EPA Thumbs Nose at Climate Leaders Program, Corporations

Read the amazing report below from Paul Baier, Vice President of Consulting for Groom Energy Solutions, regarding how the U.S. EPA not only cancelled its acclaimed Climate Leaders Program without explanation but also butchered how it handled the situation.  One wonders what EPA has in mind.  With an increasingly conservative Congress successfully stifling legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, working proactively with more enlightened corporations through incentives and market-driven approaches seemed like an intelligent approach.  What's next, EPA?

I can't paraphrase better than Baier's original prose so I won't.  I'll add one word only: Disgraceful.  Here is the report from Paul Baier:

Dear Colleague,

 Notes from a Stunning EPA Climate Leaders Meeting

The EPA having just unexpectedly cancelled its voluntary carbon reporting program a few weeks ago, held its annual (and last) Climate Leaders meeting this week in New Orleans. Originally scheduled to be a 2.5 day event, it was hastily shortened to 2 half-days. Here are a few of my observations from the meeting.

It is very clear that the EPA has no interest in receiving input on its decision to cancel the program. It appears that the EPA has decided to change how they wish to engage large companies in voluntary programs going forward.  The transition process to sunset Climate Leaders seemed rushed and amateurish. Some specifics of the program wind-down include:

- The EPA Climate Leaders website and brand logo will be retired in September 2011.

- The transition for existing companies has not been clearly worked out.

- The EPA plans to issue an RFP later this year looking for an NGO that could replace part of the program. Specifics of the RFP have not yet been finalized.

Program participants are justifiably at odds with the EPA. During the Q & A session, many companies, including SC Johnson, DuPont, Merck, Ingersoll Rand and UPS, publicly expressed disappointment and frustration. Private conversations were even more heated. No one spoke publicly in support of the EPA's decision or the wind-down "process". 

Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, was blunt and unrelenting: "Our relationship with you [corporations] must change."

The EPA has not given clear answers on the reasons behind the program's termination. McCarthy said at one point it was budget, but then said later she and the EPA have plenty of budget for programs that have high impact, implying that this one did not. She left after her talk and some Q&A.

A few of the many issues and questions that were raised are:

- NGOs are not a replacement for the credibility that comes with an EPA program.

- What happens with publicly stated goals? Who will recognize the goals?

- How do we message this transition internally? Companies currently don't have good messaging, especially since the reasons for the program termination are so vague.

- Loss of face and credibility internally for companies. Many sustainability leaders justified budget requests in anticipation of public recognition for meeting GHG reduction goals. This no longer seems to be the case

- Mandatory reporting requirements are different than voluntary reporting. Many invested in voluntary reporting to reduce future mandatory reporting costs.

Companies feel burnt. Companies were burnt.

I think the EPA could have done a variety of things to help ease the transition, including allowing existing program members to use the EPA Climate Leaders logo for the next five years as they achieve their reduction goals, increasing service fees for the technical consulting, and providing more time on the transition.

It seemed very obvious to me, from McCarthy's blunt comments to the absolutely deflated EPA Climate Leaders program team sitting on the dais after McCarthy left, that the EPA has zero interest in maintaining a partner relationship or even a working relationship with large companies.

Executives from SC Johnson, Merck, and Cummings were very articulate in their feedback. One company said they traveled to the conference in the hope of sharing ideas on how to keep the program going, but this was not an option.

Everyone, including the EPA, agrees that the program was very successful for the last eight years. Many also agree that the EPA decision is baffling, especially when you consider President Obama public support of green jobs and recent decision to install solar panels back on the White House.

The EPA now has a very different approach to how it wants to work with businesses.

Buyer beware when participating in future voluntary EPA programs.