Federal environmental regulation in Alaska

---

This article does not contain the most recently published data on this subject. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.

---

---

This article does not contain the most recently published data on this subject. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.

---

Public Policy
State environmental policy
Environmental policy in the U.S.
Endangered species policy
Endangered species policy in the U.S.
Energy and environmental news
Environmental legislation Environment on the ballot Glossary of environmental terms Glossary of endangered species terms

Federal environmental regulation involves the implementation of federal environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is primarily responsible for enforcing federal air and water quality standards; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is primarily responsible for managing endangered species. State government agencies will often share enforcement responsibilities with the EPA on issues such as air pollution, water pollution, hazardous waste, and other environmental issues.

As of July 2015, Alaska had 17 federally protected species, 1,557 federally regulated drinking water systems, and 6 federally regulated waste sites (known as Superfund sites).

Legislation and regulation

Federal laws

Clean Air Act

The federal Clean Air Act requires each state to meet federal standards for air pollution. Under the act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency oversees national air quality standards aimed at limiting pollutants from chemical plants, steel mills, utilities, and industrial factories. Individual states can enact stricter air standards if they choose, though each state must adhere to the EPA's minimum pollution standards. States implement federal air standards through a state implementation plan (SIP), which must be approved by the EPA.

Clean Water Act

The federal Clean Water Act is meant to address and maintain the physical, chemical, and biological status of the waters of the United States. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates water pollution sources and provides financial assistance to states and municipalities for water quality programs.

According to research done by The New York Times using annual averages from 2004 to 2007, Alaska had 139 facilities that were regulated annually by the Clean Water Act. An average of 33.5 facilities violated the act annually from 2004 to 2007 in Alaska, and the EPA enforced the act an average of 6.9 times a year in the state. This information, published by the Times in 2009, was the most recent information on the subject as of October 2014.

The table below shows how Alaska compared to neighboring states in The New York Times study, including the number of regulated facilities, facility violations, and the annual average of enforcement actions against regulated facilities between 2004 and 2007.

New York Times Clean Water Act study, 2004-2007
State	Number of facilities regulated	Facility violations	Annual average enforcement actions
Alaska	139	33.5	6.9
Utah	119.8	53.5	3.3
Nevada	91.3	5.2	5.2
California	2161	579.5	142.5
Wyoming	1,627.50	6.30	27.00
Source: The New York Times, "Clean Water Act Violations: The Enforcement Record"

Endangered Species Act

The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 provides for the identification, listing, and protection of both threatened and endangered species and their habitats. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the law was designed to prevent the extinction of vulnerable plant and animal species through the development of recovery plans and the protection of critical habitats. ESA administration and enforcement are the responsibility of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Federally listed species in Alaska

There were 18 endangered and threatened animal and plant species believed to or known to occur in Alaska as of July 2015 as listed by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). There is a discrepancy between the species listed by the FWS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), however. The FWS had not listed the North Pacific right whale as endangered as of July 2015, but both NOAA and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game have listed the whale as endangered. The North Pacific right whale is included in the table below, bringing the total of endangered animal species to 17 species.

The table below lists the endangered and threatened animal species believed to or known to occur in the state. When an animal species has the word "Entire" after its name, that species will be found all throughout the state.

Endangered animal species in Alaska
Status	Species
Endangered	Albatross, short-tailed Entire (Phoebastria (=Diomedea) albatrus)
Threatened	Bear, polar Entire (Ursus maritimus)
Threatened	Bison, wood Entire (Bison bison athabascae)
Endangered	Curlew, Eskimo Entire (Numenius borealis)
Threatened	Eider, spectacled Entire (Somateria fischeri)
Threatened	Eider, Steller's AK breeding pop. (Polysticta stelleri)
Threatened	Otter, Northern Sea Southwest Alaska DPS (Enhydra lutris kenyoni)
Endangered	Sea lion, Steller Western DPS (Eumetopias jubatus)
Endangered	Sea turtle, leatherback Entire (Dermochelys coriacea)
Threatened	sturgeon, green Southern DPS (Acipenser medirostris)
Endangered	Whale, beluga Cook Inlet DPS (Delphinapterus leucas)
Endangered	Whale, blue Entire (Balaenoptera musculus)
Endangered	Whale, bowhead Entire (Balaena mysticetus)
Endangered	Whale, finback Entire (Balaenoptera physalus)
Endangered	Whale, humpback Entire (Megaptera novaeangliae)
Endangered	Whale, North Pacific right* (Eubalaena japonica)
Endangered	Whale, sperm Entire (Physeter catodon (=macrocephalus))
*As of July 2015, the North Pacific right whale was listed on NOAA's website, but not the FWS website. Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Endangered and threatened species in Alaska" National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "North Pacific Right Whale (Eubalaena japonica)"

The table below lists the one endangered plant species believed to or known to occur in the state.

Endangered plant species in Alaska
Status	Species
Endangered	Fern, Aleutian shield (Polystichum aleuticum)
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Endangered and threatened species in Alaska"

State listed species in Alaska

An adult blue whale

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game maintains a state list of endangered species. Species are considered endangered under Alaska law if their numbers have dwindled to the extent that "its continued existence is threatened." As of July 2015, the Alaska Endangered Species List includes two birds (the Eskimo Curlew and short-tailed Albatross) and three marine mammals (humpback whales, blue whales and right whales). These species are also listed as endangered on the federal Endangered Species List. Under Alaska law, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game preserves the habitats of all endangered fish or wildlife species in Alaska.

Enforcement

See also: Enforcement at the EPA

Alaska is part of the EPA's Region 10, which includes Oregon, Washington and Idaho.

The EPA enforces federal standards on air, water and hazardous chemicals. The EPA can engage in its own administrative action against private industries, or it can bring civil and/or criminal lawsuits against them. The goal of environmental law enforcement is usually the collection of penalties and fines for violations of laws like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. In 2013, the EPA estimated that 31.9 million pounds of pollution, which includes air pollution, water contaminants, and hazardous chemicals, were "reduced, treated or eliminated" and 45.8 million cubic yards of soil and water were cleaned in Region 10. Additionally, 174 enforcement cases were initiated, and 177 enforcement cases were concluded in fiscal year 2013. In fiscal year 2012, the EPA collected $252 million in criminal fines and civil penalties from the private sector nationwide. In fiscal year 2013, the EPA collected $1.1 billion in criminal fines and civil penalties from the private sector nationwide, primarily due to the $1 billion settlement from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill along the Gulf Coast in 2010. The EPA only publishes nationwide data and does not provide state or region-specific information on the amount of fines and penalties it collects during a fiscal year.

Mercury and air toxics standards

See also: Mercury and air toxics standards

The EPA on mercury capture systems

The EPA enforces mercury and air toxics standards (MATS), which are national limits on mercury, chromium, nickel, arsenic and acidic gases from coal- and oil-fired power plants. Power plants are required to have certain technologies to limit these pollutants. In December 2011, the EPA issued greater restrictions on the amount of mercury and other toxic pollutants produced by power plants. As of 2014, approximately 580 power plants, including 1,400 oil- and coal-fired electric-generating units, fell under the federal rule. The EPA has claimed that power plants account for 50 percent of mercury emissions, 75 percent of acidic gases and around 20 to 60 percent of toxic metal emissions in the United States. All coal- and oil-fired power plants with a capacity of 25 megawatts or greater are subject to the standards.

In 2014, the EPA released a study examining the economic, environmental, and health impacts of the MATS standards nationwide. Other organizations have released their own analyses about the effects of the MATS standards. Below is a summary of the studies on MATS and their effects as of November 2014.

EPA study
In 2014, the EPA reported that its MATS rule would prevent roughly 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 asthma attacks nationwide. The agency also anticipated between $37 billion and $90 billion in "improved air quality benefits" annually. For the rule's cost, the EPA estimated that annual compliance fees for coal- and oil-fired power plants would reach $9.6 billion.

NERA study
A 2012 study published by NERA Economic Consulting, a global consultancy group, reported that annual compliance costs in the electricity sector would total $10 billion in 2015 and nearly $100 billion cumulatively up through 2034. The same study found that the net impact of the MATS rule in 2015 would be the income equivalent of 180,000 fewer jobs. This net impact took into account the job gains associated with the building and refitting of power plants with new technology.

Superfund sites

The EPA established the Superfund program as part of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980.The Superfund program focuses on uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites nationwide. The EPA inspects waste sites and establishes cleanup plans for them. The federal government can compel the private entities responsible for a waste site to clean the site or face penalties. If the federal government cleans a waste site, it can force the responsible party to reimburse the EPA or other federal agencies for the cleanup's cost. Superfund sites include oil refineries, smelting facilities, mines and other industrial areas. As of October 2014, there were 1,322 Superfund sites nationwide. A total of 75 Superfund sites reside in Region 10, with an average of 18.75 sites per state. There were six Superfund sites in Alaska as of October 2014.

Economic impact

EPA studies
The Environmental Protection Agency publishes studies to evaluate the impact and benefits of its policies. Other studies may dispute the agency's findings or state the costs of its policies.

According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), an independent federal agency, the Superfund program received an average of almost $1.2 billion annually in appropriated funds between the years 1981 and 2009, adjusted for inflation. The GAO estimated that the trust fund of the Superfund program decreased from $5 billion in 1997 to $137 million in 2009. The Superfund program received an additional $600 million in federal funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, also known as the stimulus bill.

In March 2011, the EPA claimed that the agency's Superfund program produced economic benefits nationwide. Because Superfund sites are added and removed from a prioritized list on a regular basis, the total number of Superfund sites since the program's inception in 1980 is unknown. Based on a selective study of 373 Superfund sites cleaned up since the program's inception, the EPA estimated these economic benefits include the creation of 2,240 private businesses, $32.6 billion in annual sales from new businesses, 70,144 jobs and $4.9 billion in annual employment income.

Other studies were published detailing the costs associated with the Superfund program. According to the Property and Environment Research Center, a free market-oriented policy group based in Montana, the EPA spent over $35 billion on the Superfund program between 1980 and 2005.

Environmental impact

In a March 2011 study, the EPA claimed that the Superfund program results in healthier environments surrounding former waste sites. The study analyzed the program's health and ecological benefits and focused on former landfills, mining areas and abandoned dumps that were cleaned up and renovated. As of January 2009, out of the approximately 500 former Superfund sites used for the study, roughly 10 percent became recreational or commercial sites. Other former Superfund sites in the study became wetlands, meadows, streams, scenic trails, parks, and habitats for plants and animals.

Carbon emissions

See also: Climate change, Greenhouse gas and Greenhouse gas emissions by state

In 2011, Alaska ranked 38th in CO₂ emissions. Alaska's emissions have steadily risen between 1990 and 2005, when the state's emissions peaked at 48 million metric tons of CO₂. Beginning in 2005, Alaska’s emissions declined steadily before reaching 38 million metric tons of CO₂ in 2011. A plurality (44 percent) of the state's emissions came from the industrial sector while 36.4 percent of emissions were from the transportation sector. The residential, electric power and commercial sectors accounted for the remainder.

Carbon dioxide emissions in Alaska (in million metric tons). Data was compiled by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Carbon dioxide emissions in Alaska by sector

Environmental policy in the 50 states

Click on a state below to read more about that state's energy policy.

Choose your state...AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWashington, D.C.West VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

http://ballotpedia.org/Environmental_policy_in_STATE

See also

• 

  Environmental policy in the U.S.

• 

  Energy policy in the U.S.

• 

  Endangered species policy

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox