In a MarketWatch article published today, reporter Ruth Mantell discusses how agencies are rarely held accountable when they miss statutory deadlines for writing regulations. In one particularly onerous example, EPA has missed a Congressional deadline — by more than 11 years — for a rule that would limit exposure to lead paint during home renovation.

The nonprofit group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) has sued EPA, a tactic that too often must be used to prod agency action, as Mantell points out:

Repercussions are typically light, if they are any at all, for a federal agency or other governmental body that's been late or slow in complying with a mandate, consumer advocates say. In response, a cottage industry in scheduling lawsuits, such as PEER's against EPA, has bloomed, looking to make sure that obligations are met.

Congress sometimes exerts its powers of oversight to push agencies along. However, oversight falls short when considering the scope of the federal bureaucracy (about 2.5 million civilian employees and half-a-trillion dollars in non-defense, discretionary spending) and the decades-worth of federal legislation agencies are responsible for enforcing.

As for the lead renovation rule, EPA plans to finalize the standard in March; but before EPA can do that, the rule has one more major hurdle to clear. The White House is currently reviewing the rule under Executive Order 12866. White House review — one of the many across-the-board government requirements agencies must abide by — certainly does not help agencies move more quickly.

This week, the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs held a closed door meeting to discuss the rule with officials from EPA and representatives of the National Association of Home Builders — an outspoken opponent of the rule.

Yesterday, 16 states sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its refusal to allow California to implement a program for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. Had EPA granted California permission, the other 15 states in the suit would have adopted the California program.

EPA administrator Stephen Johnson denied California's request on Dec. 19. Johnson claimed California's proposed program is unnecessary in light of a recent federal law which would tighten the national fuel economy standard and that a federal regulation is preferable to a "confusing patchwork of state rules."

Johnson's argument is bogus. Had EPA approved California's request, other states could have adopted California's program (not created their own willy-nilly). The presence of two policies is neither confusing nor a patchwork. Furthermore, the Clean Air Act (not to mention the Constitution) contains provisions affording states the opportunity to enact their own regulatory schemes even if they are stricter than federal standards.

EPA insiders have acknowledged Johnson's decision does not hold water and will likely be overturned in court. But, since federal lawsuits take months or years, the Bush administration will still achieve its goal: delaying any meaningful action on climate change for eight long years.

Some progress may occur in the short term if Congress moves swiftly with focused oversight hearings. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, have both requested EPA documents and communications related to Johnson's decision. EPA's general counsel has instructed agency personnel to provide said material, including any evidence of communications with the White House, according to the Associated Press.

Although congressional attention will alter policy, identifying who is responsible for the denial of the California's request will allow the public to hold the culprits accountable.