100 likes | 225 Views
What Ever Happened to Project XL ?. The Importance of Evaluation and Analysis to Followup on Experimental Projects George Frantz, EPA New England Innovation/Experimental Projects. In the Beginning… . Project XL - 1995 to 2003 designed to test regulatory innovation
E N D
What Ever Happened to Project XL ? The Importance of Evaluation and Analysis to Followup on Experimental Projects George Frantz, EPA New England Innovation/Experimental Projects
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 Evaluating ProjectXL - G. Frantz
XL - Underway • Carol Browner promised 50 projects • commitment to Congress translated to high priority at HQ and in the Regions • In regular calls with RA’s, Administrator would ask for XL progress report • highlighted progress, barriers • 51 XL projects running by Oct ‘02 • 8 projects in New England Evaluating ProjectXL - G. Frantz
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 Evaluating ProjectXL - G. Frantz
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 • what’s the likely impact? Evaluating ProjectXL - G. Frantz
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 Evaluating ProjectXL - G. Frantz
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 Evaluating ProjectXL - G. Frantz
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 Evaluating ProjectXL - G. Frantz
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 Evaluating ProjectXL - G. Frantz
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@epa.gov Evaluating ProjectXL - G. Frantz