In early February, President Joe Biden appointed David Cash to lead New England’s arm of the federal Environmental Protection Agency.
As EPA regional administrator for Region 1, which encompasses Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and 10 tribal nations, Cash fills a role that hadn’t been permanently assigned for more than a year.
The EPA’s assignment is to protect human health and the environment, including regulating and funding programs related to clean water, clean air, hazardous waste and reducing toxic pollution. The Biden administration has also pushed to expand programs that address climate change.
Cash comes to the position from the University of Massachusetts, Boston, where he was dean of the John W. McCormack Graduate School of Policy and Global Studies. He has also been the commissioner of two departments within Massachusetts state government: the Department of Public Utilities and the Department of Environmental Protection.
He holds a Ph.D. in public policy from John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and formerly taught middle school and high school science classes. He chatted with VTDigger for a Q&A on Thursday.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
VTDigger: For those Vermonters who aren’t familiar, what does an EPA regional administrator do? What is your general role?
David Cash: My job is essentially to oversee this regional work, and to implement these environmental laws and the policies in New England, and to coordinate and emphasize the priorities of the Biden-Harris administration and those of Administrator Michael Regan.
You can think of those priorities in a couple of ways. One is the bedrock of protecting human health and the environment. This administration is also focusing on climate change and environmental justice and assuring that those issues are integrated into everything we do. And then last — and this is a big deal — and that’s assuring that the investments from the bipartisan infrastructure bill are made quickly and efficiently, that they target problems so we get the biggest bang for our buck, and so that environment-related infrastructure can be deployed.
These are kind of amazing numbers. We’re talking about, in New England alone this year, $536 million, (including) $63 million coming to Vermont. These are for upgrades for wastewater treatment plants, for replacement of lead pipes for drinking water, to prepare these wastewater treatment plants for climate change impacts.
For example, Vermont suffered during (Tropical Storm) Irene. A lot of infrastructure was damaged during Irene. We’re going to see more Irenes in the future — there’s no question about that. And so we want to make these targeted, strategic investments so that states like Vermont don’t have to deal with the kind of impacts of climate change.
A lot of this funding is coming — in addition to that $63 million — to replace, for example, old school buses, or retrofitting school buses, to clean up their emissions. If we go back to what our role is, it’s so that kids don’t have to stand on a street corner and, when the school bus arrives, be breathing in diesel emissions.
VTD: What does your day-to-day look like?
DC: There is no typical day for me. My activities on any day are chock-full of things like coordinating and meeting members of Congress. I’ll be meeting regularly with state environmental agency heads from each of the six states, and I meet regularly with the tribal leaders as well throughout the region. Right now, I’m on a steep learning curve, and I receive briefings throughout the week on our bread-and-butter projects and regulatory authority. And of course, those briefings can involve decision-making, too — a complicated permit coming up, or how do we structure certain kinds of investments — those kinds of things, where I would weigh in.
VTD: Vermont’s Global Warming Solutions Act requires the state to reduce its emissions by set amounts by 2025, 2030 and 2050. How can the EPA support the state in that mission? How does the state law align with federal initiatives?
DC: Given our work on the Clean Air Act, as we regulate power plants, et cetera, as power plants get more efficient, they’re going to emit fewer greenhouse gasses, so that’s one big way. In Vermont, transportation and residential and commercial fuel use are a big chunk — 39% for transportation, 31% for residential and commercial vehicles. In these areas, the investments in the bipartisan infrastructure law, in terms of replacing existing school buses, for example, is one way that we’re taking that on.
On a national level, we have been working on a raft of car and truck regulations that are going to require greater efficiency in the fleets as the fleets turn over. That’s going to have a very big impact on the transportation sector. In the residential and commercial and industrial fuel sector, EPA is part of the Energy Star program, which supports Vermont’s goals through a variety of technical assistance efforts on energy efficiency.
VTD: Some New England states are behind in meeting their climate targets and requirements. Will states need to continue to do this work individually, or is a more comprehensive plan for the region or country coming?
DC: There’s a Supreme Court case pending right now. Once that case is decided, which I believe will be in June, that will determine the paths that the EPA, nationally and regionally, can go down to address this. There’s no question that for the Biden-Harris administration, figuring out a way to support the regions and states and their reduction goals is a high priority.
VTD: What role does the EPA play in ensuring everyone is protected from environmental harms and has access to environmental benefits? Can you walk through the Biden administration’s environmental justice policy and how it applies to the Northeast?
DC: My first day of work, back in February, happened to be the night that administrator (Michael) Regan was on “The Daily Show” with Trevor Noah. He said everything the EPA does needs to be through the lens of environmental justice, whether it’s contracting, procurement, air quality, water quality, land management — it all starts with protecting those who have been the most vulnerable.
So, why is that so important? You just have to look at the data. It’s irrefutable. Black children in America currently face asthma rates twice as high as white children. More than one in four Black and Hispanic Americans live within 3 miles of a Superfund site. More than 2,600 fossil-fuel-fired plants — that’s 73% of that fleet — are in communities of color or low-income communities. In the administrator’s mind, in the president’s mind, this is something that we should be focusing on.
There’s greater and greater concerns about lead pipes, and those are found in a greater proportion in low-income communities. We just finished a New England and nationwide lead listening session. This was one of 10 virtual listening sessions held all across the country to provide a platform for communities and individuals to talk about how lead contamination exists in their community, and their ideas about what should be done about it. A large part of the bipartisan infrastructure law funding is going to go to the removal of and replacement of lead pipes.
One of my roles is to work closely with staff to figure out how we can infuse environmental justice principles into everything that they do. This is all connected to the president’s Justice40 initiative, where the goal was to invest 40% of these kinds of investments in disadvantaged communities.
VTD: PFAS contamination has hit some Northeastern communities, including Bennington, Vermont, very hard. I understand the EPA is working toward more robust study and regulation of the chemical class. Can you give us an update on those efforts?
DC: PFAS is a huge concern. I would say it’s in the top two agenda items of every meeting I have when I have visited the states. And Vermont has been ahead in trying to understand and monitor PFAS. In the fall, we just finished a comprehensive national strategy, and there are a couple of pieces to it. It includes a national testing strategy that ultimately will force PFAS manufacturers to disclose how toxic the chemicals really are, an investment in research and development and innovation to increase our understanding of how PFAS harms people and the environment. We certainly need to have a much better science-based understanding of the pathways and the impacts, and the potential solutions.
And EPA is working on establishing a national drinking water regulation. I know that many states, including Vermont, have moved forward with those kinds of standards, but that’s something that we’re going to try to do under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and moving forward to designate PFAS as a hazardous substance under the Superfund law.
This is front-of-mind, high priority, and the strategy is definitely going to help us move forward, again, in tandem with our states.
VTD: The Conservation Law Foundation recently asked the EPA to correct flaws in Vermont’s implementation of the Clean Water Act, claiming disputes between the Agency of Agriculture and Agency of Natural Resources are preventing progress. How can we make forward progress in this area?
DC: During my first or second week, I traveled up to Burlington and held an event with (U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.) about $40 million — in addition to the $63 million — of the bipartisan infrastructure law, coming to assist in the cleanup of Lake Champlain.
We work hand-in-hand with the states on the implementation of the Clean Water Act. We know that Vermont, like every state, has its own set of challenges. Obviously, working with municipalities in the agricultural sector is really important to figure out how we can get to meet some of the standards that have been put forward, for example, in Lake Champlain, to reduce nutrients. That’s something that we’ve been very successful with, working with Vermont and the agricultural sector and municipalities on. We’re continuing to be committed to working hand in hand with our states on that.
In terms of the Conservation Law Foundation suit, we’re still reviewing it. There’s no question we’ll sit down with the petitioner; we’ll sit down with the Vermont agencies and multiple stakeholders as we try to understand what it’s about and how to respond to it as best we can. It’s pretty early in that process.
VTD: You’ve been both a teacher and a professor. Has your education background shaped the way you think about environmental policy?
DC: My educational background has absolutely shaped how I approach this. Partly, it has to do with the importance of science. We’re essentially a science-based organization, and wise environmental policy has to be rooted in evidence and in science. It’s a delight to be working in an agency where that’s so fundamental.
One of the same things that drove me to be a teacher really drives this priority of engaging with the public with these issues. On the one hand, there’s this story that’s very important to tell of the importance of environmental protection, the story of turning on your tap and not being worried. The story that moving to a more sustainable environment will mean more green jobs. Those are really important stories to tell.
But it’s also really important to understand how to communicate risk and how to communicate the things that make people nervous, and to honor that. I’ve been to many, many public hearings in my public life where parents stand up and express concerns for the health of their kids. We have to be really good at communicating what risks there are, which risks are real, how we reduce those risks, and the role that we can play — as a federal government, state government and municipal government, as individuals — in reducing those kinds of risks.
All of that, I feel like, at core, goes back to both my teaching middle school and high school students.
