NEPPS was created five years ago and grew out of an awareness that federal and state government could be more effective if they cooperated as equal partners in planning, implementing and reporting environmental protection. The States and EPA believed that they could be more efficient if priorities were determined jointly, and that any planned environmental work was based upon an agreed set of goals. The States directly implement most environmental laws and often have a better understanding of what is needed to effect environmental improvement. This demands flexibility to respond to local circumstances so that environmental problems can be addressed quickly and effectively. As a final component of the NEPPS concept, ECOS and EPA wanted to reduce the data reporting burden by improving and streamlining how information is gathered and reported from the States to EPA.
NEPPS agreements are called PPAs, Performance Partnership Agreements. In New Hampshire, for instance, we just signed a two-year PPA with the EPA-New England. Our comprehensive agreement sets forth the goals, activities and measures of progress for a full range of federal and state programs, which represents a comprehensive plan for all of our agency's programs. I should mention that the full agreement is available to the public on our Department's website at www.des.state.nh.us. ECOS is linking its home page to many other state NEPPS agreements also available electronically.
To gauge how NEPPS is working, Congress has asked the National Academy of Public Administration to study that question and provide you an answer in approximately two months. I appreciate this opportunity to tell you why we think it is successful? To date, 38 States have PPAs under the system. Many of them have been accompanied by Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs) which allow some realignment of EPA funds so that limited resources can be allocated for the most pressing problems. There now is a cadre of experienced environmental professionals who have committed to the NEPPS process and whose work is dedicated to continually improving the system. As a result of the third national meeting in Baltimore, Maryland, last fall, ECOS and EPA have re-committed to improving the NEPPS process through renewed emphasis on improving how the agreements are forged and how they are carried out. The commitment we have to NEPPS was renewed by the adoption of ECOS Resolution 00-5, at our national meeting on April 12, 2000. I have attached a copy of the resolution to this testimony.
Regulatory Innovation Program
I would like to now talk about another cooperative State/EPA program which was designed to stimulate innovative approaches to regulation. Here I distinguish "innovative approaches to regulation" from "technical innovation" which will be addressed by another witness. The States have been a well stream for inventiveness. In dealing with specific circumstances unique to a State location or problem, we are forced to develop innovative approaches. ECOS and EPA recognized that some of these innovations might be transferable to other locations with similar issues. In April 1998, ECOS and EPA signed a "Regulatory Innovation Agreement" to review and approve state proposals that exhibited such promise. In the words of the agreement itself, "this agreement presumes that EPA and the states will find ways to help good ideas succeed, and that joint EPA and state efforts to promote and test new ideas will result in the maximum benefit to the American people and their environment."
Texas was the first state to submit a project under the Innovations agreement. The Texas Natural Resource & Conservation Commission (TNRCC) wanted to extend the opacity certification period for all air inspectors from six months to two years. Measured opacity is a common test of air quality and a certain level of training and certification are required to ensure the validity of test results. Texas argued that opacity readings are not used often enough in enforcement actions to justify the hundreds of person-days lost for training and certification each year. TNRCC and EPA agreed to reduce the number of opacity certified inspectors from approximately 100 to 50 each year, thus freeing up 75 more person-days to do facility inspections. This innovative trade-off is now transferable to other states wanting to explore the option.
This example demonstrates the goal of identifying innovative approaches to make available faster, cheaper, better approaches to environmental protection. It is especially useful when, as in this instance, the approach can be tailored by other States to meet their needs.
Last month at the ECOS Spring Meeting, EPA reported that five state proposals have been submitted and four have been approved. Five additional proposals were recently received for review and another two are expected in early May. It is evident that the Agreement is proving to be a useful tool, but there is much innovation occurring independently of the agreement as well.
I have provided for the Committee's use several other ECOS publications describing myriad State innovations. These innovative approaches demonstrate what can be accomplished when States work in partnership with each other and with the USEPA, and when we strive to develop innovative approaches.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee this morning and to tell part of the story of the States. I would be pleased to answer any questions I may have raised in my remarks.