The Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman is the lone unaccounted-for vote in a commission decision over the Energy Department's authority to withdraw its license application for a waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev.

Chairman Gregory Jaczko has failed to respond to a question from Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, about if and when the NRC commissioners voted to uphold a lower board's ruling in June that only Congress has the authority to withdraw the DOE Yucca license application (Greenwire, Nov. 2).

Inhofe requested responses by Friday. Three of the four commissioners sent their responses last week. Democratic Commissioner George Apostolakis has recused himself from the case because of previous work on the license.

What is harm? For that matter, what is “irreparable harm”? In an economic sense, one would think unemployment, production cutbacks, or even bankruptcy would qualify. Not according to EPA.

The issue is more than academic. It is now before the DC Circuit. Recently, industry and the state of Texas moved to block implementation of EPA’s rules while the court determines their legality. This “stay motion” can succeed only if petitioners demonstrate, among other things, “irreparable harm” from EPA’s rules. In its reply brief, EPA offered a curious definition of what that means.

“Economic loss,” EPA pronounced, “does not constitute irreparable harm” (emphasis in the original). As proof, EPA cites Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC. In that case, the court ruled: “Mere injuries, however substantial, in terms of money, time, and energy necessarily expended in the absence of a stay are not enough.” So what is irreparable harm? The court explained: “[r]ecoverable monetary loss may constitute irreparable harm only where the loss threatens the very existence of the movant’s business” (emphasis added). In other words, don’t complain to us unless your business faces extinction. No harm, no foul.

The biggest environmental battle of the year isn't necessarily the most obvious.

Behind the scenes in the halls of Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency, industry lobbyists and lawmakers are working feverishly to water down rules aimed at slashing cancer-causing pollution and other toxic emissions.

The EPA says 5,000 premature deaths and 36,000 asthma attacks could be prevented annually by regulating emissions from boilers that provide power or heat to facilities such as oil refineries, paper mills and shopping malls.

The fight hasn't been as high profile as the battles over the Obama administration's climate regulations or ozone standards, but some environmentalists and industry lobbyists say it's just as significant.

LA Times: EPA's Ethanol Decision Sparks Controversy - But there are many out there who don't see much "green" in ethanol that comes from corn. They note that burning E-15, as the new mix is called, can increase emission of some pollutants. And it can convert land better used for carbon absorption into industrialized agriculture, which consumes fossil fuels. Among the first to blast EPA was a coalition of agricultural interests, including the American Meat Institute; the Grocery Manufacturers Assn.; the National Council of Chain Restaurants; the National Chicken Council; the American Frozen Food Institute; the American Bakers Assn.; the National Meat Assn. and the National Turkey Federation: E15 - which would be a 50 percent increase from the currently permitted level of 10 percent ethanol in gasoline - will result in dramatic increases in the portion of the U.S. corn crop used to make fuel rather than food and, when fully implemented, could result in more than 40 percent of the nation's corn crop being diverted to ethanol production. The corn ethanol industry has received over $30 billion in federal subsidies over the last three decades.