Over the years, environmental activists have become adept at wielding the federal rule-making process as a cudgel to crush economic development. For instance, a new report from the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) finds that federal agencies took an average of 4.6 years to complete an environmental impact statement, which the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires for a wide array of economic projects. That’s longer than it took the Allies to win World War II.

It’s a strategy of paralysis by analysis, one routinely exploited by left-wing environmental groups. NEPA, which was designed to enhance public participation and transparency in rule making, has devolved into a tool for environmental activists to collude with government bureaucrats to the detriment of economic growth, and ultimately, American families. It is hardly the only tool.

Take, for instance, the Pebble Mine. In February, at the behest of the NRDC, EPA moved to block a hypothetical mine in Alaska’s Bristol Bay watershed that contains vast deposits of copper, gold, and molybdenum worth up to $500 billion to the U.S. economy. Internal EPA memos recently obtained by The Washington Times show that EPA started working with environmental activists behind closed doors to block the mine as early as 2008, three years before EPA publicly announced it would conduct a review.

To make matters worse, EPA nixed the mine before the project developers could even submit a NEPA application — an unprecedented power grab. A presentation prepared in 2010 for the former EPA administrator admits as much, warning that such a move “had never been done before in the history” of the Clean Air Act.

Pebble Mine shows how environmentalist activists like the NRDC exploit the rule-making process to suit their ideological agenda. It also exposes their hypocrisy. NRDC has called NEPA the “environmental Magna Carta,” adding, “NEPA is democratic at its core.” Yet on the issue of Pebble Mine, NRDC urged EPA to bypass the NEPA process and preemptively veto the mine. EPA was happy to oblige.

Aside from NEPA, environmental activists often exploit a process called “sue-and-settle.” Under this scheme, green groups sue federal agencies to issue regulations by a specific deadline. These groups then negotiate with the agencies behind closed doors, emerging with a “consent decree,” a settlement agreement that forces the government to impose costly regulations typically without a public comment period. On several occasions, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued consent decrees on the same day environmental groups filed their lawsuits.

The sue-and-settle process paved the way for EPA’s mercury emissions rule, which is projected to be the costliest regulation in U.S. history. The rule will impose annual compliance costs of $10 billion per year by EPA’s own estimates. It is also expected to shutter 60 gigawatts, or 20 percent, of America’s coal-fired power plants by 2016, resulting in fewer jobs and higher energy prices for American families.

Taxpayers often foot the bill for the legal fees accrued during sue-and-settle proceedings. A 2011 GAO report found that taxpayers doled out millions of dollars between 1995 and 2010 related to sue and settle, with Earthjustice ($4,655,425), the Sierra Club ($966,687), and the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) ($252,004) together accounting for 41 percent of the largesse.

Perhaps the most alarming finding in the GAO report is that we don’t even know the extent to which NEPA is broken or activist groups are abusing the process. As GAO put it, “Little information exists on the costs and benefits of completing NEPA analyses,” adding, “Agencies do not routinely track the cost of completing NEPA analyses, and there is no governmentwide [sic] mechanism to do so.” This only serves to further insulate unelected bureaucrats, and their activist allies, from accountability.

EPA is gearing up to impose first-ever greenhouse gas regulations on new and existing power plants, rules which combined with the mercury emissions rule would effectively bankrupt the coal industry. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has committed to work with states, utilities and “other key stakeholders” when developing the regulations. If history is any guide, those other stakeholders will hold the key to EPA’s heart.



Anastasia Swearingen is a senior research analyst for the Environmental Policy Alliance, a project of the nonprofit Center for Organizational Research and Education.