EPA Quietly Asked The Public Which Clean Air Rules To Cut. Industry Answered Loudest.

How many working people are able to sit through a three-hour call on a Monday morning?

A utility lobbyist called on regulators to do less work monitoring greenhouse gas emissions. An oil and gas lobbyist praised the Trump administration’s retreat from safeguards and urged federal rulemakers to limit regulations on carbon emissions and smog. A lobbyist for wood-product manufacturers complained about the “ever-tightening” public health standards for ozone pollution and asked regulators to change the permitting process.

Those were just some of the requests made by industry advocates during a conference call Monday, when the Environmental Protection Agency held the first of several sessions to ask the public which rules should be eliminated under President Donald Trump’s executive order instructing agencies to slash regulations. The three-hour call, held by the Office of Air and Radiation, focused on clean air and ozone pollution rules.

In March, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced plans to hold the public hearings, but environmental advocates say the agency scheduled the events with little notice, in some cases just days in advance.

“New meetings appear on a website that the EPA has set up to coordinate the process, so unless you check it every day, it is easy to miss when a new hearing is announced,” Andrew Wetzler, deputy chief program officer at the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote in a blog post ahead of Monday’s call. “All of this is made worse by the fact that EPA staff are offering only limited slots for in-person comments. In fact, some of the meetings aren’t public at all.”

Open Image Modal
President Donald Trump, left, is greeted by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, right, prior to signing an Energy Independence Executive Order on March 28, 2017. The order reverses the Obama-era climate change policies.
Ron Sach-Pool via Getty Images

The EPA’s Office of Water, Wetzler noted, is offering an in-person meeting with local water agencies, but only offering a “virtual listening session” over the phone to the public.

“And the deadline for the public to comment on rolling back all these crucial safeguards?” he added. “It ends in a mere three weeks.”

The EPA has already taken drastic steps to gut a host of rules, claiming they hold back businesses and stymie job growth. In March, the agency scrapped a rule requiring oil and gas drillers to report methane emissions, a greenhouse gas up to 86 times more heat-trapping than carbon dioxide. A week later, the White House shredded an Obama-era EPA assessment of fuel efficiency standards, a move celebrated by automakers that claimed complying with the regulation cost too much. By the end of the month, Trump signed an executive order instructing the EPA to rewrite the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration’s embattled rule to reduce emissions from electrical utilities.

“Regulations ought to make things regular,” Pruitt said in his first speech as EPA chief in February. “Regulations exist to give certainty to those they regulate. Those we regulate ought to know what’s expected of them so they can place and allocate resources to comply.”

Based on Monday’s call, the regulated heard him loud and clear. Lobbyists and business proponents vastly outnumbered ordinary citizens on Monday’s teleconference. Environmental advocates, however, made a considerable turnout to urge the agency not to press ahead with its rollbacks.

A handful of ordinary citizens also spoke during the call, with each given a strictly enforced three-minute limit. One man, who said he lives in Austin, Texas, said that when he testified on behalf of the Clean Power Plan during Barack Obama’s presidency, people filled two conference rooms at the EPA’s Atlanta office for a full day.

“I’m horrified, absolutely horrified, at the degenerate level of contribution we’ve seen from representatives from industry.”

- A man who spoke during Monday's public comment call

“Out of that process came a very robust and very responsible regulation and now we’re being asked to roll it back,” he said. “These are people’s lives. These are my children’s lives. This is the future of the planet. We cannot move backward on that. We need to have a strong, robust process, at least as robust as what we had in the past.”

Another man slammed the agency for limiting the opportunities for public comment to a mere phone call on a weekday morning.

“This process today has been extremely enlightening in how the new administration is completely curtailing and cutting out public comment by reducing this to a three-hour conference call on Monday, that no working person would be able to attend reasonably without being an activist in the space or a representative of a major corporate interest,” the man said, adding that his background is in economics. “This is not really fair and should be outright illegal.”

“I’m horrified, absolutely horrified, at the degenerate level of contribution we’ve seen from representatives from industry who have seemingly no concern for the massive, sweeping deleterious effects that are about to be suffered nationwide, should this repeal happen the way it is about to happen,” he added.

The operator promptly moved on to the next caller.

Our 2024 Coverage Needs You

As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.

Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.

to keep our news free for all.

Support HuffPost

Before You Go

Donald Trump's Environment Guy Doesn't Believe In Climate Change
He does not believe in climate change.(01 of11)
Open Image Modal
“There has been a little bit of warming ... but it’s been very modest and well within the range for natural variability, and whether it’s caused by human beings or not, it’s nothing to worry about,” Ebell told Vanity Fair in 2007.

More than 97 percent of scientists agree that the world's climate is warming and it’s caused by human activities. Yet Ebell believes this consensus of climate experts is “phony” and “not based on science.”

In 2015, Ebell called Pope Francis’ encyclical on climate change “scientifically ill informed, economically illiterate, intellectually incoherent and morally obtuse.”

“It is also theologically suspect, and large parts of it are leftist drivel,” he added.
(credit:Getty Images)
Even if climate change is real, he believes there’ll be 'benefits.'(02 of11)
Open Image Modal
In a 2006 opinion piece, titled “Love Global Warming,” Ebell waxed lyrical about the potential “benefits” of climate change.

“Yes, rising sea levels, if they happen, would be bad for a lot of people. But a warming trend would be good for other people,” he wrote.

There would be “fewer and less severe big winter storms,” he claimed. And “life in many places would become more pleasant. Instead of 20 below zero in January in Saskatoon, it might be only 10 below. And I don’t think too many people would complain if winters in Minneapolis became more like winters in Kansas City.”

Ebell’s op-ed was full of fallacies.

For one, according to the EPA (which, again, is the agency that Ebell has been tapped to lead the transition of), climate change will increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, including winter storms.
(credit:Carlos Barria/Reuters)
No surprise, he's not a scientist.(03 of11)
Open Image Modal
A self-described “policy wonk,” Ebell has no scientific experience. He graduated from Colorado College with a Bachelor of Arts degree in philosophy and later studied political theory in the London School of Economics. (credit:YouTube)
He wants to throw out the Clean Power Plan.(04 of11)
Open Image Modal
When President Barack Obama unveiled the Clean Power Plan in August last year, it was hailed as the strongest action ever taken by a U.S. commander in chief to combat climate change. The plan, which gives the EPA the authority to regulate carbon pollution from power plants, aims to slash greenhouse gas emissions from power plants by 32 percent by 2030.

Ebell has called the plan “illegal.” He said last year that he hoped the next president would “undo the EPA power plant regs and some of the other regs that are very harmful to our economy.”

Ebell, as the head of the EPA transition, is now “in a position to begin to do just that," The New York Times notes.
(credit:Associated Press)
The fossil fuel industry helps finance his advocacy group.(05 of11)
Open Image Modal
Ebell directs environmental and energy policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian advocacy group that “questions global warming alarmism and opposes energy-rationing policies, including the Kyoto Protocol, cap-and-trade legislation, and EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions,” according to its website.

The CEI has a long track record of taking money from the fossil fuel industry. It received $2 million from ExxonMobil from 1998 to 2005, according to Vanity Fair.

The Washington Post reported in 2013 that Marathon Petroleum, Koch Industries, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, and American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers were among the donors for CEI’s annual dinner.

Murray Energy Corporation, America’s largest underground coal mining company (and a critic and litigant of the EPA), was the biggest energy donor of the night.

When asked about this on C-Span in 2015, Ebell — who had at first insisted that he doesn’t “represent” companies — admitted that he wasn’t getting as much money from energy firms as he’d like.

“I’d like to see a lot more funding from all of those companies, but unfortunately many of the coal companies are now going bankrupt,” he said. “I would like to have more funding so that I can combat the nonsense put out by the environmental movement.”
(credit:Lee Celano/Reuters)
He helped kill cap-and-trade.(06 of11)
Open Image Modal
Ebell previously “helped propel a shift in the political debate around climate change, contributing to the collapse of cap-and-trade legislation in Congress in 2009,” according to Frontline.

The bill, which Ebell called a “disaster,” would have seen limits set on the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted nationally.
(credit:Associated Press)
He chairs a group focused on 'dispelling the myths of global warming.'(07 of11)
Open Image Modal
The Cooler Heads Coalition, an ad-hoc group that Ebell leads, says its mission is “dispelling the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis.” (credit:Jorge Adorno/Reuters)
He opposes the Paris Agreement on climate change.(08 of11)
Open Image Modal
The Paris Agreement, which came into force on Nov. 4, is the most significant climate accord ever signed.

Ebell has been a vocal critic of the deal, calling Obama’s joining of the treaty “unconstitutional.”
(credit:How Hwee Young/Getty Images)
He’s worked to reduce protections for endangered species.(09 of11)
Open Image Modal
Earlier in his career, Ebell worked for then-Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) in an effort to rework the Endangered Species Act so it would involve “as little regulation as possible” and be “more respectful of property rights.” (credit:Tom Brakefield/Fuse)
He’s lobbied for the tobacco industry.(10 of11)
Open Image Modal
Jeremy Symons, senior advisor of the Environmental Defense Fund, says Ebell was involved in a "broad campaign" in the 1990s to help tobacco company Philip Morris make "regulating the tobacco industry ‘politically unpalatable.'"

Philip Morris also funded Ebell's group CEI in the 1990s. At the time, CEI was pushing the idea of “safer cigarettes.”
(credit:Associated Press)
He’s proud to be loathed(11 of11)
Open Image Modal
In a biography Ebell himself submitted when he testified before Congress, he boasted that he'd been listed by Greenpeace as a "climate criminal" and global warming "misleader" by Rolling Stone magazine.

"The Clean Air Trust in March 2001 named Mr. Ebell its 'Villain of the Month' for his role in convincing the Bush Administration not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions," the bio continued.
(credit:Sean Gallup/Getty Images)