Peggy, Thanks for sharing this. This is a truly moving and inspiring letter, and a truly moving and inspiring action on Eric Schaeffer's part. Good to know about it. I wish Eric well in whatever he chooses to do next. Patrick Bosold ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peggy Murdock" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 2:43 PM Subject: Resignation letter of EPA Official > This is the resignation letter of Eric V. Schaeffer, Director of EPA's > Office of Regulatory Enforcement > > > February 27, 2002 > Christine Whitman > Administrator > U.S. Environmental Protection Agency > 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. > Washington, D.C. 20004 > Dear Ms. Whitman: > I resign today from the Environmental Protection Agency after twelve > years of service, the last five as Director of the Office of Regulatory > Enforcement. I am grateful for the opportunities I have been given, and > leave with a deep admiration for the men and women of EPA who dedicate > their > lives to protecting the environment and the public health. Their faith in > the Agencyıs mission is an inspiring example to those who still believe > that > government should stand for the public interest. > But I cannot leave without sharing my frustration about the fate of our > enforcement actions against power companies that have violated the Clean > Air > Act. Between November of 1999 and December of 2000, EPA filed lawsuits > against 9 power companies for expanding their plants, without obtaining New > Source Review permits and the up to date pollution controls required by > law. > The companies named in our lawsuits emit an incredible 5.0 million tons of > sulfur dioxide every year (a quarter of the emissions in the entire > country) > as well as 2 million tons of nitrogen oxide. > As the scale of pollution from these coal-fired smokestacks is immense, > so is the damage to public health. Data supplied to the Senate Environment > Committee by EPA last year estimate the annual health bill from 7 million > tons of SO2 and NO2: more than 10,800 premature deaths; at least 5,400 > incidents of chronic bronchitis; more than 5,100 hospital emergency visits; > and over 1.5 million lost work days. Add to that severe damage to our > natural resources, as acid rain attacks soils and plants, and deposits > nitrogen in the Chesapeake Bay and other critical bodies of water. > Fifteen months ago, it looked as though our lawsuits were going to > shrink these dismal statistics, when EPA publicly announced agreements with > Cinergy and Vepco to reduce Sox and Nox emissions by a combined 750,000 > tons > per year. Settlements already lodged with two other companies TECO and > PSE&G will eventually take another quarter million tons of Nox and > Sox out of the air annually. If we get similar results from the 9 > companies > with filed complaints, we are on track to reduce both pollutants by a > combined 4.8 million tons per year. And that does not count the hundreds > of > thousands of additional tons that can be obtained from other companies with > whom we have been negotiating. > Yet today, we seem about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. We > are in the 9th month of a "90 day review" to reexamine the law, and > fighting > a White House that seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to > enforce. It is hard to know which is worse, the endless delay or the > repeated leaks by energy industry lobbyists of draft rule changes that > would > undermine lawsuits already filed. At their heart, these proposals would > turn narrow exemptions into larger loopholes that would allow old > "grandfathered" plants to be continually rebuilt (and emissions to > increase) > without modern pollution controls. > Our negotiating position is weakened further by the Administrationıs > budget proposal to cut the civil enforcement program by more than 200 staff > positions below the 2001 level. Already, we are unable to fill key staff > positions, not only in air enforcement, but in other critical programs, and > the proposed budget cuts would leave us desperately short of the resources > needed to deal with the large, sophisticated corporate defendants we face. > And it is completely unrealistic to expect underfunded state environmental > programs, facing their own budget cuts, to take up the slack. > It is no longer possible to pretend that the ongoing debate with the > White House and Department of Energy is not effecting our ability to > negotiate settlements. Cinergy and Vepco have refused to sign the consent > decrees they agreed to 15 months ago, hedging their bets while waiting for > the Administrationıs Clean Air Act reform proposals. Other companies with > whom we were close to settlement have walked away from the table. The > momentum we obtained with agreements announced earlier has stopped, and we > have filed no new lawsuits against utility companies since this > Administration took office. We obviously cannot settle cases with > defendants who think we are still rewriting the law. > The arguments against sustaining our enforcement actions donıt hold up > to scrutiny. > Were the complaints filed by the U.S. government based on conflicting > or > changing interpretations? The Justice Department doesnıt think so. Its > review of our enforcement actions found EPAıs interpretation of the law to > be reasonable and consistent. While the Justice Department has gamely > insisted it will continue to prosecute existing cases, the confusion over > where EPA is going with New Source Review has made settlement almost > impossible, and protracted litigation inevitable. > What about the energy crisis? It stubbornly refuses to materialize, as > experts predict a glut of power plants in some areas of the U.S. In any > case, our settlements are flexible enough to provide for cleaner air while > protecting consumers from rate shock. > The relative costs and benefits? EPAıs regulatory impact analyses, > reviewed by OMB, quantify health and environmental benefits of $7,300 per > ton of SO2 reduced at a cost of less than $1,000 per ton. These cases > should be supported by anyone who thinks cost-benefit analysis is a serious > tool for decision-making, not a political game. > Is the law too complicated to understand? Most of the projects our > cases targeted involved big expansion projects that pushed emission > increases many times over the limits allowed by law. > Should we try to fix the problem by passing a new law? Assuming the > Administrationıs bill survives a legislative odyssey in todayıs evenly > divided Congress, it will send us right back where we started with new > rules > to write, which will then be delayed by industry challenges, and with fewer > emissions reductions than we can get by enforcing todayıs law. > I believe you share the concerns I have expressed, and wish you well > in > your efforts to persuade the Administration to put our enforcement actions > back on course. Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican and our greatest > environmental President, said, "Compliance with the law is demanded as a > right, not asked as a favor." By showing that powerful utility interests > are not exempt from that principle, you will prove to EPAıs staff that > their > faith in the Agencyıs mission is not in vain. And you will leave the > American public with an environmental victory that will be felt for > generations to come. > Sincerely, > > > Eric V. Schaeffer, Director > Office of Regulatory Enforcement > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: > [log in to unmask] > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT to [log in to unmask]