What Ever Happened to Project XL ?

1
What Ever Happened to Project XL ?

• The Importance of Evaluation and Analysis to
  Followup on Experimental Projects
• George Frantz, EPA New England Innovation/Experime
  ntal Projects

2
In the Beginning

• Project XL - 1995 to 2003
• designed to test regulatory innovation
• required superior environmental performance
• measured cost effectiveness
• transferability highly valued
• success in project said to lead to review of
  national rule

3
XL - Underway

• Carol Browner promised 50 projects
• commitment to Congress translated to high
  priority at HQ and in the Regions
• In regular calls with RAs, Administrator would
  ask for XL progress report
• highlighted progress, barriers
• 51 XL projects running by Oct 02
• 8 projects in New England

4
N.E. States Projects

• 8 projects in New England
• HADCO - closed out April 04
• MA ERP - spawned new generation of flexible
  regulation
• New England University Labs - new labs rule in
  06
• IBM VT - Copper Metalization - finished in 04
• IP (Jay) Predictive Emissions Monitoring -
  finished 04
• IP (Jay) Effluent Improvement - finished 05
• Narragansett Bay Commission - casualty
• Lead Safe Boston - new nationwide Pb guidance

5
Definitions

• Reporting Results
• what happened during project?
• most all projects have this level of information
• Evaluation
• most rigorous study, looks at what happened, why,
  and factors affecting the outcome
• Analysis
• whats the likely impact?

6
Reporting, Evaluation Efforts

• Early reporting HQ driven
• 2001 Comprehensive report on all projects
• XL nameplate closed out Jan 03
• evaluation and analysis mostly up to regions
• some projects got close scrutiny
• ERP
• New England University Labs
• other projects under flexible permitting
  umbrella
• Formal critiques of XL program cite inadequate
  evaluation

7
Sharing Results

• Results and analysis
• results in project reports required by FPA
• not widely shared
• Only a handful of projects underwent systematic
  evaluation (ERP, Labs, Intel)
• resource intensive process
• agency moving to new programs
• Final XL report due early 2006
• Projects selected based on potential

8
Evaluation Worth the Effort?

• Evaluation made case for broader adoption
• MA ERP
• skepticism from regulatory agencies until
  thorough evaluation showed big improvement in
  compliance and environmental outcomes (now
  running in 15 states)
• New England Labs
• strong correlation between adoption of flexible
  Lab Management Plan and beyond-compliance
  performance
• helped drive and shape upcoming Academic Labs
  rule (proposed in 2006)
• States must adopt Federal rule to enable C/U
  implementation

9
Drive for Performance Measurement

• GPRA
• Government Performance Results Act (1993)
• Beginning of measurement efforts
• Act required report to Congress by 1997
• Showed improvement, more work needed
• PART
• Program Assessment Rating Tool
• Comes from OMB, promotes administration goals
• Failure to demonstrate effectiveness cut budget

10
Where to Find Results

• http//www.epa.gov/ProjectXL/
• http//www.epa.gov/evaluate/
• http//www.epa.gov/innovation/aboutncei.htm
• For information frantz.george_at_epa.gov