this country or 

other countries. That is a civilizational threat if there ever is one. It's hard to imagine how all 

this could shift, given the extent to which, not only in regulation, but just diffused throughout 

culture, assumptions that carbon dioxide is inherently harmful. Just hard to imagine how that can 

happen. I so hope-and this is the only opportunity I've seen in 20 years-a real redirection and 

its one, in my opinion, as it was for the first environmental law in this country enacted some 40 

or 45 years ago, it must be based on human welfare, impacts on human beings. There's become 

this gap where the planet itself has some value higher than human life on this. And that means, 

really, some pretty simple things about policies at issue here and policies championed very 

consistently by President Trump and his campaign that employment has got to be a key factor on 

any cost-benefit analysis. 

So I'm very hopeful, and very hopeful because of organizations like the C02 Coalition. The 

board composed of just the top of the heap of science on this issue. Brilliant. Not a B team at all, 

but an A-plus team. So, I think in a way, the long debate that we were told was settled- was 

unequivocally settled, incontrovertible settled [ ... ] Look, I think that debate, that crazy debate, 

deluded denial of that debate, I would say it's over. But there's a crack in the door. Just by the 

hear it in the media. They allow people to question some of the claims in the IPCC science and 

some of the value of the climate policy measures ... 

[55:43] 

I wholeheartedly agree with your point, we are getting I think heinously bad science from the 

EPA on their risk assessments that have established the scientific technical basis for these 

[regulations]. The National Academy Sciences in their review panels have mocked the EPA. 

They are not a little bit bad, they are really bad. And they do nothing, but to serve to justify 

often truly infeasible standards ... 
530 

Senator BARRASSO. Brandy Marty Marquez, a commissioner of 

the Public Utility Commission of Texas, has written in support of 

Ms. White’s nomination. Ms. Marquez has said ‘‘Ms. White brings 

a wealth of environmental regulatory experience and her record reflects her commitment to genuine environmental protection.’’ 

I ask unanimous consent as well that this be entered in the 

record. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

531 


27600.479

Brandy Marty Marquez Commissioner 

Public Utility Commission of Texas 

November 7, 2017 

The Honorable John Barasso 

United States Senate 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senators Barasso and Carper, 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

United States Senate 

513 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

As you know, President Trump has nominated Kathleen White to be chairman of the 

White House Council on Environmental Quality. This is to express my support for her 

nomination. Ms. White brings a wealth of environmental regulatory experience and 

understanding that will be needed to expedite the Federal permitting involved in the 

rebuilding of our country's infrastructure. She shares our concern that excessive 

environmental regulation has paralyzed our ability to undertake such large projects and 

that it is time to restore balance and reason to the process. 

Ms. Whites views on environmental policy are well known and she has broad support 

for this appointment. Her record reflects her commitment to genuine environmental 

protection in ways that do not stifle economic growth and thus impair human welfare. 

It is my pleasure to recommend Kathleen Hartnett White to be appointed Chairman of the 

Council on Environmental Quality. 

Sincerely, 

1clM~z~ Commissioner 

Public Utility Commission of Texas 

Printed on recycled paper An EQUiil Clpportunol)' Employer 

1701 N. Congress Avenue PO Box 13326 Austin, TX 78711 512/936-7000 Fax: 512/936-7003 web site: 

www.puc.texas.gov 
532 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Sullivan. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate the witnesses being here and your willingness to 

serve. 

Mr. Wheeler, I appreciated your highlighting some of Administrator Pruitt’s testimony during his confirmation hearing about we 

are a nation of laws, the rule of law, and cooperative federalism. 

I think those are all very important issues. I want to kind of drill 

down on those a bit today. 

I think it is also important to recognize. Sometimes you do not 

always get it from this Committee, but we all are very focused on 

clean water and clean air. My State of Alaska and my hometown 

of Anchorage has some of the cleanest water and gets awards. My 

State has the most pristine, beautiful, and incredible environment 

probably in the world. We care about it deeply. 

We also care about the rule of law. To be perfectly blunt, I think 

the last Administrator in the previous Administration was not that 

concerned about the rule of law. Let me give you a quote from the 

previous Administration. 

A senior official once stated of a major EPA rule on the eve of 

a big Supreme Court case that when asked whether you think you 

are going to win or lose in the Supreme Court on this rule they 

promulgated, this individual said, it didn’t matter if it was unlawful because the rule was finalized 3 years ago, and ‘‘most of the 

covered parties are already in compliance and investments have 

been made.’’ 

Does that sound like the attitude of somebody or an agency that 

cares about the rule of law? 

Mr. WHEELER. No, it does not, sir. 

Senator SULLIVAN. That was Gina McCarthy. That was one of 

numerous, numerous occasions where she and her team ignored 

the rule of law. In one of her hearings, I called her running a lawless agency because they did this all the time. 

The Clean Power Plan gets a lot of play in the press. Do you 

have any idea why the U.S. Supreme Court put a stay on the Clean 

Power Plan, the first time in U.S. Supreme Court history that they 

had done that to a rule from a Federal agency that had not been 

looked at by a lower court? Do you have any sense of why the Supreme Court did that? 

Mr. WHEELER. It is my understanding the Supreme Court, as you 

said it was the first time for an environmental statute, but the only 

time they would issue a stay like that would be if they thought the 

proponents would prevail on the arguments. 

Senator SULLIVAN. I think the Supreme Court saw it as a quote 

from the EPA Administrator who said, look, we don’t care. Investments have been made. These poor idiot Americans who complied 

with it, too bad. I think the Supreme Court was saying, that is not 

the rule of law. 

I need from you a commitment that you won’t do that, whether 

you like a policy or not. If the Congress of the United States does 

not give you, as the Federal agency, the authority to undertake 

some kind of action, will you commit to this Committee that you 

won’t undertake that kind of action? 

Mr. WHEELER. Absolutely, sir. 

533 

Senator SULLIVAN. Do you need statutory authority to undertake 

rules and regulations that derive from this body? 

Mr. WHEELER. Absolutely. From my time working at EPA and 

my time working here, I understand where the laws are made and 

whose job it is to implement them. It is not the duty of the EPA 

to write the laws. 

Senator SULLIVAN. OK. We would hope you and Administrator 

Pruitt would never make a statement such as that by Gina McCarthy which showed complete disrespect for the rule of law and really 

for the Congress, in my view. Can I get your commitment on that? 

Mr. WHEELER. Absolutely, sir, yes. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Let me ask about another issue. You and I 

have talked about this. It relates to an issue back in my State that 

we worked on in a bipartisan way on this Committee in the last 

Congress. Chairman Inhofe, Senator Boxer, I and others worked on 

a challenge we have with regard to water and sewer infrastructure. 

There was a lot of talk about aging infrastructure during the 

Flint, Michigan, crisis. I was trying to raise the fact that there are 

communities in America which have no infrastructure, not just 

aging infrastructure. 

In my State, Alaska has over 30 communities where people do 

not have water and sewer, where they do not have flushing toilets. 

These are American citizens. We worked in a bipartisan way to address that. 

I was very disappointed to see the Trump administration did not 

fund that because no American citizen should live in a community 

where you do not have a flushing toilet. We have what is called 

honey buckets where you have to take raw sewage out to a lagoon. 

We have rates of diseases in some of these communities that are 

higher, like in third world countries. 

This is a program that passed the Congress on a bipartisan basis 

as part of the WIIN Act. Can get your commitment, if we get the 

appropriate funding, that the EPA, at the highest levels, will be 

committed 110 percent to addressing what is really a travesty? It 

is not just in Alaska; there are a few other States that have this 

problem, but this problem mostly resides in my State. We talked 

about it when you and I met. Can I get your commitment on that 

as well? 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, sir. I will even go as far as to say 120 percent. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Great. I appreciate that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. 

Senator Duckworth. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso. 

Ms. Hartnett White, thank you for coming to my office for our 

meeting. I appreciate the time. 

During our meeting, you stated you do not have ties to the oil 

industry. It has been a long time for the renewable fuel standards 

and other environmental programs which I, and many of my constituents, support. 

In fact, when I did a bit more research, I found that you reportedly actually own several oil leases, one of which is leased to CVR 

Refining. CVR Refining is owned by Carl Icahn who recently reVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:17 Dec 20, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00539 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\27600.TXT SONYA
534 

signed from his role as advisor to President Trump amid very well 

publicized concerns that he used his position in the Administration 

to influence a proposal to change the point of obligation under the 

RFS. This change would benefit Mr. Icahn’s own financial interests. I have called on the FBI to investigate this very clear violation of conflict of interest laws. 

Let me ask, have you ever spoken to Carl Icahn regarding the 

RFS? 

Ms. WHITE. No, I have not. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Do you intend to sell any of your current 

leases, specifically the one leased to Carl Icahn’s CVR Refining? 

Ms. WHITE. I already assigned those mineral interests by gift to 

my nephew. I do not own any mineral interests. My great-grandfather, in several counties in Texas, had some modest royalty interests. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. But you gained financially from leasing 

these interests to Mr. Icahn? You made money off it, right? You got 

a return by leasing the oil leases to CVR Refining? 

Ms. WHITE. Like I said, these are de minimis royalty payments 

for royalties in some agricultural counties in Kansas that I do not 

own anymore. My nephew does. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. When did that happen? 

Ms. WHITE. I don’t know; about 6 months ago or so. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. When it became clear that you wanted this 

job? 

Ms. WHITE. Yes. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. You made money, but you told me you did 

not have any history. 

Ms. WHITE. I don’t own them. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Fairly recently. 

Ms. WHITE. They are like oil leases where some months you get $30. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thirty dollars is a lot of money to some 

families. 

Ms. WHITE. I am sure it is. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. During our meeting, in countless articles 

and talks you have given over the years, you repeatedly claim that 

ethanol reduces grain supply and increases the cost of food. 

As someone who relied on food stamps as a child and who represents thousands of farmers in my home State, I am deeply invested in ensuring access, affordability, and quality food is available to everyone in the country and around the world. 

Yes or no, are you aware that today ethanol production has increased to at least 15 billion gallons? 

Ms. WHITE. I have. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. And that the price of corn is lower than it 

was when the RFS was adopted and that food prices are actually 

in the longest decline since the 2009 recession? 

Ms. WHITE. I very recently have had access, thanks to Senator 

Fischer; because of that, have had lots of information on that. I can 

say God bless productive U.S. agriculture; there is a lot of corn supply. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Since RFS has been installed, do you 

agree, yes or no, that even since then, food prices are not higher 

535 

and that what you have said, in fact, has turned out to not be true, 

that food prices would be higher because of implementation of the 

RFS? 

Ms. WHITE. If I understand your question, yes, you are right. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit for the record, materials relating to Ms. 

White’s views that the Renewal Fuel Standard is unethical and 

should be repealed. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information is presented earlier in this hearing 

document.] 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

I would also like to submit for the record a World Bank report 

that attributes changes in the price of food to the price of oil, not 

the RFS. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In 2014, Ms. White, you wrote, ‘‘Using a vitally needed global 

food grain such as corn for the transportation fuel known as ethanol literally takes food from the mouths of hungry millions.’’ You 

reiterated this claim in your meeting with me. 

Can you give me an example of a case where food was literally 

taken from the mouths of millions and diverted to ethanol production? 

Ms. WHITE. If you mean it literally. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. You said literally. That was your choice of 

words. 

Ms. WHITE. Then I was just wrong. I was searching for the word 

figuratively. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. We agree that you were wrong on RFS. 

You actually wrote this, so I would assume you proofread your documents before they were published. 

Beyond bashing the RFS inaccurately, can you describe any work 

you have done individually to advocate for ending hunger because 

you seem to be very concerned about hunger and the RFS’ potential 

effect on world hunger? What have you done to advocate for ending 

hunger? 

Ms. WHITE. I have contributed donations. A lot of my work, I 

find, is really about human welfare. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Can you give me a concrete example of 

how you have worked to end hunger? 

Ms. WHITE. I don’t have a concrete example. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. So this was a nonsense thing to say essentially? Over the years, you have made many outrageous statements 

that you are clearly trying to walk away from today. One thing is 

clear, you would not be the impartial counselor we need in this Administration and we would expect from our civil servants. 

I also would like to take my remaining time to clarify. 

Senator BARRASSO. You have no remaining time. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. I am so sorry. May I ask one final question? 

Senator BARRASSO. Please go ahead. 

536 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are very 

indulgent. 

Can you clarify your answer to Senator Fischer? It sounded like 

you would not commit to following the law by ensuring the RFS 

goes to 2022 and that there are biofuel volumes. Of course, there 

are biofuel volume requirements beyond that date. Is that correct? 

Ms. WHITE. I don’t think that is quite correct. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. So you are saying that you are committed 

to following the law to ensure the RFS goes through 2022? What 

I thought you said was that if the President wanted to renege on 

those, he could. 

Ms. WHITE. No, I didn’t. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Will you commit to opposing any attempts 

of the Administration to not adhere to the RFS through 2022? 

Ms. WHITE. As I said, I would uphold the spirit and the letter 

of the law and that CEQ has no direct regulatory authority or even 

opinion that I think would carry any kind of legal weight. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Again, it is very simple. Yes or no, do you 

commit to ensuring that the RFS goes through 2022 by resisting, 

even by something as simple as publicly stating that you would oppose the Trump administration should they choose to try to go 

against the letter or the spirit of the law? 

Ms. WHITE. I will repeat again that all law, not just the law that 

supports the Renewable Fuel Standard. I would uphold all law, the 

letter and the spirit. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. I am going to hold you to that. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have been very generous. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Carper, closing thoughts? 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, I have one last unanimous request. 

Before I do that, Mr. Wheeler, I don’t know if you were with me 

and maybe George Voinovich in a meeting we held in my office, 513 

Hart, maybe 10 or 12 years ago. We met with a number of utility 

CEOs from all over the country. 

They had come to meet with us to talk about emissions from 

power plants. Our focus was sulfur dioxide emissions, nitrous 

oxide, mercury, and CO2. We talked about an hour. 

A fellow from a utility I think from the southern part of the 

country, sort of a curmudgeon of an old guy, at the end of the meeting, he said, Senator, here is what you need to do. You need to tell 

us what the rules are going to be, give us a reasonable amount of 

time, give us some flexibility, and get out of the way. That is what 

he said. 

I thought it was pretty good advice, and that is what we tried 

to follow when President Bush proposed Clear Skies. Lamar Alexander and I proposed a counter-response, Really Clear Skies. We 

got some pretty good advice that day. 

There have been some comments here today about the Clean 

Power Plan. My recollection is the last Administration took comments for not just a couple weeks or a couple of months but for the 

better part of half a year, more than half a year. 

They met with over 400 stakeholders from sea to shining sea, received and tried to respond, and I think they said they did respond 

to over 1 million comments. Eighty-seven percent of the comments 

537 

they had on the proposal was actually supportive. They reviewed 

more than 1,200 scientific reports. 

When I hear that, I think of that meeting we had with those utility CEOs where they said, tell us what the rules are going to be, 

give us a reasonable amount of time, some flexibility, and get out 

of the way. 

We will see how it shakes out in the end. I did not want to let 

it go by without saying, I believe the folks who are actually doing 

the outreach try to do so in a thoughtful way and to try to respond 

to comments they heard. 

I want to thank you all for being here. I don’t know if it has been 

a pleasure for you, but it has been an informative hearing. We are 

grateful you are here. 

I want to say what is this young man’s name over your left 

shoulder? Luke, the force is with you. I want to say how old are 

you, Luke? 

Mr. LUKE WHEELER. Ten. 

Senator CARPER. I would never have brought my sons in here 

when they were 10. I am impressed with the way you have handled 

yourself today. When Mr. Wheeler was speaking, a couple of times 

I was watching you. I could barely see your lips moving when he 

spoke, from the mouth of babes. 

I have a unanimous consent request to submit materials for the 

record about the drinking water radiation matters and Ms. White’s 

involvement in those, if I could. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

538 


27600.480

KHOU.com: Texas politicians knew agency hid the amount of radiation in drinking water 

May 19,2011 

By: Mark Greenblatt 

h tips:/ /we b.arch ive.oru/wcb/2 0 140 5 28 I 60 3 0 5 /http :/www .k hou.comihom c/ -Tcxas-po I iti c iansknew-agcnc\ -hid-the-amount -ol~radiati<m-in-drinking-water-1222054 3 9 .htm I 

HOUSTON- Newly-released e-mails from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

show the agency's top commissioners directed staff to continue lowering radiation test results, in 

defiance of federal EPA rules. 

Thee-mails and documents, released under order from the Texas Attorney General to KHOUTV, also show the agency was attempting to help water systems get out of formally violating 

federal limits for radiation in drinking water. Without a formal violation, the water systems did 

not have to inform their residents of the increased health risk. 

"It's a conspiracy at the TCEQ of the highest order," said :rom Smith, of the government 

watchdog group Public Citizen. "The documents have indicted the management of this 

commission in a massive cover-up to convince people that our water is safe to drink when it's 

not." 

Smith is talking about what happened to residents who live in communities served by utilities 

like Harris County Municipal Utility District 105. For years, tests performed by the Texas 

Department of State Health Services showed the utility provided water that exceeded the EPA 

legal limit for exposure to alpha radiation. 

However, the TCEQ would consistently subtract off each test's margin of error from those 

results, making the actual testing results appear lower than they actually were. In MUD 1 05' s 

case, the utility was able to avoid violations for nearly 20 years, thanks to the TCEQ 

subtractions. 

On Dec. 7, 2000, the EPA said in the federal register that states should not add or subtract the 

margin of error, also called the counting error, from test results. 

In an e-mail from Oct. 30, 2007, a TCEQ drinking water team leader began questioning a senior 

director about if it would be appropriate for the state agency to stop subtracting the counting 

error from test results to comply with all federal regulations. 

She was told, "I believe there may been some EPA guidance on not subtracting, but can't 

remember back that far for sure. This has been the practice in Texas since day one of 

radionuclide monitoring. This option was thoroughly discussed with the commissioners and the 

(executive director) staff when the reg was being adopted. We were directed to maintain the 

current methodology for subtracting the counting error at that time." 
539 


27600.481

Three years earlier, the same TCEQ director presented written testimony on behalf of the TCEQ 

to the Texas Water Advisory CounciL The testimony notes that the TCEQ was aware of the new 

rules the EPA published on Dec. 7, 2000, saying the federal agency had "issued guidance for 

calculating radionuclide levels for compliance." 

However, the TCEQ also told the Council: "Under existing TCEQ policy, calculation ofthe 

violation accounts for the reporting error of each radionuclide analysis. Maintaining this 

calculation procedure will eliminate approximately 35 violations." 

As a result, the subtracting method continued and residents of MUD 105, like Brenda Haynes, 

were never sent a required notice of violation. That notice would have informed them about the 

excessive alpha radiation in their water. 

Alpha radiation is emitted from radionuclides such as uranium and radium. While health 

scientists have said it poses little danger if someone is externally exposed to it, the experts 

maintain that ingesting even the smallest amount of the particles can cause damage to DNA, and 

in rare cases, cause cancer. 

Haynes came down with thyroid cancer while living in the MUD 105 district and continued 

drinking the water even after she was diagnosed. Although she will never know for certain ifthe 

water had any connection with her illness, Haynes and her husband are angry that they never 

were given appropriate notice about the added risks she was taking into her body while sick. 

"We were put at more risk than what we thought," said !an Haynes, who added he and his wife 

would have been making different choices about what they consumed had they been warned. 

The Texas Water Advisory Council, which reviewed and discussed the TCEQ testimony at a 

meeting on June 7, 2004, was comprised of some of the highest ranking public officials in Texas. 

Minutes from the TWAC's annual report reveal that the members present that day to hear about 

TCEQ's plan included then-chair of the TCEQ Commission Kathleen Hartnett White, thenAgriculture Commissioner Susan Combs~ General Land Office Commissioner Jerry Patterson, 

Sen. Robert Duncan, and other lawmakers and state leaders. 

The I-Team sought comment from Sen. Duncan, then the chair of the Council, but he did not 

return KHOU-TV's phone calls. 

A spokesperson for Commissioner Patterson wrote KHOU-TV to say, "I've checked with 

Commissioner Patterson and sent him the report and he doesn't remember "squat" about that 

committee," wrote press secretary Jim Suydam. "He won't be calling you." 

Commissioner Combs has since left her position in the Department of Agriculture and become 

the state's comptroller. She also declined to speak personally with KHOU in regards to this 

meeting. 

However a spokesperson sent the following to KHOU on her behalf: 

"Comptroller Combs hasn't been the Agricultural Commissioner for 4.5 years. Susan's role on 

the advisory council back then was to represent rural Texas, primarily on water issues (drought, 
540 


27600.482

water rights). SB 2 which established the water advisory council was to look (at) water issues 

facing the state, it had no regulatory authority. The state experienced severe droughts in 1998, 

2000 and 2004-2006. The issue you are talking about was handled by the TCEQ." 

However, a review of a meeting summary from the June 7, 2004 Texas Water Advisory Council 

shows Combs asked several questions during the meeting, including a number of questions about 

issues involving TCEQ's implementation of the new EPA rules on radionuclides. 

The meeting summary says that "Commissioner Combs stated small towns are going broke," and 

further says, "Commissioner Combs asked what would the feds do if the state didn't enforce." 

The minutes indicate that someone at the meeting said there would be federal enforcement and 

loss of primacy. 

At the same meeting, the summary says that the EPA had already warned that ifTexas didn't 

implement the rules, the EPA might take over the regulation of Texas water systems. The notes 

say that as a result "Texas will lose $66 million if delegation of the drinking water program is 

lost." 

But despite the EPA's warning in June of2004 of potential loss of primacy, by December, the 

Texas Water Advisory Council issued its annual report to the then-speaker of the House, the 

lieutenant governor, and Gov. Rick Perry, saying: "However, this result (the loss of primacy) is 

unlikely. Of the 49 states with primary enforcement responsibility to administer their drinking 

water programs (Wyoming is not a primacy state), EPA has never withdrawn primacy status 

from any of them because the federal agency views both withdrawing primacy and withdrawing 

funding as options oflast resort." 

Under federal law Texas and other states are only allowed to enforce EPA rules, according to the 

Safe Drinking Water Act, if the EPA determines the state has adopted drinking water standards 

that are "no less stringent" than the federal rules. 

After the annual report of the TW AC was delivered to the Speaker, Lieutenant Governor, and 

the Governor, the TCEQ continued their policy of subtracting the margin of error from the result 

of each water-radiation test, until an EPA audit caught them doing so in 2008. The state has 

since complied with the EPA regulation. 

Then Chair of the TCEQ Commission Kathleen Hartnett White, who also sat on the Texas Water 

Advisory Council, says the decision to continue the subtraction was a good one. 

"As memory serves me, that made incredibly good sense," she told KHOU. 

White says she and the scientists with the Texas Radiation Advisory Board disagreed with the 

science that the EPA based its new rules on. She says the new rules were too protective and 

would end up costing small communities tens of millions of dollars to comply. 

"We did not believe the science of health effects justified EPA setting the standard where they 

did," said White. She added,"! have far more trust in the vigor of the science that TCEQ assess, 

than I do EPA." 
541 


27600.483

In response to questions about why the TCEQ did not simply file a lawsuit against the EPA and 

challenge the federal rules openly in court, White said that in federal court, "Legal challenges, 

because oflaw and not because of science, are almost impossible to win." 

Lt. Governor David Dewhurst did not respond to written questions related to this story. The only 

comment from his office came from a spokesperson who wrote: "Just FYI-J'm told by our 

legislative staff that Texas Water Advisory Council was created in 2001, but was repealed in 

2007. Evidently, the statutes creating the council made it clear that that it was an advisory board 

only, so they made no decisions." 

A spokesperson for Governor Perry said the governor expects the TCEQ and all state agencies 

to follow all the laws that are on the books, which the spokesperson said the TCEQ began doing 

after that 2008 audit by the EPA. 

The governor's spokesperson did not respond to written questions from KHOU asking if the 

governor supported the TCEQ's decision in 2004 to continue with the subtraction in order to 

help 35 water systems stay out of trouble. 

The EPA was contacted for comment and at press time has yet to provide any response. 
542 


27600.484

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUAUTY 

REPORT ON REGULATION OF RADIONUCLIDES AND ARSENIC IN DRINKING WATER 

Prepared for the 

Radlon ucl.ide Regulations 

Tens W11ter Advisory ConneD 

lune 7, 2004 Meeting 

Texas has had standards for radionuclides in drinking water since 1978. These standards were limited to 

a standard for combined radium at 5 pCiiL, gross alpha at 15 pCi!L and beta emitters. The beta standard 

applied only to manmade contaminants in very large water systems and hllli never been exceeded in 

Texas. 

In J 991, EPA published proposed standards for radium, gross alpha, beta emitters, uranium and radon. 

This publication proposed a drastic change to the existing standards as well as new radionuclides to be 

regulated. The effect of these proposed standards, based on the health effects information available at 

that time, was that adequate health protc:ction could be achieved by enforcing standards which were 

much higher than the existing Max.imum ContamitWit Levels (MCLs). This would have had eliminated 

all but a few violations of the radium and gross alpha standards. Under the proposed standards for radon 

and uranium; Texas could expect an additional30 violationc fur uranium and approximately 850 

violations of the radon standard. The radon proposal was subsequently wilhdrawn. No action was taken 

on finalmng the other radionuclide standards until December 2000. In the fmal Rule, published on 

December 7, 2000, EPA basieally reverted to maintaining the existing standards and established a new 

standard for Uranium at 30 ugiL. The new rule also required more thorough sampling of public water 

systems. BP A has also issued guidance for ca!culati11g radionuclide levels for compliance with the 

MCLs. The combination of the new standards and sampling requirements as well as the new calculation 

procedures will result in approximately 100 new violations of radionuclide standards in addition to 

approximately 35 public water systems that are or have been in violation of the existing standards. 

Under e~~.istiug TCEQ pnliey, calculation of the violation accounts for the reporting error of each 

radionuclide analysis. Maintaining this calculation procedure wiD elimi11atc approximately 35 

violationc. 

Radionuclides in drinking water are a health concem beeause they produce ionizing radiation which can 

lead to the promotion of cancer cells. In addition, uranium produces toxic effects to the kidneys. 

Drinking water is not the only solii'Cc: of i<mizing radiation that the general population is exposed to, but 

at the MCLs. thae contaminants produce an u!IKCCj)table increase in cancer risk. EPA's methodology 

for radionuclide health risk confunns with Federal Guidance Report 13, a joint of the EPA, the 

Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. Although, FGR 13 is a consensus document, 

thtli'C has been criticism of the risk ~~SSeSsment methodology. The Texas Radiation Advisory Board in a 

letter to TCEQ raised coDCems over the impi!CI of adoption of the revised radionuclide regulationc. One 

of the main points in their letter was the their dissatisfaction with the risk assessment models in FGR 13. 

TCBQ staff engaged a group of stakeholders to advise the agency in adoption oflhe drinking water rules 

and to assist in the collection of data related compliance alternatives available to water systems. This 

group bss been apprsised of the complian~-e options which include the acquisition ofllll alternate water 

supply or treatment options. Treatment technologies for radionuclides are commercially available. 

However, aU treatments which remove radionuclides from drinking water result in a treatment residual 

which must be managed in a safe and environmentally acceptable manner. 
543 


27600.485

To gather as much infonnation as fcu.siblc, TCEQ !llatf developed a questionnaire pertaining to 

radionuclide compliance. The questionnaire wiiS distributed to water systems which have at least om: 

source of water which exceeds existing standards or will exceed the standards when adopted by TCEQ. 

lnfonnation from these responses has been used to project the most likely complimce options and to 

assess costs of compliance. From this datu, TCEQ hilS determined that approximately 100 public water 

systems will have to address radionuclide compliance issues. From the questionnaire, TCEQ determined 

that public water systems that exceed 111e cum:nt TCEQ radionuclidc regulations will need to spend 

approximately S35 million ror capital improvements to bring those systems into compliance. There will 

be an additional $12 million capital costs to water systems in violation of the new standards based on the 

new sampling requirements and the new uranium MCL. 

Over the last 6 months, a new technology for the treatment of radium has been piloted in Tex.u. This 

technology is much less capital intensive, but produces a solid media which must be disposed of. The 

Operations and maintenance costs of the media replacement and disposal of the media are the controlling 

cost factors for this technology. Even at that, The company which markets this process indicates that tbe 

total cost would range from $0.60 to $3.00 per thousand gallons treated, depending on system size and 

radium concentration. This would push average water bills up ftom $8.00 to $4(}.00 in those water 

systems electing this process. 

Arsenic Regalatlons 

TeJ~as has had standards for arsenic in drinking water since 1977. The standard of0.05 mg/L was 

adopted in the initial state primacy package. It was adopted in response to the National Interim Primary 

Drinking Water Regulations adopted by the USEPA. The interim standards were carried over from 

earlier US Public Health Service Standards and adopted without further health study by the EPA. 

This standard for arsenic was not modified nationally until January 21, 2001, when EPA published a 

revised standard for arsenic at O.ot mg/L (later modified ta 0.010 mgiL). The incoming Bush 

Administration askal that EPA put a "hold" on any implementation of the arsenic regulations to allow 

for a review of the standard. Ultimately, EPA released a statement retaining the arsenic standard as 

adopted. This revised standard becomes effective in January, 2006. 

Arsenic is a health concern because at high levels there is documented human beallh data linking 

exposure to arsenic to an increase in cancer. Arsenic has been linked to cancer of the bladder and skin 

cancer. The use of high level arsenic exposure data has been questioned by many acientists. The 

uncertainty in the extrapolation of high dose risk to low dose risk: has been questioned in studies of US 

populations which were exposed to lower levels of an;enic than the studies that EPA used in its 

evaluation. In at least one study of a US population, there was no significant increase in cam:er risk even 

at levels much greater than 0.0 I 0 mg/L. 

Arsenic is a widely naturally occurring contaminant of drinlring water systems at levels at or near the 

Maximum Contaminant Level. TCEQ staff has determined that approximately 220 public water systems 

in Texas will have to address 110 arsenic exceedance in at least one source of water. Nationally the cost 

of complying with the arsenic standard has been studied to a much greater extent than compliance with 

radionuclide rules. TCEQ has used data from these national studies as well as COJt estimates from 

internal data to project tho capital cost of complying with the new arsenic standard at approximately 

$425 million. 

EPA Relationship 
544 


27600.486

TCEQ is the ~tate primacy agency for enforcement of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. This 

primacy relationship is defined in the Safe Drinking Water Act and is granted tbrouah agreements wilh 

the USEPA. A; such, TCEQ is compelled to adopt and enforce standards which are no less stringent 

than the federal standards. Failure to do so by the agency would result in the EPA mfureing the 

standards in Texas and the probable loss of more than $6 million in fedm'B! drinking water program 

funding and $60 million in Drinking Waler State Revolving Funds which are granted to the state by the 

EPA. Although prillliiCy withdrawal is aathoriud under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the National 

Primary Drinking Water Regulation.s, no state to date has had primacy withdrawn for fai~ to adopt or 

eoforee a national primary drinking water standard. However, EPA has a history oftaking enforcement 

actions against violators in states which fail enforce the standards. 

At the time of this document development, the rule adoption by the 49 primacy states are as follows: 

Rule Adopted Approved by EPA Extensions granted 

RadionucUdes 31 10 18 

Arsenic 26 5 19 

Compliance Options 

Wster systems Chat have soun:cs that violate any kind of chemical contaminant, including radionuclide.s 

and arsenic, may address that violation throuah a number of different mechanisms. Some public water 

systems have lhe means already available to manage e:~tisting sources to achieve c:ompliance without 

additional costs. Others will have to obtain additional sources by developing new groundwater or 

surlilce water options or purchasing water from another public water system. Othera will find that 

treatment is the only compliance option. In some: cues. the cost of any of these options may be so great 

as make the cost oflhe project and the associated operation and maintenance costs unaffordable to the 

customers of the public water system. 

In such cases, TCEQ would entertain proposals from water systems to achieve compUance through the 

use of point of entry (POE) or point of use (?OU) devices. Sucl1 devices distnbute tbe treatment process 

to the point where water entera the home {POE) or at a single outlet within the home (POE). Sinee a 

smaUer fraction of the water is treated, this technology may be more affordable. However,ll!lder EPA 

guidance on the acceptability of these devices, compliance with all the requirements for their use may be 

unattainable by many water systems. 

TCEQ staffhas pursued a further acceptance by EPA of the usc ofbottled water as a long term 

compliance strategy which could be used by water systc;ms. Though not excluded as a eomplimce 

strategy in tile Safe Drinking Water Aet, EPA regulations do not allow for bottled water to be used in 

such a manner. TCBQ has asked the AssociPtion of State Drinking Water Administrators to develop a 

new policy statement on the use of bottled water and that Chis issue be further discuued with EPA 

Enforcement 

TCEQ enforcement against water systems witb violations of naturally occurring contaminants such as 

menic and radionuclides is initiated through the mechanism of compliance agreemenl!l. This document, 

whi~b is signed by TCEQ and the public water system sets in motion a series of activities that the water 

systl)m must pursue. The two major requirements of the water system is that they notify the CUBiomers 

of the violation and that they conduct an economic feasibility analysis ofcomplian<.-e strategies. The 
545 


27600.487

feasibility study must evaluate the projected cost of devcluping new sources, purchasing new wale!', 

tn:atment, and blending with existing SQUrccs. The goal of the compliance agreement is to come to an 

affordable option for compliance wi!hout the need for II'IOre formal enforcement action. 

For further information on the radionuelide and arsenic regulations, please contac;t: 

Anthuny E. Bennett, R.S. 

Water Supply Division 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

512-239-6029 
546 


27600.488

Texas Observer: 

September 28, 20 II 

By: Forrest Wilder 

The Null Set 

https ://www. tcxasobscrver.org/thc-null-set/ 

TEXAS GOV. RICK PERRY MAY HAVE INFAMOUSLY FLIRTED with secession, but it's 

another states'-rights idea that he's married to: nullification. Nullification is the crackpot theory 

that states can reject federal laws. 

"It's an almost universally derided idea," Sandy Levinson, a professor at the University of Texas 

School of Law, told me. 

Though the concept dates to the 18th century, nullification was last bandied in the 1950s as a 

legal tool for resisting school desegregation. The success of the civil rights movement and a 1958 

U.S. Supreme Court decision thankfully swept nullification into the dustbin of history. Or so we 

thought. The Tea Party and other far-right movements have kept the dream alive. Though 

nullification has been stripped-at least overtly-of its racist baggage, the nut of the thing has 

been reinvigorated in Rick Perry's Texas. 

It's more than just rhetoric. In concrete ways, the Perry administration appears to have put 

nullification into practice, particularly in the areas of environmental law and regulation. I'm not 

talking about the state's battery oflargely frivolous lawsuits against the EPA or Perry's 

whoopin' and hollerin' about states' rights. That's just politics. This is serious. 

Take for example the shocking tale of how the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

deliberately low-balled radiation levels in drinking water, a story broken by investigative 

reporter Mark Greenblatt of Houston's KHOU-TV. Instead of reporting to EPA the radiation 

measured in community drinking water samples, plus the margin of error, TCEQ simply 

subtracted the margin of error. 

For example, if a water sample tested at 15 picocuries per liter-the federal limit-with a margin 

of error of plus or minus 5 picocuries, TCEQ subtracted five and reported a radiation level of I 0. 

The explicit goal was to artificially keep utilities from exceeding the federal limit. No matter that 

this put people's lives at risk. EPA emphatically told Texas to stop the practice. 

As Greenblatt reports, then-TCEQ Chairwoman Kathleen Hartnett White, with the blessing of 

top state officials including Rick Perry, ordered the funny business continued, even though Texas 

risked losing more than $60 million in federal funding. When confronted on camera by 

Greenblatt, White, a Perry appointee, practically sticks her tongue out. "We did not believe the 

science of health effects justified EPA setting the standard where they did," White said. "I have 

far more trust in the vigor of the science that TCEQ assesses, than I do EPA." 

Why then didn't TCEQ sue over the regulation? 
547 


27600.489

"Legal challenges, because of law and not because of science, are almost impossible to win," she 

told Greenblatt. · 

This is some truly audacious hokum. The bottom line is that TCEQ couldn't win on the merits so 

White and her cohort effectively "nullified" a regulation they didn't agree with. 

Fittingly, Hartnett is now a "scholar" at the right-wing Texas Public Policy Foundation, which 

recently launched a Center for Tenth Amendment Studies. Net proceeds from the sale of Perry's 

book, Fed Up!, go to the center. 

In the clean air arena, TCEQ has racked up a record of willful disregard for federal law and 

regulation in a few short years. For instance, the feds have ordered the Exide lead smelter in 

Frisco to reduce its emissions, an obvious hazard in a booming suburb. The state is in charge of 

coming up with a legally binding clean-up plan that brings the plant into compliance with the 

Clean Air Act. Despite repeated and specific instructions on the elements of the plan, TCEQ 

refused to follow the EPA's stipulations. The result: In August, EPA rejected Texas' plan, 

delaying the clean-up. 

"The level of non-cooperation is so extensive, so fundamental that one can only conclude that the 

TCEQ intentionally sabotaged its own plan," said Jim Schermbeck, director ofDownwinders at 

Risk, an environmental group in Dallas-Fort Worth. 

Those on the front lines see it all the time. Austin environmental attorney llan Levin points to a 

lawsuit challenging a coal-fired power plant near Austin. Levin, who's involved in the suit; says 

the "flexible" air permit issued by Texas ignores a federal limit on particulate matter, the tiny 

soot-like particles that can damage people's hearts and lungs. The coal plant owners are arguing 

in court that their Texas flex permit "voids" the federal limit. "That's a very clear example of 

where the state of Texas doesn't believe that federal limits apply and that the state can sort of 

disappear a federal requirement," Levin said. 

Rick Perry says he hates the federal government because it's tyrannical. But all tyrants share a 

common feature: They think they're above the law. 
548 


27600.490

Radionudid~s in Drinking Water 

Implementing the National Primat·y 

Drinking Water Regulations for Hadionuclides 

40CFH 141 

,. 

:r ~ 

~ 

-

TNRCC 

White Paper 

April 4, 2001 
549 


27600.491

Pc 

Radionudidos in Drinking Water 

Contents 

E:xecutivc Su1nmary ............................................................ . 

I<.cgu!atory Background ···························~················· .......... . 

f·lf>aitb Rist,; .............................................. , ................................................. .. 

Water PlRnning ............................................................................................ . 

Jmplcnlenting the EPA Standard................................................................. I 1 

NORM Treatment and Disposal in Other U.S. States................................ 14 

Supremat•y Clause & Interstate Commerce of NORM.............................. 15 

<:osts ................................................................................................................ 16 

Outline of Proposed Changes 10 the TNRCC Rules................................... 18 

Regulation ·rime Line................................................................................... 22 

Conclusions..................................................................................................... 23 

Appendix A, List ofNOR..I\1 Af(ecte.d FaciiitieJO, 

County, State Representative, and Senator ................................................. 24 

Appendi:l B, Facilities Potenii~Uy Aff~:cted hy ~ORM. 

County1 Stllte Representative, and Scn~tor ................................................. 28 

Tahle 11 Maximum Conccotrwlion Levels 

and A.'i:-Ociated Cancer Risks ........................................................................ . 

Table 2, List of City Treatment F:tciiitks; and 

Qu.antitles of Liquid Radium 'Wnste .................................................... -...... 12 

Table 31 Costs for Tre.atmtnf and Disposal (If NOR.\;1 

in Drinldng Water for Five Systems in Tc,.a~ .......... ,.................................. 1: 

·ra.hlc 41 Sum1nary of Rule Chang£-s .................................. -...................... 21 

Figure 1~ Texas Drinldng Water Treatment Plant~ Currently 

E,;ceeding the EPA Radionuclidc Stand~rd ................................................ 10 

Figurf- 21 State.~ with NORM Drinking Water Regu!~thms ........................ I 4 

Figure 3, Timt: Line of Kc~' Events 

for Reguiatinn lmplc-mentatiou ......................................................... . 
550 


27600.492

Contributors 

Radionudides in Drinking Water 

Dale BJirnett, l}irector, Waste Permits D:vis.iort 7'e.);tl,'l Natural Resource 

Conser:v~tton Commission (fNRCC) - < 

Eugeoc f'orrer, Chief Urcmiurn/NORAf Lf,:cnsing Program, Teras Dt.partment of 

H~alth. Bureau of Radiation Comrol 

Alice Rqgers,. P.E., Marwger. UIC & Radww:tivv Waste Stctiun, WLt~fe Permits 

Division: TNRCC 

Sharon J. Smith S.D.. Senior Actornev, Jndustrial JJa::ardous WtJSte-, 

E1wironmcmal Law Diw:Sion, TNRCC · 

C;corge :FitzGeraldt Team Leade:r, Radioactive Afat ... •rial Licensing, UJ(' & 

Radioactive Waste Secrion, Waste f'ermits Divt.sion, TNRCC 

Anthon~ E. Bennett, R.S., Technical Specialist, Public Drinkir:g Warer Section, 

Water Pwmits & Resmtrce ,-.,Janagement Dtvision, TNRCC 

Red Weddell> Technical Specialist, Public Drinking Water Section, WaiL'?.' Perrnifs 

& Reswrce Management Division, TNRCC 

Susan JCre Whit~; J.D., Staff Attorney, Environmental Law Divisk)1't, Office of 

Legal Services. TN!I.CC 

Bryan S. Smith\ Engineering Assisiant, UIC & Radioac:Jive WasN.r Secti~Jn, 

Wastes Permit:s Division, TNRCC 

Date Kolcr, Tr-mtJ Leader. Cmnplfancc and Tnspection, UJC & Radfoactivr! Wasle 

Sac;fion, Waste Permits Dfvi~;oll, TNRCC 

Michael Honeycutt, Toxicologisl1 1Uxicologv and Risk As.~es.snwnt, TNRCC 

Charles Wheat, Toxicologist, To:;rfco1o:;;y and Risk.As.Sf',um~m. 17>/RCC' 

Whlte Paper 

Apnl :mm 
551 


27600.493

Executive Summary 

The U.S. Envirom11ental Protection Agency 

adopted a revision to the National Drinking 

\Vater Standard for radionuclldes on 

December 7, 2003. These federal 

regulations concern Naturally Occurring 

Radioac~ive Material (NOR!.\1) in drinking 

\VEter. 

Sources ofNOR!rf in Drinking Water 

l\1any natural materials contain radioactive 

elements (radionuc.lides) including the 

t•.arthls erusL lJ1 Texas, certain areus of the 

state hove higher levels of naturally 

Radionudide.~; io Drinldng \\'afer 

Allan Thomm.:j Toxicologist, 

~o;h::-,{:;gv and Risk rissrs.<:m£1!!, 

Orad,\. Hrous-sllnl, 

/'1~\'.t.ir::sr, Rad::".'Utttw: /liaft' :.-,.; 

TeauJ, (:JC & F?.udtQa{;i.iw: Wa>lf 

s·~..,.:tion. Wa.ne iJY/Ihm. lh'RCC 

Robt:rt A. Bdedds. 

Radioactive Wusu Section. $fasre 

P!'rmirs 11h:iswn, 7NRC:C 

occun·ing radioactive ;natcriai due to 

geologic. activity '\Vhich occurred when the 

land was first formed. 

Radionuclidcs are leached im0 ground or 

surface wa1er when \Vate: comes in contact 

with uranium~ and thorium- bearing soils. 

Since '"'ater for do;--m.::;tic use comes 5·am 

streams. lakes, reservoirs, and aquifers, it 

contains varying amounts of naturally 

occurring rndioact!viry. Although the level of 

individual radiation expl'sure from NORJ\1 i.s. 

usually minimaL some- water systems in 

White Paper 

'\i'd~ 2001 

p 
552 


27600.494

rexn.::: have :'ligh enough levels to he tJf 

concern. Tc! hetter U!Jderst~nd the prob1em1 

the TCEQ i:a~ conducted :nakcho!der 

meeting::; and hrts re:}e:J.rched the i111pact of 

tht: new ft.Jera! :uks JOr incorporntion into 

our sfatt Jri::'tkit.g water regulations. TCEQ 

s1a1T has also c\·aiuatcC. tbe impact 0fthese 

drinking \\';:ner r·uks on other agency 

progrnms v.·:1ich arc linked to the 

managcmc:1t of residunls from any pot::ntial 

drinking \Vater treatment processes. 

Technical Cousideratians 

In Texa:1~ Owre are Approximately 135 \Yater 

systems proj~cted to be or are currently in 

violation of the EPA's radium, gross Ci., 

and/or urnnium standard. \Vater systems 

have only a few tee hnic:o.l options to bring 

their water iuto compliance. It is possible 

for mn.ny of these s;"stcms to devdop 

a!tcmale surface or groundwater sources; 

but f<}r others rhr only option wilJ be to treat 

ih~ water and nppropriatdy m::mage the 

treatment residuals. 

Trca~m~.~m :ncthtKls arc effectiYe and are 

commercial!y annlahle. These methods 

include Jon exdtHnge. reverst: osmosiso and 

no- discharg~.: :td.S\lrption tcclUJology. A key 

fac.tor in detennining th:! most viable 

treatment method is to conslder \\'hat 

option~ are avJ.:l1!.h;e to d:spost:-fc:iscba.rge of 

Radionuclides in Drinking 'W:1ter 

the treatmcnl resid:.taL 

Options include: discharge of sm~ll 

concentration~ uf liquid residuals to an 

appropriate n:aier body or stmitaty sewer, 

land irrigation or Class V injection well. 

Higher conc~ntratbns of Jinuid residuals 

could also he iniected ln o~site Class l 

inj0ction we.Hs. S;,lid material would have. to 

be exported out of state to licensed NORJvl 

waste facilities. 

Schedule Requireme1zts 

\Vater systems already in violation are under 

compliance agreemcn1s which r.;qt:irc them 

to find solutions lo their radionuclidc 

violations by December 2004. After the 

December 2003 effective date of the 

amendments to this rule, water systems \Vith 

new violations of the radionuclide standards 

would he required to implement the revised 

radionuclide standard by December 2005, 

Within this time frame. niles must be 1A<Tit1e:n 

and adopted. compliance strategies 

dl':vcloped, engineering designs fOrmulated, 

and the approved plant designs constn1ctcd 

and placed into operation. 

Legal Ramifications 

TCEQ is curren~iy under " rules adoption 

extension agreement with EPA. 1l1e TCEQ 

V/ou! d need havt; to drinking water 
553 


27600.495

regulations developed and adopted by 

December 2004 ~o Im:et the deadline of the 

'!'CEQ ~xtemion agreement. Ai\cr 

December 2004, the Stale could allow the 

fCderal govel11!JJ-ent to enforce these 

~egulations but this could lead to the loss of 

prlmacy delegation ibr the Public \Vater 

Supply Supcrvi,ion (PWSS) program under 

the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. 

Withdrawal of primacy by the EPA w0uld 

result in the loss of approximately $6 

mifllon iu P\VSS grant funds to the agency. 

Primacy loss alo;;o jc\1pardizes more than $50 

milliun that the State rec~!ves from EPA 

under lhe Drinking \Vater State Revolving 

Fund administered by the Texas Wnter 

Development Board. 

Fc;w states have developed NORJ'vl disposal 

programs, due in part to the 1Jbstacles 

encountered by the Supiemacy Clause and 

the Interstate Commerce Clause of the 

United States Constitution. These clauses 

would allow :\ORM waste generated by the 

federal government or in other stat~::; to be 

disposed of in a commercial facility in 

Texas. The Texas Railroad Conuni~sion, 

\\'hicb has n1les authorizing the disposal of 

o!J and gas :'\CJR.\·1 in Texas~ indicates that 

the voi~~nc .of oil and gas NOIU\1 ii'om 

outside Texas is 1Dw. llo~vevcr, because of 

this potcniial problem. the lCEQ has unt'! 

m)W or:ly iooked at nuy; .. ccm1merdal dispos<d 

of the waste. ,t.. non-:.:nmmercial 

facility may !..,c licensed to 

ol.lt~of-state NORM w<t'>l::: helt;g disposed o1 

in Texas. 

Fillancialli urde11 

Determining the mcsi viable. treatment arid 

disposal r.1ethod must take into account 

reasonable costs that could he absorbed by 

the system's customers. A co:>t study 

pe:"f'Om1cd by TCEQ contractors \l:1!Sconductcd for 58 v.:ater systems m Texas. 

l}1js .study shows additi{Jnal ct1sts ranging 

from no cost per year per customer 10 greater 

than S 1 00 per year per customer. depending 

on the option selected. '1 he TCEQ win make 

CVC'f)' effort to assist affected cottl1l1UPJties it: 

the selection of an option. so as to minimize 

::osts. Also, part of these costs may he 

provided by the EPA1

S drinking water state 

revolving fund prO!,'l'31TI admini>tcred by the 

Tcxus Water De·velo?mcnt Board. Since 

i 99(\ the revolving fund program has mad~ 

available better than $300 million to assist 

drinking water systems in Texas with 

projects that improve their infi-astmcture. 

Conclusions 

Peden! reguLations now require stales to 

Whttc Paper 

•\pui 2:1\r! 
554 


27600.496

implement the r~dionuclide n1le by 

December :200.'. TCEQ has requested and 

been E:.rr::mteJ :.m c:-xtension to the adoption of 

the revised ruk until December 7, 2004. ln 

the interim, TCEQ will implement the new 

requirements r-:..s \vt:ll as enJDrce exlsting 

radionuc!ick r:.·~platicms. l\~e:w violations 

wili be rcfened to EPA for enforcement. 

TC'EQ stan· has bdd three stakeholder 

meetings w1th representatives of the major 

\.Vater utiiit;- associations and tht: affected 

water systems. fn adc.lhion~ TCEQ staff has 

reviewed existing regulations which af1€:ct 

the management of mdionuclldc containing 

treatment rcsidual.s. There are already 

existing mechanism to manage these 

residuals. However, there would need to be 

new rcgniatiml$ to deal with the conlfficrcial 

disposal of NORM drinking water wastes. 

The lack of such commercial disposal does 

not prohibit trerrtmcnt of public water 

systems. co:mnercial disposal in Texas may 

provide a cost cfficiem::y compared with out 

of state dispos::tl options. 

Regulatory Background 

.Public v.-ak-r sy:,ter:1S in Texas have be~n 

required to m~(~t standards for radionuciides-

!n Jr~nking wat:.:r since 1979 when t~e 

i"c~•.:.::.: Dep-:1rtmcnt of He:1lth &dopted the 

Radioouclides in Drinldng Water 

National Prima.ry Drin..l..iJJg \\later 

Regu!a~ions for Combin~d Radium-226 and 

Radium-22S of 5 picoCuricoiliter (pCiil), 

Gross Alpha of 15 pCill excluding radium 

White Pupcr 

_,\;nii ~i)OJ 
555 


27600.497

and ura!!bm, and Gross Beta of 4 

millircm1yr (Refer to 40 CFR §§ l4Ll), 

l4J.i6. and .<0 TAC' §§ 290 108). 

Notice of Data Availabili(l' 

1n l99L the EPA p:-opo~ed re\·j!-";}0:15 to ~he 

rc:uiionuclide n.:.gulations to add sto.ndards for 

Radon-222 and l ~ranium. A ~otice of Data 

Availability (NOD:\) v .. ·xs issued in Aprll 

2000 which Ui'dated the 1991 ~roposal. The 

regulations \-Vcre finalized in December 

2000. /\il previous rcouirements remain the 

s~me but a nt\V ]\.1CL was issued for 

uranium of 30 ug'L In addition~ ncv.: 

m.onitoring provisions \.Vcrc issued to ensure 

comp1ianc.e. Raclon-222, \Vhich is a ga!;~ is 

be1

ng addressed in a separate rulcmaking by 

EPA. All states that adopt the IK"'-'V standard 

will iJc required to develop their o~~>ll rules 

and have thdr v.'ater systems implement the 

new rcgulatioas by December 2003. for 

llC\V violations~ states car:. also grant a two 

year extension f()r compliance to December 

2005. 

Can,r;equences of No Actiofl 

lnplemcmiog the standard could be difficult 

hu: the cosls for not taking action could also 

b'! ~evcrc. B~sides al!O\:!,.ting the potential 

public heahh problems to continue~ other 

H:~dionudiOC>s in Drinking YVatcr 

legal and financial cos~s C(•ulJ be incnrrcd 

l'Y the agency and the state. Failun~ t0 

enforce thc:sc regulations could lead to rh!!: 

;oss of prinw.cy delegntion for the Public 

Water Supply Supervision (PWSS) program 

tmder the fc:de:·al Saf-C Drinking \Vater Act. 

\\'ithdrawal of primacy by the EPA would 

result in the }o:.;s l1f upproximatcly S6 

million in P\VSS gra:lt funds and $7 in 

D\VSRF semsidc funds to the agem::y" 

Primacy loss also jeopardizes more than £;'50 

miHion that the state receives from EPA 

under the Drinking \Vater State Revolving 

~;und administered by the Texas \Vate-r 

Development Bo3rd. 

Compliarzce Agreeme111s 

The T"'RCC puhllc drinking water pmgrarn 

typically addresses cxccedances of the 

drinking water standards through 

compliance agreemems issued by the. 

f:nforcemcnt Division. TI1ese compliance 

agrtemems require the public water systems 

to evaluate all options for retuToing the 

;:;ystem to ccnnpliance. These options 

include: developing ne\v sources~ pur~.:hasing 

water from <mother water ~y~tcm, or treating 

the water and dispi)~ing oftht wnstt::. 

Compliance 

developeJ 

agreements 

for exlsti11g 

Wt1!tf.l' Paper 

have hcen 

radionuclld:; 
556 


27600.498

vlolaton:. HO\VCV.:",:, remedial action has 

been ried to the tinEd adoptiori nf the 

radionuclicle rule by EPA and the TCEQ. 

The water p:rograrn has agreed to 

not pur((ue fOrmnl enfi.)JCCinent until 

expi:ari0n of the compliance agreement, 

most tlf\Yhi:h t·xpire in December 2004. 

Health Risk 

The puhik is exposed, in daily life, to a 

wick uf radiological and chemical 

agents arc kmnvn 1o cause cancer. The 

EPA has esi.ahJisbed federal drinking water 

standard~ known at:: iv1axitnum 

Concentration Limits (:>.1CLs) for these 

agents in drlnking water. ·n1e 'TNRCC's 

public drinking water program is charged 

w:ith administering the EPA standards. An 

MCL goal of zero is favorable, but rarely 

practical or achievable. The EPA has also 

c,::tahhshez: whm they c.om;jdcr an acceptable 

risk levcllo the population) usually between 

one canct.::r ten-thousand and 

one c.nncer ie. 0:1e ·million 

RfJdiation .S~tur!ie.v 

Ctmcer 1 isks fo1 most c.hemicals arc based on 

Radionudides in Hrinking \Vater 

anima! smdies. ln additior. lo animal studies, 

scientists have examined the t~ffects to 

human subjects of radiation exposures by 

studying the Japanese awmic bomb 

survivors. uranium ruiners, medieal patients 

receiving large therapeutic do~cs, and 

radium dial painters. A significant source of 

uncertainty in both chemical and radiation 

risk assessment is the interpolation and/or 

cxtrupolation ti·om data gathered in the high 

dose region to lov.' doses. Also~ it has been 

shovm that sensitive subpopulations, such n.s 

lhe fetus, children mtd individuals v.-itb 

certain genetic traits~ may be :hypersensitive 

to exposure to radiation and chemicals, 

R. •. 1diation r:sk nssessment is cmnpHcated by 

the ever~present contribution from natura! 

backgrotmd radiation which .:::onsti!utes the 

Whftc Paper 

2W! 
557 


27600.499

most signific..:mt source nf expo~un: tc• the 

hu;Tmn pnpularinn. Natu.:-al :x:.u..:.\...grou:ld 

nccu;-s frorn c.osmic and tt::rrcstriRl radiatio:1 

and rar.ges fwm doses nfle::s than 

50 millircm/y':" to greater thml 400 

m!l;irc.m/yr. This ;·aric.:ion is due to tempo:"al 

(i..;;. season~!) and spatia! (i.e. gcD!c•gy) 

difiCr!..'ncc:; in ~be enviwnme:1t. 

Radiation Dm;e Limits 

ln Title 40, Code ,,f Federal Regulations, 

l'arl 1'11, the EPA sets forlh a limit on the 

annual dose cquh·aient 10 the whole body or 

any organ of 4 rnillircm from man-made 

bc!algamma~emining radionuc!ides in 

drirLk:.bg -..vater. This limit reprcsen;s only a 

fraction of the annual dose !1m it to mcrnbe.rs 

of the public fTom sources other than natural 

background radiation. To place a perspective 

on these dosf! !evels, one. of the Texas public 

drinking water system.s of concem v;as 

calculated as having a potential dose to the 

puhlic consumer of 125 millirem per year 

fi-om radium. This is approximately 30 times 

che EPA aliownbic dc>se limit for the public 

from drinking water (l25 versus 4 milliicm 

;Jer year). This increased dose would cause 

the 1o~l potential dose to the public 

consu•·ner of this \Vater system (excluding 

natural hackb,rround radiation and medical 

c()n1ributions) to be more than twice the 

RadionudidC:-!1 in Drinking \Yater 

maximum ailov..-<!ble !cd~ra; dose lin: it. 

Radimimt RL1·ks 

Radia:ion risl.. analysi~ i:-; :i '/CI;' subjccti1.·~ 

area of radiation prottctit•n, The radia:ion 

standF:Irds recommended by t!Jc Jntemation::.~l 

Commission on R3Jidogical PrNecti<•:1 

(JCRPJ are some of the must widc!y 

rcc.()gniz.ed i.!nd accepted. t'\lthough. not a 

rcg11!adng. or governing bc{!y. tbc fCRP has 

established risk ~stimates for rediati0n 

protection. The ICRP Report 60 provides 

risk cstima!es for fatal ~anecr to t:1e 

whole 

population from low dosr-~r:ne radiation to 

be 5 x 1 W" per rem received. The 

EPA''?: assc!.'smcnts for cancer risk~ were 

published in the radionnclidc NODA and are 

depicted in Tahle l. Tl1csc r::1dionucHde 

concentration le-vels rcorcscm sornc of the 

highest calculated c:l~lcer risks of ar.y 

Ef' A-regulated drinking water c"lntaminanl>. 

Presently, about 25 public wat:::r systems in 

Texas have concentrations that exceed the 

MCLs adopted by the l.'P A. 

J1)H Cancel' Study 

ln response to concer:1s rcgardhtg a possihic 

cx(.:ess of cancet. ~he Ccmccr !Zegis:ry 

Divis1'on of the Texas Ik·pa:1mcnt or 1 kalth 

(TDll) 

White Paper 

A_;ni! 2!\0i 
558 


27600.500

1-JORM V.i/~;TE p·_:;::·pf·R-9~'26:;·3.-I.'.'~d --·--'-·-------·-·-·-- . -----~----·-·-·'"-·----~-

RaLHonuclides in ()rinking \Vater 

conducted an investigation into the 

occurrc:Ice cf canct:.r in Concho, 1-,..fcCul!oeh, 

San Saba, and Tom Green counties. The 

public drinking water systems of these 

cmmties have some of the hight!st measured 

levels of radionuclides in TexJ.s, 

Specifically, TDH evaluated 1995-1997 

cancer incidence data and 1990-1998 

mortclity Jata fnr c:mccrs of the nose/nasa! 

cavity/midd!e ear, bone, and acute 

n~:yclogenou~ itukemia. Incidence data arc 

the best indicator:; of the occurre-nce \)f 

cancer in an area. Bnsed on the relativdy 

smaU sample size of th!.s investigation~ the 

results do not allow fOr any firm conclusions 

regarding the incidence of excess cancer in 

these Texas counties. 

T:lhle 1: EPA Maximum Conccntrulion Lc"els and 

Associated Canter Risk1 

Water Planning 

(.lv.;r : ex:1n" chnk water !Torn 

puhtlc w;!~~~ ;-;:;.·'Items v.rhich an; 

White Paper 

·\rn! 

contumi;!ated \Vith relatively high levels of 

rG.diU!11 and oth~r noJural!y occuning 
559 


27600.501

radionc:ivc mrrtcri;jL TN'RCC 

~how tlnt as many as i .::.o :;~<:>tcn:s 

\'ioiatc the C(l!Jlbined radium. 

or uranium standurds for 

,~o,.·ater. Surne of Jh::se systems con~~-dr. 

gross 

of radioactive c.ontamiwmts \\·~th 

cah:ulated c::1ncer risk of i/400 (1 /10,000 

being the ailowable federal a:td state c~nccr 

rlsk for rnost contaminants), posLng n 

potentially scritlUS health con-.:cnL 

Radon t:valumlon 

The Texas Dopartment of I-!ealt'> (TDH) is 

currently !nvc.tnigating cancer rates in thc;.:;e. 

areas (page ln addition, the impact from 

Radon<!22, 3 gaseous daughter prc}dur.:t of 

rn.di urn) is also present. Radon is being 

address.ect in a separate multimedia 

mitigation G.~valua1ion to Emit health efrects 

related to its inhalation in indoor aiL 

Jlickmy Aquj(er 

The TCEQ has divided the stmc int~ regions 

fc.1r fYl.lrposes of wah!r use plan..;jng. The 

Region F \Vater Phmning . .1\.rca (Figure 1) 

in dudes rhc Hickory Aquifer which contains 

concentration$ of radium: uranium, nnd other 

alpha particle cmi11ers at levels thm exceed 

the nev .. ~ EPA standards for radionuchdcs. 

1l1e Re-gion F planning gro'JP has studi-ed the 

lm;~act of these radionuclides on the 

(!\';ilabili1y of v.:atcr in this ar~a. \Vithout a 

fcasibic :~cm~s to treat the drinkir~g water 

and manage- '..hL~ residuals, the Hickory 

.~\quiJ(:;: ,_,:ou;d become unusable ns a public 

d;·inki:lg ·vvate;· Sl!Urcc. I\1any LO\Vns using 

t:le Hickory :\:juilCr are remote and alternate 

~ourc~s of v;:.:.ter v.'i.)U}d be very 

unltV<~Jlcnle for many .vear~ . 

. ·\ppendix A~ ·:on page 24, and Appendix B, 

page '27. p~<;lYide a st.a\cwidc list of current 

White Paper 

Radionuclide:., in Drinking \'·Vatt~r 
560 


27600.502

th 

EP 

Ra 

01! 

li<l 

St 

da 

Rotdionndidcs in Drinking \Vater 

Figure 1,: Texas W01ter Systems Currently ln Vio!ution 

o I.or;:i!tion Ctfn<Jt-ersys-tents 

" A 

di 

Ut 

"" rd 
561 


27600.503

Radionuc!ldc~ in Drinkin::! \Vtller 

Implementing the EPA Standard 

syslcns with radi~H1Uc!ide 

a few options to br:ng 

eompliam;e. One 

Stwtd:;.rd. is to C\Jr:.ncct to 

.w.:ighboring, co:npiiant drinking water 

.syslcms for either cx1.::-lus1vc- use or blending. 

A third viable option is water treatment 

vdlich ..::an he less expensive than either 

jcv;;.}opmcnt of ether sources or connecting 

to other \','Ut~:· i'ystems. 

Treatment Methods 

T'.vo radionuclide removal technologies havt 

been evaluated by staff Cntion Exchange 

\Vater softening and Reverse Osmosis. 

Cation Exchange 

Cmion exchar.:ge resins~ such as those used in 

home water - softeners to remove the 

c\nnponents of hardne::.s (calcium and 

magnesiurn)~ can also be used to remove 

radium and uraniutn. Table 2 demonstrates 

:he c.aiculawd volume and concentration of 

:·adionudidcs in the \Vaste stream if cation 

exchange were use.:d to treat a rcprc;e.ntative 

sample of the radium affected plnnts. 'Il1ese 

calculations are bascJ 01:. typical efficiencies 

and ·volumes water used to reg.cncratc the. 

rtsin heds and sho\-v the v~)lume of regcnerant 

rrocluced f.:n disposaL These caknlations 

shm1.· thai even sr.:wH ~;..rstems may produce 

lnrge V'..)lumcs ufwaste. 

Ret•erse Os11wsiJ· 

R~vt;rse osnwsis (RCJ) is an effective 

treatment J()r aE r!ldionuciides in drinking 

Wh:!te Pap!'.'r 

11!"1! 

2 3hows 

!(J: r;dn!i \-Vhich is a ge.s_ 'f ;_;b!c 

CI;_kulated v..-2.s1c voh.:mc and 

....:m:cemmt!c)n of r;lJitJI'~~t~·hlc~ in :.n RO 

v:;:G1C stream.. In ;_;~·nc:-cl!. 1';: ~;;;i:-Jf. '\1JY the 

shelf' 1cc-hlloJc.gies ;..--:>:- ;·-.:-\·~.:";·:;{~ t•s:;\osL;. 

:.tbout 25% oflhe ln~h.lcnl \',':.ittr !::> t;:\ 

f(mn a brine st;~am )'herefore, br:nc 

strcan1 generally contains a concen:rati~)n of 

contJminants ahout four times greater tha;1 

the influent \vawr con~c:ntratin:!. As shCJW!'i i:J 

the table~ reverse osmosis pn,duces m:1ch 

more liquid ::adioactivt:. 1-va;.t~~ thm: docs ion 

exchange but at a km:er conccmr::.ttior: of 

radiunuciides. 

Pobzt-af-EIItry/Point-of-U<e 

Trea(ment at a centralized iocatlnn ma: nnl 

be feasible in surne areas~ due to small 

population size. because cerll::~lized 

treatment m.ay be cost prohibitive. hl these 

instances. home water treatment may be nn 

t)ptions. ·rhis home based treatment can 

cons:s! of either '>\'holc-lwusc nr single Hw;.:cl 

tr:;;atm.cnt. \Vh0lc hou.se, <)r pt>int-of (•nt:-y 

(POE) treatment is tlc(·essa;-y u:h(::-r. t:.~p~'.<~I:c 

to the- contaminani h;: rnodc-s nth~:~ tb<tn 

consumption is a conc.c:·n. Singh:. ti.w ... ·c: Dr 

point~of--usc (POU) treatment is preferred 

when treated -water 1:- ne-eded only f-L'r 

drinking and cocking purposes. :>Ot: 

treatment usually involves <>ingk~tap 

treatme-nt. POE and POC systems gencraliy 

offer ease of ins:taHation, \Vith lmver capita} 

co:-::ts 2nd simplified operatlon awl 

mai:1tenance. They may also r~ducc 

cnglnecring:. [c[!.al and oth<:.~r kcs typically 

::sso;:iated with centralized trc:Jtmc-nt 

Specific requirements !~H :he use f'OU 

;.; 
562 


27600.504

dt:vice:> c:·dst t:be f'~dcral rcg!.llations. 

a!k•\\.',:\:Jct of t::c usc of POU 

:::r:: mnde i(,\r c--ac1: Ct..';Jtaminam on a.r_, 

individual ha~i.s bas;;:;d o:n the potential 

rcd·Jctkm nf ;juch a device. In 

case" FPA re:gulations require that the 

devices. he ov.11ed. maintained and tested by 

the \\J-:.t:T .~;-'s-tem. The Current policy 

of 1.:; to a:kn~: s.u:.te:s to approve 

POl!/Pll'' only if the water 

system gam5 pcrticipation by the 

custom~rs, T'h~.:; tequiremcnt as- well the 

maintemmcc and testing b 1

Jrd-en, may make 

l'OUiPO E less desirable than potentially leo;,; 

capital intensive centraiiled treatment 

.5ystcms, lJst: of POE and POU does not 

rcJu0e the nC"cd 1t1r a .,.,·ell-maintal:ncd water 

distribetin:1 syste1::. 

Radionudidc.s in I>rinidng \"/a fer 

T:1bie 2; List l•fCH_y Tn:atment Fac.ilitit~ and Qu2iu0tics of Liquid Radium Wa~dc 

White Paper 

Type of Trc~1tment: 

Nurnber o-f 

Ccnnec:i;-ms 

lon Excha11ge 

~2A29 217 

Reverse Osmo::;ls 

Wasle Radionuchde 

Volume Concentration 

(gal/day} (pC:itl} 

128,333 22'i 

55 84~ 137 
563 


27600.505

White PapN 

A:mi ~'0~:1 

Hadionm:lides in Drinking- \\';uer 

SG 

Residuals Management Options 

Options available under 

existing TCEQ rules 

Studies of Ya:ious optlons have 

be~::n performed iOr waste within ::·~~.; 

oil and gas industry_ These studies arc 

directly applicable to various drink1ng \VHl<.!r 

systems sinct: the radionuclides of <.:-mKcrr 

are the same. ·nv:. various options includ ... :. 

dischargt' to a Publicly Ovvncd Tn:atnH::rr: 

\"Vorks (POl'\V). land npplicat!on, discharge 

to 2. water hrdy, in an tl!H.krground 

inje~tion \.Ve:U or oul 1>f .r...:tatc. 

Disposal of NORM 

the following paragraphs, 

stat~ u.nd federill reg.ulati:1n<>. 

Discltarg<' to a l'OTW 

In accordunc~ wiih cur-reni. .stme nnd t('.:.kr;:! 

rcgulatioJ!S, !C'lc:~~c w a Puhiic:y Oww..:d 

Trcmment \Vori ... s {POT\V) thn .. Jug.b 

sanl-:.ary sew;:.~r system :;;; aHm~·ed for rad:l;m 

up to 600 pCJL ~tverugc 1:wnthly 

C.OI1CCntrati(J!1 or Radium 226 anJ Radi~r::."l 

2:.:R each in 1h~ wa:-;te stream. t-:awrai 

u;·;;mium may he released at an averuge 

mont:1.ly conccntriltion of 3.000 pCi/L 

These limits have been set to preclude 

pTvblems disposing (Jf the sludge 

d1lur:.·nts from the \\'UStev.:at~·.r trc::nmcn: 

plants. 
564 


27600.506

Land App/icmion 

Land appUc~1tiun in\;olvt~S chsposa~ by 

.sprendi:lg s:;;-2; !:1g liquid or sladge on the 

:-.urface or' Ppe:: lr.nd:; in an area \Vhere 

present above 

method is Iand 

:imited applicability in 

dl:n~c!y arr;as or areas \Vith 

Emitcd land avuilability. Only tv·.to !fwd 

applicDtic:;l me-thods 'Nere cvaluatcdt 

land;prcading POTW sludge and 

c:ft1ucnt::: (wh~ch haJ received waste from an 

iou exc:mnge t:·e::!tmem a:1d irrigation 

of HO rc:icT: '>Valcr. land ap;,!katioll 

c~f ion :..~x~h:~nge n;geaerate v;as not included 

in this study. Only ion exc.bange regenerate 

that has: hcL:.n dlsrharged to a SC\Va.ge 

collection lz,~ility c<m be lanJ applied. This 

is beeause the ion exchange effluent v;ith its 

high salt contc:1:, ca:1 n(Jt he direcdy applied 

to land or the k1::J wou]tl become unfit for 

-vegcta-rion. 0:11c-.: treatment techniques such 

as Emc or coagulation/filtration 

pn.'dttct: a siudgc Gould b;.: }and applied 

but the:-;c t:H.:thods have been ruled out by 

tbe EP./\ as not b~.;;ing cost ef.fuctive 

trcahnent rncthods . 

. Yon Commercial Underground Injection 

Cta;sV 

Uquid into usable quality 

grcnmdw:1:cr '::t)t!ld undeT :he Cla:::.:s V 

injec:.ion possible ir the effluent 

rnceto:: the limns pn.:scribcd foo discharge:-: W 

the .._:nYironrnct:! This wou[d a!low for 

{msite ;;1ana;!emcnt ln a:·cc!s where a SC\vagc 

no rccieving \•::ttt:r budy £1\'ailah!c and 

1it(:re i:.: no~ s:.:fficicnt iand available for land 

nppliccti('>:J TSecuuse ion e:changt 

t~c:mcrh~EY \'\1

n:1ld add a !nrgc cnncentr?.tior 

of ~,alL :,n eflkienily operated inr. 

Whik Pa-per 

A! IT!' 

Radionudidr~ in Drinking \\.atcr 

exchange system wouid t::oncentrate nldiu~n 

to le:vels above the efllucnt concemration 

li::1its allowed limier TCEQ mks. this 

residuals managemct!t method is no1 

practical for ion exchage mdilUll 

]\/on Commctr.."'ial [hulergrmmd Injection 

Class I 

Sludge. !Jquids 1 and some filter r:1cdia Gould 

be irtic:cted Into fo:·mations which arc 

isolated geologicRlly a.nd mechanically ff<lm 

\.:.s. Drinking Waters (USDWJ. This would 

involve transport~ stornge. and then injection 

of the waste. There are many geologic 

requiren1ents for an underground injection 

well outlined in TNRCC rules at 30 Ti\C 

33 i, I 21. The injec.tion zone must have 

sui1kit:nt permeability, porosity~ thickness: 

and areal extent to prevent migration into 

USDW. There arc few drinking water 

sys-tems !oca1ed in geologicully fhvomble 

areas for illldcrgromld injection well 

disposal. In addition, drilling and operating 

an injection well is very expensive. Oniy 

large conunLmities w0uld he t1blB- to ab:mrh 

the additional cost. 

Options Not available under 

existing TCEQ rules 

Commercial 

injection 

Class Lludergromul 

\Vh1lc :n)n comnercial Class I lnjccti()u 

ct•uld he authorized under exi;.;ting TCEQ 

Tt\£ltlatiorlS, ·n1ere: are no regulntinns in 

place that allow for the liec:nsing or 

permitting of n Cla~s I injcctimJ well fix 

NORM dispo:SaL As new tcdmologics 

bc:comc available vd1id: are c<:tpab.\e or 
565 


27600.507

cDncentrating NORJ\1 at levels much higher 

than what can be, managed within efi1ucnt 

conce,;:ntrat!on limits, commcrclai Class 1 

within Texas may pn.:widt a 

~vst rc.Uuction in trcatrne:at co~ts 

c,ompared v:ith out of state disposal :nJ non 

eommerciai Class i optio11S. 

Onsite or Commercial Buried Waste 

Ftu:i!ity 

Technical studies, using the federal 

m.axitnum rndiaticm ~xpo.sur~ iimit of 25 

miilircm per year, indicate that sludge and 

(XlUiprncnt 1vastcs haxing lmv NORM 

concentratioLs could be buried bcJo~,-v 15 

1C¢t (4.G m) and :-nm ailow .for unrestricted 

usc of th<: site once the facility is 

abandoned. Commercial NORM waste 

disposal facilities could be allowed to bury 

much higher concentrations of waste 

materiaL TCEQ does not have in place any 

regulations which would allow for the 

licensing or pcnnitting of such an operation, 

Low Level Radioacrh.·e H'astc Disposal Site 

Another possihk aitcrnmivc \vould he 

cnHocation ~)f NORM ai. a low-level 

radioactive "''D.:-Jlc disp.o:Sal fat;itity. This is 

not a!!t'.'Wed under the present legislation 

low levei radioactive waste 

\Vhik, te-chnically rossible, a 

\(• the legislation \li'otllcl have to be 

ir._ order t; !flcilitate the disposal uf 

\10R1-,J at such 3 site. 

RadiomH.:Iidc:<- iu 11rinking \\'aP:r 

NORM Waste Treatment and Disposal 

in Other U.S. States 

White Paper 
566 


27600.508

developed d:sp0s.al crited.a f,_...,r water 

\vaste.s cont~tining radium. 

Tl1e ''"''"'''""''"~ of Radiation Control 

Program Directors ~s tk·velnping .mggesrcd 

$t;md.2Jrds for the d)3posa1 nf~:ORY1 wastes, 

Figure 2 sh(l\VS the rc$Ults a surv'\Jy of 33 

s.w.tes tmd summ:1rizcs their :.JOR.:\1 \.Vaste 

disposal st:nus, Seventeen of the surveyed 

stHtt.·s rJ.dium drinking \'-'nter 

pCi!L. 

f<'ignn~ 

Stttes 

NOR 

the EPA's MCL of 5 

Radionuclidcs in Drinlting Water 

Six of these seventeen states cu:rcntly have 

NORJVI drinking water rules in place. ·n1e 

other eleven are faced with the same 

concerns for cnrnplying \vith the ne\\'ly 

adopted standards. Some may devdnp 

!ncthods to treat and dispose of their 

drinking water NOI(M ~.vaste in-state and 

others may 1:vish tc· '::ans.poi1 and dispose out 

of state. Legal incentives for these states 10 

develop their own facilities are addressed in 

this paper under the follovving scctior: 

entitled "Supremacy Clausr & Interstate 

Comrnercc Act. 11 

2: 

wi1h 

M 

Drinking Wntcr Rl'gulatious 

White Pape-r 
567 


27600.509

Supremacy Clause & 

Interstate Commerce Act 

The State of Texas h?..s ~xpcrie!lced an 

need to address problems 

associated the disposai of Naturally 

Occuning Radioactive MateriQ] G'JORM). 

Fe\v states have developed commercial 

:-.IORM disposal programs. due in part to the 

o~~s1acles encountered by the Supremacy 

Cl::msc anJ the Imer$tate Co-mmerce Clause 

,~;·1.he tinitcd States Constitution. 

S'upremacy Cia use 

The Int0rs!atc Commerce Clause and the 

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution make 

it difficult t\} create a rule which restricts 

:"JORiv1 v:asi~ generated by ihc federal 

governmcni o;· by z~thcr .states iT-om entering 

Texas t0 be of nt t commercial 

site. Supremacy Clause 

1ha1 tlw b\.vs of the United Statr::s 

;.;hall be. the supreme Jav,: of the land. 

Anything in the constitution or im'r'S of m;y 

state to ;he contmry is preempted and wiL~oui 

~ffer:t if]t c0nnicts with fcdcrdllaw. In s:nn, 

a Texas lav.- or which pw·poscfuHy 

pre,·ents tbc: govc:T:.m;;nt lh•m 

enjoying t11e same: l•enc::it::; ~n·<~:b.Gk t<• T<:::o:a~ 

entities wouJd be 1r:val;d. 

Interstate Commerce C!aust.: 

In addition tv th,": Clause~ nny rule 

governing ~ORM would also need 

to take into t.;onsidcrJtion the Interstate 

Cornmerce Clause: v·h!cb has the ci1Cct of 

restricting a stt-~e':-. 

interfere with 

to cr:act ic.rws that 

c,,)tnmcrcc. 

1h~t exclude~ one ;::hiC. 

.another_ \'lloulJ hf' dcdnrcd 

b0und 

~·o1h 

state cntitic5 a -cnmmcrc-ia! 

;--.J(l!~\~ waste facihty is :.:n:12;t:--u~tt:d in :he 

:;:tate. This does not effect r:on-commt.:rclal 
568 


27600.510

disposal of NORM waste. A 

no.n-con.u.:w;cb! djs;xJsal fucility may he 

licensed ont~of-state NORi\1 

Costs 

was 

Tcxns. 

anJ Oi~posnJ cos: stt:dy 

rCEQ staff ht live 

facilities re1:m:sert n 

variety of tr(~a:.ed f1ow:·ni;;.~s and conte~nina.tion 

concentt'Jtinr:s. tlf;ures· cio n\!t include 

c,1sts to proc~::>.s :md store ;.va:::te. Costs io treat 

.:.:ach of the systttm.s \Vaters src shftwn in Table 

~ on page ; i 

Lh.•en:l·ing Costs 

The NOR;'v1 &ssvciatcd with a \!>rater treatment 

plant \YNlld be generally Hcen:;ed and w~uld 

therefore nDt be subjec:1 t1..) any iicensing fees 

or cv::~n rcquin.'mcnts tc) have ihe radiation 

approved. The general lk~nse 

only that a program be ~waiuatcd and, 

sul."Jmlt ;ccnm:n::.'rxlations as h• 

radiation protcc!ion pre:gratTJ is needed. 

.cmsultant \.V~~"Llld co$t nbout S!SOO·S40(JU 

depending tin: size of;:hc facility. 

Radiarion EquiJH1Wltf Costs 

l f' a prog:·am i:: 

need h) be 

eqlli;JDK';Jt ::h(~uld 

White- Paper 

then eq~1ipm-ent wiH 

Initial tOS!.S for 

t1()\ exceed $2000-$3000 

o:·th: J:1dlity. OnGt the 

~1ngemg costs: 

!i.e. d-c;;,im~t:;·. te~~$, 

:acility ch;~oses r:.n 

Radionudidcs in Dr·inking \Valcr 

outside consultant ht run the. program. the 

other •:.:usts would be hours taken awav fr;:!m 

uther duties while an employ·ce attends. to tht..~ 

program and fOr specialized training. A 

procedure shouid be included )n the appro\'al 

process for this type of facility for applicants LO 

indicure wha1 they have done to evaluate \Vhethcr 

there is a need t(;r a radiation protection program. 

.'·\Speers that w0uld need to be addressed \voujd 

be external exposure~ airborne problems, and 

discharge to the en.vkomm:nt. This evaiuat~on 

would be greatly influenced by the treatment 

method chosen; any on~sitc processing nf waste, 

and the residuals management rncthod used. 

Economic Feasibility of Compliance 

Tt1e Texas Water Development Board 

(TWDB) administers the Texas Drinking 

Water Slate Revolving Fund (DWSRF) and 

other stale drinking water funds. The Rural 

Utility Service (RUS) administers ottler 

sources of federal funding tor public water 

system improvements to achieve or maintain 

compliance. In reviewing applications for 

loans and grants. both of these agencies 

evaluate a public water system's financraf 

infrastructure and tl<e <Jconomic feasibility of 

loan repayment. 

The RUS is not inclined to lend money to a 

public water system that required customers 

to pay rnor<J than $45.00 per month for the 

tlrst 8.000 to 10,000 gallons. This quantity of 

gallons per month h2s been chosen by th8rn 
569 


27600.511

f<adionudide~ in Dr·inking V·iatcr 

based 01 histoncai wwtt:r water l...!Sage 

records a:!d rcfh.?.cts IJ~cessary lfl··how,e 

water consumption for a 

The TVVOB doss not have a slngie 

rnaxhnum rate for aH applicants. Instead 

they look at what economic income group 

a public water system's customers fall into 

to decide what is an economically feasible 

monthly rate. If the customer ba~.e of the 

water systems is economically 

disadvantaged, the TWDB evaluates the 

public water system to see if it quaiifies for 

grant monies or toan forgiveness instead 

of or in addition to low interest loans. 

However, some of the public water 

systems have an economl~at!y diverse 

group of customers that may com~licate this process. 

White Papor 

Ap-ii 

Radionuclidts iu Drinkin~ \\'ah:r 
570 


27600.512

karlinnudidr~ iu Drinking \\·arer 

Rarlimmclide:. in Drinkin{; \\'~Her 
571 


27600.513

Whlte Paper 

1\pnl :!OI!l 

Outline of Proposed Changes 

to the TNRCC Rules 

Drinking "'·nter plants, \:Vhich need to treat 

~heir drlnbng vvater \o meet the nc\V 

standard~. v• .. ·ili have to lind an economically 

feasible rnethod to manage their treatment 

resuidu~ls. C~urrently, there are no TNRCC 

rules which specihcal!y add7'ess disposal of 

naturally occurring radioactive. material 

('JORM) waste. fhcrc arc several limits 

listed in the TNRCC mlcs for di,chargc of 

radium~ ura;li.Um1 and cnhcr NORivl material 

to sanitm)' .st.::we-rs. Then.~ are: also iimils for 

land application and o1hcr discharges to the 

~nviromncnt Bmvcvcr, other new displ)sa! 

rules and/or amendmcrns to ~:..xisting rules 

\Vill ~c required before sume :ypes of 

n~.sidual mrmagement methuds touJd be 

allmvz.·d. 

f>ritif..:ing 1-Vater Rule.v 

HC\\' I~PA i•vlCL for nat11rally occurnng 

u~~niur:1 [~m! lh';: rcquirente:~t for se;mrat~ 

l~i·)nitor1ng rc.diwn-228 will hR\'C i(l be 

/)r/nking Water. To ~~c~nrnplish 

t:Jis. the r:\'RCC \Wi\llJ submit a rcqtrcst for 

revisions 1C> nur rules to have- them adopted 

1..,:: Ikc('mhcr 2002. The at.;tual cf1Cetive date 

of the !1('\\" stl:tc requircmen1s \.vill he Dec. 8, 

The 

White Paper 

-\;l!il 

~·.lpha, bc:8 

and comHn::-d 

in the 

new EPA n1I~maklng. and .::rt: c-onsiJcrt:J 

be a:rcndy in etTect. Thr: T~RCC wi:i 

negotiate as soon as possible with the LP/\. 

for schedules 10 plac~ the affec1~d \Vnli_'r 

systems into c:ompliancc Clwpl::r -~~Hi 

already requires "fNRCC to be nDti!i::d :.md 

to approve all nc.·w com~tmctkm for v.·me~· 

treatment facilities. ·1 he 'LNRCC will share 

this notification inf0rmatjon \Vhh the Tl?xt;,._ 

Department of Hc2lth (TDH). The TD11 ·sill 

be involved \\'ith much of th~ regulation 

these planL'-' since they have ju~isdictioE C\ ~r 

the treatment ofradionc::ivc m:1teri~1l. 

lfea!fh Department Rules 

Drinking \Vater 1rcatr:1cnt pi::.nrs v\·i!l 

:mder the juri':ldicti.:m of:lte 'I DE for sw:.c.f!e 

nf their radiozc~i,_,c \\'2.:-JG\V~::e. 

'I DH':.,; new 25 r:\C §::B~i.J5Sl. 

.\'atw·a!ly Occurhng Rr<riioriC!iH' 

a "g\'.n~ral licc:tse p:~s_;~,;~:-:, ' tbe radio;Ktiv~ 

v:a.s:c. Gcnt:'.;:)J lic.:cr:::,o:.'s r·:·~.:uirc a raJ:<"l;Nl 

of all radium:tive \YaS10 

disposal. \t(, ch:mges v..i:! he 

Jl(.x:c-ssaT}: to the- existing TDH rules. 

Di:rodzar{.f!' to S'cw.er 

One of the c;1d ClOSl: ~:,.'st dfective 

brine !s tc1 

;c;adhg tCI <1 

<Jf r~H.lioa~..:ti ve \1..'<1:-..1~ 

to •~ ~~anita:·;: ;.:;:\Yf.:r 

CJv..,':lccl rt:rJlrn...:i:t 
572 


27600.514

Tile r:~dio;.;ctivity lin1its for 

SC\;l,'er discharg!! of radioactive \vustcwatcr 

are al.ready c:sLdhEshed in the currCI!t 

TNRC'C ntks m1d wiH not rL:quirc a license 

or pc:nnk However, sanita:y sewer dlsposa1 

is not- r~vailab/c rx all trcanrwnt plants and 

some plants \-\,ith sewer hookup could not 

directly dis:.:b1rge due to radionuciide 

concl"nt::mior!s u\y_we the !imits. 

There m·e no k!ww problems currently 

existing \Vith rndlation levels exceeding 

safety s~n&:.~rcl.s at POT\~,'s or with radiation 

levels 

t>xceeding 

concentration~ 

~lc-·•ated 

:--:ORM in their drinki11g 

\V:tter arc disposing 0f their ;.vastc water in a 

sewnge ;System. 

Concentrating the 1vastew2ter into a brine 

hciOre discharge imo the sewage ~ystem 

could increa::.e the total amount of 

radio.1c1lvity imrodured to tbc POT\V. '!11is 

could caus'' with disposal of the 

POT\V sludge and water. 

Conc.cntrnlll'!l in t~t: sludge \\\ndd he due ((\ 

the iDS£ of dilution water in ~:be 

~umrncr m~mths from 

other ttc.:es. 

t~;eir \\'tts:::.> h• POT\\ .. 'NiH likely need to 

bm'c. <.:. ~·amplir~g progn.-~.m estnbiished at the 

tre:3tmcm v;n;ls and a: :he POT\V. ff 

;:;u:!c\~illJU1jor: of radionuc:fiJcs 

RadJonuclides in Drinking lVater 

tbat th-ey may s::tfcly discharge to the PDTW. 

lf di~charge to a sewabr-c sy~itt:m is 

detem1ined to be the pn:fem;;d disposal 

method for a water system then 30 TAC 

Ch~pters ~O'i!JDomeszic,)V~1slewater_ -4/flp.em 

Limitation and !'lam Siting) and 312 (/':lYudgt:: 

Use, Di,\posal, t"md would 

need w be Ac.::.eptabte 

radioactivity limits would buve to h~ 

developed and added to Lhcse n1lcs. 

Radioactivity limits and metf1ods for land 

application of treated sludge wtJUid also 

he 

needed in 30 TAC Chapters 312 and 336. 

Dt:w·!rnrge to Receiving Streams 

Another method for disposal of wastcv:mer 

is to discharge contro!kd cruantitles into <m 

appn~priate receiving s-tream (one where the 

contaminates Mil not concentrate). To use 

this disposal method~ a general pennit for 

discharge into surface water would have to 

be dev;ioped under 30 TAC Cbapter 205, 

General Permits for \Vastewater Discharges. 

The limit f()r radioactivity in the discharged 

\Vater in 30 TAC §336.359 would have to be 

cited i11 the newly developed general pcrrnit, 

A radioactive material license vmuld uot b~ 

required for this discharge. 

Sludge Disposal 

If it rums out to be CGonomically feasible to 

cn:ate a sluJge from a radioactive brl!lC ctt 

the drinking water plant, that radioa(:tivt.:. 

sludge would be regu!ated 30 TAC 

C'hapter 3 i 2. Subchapter Qf 

\Vater Tre::nmen; Sludge. Those relate 

to ii.n disposal in landfills and 

an annual repl)rt and pn.';sihly an 

an:mai fCe. t\ radio<:~ctivity Emit i(n 

:·::::djoactivc sludee disposal goir:g into a 
573 


27600.515

bnd!i!l \Vouid th('n n~ed 10 be developed and 

incurpJrated into 30 TAC Cl:ap1er 33f.. 

Disposal iii MSW and l!HV Ltmdftl/s 

30 T:\C :n6, §§336.225tc} and 

3~6.365 authvri:(.e disp0sal or cenain 

;adionnclides in a rvhmiclpal Type I Landt!ll 

or a H;1711rdous \Vaste L-a.ndfilL Ho\vever, 

radium radionudides and uranium arc not 

listed in these landfill provi~km::.. Currently. 

these TNRCC landflll rules address only 

mdionuclides with a short ha!f:Jijc, (3tHl days 

or k~:~). T0 dispose of drinking water 

treatJrJcni ~~OFU\1 \Va:Hes in a Cb~rrter 330 or 

C'haptf·r :n 5 landGll, 30 TAC Charter 3.)6 

wo:.t!d need \;J be ch3nged to address the 

J0ngcr half~lifc :adium and uraniu .. '11 

radionucl1des. 

Uuderground lujectimt 

If dispos~~l of the radioactive brine down a 

Class I undc:rground injection \~·ell is 

cconomical!y leasi!Jte and ncccs~uy, a 

would be rc{.ji.lired under current 30 

Chapter 331, Subchapter D. /dso, 30 

?36 would ne-ed to be amended 

t0 licen:::ing of radioactive. waste 

{:\ORM) di:.:posal in an underground 

i1~jecthm \veiL INRCC rules cunen1h' 

exempt inactive r&iioactive waste sites with 

radium \vastes containing less than 2.000 

frpm hJ.ving to decommission, TI1is 

Jf the. was1c remains on-site at an 

inactive 1~tcHity" If necessary~ this ru[e could 

~c arnl.:"nded to m::tkc ttls a disposal 

which would allow nn-site 

of radit~m \Vaste W3ter hy 311 active 

"\V.'1~cr treatment s~'stem. 

White Paper 

•\pr,; 

Racli<mudides in Ddnking VVater 

Priv(lft.! Non-Commercial Ltmdfllls 

Construction of :1 p:.--!\·ntc npn-G,)tnml..'rc:J.! 

hazr:.rdous \Vaste land fir is not ;·er.mnrm:n:.kd 

due: to the diftlcul\y ln rnceti;;g vnri,)u:-, 

ileensing requirements (suGh as a. ;•u:,.,Jic 

rev!cvv tmd appn.wal of a facility). The ct1:~!~ 

to btlild a smnn 1~1cility appears to be 

feasible for larger c.ormnunhies. Jt may alsC' 

be possible for several sr:nallcr wat~r syster:1:: 

1o combine their :-esourccs to huild a sm:11l 

regional landfilL However. due 10 potential 

t1ccnsi:1.g problems, th~ TNRCC Staif will 

not pnr~ue the use of prinHc 

:wn-commcrc:iai !an.dHlls as an vic.ble option 

f(x disposal of~OR\•f \\flSlt.s. 

Reinjt?clion into Aquifer 

I1 is also technically fcasibk: to- r.elr~lect '!he 

radiot:lctive waste\vater from drinking wate:r 

treatment back into the aquifCr from which it 

car11e without a significant incr.:;ase in the 

concentration of rarlionuclicies. Injection of 

\vastewntc:r into a Clus..~ V well i::;: currently 

permitted by rule under 30 lAC: C!1apwr 33 i 

if the. iDi~-~-J11g_cts Qr:jnl;J.u.g__y~·at~r.Jylt'b\. 

(40 Code of Federal Rtgul<itions § 144,12 

and §141.15,1. TNRCC .10 TAC Chapter :i}i• 

(and possibly Chapter 3~!) would have to he 

ameuded to authodzc a ikcns~e to 

>JORM wa:::tcwater into an aquifer 

Class. V well, Becau~c the 

wasH~watcr would bavc a. higher radionuclide 

concentration than the MCL, an exception t,r 

rule change will be ner::dcd to inject it. The 

likelihood l(n obtaining an 

change to the fedc:al rule is not 

thi:; time, 
574 


27600.516

RadionucHdes in Drinking \Vater 

Table 4: Sunun:u-:r of Rule Cfmuge-s 

!'OTE!'nAL STATE AND FEDERAL 

Rt;Ll: Cl!A?\GES 

Discharge to Sanitary Sewer 

Poia: E:ltr,. & Point ofVsc S~rstcms 

\\1ater Trc<1!!;1cnt Sludge Dlsp<::Jsal 

& Hazardous LandfillDisp. 

POT\\,' Sludge Land Appli\.:ation 

POT\V ~ludg.:. La~1Jfi!l Di~pnsal 

Di:::chargt.' Surf3ce \\'ater 

Pri\·ate ln_i..:ctior: \VeBs 

.'ll''""""'w" ,)fRO \Vaste \Vater 

Whitt: Pap-er 

R UI.FS 'lOT TO BE ADDED 

OR Cf-iA!'iGED 

New Commercial Landfiil 

New Commercial Jajec1ion \VcH facilHy 

[,and Application of ion Exchange Br!n~ 

Private Non~Comtnt.!rcia! I~andfills 

~·iunidpal & Hazardous Landfill Disp. 

ofLicrJid 'Vastes 
575 


27600.517

Regulation Time Line 

The EPA Dri~1ki:::g \\';::t::r S~andard: 

Radi{'i'!UcHdes v:as first is>ucd ~n Lkccmbcr 

1991 V..'hidi 

'\VCre J11<lll)1 

standard. 

Rmlionudid::~ in fJrinlJng \\'a1cr 

:1een adr;pted 

U[l!wids tht: 

Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec 

2005 llli"t"'MH*H+IIIIIIIIll!itlli!iilliilillf!il!l?lii-E~QIIlllilllf. _ --2QQtt:::::I,;.~ 

2PA 

Proposal 

Whitr:P.aper 

Aplll 2NH 

EPA TNRCC Effective 

Treatment 

Final Adopt Date :Jeadline 
576 


27600.518

Conclusions 

Public are no\v fhced 

c~JGr~:::: hca!th cnnr.::crns f0r :mmy 

Cil1~1pliance an:-

:: .. dternatt source 

fnr achkving 

clther fi:1ding ::m 

the railinnudicle c·oncentrn.tiZEl to accept3ble 

levels. Alternate wa.tt.::r exc not 

availabk at a rcasunabie cost som~ pnrts 

of the state. J~ven vvhere available. 

developing nlte;natc sources or purchasing 

\:Vater fforn orher systems may be more 

expt:nsive rhan :-tpplying avaHahle treatment 

Trcattnent. ho,;;,·evcr, 1s not an 

tht.~rc are no rules to allo\v for 

The st2.tr 

1.._· nder~TounJ 

Pul·<ic Drinking 

lnje;.:tion C'omrol 

\Vater~ 

and 

R:~dbactive \Vu.·-ae. 'l ((\iC\I!ogy & Ri~k 

l\sst:ssrnc::JL ;.n:J h~vc revie:\.ved thiS 

issue. 

:mman 

ck•1cn~·1in-e(~ thai then: is a 

cont:,~m a.s;;ociatt:d with 

ndionucEdcs in some drinking water 

sy:.:tems ln The preiCrrcd nptii'Jn for 

he of 

t~c.::~:tmem tc-.dml~iotzi:.:-s.. this 

would rc::-uit NORM wa~te 

\'Vhich :1m:-:~ 

mar; ncr, 

Th::re is JJ::::ed t~~ .:.kvdz1p for the .saf(\ 

cconomic,;'il dlsp{.!sal (Jf NORf-1 \\'aSt~ to 

f'Wtect lmm~H) b~:a!tb and ~j~c cnviW11r:1CJlL /\ 

mle;:: n~Y:5don h"' nudress swndard~ 

:":.idl:ti~s 

;'\(*.!\-L 

White Paper 

r,_·quin::mems fur 

nf ?lCHH•~l ,-\: ~:.as 

Rndiooudidcs in Drinkin;:! 'Vater-
577 


27600.519

Appendix A 

RadionucHdes in Drinking \Vater 

Currently Identified 

NORM Affected Facilities 

by County, State 

Representative and Senator(s) 
578 


27600.520

White Paper 

.'>.p;d 

Radlonuciidc.s io Drinkiu~ \V;HtT 
579 


27600.521

Appendix B 

Whit\;! Papor 

Ard' 

Radionudidcs in Hdnking \Vater 

Facilities Potentially 

Affected by NORJ\1 

by County, State 

Representative, and Senator 
580 


27600.522

Radionuclides in Drinking Water 
581 


27600.523

White Paper 

A:m; 

Radionudides in Drinking \;Vatu 
582 


27600.524

Y.lhlto Pape-r 

1\pli! 

Hadionuelide~<; in Drinking \Vater 
583 


27600.525

Conclusions 

are IJ(_l"-"' Ibccd 

mt.:Sl t:d;.h;~s ht..::al:h conccms for m~my 

(._hizcns Texas. Options for achk,·inu 

compli::mce are limitec..( to either finding a~ altcma!~ souJ\.:t:· tu ~r~a.l the \..vater to lm~;·cr 

the radionuclldc concentrGtion H• accept1ble. 

jevels. AltcrDa1c \Vater supplic~ <"tre not 

available at a n . .:asonable cost in some part;: 

the f·:ven v;here JVailabk. 

s.lte:11ate ::;ource~ or purchasing 

c·thcr systems mny h-e more 

expcnsivt'. tban applying availabk treatment 

tc.chnolugies. Treatment, ho\vever, is nut nil 

if there aJe no ruics to allov; for 

of :he treated \vastc. 

fhe staff of Public Drinking \Vater, 

{)ndcrground Injection Control and 

RcJCiioactlve V./aste, Toxicology & R!sk 

As.;:;::s~mt:nt and Legal ha''~ rl!vic"vcd thi~ 

i;;-su-0-. detcnnined that t:1~rc is a 

;:;·onccm ussnciawd with 

raditl:ll.K:lid(;'S in so:ne drinlung vva:.cr 

3~:"-:I::-ms in Texas. The preferred oplion t()r 

\·ic,:ators 1vi 1 b\? impiementatiOl1 of' 

t;eatmcnt :edtnolog.it.:s 1 !ov-:evcL this 

W(lLJlJ :·csnh NORl\.~1 wnsti:: 

'.:,::Jil:h :nu::.:•. 

m~mm:;_ 

(If' in a proper 

There i:. 8 ;1ced !; ) devclup rales for the safe, 

economical di:;posal of NOR\-1 \-\'fl5l\:' to 

pn"kc.t humnn h~--l:lth and :he :.'ilYironrnc:nt. A 

n1lcs: n.··::"ic·n is r:f:-cde.J it' ad.iress s1amh:·d.s 

:n1d pc~1nil'tin~ r~q:..l)remcnts for 

di:-;pn8e of non-:.<il i\: );ill\ 

R~dionudidcs in Drinking \\"akr 
584 

Senator BARRASSO. I would also like to submit for the record a 

number of letters supporting both Ms. White and Mr. Wheeler, including a letter of support for Mr. Wheeler from the United Mine 

Workers of America. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

585 


27600.526

CECIL E. ROBERTS 

iNTERNATIONAL PRESlOENT 

TELEPHONE: 

(103} 2it1·2420 

FAX (703) 2;,J.z..4!!lt 

UNITE"D MINE WORKE"RS• HEADQUARTERS 

November 8, 2017 

The Honorable Tom Barrasso 

Chair, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Dear Chainnan Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper and Members of the Committee: 

As you consider the nomination of Andrew R. Wheeler for Deputy Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency, I ask that you take into consideration his hard work on behalf of 

America's active and retired coal mine workers. For the past five years, Mr. Wheeler has been an ally 

as the United Mine Workers of America has worked to preserve the health care and pensions that 

retired miners worked for over their lifetimes. 

Andrew worked alongside our UMWA team to successfully pass legislation that has ensured 

that our miners will have the health care that was promised to them, and that they eamed. As you are 

aware, this effort lasted years, and we faced major setbacks along the way. However, Andrew was a 

strong partner to us and we are very appreciative of that. 

Andrew will bring a wealth of experience, from both the public and private sectors, to EPA. 

It is our belief that he will be a reasonable voice within the agency, and will recognize the impact on 

both the workers and mining communities that are directly affected as EPA develops future 

emissions regulations. 

We look forward to working productively with Andrew in this role at EPA. I am available to 

discuss this further at your convenience. 

Sincerely, 
586 


27600.527

Unitrd Smtrs ;5rnatr 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

November 7, 2017 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 2051 0 

I write today in support of Andrew Wheeler to he Deputy Administrator of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). During my time serving as a legislative staffer to 

former Senator Wayne Allard I came to know Andrew in his position as Staff Director and Chief 

Counsel to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. In that position, he 

displayed a strong understanding and respect for the law while also working across the aisle 

whenever and wherever possible in a professional manner to achieve policy outcomes that 

benefitted all Americans. 

lie also took time to develop expertise amongst staffers both on and off the committee, helping 

build a knowledge base on important policy matters. 

I'm confident that Andrew will take that same approach as Deputy Administrator of the EPA, 

where he will be responsible fbr overseeing the day-to-day operation and implementation of 

policies that are designed to both clean up contamination of the environment and return these 

areas to their communities to be put to a useful purpose, and protect the environment from 

further contamination. I also believe Andrew will build important state partnerships to advance 

mutual goals of bettering the environment. 

As you consider this nomination, I believe you will come to a similar opinion of Andrew that l 

have of him and urge you to support his nomination out of committee. 

Sincerely, 

6dn~ United States Senator 
587 


27600.528

tlmtcd .~rates ;ocnatr 

Senator John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

November 8, 2017 

Senator Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

I am writing to recommend Andrew Wheeler to be the Deputy Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Andrew was nominated for this position by President 

Trump on October 5, 2017. 

Andrew is a native of my home state of Ohio, and has experience in both the legislative and 

executive branches on energy and environment policy. He began his career at EPA and 

subsequently worked for Senator James lnhofe and my predecessor former Senator George 

Voinovich on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Andrew served as the 

Majority Staff Director, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel of the Senate Environment 

and Public Works Committee. 

Andrew has continued his work on energy and environment policy as a Principal at Faegre Baker 

Daniels Consulting. Andrew received his MBA from George Mason University School of 

Management and his JD from Washington University School of Law, and has been a keynote 

speaker before the American Bar Association. 

I trust that this information will be useful to you as you review Andrew's nomination. Please feel 

free to follow up with me with any additional questions. 

Sincerely, 

j2P(?fJa:;t;;:;;; k__ 

Rob Portman 

U.S. Senator 
588 


27600.529

HLAKE FAR~NTHOLD 

l!ongrcss ot tbc ~nitcll ~tatcs 

:l!)oul!t of ~tprtllttlttttillrl! 

amasltington. l!l\!: 20513-4327 

The Honorable John Barasso 

United States Senate 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senators Barasso and Carper, 

November 3, 2017 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

United States Senate 

513 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

I am writing to recommend fellow Texan, Kathleen Hartnett White, who has been nominated by 

President Trump to Chair the White House Council on Environmental Quality. I am supportive 

of this nomination and helieve that Ms. White would be an exceptional choice for this position. I 

have attached her resume for your reference. 

Kathleen has a wealth of knowledge and experience in environmental policy that make her 

extraordinarily qualified for this role. Her views favor environmental protection without 

burdensome regulations that stifle economic growth. 

[, like many others, support Kathleen Hartnett White's nomination for Chair the White House 

Council on Environmental Equality. If you have ony questions regarding her, please do not 

hesitate to contact me at 202-225-7742. 

Sincerely, 

Z!~~H~ Member of Congress 
589 


27600.530

KATHLEEN HARTNETT WHITE email:knbwhite@gmail.cnm 

CURRENT SUMMARY 

DLSTINCUISIIED SEMOR FELLOW 11'1 RESmENCE 

DIRECTOR-ARMSTRONG CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 

Texu.~ Pub/it' Policy FOII!tdatiml 

Jnnunry 2008-Prcspnt 

Austin, Texas 

Directing a policy area at TPPF devoted to energy, environmental and natural resource policy. The Armstrong Center 

conducts research on major federal and state environmental and energy policy issues. 

Topics include air quality, climate polil:y, energy, water supply, water rights, water quality, environmental flows. 

waste rnanagement and disposal, endangered species and wildlife. Through published research studies, editorials, 

public speaking: and educational fotums, the Annstrong Center provides opinion leaders~ policy makers, media and 

the general public rigorous analysis of policy alternatives. 

AtrrUOR OF FUELING FREEDOM: t"XPOSING TilE MAD WAR ON ENEfiGl' 

Regnery Publishing 

Co-authored with Stephen Moore 

EDITORIALS 

2016 

Contributor to Tho Hill and published in national and state media including National Review, Washington Examiner, 

Daily Caller, Investors' Business Daily, Town Hall, Roll Call, Forbes, and Houston Chronicle. Research publications 

include HFossi! Fuels: The Moral Case," "EPA's Pretense of Science: Regulating Phantom Risks,u "Taming the 

fourth Branch," "Clean Air Act: The Case fol' Reform,'' "The Clean Air Act: Refot·nt Proposals," "EPA's 

Approaching Regulatory Avalanche," "Tex<tS Energy and the Energy of Texas," "Environmental Policy Constraints 

on U.S. Oil Supply: Outdated and Unjustified" 

TESTJMO:\Y 

Invited icstimony to include "The State of the Environment: Evaluath1g Progress and Priorities," (U.S. House Science 

Committee, 2013) and "Review of the President's Climate Action Plan," (U.S. Senate Environment and Public 

Works Committee, 20 14). 

M EDJ;\ APPEAUA~'CKS 

Has appeared as a commentator 011 Fox Business Channel, CNN and other broadcast outlets as well as nationally 

syndicated regional and loca1 radio. 

M£MU.£R: Donald Trump Economic Advisol'y Council for Campaign 2016 

CIIAIIU1AN- CO~IMJSSIONER 

Texas Comm/.~.~i{Jn Oft Envirmmrenta/ Qmtllty 

November 2001-August 2007 

Austin, TX 

As Chainnan1 served as presiding ofticer and one ofthree full.-time commissioners. The Commissioners act as ftna! 

decision makers for the state, responsible for policy, rule promulgation, pennits, enforcement orders and contested 

matters. The TCEQ is the primary environmental agency of Texas, with jurisdiction under federal and state law over 

air quality, waste management, water quality and water supp1y1 and water rights. 

Oversaw a staff of approximately 3,000, engineers, scientists, attorneys, and other technical and 

ndministre~tive employees in helldquarters and sixteen regional offices 

Responsible for2006 operating budget of$510 million 

Responsible for the t•egulation of more tbRn 3 l 5,000 public and private entities, including authorizations or 

registrations for almost 49,000 entities 

Issued approximately 9,000 permits annually 

Issued more than 1,000 administrative enforcement orders, imposing administrative penatties of more than 

$12 million Rnnually 

Oversight of 5 interstate river compacts, including the Rio Grande Compact 
590 


27600.531

KATHLEEN HARTNETT WHITE email:knbwhite@gmail.cmn 

TCEQ: Achievements & Priority Projects 

Development of EPA required State Implementation Plans (SIP) for Texas, especially for ozone nonattainment areas in six urban regions of the state. Implementation for the S[P for Houston issued in 2007 led 

to attainment of Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard in 20 I 0 and 20 II. 

hnplementalion of Texas Emission Reduction Program- a grant program annually awarding in excess of 

.~ 125 million for replacement and retrofit of diesel engines and equipment. 

Water righiS administration, including National Academy of Science review of state's scientific 

methodology for envii'Onmcntal flows. 

Compliance with US-Mexico l 'MO Treaty on Rio GrJnde, including successful negotiations in March 2005 

for repayment of the MexiClln Water Debt to Texas. 

Achieved second-only "No-Take Concun.,nce" agreement with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that state 

water quality rules adequately protected over twenty listed species, significantly shortening cost and time 

required to receive federal approvals. 

Water conservation public education programs. 

Development of state licensing program for low-levelr.adioactive waste disposal slte. 

Development ond implementation of Clean Water Act Total Maximum Daily Load (TDML) to reduce nonpoint source pollutants. Created Technical Task Force for bacterial source tracking. 

Pennit sLreamHnjng, development ofpetfOlnmnce-based pennitting standards~ physical measurement of 

environmental conditions & trends, compliance assistance & incentive programs. 

Small business & local government compliance assistance programs. 

Streamlined rule development. 

RANCI!ER IBREEDEitfWIUTEit!CONSl!J,T AI'IT 

Private Ranchi11g Operoiion 

1994- Present 

Rosanky, TX 

Partner with husband, Beau Brite White, in 130 year-old Hereford family ranching operation in Presidio County of 

far West Texas. Breed, show, and hunt national champion working terriers. Write and consult on environmental, 

energy and natural resource issues. 

80,\RI> OF DIRECTORS BOARD ·OFFICER 

L01ver Co/onulo River A tttlwr/fy 

January 2008-July Z013 

Austin, TX 

Provided leadership and poli<y direction to the LCRA. This public water and electric utility was established by the 

Texas legislature in 1934 to provide water, wholesale electric power~ transmission as wells as environmental and 

commw1ity services. Responsibilities included oversite of LCRA tinancial assets and functions including 3,670 

megawatts of power, 5,200 miles of transmission lines, six dams, and ll,OOO acres of parkland. This role included 

se1ving on the Board of Directors for GenT ex Power Corporation. a wholly owned LCRA affiliated corporation. 

FORME!l BOAitllS A Nil COMMISSIONS 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 2001-2007 

Texas Wate~· Development Board, Austin, Texas 2000-2002 

Texas Strategic Economic Development Planning Commission 1997-1998 

Texas Environmental Flows Commission 2003·2005 

Texas Environmental Flows Advis01y Commitree 2006-2007 

Texas Water Foundation 2008-2014 

Texas Emission Reduction Advisory Committee 2008-2017 

Western States Water Council 2002-2007 

Dividing tllc Waters 2004·2006 

Texas Coastal Coordination Council2005-2007 

Texas Wildlife Association I 996-1999 

2 
591 


27600.532

KATHLEEN HARTNETT WHITE 

AWARDS 

Texas Water Conservation Associotion President's Award, 2007 

Colorado River Foundation .. Friend of the River Aw~rd, 2005 

Texas Chemical Council Leadership Award, 2007 

PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND 

Ranching Heritage Associatio11 

email:knbwhite@gmail.com 

1993-1994 

Lubbock, Texas 

Executive Director responsible for museum administration of Ranching Heritage Center with Texas Tech University 

while attending law school. 

Natlonal Caulemen 's Assoclatioh 1987-1993 

Washington, DC 

Director of Private Lands and Environment. Responsible for natural resource and proper1y rights issues in U.S. 

Congress, federal agencies. and media. Public speaking, writing, testimony, legislative: analysis, lobbying~ conference 

planning, coalition-building. Helped create and manage large Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act 

Reauthorization coalitions. 

White House 

Office of the First Lady in East Wing. Press and Special Project (full time volunteer). 

EDUCATION 

STANFORD UNIVERSITY 

B.A. cum laude and M.A. degrees in Honors Humanities and Religion. 

1985-1987 

Washington, DC 

Palo Alto, Califmnia 

1975 

Lyman Award (3 years, full academic scholarship) for Distinguished Woman in the Humanities. 

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY 

Doctoral Program in Religion, specializing in East Asian and Comparative Religions. 

Princeton, New Jersey 

1976-1979 

Danforth National Fellowship for all doctoral study. Jonathan Edwards Award for Academic Excellence. 

TEXAS TECII UNIVERSffY LAW SCIIOOL 

Completed tirnt year of law school. Awarded Lineberry and Regents full academic scholarships. 

3 

Lubbock, Texas 

1993-1994 
592 


27600.533

BILL JOHNSON 

6TH DtSTAfCf, OH!O 

CONIMinEE tiN EfURQY AHD COMMERCE 

COMMITIE£ ON THE BUDOET 

Chairman John Barrasso 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

November 6, 2017 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20S10·6175 

Dear Chairman Barrasso, 

WASHINGTON OFFICE 

1710 Longworth House Office Sullding 

Washington, DC 20515 

(Z02)22Hi705 

bi!ljohnson,hous.e,gov 

I write in support of Andrew Wheeler's nomination to become the next Deputy Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Mr. Wheeler has served as an EPA staffer, and brings a wealth of experience working in environmental 

policy from several different perspectives. He earned the EPA Bronze Medal three times, as Staff 

Director and Chief Counsel for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), and 

as a principal consultant helping businesses with federal regulatory and policy issues. 

Since my election In 2010, my team and I have worked with Andrew on several different major policy 

issues, and I've found him to be knowledgeable, professional, and a tremendous resource on 

environmental and energy policy. 

I am confident Mr. Wheeler will do a fine job at EPA, helping to ensure the agency's mission of 

protecting the environment Is maintained, while also ensuring the EPA becomes a partner In progress In 

responsible energy exploration and job creation. 

;;;td~ Bill Johnson 

Member of Congress 

MARIETTA OFFICE 

246 Front Street 

M~rletta, OH 45750 

(740) 37tHJB68 

SALEM OFFICE 

192 East State Street Salem, OH 44460 

!330)337-6951 

CAMBRIDGE OFFICE 

1 t6 South[late Penkway Cambridge, OH 43725 

(740)432-2366 

TillS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAf'ER MAOE Of RECYCLED FIBERS 

IRONTON OFFICE 

202ParkA.varHJC 

SulteC 

Ironton, OH 46638 

{740) 534-9431 
593 


27600.534

RANDY WEBER 

MEMBER OF CONGRESS 

FouRTEENTH DrsTRJCT, TEXAS 

October 12, 2017 

The Honorable John Barasso 

United Stales Senate 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senators Barasso and Carper, 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

United States Senate 

513 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

I am writing in strong suppmt of Kathleen Hartnett White's appointment as Chairman of the White 

House Council on Environmental Quality. Ms. White has years of experience crafting and analyzing 

environmental policy for the State of Texas. She is a dedicated public servant committed to 

responsible and efficient environmental policy. Her knowledge of environmental regulation is on par 

with the demands of this job. 

As a former chairman and commissioner of the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ), Ms. White managed one of the world's largest environmental agencies. TCEQ issues 

approximately 9,000 permits and 1,000 administrative enforcement orders annually. Their budget is 

over $450 million. Furthermore, as chairman of the agency, Ms. White was responsible for developing 

Texas' State Implementation Plans (SIP), managing the Texas Emission Reduction Program, and 

streamlining the agency's permitting and rule development processes. 

TCEQ's 2007 SIP, developed under Ms. White's leadership, succeeded in achieving attainment of 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards in 2010 and 2011. Additionally, Ms. White 

administered Texas' water rights and secured the National Academy of Science's approval of the 

state's scientific methodology. 

Ms. White setved on the boards of the Lower Colorado River Authority, the Texas Wildlife 

Association, and the Texas Water Foundation. She currently serves on the board of the Texas 

Emission Reduction Program. Ms. White's extensive background in environmental regulation makes 

her highly qualified to evaluate the efficacy and burden of our federal environmental regulations. 

I have known Ms. White for many years and can personally attest to her commitment to responsible 

environmental regulation. She is more than capable of filling this position and succeeding as the 

Chairman of the White House Council on Envirorunental Quality. I hope you will move quickly to 

confirm her appointment. 

RandyK. Weber 

1708 LONGWORTH BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515 

505 ORLEANS STREET, SU!Tll 103 

BEAUMONT, TX 7770 l 

122 WEST WAY, Sum: 301 

LAKE jACKSON, TX 77566 

174 CAimR RoAD, Sum !50 

LEAGUE CITY, TEXAS 77573 
594 


27600.535

A 

MiDSTREAM 

~' 

November 6, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

GPA Midstream Association strongly supports President Trump's nomination of Andrew 

Wheeler to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Andrew Wheeler will be a positive addition to Administrator Scott Pruitt and his team at 

EPA. Andrew brings a wealth of legislative and regulatory expertise to EPA. He is a seasoned 

environmental and energy policy expert who knows how important sound science based 

regulations are to creating American jobs while protecting our environment. 

GPA Midstream has served the U.S. energy industry since 1921. GPA Midstream is 

composed of nearly 100 corporate members of all sizes that are engaged in the gathering and 

processing of natural gas into merchantable pipeline gas, commonly referred to in the industry as 

"midstream activities." Such processing includes the removal of impurities from the raw gas 

stream produced at the wellhead, as well as the extraction for sale of natural gas liquid products 

("NGLs") such a.' ethane, propane, butane, and natural gasoline. GPA Midstream members 

account for more than 90 percent of the NGLs produced in the United States from natural gas 

processing. Our members also operate hundreds of thousands of miles of domestic gas gathering 

lines and are involved with storing, transporting, and marketing natural gas and NGLs. 

GPA Midstream strongly supports the nomination of Andrew Wheeler to serve as Deputy 

Administrator of EPA and thanks you for your consideration of his nomination. 

Respectfully submitted, 

c;~-:-··~ 

Matthew Hite 

Vice President of Government Affairs 

GPA Midstream Association 

GPA Midstream Association 

Sixty Sixty American Plaza. Suite 700 

Tulsa. Oklahoma 741 35 

(918) 493·3872 
595 


27600.536

November 7, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

National Cattlemen's 

Beef Association 

Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6176 

The Honorable Thomas Carper 

PUBLIC LANDS 

COUNCIL 

Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6176 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) and the Public Lands Council (PLC) urge you to support the 

confirmation of Andrew Wheeler as the Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. NCBA 

is the cattle industry's largest and oldest national trade association, representing American cattle producers who 

manage a large part of America's private property. PLC is the only national organization dedicated to the 

representation of nearly 22,000 ranchers operate on federal lands. 

Mr. Wheeler has an extensive background in environmental and administrative law. He worked on a number of 

environmental issues as Staff Director and Chief Counsel of the Senate Environment and Public Works 

Committee, including greenhouse gas emissions and the renewable fuel standard. Additionally, Mr. Wheeler's 

time working with the EPA and Departments of Transportation, Energy, and Interior in tbe private sector provide 

him with the requisite knowledge for tackling cross-agency issues. 

In addition to his knowledge on a wide range of environmental programs, Mr. Wheeler has extensive leadership 

experience that is key for success in the Deputy Administrator position. Prior to his work for the Senate's 

Environment and Public Works committee, he served both in the EPA and for Senator Inhofe. At the EPA, Mr. 

Wheeler was a Special Assistant to the Information Management Division Director in the Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Taxies. In this position, Mr. Wheeler provided policy and management support, and facilitated 

communication throughout the agency regarding rules and other priorities. Following his time at EPA, Mr. 

Wheeler served as the Chief Counsel for Senator Inhofe, providing legal counsel for a wide range of issues. 

Mr. Wheeler's substantive knowledge and years of experience show that he is prepared to take on the EPA's 

Deputy Administrator position. NCBA and PLC strongly support his confirmation, and look forward to working 

with him to protect and conserve our nation's natural resources. 

Sincerely, 

// //. c__7 c::AL...-

Craig Uden 

President 

National Cattlemen's Beef Association 

Center for Public Policy 0 

ptU/;; ~- David Eliason 

President 

Public Lands Council 
596 


27600.537

R. Wayne Smith Consulting LLC 

October 19, 2017 

The Honorable John Barasso 

United States Senate 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Kathleen Hartnett-White 

Nomination for Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality 

Dear Senator Barasso: 

As you know, President Trump has nominated Kathleen Hartnett-White to be Chairman of the White 

House Council on Environmental Quality. This is to express my support for her nomination. Ms. HartnettWhite brings a wealth of environmental regulatory experience and understanding that will be needed to 

expedite the Federal permitting involved in the rebuilding and strengthening of the United States' 

infrastructure. She shares my concern that excessive environmental regulation has paralyzed our ability 

to undertake large infrastructure projects and that it is time to restore balance and reason to the process. 

Ms. Hartnett-White's views on environmental policy are well known, and she has broad support for this 

appointment. Her record reflects her commitment to genuine environmental protection in ways that do 

not stifle economic growth and thus impair human welfare. From 2003 -- 2007, as a Texas State 

Representative and Member of the Texas House of Representatives Environmental Regulation 

Committee, I worked closely with Ms. Hartnett-White during her term as Chairman of the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Later, as Chairman of the Texas House of Representatives 

Environmental Regulation Committee, I carried and passed the Sunset legislation in the Texas House of 

Representatives when the TCEQ was under Sunset Review by the Texas Legislature. 

It is my pleasure to recommend Kathleen Hartnett-White to be appointed Chairman of the Council on 

Environmental Quality. As former Chairman of the Energy Council (a multi-state organization comprised 

of state legislators), former Chairman of the Texas House of Representatives Environmental Regulation 

Committee, and former President of Wayne Smith and Associates (a multi-discipline consulting 

engineering firm in Houston), I strongly support her nomination as Chairman of the White House Council 

on Environmental Quality in recognition of the valuable insight and wisdom she will provide on 

environmental regulatory issues. Please let me know if you have questions or would like additional 

information. 

The Honorable R. Wayne Smith, PE, FNSPE 

122 North llum~t ! Baytown. TX 77520 

713.243.8776 

waync@Jrw~cowmlting.net 
597 


27600.538

R. Wayne Smith Consulting LLC 

October 19, 2017 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

United States Senate 

S13 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Kathleen Hartnett-White 

Nomination for Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality 

Dear Senator Carper: 

As you know, President Trump has nominated Kathleen Hartnett-White to be Chairman of the White 

House Council on Environmental Quality. This is to express my support for her nomination. Ms. HartnettWhite brings a wealth of environmental regulatory experience and understanding that will be needed to 

expedite the Federal permitting involved in the rebuilding and strengthening of the United States' 

infrastructure. She shares my concern that excessive environmental regulation has paralyzed our ability 

to undertake large infrastructure projects and that it is time to restore balance and reason to the process. 

Ms. Hartnett-White's views on environmental policy are well known, and she has broad support for this 

appointment. Her record reflects her commitment to genuine environmental protection in ways that do 

not stifle economic growth and thus impair human welfare. From 2003 2007, as a Texas State 

Representative and Member of the Texas House of Representatives Environmental Regulation 

Committee, I worked closely with Ms. Hartnett-White during her term as Chairman of the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Later, as Chairman ofthe Texas House of Representatives 

Environmental Regulation Committee, I carried and passed the Sunset legislation in the Texas House of 

Representatives when the TCEQ was under Sunset Review by the Texas Legislature. 

It is my pleasure to recommend Kathleen Hartnett-White to be appointed Chairman of the Council on 

Environmental Quality. As former Chairman of the Energy Council (a multi-state organization comprised 

of state legislators), former Chairman of the Texas House of Representatives Environmental Regulation 

Committee, and former President of Wayne Smith and Associates (a multi-discipline consulting 

engineering firm in Houston), I strongly support her nomination as Chairman of the White House Council 

on Environmental Quality in recognition of the valuable insight and wisdom she will provide on 

environmental regulatory issues. Please let me know if you have questions or would like additional 

information. 

122 North Burnet ! Rayto·wn, TX 77520 

71.3.248.8776 

wo.tynt~c£-&nn·:!t'On::~.ulting.n('t 
598 


27600.539

TEXAS 

FARM 

BUREAU 

October 30, 2017 

RUSSELL W. BO.ENIN<i 

President 

MICHAEL WHITE 

ROBERT GORDON 

Secretary~ Treasurer 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

DAN B. SMITH 

lockney 

MICHAEL WHITE 

Vernon 

BEN f, WlBLf 

Sl1erm<1n 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso: 

MARK R" CHAM13lEE 

1yler 

VAL STEPHENS 

Lamesa 

JESSICA RICHMOND 

NEIL F. WALTfR 

Oglesby 

LARRY W. JOINER 

Htmtington 

RONNIE MUENNINK 

Hondo 

BOB REED 

BayC!ty 

ZACHARY X. VANTA 

Runge 

SCOTT FRAZIER 

Chapman Ranctl 

Texas Farm Bureau offers its support and endorsement for the consideration of 

Kathleen Hartnett White for an appointment to the Council of Environmental Quality 

(CEQ). 

She is a Distinguished Senior Fellow-in-Residence and Director of the Armstrong Center 

for Energy & the Environment. Kathleen served a six year term as chairperson of Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Prior to the TCEQ appointment she 

served on the Texas Water Development Board. She also served on the Texas 

Economic Development Commission and the Environmental Flows Study 

Commission. She recently completed her term as an officer and director of the Lower 

Colorado River Authority. Kathleen continues to serve Texas in many other capacities. 

In the environmental regulatory endeavors that Kathleen has worked, she has been 

mindful of the impacts to private landowners and agriculture. The US, Texas, and 

Agriculture would be well-served by Kathleen Harnett White. It is our pleasure to 

support Kathleen's desire to continue to serve our state of Texas and now the nation. 

Sincerely, 

Russell W. Boening 

President 

RWB:RB 
599 

Senator BARRASSO. Members may submit other questions and follow up written questions for the record. They can do that by Monday, November 13, at noon. The nominees will please respond to 

those questions by Monday, November 20, at noon. 

I want to thank the nominees and congratulate you both on your 

nomination. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:39 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

600 


27600.567

Armstrong 

Policy Foundation in 

F<"lln\AI-In.Rc,~iniPn''"' and Director of the 
601 


27600.568

Kathleen Harmett White)) Experts l> Texas Public Policy Foundation 

disposal of waste, TCEQ's staff of 3,000, annual budget of over $600 million, and 16 

regional offices make it the second largest environmental regulatory agency in the 

world after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Prior to Governor Rick Perry's appointment of White to the TCEQ in 2001, she served 

as then Governor George Bush appointee to the Texas Water Development Board 

where she sat until appointed to TCEQ. She also served on the Texas Economic 

Development Commission and the Environmental Flows Study Commission. She 

recently completed her term as an officer and director of the Lower Colorado River 

Authority. White now sits on the editorial board of the Journal of Regulatory Science, 

the Texas Emission Reduction Advisory Board, and the Texas Water Foundation. Her 

writing has appeared in numerous publications including National Review, Investors' 

Business Daily, Washington Examiner, Forbes, Daily Caller, The Hill, and major Texas 

newspapers. She most recently testified before the U.S. Senate Environment and 

Public Works Committee. 

A writer and consultant on environmental laws, free market natural resource policy, 

private property rights, and ranching history, White received her bachelor cum laude 

and master degrees from Stanford University where for three years she held the 

Elizabeth Wheeler Lyman Scholarship for an Outstanding Woman in the Humanities. 

She was also awarded a Danforth National Fellowship for doctoral work at Princeton 

University in Comparative Religion and there won the Jonathan Edwards Award for 

Academic Excellence. She also studied law under a Lineberry Foundation Fellowship at 

Texas Tech University 

White was Director of Private Lands and the Environment for the National Cattlemen's 

Association in Washington, D.C. She has served as director of the Ranching Heritage 

Association, and was a special assistant in the White House Office of the First Lady 

Nancy Reagan. 

She is a member of the Texas and Southwestern Cattleraisers Association, the Texas 

Hereford Association, and the American Hereford Association. She is a former 

commissioner of the Texas Strategic Economic Development Planning Commission, a 

former board member of the Texas Wildlife Association and the National Cattlemen's 

Legal Defense Fund. 

A long-time breeder of National Champion Jack Russell Terriers, Kathleen Hartnett 

White lives with her husband Beau Brite White in Bastrop County, Texas outside of 

Austin and in Presidio County Texas on the far southwestern border of Texas. 

RELATED CONTENT 

White Bouse to nominate TPI'F Releases Major Paper 

https://\H\w,texaspolicy.eom/experts/detail/kath!een-hartnett-""bitc[! l/7/2017 5:57:55 PM] 
602 


27600.569
603 


27600.570
604 


27600.571

P~1] 
605 


27600.540

Texas Public Policy Foundation~ Source Watch 

What !sCMD? 

Donate Here 

ALEC Exposed 

Outsourcing America 

Exposed 

Koch Exposed 

FrackSwarm 

Coa!Swarm 

NFJB Exposed 

Fix the Debt 

State Policy Network 

Toxic Sludge 

Recent Changes 

Random page 

How To 

Sign Up to Edit 

Contact Us 

Help Write History 

Research 

Corporations 

Edit an Article 

Correct Errors 

Search Effectively 

Find FAQs 

Explore Our Index 

Blow the Whistle 

Find the Home Page 

Other Info 

About SourceWatch 

About PRWatch 

Search Categories 

Random Article 

Other Policies 

Ground Rules 

Disclaimers 

Copyright Info 

Log in 

Page Discusston Read View source View history 

Texas Public Polic)'Foundation 

The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) is a conservative think tank founded in 1989 by James R. 

Leininger. It is a member of the right-wing State Policy Network (SPN) and is based in Austin, Texas. It has 

ties to Texas Governor and former presidential candidate Rick Perry , Ted Cruz, and many other powerful 

politiciansJ1l 

According to the TPPF's website. its mission "is to promote and defend liberty. personal responsibility, and 

free enterprise in Texas and the nation by educating and affecting policy makers and the Texas public policy 

debate with academically sound research and outreach.''[2] 

But according to critics, TPPF's research and advocacy is influenced by donations from a relatively small 

group of major corporations. Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, told the Texas 

Observer, '·Most think tanks work for their fimders and TPPF's donors are a Who's Who of Texas 

polluters. giant utilities and big insurance companies. TPPF is thinking the way its donors want it to 

think."!1l 

Contents 

News and Controversies 

1.1 TPPF's Doug Domenech Heads up President-elect Trump's Interior Department Transition 

Team 

1.2 TPPF Listed as Creditor in Peabody Energy Bankruptcy Filings 

2 Lobbying 

2.1 Allegations of Unreported Lobbying 

2.2 Advocating ALEC Model Bills 

3 Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council 

4 Ties to the Bradley Foundation 

5 Ties to the Koch Brothers 

6 Ties to the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity 

6.1 Franklin Center Funding 

7 Funding 

7. i Major Funders 

7.2 2010 Disclosure Uncovers Koch Money and Mystery SPN Slush Funds 

7.3 Over $3.3 Million in Koch Funding 

7.4 TPPF Skilled Fundraisers 

8 Core Financials 

9 Personnel 

9.1 Staff 

9.2 Board of Directors 

10 Contact Information 

11 Articles and Resources 

11.1 Related SourceWatch Articles 

112 Related PRWatch Articles 

https://W\vw.sourccwatch.org/index.phpffexas_ Public_Poliey_Foundation[l !17!20 17 5:37:53 PM] 
606 


27600.541

Texas Public Policy Foundation· Source Watch 

Tools 

\/\/hat links here 

Related changes 

Special pages 

Printable version 

Permanent linK 

Page information 

Cite this page 

12 External Resources 

13 External articles 

14 References 

News and Controversies 

TPPF's Doug Domenech Heads up President-elect Trump's Interior 

Department Transition Team 

Doug Domenech , the director of the Fueling Freedom Project at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, is 

leading President~elect Trump's Interior Department Transition team. As Think Progress reported, "The 

project's goals include explaining. "the forgotten moral case for fossil fuels" and ending the EPA's 

regulation of carbon dioxide. (The EPA has the authority·--and, indeed, must~regulate carbon dioxide as a 

pollutant. Not only is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas that fuels climate change, it also contributes to ocean 

acidification. Significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions is likely the only way humanity can avoid 

triggering catastrophic climate disruption}'[3J Since the Department of Interior's mission is to protect and 

manage the nation's environmental and cultural resources, Trump's choice of Domenech to lead the 

transition team suggests that the President~c!ect may have a different vision for the Department of Interior. 

Domenech thinks so as he wrote in Real Clear Energy, ''Much has been said about what's next for energy 

and climate policy under the new Trump Administration. Elections have consequences and, in this case, 

Americans just rejected the "keep it in the ground" extremism espoused by those whose only operating 

focus is their view that C02 is a pollutant and climate change is reaL"l4l 

TPPF Listed as Creditor in Peabody Energy Bankruptcy Filings 

The Center for Media and Democracy found in obtained Peabody Encrb'Y bankruptcy filings that the Texas 

Public Policy Foundation \Vas a creditor to the world"s largest private~sector coal company.f5l Although the 

documents filed so far do not show the scale or precise dates of funding- ··they only Jist current creditors~ 

they demonstrate for the first time that Peabody Energy has financial ties to a ve1y large proportion of the 

network of groups promoting disinformation around climate change. 

Lobbying 

Allegations of Unreported Lobbying 

The Progress Texas and Ci\·10 report also notes that TPPF "claimed in 2008 that it spent nothing on 

lobbying," however. "it told the IRS that it spent $981.869 on lobbying between 2009 and 2010." While 

tCderal tax reports for 2012 are not yet available, "forms tiled with the state of Texas indicate that between 

::wtl and 2013, TPPF has spent at least $100,000 on lobbying the Texas Legislature -largely on gifts, food, 

drinks, and transportation to Texas legislators and state offices."[6lJn 201 J, TPPF's tax records also indicate 

the organization "paid its executive corporate~ level salaries that dwarf the rates paid for most other public 

interest groups in Austin"" (specifically. $1.391 million of the $5.7 million budget was used to pay 

executive salaries)J6] 

Advocating ALEC Model Bills 

According to Progress Texas and the Center for Media and Democracy (Ci\·10). "in the ::!0 13 legislative 

session, TPPF advocated f{)r at least 28 different Jaws that mirrored ALEC mode! hills.-:·[6] The following 

https:lh"WW.sourcewatch.otg/index.php/Texas _Public _Policy Joundation[ ll/7/20 17 5:3 7:53 PM] 
607 


27600.542

Texas Public Policy Foundation- Source Watch 

table --which compares ALEC's model legislation to the current agenda ofTPPF --was taken directly from 

the organizational report created by Progress Texas and CMD in November 20 13:[6} 

Issues 

Limiting 

Government 

Spending 

Opposing 

Health Care 

Reform 

Attacking 

Environmental 

Protections and 

Pollution 

Regulation 

l 

: TPPF 2013-2014 Agenda 'ALEC Model Bills 

' TPPF recommends state and 

local spending increases 

only by the sum of 

population growth plus 

: ALEC's "Tax and Expenditure Limitation Act" would 

amend the state constitution to set revenue and 

: spending limits, by capping total expenditures by 

inflation, the growth in gross inflating the current year's expenditures to account 

state product or the growth 

personal income, whichever 

is less. TPPF [also] 

1 only for population growth and inflation. 

ALEC's "Super-Majority Act" would amend the state 

i constitution to require all tax and "license fee" 

recommends requiring a i increases or impositions be approved by two-thirds of 

supermajority vote in the aU members of each house of the legislature, except 

state legislature to override when there is insufficient revenue to pay interest on 

Texas's constitutional limits the state's debt.[61 

on government spending. 

TPPF calls for allowing 

Texans to buy health 

insurance across state lines, 

offered by insurance 

companies in other states. 

TPPF recommends 

i Care Mandates" opposes efforts by state legislatures 

! to mandate that private employers purchase health 

insurance for workers. 

i ALEC's "Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act" 

: would prohibit the legislature from requiring 

individuals to purchase health insurance, even though 

eliminating all statewlevel ) states like Texas require drivers to purchase auto 

insurance mandates. insurance under the state's financial responsibility 

law.f6l 

, Sources" opposes a Supreme Court case allowing the 

: EPA to regulate carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases 

:' as pollutants. The ALEC resolution uses straw man 

TPPF dedicated an entire arguments and other rhetoric to dismiss climate 

section in its 2013~2014 change concerns. ALEC also published an entire 

agenda demonizing the pamphlet attacking environmental regulation called 

Environmental Protection the EPA Train Wreck.34 

Agency's regulations, ALEC's "Intrastate Coal and Use Act" would prevent ' 

including greenhouse gas ! the EPA from overruling state permits for coal mining 

limits. coal plant regulations, ! and dirty coal products if all the company's coal 

and air quality monitoring. ! operations are conducted within the borders of a 

single state (although air pollution crosses state lines). 

ALEC's "Resolution in Opposition of Carbon Dioxide 

Emission Standards" opposes environmental 

' protections on carbon dioxide emissionsJ6l 

https:I/\'1\...W,sourcewatch.org/index.phpiTexas ~Public _Po!icy_Foundationl I !17/2017 5:37:53 PM] 
608 


27600.543

Texas Public Policy Foundation- Source Watch 

Denying 

Climate 

Change 

Attacking 

Renewable 

Energy 

TPPF questions the science 

of climate change, and urges 

: federal lawmakers to 

implement a ''rigorous" 

: review of scientific facts 

dealing with climate change, 

along with calling for the 

suspension of all state 

programs that regulate 

greenhouse gases and federal 

mandates to reduce carbon 

dioxide, 

TPPF calls for the 

elimination of the 

Renewable Portfolio 

Standard. 

In the section entitled "lOth 

Amendment" in TPPF's 

2013~2014 agenda, TPPF 

: calls interstate compacts an 

"effective way" to regulate 

areas of mutual concern of 

ALEC's "State Withdrawal from Regional Climate 

Initiatives" removes states from the Regional 

Greenhouse Gas Initiative or the Western Climate 

Initiative, catrand-trade programs to cut greenhouse 

gases and carbon-dioxide emissions. It uses language 

denying that climate changes exist and are 

manmade.l6J 

ALEC's "Electricity Freedom Act" repeals renewable 

energy mandates and constitutes an attack on states 

with plans requiring companies to get a certain 

percentage ofti:Jeir electricity from renewable 

sources.f6l 

ALEC's "Article V Repeal Amendment Resolution" 

calls for a constitutional convention in order propose 

an amendment permitting the repeal of any federal 

law by the vote of two-thirds of state legislatures, 

ALEC's "Resolution Reaffirming Tenth Amendment 

Rights" asserts that fedeml mandates violates the 

Tenth Amendment, but fails to acknowledge the many 

Advocating for two or more states. It further express powers granted to Congress, including powers 

the 10th states that Texas should over interstate commerce. ALEC's "Resolution 

Amendment "examine the benefits" of Calling for the Congress of the United States to Call a 

using constitutional 

amendments aimed at 

limiting government 

spending, including calling 

for a constitutional 

convention. 

TPPF recommends that there 

should be a "measureab!e 

Constitutional Convention Pursuant to Article V of 

the United States" urges Congress to call a 

constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing 

a constitutional amendment that permits the repeal of 

any federal law or regulation by two~thirds of the state 

legislatures, which is dubbed the Madison 

Amendment (another ALEC modei}.[6J 

; standard" for a plaintiff in an ALEC has several"model" bills aimed at protecting 

Protecting asbestos-related case to corporations from liability for an injured American in 

Corporations in prove negligence and that an asbestos-related case, including the "Asbestos and 

Asbestos 'the "causation standards" for Silica Claims Priorities Act," the "'Asbestos Claims 

Related Claims asbestos-related claims Transparency Act,'' and the "Successor Asbestos~ 

should remain at the same Related Liability Fairness Act."l61 

level as all toxic exposure 

claims. 

https://www.sonrcewatch.org/indcx.phpffexas __ Public_Policy _Foundation[ll/7/20 17 5:37:53 PMJ 
609 


27600.544

Texas Public Policy Foundation- SourceWatch 

TPPF calls for new state ALEC's "Public Employees' Portable Retirement 

Deforming , workers to be moved into a Option (PRO) Act" is a move towards eliminating 

Public Pensions risky defined-contribution 

pension plan. 

Pushing Parent 

Trigger 

Pushing for 

Virtual Schools 

Privatizing 

Public 

Education 

ALEC's "Parent Trigger Act" would allow a small 

the Texas Education Code to :group of parents to close public school for current and 

: future students, and tum the school into a charter make it easier to force a 

"parent trigger" scenario. ; school or require the state to use taxpayer dollars for 

' vouchers to subsidize private tuitionJ6l 

ALEC's "Virtual Public Schools Act" requires virtual TPPF recommends ,' or online education company courses to be recognized 

expanding the funding for as public schools and require that such companies "virtual schools" in Texas to 

give "greater freedom" to , receive the same per pupil funding as traditional 

schools that provide classrooms, sports training 

private virtual education 

corporations. 

TPPF calls for Texas to 

facilities, lunch, and transportation, resulting in 

windfall profits for online ''schools."[61 

ALEC's "Family Education Tax Credit Program" 

creates a tax paying corporations and individuals that 

: give money to be used as "scholarships" to pay tuition 

i and fees at private schools, reducing tax revenue for 

i public schools and other public services. 

ALEC's "Parent Choice Scholarship Program ActUniversal Eligibility" creates a voucher program to 

, use taxpayer funds that would have been spent on 

: public schools to subsidize private for-profit, 

"increase competition in the ' religious, or other primary and secondary schools. 

Texas education system" by : ALEC's "Parental Choice Scholarship Aceountability 

implementing education : Act" enables taxpayer money to subsidize for-profit, 

scholarships, tax credits, and religious, or other private schools. 

expanding charter schools 

and vouchers. ALEC's "Charter Schools Act" would allow the state 

to grant charters to create and operate schools outside 

of traditional public schools, while also exempting 1 

these charter schools from state laws that apply to 

' public schools. 

1 ALEC's •'Resolution Supporting Private Scholarship 

' Tax Credits" urges tax cuts for corporations and 

others to subsidize non-public corporate schools 

through funding "scholarships."[6] 

seniority rules that reward education and experience 

of teachers and allows tenure to be revoked based on 

limited measures of success without regard to 

TPPF calls for radical , underlying conditions in the schools or environment. 

attacks on teachers in Texas, 

https:/hV\vw.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Texas~Pub!ic~Po!icy_Foundation[ 11/712017 5:37:53 PMl 
610 


27600.545

Texas Pubhc Policy Foundation~ Source Watch 

Attacking 

Teachers 

including lowering the 

' harriers for teacher 

certification, eliminating the 

minimum salary a teacher 

must be paid based on 

experience, discouraging 

school districts from paying 

teachers with a master's 

degree more money, and 

eliminating tenure rights. 

ALEC's "Altemative Certification Act'' attempts to 

allow students to be taught by people who have no 

training in how to teach children and the different 

ways kids Jearn at various ages and based on different 

learning styles. This paves the way for for~profit 

schools to pay ''teachers" less than educators who are 

actually trained in teaching. 

ALEC's "Career Ladder Opportunities Act" and 

"Teacher Quality and Recognition Demonstration 

Act" undermines post~secondary education and tenure 

rights of teachers, placing more emphasis on tests 

(regardless of the underlying conditions in the schools 

or the socio~economic environment of the school 

district) than other established measuresJ61 

Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council 

The Texas Public Policy Foundation has heen very active in the American Legislative Exchange Council 

TPPF was a member of the now defunct Public Safety and Elections Task Force , and bas been an ardent 

defender of ALEC activities. [?J In May 2012, Wendy Lee Gramm, the Foundation's chairman of the board. 

and Brooke Rollins. its president and chief executive officer. published an op~ed in the Wall Street 

Journal, entitled·· \\'h) the Ldt \\'ants h\ Blachlio,t ·\LEC[§J." in defense of the organization. 

TPPF was a "Chair" level sponsor of the ALEC Annual Conference in 2016. which equated to $50,000 in 

20IO.l8l 

TPPF has been a member of several other /\LEC task forces. Dr. Thomas Lindsay, Director ofTPPF's 

Center for Higher Education, was vice chairman of the Higher Education Subcommittee of ALEC's 

Education Task Force as of November 2013. 1

91 Executive Director, Arlene Wohlgemuth, was a member of 

the Health and ~Iuman Services Task Force where she sponsored model legislation (the "Health 

Professional Modernization Ad" and the "Health Care Compact Act").11°1 Mario Loyola, director of the 

Center for Tenth Amendment Studies was a member of the Energy. Environment and Agriculture Task 

Force and sponsored model legislation (the "Regional Air Quality Interstate Compact")l111 

Marc Levin. who is the director of the Center for Effective Justice for TPPF, was a member of the Civil 

Justice Task Force in 2011, where he was the private chair of the "Overcriminalization Subcommittee:·l121 

Previously, Levin was a member of the Public Safety and Elections Task rorcc where he sponsored several 

pieces of model legislation. including the "Resolution in Support of Victim Offender Mediation,'' the 

"Criminal Intent Protection Act,'' the "Treating Accused Persons Fairly Act," the "Civil Liability Relief for 

Employers Hiring Ex~Offenders Act." the "Resolution on the Sex Offender Registration and Notification 

Act," the "Provisional Licenses tOr Ex~Offenders Act," the "Juvenile Otlender Performance Incentive 

Funding Act," and the ·'Resolution on Transparency and Accountability in Criminnl Law:•[13][14l!15J 

Talmadge Heflin, director ofTPPF's Center for Fiscal Policy, was a member of the Tax and Fiscal Policy 

Task 1-'orce in 201 L [16} 

SPN, of which TPPF is a prominent member, has deep ties to ALEC. Please see SPN Ties to Al,EC for 

more. 

https:l/www.sourcewatch.org/index.phpfrexas _Public_ Policy _Foundation[l\17/20 17 5:37.53 PM} 
611 


27600.546

Texas Public Policy Foundation· Source Watch 

About.At..EC 

ALEC is a corporate bill milL ft is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. 

Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wish lists to benefit their bottom line. 

Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where 

corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve "model" bills. Learn 

more at the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECt.>~o.poscd.org: GJ, and check out breaking news on 

our PRWatd\.()rg site @. 

Ties to the Bradley Foundation 

Through 2016 the Texas Public 

Policy Foundation received 

$115,000 from the Lynde and 

Harry Bradley Foundation. 

Bradley detailed the most recent 

grants in internn! document'> 

examined by the Center for Media 

and Democracy {CMD). Below is a 

deseripti~m of the grant prepared by 

CMD. The quoted text was written 

by Bradley staff. 

2016: $75.000 to support the 

Center for Fiscal Policy (CFP). 

"One of nine TPPF policy centers, 

CFP covers issues surrounding the state budget and spending, taxes and fees, pensions, local governance. 

and transparency ... TPPF's CFP has demonstrated its ability to encourage meaningful change during the 

last Texas Legislative Session, and it has an experienced and widely respected fiscal policy team.ln fact, its 

STR Fund sales tax refom1 measure, which would authorize the comptrol!er to lower the sales tax rate 

temporarily, was recently accepted by ALEC as mode! legislation." 

In 2017, the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), publishers of Source Watch, launched a series of 

articles on the Milwaukee~based Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation , exposing the inner~ workings of 

one of America's largest right~wing foundations. 56,000 previously undisclosed documents laid bare the 

Bradley Foundation's highly politicized agenda. CMD detailed Bradley's efforts to nwp ami measure 

right \\ing infraslructure nntiunwide@, including by dbmantling and defunding unions to impact state 

dectiml'-1'9; bankrolling di.;;credited :,pin doctor RkhanJ Rcrman and his many frunt groups @;and more. 

Find the scrks here at LxposcdbyCvlD.org @. 

Ties to the Koch Brothers 

Texas Public Policy Foundation has deep ties to the Koch brothers. The organization has received funding 

from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, the Claude R. Lambe Foundation , Donors Capital Fund 

https:/ 1\V\vw.sourcewatch.org/index. php/Texas _Public_ Policy_ Fountlation[ ll/7120 17 5 :3 7: 53 PM] 
612 


27600.547

Texas Public Policy Foundation- Source Watch 

and Donors Trust . (See below) 

As of January 2017, TPPF is listed as a "partner organization" in the Charles Koch Institute 's 

Liberty@ Work program.!17l 

KochWiki 

The Koch hrothers --David and Charles --are the right-wing billionaire co-owners of Koch Industries 

As two of the richest people in the world, they are key funders of the right-wing infrastructure, including 

the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the State Policy N'ct\VOrk (SPN).In 

Source Watch, key articles on the Kochs include: Koch f3rothcrs , Koch Industries , Americans for 

Prosperity, American Encore , and Freedom Partners 

Ties to the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity 

The Texas Public Policy Foundation has hosted writers from the ALEC-connected rrank!ln Center for 

Government and Public Integrity. which screens potentia! reporters on their "tfee market" views as part of 

the job application processJ181 The Franklin Center funds reporters in over 40 statesJ191 Despite their nonpartisan description, many of the wcbsites funded by the Franklin Center have received criticism for their 

conservative bias.f20l[21l On its WE.'bsite, the Franklin Center claims it "provides I 0 percent of all daily 

reporting from state capitals nationwide. [

221 

Franklin Center Funding 

Franklin Center Director of Communications Michael Moroney told the Center for Public lntegrity (C'Pl) in 

2013 that the source of the Franklin Center's funding "is ! 00 percent anonymous." But 95 percent of its 

201 J funding came ll'om Donors Trust , a spin-offofthe Philanthropy Roundtable that functions as a large 

"donor-advised fund," cloaking the identity of donors to right-wing causes across the country (CPJ did a 

review of Franklin's Internal Revenue Service records).[231 Mother Jones called Donors Trust "the darkmoney A Hv1 of the conservative movement" in a Fehruary 2013 articleJ241 Franklin received DonorTrust's 

second~ largest donation in 2011 J231 

The Franklin Center also receives funding from the Wisconsin-based Lynde and Han)' Bradley 

FoundationJ25l a conservative grant-making organizationJ261 

The Franklin Center was launched by the Chicago-based Sam Adams Alllancc (SAM),f27l a 50](c)(3) 

devoted to pushing free~marJ...et ideals. SAM gets funding from the State Policy \'\ctworJ... ,l28l which is 

partially funded by The Claude R. Lambe Foundation.f29l Charles Koch . one of the billionaire brothers who 

co-own Koch Industries, sits on the board of this foundation.f30] SAM also receives funding fi·om the 

Rodney Fund . 

Funding 

Major Funders 

The Texas Public Polley Foundation is not rE.'quired to disclose its funders.lts m<~ior foundation funders, 

however, can he fOund through a search of the IRS filings. Here are some of the known funders of the Texas 

Public Policy Foundation: 

• Claude R. Lambe Foundation !§! ( 1998-20 12) 

https://wv.w.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Texas J'ublic ... Po!icy Joundation[ll/7/2017 5·37·53 PM] 
613 


27600.548

Texas Public Po! icy Foundation· Source Watch 

Charles G. Koch Foundation : $529.554 @ {:.!004-20 15) 

DonorsTrust and Donors Capiwl Fund : $1.786.705 !§' (2010<!014) 

Lynde and Harry ilradley foundation : $115,000 r§l (20108 2016) 

State Policy !'-letwork : ~209,4(10 1§1 (2012-2014) 

2010 Disclosure Uncovers Koch Money and Mystery SPN Slush Funds 

ln 2012. a list of20l0 funders ofTPPF that was disclosed to the IRS was inadvertently made public. The 

list of fundcrs revealed is an important case study in how the Kochs' disclosed foundation spending is an 

undeNepresentation of their overall political giving: Koch gave more to TPPF from its corporate Koch 

Industries treasury than it gave from its Koch Family Foundations , Contributions from the latter are 

disclosed on the foundation's IRS filings, hut donations from the former are largely untraceable. l

31 1 

Koch Industries gave $159,834 directly to TPPF in 2012. versus $69,788.61 from the Claude R. Lmnbc 

Foundation, which is a Koch Family Foundation. 

The financial revelations also provide an important case study in how SPN's member think tanks are funded, 

and by whom. 

SPN itself gave TPPF $49,306.90, but what's more, rracie Sharp , SPN's executive director, was the contact 

person for an additional $495,000. These two grants, for $300,000 and $195,000. were listed as being 

received from the "State Think Tank Fund" and 1he "Government Transparency Fund," respectively-~ two 

fUnds about which viltually nothing is knownJ311 

Over $3.3 Million in Koch Funding 

According to a November 2013 report by Progress Texas and the Center for Media and Democracy (C!'dD), 

over the past few years TPPF "has received at least $3.314,591 from the bil!ionaire Koch brothers or the 

organizations they support." This includes $733,333 received from the Koch fAmily foundations and from 

Koch Industries, and $2,581.258 from the Donors Trust & Donors Capital Fund.!61 TPPF also "received 

nearly $300,000 from the Searle Freedom Trust hetween 2007 to 2011."[61 

TPPF Skilled Fundraisers 

TPPF's "laissez-fairc bent and championing of big-business agendas (tort reform, tax cuts, deregulation) 

[have] created wealthy allies," as noted by the Texas Observer.f321 The newspaper spoke with a former 

TPPF vice president, who described the organization's corporate fundraising strategy this way: 

"Melinda Hasting·· who served as the foundation's vice president from 1996 to 1998 but has since 

broken with the conservative movement-- says one fundraising tactic involved approaching 

corporations, wealthy businessmen, and corporate-funded foundations with a pitch. Hasting (formerly 

Melinda Wheatley) describes it 'We think this is beneficial to your industry and would you consider 

providing us with a non-profit contribution ... Here's the timeline for the completion of the research; 

the parameters of the research are this; we expect it wil! result in some savings or outsourcing.'"[321 

The TPPF'.s 2005 annual report states that the groups budget wa~ $1,759,602 million, an almost 30% 

increase on its 2004 budget. individual contributors accounted for just over half the contrihutions, 

unspecified corporations $259,000 or 15% with the remainder ffom unspecified foundationsJ331 

rvlcdit~ Transparency lists TPPF as having received 26 grants totalling $491,749 (tmadjusted for inflation) 

between ! 998 and 2004 tfom a range of foundations including r lit§!: 

• Armstrong Foundation 

https:l/\mw.sourcewatch.org/index:.php!Tex:as _ Public_Po!icy_Foundation[ 1117/2017 5:37:53 PMl 
614 


27600.549

Texas Pub!tc Policy Foundation- Source Watch 

Claude R. l.ambc Charitable !· oundation 

Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation 

Gordon and i\·1ary Cain Foundation 

Jaqudin I !ume Foundation 

JM Foundation 

Roe Foundation 

Ruth and Lovett Peters Foundation 

TPPF has received $15,000 from ExxonMobi! since ! 998, $5,000 in 200 I ]2 jr§J and $! 0,000 in 2004. 1.1 L~ 

Core Financials 

2015[341 

• Total Revenue: $10,821.798 

Total Expenses: $7,286,003 

Net Assets: $4.298,827 

2014[351 

Total Revenue: $8.887.301 

Total Expenses: $5.636,703 

Net Assets: $4,687,842 

2013£361 

Total Revenue: $5,288,989 

Total Expenses: $4.731.l40 

Net Assets: $7,545,929 

2012[371 

Total Revenue: $7,612,280 

Total Expenses: $4,364,605 

Net Assets: $6.988,080 

2011[381 

Total Revenue: $5.756,074.00 

Total Expenses:$4.948.598.00 

Net Assets: $4.235,880.00 

2010£391 

Total Revenue: $4,674,836.00 

Total Expenses: $3.390.188.00 

"Net Assets: $3.428,404.00 

2009[401 

rota! Revenue: $3.223,804.00 

Total Expenses: $3,026,663.00 

Net Assets: $2,143,756.00 

https://www.sourcewatch.org/imlex.phpffexas_Public__PolicyJounda!ion[ll/7/2017 5:37:53 PM} 
615 


27600.550

Texas Public Policy Foundation- Source Watch 

Personnel 

Staff 

As ofSeptembcr2017: !41] 

Brool-.c L. Rollins , President and CEO 

Kevin Roberts, Executive Vice President 

Greg Sindelar, ChiefOpcrating Officer 

Robert Henneke, General Counsel and Director, Center for the American Future 

Chuck DeVore, Vice President ofNationallnitiatives 

Sarah French. Vice President of Development 

l3ill Peacock , Vice President of Research; Director, Center for Economic Freedom 

Clint Nesmith, Vice President of Engagement 

Briand Phillips, Vice President of Communications 

• Christy Anderson. Publications Manager 

Rafael Bear, Outreach Coordinator/Policy Advisor 

Jennifer Carter, Executive Assistant to the President and CEO 

Jaimie Ai!shire, Office Manager 

Sarah Atnipp, Development Officer 

A lex Billups. Associate Filmmaker and Editor 

Chris Chapman, Senior Director of Advancement 

Annie C'a .. <;teel, Director of Major Gifts 

• Derek M. Cohen, Deputy Director, Center for EtTective Justice 

Cara Dublin, Grants and Donor Communications Manager 

Trisha Dunbar, Director of Donor Communications 

Elain Ellerbe. Louisiana State Director, Right on Crime 

Jess Fields, Article V Project Coordinator 

Greg Glod, Manager, State Initiatives for Right on Crime and Senior Policy Analyst 

Vance Ginn, Director of the Center for Economic Prosperity & Senior Economist 

David Guenthner, Senior Director for Public Affairs 

Michael Haugen. Staff Writer, Right on Crime 

Talmadge Heflin, Director. Center for Fiscal Policy 

Megan Ingram. Research Assistant 

Shari Hanraham, Special Campaigns Director 

Ted Hadzi~Antich, Center for the American Future 

Haley Holik, Attorney 

Christ Jacobs. Senior Hea!thcare Policy Analyst 

Katie Kerschner, Project Coordinator, Center for Tenth Amendment Action 

i\:farc L~vin, Director, Center for EfTective Justice and Right on Crime 

Thomas Lindsey, Director, Center for Higher Education 

Joe Luppino-Esposito, Policy Analyst. Center for Effective Justice & Right on Crime 

• Whitney Klenz.endorf, Development Manager 

Elizabeth Lincicome, Media Relations t-.·1anager 

Brandon J. Logan. Director, Center for Families and Children 

https://v.·ww.sourccwatch org/index.phpfl'exas_Public]olicy _Foundation[ 1117/2017 5:37:53 PM] 
616 


27600.551

Texas Public Policy Foundation- Source Watch 

Noelle Mandell, Deputy Director of Events and Communications 

Stephanie Matthews. Senior Policy Advisor 

Tarah Nypaver. Director of Strategic Partnerships 

Carine Martinez-Gouhier, tl.,1anaging Editor 

Elizabeth Moore, Development Ofticer 

BryanT. Mathew, Policy Analyst, Center for Local Governance 

Trevor McGuire, Policy Analyst, Center for Higher Education & Center for Tenth Amendment 

Currie Myers, Senior Visiting Fellow 

Randy Petersen, Senior Researcher 

James Quintero, Director. Center for Local Governance 

Sarah Silberstein, Communications Associate 

Alicia Pierce, Communications Director 

Chip Roy, Director, Center for the Tenth Amendment Action 

J.D. Rimann. Policy Analyst 

Stephen Robinson, Audio-Video Production i\1imager 

Emily Sass. Policy Analyst 

Yvonne Simental, Paralegal 

Joshua Trevino 

Ryan Walters. Attorney 

Andrew Speno. Oklahoma State Director, Right on Crime 

Peg6'Y Venable, Senior Visiting Fellow 

.Josey Thea!, Grants Manager 

Gina Van Dyke, Operations Coordinator 

Deane Waldman, Director. Center for Healthcare Policy 

Chance Weldon, Attomey, Center for the American Future 

Kathleen White, Distinguished Senior fellow-in-Residence; Director, Armstrong Center for Energy & 

the Environment 

Olivia White, Events Manager 

JennitCr Minjarez. Policy Analyst 

Drew White. Senior federal Policy Analyst 

Erin Wilcox. Attorney 

Former Staff 

Dianna Muldrow, Policy Analyst, Center for Effective Justice and Right on Crime 

Clint Nesmith, Director of Events 

Avik Roy, Visiting Fellow 

Shannon Tracy. Communications & Events t\1anager, Right on Crime 

Dan lsett, Communications Director. Right on Crime 

Caroline Espinosa. Director of Communications 

.Jody Gibson. Publications and Marketing Manager 

Olivia Gustin, Events Manager 

Doug Domenech , Director, Fueling Freedom Project 

Jamie Bennett, Communications Associate 

Joshua Trevino, Vice President of Strategic Communications 

Arlene Wohlgemuth , Executive Director; Director. Center f(x Health Care Policy 

https·//v,v.w.sourcewatch.org/index.phpffcxas _Public _policy _Foundation{ll/7 12017 5.37·53 PMJ 
617 


27600.552

Texas Public Policy Foundatmn- Source Watch 

!:!!en !'vlarie Bar11ing 

Robert Croft. Vice President of Strategic Partnerships 

Colin \-fnnaghan , Grants and Donor Communications Manager 

Geoffrey Tahuahua , Donor Relations Manager 

John Davidson , Senior Health Care Policy Analyst 

Josiah Neeley , Policy Analyst, Armstrong Center for Energy & the Environment 

• Karen Lugo , Director, Center for Tenth Amendment Action 

Kathleen Hunker , Policy Analyst, Center for Economic Freedom 

• Kristen lndriago . Director of Communications 

Nancy Druat1 , Publications Manager 

tvlichae! Joyce , Director of Events 

Rikki Risinger, Accounting & Operations Manager 

Vikrant Reddy . Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Effective Justice 

Michael Quinn Sullivan 

Chris Patterson 

Byron Sch!omach 

Maty Katherine Stout 

Shari Hanrahan 

Nancy Druart 

Nathan Thompson 

Former Fellows 

John Barrett 

Scott Brister 

James C. Capretta 

• Wendel! Co-\ 

Robert W. Crandall 

Cimdace de Russy 

John W. Diamond 

Susanna Dokupil 

.krry El!ig 

• Richard Epstein 

Eric Hanushek. 

Jv'lilton Holloway 

David Hoyer 

Ronald A. Kaiser 

~vlatthew Ladner 

Michael Bond 

Patrick Brockett 

H. Sterling Burnett 

Timonthy J. Gronherg, Ph.D. 

Christopher Hammons 

David A. Hartman 

Devon ivl. Herrick 

https·//www.soun .. -ewatch.orglindex.phprrexas_Pub!ic]olicy_Foundationfll/712017 5:37·53 PMl 
618 


27600.553

Texas Public Policy Foundatmn ~Source Watch 

r-dauricc P. McTigue 

Haavi Morreim 

Grover Norquist 

Randal O'Toole 

John Pisciotta 

Nat Shapo 

James C. Smith 

Ronald Trowbridge 

David G. Tuerck 

Richard Vedder. Ph.D. 

Bob Williams 

Patrick Wolf 

Board of Directors 

As of September 20 I 7: [

42] 

Dr. Wendy Gramm , Chairman 

Tim Dunn, Vice Chairman 

Brooke L. Rollins , President and C'EO 

James Leininger, Chairman Emeritus 

Ernest Angelo , Treasurer 

Tim Lyles, Secretary 

Rick Fletcher 

Wind! Grimes 

Stacy Hock 

Linda \-lays McCaul 

L.C. "Chaz" Neely 

Brenda Pcjovich 

Jcff'SandcfCJ 

Kevin Sparks 

Kyle Stallings 

George W. Strake 

Former Directors 

~·1aycs Middleton 

Victor Leal 

Phil Adams 

William A. :-vlcMinn 

James R. Leininger 

Phil D. Adams 

Ramiro Galindo 

Dill Jones 

Dale Laine 

Vance C. Miller 

John L. ~au. Ill 

https://wv.'w.sourcewatch.org/index.php!fcxas_Public_Policy_Foundation[ll/7/2017 5·37:53 PMj 
619 


27600.554

Texas Public Policy Foundation- Source Watch 

Fritz Steiger 

tvlichael Stevens 

Kendall 1\:fil!er 

Contact Information 

Texas Pubic Policy Foundation 

90 I Congress A venue 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Phone: 512-472-2700 

Fax: 512-472-2728 

Email; info@texaspo!lcy.com 

Website: http;'\\'\\W.h'"J"P'J!icy.com @ 

1\vitter: ht!ps: "'h\iltcr.com·"! PPF r§T 

Facebook: httrs: \\"\\\\.fhcehook.com Tl'>..a::-PublicPt1]icyFoundati,m 15' 

Articles and Resources 

Related SourceWatch Articles 

Slate Policy Network 

SPN Portal 

SPN Political Activity 

SP;-.i Funding 

SP:-.J 2011 Funding 

SP'N :w I 0 Funding 

SP~ 2009 F-unding 

SPN Agenda 

SP;'\1 Founders. History. and Staff 

SPN Members 

SPN Ties to ALEC' 

Thomas A. Roe 

fracic Sharp 

Byron S. Lamm 

Roe Foundation 

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC') 

• ALCC Non-Profits 

Donors"!"rust 

Donors Capita! Fund 

Koch Family Foundations 

Koch Industries 

Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity 

Heritage Foundation 

Think tanks 

Whitney Ball 

https://\';Vi'W.sourcewatch.org/index.phpffcxas __ Public .. Policy _Foundationfll/7(10 17 5:37:53 PM] 
620 


27600.555

Texas Pubhc Policy Foundation- SourceWatch 

Adam Meyerson 

Bridgett Wagner 

Related PRWatch Articles 

Brendan Fischer, \\'h) .·\rc the! tank lin Ccnll'f'~ "Wiscon:--in Rcp('lh:r'' and"\\ atchdog.org" ,\ttackill!! 

the John Doc?@, PRWatch.org, December 19,2013. 

Rebekah Wi!ce, rhe Stall' Policy ~ct\ANh.\ t\l7) Rcbtinnship \\ith Big Tobacc()@, PRWatchorg. 

December 16. 201.1. 

Rebekah Wilce, Did ,\L!T ronnU SP'.'.I 1991 Rc:ron Suggest<; \o, E>.pnsc~ ~P"\ '\gcnda@. 

PRWatch.org, December 12, 2013. 

Rebekah Wi!ce, Cluanlian [)ucunh.'nb 1 xpo;,c \t<tlc Pu!icy '\.ct\\Orh. (lroups' lntcnt tn Lobby j§l, 

PRWatch.org, December 5. 2013. 

Rebekah Wilec, State l'o!ic) -....:ct\\ork: J he Stealth :\ct\\ork Dr:lmatical!;. lnllucncing State Lawctjl, 

PRWatch.org, December 5. 2013. 

Rebekah Wi!ce, Track Sharp: Bur~mof\1y~kr;. \!one) and "!Kt:,\ \1mkl'' \latcriabtoStink 

ranks@. PRWatch.org, November 19,2013. 

Center for Media and Democracy. R~·ports !>"P'lsc Ext rem¢ Pressure Gn1urh \ lasqucrading as Think 

rank:.@, press release. November 13,2013. 

Rebekah Wilce, .\ Rqwrtcr~· Ciuidc \\1 !lw "State Policy :"\l'h\ork": the Ri~!n-\\'ing lhinh. TankSpmnini,; Di:-inl~lfnHHiun dlld Pu;..hing the .\LEC ·\gcnd:l in th.: State~[§]. PRWatch.org, April4, 2013. 

SaraJerving, ,\UT aoJ !kart lund ,\im w Cru:-h Renc\\ahk Fnen;,) Standards in !he \1Jks~l. 

PRWatch.org, November 27, 20 I 2. 

Connor Gibson, \kct th<.~ "\.cl\\Ork! ll,ling th.;: Koch \lonl..'~: "l)ontw> !"rust" allll "Du1wr~ ( 'apital 

I und"r?. PRWatch.org. October 29.2012. 

Brendan Fischer. !(och-hmdcd \bckinac < ·enkl' !3ring'> \\'iscon-;in ,\ct lU Prm ;\ion:> to .\LL( 'r§\ 

PRWatch.org, May :2,2012. 

Sara Jerving, l·nmklin ('enter: Righl-\\ ing !·und" Swtc '\.c\~S S~1urce61. PRWatch.org, October 31, 

2011. 

External Resources 

Wall Street Journal. -1 he Sroi!~ dth-: Republican Stat<.: (\HHJU<:.;t!§J. December 9, 2016, archived b: 

C\1]) hlTl:,..<};j. 

OeSmog 8/og. Slink Tanks: Hi~torka! Record:; Rc\cal State Po!icJ :'--.'el\\\lrk \\'a:; Created b; 

.\LFC&J. December 9, 201J. 

The Guardian, State conservative groups plan US~wide assault on education, health and 

tax OJ, December 5, 2013. 

• Portland Press Herald, "Wa~hingt(l!l Cnunt; rc;.icknh hmc mix.ed r~.:w:tinrh to plan tn l'liminak 

ta•n.:::.G(l," December 5, 2013. 

The Texas Observer, "1 !w :-.1uncy Behind the !'i!]:ht tnlmkrminc \lc-dic,lidt9," December 5, 2013. 

Media Matters, \orth ('an.lina \<e\\.;pap<.T-. !.<ll~:cl: !~nurc ( ·on;...:nati\C !·unJing {)f :-,hmn 'I hintrank-.,@, December 3, 2013. 

Shepherd Express, \la~tcr~ of \lnnipulati('ll: Righl-\\ing Billionaires. ( \1rp<lrations. anU th(• Brwlk:;. 

Foundatiun Pa)- for .hmJ... :-;tudiC\ that Prop up l'heir .\go.:lll.la@. November 27,2013. 

"Moyers & Company." llm\ a Shadcmy '\.d\\Orh. ofCurpor:1te l-'ront {Jwup~ f)iq,,rt~ the \f:Jrkctp!n..:..: 

orldcasr.:fl, November 19,2013. 

https://v.v.'w.sourcewateh.orglindex.phpfrexas_Public__Poliey_Foundation[l !/7/2017 5:37·53 PM] 
621 


27600.556

Texas Public Policy Foundation- SourceWatch 

MSNBC "Rachel Maddow Show," ;-..;ovember IS. 2013 @. 

Free Speec/J TV "Ring of Fire," i'acchook. :>..!icroo:.oft, Xr&T and Others SurtJOrting Right \\'ing 

PJ\)paganda \1achim.'[?, November 18,2013. 

Topeka Capitai-Joumal, Traber! dismissc-.: report tyin_l!. KPI lo l(och agenda]§!, November 16.2013. 

The New Yorker (Jane Mayer). l-; !KL\ the ;\"n\ :--.-!odd !\)r t!w Cons~rvativc \1m-enH.'nt?t§l, 

November 15.2013. 

Salon, red Cruz and Koch brothers embroiled in shadowy rca Part) scho..'mc@. November 15, 2013. 

St. Louis Business Journal. Bc)-ond Sinquefield: \\'hn else is funding the Sho\\-~lc lnslitutc?t§l, 

November 15.:2013. 

The Guardian, Facchook and \·licroson help fund right" ing !ohb) nct,\orh., rcpo1t !lnds@, November 

14,2013. 

Huffington Post, :\1cet ·1 he l .ittle-Known Network Pushing [dew, l·or Kochs. ,\f EC'@, November 14, 

2013. 

CBS St. Louis, Sho\\-\lc lnstituk:'s Tics Qu.:stitHled in l\icw Rl"'port@, November !4, 20lJ. 

Talking Points Memo, Florida Conscf\ativc Omup Helping \1uci-: t ·p Obama..::arc In J\!oska@, 

November ! 4, 20 l3. 

Mint Press News, R.:pm1<> Rc\-ca! SPN's Sc..::rc! Cnrporate Agenda rhrough L'<1c 'E-xpert' 

Tc:,ilmon) Efl. November 14,2013. 

Media Matters, ~hadowy Right-\\ ing Cironp Cicnc'raH.:s \!cdia Coverage For Conservative Policy From 

Coa.c;t To {\-.a:.t@, November 14, 2013. 

The Institute for Southern Studies, .\rc comcrvatlvc thinl tBnl..:. breaking lobbying lows'.'@, November 

14,2013. 

Nonprofit Quarterly, C~1rpnrak \hmey in "\et\\ork ofRig.ht*Winf!, State Polk:;. Think Tanb@, 

November 14,2013. 

The Progressive, Right-Wing ·1 hink Tanks Push Privatinti1_~n in the Statc::.llil, November 13,2013. 

Politico, Rcpo1i: Think tanks tied to Kochs @.November 13,2013. 

Lawrence Joumai-Wortd, Repo11s release{! b} progressive gwups an:: criticnl of Kansas Polk) 

ln:>titutc8J. November 13,2013. 

Maine Insights, Report ~Iaine Heritage Polk) (\.·ntcr·s nmdiny_ eonrwcti\)!l to f<nch Brothers@, 

November 13.2013. 

The Florida Current. l.ihcral groups hemoan lobbying by conservative think tankst,;J, November 13. 

20!3. 

The Oregonian, Cascatk Polk) Institute bend its from secreti\'C donor group but ::.a) sit operates 

independently@, November 13, 2013. 

Center for Media and Democracy. FXPOSFD: The State Policy '\'ct\\(\f"-, The PO\~crfi!l Right-\\'inp: 

}.,('t\\ork! ldping: to !liiach State P(\litic<> and Ciovcmment_Jj, organizational report, November 13, 

2013. 

Arizona Working Families and CMD, A. Reporter's Guide to the G\l]dwater Institute:\\ hat Citizens. 

Pnlic) makers, nnd Reporters Should Kno\\ @,organizational report, updated November 13.2013. 

Progress Florida and CMD, Lawmaking l.'ndcr the !ntluL'IJCC of\'c1;. Spccin! Interests: Understand the 

role off lorida ·think tanks' in driving a Koch-fueled. ,\LEC-allicU corporate agenda@, organizational 

report, November 13, 2013. 

Maine's Majority Education Fund, Fooling \Iaine: tkl\v national conscrvatiH: gronps inli!tra!cd \Iaine 

j)('litic.s b}- founding anU funding the \ lainc l fcri\;jge Policy Center@, organizational report, November 

13,2013. 

https:/(W\'A\i'.sourcewatch.org/indcx.phpfrexas ~ Public __ Policy __ Foundation[ 11/7/2017 5:37:53 PM} 
622 


27600.557

Texas Public Pohcy Foundation- Soura:Watch 

Progress Michigan, Who's Running \!ichig"n'.l 1 ho: rar-Ri~h! lnlluenc,; of the \lad.ina..: { \:ntcr tl>r 

Public Policy cr. organizational report, November 13. 20!3. 

Alliance for a Better Minnesota, \\'1m's in ( 'harg~·. ! h'W "\:mion;1li;ed ('orp1•rak-Run 1 hink ·1 anb 

Influence\ linne)o!a PolilicsDJ. organizational report, November 13.2013. 

Progress Missouri. \\hat \!i)~ouricw:. \~·~·d to I< n<n\ ,\bout 1he Show- \lc !Jt,titut..::81. organizational 

report. updated November 13.2013. 

Granite State Progress. Had Bartlett: The Josiah Bar!! en Cvntl·r and '\,lJ \\ akhd\'11! ,\n'i\\CI' the Call (o! 

th..: Koch Brother::.@, organizational report, November 13,2013. 

ProgressOhio, '-;mokc Screen: l he 13ude; e !mtituh: r9, organizational report. November 13,2013. 

Keystone Progress, rhink. tank'> or corporate 1\)bb} ic.t propJganda milh'.'r::tJ. organizational report. 

November 13.2013. 

Progress Texas, rPP! \I FC @,organizational report, November 13.2013. 

One Wisconsin Now, S i-; I{H Shill: in'>irk the Hradk} f ound<Jtinn'~ ,\t!ach on Puhlk Ellucation~. 

organizational report. November lJ, 2013. 

Muncie Voice, 1~cnn: and Righ1· \\ ing ,\reTaking 0\cr Public 1:duca1ion@, November 13, 2013. 

The Spokesman~Review, \ha\\ll \'cqa!: ldc~htl l·n::c<klln I nundatiun pu~hc51imit"ufiAOn! 

·charit) ·@,November 2, 20!3. 

AZ Central, \\ h..::n thi'> ·1\ah.:hdog· pitchc:,, taxpa;. L:r::. "trih.: uut@, October 12, 20!3. 

fndyStar, D~mkb ~a:·-> spee;;h tu parli~;_m g1o!lp \\;t'> a mbtakcr§!, October 10, 20D. 

Muncie Voice. !nJiana Pulic;. Rl'\il'l\: '\.1ll an rndepcn<knt \c\\S ,1-,ourc~@. October2, 2013. 

The Spokesman~Review, ldalw hl·cLIPm !·Pundauun\ charitah!c :-.!atL1" <.crutini/cdi§l, September 15, 

2013. 

CounterSpin, l.etc rang on 'rhe Right Leans In' rfl, AprilS, 2013. 

FireOogLake. Swtc Pn!it) '.L'll\\lrk. an umlm.:iia Ccll'rdinating A!,f;{ . J leritage. fleu1i!and 1li1Li 

othcr:sEf!. April 4, 2013. 

Thom Hartmann with Lee Fang on MSNBC, 'fhe cnn:;crvatih' State Poli.:~ "'C\"'ork is sn.:aking. into 

}Olll' ::.tat.: & wi!! change \rncrk;15fl, March 29,2013. 

Current TV "War Room", Lee r·ang di-:;cussing the State Policy ~ctworh[§l, ivlarch 28,2013. 

The Nation, The Right Lcan:s !n !9, March 26. 20!3. 

Democracy Now, Dnnurs rru~t:! ittk-Kno,\n CHmp l !clp.s \\'calth; Back,'r~ rund Right-\\ ing 

,.\g:cnda in Sccrl'l@. February !9. 2013. 

Paul Abowd, Center tOr Public Integrity, Dnnor<, li'>C ch~1rit;. l\' pu'>h frcc-mark.ct p(l!iciL·~ in slak-.[';J, 

Consider the Source. February 14,2013, 

John R. ivlashey, l·'ahl' ->cicncc, fakcxpcrt". funny llnances. Jl·ce of tax 

updated October 23, 2012. p. 74. 

Urban Milwaukee. Stealth t ·,~nscrvath cs 81, October 11, 2012. 

De Smog Blog report. 

Rome News~ Tribune, ·\~Al.Y'\tS: tilW!;!.ia kadcr"' Jcpcnd on lh<' ~ame wdl for idea:,@. October 

2012. 

Andy Kroll, 1 he Right-\\'in~ ~·d\~o1l Behind th..:: Warun i nion~t§l, Mother Jones, Apri125, 201 I. 

Guidestar, Swte Policy );ct\lorJ... @.IRS filings and other organizational information about SPN. 

Center for Policy Alternatives, ,\U.C and the l.xtremc Right-\\ 

about ALEC and SPN. 

organizational brochure 

John J. Miller, rift; Fkmcrs Bloom: ('on..;cnati\c think. tc:111k~ n1ini- I !L'ritagc l'oundJtion'< at the 

:,tat.: kvd!§.l, National Review, ;-..;ovembcr !9, 2007. 

"" 

httos:r/wv.'W.sourcewatch org/index.php/Texas Public_ Policy_Foundation[l !1712017 5:37·53 PM] 
623 


27600.558

Texas Public Policy Foundation- Source Watch 

Bridge Project, Stah: Policy ~et\\ork , online resource listing grants to SPN and SPN's connections to 

other groups. 

People for the American Way , St<~tc Policy :\etwork [§!, RightWingWatchorg, organizational resource. 

Grcenpcace , K,Kh !nduo.trics (:Jimale Denial Front Croup: Stat..:: Policy '\ct\\ork (SP~)~, 

organi7..ational resource. 

"PcrrJ. '\tai'Ctno\.. Bahamas t!ip paid Cor by donors" @,Associated Press, 24 February 2004 

External articles 

Forrest Wilder, RcYcakd: The Corporations and Billionaire-. !hal hmd the Te>..as Public Pnlic;. 

h1undalil111@, The Texas ObseNer, August 24, 2012. 

Abby Rapoport, Fducation Inc.- 1 !ow private companies arc proflting tfom "1\~xao., pub!k school.<..@, 

The Texas ObseNer, September 6, 2011. " ... students and parents must now contend with a businessw 

education complex in which industries perpetuate ideologies, and ideologies keep industries afloat." 

• S.C. GWYNNE and GAH.Y JACOBSON. Entrepreneur and i't'IT)' fi'icnd pub I cAa~ :.tt center nfhigiK~r 

cJtK<Hion tlrcstonn@, Dallas Morning News, June 25,2011. 

Paul J. Weber, AP, Senate 1\cpuhlkans want to tap state pigg~ banJ...@, Austin Amen·can Statesman, 

April l L 2013. 

llill King, Pm;' \\aging a war over higher education @,Houston Chronicle, January 16,2013. 

Valerie Strauss, Wh~ l '. ofTcxas academics blasted Gov. Rick Perry@, The Washington Post, 

August 29,2011. 

Nick Anderson, !lead ofnwjor uniH'rsit> group \\eighs in nn c:-\'a.@, The Washington Post. 

October 25.2012. 

References 

1. i 1·

0 U Forrest Wilder, Revealed: The Corporations and Billionaires that f·und the Texas Public 

Policy Foundation@, Texas Observer, August 24. 20!2. 

2. T Texas Public Policy Foundation. "About" !§1, organizational website. accessed December 2012. 

3. i Samantha Page, l'lw ~och brothers, Big Oil. and Texas utilitio.:s arc a!n.:ady shaping Trump's. 

em lronml~ll!al agenda&, Think Progress, November 30. 2016. 

4. i Doug Domenech, \\"hal's :'-<c:>.t for Lnerg; and Climate Po lie;.'!@. Real Clear Energy. 

November 16,2016. 

5. r Nick Surgey, PeahoJy Coal Bankruptc: Reveals Climate Denial :\ctwork Fnnding:!§l. PR Watch, 

June 13, 2016. 

6. i 6.00 6.01 6.02 6.03 6.04 6.05 6.06 6.07 6.08 6.09 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17 Progress 

Texas and the Center for Media and Democracy, Tl'Pr ALEC @,Organizational Report, 

November ! 3. 2013. 

7. i Texas Public Policy Foundation. Texas Public Policy rtltmdaticm Leaders Stand \\i!h the 

American !.cgislatiw !·>'<.change C()uncil!",1!, organizational website, accessed December 2012. 

8. i Nick Surgey," hxon:\lohil'! op Sromnr at .\LlT Annual \.lccting@," Exposed by CMD, 

Center for Media and Democracy. July 27,2016. 

9. 1 Texas Public Policy Foundation, ALLC appoints Dr. f"homa .. '> LinJsay ( !TPF! Vice Chairman of" 

the Education Ta<ik Force Higher Fducalion Suhcormni!lectfrl, organizational press release, October 

25, 20!3. 

https:/ /w\W'. sourcewatch.org/index. php!f ex as_ Pub! ic _Po !icy_ F OUildation[ 1117120 17 5 :3 7: 53 PM] 
624 


27600.559

Texas Pubhc Policy Foundation- Source Watch 

10_ T American Legislative Exchange Council, Health and Human Services Ta..<>k Force meeting agenda 

and materials, June 30, 20 II, on t1\e with C'MD 

11. T American Legislative Exchange Council, Energy. Environment and Agriculture Task Force 

meeting agenda and materials, March 31. 201 1, on tile with CMD 

12. T American Legislative Exchange Council, Civil Justice Task Force meeting agenda and materials, 

October 27,20 II, on file with CMD 

13. T American Legislative Exchange CounciL Public Safety and Elections Task Force meeting agenda 

and materials, October 27, 2010, on file with CMD 

14. T American Legislative Exchange Council, Public Safety and Elections Task Force meeting agenda 

and mnteria!s, March 31,201 L (Jn file with CMD 

15. T American Legislative Exchange CounciL Public Safety and Elections Task Force meeting agenda 

and materials, April 6, 2012, on file \Vith C'MD 

16, t American Legislative Exchange Council, Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force meeting agenda and 

materials. June 30.201 Lon file with C'Vto 

17. 1 Charles Koch Institute. 1\lrtn..::r Org_anuation~ r;1, Charles Koch Institute. 2016. 

18. 1 Franklin Center, !'rank lin ,\fYi!iatl'" in Your ~tate i§l, organizational website, accessed October 

:2012, 

19. T The Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, l hink tank Jmnnnlism: 'l he Future or 

lnvestigati\" JournaJi.::.m ct!J, organizational website. accessed August 1 CJ, 101 1. 

20. T Rebekah Metzler, "\\ atchdog" \\eb;,ik puh a new <,pin on pulitic;,lfrl, The Portland Press 

Herald, October 2. 2010. 

21_ j Allison Kilkenny, !he Kl'>.:h Spider Web @, Truthout, accessed August 19.201 L 

22. i SaraJerving, rt<Jnklin Cent,·r: Right-Wing f'und:-; Stat..:: ~cw.::. SPurccl9. PkWatcl! orgrJJl. 

October 27,201 I. 

23. T 23·0 23·

1 Paul Abowd, Center for Public Integrity, Dnnurs u~e charity io rush th-'•>rnarkct pn!il:lc" 

i11 Sl<llc-,e.?. organizational report, February 14, 20! 3. 

24. i Andy Kroll, F"po~cd: 'llw Dark- \lone~ ,\'1 \!oft h.: C(•!l'il'r-vatin: \h>\ clrl..:nt1§J, Mother Jones, 

February 5. 2013. 

25, T Daniel Bice, rranklln Ccnh:r IX'S'> \YaJll'i ~1po!ng) n-om D..:mo~:ratic .:;ta!'kr!9, Milwaukee Journal 

Sentinel, August 8. 2011. 

26. I The Bradley Foundation. l he Bntdk> roundation ['fl. Organizational website. Accessed August 

\9.2011. 

27. i Sam Admns Alliance. Sarn .-\Jam.., -\l!iam.·c \lcdi:J f... it 

19,2011. 

Organizational PDF. Accessed August 

28. j Media Matters Action Network. :..:1m .\ddnb :\llimKt.: iftl. Conservative Transparency. Accessed 

August 19,2011. 

29 i Media Matters Action Network. Stat<: Polic) '\.tt\\()tl !t;l. Conservative Transparency. Accessed 

August 19.2011. 

30. i Media Matters Action Network. Cl:wdc R. L:unhc Charitable f-oundatil'ndfl. Conservative 

Transparency. Accessed August 19,2011. 

31. j 31.0 31.1 Forrest Wilder. !{cvcakd: '1 he (\>rporation~ and HiHionain:s th:11 hmd th,; ) C'<<h Puh!k 

Polk: Foundation iff!. TPPF n,lnor l.i~t J.:l, Texas Observer, August 24,2012. 

32. T 32.0 32.1 Forrest Wilder and Abby Rapoport, l he B1ains Behind the Curtaindfl. Texas Observer, 

November 30,20! I, archived by the \Vaybacl.. ~vlachine January 15.20 !3. 

33. i Tex<1s Public Policy Foundation 

https://wv,-w.sourcc\vatch.org/index.php!Texas_Public __Policy _Foundation[ll/7/20 I 7 5:37· 53 PM J 
625 


27600.560

Texas Public Policy Foundation. Source Watch 

34. i Texas Public Policy Foundation, (pape!' copy Texas Public Policy Foundation2015 Form 990]. 

Texas Public Policy Foundation, July 15, 2016. 

35. i Texas Public Policy Foundation. Tc~..n:; l'uh!ic Po!ic~ f·oundation 2014 form 9QO_kj, Texas 

Public Policy Foundation. May 2. 2015. 

36. i Texas Public Policy Poundation, fcxa::. Public Po lie; Foundation 20 I'' Fnnn 990_!1, Texas 

Public Policy Foundation, May 15,2014. 

37. t GuideStar, ro.:xa:- Pub!!..,· Policy F(luncbtlon 2012 Fonn 99U .• M, GuideStar.org, accessed June I 1, 

20!4. 

38. i Texas Public Policy Foundation, IRS form 990, 2011. UuidcS1ar rr. 

39. i Texas Public Policy Foundation.JRS tOrm 990, 20l0. CiuidcStar @. 

40. t Texas Public Policy Foundation, IRS form 990,2009. (iuideStar !§'. 

41. i Texas Public Policy Poundation, :)ta!TJ§J. Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2017. 

42. i Texas Public Policy Foundation, Board ofDi1ec1or::. @,Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2017. 

Categories · ALEC 8xposcd ALEC Non-Profit~ ALEC ~'lcmbcrs Think tanks Right wing 

Politics (U.S.) Koch Connection SPN Exposed 

This page was last modified on 12 October 2017, at 13:37. 

Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercia!-ShareAiike unless otherwise noted. 

Privacy policy About SourceWatc.h Disclaimers Press Inquiries Mobile view 

https://www.sourcewatch.orglindex.php!Tcxas_Pub!ic_Policy_Foundation[ll/1/2017 5:37:53 PM] 
626 


27600.561

Ken BI<H.:\...\\ell: Green h1ergy Policies \1ay !!aunt Democrats I hi~ l-al!- lhe Patriot Po!:>t 

THE PATRIOT POST® VOICE OF ESSENTIAl liBERTY 

THE RIGHT OPINION 

Green Energy Policies May Haunt Democrats 

This Fall Ken Blackwell · Jul. 2, 2016 

Tweet 

'Nho is working overtime to paint themselves into the biggest political corner of this election cycle? Democrats 

obviously don't recognize it yet, but they have placed themselves in an inescapable trap with extreme positions on 

energy and the environment- irresponsible positions that have fragmented their party and could easily produce 

dire consequences for Democrats at the polls in November. 

The extreme fringe of the environmental movement has emerged as a powerful faction within the Democratic Party, 

in large measure due to colossal political spending by billionaire and former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer. Its 

new dominance has translated into a long list of policy initiatives for "green" energy. Wind and solar companies 

today are lavished with generous federal subsidies, government-backed loan guarantees (remember the Solyndra 

debacle?), grants, tax preferences, incentives and beneficial mandates. 

The raw deal that American taxpayers are getting is nothing short of scandalous. "Green energy remains an 

inconsequential source of energy in America despite more than $80 billion in direct federal taxpayer subsidies under 

Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama," write authors Stephen Moore and Kathleen Hartnett White in their 

new book Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy. "Wind and solar combined produce less than 3 

percent of our energy, and only about 5 percent of our electricity." 

It gets worse. Democrat policy makers are deliberately targeting fossil fuels by making them less accessible and 

more expensive to produce. The Obama administration and its allies have killed the Keystone XL pipeline project; 

slow-walked oil and natural gas drilling permits; closed public lands to drilling; imposed staggeringly expensive new 

regulations; and proposed billions of dollars in new taxes aimed at oil and natura! gas producers. 

Meanwhile, Democratic operatives are oblivious to the fact that in pandering to fringe environmental activists they 

are alienating traditional, loyal Democratic voting blocs. 

Officials from eight building trade unions recently sent a letter to the AFL-CIO expressing outrage over its decision to 

create a super PAC with Steyer, who led the battle against the Keystone pipeline- along with many high-paying 

union jobs. The letter took issue with an environmental agenda that "has produced mixed results at best and 

https://web.archive.org/web/20160704190256/https:/patriotpost.us/opinion/43572[1 117/2017 6:03:40 PM] 
627 


27600.562

Ken Blackwell: Green Energy Policies May Haunt Democrats This fall- The Patriot Post 

disastrous results at worst for our members and their employment prospects in many instances throughout the 

country." 

Hillary Clinton might be in trouble with union members as well for declaring her opposition to Keystone. Additionally, 

natural gas drilling and energy production employs thousands of union members who may be troubled by her 

declaration, "By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America 

where !racking will continue to take place." Curiously, as U.S. Secretary of State, Clinton was a major force behind 

bringing hydraulic fracturing to other countries. 

Green groups, unimpressed with the need to protect union jobs and heel the interparty rift, have declared open 

season on energy employers by making prosecution of climate change skeptics part of the Democratic Platform. 

In my home state of Ohio, which is a key swing state, the United Mine Workers of America's political arm endorsed 

Republican Sen. Rob Portman for reelection over Democratic challenger Ted Strickland- who they supported both 

times he ran for Governor. Strickland's work for anti-coal organizations angered the union, which depends on the 

industry for thousands of jobs in Ohio. 

Poor minority families and seniors on fixed incomes are two more voting groups that Democrats may have trouble 

keeping in the fold. Energy bills generally already account for one-fifth of struggling Americans' income, which 

proportionately represents three times more than what high-income households must allocate. By mandating a shift 

from affordable energy to green energy, environmental extremists are, in essence, imposing a devastating 

regressive energy tax on the poor. Rising electricity bills put increasing numbers of Americans at risk for green 

energy poverty, which is when 10 percent or more of a household's income is spent on home energy costs. 

And in North Carolina environmental extremists are running false, misleading ads attacking the GOP governor and 

making false claims of threats to drinking water quality while the state legislature works on a responsible, affordable 

solution to the states coal ash management issues. 

Democrats who expect their traditional base to turn out to say "thank you" in November may be disappointed. 

Tweet "i>i.rttt 

READ lHE lAlE5l DIGE5l > 

https://wcb.archive.org/web/20 l60704l90256ibttps:/patriotpost.us/opinion/43572f 11/7/20 I 7 6:03:40 PM] 
628 


27600.563

Trump pick for top environmental post once v.Tote Texa~ would be 'better orr as an independent republic~ CNNPo!itics 

KfiLE 

Trump pick for top environmental post once 

wrote Texas would be 'better off' as an 

independent republic 

By Andrew Kaczynski and Nathan McDem1ott, CNN 

Updated 4 33 PM ET Thu October 26. 2017 

http:/Avww.cnn.com/2017/1 On6/po!itics/kfile~hartnett~white~texas~independent~republic/index.htm![1ll7/2017 6:01: I 0 PM] 
629 


27600.564

Trump pick for top environmental post once \.WOte Texas would be 'better ofJ' as an independent republic~ CNNPolitics 

Kathleen Hartnett White arrives at Trump Tower. November 28. 2016 in New York C1ty 

STORY HIGHLIGHTS 

"Although I reverently pledge allegiance to 

the United States, with regret I hazard the 

claim that Texas would be better off today 

as an independent republic free of the yoke 

of the present federal government," White 

wrote in 1995. 

In her essay, White called the 

sesquicentennial of Texas statehood "not a 

happy occasion." 

(CNN)- President Donald Trump's nominee to be 

White House senior adviser for environmental policy 

wrote an essay in 1995 in which she argued that 

because of federal overreach, including environmental 

regulations, Texas would be better off as an 

independent republic. 

Kathleen Hartnett White, the nominee to head the White 

House Council on Environmental Quality, authored the 

essay for a 1995 edition of the now-defunct Texas 

Republic magazine marking the 150 year anniversary of 

Texas statehood. In her essay, White called the sesquicentennial of Texas statehood "not a 

happy occasion." 

White's past writings on politics and policy, particularly as they relate to the federal government's 

role in regulating the environment, could be a subject to scrutiny during the Senate confirmation 

process. If confirmed, White would oversee environmental policy across the government. In her 

1995 essay, White singled out "onerous" environmental regulations such as the Clean Water Act 

and the Endangered Species Act as examples of federal overreach on states' rights. 

CNN's KFile obtained a full copy of White's essay from Edward H. Sebesta, an expert of the 

Texas secessionist and neo-Confederate movements who is writing a book on the Texas 

Secession movement White was a rancher at the time she authored the essay. Before that, she 

had served as the director for private lands for the National Cattlemen's Association. 

White did not respond to a CNN request for comment The Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works has not yet scheduled a confirmation hearing for White. Spokespeople for the 

committee's Republican chairman, Wyoming's John Barrasso, and ranking Democrat, 

Delaware's Tom Carper, did not immediately respond to requests to comment. 

http://\V\\W.cnn.com/20 17/1 0/26/politics/kfile~hartnett~white~texas~independent-republic/index.hlrnl[ ll/7/2017 6:01: l 0 PM] 
630 


27600.565

Trump pick for top environmental post once wrote Texas would be 'better off' as an independent republic- CNNPolitics 

"Although I reverently pledge allegiance to the United States, with regret I hazard the claim that 

Texas would be better off today as an independent republic free of the yoke of the present 

federal government," White wrote in 1995. "I pledge allegiance to my country and to the 

'republic' 'for which it stands-- a republic composed of states sovereign within their own borders 

-- a republic with a national government of very limited, specifically enumerated powers -- a 

republic that actively upholds the 1oth Amendment of its Constitution, guaranteeing states' rights 

against federal encroachment. 

"The current federal government, in my opinion, has grossly departed from the republican vision 

of national government that inspired the signers of the U.S. Constitution and the early Texans 

who chose annexation." 

In her essay, White wrote that federal government began to transform after the Civil War, which 

saw the expansion of federal powers during Reconstruction. This expansion, White argued, led 

to a resentment among Texans. 

"Reconstruction policies and laws justified the broad exercise of federal powers. Originally acting 

as a government with the narrowly circumscribed powers of a republic composed of states 

largely sovereign unto and among themselves, the national government began to acquire 

massive, centralized power, actively intervening in state affairs," White wrote. 

"If Texans viewed the federal government as impotent and aloof before the Civil War, resistance 

to the victorious Yankees and their interventionist 'know what's best for Texas' ways took hold 

after the war," she continued. "Congress began to pass one after another of the now 

innumerable federal Jaws implemented by huge federal bureaucracies manned by millions of 

bureaucrats writing volumes of regulations - federal mandates that directly affect and dominate 

the internal affairs of the states." 

White further argued that the federal income tax, unfunded mandates, federal money with 

conditions, and direct federal regulation are all examples of "federal domination." White 

specifically identified federal environmental laws as "graphic examples of federal shackles on 

basic state rights in Texas," arguing that "the U.S. Congress and the courts have stretched the 

commerce clause to preposterous lengths." 

She concluded her essay by writing, "The desire of many Texans to be free of the federal yoke 

http:/ /wv.>w .cnn.com/20 17 /I 0/26/politics/kfile-hartnett-white-texas-independent -repu bliciindex.html[ 11/7/20 17 6:0 I : I 0 PM] 
631 


27600.566

Trump pick. for top environmental post once \vrote Texas would be 'better ofP as an independent republic~ CNNPolitics 

is far more than historical nostalgia for the Lone Star Republic. It is a well-warranted desire, 

shared by increasing numbers in every state, to reduce the domain of federal power and to 

return to the understanding of federalism that informed the founding of the United States as a 

republic. The sesquicentennial of Texas statehood is not a happy occasion." 

Read the full essay here. 

CONTENT BY LENDINGTREE 

Refinance rates take a sharp decline 

PAID PARTNER CONTENT 

Online savings accounts earn you $1 OOOs, here's why 

Bankru/e 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/1 Q/26/politics/kfile-hartnett·white-texas-indepcndcnt-rcpublic/index.html[ll/7/2017 6:01: 10 PM] 
632 


27600.572

CLEAN AIR ACT 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has exponentially expanded 

regulation under the Clean Air Act (CAA) at great expense to Americans. 

States also have been robbed of their statutory role in environmental protection. Therefore, Congress must employ legislation, the budget process, and 

its oversight powers to constrain the EPA's regulatory abuses. 

MAJOR POINTS 

• The EPA claims authority under the CAA to impose an economically 

damaging and environmentally counterproductive regulatory regime 

designed to eliminate fossil fuel as a domestic energy source-a policy 

repeatedly rejected by Congress. The agency's energy policy is jeopardizing thousands of jobs, U.S. competitiveness, the affordability and reliability of the nation's electric power, and national security. 

• Without any statutory authority, the EPA has extended its regulatory reach into other federal agencies' actions-including the Departments of Energy, Transportation, and State, and the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission. 

• The technical risk assessment and regulatory impact analyses with which 

the EPA justifies many of its rules are fraught with implausible assumptions and extrapolation based on absurd use of the precautionary principle. As noted by Dr. Thomas Burke, who chairs the National Academy 

of Sciences' Committee on Improving Risk Analysis, the EPA's science is 

"on the rocks," 2 meaning that the agency's regulations often lack a sound 

scientific basis. 

• To restore rationality and accountability to environmental protection, 

Congress must limit the EPA's abuse of regulatory power and re-establish 

lawmakers' authority to set environmental and energy policy. 

3 
633 


27600.573

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY GUIDE 

APPROPRIATIONS 

Congress should prohibit the EPA from expending any funds for: 

• Development, implementation, and enforcement of greenhouse gas regulations, including the proposed Carbon Pollution Standards for New 

and Existing Electric Generating Units, also known as the Clean Power 

Plan rules. 

• Development, implementation, and enforcement of 2014 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone. 

• Regulation under the CAA of any pollutant not expressly included in the 

language of the CAA. 

• Regulation of source categories under Section lll(d) of the CAA if those 

source categories have been regulated under Section 112. 

• Development, implementation, and enforcement of regulatory standards 

that do not comply with Section lll(a)(l) of the CAA. That is, the regulatory 

standard based on or derived from "best system of emission reduction" 

cannot exceed emission limits achievable with available technology that 

is commercially and economically demonstrated at scale. 

LEGISLATION 

To achieve the necessary statutory reforms of the EPA, Congress must: 

• Restate and clarify in law that the Clean Air Act was never intended to 

regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants, and declare in statute that 

greenhouse gases are not pollutants subject to regulation under the CAA. 

o Rescind the EPA's Endangerment Finding that greenhouse gases and 

climate change pose a serious threat to public health and safety. 

• Overturn the waiver issued by the EPA that allows the California Air 

Resources Board to set fuel economy standards. 

• Prohibit the EPA from setting low-carbon-emissions standards or fuel 

economy standards for on-road vehicles. 

• Restate and clarify in law that the EPA is prohibited from regulating 

source categories under Section lll(d) of the CAA if those source categories have previously been regulated under Section 112. 

4 
634 


27600.574

CLEAN AIR ACT 

• Restate and clarify in law that the EPA is prohibited from developing, implementing. or enforcing regulatory standards that do not comply with Section 

lll(a)(l) of the CAA. That is, the regulatory standard derived from "best system 

of emission reduction" cannot exceed emission limits achievable through available technology that is commercially and economically demonstrated at scale. 

• Restate and clarify in law that the EPA's regulatory reach extends no further than the "source" of emissions originating from specific facilities 

rather than entire sites or regions in which emission sources are located. 

Also clarify that a "source" of emissions applies to individual stationary 

industrial units, and not to an entire industrial sector or state. 

• Restate and clarify in law the parameters of federal and state authorities 

under the CAA. The prevention and control of air pollution is the primary 

responsibility of state government. The federal government sets NAAQS 

and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); the states determine 

how the standards will be attained and/or applied. 

• Require by law that the EPA must issue final assessments of states' emission reduction obligations. 

• Make the Information Quality Act (IQA) enforceable, and shift the burden of proof to the EPA for demonstrating that the agency's risk assessments meet the IQA standards. 

• Require that the NAAQS, NSPS, and Existing Source Performance Standards cannot be implemented until enacted by law. 

• Repeal the Renewable Fuel Standard and all related programs. 

OVERSIGHT SUBJECTS 

Congress should examine the following: 

• The legality of the carbon rules for new and existing power plants. 

• The near-term impacts of the Clean Power Plan rule on electric power 

reliability and power plant closures. 

• The EPA's plans to control C02 within other sectors, including surveying, 

drilling, extracting, and processing oil and gas. 

• The rigor and plausibility of the EPA's risk assessment for ozone NAAQS 

and other regulations. 

5 
635 

Æ 


27600.575

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY GUIDE 

• The potential regulatory inconsistencies among various EPA regions that 

would arise if the agency undertakes its planned rule change. 

• The reform ofthe State Implementation Process per the National Research 

Council's recommendations from 2004.3 

• The reform of the EPA's methodology for risk assessments, especially its 

application of a "No Safe Threshold" (NST) linear regression analysis. 

• The reform of the EPA's methodology for benefit-cost analyses, especially 

for the monetization of impacts and the use of particulate matter (PM2

) 

co-benefits. 

6