Impacts of Combining Dept of Energy with EPA

Impacts of Combining Dept of Energy with EPA

I received this via e-mail this morning and thought it may be of interest to some of you.

In this day of budget crunches, getting efficient seems like a good idea.  On the other hand, the programs don’t seem like ones I would want cut.  What do you think?

Bill Introduced to Create a Department of Energy and the Environment

U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) has introduced the Consolidation of Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency Act of 2011 (S.982) that would authorize the creation of a single agency known as the Department of Energy and the Environment (DOEE).

The DOEE would be created by combining the support and administrative offices of the DOE and EPA. The DOEE would incorporate recommendations from the Government Accountability Office and Office of Management and Budget to eliminate ineffective/duplicative programs. Such actions could result in a savings of more than $3 billion over the next year.

“This common-sense approach will reduce duplicative and wasteful functions across these two agencies and streamline our approach to a comprehensive, coordinated energy and environmental policy,” Senator Burr said.

The Consolidation of Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency Act identifies the missions of the DOEE as the protection of human health, safeguarding of the natural environment, and addressing the environmental, energy, and nuclear challenges of the U.S. The proposed legislation also states that if any proposed action by the DOEE conflicts with any energy or environmental plan of the State, the DOEE will give due consideration to the needs of the State.

The proposed legislation would terminate multiple environmental programs including:

  • State water pollution control revolving funds
  • State drinking water revolving loan funds
  • EPA performance partnership grants
  • Pollution control programs under CWA section 106
  • Nonpoint source management program under CWA section 319
  • Targeted watershed grants
  • U.S.-Mexico border water infrastructure
  • Tribal assistance grants programs
  • Public water system supervision program under SDWA section 1443
  • Underground injection control program under SDWA part C
  • Diesel emissions reduction grants from the Energy Policy Act of 2005
  • Local government climate change grants
  • Targeted airshed grants
  • Targeted water infrastructure grants

There are currently 15 co-sponsors of this legislation which has been referred to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee for consideration. [Connolly]

 

4 Responses to Impacts of Combining Dept of Energy with EPA

  1. Without doing more research on this, I think I’m all for it. Overlapping of agencies can actually HARM the cause because of territoriality issues. And, of course, you have double or triple the costs and lots of wasted resources.

    Thanks for bringing this to my attention — interesting situation.

    • We see it all the time that one State agencies policies or rules conflict with another State agency’s. I agree that streamlining the process and adding efficiency is a good thing. And, clearly some things need to be cut. We as a nation need to live within our means, same as each family does.

  2. Obama said if he couldn’t get his plans passed through congress he would go through the depts themselves. I would say he is making changes just like he promised.

    I have to wonder if this environmentalist really understand the scope of distraction they are putting into play. More and more we see this “bull” and everyone wants to point the blame but always in the wrong direction.

    I vote for more Reaity and less Perception!

    • This was actually sent to me from a staffer at a State agency. I agree that somehow we need to make the process (all of them) more efficient and less costly. More bang for the buck. I don’t know enough about this proposed situation to be able to discuss it intelligently – just wanted to throw it out there. Get people aware and thinking, basically. Thank you for commenting!

Leave a reply

Visit Us On TwitterVisit Us On FacebookVisit Us On PinterestVisit Us On Google Plus