Democrats in Congress have asked U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt to recuse himself from the EPA's planned repeal and possible rewrite of the Clean Power Plan, saying his past work to repeal the carbon-cutting regulation makes him unfit to participate in that rulemaking.
Lawmakers also want answers to questions regarding other EPA actions, including a drop in the agency's grant awards to states for environmental work.
A group of four U.S. Senate Democrats said Pruitt must recuse himself from "overseeing any and all rulemaking" with respect to the Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era regulation aimed at cutting carbon emissions from existing power plants. The lawmakers referenced a legal precedent barring agency officials from participating in a rulemaking if they have an "inalterably closed mind" on the subject.
As proof of that closed mind, the senators pointed to Pruitt's decision to sue the EPA to overturn the Clean Power Plan while he was attorney general of Oklahoma.
They also highlighted the more than $350,000 in campaign contributions Pruitt received from corporations and individuals in the energy and natural resources sector between 2002 and 2014, which represented 13% of his total campaign contributions in that time frame. Donors included fossil fuel producers, traders and business groups including Koch Industries Inc., Murray Energy Corp., Devon Energy Corp., the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers.
"There is ample evidence that Pruitt has an inalterably closed mind with respect to the [Clean Power Plan] and section 111 of the Clean Air Act in particular and climate change in general," the senators said.
Sens. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Brian Schatz of Hawaii and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island submitted the request for Pruitt to recuse himself. The lawmakers made the request as part of comments submitted to the EPA on the agency's proposed Clean Power Plan repeal.
Lawmakers are also probing whether the EPA will re-examine its 2009 finding that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare, a determination that opened the door to future climate regulations, including the Clean Power Plan.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt appears before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Jan. 30, 2018. Source: AP |
A group of 50 members of Congress sent a letter to Pruitt seeking clarification on statements he made at a Jan. 30 hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. During the hearing, Pruitt said the EPA has made "no decision or determination" on whether the agency will seek to rescind or replace the endangerment finding.
The congressmen in their Feb. 6 letter said Pruitt's comments were inconsistent with statements he made during his confirmation hearing that the endangerment finding "needs to be enforced and respected" and that "there is nothing that I know that would cause it to be reviewed."
The EPA did not immediately respond to questions on whether Pruitt will recuse himself from Clean Power Plan matters or the agency's stance on the endangerment finding.
Drop in EPA grant money
In addition to the climate-related requests, one lawmaker is seeking answers on a drop in EPA grants to states for environmental work. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Ranking Member Tom Carper, D-Del., sent a Feb. 6 letter to Pruitt following-up on an inquiry into the EPA's decision to place a political appointee in its public affairs office in charge of signing off on the agency's grant solicitation decisions.
Carper said the staffing decision was "even more troubling" in light of reports that the EPA has cut or delayed several grants, including for work related to climate change, and because the appointee reportedly removed all references to climate change in some grant announcements.
An analysis conducted by Carper's staff showed the EPA awarded just $1.1 billion in grants in the first three quarters of 2017, only about a third of the $3.5 billion awarded in the same period of 2016. At least 49 of 50 states saw declines in EPA funding in 2017 compared with 2016, and nine states saw more than a 90% drop in reported grant money.
The senator asked the EPA to respond by Feb. 21 on why the agency did not spend the grant money Congress allotted to it for Jan. 20, 2017, through Sept. 30, 2017. Carper also asked the agency to explain why it did not award money in 2017 to grantees who received money in 2016 and whether the decision was made by EPA career staff or political appointees.
Lastly, he asked the EPA to post information by Feb. 21 on grants awarded between October and December 2017. Under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, the EPA is required to publicly post awards data within 30 days of making an award, but Carper said the agency has yet to do so for the last three months of 2017.

