Since 2010, EPA Officials Have Accepted $4.5 Million In Travel, Meals, Lodging From Industries

[hatrack]

In June 2012, Chesapeake Energy Corp. led more than a dozen U.S. EPA officials on a tour of its hydraulic fracturing operations near Sayre, PA. Fracking, and how the federal government regulates it, is of great concern to Chesapeake. The energy company spent $1.8 million on lobbying that year -- including lobbying EPA on its hydraulic fracturing study looking into potential impacts on drinking water, according to disclosure records on file with the Senate.

The Chesapeake excursion is among thousands of trips that EPA officials -- including top brass -- have taken on someone else's dime since 2010, according to trip reports obtained by Greenwire. Overall, EPA has accepted more than $4.5 million to pay for hotels, meals, travel and other benefits from outside groups over the past four years.

Corporations, industry associations, nonprofits, foreign governments and others with a stake in EPA's rules -- including groups with registered lobbyists -- regularly pay for EPA official travel, according to reports the agency has filed with the Office of Government Ethics. EPA has reported accepting 3,369 trips that have had some if not all private funding for employees to take tours, attend conferences and meetings, conduct training sessions, and update outsiders on the agency's research and policies since 2010.

In the Chesapeake case, about 13 EPA officials went on the tour of fracking sites to learn more about the process, according to an agency official. The company provided transportation from a central office in Sayre out to nearby well sites. That was noted as "local transportation" on the trip reports with Chesapeake spending $1,250 overall to ferry the officials to the sites.

EDIT

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060000079

[drm604]

1. K&R

[Scuba]

2. Not the change I hoped for.

[pscot]

3. some people get unlmited beer and travel money

other just get tombstoned.

[hatrack]

4. *SNORT*

[CreekDog]

5. Hatrack, why did you change the title of the story?

in a misleading and inaccurate way?

the article explains that the 4.5 million was from outside groups.

you changed the headline to read that it was all from industries. why would you do that?

Outside groups shelled out $4.5M for agency officials' travel
Kevin Bogardus and Robin Bravender, E&E reporters
Greenwire: Thursday, May 22, 2014

...

Overall, EPA has accepted more than $4.5 million to pay for hotels, meals, travel and other benefits from outside groups over the past four years.

Corporations, industry associations, nonprofits, foreign governments and others with a stake in EPA's rules -- including groups with registered lobbyists -- regularly pay for EPA official travel, according to reports the agency has filed with the Office of Government Ethics. EPA has reported accepting 3,369 trips that have had some if not all private funding for employees to take tours, attend conferences and meetings, conduct training sessions, and update outsiders on the agency's research and policies since 2010.

[Nihil]

6. I'll let him answer but did you really think that the change is "misleading and inaccurate"?

The actual list given is
"Corporations, industry associations, nonprofits, foreign governments and others with
a stake in EPA's rules -- including groups with registered lobbyists"

"Corporations" = industries
"Industry associations" = industries
"Nonprofits" includes industries & political bodies (not exclusively by any means but still partial)
"Foreign governments" = acting on behalf of foreign industries
"Others with a stake in EPA's rules including groups with registered lobbyists" again includes industry bodies

Abbreviating that lot to "industries" is perfectly accurate and not at all misleading.

Did something strike a nerve?