Energy and Environment MonitorIf you get a 31% pay raise this year, would you complain about a 2.7% cut in your salary next year? No way! That’s the situation at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where the budgetary good times keep on rolling. The US economy is in the tank, regulated industries and energy producers are under greater duress than ever, but EPA continues living large.
On February 1, 2010, the Obama administration proposed a fiscal year (FY) 2011 budget of $10.02 billion for the EPA. The proposed FY2011 budget would be the second largest in the agency’s 40-year history, although a 2.7% drop from their FY2010 allocated funds of $10.3 billion. However, the FY2011 budget would still amount to a 31% funding increase over FY2009’s $7.6 billion EPA budget.
EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson recently touted the rock-ribbed fiscal responsibility of the proposed FY2011spending level for her Agency:
“The budget also reflects President Obama’s commitment to fiscal responsibility. Families across America are tightening their budgets; the President has directed us to do the same.
The $10 billion proposed for EPA – though a reduction from last year – will support key priorities in a time of fiscal challenges.”
I don’t believe that the average American family would consider a 2.7% spending cut after receiving a 31% spending increase to equate to financial belt-tightening. But in EPA’s world, it does.
The EPA lists the following “highlights” of their proposed FY2011 budget:
- “To take action on climate change and promote clean energy, the budget includes an increase of more than $43 million. This will support implementation of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and facilitate permitting and enforcement under the Clean Air Act.
- In addition, $55 million will be invested in the successful Energy Star program, cutting energy costs and emissions for homes and businesses.
- To clean up our communities, we’re proposing investments that will get dangerous pollution out, and put good jobs back in. That starts with $215 million for Brownfields, with increases for planning, cleanup, job training and redevelopment. We’ll also provide funding for assessment and cleanup of underground storage tanks and other petroleum contamination on Brownfields.
- $1.3 billion for Superfund cleanup efforts across the country, and continue the commitment to civil and criminal enforcement announced last month.
- $2 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving fund and $1.3 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.
- $63 million for the Chesapeake Bay program including increased funding to implement President Obama’s Chesapeake Bay Executive Order.”
Superfund Excise Tax -- Coming in 2011
EPA has not forgotten about its plan to reinstate the Superfund excise taxes, which expired in 1995. The FY2011 budget proposal includes restarting Superfund excise taxes beginning in January 2011. The reinstated Superfund taxes are estimated to generate an EPA revenue level of over $1.3 billion in 2011, increasing to over $2.5 billion annually by 2020.
Of course, one person’s “increased revenue level” is another person’s added taxation burden, and one more disincentive to continue to operate and provide good jobs in the US.
For further details on EPA’s FY2011 budget and policy priorities, see the following web sites:
http://www.epa.gov/budget/2011/2011bib.pdf#9
This article was partially excerpted from publically available information, and was authored by Rick Wilson, Acacia Environmental Group LLC. Any opinions expressed in this article are those solely of the author, and are not intended as legal or professional guidance to any specific readers. For more information on the author see here.
Comments