The EPA today has gone overboard.  The EPA tells consumers what kind of light bulbs, toilets, or cars they can use.  The EPA can do this because they have no competition and no reason or incentive to serve the interests of the people.  The EPA has little financial incentive, therefore they have little disincentive from regulating solutions that don't actually work or make economic sense.

Laws that make the air breathable and water drinkable are great. While the majority of EPA regulations are well meaning and help preserve the environment, the question needs to be asked: are these regulations the best way to achieve the shared (between the EPA and environment CRA's) goal of a better environment? 

For example with Solyndra, the EPA gave incentives and pushed Solyndra solar technology even though it had serious technical issue and was impractically expensive.  With environmental competitive regulatory agencies (CRA's), the free market would be allowed to pick the best technologies.  Without government subsidies to unsuccessfully methods, technology that actually works would be allowed to thrive.  After all, every dollar spent on the wrong technology is a dollar not being spent on the good technology.  

Another real world example is the BP oil spill. This was caused by the failure of government regulations. First, unwise regulations led to the Deepwater Horizon rig being built forty-one miles off the coast where they had to drill the world's deepest oil well at over 35,000 feet. Secondly, because of the government monopoly on regulation inspections the oil rig fell by the wayside and the safety of the rig suffered. 

The lax inspection led to an accident and because of the depth of the oil well, it was almost impossible to fix the accident.  If instead, the company was able to work with CRA's to build an oil well closer to shore, then any accidents would have been easier to fix or a CRA could have prevented the accident all together by providing regular and robust inspections. 

The more risky, deeper wells would have been rated lower and thus discouraged or if below the rating floor, prevented.  The Deepwater Horizon explosion resulted not just in a massive oil spill but of the death of eleven workers.  This is a great example showing how worker safety CRA's and environmental CRA's will work together.  Competitive Regulatory Agencies would be involved with the safety of those workers.

  If an accident did ever happen then a CRA could be involved in the cleanup, by working with the company responsible.  CRA's would be able to coordinate quickly, without the politically motivated efforts which characterized the actual response to the BP oil spill.  After all, unlike the politicians who look to political considerations, CRA's are motivated by the fact that they can be replaced  instantly and could lose members if their ratings drop. 

Ethanol provides us with a perfect example of why we need CRA's.  While using the same facts (not that we always will), different people will give a lot more weight to some issues and others might look at different issues.  Conservatives look at the fuel used in producing ethanol and see greater pollution. 

They look at greater land and fertilizer use for ethanol and see a worse environment.  They look at food being converted to fuel and see rising prices, thus more hunger in the third world.  They look at greater damage to engines and lower MPG with ethanol. Liberals like the sound of the phrase “renewable energy” and thus give it high ratings.