Abby L. Harvey
GHG Monitor
11/21/2014
In the face of a veto threat from the White House, the House of Representatives this week passed two bills targeting the Environmental Protection Agency—one that would change the rules for who can sit on the EPA’s Independent Science Advisory Board and one that would require that all scientific data used to craft EPA regulations be made public. In Statements of Administration Policy threatening to veto the measures, though, the Obama Administration argued the bills are unnecessary and would be an undue hindrance to the operations of the EPA.
Secret Science Reform Act Calls for Greater Transparency
The Secret Science Reform Act calls for greater public access to science and data used by the EPA to develop regulations. The bill states that, “the Administrator shall not propose, finalize, or disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and technical information relied on to support such covered action is specifically identified; and publicly available online in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results.”
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Science Space and Technology Committee, noted the EPA’s proposed carbon regulations for coal-fired power plants in defending the bill. The regulations would set emissions reduction targets for each state and require the states to develop action plans to reach those goals. The science used to develop the goals, however, is not available to the public, Smith said, so citizens cannot review the data for themselves. “Costly environmental regulations should only be based upon data that is available to independent scientists and the public. However, the EPA does not adhere to this practice. In fact, nearly every major air-quality regulation from this administration has been justified by data that it has kept secret. This means the Agency’s claims about the benefits of its rules cannot be verified by independent scientists. This includes the recent plan to regulate our entire electric system. This proposal will kill thousands of jobs and increase electricity costs, all for no discernible effect on global temperatures,” Smith said.
In its threat to veto the bill, the White House said, “The Administration strongly supports regulatory transparency, but strongly opposes H.R. 4012. The bill would impose arbitrary, unnecessary, and expensive requirements that would seriously impede the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) ability to use science to protect public health and the environment, as required under an array of environmental laws, while increasing uncertainty for businesses and States.”
Bill Would Allow More Industry Representation on Scientific Advisory Board
The other bill passed by the House this week, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013, would allow that “persons with substantial and relevant expertise are not excluded from the Board due to affiliation with or representation of entities that may have a potential interest in the Board’s advisory activities, so long as that interest is fully disclosed to the Administrator,” according to the text of the bill. The bill asks for the recognition that “there are industry experts who are currently being excluded from this because of their background. Of the 51 members of the current SAB, only three—only three—have any industry expertise, and we are losing valuable insight and valuable guidance because we don’t include them in the process,” Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) said on the House floor this week.
The bill was met by opposition from House Democrats including Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) who spoke against the bill on the House floor this week. “I am not opposed to industry experts participating on the Science Advisory Board or in the peer-review process at the EPA. In fact, their insight into processes and industry can provide valuable guidance to an advisory body. That being said, Congress should not be endorsing legislation that undermines longstanding ethics requirements and practices with the end result being an overrepresentation of industry voices on EPA’s Science Advisory Board, and that is likely to be the result of this bill today,” Bonamici said. The White House echoed these concerns in its Statement of Administration Policy, writing that the bill “would negatively affect the appointment of experts and would weaken the scientific independence and integrity of the [Scientific Advisory Board.]”
