ECA Doubters Get Boost as Legislators Seek to Rein In EPA

EPA policy regarding the North American ECA has faced resistance from groups concerned over its economic impact.

Opponents to the North American Emissions Control Area (ECA) have received a boost from legislators who have said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was "an agency that has been has been rife with governmental overreach, overspending on ineffective and unnecessary programs, and costly and questionable regulations."

In a press release announcing their fiscal year 2013 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill, the House Appropriations Committee said the legislation "reflects significant efforts to rein in the EPA" and "includes provisions to rein in various problematic, costly, and potentially job-killing regulatory actions."

It also singled out the EPA as a federal agency that mandates "overly burdensome regulatory hurdles."

The bill funds the EPA at $7 billion, below the fiscal year 1998 level and $1.4 billion or 17% less than fiscal year 2012's level.

It also maintains a cap on EPA personnel at the lowest number since 1992 and makes cuts to other EPA programmes and funding.

"The bill reins in funding and out-of-control regulation at the EPA," said Interior Subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson.

House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers said it would prevent the EPA from "stepping out of their lane and stifling our economic recovery."

North American ECA

EPA policy regarding the North American ECA, which comes into effect on August 1, 2012, has faced resistance from groups concerned over its economic impact.

Ship & Bunker reported last month that the cruise-ship industry was lobbying Washington to encourage the EPA to adopt its plans for alternative ECA rules and reduce the cost of compliance for the industry.

Short Sea Shippers said in April the 200 mile ECA is too stringent for their lower horsepower vessels, with President of CSL International, Paul Cozza saying "although well-intended, flaws in current ECA regulations will jeopardize the Short Sea Shipping sector."

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski has said the legislation "greatly underestimates the economic impacts on Alaska" and believes the state should be excluded from the ECA, adding reports that compliance could raise freight rates to Alaska by up to 20% caused her "a great deal of concern."

The EPA says many of the country’s "most serious ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment areas are affected by emissions from ships."

It estimates the overall cost of the ECA at $3.2 billion in 2020 and in that same year it estimates the monetized health-related benefits in the U.S. to be up to $110 billion.