Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 5/26
-
(ACC Mentioned) DuPont, Dow Getting What They Asked For: Tougher EPA Oversight
May 25, 2016 | Bloomberg Politics
By Mark Drajem and Jack Kaskey
Congress is about to send President Barack Obama the biggest overhaul of rules governing chemicals in four decades, a change sought by an industry that has faced a hodgepodge of retailer bans, consumer boycotts and state regulations. -
(ACC Mentioned) Environmental Groups Criticize Revisions to Toxics-Control Act
May 25, 2016 | The Seattle Times
By Lynda V. Mapes
Reform to the nation’s oldest toxic-substance control law is a step backward for Washington, state environmental policy experts say. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Getting Authority to Review Chemicals for Safety
May 25, 2016 | Marketplace
By Ashley Milne-Tyte
U.S. lawmakers really don't like each other. And when you take that into account, they pulled off quite a feat Tuesday. By a vote of 403 to 12, the House agreed on a bill that for the first time in 40 years updates the rules on chemical safety. -
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Bag Fee Needed to Wake Up Shoppers
May 25, 2016 | Sentinel-Tribune
By Thomas Klein
Athens, Ohio’s coming plastic bag fee is a wake-up call to all consumers who take the easy way, ignorant of the world-wide plastic bag pandemic. -
Senate Aims for Unanimous Consent on TSCA Overhaul Bill
May 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Senate had not reached an agreement the afternoon of May 25 as to whether it would move by unanimous consent legislation to overhaul the nation's primary chemicals law. -
Congress is About to Do Something That Will Regulate Products You Use Every Day
May 25, 2016 | The Los Angeles Times
By Sarah D. Wire
The Environmental Protection Agency will have to review the safety of thousands of chemicals — many commonly found in items Americans interact with every day — under legislation Congress is expected to pass this week. -
Congress Moves to Revamp Toxic Chemical Law
May 25, 2016 | Reuters
By Richard Cowan
Legislation with bipartisan support that would revamp U.S. chemical safety law for the first time in decades is advancing in Congress, winning overwhelming passage in the House of Representatives as backers sought quick Senate action. -
Gibson Applauds Passage Of Bill That Would Increase Oversight Of Commercial Chemicals
May 25, 2016 | WAMC
By Lucas Willard
Congress has passed a bill that would institute more rigorous oversight of industrial chemicals. -
IRIS Program's 'High Risk' Status Prompts Investigation
May 25, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA's influential risk analysis program remains on the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) “high risk” list for waste, fraud and abuse, according to a new progress report on the list, and the program's inability to get off the list has spurred an ongoing investigation from the House science committee. -
House Clears Energy Bill Over Democrats' Objections
May 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The House voted May 25 to approve an 806-page amendment to a Senate-passed energy bill as the two chambers prepare to go to conference on what could be the first broad energy bill in nearly a decade. -
House Panel Approves Rider-Laden EPA Spending Bill
May 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
A House Appropriations subcommittee approved a $32.1 billion funding bill for fiscal year 2017 that would include nearly $8 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency along with riders prohibiting agency spending on several key regulations. -
House Signs Off on Big Energy Package Ahead of Talks with Senate
May 25, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
The House approved an 806-page amendment to the Senate's energy bill this afternoon that will serve as the chamber's opening hand in pending negotiations across the Capitol. -
House Votes Down Amendments to Energy and Water Spending Bill
May 25, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider and Darius Dixon
House lawmakers voted down six amendments to its energy and water spending package this afternoon. -
House Set to Pass Energy-Water Bill with Riders Intact
May 26, 2016 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink and Geof Koss
The House is on track to pass a $37.4 billion fiscal 2017 energy and water spending bill today, after adding contentious riders aimed at limiting the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal and addressing rights for LGBT individuals. -
House Moves Toward Conference Committee on Sweeping Energy Bill
May 25, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The House took a step Wednesday toward forming a conference committee on a wide-ranging energy bill. -
Conference Talks Get Off to Bumpy Start
May 26, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
The House voted yesterday to launch the first major energy conference in a decade over the objections of most Democrats, highlighting the rough road that lies ahead for negotiators. -
Advocates Push to Keep Senate Bill's Efficiency Provisions
May 25, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Christa Marshall
A coalition of businesses, associations and green groups today urged Congress to retain most of the efficiency language in a Senate energy bill ahead of conferees being named to hash out differences between the two chambers. -
AEP Grapples With Clean Power Plan Compliance Options
May 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Serving 5.4 million customers across 11 states, American Electric Power is still grappling with various scenarios for complying with the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan despite the rule being stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court. During a recent forum sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute, Scott Weaver, manager of strategy policy analysis at AEP, spoke about the difficulties the multistate company will face... -
White House to Push Companies for More Disclosure on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
May 25, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder and Bradley Olson
The White House is set to propose a new rule Wednesday that would push companies with federal contracts to publicly disclose more information about their impact on climate change, their efforts to address the issue, and how a warmer planet could affect business operations. -
Proposal Prods Federal Contractors on Carbon Footprints
May 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The Obama administration is proposing a new requirement designed to encourage oil refiners, airplane manufacturers and other companies doing business with the U.S. government to disclose their carbon footprint and what they're doing to shrink it. -
Obama to Ask Contractors for Information on Greenhouse Gas Disclosures
May 25, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Obama administration is preparing to ask federal contracts to disclose more information about how they track their greenhouse gas emissions. The White House’s Federal Acquisition Regulation Council proposed a new rule Wednesday that would ask federal government contractors to report on a host of greenhouse gas considerations. Contractors would be required to say whether — and where — they publicly disclose their greenhouse gas emissions, if they have emissions reduction goals or targets and how climate change might pose a threat to their operations. Officials filed the rule in the Federal Register on Wednesday, setting up a public comment period and finalization later this year. The rule means “we’ll be able to better assess supplier greenhouse gas management practices, manage direct and indirect greenhouse gas emission, address climate risk in the federal government’s supply chain and engage with contractors to reduce supply chain emissions,” three Obama officials, including Anne Rung, the Chief Acquisition Officer, wrote in an administration blog post. The officials noted some federal agencies have already asked their contractors for climate-related information. The Navy Department, for example, asked its 100 latest suppliers last month to disclose their emissions and plans for cutting them. Two years ago, the General Services Administration based contract decisions for domestic delivery services, in part, on emissions metrics. The proposed rule doesn’t ask contractors to report their emissions, but rather whether companies are tracking and disclosing them on their own. -
Republicans Roll Out Bills to Limit Funding for Regulations
May 26, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
Republican lawmakers on both sides of Capitol Hill have introduced legislation to limit the amount of money federal agencies spend on regulations. -
D.C. Appeals Court Set to Determine Fate of Several Obama Initiatives
May 25, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Brent Kendall
The Supreme Court may be keeping a lower profile while it is short-handed, but high-stakes cases remain in Washington—at a powerful appeals court that could determine the fate of several important Obama administration initiatives. -
Feds Spend Billions on Ancient Technology, Report Says
May 25, 2016 | AP
The government is spending about three-fourths of its technology budget maintaining aging computer systems, including platforms more than 50 years old in vital areas from nuclear weapons to Social Security. One still uses floppy disks. -
(ACC Mentioned) FM Alert: USGBC Launches New LEED Pilot Credit For Building Materials
May 25, 2016 | Facility Executive
Project teams and manufacturers will be encouraged to assess human health related exposure scenarios for products during their installation and use phases, thanks to USGBC’s new LEED pilot credit—Building Material Human Hazard & Exposure Assessment. -
California Carbon Market's Latest Auction Results Show Continued Resilience
May 25, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Erica Morehouse
The results of California and Quebec’s latest carbon auction show that an ongoing lawsuit challenging the cap-and-trade program’s allowance auctions is likely impacting market dynamics, but that California’s market is proving resilient, in part due to the strength of its design. -
Is Washington Creating More Flints?
May 25, 2016 | Politico
By Danny Vinik
The lead-poisoning scandal in Flint, Michigan, seems like exactly the kind of crisis that demands Washington's help: a cash-strapped city with governance problems found itself delivering toxic heavy metal to its children through their faucets.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) DuPont, Dow Getting What They Asked For: Tougher EPA Oversight
May 25, 2016 | Bloomberg Politics
By Mark Drajem and Jack Kaskey
Congress is about to send President Barack Obama the biggest overhaul of rules governing chemicals in four decades, a change sought by an industry that has faced a hodgepodge of retailer bans, consumer boycotts and state regulations.
The Senate is likely to pass Thursday a revised Toxic Substances Control Act that would expand the Environmental Protection Agency’s oversight of chemicals used in products such as spot cleaners and paint strippers. The chemical industry, including lobbyists for DuPont Co. and Dow Chemical Co., pushed for the legislation to provide companies with consistent rules to follow.
"Chemical companies were finding their inability to satisfy their customers was starting to hurt their bottom line," Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, said in an interview. "It was becoming the Wild West out there, and they needed a sheriff."
The Senate vote marks the final step in Congress for the bill, H.R. 2576, which was approved May 24 by the House, 403-12. The White House and the EPA support the measure, saying it will give regulators crucial authority to ensure that chemicals used in products, including household goods, are safe.
The new measure marks the first overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act since it was enacted four decades ago. The EPA hasn’t banned a chemical since a federal court struck down asbestos restrictions in 1991 because the agency didn’t meet the existing law’s standards.Company Policies
With federal oversight of toxic chemicals stalled, chemical makers faced a variety of company policies. Target Corp. put almost 600 substances on a listit wanted suppliers to avoid; Macy’s Inc. banned a flame retardant in furniture as activists planned to target its stores; and Home Depot Inc.pledged to phase out a group of chemicals called phthalates from its vinyl flooring.
While there’s little surprise that a health advocate such as Denison is seeking greater authority for the EPA, the fact that the measure is being led by Republicans and groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a Nixon-goes-to-China moment. Republicans and business groups ordinarily try to stop EPA rules aimed at curbing smog, greenhouse gases and other pollutants.
In this case, federal regulation is being heralded as a way to boost commerce.
"This bill represents a balanced and thoughtful compromise that makes long needed improvements to an outdated and ineffective law," Representative John Shimkus, an Illinois Republican, said after it passed the House earlier this week.‘Unreasonable Risk’
Under existing law, the EPA has succeeded in regulating only five toxic chemicals since 1976, prompting public-health advocates to criticize the law. Part of the difficulty is that the law grants the EPA only 90 days to decide whether a new chemical poses "unreasonable risk" before it can enter the market, and agency officials say they rarely get the toxicity data they need to make that call in time.
Also, the existing law requires the EPA to show that a chemical poses a risk before requiring more testing, a catch-22 that left the agency hamstrung.
The compromise legislation would remove those procedural hurdles, require EPA to focus on "high-priority" chemicals already in the marketplace, such as phthalates and flame retardants, and give the agency new tools to collect data from companies.
It would also require the EPA to review the safety of new chemicals before commercial introduction. The measure would incorporate some existing state chemical-safety laws but limit states’ authority to create their own restrictions in the future. Pre-emption of state laws was a key point of contention between Democrats and Republicans during negotiations, and a key demand of industry.Reassuring the Public
The industry has sought a tougher federal law for the past six years, in part to avoid a patchwork of state rules, and in part to reassure the public about the safety of chemical products.
"Over time, confidence in EPA’s regulation of chemicals has eroded," the American Chemistry Council said on its website. "This lack of confidence has created pressure on individual state legislatures to create their own chemicals management laws and on retailers to pull products from the shelves, often based on the claims of activists rather than scientific conclusions."
In 2010, Linda Fisher, then a DuPont vice president, testified to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that there was a "growing public awareness" that exposure to chemicals through products is a health risk.
Without changes in the federal law, "we are seeing a plethora of state actions that are serving to create tremendous uncertainty in our markets," Fisher said. “It is not often an industry asks to be regulated in a more comprehensive way, but that is precisely what we are asking for.”Smaller Companies
Increased regulation also makes it harder for smaller companies to compete with established producers, said Jason Miner, a chemical industry analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence.
“These things increase the moat for bigger players,” Miner said. “When compliance costs go up, smaller players are squeezed.”
Among the chemicals on the EPA’s priority list for review are cyanide made by Chemours Co., and styrene made by Dow Chemical spinoff Trinseo SA. Bisphenol-A, an epoxy-based resin known as BPA and used to line cans and make polycarbonate plastics, also is on the EPA priority list, although its use has declined in recent years amid concern over potential health risks. That provided a business opportunity for companies such as Eastman Chemical Co., which has steadily expanded production of its BPA-free Tritan copolyester since 2007.
“The backlash against BPA was great for Eastman,” Miner said. “Anything that puts pressure on a commoditized old product creates a beneficiary at the forefront of innovation.”
The EPA called the bill “a clear improvement over current law.” Some safety advocates are less enthusiastic. The draft “contains several reforms that would empower EPA, but it also restrains EPA and especially state governments in new and unacceptable ways,” Andy Igrejas, director of Washington-based advocacy group Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, said in a statement.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-26/dupont-dow-getting-what-they-asked-for-tougher-epa-oversight
-
(ACC Mentioned) Environmental Groups Criticize Revisions to Toxics-Control Act
May 25, 2016 | The Seattle Times
By Lynda V. Mapes
Reform to the nation’s oldest toxic-substance control law is a step backward for Washington, state environmental policy experts say.
Legislation passed the U.S. House of Representatives this week that would enact the first significant revisions to the Toxic Substances Control Act since its initial passage in 1976.
No one disputed the law needed reform: it is so ineffective that only a small fraction of the roughly 84,000 registered industrial chemicals in commerce are currently subject to any federal regulations.
Into that void states like Washington have stepped up — acting when the other Washington wouldn’t — to set exposure limits lower than federal levels, and enact bans on everything from lead weights in wheels to flame retardants in mattresses. By taking those steps, Washington and other states also encouraged more states to act, leading in some cases to industries themselves taking national action.
At issue here are potential new hurdles, delays and restrictions on states’ ability to enact their own restrictions on toxics. Instead of being a national leader on controlling toxic chemicals, Washington will now have to fall in line behind the feds and wait for EPA to take the lead, said Rob Duff, chief of staff on environmental issues for Gov. Jay Inslee.
“This handcuffs us,” Duff said. While there is still a process for states to take their own action on toxics, “it is not clear how easy that would be,” Duff said.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/environmental-groups-criticize-revisions-to-toxics-control-act/
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Getting Authority to Review Chemicals for Safety
May 25, 2016 | Marketplace
By Ashley Milne-Tyte
U.S. lawmakers really don't like each other. And when you take that into account, they pulled off quite a feat Tuesday. By a vote of 403 to 12, the House agreed on a bill that for the first time in 40 years updates the rules on chemical safety.
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 has been criticized as woefully inadequate when it comes to protecting consumers. This new bill is expected to pass the Senate this week, and be signed into law by the president. It will give the Environmental Protection Agency new powers of regulation.
"A lot of people are jubilant about the the bill. "This is a really big deal," said Richard Dennison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund.
For one thing, it’s the first major environmental legislation to pass in 25 years. He said it went through because the damage chemicals can cause affects everyone, no matter their political stripes.
“People know someone who got breast cancer at an early age or who was unable to conceive a child," he said. "Those are the kinds of effects we’re concerned about chemicals contributing to.”
Take Trichloroethylene. It’s used in spot cleaners used by the general public and dry cleaners, and it’s a known carcinogen. Dennison said now the EPA can go after the uses that cause the most harm.
Even the chemical industry is relieved about the new rules. Cal Dooley heads the American Chemistry Council. He said consumers were losing trust in chemical products.
“We felt that by giving EPA greater access to information that our companies would produce, that it would allow them to make a more affirmative determination of the safety of our chemicals in commerce," he said.
In other words, it’s about business. The industry has had to contend with stores taking matters into their own hands, refusing to stock certain plastics. States have also brought in their own regulations.
Melanie Benesh is an attorney with the Environmental Working Group. She said one problem is that the EPA isn’t getting enough funding. The chemical industry is kicking in $25 million to help pay for chemical reviews. Still, she said, "For an industry that’s reported close to $40 billion in profits, that’s really pocket change.”
She said to do the job right the EPA is going to have to rely on Congress, which has often opposed the agency.
http://www.marketplace.org/2016/05/25/world/toxic-chemicals-and-epa
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Bag Fee Needed to Wake Up Shoppers
May 25, 2016 | Sentinel-Tribune
By Thomas Klein
To the Editor:
Athens, Ohio’s coming plastic bag fee is a wake-up call to all consumers who take the easy way, ignorant of the world-wide plastic bag pandemic.
Plastic bags are environmentally poisonous, and Ohio is a laggard when it comes to plastic bag ordinances.
Over 1 trillion plastic bags are thrown away annually worldwide. China consumes one billion bags daily.
Thirty-two million tons of plastic waste are generated annually, and the average American family takes home 1500 bags a year; those bags require 12 million barrels of oil to manufacture.
About 4 million tons of plastic bags and sacks are produced annually, and three and a half million tons are discarded into oceans and landfills.
If we’re lucky, 2 percent of all bags are recycled. The 1 billion bags we use annually cost retailers $4 billion.
These plastics don’t biodegrade; they photodegrade, meaning they break down into small fragments that soak up toxins, contaminating soil, waterways and, upon digestion, fish and other animals.
Most of the bags we deposit in supermarkets’ bins end up in landfills.
There’s very little commercial recycling of those bags because there’s little market given the decrease in oil prices.
Once we realize plastic bags are an “icon of waste” that will profoundly degrade life on this planet, we realize we have three choices. 1. Ban them. 2. Charge a fee. 3. Carry our own recyclable bags.
1. Banning: Jennie Romer, a leading expert on environmental law, observes that banning bags gets lots of support because people like to ban things. But banning does not work because it usually invites legal battles with organizations like American Chemistry Council and because many people use some of the bags for things like pet waste. Banning also leads to paper bag use which creates many of the same problems as plastic.
2. Charging a fee, as Athens, Ohio, is doing, is preferable to banning because it leads shoppers to think about choices: “I’ll pay 10 cents or bring my own bags.” Still, fees are hidden taxes, the collected fees going to store owners, and the bags still accumulate.
3. Bringing our own reusable cloth, washable bags sidesteps the fee, the ban, the political and legal battles, and lets us wash our own cloth bags to guard against bacterial contamination. This makes the best logical sense, but it does not take into account human nature — many will forget to supply our own bags and end up buying bags.
This letter draws on the work of writer Ian Frazier, plasticbaglaws.org, the EPA, the WSJ, China Trade News and World Policy Institute.
Thomas Klein
Bowling Green
http://www.sent-trib.com/opinion/plastic-bag-fee-needed-to-wake-up-shoppers/article_94124eb6-227c-11e6-9d33-bb7486018b35.html
-
Senate Aims for Unanimous Consent on TSCA Overhaul Bill
May 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Senate had not reached an agreement the afternoon of May 25 as to whether it would move by unanimous consent legislation to overhaul the nation's primary chemicals law.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) told reporters he was working to “hotline” the bill, meaning it would move to the floor for a unanimous consent vote soon.
The response to that idea “has been very good,” Inhofe, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, told reporters in the morning.
By afternoon, however, aides for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-N.V.) said no agreement had been reached.
At issue is the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st CenturyAct (H.R. 2576), which soared through the House May 24 with a 403-12 vote (101 DEN A-1, 5/25/16).
The bill would overhaul the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act by giving the Environmental Protection Agency more authority to evaluate and control the nation's industrial chemicals.
One Hold Rumor Curbed
Josh Miller-Lewis, a spokesman for Vermont Senator and Democrat presidential candidate Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), squashed a rumor that Sanders would block the unanimous consent vote due to its impact on states.
Sanders will not object to moving the bill by unanimous consent, Miller-Lewis told Bloomberg BNA.
Sanders remains disappointed by provisions in the bill, Miller-Lewis said, referring to the senator's May 22 statement that the TSCA-overhaul bill “makes it more difficult for states to set new, stricter standards” (99 DEN A-20, 5/23/16).
Testing Concerns Addressed
Kristie Sullivan, vice president for toxicology at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, spoke with Bloomberg BNA May 25 about toxicity testing and animal welfare provisions in the bill. Those issues arose in the House and contributed to the House's protracted negotiations. The Physicians Committee works with the Humane Society and other organizations to improve toxicity tests while reducing the use of experimental animals.
A group of 39 Democrats wrote a letter May 13 to Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, asking him to support the Senate-approved legislative language designed to reduce the use of animal-based toxicity tests in chemical safety assessments (94 DEN A-16, 5/16/16)
Pallone acknowledged those concerns as he discussed the bill May 24 prior to the House vote.
“While there's been broad agreement that animal testing should be the last [option], we shouldn't keep necessary science out of EPA's hands,” Pallone said.
“I'm pleased the language has been improved and now states explicitly that scientific studies should not be kept from EPA once they are done,” he said.
Sullivan said the animal welfare organizations have stressed throughout the TSCA bill debate that the EPA should use all available data.
In the final days leading up to the House vote, Senate staff worked with the House to make that even more abundantly clear, she said.
EPA to Spur New Types of Tests
The “Voluntary Testing” section of the bill the House approved encourages any party that on its own initiative—“not pursuant to any request or requirement by the administrator”— conducts a toxicity test and plans to submit the data to EPA to first see whether the information could be generated through an alternative test that doesn't require laboratory animals.
“Nothing in this paragraph shall, under any circumstance, limit or restrict the submission of any existing information to the administrator,” H.R. 2576 says.
The bill includes a section “Reduction of Testing on Vertebrates” that encourages the agency to use scientifically justified data from new types of technologies including automated cell and gene tests; computer-simulated toxicity prediction software assays; and the grouping of chemicals into appropriate categories so that test data from one chemical can be used to understand the effects of a similar chemical.
Within two years of becoming law, H.R. 2576 says the EPA should develop a strategic plan to promote the development and implementation of alternative test methods and strategies to reduce, refine or replace animal tests.
“This legislation will modernize chemical toxicity testing requirements and reform a broken system that relies largely on cruel, ineffective tests on animals,” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wrote in a blog.
Coons to Try Again for Sustainable Chemistry
A separate section of the Lautenberg bill, approved by the Senate Dec. 17, 2015, was cut from the bill passed by the House.
That section, sponsored by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), would have established an interagency sustainable chemistry committee and program. The goal was to promote the design of “green” chemicals that are inherently better for human health or the environment than those for which they would substitute.
The provision drew on elements of Coons' separate bill, the Sustainable Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2015 (S. 1447).
Coons was disappointed that his provision wasn't included in the final bill, the senator's staff said in a statement provided Bloomberg BNA.
“We're still determining what our best options are, but it's safe to say that he's not giving up on this, and will keep at it this Congress, and, if necessary, the next,” the statement said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90426673&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90426673&jd=90426673
-
Congress is About to Do Something That Will Regulate Products You Use Every Day
May 25, 2016 | The Los Angeles Times
By Sarah D. Wire
The Environmental Protection Agency will have to review the safety of thousands of chemicals — many commonly found in items Americans interact with every day — under legislation Congress is expected to pass this week.
The bill, an update of the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act, allows the EPA to gather more information about a chemical before it can be used in the United States, while limiting how and when states can act to regulate a chemical themselves.
The current Toxic Substances Control Act, signed by President Ford in 1976, gave the EPA authority to review the potential human and environmental risks of chemicals, but the agency restricts only a small fraction of the tens of thousands of chemicals used in products in the United States including detergents and pesticides.
Some states, like California, have filled the void and set stringent requirements. Other states have not, leaving a patchwork of chemical regulations that almost derailed the current effort, which preempts states from setting new rules if the EPA is reviewing a chemical.
California Secretary for Environmental Protection Matthew Rodriquez said by phone Tuesday that he is reassured changes to the bill that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) pushed will allow the state to continue regulating potentially toxic chemicals.
The new bill requires the EPA to review the safety of all chemicals currently used in items on the market, and make the results of the safety review available to Congress and to the general public.
The agency will also be required to consider the effect of chemicals on infants, pregnant women and the elderly as part of its review, but will not have to consider cost.
The EPA will no longer have to show a chemical is potentially a risk before testing it. Currently, a chemical can enter the market within 90 days unless the agency can prove it might be dangerous.Streamlining state efforts
With federal power to regulate chemicals limited under existing law, California and a handful of other states have set their own standards over the last few decades.
In return for broad federal authority to regulate what goes into American products in the new bill, the chemical industry has insisted on limits to the power of states to add additional regulations of their own.
Boxer said in an interview Tuesday that Congress has to think about the broader effect of the new law on all states.
California might have robust regulations, but “it can’t do everything for the whole country,” Boxer said. “They’ve been fabulous, and they’ll do more but now there is a federal program, so assuming there is a good EPA ... Californians will be better protected because they’ll have the federal program and the state program. If the EPA does nothing then it’ll be pretty much [the] status quo.”
The bill still allows states to regulate chemicals above the federal levels in certain situations.
“Would I rather have absolutely no preemption? I would," Boxer said. "But the way we have it now it still allows for a very robust program by our state.”
All state laws, rules and regulations for chemicals that were in place on April 22 will not be preempted by the new federal law. In the future, if a state regulates a new chemical and the EPA regulates it differently, the federal standard would preempt the state's rules.
States are required to pause on regulating a chemical being reviewed by the EPA unless they get a waiver or the federal review takes longer than three and a half years. States can also regulate a chemical if the EPA isn’t reviewing it or for 18 months after the agency says it plans to review it.
Boxer said she hopes the short time frame will spur states to move quickly on the chemicals they have concerns about.
Rodriquez praised the waivers, the fact that existing state regulations are grandfathered in and the 18-month window to regulate. The state will want to keep an eye on what chemicals the EPA might consider reviewing, he said, so California can act quickly if it needs to.
“The preemption provisions have been scaled back in a way that we think provides the state with some flexibility,” he said. “We’ll work with it. Many times these chemicals don’t appear out of nowhere.”
Rodriquez questioned whether Congress will give the EPA the funding it needs to promptly test and regulate thousands of chemicals.
“If they can’t go ahead, we would intend to proceed under California law,” he said. “I think there will still be a robust chemical regulatory program going on.”
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael), one of four California House members who opposed the bill, echoed that concern by saying while the bill is better than current law, he’s concerned that “potential future actions by California could be preempted or delayed without adequate assurance that the new federal process would be prompt, effective and appropriately funded.”
In the state Assembly, Huffman cosponsored a bill that required the state Department of Toxic Substances Control to proactively identify and regulate potentially dangerous chemicals.
On Tuesday, Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert (R-Corona) released the Interior and Environment Appropriation bill, which cuts EPA funding by $164 million for fiscal year 2017 and holds staff at 15,000 positions. Calvert voted in favor of the Toxic Substances Control Act overhaul.Moving fast
Congress has tried before to overhaul the Toxic Substance Control Act, with members divided on how it should look and whether states should still be allowed to implement more stringent restrictions on chemicals than those levied by the federal government.
Boxer and other senators blocked the bill for most of last year.
The bill has moved quickly since late last week, when Boxer and other senators announced they had reached a compromise. The House voted 403-12 Tuesday evening to approve the bill, and the Senate could vote on it as early as Thursday.
Voting no with Huffman were Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose), Jackie Speier (D-Hillsborough) and Tom McClintock (R-Elk Grove).
McClintock said the bill was supposed to expedite and standardize the EPA's evaluation of toxic chemicals, but it broadens the EPA's powers and no longer allows it to consider cost as part of a chemical's risk evaluation, while still allowing states to adopt more stringent standards and raise fees.
"This is a well-intentioned bill that accomplishes the opposite of what it is designed to do," he said in a statement.
Speier said in a statement that the bill accommodates industry over consumers.
"California is protecting consumers from toxic chemicals, but with this bill California’s law would be defanged," she said.
For her part, Lofgren said she was worried about federal law preempting state law.
"California sets the standard and pushes the whole country forward on safety," she said.
In a statement Monday, the White House indicated that President Obama would sign the bill.
"If the federal government is to restore public confidence in the safety of chemicals, which are used in commerce and are an integral part of the nation's economy, it is essential that the Congress provide EPA with the necessary tools and authorities to effectively assess chemicals and regulate risks," it reads.
In a joint statement Monday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other House leaders said though they have some concerns about how the bill limits the state's ability to act on toxic substances, they will support it because it broadens EPA authority.
"It is not the bill Democrats would have written on our own, but it is a long-overdue step forward to protect families and communities from toxic substances,” the statement read.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-barbara-boxer-toxic-substances-control-act-20160525-snap-htmlstory.html
-
Congress Moves to Revamp Toxic Chemical Law
May 25, 2016 | Reuters
By Richard Cowan
Legislation with bipartisan support that would revamp U.S. chemical safety law for the first time in decades is advancing in Congress, winning overwhelming passage in the House of Representatives as backers sought quick Senate action.
Senate leadership aides said the timing was still being worked out for a Senate vote on the first update of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in about 40 years.
The House's 403-12 vote to pass the measure updating the regulation of toxic chemicals aided the bill's chances, with the Senate also expected to strongly embrace the bill, according to leadership aides.
"By removing 40-year-old barriers and modernizing procedures, we reduce the risk to consumers. This means the chemicals and products we use every day will be safer for Americans," Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan said.
Lawmakers have complained that under current law, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been unable to effectively regulate chemicals, including those that can be found in hardware stores for home improvements.
"Under current law, it's become harder for the EPA to ban even substances that are known to cause cancer, such as asbestos," said Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 House Democrat, in calling for passage of the bill on Tuesday.
According to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, "Absent EPA action under TSCA, some states, litigants and even consumer product retailers have been increasingly taking steps to restrict certain chemicals, not always relying on objective scientific analysis to make these decisions."
Under the bill, the government would evaluate risks posed by chemicals without considering the cost of taking action.
If there are indications that a chemical's use presents an unreasonable risk, the EPA would attempt to manage the risk, under the bill. Steps could range from labeling the product to banning it.
Under the compromise bill hammered out by Republicans and Democrats, the EPA would have to consider the impact of a chemical on health and the environment, the chemical's benefits and the economic impact of regulation.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-chemicals-idUSKCN0YG2IX
-
Gibson Applauds Passage Of Bill That Would Increase Oversight Of Commercial Chemicals
May 25, 2016 | WAMC
By Lucas Willard
Congress has passed a bill that would institute more rigorous oversight of industrial chemicals.
HR 2576 updates the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act by removing barriers to repeat chemical testing, mandating new safety reviews, and making information more available to the public. It also would limit animal testing and set deadlines for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for decisions.
Republican Chris Gibson, who represents areas with drinking water contaminated by PFOA, including Hoosick Falls and Petersburgh, applauded the bill's passage and said "What transpired in Rensselaer County is totally unacceptable, and we can’t let it happen in more communities.”
The bill also would require the EPA to designate and investigate clusters of cancer patients across the country.
http://wamc.org/post/gibson-applauds-passage-bill-would-increase-oversight-commercial-chemicals#stream/0
-
IRIS Program's 'High Risk' Status Prompts Investigation
May 25, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA's influential risk analysis program remains on the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) “high risk” list for waste, fraud and abuse, according to a new progress report on the list, and the program's inability to get off the list has spurred an ongoing investigation from the House science committee.
GAO placed EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program on its high risk list in 2009, where it has remained ever since. The next update of the list is due out in 2017, but the congressional investigative body publicly released a progress report May 25 of EPA and other federal agencies' efforts to address the concerns that placed them on the list. Sens. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Thomas Carper (D-DE), chairman and ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, requested the report.
Additionally, House Science, Space and Technology Committee aides tell Inside EPA that the IRIS program's status on the high risk list as well as the pair of National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reports were the impetus for launching an oversight inquiry into the program. One aide explains that “some time is past [since the last report] and we wanted to get an update,” so they requested a briefing from IRIS staff in April.
An aide adds that staff was “pretty dissatisfied with the briefing,” and so sent EPA a May 10 letter requesting numerous documents about the IRIS program. The agency failed to respond to the request by its stated deadline of May 24, aides say.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee leaders in March also requested information from EPA about the IRIS program, but science committee aides said the two committees are not coordinating.
One aide says, “a lot of these recommendations are outstanding for a long time. The GAO high risk list [progress report] just came out recently. I'm not surprised that Oversight is also investigating.”
Another aide notes that the number of IRIS assessments the program has published “has decreased dramatically over the years. There's plenty to look into. We just weren't getting any answers on our end.”
The aides say that their inquiry was not spurred by concerns regarding any one assessment, nor are they concerned with the contents of individual assessments. “We're not concerned [about individual assessments but] in general, is the program working? Are the assessments conducted at a rate that is needed?” an aide asks. “We're not evaluating the quality at this point.”
GAO's progress report indicates that in its last regular report, released in 2015, the IRIS program “'partially met' [GAO's] criteria of monitoring and received a 'met' rating for the criteria of leadership commitment.” But the program did not receive “met” ratings for other criteria. The action plan criterion received a “partially met” rating, while capacity and demonstrated progress both received “not met” ratings.
The progress report provides some examples of how IRIS achieved its “partially met” status for GAO's monitoring criteria, including “implementing our recommendation to submit assessments for independent third-party validation to an entity with scientific and technical credibility -- EPA’s Science Advisory Board.” EPA has also presented a plan for how it would implement NAS suggestions for improving IRIS assessments, GAO says, noting that a May 2014 NAS report “independently validates some of the corrective measures the IRIS program is implementing.”
The report also outlines areas where EPA must do more work, including improving the clarity and transparency of the development of draft IRIS assessments, ensuring IRIS information is up to date, and filling data gaps that would allow the agency to conduct IRIS assessments for nominated chemicals where sufficient data are not available to produce an assessment.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/iris-programs-high-risk-status-prompts-investigation
-
House Clears Energy Bill Over Democrats' Objections
May 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The House voted May 25 to approve an 806-page amendment to a Senate-passed energy bill as the two chambers prepare to go to conference on what could be the first broad energy bill in nearly a decade.
The amendment, approved by a vote of 241-178, includes the text of the House's own broad energy bill (H.R. 8), as well as 37 other energy and natural resources bills, including several that have drawn opposition from the White House and congressional Democrats.
Among them are California drought legislation (H.R. 2898), a bill (H.R. 1806) that would slash Energy Department research funds for clean energy while increasing money for nuclear energy and fossil fuel research and legislation (H.R. 1937) that would streamline the permitting process for mines (101 DEN A-4, 5/25/16) (101 DEN A-4, 5/25/16).
‘Pro-Polluter Package.'
“The Republican majority has decided to replace the consensus Senate bill with a new pro-polluter package that dwarfs the original H.R. 8,” Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a statement. “Many of these provisions are divisive, dangerous and have drawn veto threats of their own.”
Over 30 environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth, opposed the legislation and urged lawmakers to vote against it.
“With these additions this bill has become more controversial and more harmful to the environment,” they wrote in a letter. “The 800-plus pages of legislation are packed with ideological proposals.”
The underlying House energy bill, which passed by a vote of 249-174 in December, would expedite the Department of Energy's consideration of licenses to export liquefied natural gas, increase security of the nation's electric grid and speed up the review time for federal permitting of natural gas pipelines.
The White House threatened to veto that bill, citing provisions that would hinder the Energy Department from working on energy efficiency building codes that are implemented by states and a provision that would weaken a part of 2007 energy law requiring federal buildings to phase out the use of fossil fuel by 2030 (230 DEN A-19, 12/1/15).
The Senate's 424-page version, which was approved on an 85-12 vote in April, includes a wide range of provisions, including measures to expedite the federal approval process for liquefied natural gas exports, streamline the approval process for electric transmission lines, increase cybersecurity protections for the electricity grid and expedite the licensing process for hydropower projects.
While the White House outlined a number of concerns with the Senate bill, it did not issue a veto threat for the measure.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90426667&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90426667&jd=90426667
-
House Panel Approves Rider-Laden EPA Spending Bill
May 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
A House Appropriations subcommittee approved a $32.1 billion funding bill for fiscal year 2017 that would include nearly $8 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency along with riders prohibiting agency spending on several key regulations.
The draft legislation, which also funds the Interior Department and related agencies, sailed through the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies markup May 25 without amendment, but top Democratic appropriators criticized its policy riders that address the Clean Power Plan, the Clean Water Rule and others.
“The bill would be dead unless we take them out,” House Appropriations Committee ranking member Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) told Bloomberg BNA. “The riders are totally unacceptable, and its really sad.”
Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), sitting in on the markup, praised the riders.
“There is no question that regulations aimed at killing coal are largely to blame for the over 11,000 mining jobs lost in the district since 2008,” Rogers said. “These regulations will force us to move away from our nation's cheapest and most dependable source of energy in favor of more expensive and less reliable options—meaning higher bills and less certainty for hardworking families everywhere.”
The Clean Power Plan (RIN:2060-AR33), currently stayed and awaiting Sept. 27 oral argument at the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, sets carbon dioxide emissions limits on the existing fleet of power plants nationwide.
The draft bill undercuts the White House budget request for Interior, Environment and Related Agencies by $1 billion and would provide the EPA $300 million less than what the Obama administration requested.
Legislative Future for Riders
Rogers told Bloomberg BNA following the hearing he expects Democrats to back the legislation in committee and on the floor despite the inclusion of the riders.
Lowey disputed that expectation in an interview with Bloomberg BNA.
“[Republican] leaders know that the bills with those riders are not going anywhere,” she told Bloomberg BNA. On the House floor “there will be many amendments dealing with the riders; you can be sure of that,” she said. “The bottom line is those riders are there probably to make their political points, but they won't be part of a final appropriations bill that we can support.”
Subcommittee ranking member Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) echoed Lowey's criticism in a statement to Bloomberg BNA.
“I will work with my Democratic colleagues to strike these harmful riders, but Republicans will likely manage to keep them on this bill in full committee and potentially add more on the House floor,” she told Bloomberg BNA. “However, we are ultimately likely to see a repeat of last year, when House Democrats stepped forward to lead the appropriations process and kept these riders off the legislation so that it reached the President's desk and could be signed into law.”
Other riders in the legislation would prohibit EPA spending money on the Superfund financial assurance rulemaking, methane regulations involving livestock and changes to the definition of “fill material” under the Clean Water Act.
Regulatory Cuts
The Appropriations Committee floated the bill May 24, touting $43 million in cuts to EPA regulatory programs (101 DEN A-21, 5/25/16).
The bill would slash EPA funding for environmental programs and management by roughly $90 million from current enacted levels, but an Appropriations Committee staffer declined to comment on the specific targets for cuts.
“More detail will be available when the report is released prior to full committee mark up,” Jennifer Hing, spokeswoman for the committee, told Bloomberg BNA May 25, referring to a report that clarifies congressional intent for legislation.
The draft legislation, however, would increase funding for several EPA regulatory programs, including Superfund.
Meanwhile, in a summary by the Environmental Council of the States that cross checks the bill's budget lines against current levels, the nonprofit said funding for geographic programs, which help EPA regions handle local environment problems in bodies of water such as the Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound, would decrease more than $24 million if the House legislation is to become law.
Drinking Water SRF Boost
Despite disagreement over the riders, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle applauded the bill's boost to the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.
The legislation would increase the EPA's drinking water state fund by $207 million over current levels and would provide $50 million in Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act funding.
At the markup, Subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) called those “targeted investments” that would help local response to water crises such as lead contamination in Flint, Mich.'s drinking water.
McCollum applauded those provisions but criticized the lack of direct funding for Flint.
“The levels provided in this bill for the state revolving funds are inadequate to deal with the decaying infrastructure in our nation, no less the emergency in Flint, Michigan,” she said. “That is why it is appropriate and imperative for this committee to provide additional funds for Flint, Michigan under an emergency designation.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90426657&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90426657&jd=90426657
-
House Signs Off on Big Energy Package Ahead of Talks with Senate
May 25, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
The House approved an 806-page amendment to the Senate's energy bill this afternoon that will serve as the chamber's opening hand in pending negotiations across the Capitol.
The amendment, a hodgepodge of about three dozen House-passed bills, passed on a 241-178 vote, mostly along party lines. The House then approved on a voice vote a motion to go to conference with the Senate.
Language from H.R. 8, the energy bill that was approved in a mostly party-line vote late last year, made up the bulk of the House amendment. It also included the America COMPETES Act reauthorization for basic science R&D along with a bipartisan nuclear energy bill and a slew of land, water, wildlife and conservation measures. Major portions of House Republicans' California drought measure were part of the package as well.
A notice from House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer’s office offered a lengthy critique of the amendment this morning, taking particular umbrage with sections related to California water issues, environmental reviews for mining, and FERC’s review of interstate pipelines, while stopping short of urging Democrats to vote against the measure.
“The House Amendment to S. 2012 would remove several regulations that help to ensure the safety and security of the American people,” the notice says. “It also is a dangerous attack on our nation’s natural resources and the environment and would set the United States back in terms of developing new energy technologies and advancing clean and renewable energy sources.”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard#
-
House Votes Down Amendments to Energy and Water Spending Bill
May 25, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider and Darius Dixon
House lawmakers voted down six amendments to its energy and water spending package this afternoon.
Among the amendments was one from Democrat Rep. Jerry McNerney seeking to strike California drought language pushed by his state's Republicans; it failed 169-247. The controversial California drought language, which aims to re-balance environmental restrictions with water pumping in the delicate Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta, has also been incorporated into the House amendment to the energy bill which is on the floor this week.
The lower chamber also voted down several amendments to move money around within the Army Corp of Engineers and Department of Energy budgets.
An amendment from Florida Republican Rep. Curt Clawson would have increased the Army Corps' construction account by $50 million, paid for with sales from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Dueling amendments from Virginia Republican Morgan Griffith and Colorado Democrat Jared Polis would have shifted funds between the Energy Department's energy efficiency and renewable energy budget line and its fossil energy research. An amendment from Colorado Republican Ken Buck would have struck all funding to DOE's renewable energy, fossil energy and nuclear energy work.
Lawmakers already siphoned off more than $33 million from the Energy Department's administrative account Tuesday night to pay for increases in ARPA-E, the Army Corp of Engineers and DOE's energy efficiency and renewable energy office.
The House is slated to hold additional amendment votes for the energy and water bill, H.R. 5055, sometime between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. tonight and is expected to pass the bill Thursday.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard#
-
House Set to Pass Energy-Water Bill with Riders Intact
May 26, 2016 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink and Geof Koss
The House is on track to pass a $37.4 billion fiscal 2017 energy and water spending bill today, after adding contentious riders aimed at limiting the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal and addressing rights for LGBT individuals.
Lawmakers plowed through dozens of amendments yesterday for H.R. 5055, which funds the Energy Department, Army Corps of Engineers and federal nuclear programs and research. The bill will need to be reconciled with the Senate's $37.5 billion version approved earlier this month that notably dropped the Iran deal language after threats of a Democratic filibuster and contains no other contentious riders.
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a leader of the House Freedom Caucus, said yesterday that hard-line conservatives who have opposed overall spending levels for fiscal 2017 were unlikely to reject the energy measure because it funds national security programs.SPECIAL SERIES
The Fiscal 2017 Budget & Appropriations Report is a one-stop resource for tracking the fiscal 2017 spending process for environmental and energy accounts.Click here to view the report.
"I don't expect a coup," on this bill, said Meadows, adding that conservatives are more likely to oppose domestic spending bills yet to come to the floor, like the Interior and environment spending measure.
Asked about the prospects for the House bill being conferenced with the Senate version, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), the ranking member on the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, said, "We've got to get rid of the riders."
One of those provisions, adopted 230-188, would bar the use of funds to use the administration's controversial social cost of carbon formula for writing regulations or guidance. No similar language is in the Senate bill.
A conference fight is certain over two amendments that Republicans added to blunt the impact of the Iran nuclear deal. The White House has said it would veto any bill that tries to hamstring the accord.
One provision, approved 251-168, would aim to prevent the Energy Department from purchasing heavy water, a component used in nuclear reactors, from Iran. Another, adopted by voice vote, would more broadly bar the United States from entering into any new agreements with Iran.
The debate also steered into the controversy over LGBT protections. None of the provisions attached on the hot-button issue are in the Senate bill.
The chamber voted 227-192 for an amendment by Rep. Robert Pittenger (R-N.C.) that prohibits funds to be used to revoke funding previously awarded to his home state -- a proposal that pushes back against the Obama administration's threat to revoke federal funds over the state's "bathroom" law.
House members voted 223-195 in support of an amendment by Rep. Sean Maloney (D-N.Y.) that aimed to bar LGBT users from discrimination from federal contractors. A similar amendment caused an uproar last week during debate over the Military Construction and Veterans Administration funding after GOP leaders twisted arms and forced enough Republicans to switch their votes so it failed.
This time around, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) amended Maloney's proposal to add an exemption for the First and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as Article I of the Constitution, and approval was greeted with cheers in the chamber.
An amendment by Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.) to limits funds that contravene certain religious rights was also adopted, 233-186.More amendment action
The following amendments were rejected by roll call votes:A Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas) amendment to cut $7 million from DOE's loan guarantee program and steer the funds to a spending reduction account fell, 158-260.A Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) amendment to create an Office of Good Jobs funded with a $1 million cut from DOE's departmental administration account failed, 174-245.A Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.) proposal to strip a funding limitation targeting the administration's National Ocean Policy was rejected, 189-228.A Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) amendment to prohibit funding from being used to expand plutonium pit production at the Los Alamos National Laboratory failed, 126-293.A plan by Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.) that would bar the use of funds for DOE's Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research fell, 206-213.An amendment by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) to cut 1 percent in funding from all accounts in the bill failed, 158-258.A proposal by Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.) that would cut funding to multiple DOE programs failed, 128-291.
The following amendments were adopted by voice voice:An amendment, by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), that would prohibit funding for DOE's Climate Model Development and Validation program.An amendment, by Rep. Steve Stivers (R-Ohio), to prohibit funding for the Cape Wind Energy Project on the outer continental shelf in Nantucket Sound.An amendment, by Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), that would bar the administration from taking final regulatory actions having more than a $100 million impact on the economy from the general election on Nov. 8 until a new president is sworn in on Jan. 20.An amendment, by Rep. Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.), that would bar DOE from transporting liquid nuclear waste from Canada into the United States for reprocessing at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.An amendment, by Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), that would bar implementing energy efficiency conservation standards for dishwashers, ceiling fans and vending machines.An amendment, by Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.), that would block funding for DOE's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing loan program.
Among the provisions defeated on voice vote or withdrawn were:An amendment by Garamendi that would have barred the Bureau of Reclamation from issuing a permit for the California WaterFix project.An amendment by Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) that would have increased funding for the Northern Border Regional Commission to $7.5 million by cutting the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/05/26/stories/1060037916
-
House Moves Toward Conference Committee on Sweeping Energy Bill
May 25, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The House took a step Wednesday toward forming a conference committee on a wide-ranging energy bill.
Lawmakers voted 241-178 to pass an amended version of the Senate’s energy bill. The House replaced the Senate measure with its own energy legislation passed last year, and attached to it numerous other, mostly Republican, energy and natural resources bills, including legislation to bring drought relief to California.
The House can now vote to formally enter a conference with the Senate. In that process, members of both parties from both chambers would be tasked with reconciling differences between the House’s package and the wide-ranging energy bill the Senate passed in April.
“This has been a multi-year, multi-Congress effort, and a lot of work has gone into making sure that the bill we put forward will support the future of American energy is truly comprehensive,” Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said on the House floor.
“This bill is about jobs. It’s about keeping energy affordable. It’s about boosting our energy security here and across the globe. H.R. 8 is the embodiment of an all-of-the-above energy strategy,” he said, referring to the energy bill the chamber passed last year.
The bill’s provisions aim to modernize energy infrastructure like the electric grid and pipelines, make pipeline and natural gas export permitting easier, increase fossil fuel research and improve job training for energy fields, among other priorities.
But Democrats said the measure was backward looking and had little to do with modernization.
“A comprehensive energy bill would need to modernize the nation’s aging energy infrastructure, train a 21st century workforce and address the critically important issue of man-made climate change. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, none of these issues are addressed in the bill that we are voting on here today,” said Rep. Bobby Rush (Ill.) the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee’s energy and power subpanel.
“This 800-page hodgepodge of Republican and corporate priorities is nothing more than a majority wish list of strictly ideological bills, many of which the minority party opposes and the Obama administration does not support and the American people do not support,” he said.
While dozens of other items have been added to the bill, the one that got the most attention in the House’s debate concerns California’s drought.
It is similar to a GOP measure the House has passed before, and would make it more difficult for the federal government to use endangered species protections to increase the amount of water flowing out of federal dams and infrastructure in California.
It answers the long-standing Republican claim that the Obama administration is prioritizing endangered fish in California over people and farmers who need the water.
“Water that can be stored is being lost. Bureaucrats release fresh water out to the sea,” said House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). “Our most valuable resource is being wasted.”
Democrats said the drought provisions would do far more harm than good, just like the similar provisions that the House debated Tuesday as part of the appropriations bill for energy and water programs.
“This time, as last night, legislation dumped into this energy bill that will gut the environmental protections of the Delta and San Francisco Bay, destroy the fisheries, destroy the economy of the Delta and water for millions of people,” said Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.).
“Why would we want to do this? Well, presumably, to take care of the water interests of the San Joaquin Valley. Not Southern California, but the San Joaquin Valley alone,” he said. “Makes no sense whatsoever. It is the wrong policy.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy/281275-house-moves-toward-conference-committee-on-sweeping-energy-bill
-
Conference Talks Get Off to Bumpy Start
May 26, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
The House voted yesterday to launch the first major energy conference in a decade over the objections of most Democrats, highlighting the rough road that lies ahead for negotiators.
The chamber backed the revised energy package on a 241-178 vote yesterday, with eight Democrats voting in favor of the bill and six Republicans opposing it.
"This has been a multiyear, multi-Congress effort, and a lot of work has gone into making sure the bill we put forward to support the future of American energy is truly comprehensive," Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said of the bill.
But Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee, decried the measure as "an 800-page monstrosity" and "not a legitimate exercise in legislating."
Instead, he praised the Senate bill (S. 2012) for its bipartisan support.
"It passed by a vote of 85-15 because it is balanced and because it contains a number of non-energy provisions that the public supports overwhelmingly, such as permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund," he said in floor remarks. "On the other hand, the House energy bill was the result of a highly partisan process that the president threatened to veto."
Pallone ticked off a number of items in the committee's jurisdiction that he opposes in the House bill, including language to overhaul the permitting process for cross-border energy projects, hydropower permitting provisions, and the repeal of a 2007 law requiring federal buildings to curb the use of fossil fuel.
House Democrats' opposition to the chamber's bill doesn't bode well for the conference.
Earlier yesterday, Senate Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) signaled she's not ready to support going to conference.
"I'm not going to conference on this as is without some discussion," she told E&E Daily, citing the multiple veto threats against various House-passed bills that were folded into the bill last weekend (E&E Daily, May 25).
"We've got to be more productive than that so hopefully we can have some conversations about it," she added.
Cantwell's hesitation raises the prospect that it may be tough to find 60 votes in the Senate for going to conference, although that vote is not expected until after the Memorial Day recess.
Before final passage, the House voted 178-239 against a motion to commit the bill offered by Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) that emphasized the science underpinning climate change and the need to plan for rising sea levels.
Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) acknowledged that climate change is occurring but disputed the assertion that it's "the number one issue facing mankind."
"The United States does not have to take a backseat to anyone on this issue," Whitfield said, ticking off a list of federal programs addressing the issue.
The chamber later voted 205-212 to reject a motion sponsored by Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) -- the ranking member on the Natural Resources Committee -- that would instruct the conferees to insist on the permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund included in the Senate bill.
"There is no doubt that many of the provisions in the House and Senate energy bills are controversial; it is frankly difficult to see a path toward a bipartisan conference report," Grijalva said on the floor. "In such a contentious conference situation, a provision reauthorizing a program as widely popular as LWCF would play a constructive role in moving toward consensus."
But Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah), who opposes LWCF absent significant reforms, noted the $20 billion maintenance funding backlog for public lands in opposing the motion.
"What we are trying to do in this motion to instruct is to tell us to go in there and fight for money to go to a program to get more land when we can't manage what we have," he said. "We can come up with a better way."
In a reminder that LWCF is expected to be a major thorn in the conference talks, Heritage Action for America this week flagged a permanent authorization as one of that would trigger a "key vote" warning to lawmakers.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/05/26/stories/1060037915
-
Advocates Push to Keep Senate Bill's Efficiency Provisions
May 25, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Christa Marshall
A coalition of businesses, associations and green groups today urged Congress to retain most of the efficiency language in a Senate energy bill ahead of conferees being named to hash out differences between the two chambers.
In a letter to House and Senate leaders, the Alliance to Save Energy, the National Association of State Energy Officials and a dozen other groups called on lawmakers to keep the bulk of the efficiency title in S. 2012, a major energy package that passed the Senate last month.
The House is expected to pass its version of the energy package today, setting up the need for conferees to work out differences.
Yesterday, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, expressed some concerns about House leaders adding a number of controversial bills to their energy reform package, H.R. 8, which includes provisions on wildfire, the California drought and the America COMPETES Act (E&E Daily, May 25).
The groups wrote that many of the efficiency provisions in S. 2012 are the product of "many years of negotiation and consensus-building." They are concerned about House language from Reps. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) that would impose procedural requirements on DOE for setting building efficiency codes (E&E Daily, April 26).
"Inclusion of any provisions that would impede the continued development of building energy codes in a conference report will severely and irreparably erode its ability to attract bipartisanship support and ultimately doom its prospects for enactment," says the letter, which was also signed by manufacturers like the Danfoss Group. Sacramento Municipal Utility District and a range of business associations also signed.
But the groups want one exception to retaining the Senate language. The letter calls on conferees to use language in H.R. 8 on residential gas furnaces. Efficiency advocates prefer the House bill on that issue because it does not delay the current rulemaking timeline.
Industry groups say the pending efficiency rule is too stringent while environmentalists say it could be strengthened.
The language in the Senate bill would make action on a final furnace rule contingent on an advisory group convened by the secretary of Energy.
"The negative precedent set by the residential furnace standard in S. 2012 would lead to billions of dollars of lost savings from inefficient appliances and equipment across many other product classes," the letter says.
It further calls for lawmakers to reauthorize the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program and include additional language on smart buildings, water efficiency and other energy-saving measures.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/05/25/stories/1060037884
-
AEP Grapples With Clean Power Plan Compliance Options
May 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Serving 5.4 million customers across 11 states, American Electric Power is still grappling with various scenarios for complying with the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan despite the rule being stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court. During a recent forum sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute, Scott Weaver, manager of strategy policy analysis at AEP, spoke about the difficulties the multistate company will face once states begin to implement the Clean Power Plan (RIN:2060-AR33), which sets carbon dioxide emissions limits on the existing fleet of power plants.
Driven partly by market forces and with an eye toward complying with the rule, AEP is already shifting its generating capacity away from coal and toward a broader portfolio of cleaner options. While coal accounts for 60 percent of the company's generation currently, that share is expected to fall to 45 percent by 2026 as AEP invests in more renewables and natural gas.
Weaver spoke to Bloomberg BNA reporter Andrew Childers about how the company is assessing the multitude of options available to states. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Bloomberg BNA:
At AEP, you're already transitioning away from coal toward a broader portfolio. You were doing that before the rule came out. Is the rule affecting those plans going forward?
Scott Weaver:
We've incorporated a price on carbon within our resource-planning process for a number of years and the Clean Power Plan is just kind of an extension of that. So it's more of a formal requirement to look at carbon now. Obviously, with the rule being stayed, that puts some uncertainty on it, but directionally we've been heading on that track for a number of years. So I wouldn't say the Clean Power Plan necessarily created a shift in our plans, but it's something we've already been planning for and will continue to plan for as we're going forward.
Bloomberg BNA:
How are you viewing your preparation? What are you looking at if the rule is eventually upheld?
Weaver:
Through our planning processes, we're looking at ultimately what might be a market-based outcome for the compliance with the rule and that, of course, would be a price on carbon whether it be an emissions allowance or an emissions reduction credit. We're baking that in. We're looking at ultimately what is the lowest cost for our customers what would minimize customer costs with this rule. Obviously, a number of steps we've taken with shutting down older coal units, increasing our natural gas consumption through acquisition of new natural gas units as well as increasingly adding renewables to our mix well positioned us, but we need to see that continuing going forward. But ultimately, it's going to be our states' direction in terms of what they want to do from a planning perspective that will ultimately dovetail into our internal planning processes. After the courts have a chance to weigh in on what the ultimate outcome of the rule may be, we'll get back in touch with our states and work with them to figure out how best to develop state compliance plans that minimize customer costs as well as allow us to plan for a least cost solution.
Bloomberg BNA:
That goes back to something you had said at EPRI; you said you cover 11 states but only Virginia is currently working on a plan.
Weaver:
Virginia is the only one active. Louisiana has indicated it might continue, but most of our states have put their pencils down.
Bloomberg BNA:
So how do you begin to prepare for something like that when you don't know what direction a state might be going in yet?
Weaver:
You know, it's a little bit tricky. We're doing internal analyses, obviously. In a number of states, we have resource-planning requirements, which will continue to analyze the effect of CO2 regulation whether it will be the Clean Power Plan or some other proxy which ultimately we think might come to bear. That process will shed a lot of light on terms of what's economic for our customers. Additionally, we're keeping track of other studies in the market, whether these studies are by PJM or [the Southwest Power Pool] or other reliability entities. I think as we go through this process there will be numerous information points that we can reference and, ultimately, it's not a single point that's useful to stake but collectively looking at the volume of information out there and assessing, “OK, what kind of robust conclusions can we draw going forward?” I think our states, even if they're not actively pursuing a plan, they are, I think, in an information-seeking mode. They'll keep their pulse on the studies out there, I think, behind the scenes on what ultimately may come to bear and how to prepare for it.
Bloomberg BNA:
Because your company spans 11 states, is the worst case scenario for you guys getting a hodgepodge of state plans—some go mass while others choose rate—that would create difficulties with maximizing efficiencies across your system?
Weaver:
It is a risk for us. Given our operating company focus though, ultimately if there are disparities in compliance plans, as long as those plans match up well with what our operating companies can do with cost effective solutions, we're OK with that. Obviously, it adds some operational costs and management costs on our part trying to comply with disparate policies just because there's more legwork on our end trying to match our compliance plans to that state plan, but ultimately this can be in the best interest of customers. Whether it's rate or mass, we'll follow that track.
It does create some challenges particularly because some of our operating companies' footprint does stretch across multiple states. That's where we have our biggest risk in operating companies that operate in multiple states. If those states go different ways, that adds planning complexity.
Bloomberg BNA:
Do you have a preference, rate versus mass? You still have a significant coal presence, which would incline it to a mass approach. But do you have a preferred option?
Weaver:
We don't have a preferred option at this point. We broadly acknowledge that mass has its inherent advantages in its simplicity as well as our past experience utilizing a mass-based plan. For a number of states where there is a significant coal footprint, mass seems to make more sense because it's pretty simple to reduce mass by reducing utilization of coal units. We are recognizing that for some of our states, particularly those with a lot of renewable options at a low cost, rate may also be an attractive pathway. So ultimately, it's a little bit hard to forecast what might come to bear now seven years down the line in terms of renewable costs as well as the composition of what the electric fleet looks like. At this point, we're not driving that decision by the states, but we're encouraging them to look at all cost effective pathways and make a determination based on cost.
Bloomberg BNA:
You mentioned cost. Earlier you said you'd done some cost analysis that suggested it could be as much as $200 million to $400 million more in compliance costs without trading. Is that going to be one of the driving factors as you work with states on compliance?
Weaver:
Encouraging trading is key with this whether it's taking a rate-based approach or a mass-based approach. In any situation, trading is always more cost effective, and that's one of our early conclusions. We think that states going down a path which would lead them to adopting the model trading rule would be the most cost-effective. That's something we're broadly encouraging across states. We'd also eliminate some of these cross-state issues by having a common currency we can all have for compliance between states.
Bloomberg BNA:
You had also mentioned that AEP across the entire system has hit close to that 30 percent reduction already, but you said it wasn't uniform. Are there particular spots along the system you see needing extra attention as you plan for compliance?
Weaver:
Obviously, some states, I think I mentioned Virginia and Kentucky, we've completely shut down our coal footprint there. However, other states like West Virginia, our generation mix there is 100 percent coal. Even though we shut down some smaller units, we still have a large footprint in that state, greater than 4 gigawatts of coal. I think states like West Virginia are going to be kind of markers for what happens with the broader coal fleet in terms of compliance with this rule. I think that's where a lot of our attention is going to be going forward. And again, that coal footprint in West Virginia does supply customers in Virginia as well.
Bloomberg BNA:
AEP has said that you guys have already made significant reductions. However, you're not going to be getting credit under the Clean Power Plan for some of that early action. Do you see any other easy targets of opportunity? Does the fact that some of your other early actions don't count toward compliance present any unique challenges for you guys?
Weaver:
It's a function of how EPA structured this rule. I think at this point it's water under the bridge. There's not much we can do given that we have a final rule. Obviously, we'll look toward opportunities to maximize our compliance opportunities going forward, looking toward things like the Clean Energy Incentive Program, which we can potentially draw some additional allowances from. Those reductions did occur from 2005 to 2012, and unfortunately EPA's compliance [window] is from 2012 forward. Those are reductions that have been realized and environmental benefit actually has too.
Bloomberg BNA:
You mentioned the CEIP. You guys see opportunities there as well for additional action and early credit then?
Weaver:
We have plans for a large deployment of renewable energy resources across our footprint within the next 10 to 15 years. With the extension of the production tax credit as well as the potential for the CEIP program, deploying those resources early could make a lot of sense for us. We're looking forward to reviewing the rule —I guess it's at OMB now—and comes back out for comment. It might influence our compliance plan going forward, so that's something we're interested in. But, obviously, there's a lot of details that need ironing out.
Bloomberg BNA:
You mentioned the uncertainty because of the lawsuit going on. How does the upcoming argument and the litigation affect your planning going forward?
Weaver:
Obviously, we have to plan for several outcomes. One where the rule doesn't go into effect, one where the rule goes into effect as is and there's some middle ground between in terms of if the court strikes down a narrow portion of it and keeps another portion. We're just planning for multiple scenarios now. We're not going to speculate on what the court outcome might be. Obviously, it's setting up for a lengthy process, probably two to four years before we have final resolution. In that time frame we're going to do internal analyses where needed. We're going to respond to requests for external analysis from our states where they think we need to weigh in on pathways. But ultimately, we're not going to make any firm commitments or investment decisions before the process plays out.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90426635&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90426635&jd=90426635
-
White House to Push Companies for More Disclosure on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
May 25, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder and Bradley Olson
The White House is set to propose a new rule Wednesday that would push companies with federal contracts to publicly disclose more information about their impact on climate change, their efforts to address the issue, and how a warmer planet could affect business operations.
The White House’s Federal Acquisition Regulation Council, which directs government contracts, is expected to require companies that have contracts with the U.S. government to indicate publicly whether they disclose their greenhouse gas emissions, their goals to cut those emissions, and the risks a changing climate could pose to their operations.
“The goal in this effort is to try to have better and clearer information both about greenhouse gas emissions and accounting for climate-related risks,” Brian Deese, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama, said in an interview. “We want to make sure that better information is informing contracting decisions going forward.”
The rule, which is expected to be finalized this fall after a public comment period, would affect an estimated 90% of all federal contracts, or more than $400 billion in annual contracting expenditures, according to the administration.
The White House announcement will coincide with meetings Wednesday of Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. shareholders, where attendees are expected to vote on resolutions that would require the companies to disclose more information about the risks new climate-change regulations pose to their businesses.
Both companies opposed the investor proposals, which call for them to show how the value of their assets could fall if the world moves toward lower-carbon energy sources. They’re not expected to pass Wednesday, but they are expected to garner a far higher percentage of votes at each company than in previous years.
The White House rule is much less sweeping than the activist investor efforts because it doesn’t actually require any new public disclosure of information, only reporting on whether that information is currently disclosed. It also doesn’t address the impact of climate-change regulations.
The rule instead seeks to put companies on the record one way or the other about whether they have revealed their greenhouse gas emissions and goals to cut those emissions, and whether they have considered how the effects of a warmer planet—such as an increase in extreme weather events—could impact operations.
Administration officials say they hope the rule will add to the public debate about climate-change risks, including events like Wednesday’s shareholder meetings of two of the U.S.’s biggest oil and natural-gas companies.
“There are significant existing demand drivers for disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related risk data, including growing calls from investors, insurers, and institutions,” three administration officials wrote in a blog item to be posted Wednesday. “Today’s announcement sends another clear market signal that there is strong interest for disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related risk data government-wide.”
The federal government is a major buyer of petroleum products, often for Department of Defense operations such as jet fuel for aircraft or diesel for Navy vessels. Exxon Mobil, Chevron and other major oil companies routinely compete for and win such contracts, which can extend across multiple years and stretch into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-to-push-companies-for-more-disclosure-on-greenhouse-gas-emissions-1464184983
-
Proposal Prods Federal Contractors on Carbon Footprints
May 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The Obama administration is proposing a new requirement designed to encourage oil refiners, airplane manufacturers and other companies doing business with the U.S. government to disclose their carbon footprint and what they're doing to shrink it.
A rule (RIN:9000–AN20) proposed May 25 by the U.S. agency that coordinates the government's $400-billion-plus supply chain would require contractors and vendors to reveal if they publicly report greenhouse gas emissions, their plans for paring them and the risks that climate change pose to their operations (81 Fed. Reg. 33,192).
The Federal Acquisition Regulation Council's measure “leverages the federal government's purchasing power to push for this type of unprecedented disclosure government-wide,” the White House said in a blog post. It “sends another clear market signal that there is strong interest for disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related risk data.“
A range of companies that do business with the U.S. could be affected, including aircraft manufacturers Lockheed Martin Corp. and Boeing Co., shipmakers such as General Dynamics Corp. and Bechtel Group Inc., and weapons suppliers such as Raytheon Co. It also could spur more disclosure from oil companies, such as Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Valero Energy Corp. and Exxon Mobil Corp., which are among the top fuel suppliers to the Pentagon.
Corporate Disclosure Sought
Separate, private campaigns to force similar corporate climate disclosure have had limited success, particularly with oil companies.
At Exxon Mobil's annual meeting May 25, investors rejected most shareholder resolutions touching on climate, but adopted one that would make it easier for activist investors to elect directors to the board. Chevron Corp. investors on May 25 also overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to pare exploratory spending—one of five climate resolutions up for a vote during its meeting in San Ramon, California (see related story).
While most shareholder resolutions on climate have not been adopted by oil producers, they are keeping pressure on the companies to address the issue.
The administration's proposal, subject to public comment through July 25, was applauded by environmentalists and disclosure advocates, including New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
The administration is taking an important step for disclosure, but that should be buttressed by the U.S. making climate considerations central in decisions on contracts, policy and permits, David Turnbull, campaigns director for Oil Change International, an environmental group, said in e-mail.
“Taxpayer dollars shouldn't be going to companies who are standing in the way of climate action,” Turnbull said.
Michael Bloomberg, founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News, Bloomberg BNA and their parent company Bloomberg LP, leads a panel appointed by the Financial Stability Board to draw up voluntary guidelines for companies to disclose climate risk.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90426666&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90426666&jd=90426666
-
Obama to Ask Contractors for Information on Greenhouse Gas Disclosures
May 25, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Obama administration is preparing to ask federal contracts to disclose more information about how they track their greenhouse gas emissions.
The White House’s Federal Acquisition Regulation Council proposed a new rule Wednesday that would ask federal government contractors to report on a host of greenhouse gas considerations.
Contractors would be required to say whether — and where — they publicly disclose their greenhouse gas emissions, if they have emissions reduction goals or targets and how climate change might pose a threat to their operations.
Officials filed the rule in the Federal Register on Wednesday, setting up a public comment period and finalization later this year.
The rule means “we’ll be able to better assess supplier greenhouse gas management practices, manage direct and indirect greenhouse gas emission, address climate risk in the federal government’s supply chain and engage with contractors to reduce supply chain emissions,” three Obama officials, including Anne Rung, the Chief Acquisition Officer, wrote in an administrationblog post.
The officials noted some federal agencies have already asked their contractors for climate-related information.
The Navy Department, for example, asked its 100 latest suppliers last month to disclose their emissions and plans for cutting them. Two years ago, the General Services Administration based contract decisions for domestic delivery services, in part, on emissions metrics.
The proposed rule doesn’t ask contractors to report their emissions, but rather whether companies are tracking and disclosing them on their own.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/281244-obama-to-ask-contractors-for-information-on-greenhouse-gas
-
Republicans Roll Out Bills to Limit Funding for Regulations
May 26, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
Republican lawmakers on both sides of Capitol Hill have introduced legislation to limit the amount of money federal agencies spend on regulations. Authors envision a process similar to that for appropriations measures.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is leading the charge for a federal regulatory budget as part of his "Article I Project," a reference to the authors of the Constitution putting Congress first among the government's three branches.
The legislation would cap rulemaking and impose consequences for going beyond the cap. Agencies would submit a regulatory budget for congressional review. The bill then directs the Office of Management and Budget to prevent agencies from breaching the cap with new regulatory actions.
Lee said yesterday he aimed to address the problem of a "hyperactive" executive branch, faulting Congress for handing over the responsibility for legislating to federal agencies for its own "convenience."
To illustrate the imbalance between the legislative and executive branches, two stacks of paper sit side-by-side on the shelves of Lee's office -- 3,291 pages of laws passed by Congress and signed by the president in 2014, and 79,066 pages of regulations issued by federal agencies during the same period.
"We're doing 4 inches, and they are doing 11 feet, so something is broken," said Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) in an interview on the legislation he is co-sponsoring.
Senate Budget Chairman Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) both joined Lee in pushing for the legislation, which would establish a framework backed by John Graham, who led the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under President George W. Bush.
Robert R.M. Verchick, a former U.S. EPA policy official, said during a hearing last year that an arbitrary cap could "deprive us of many necessary protections and of even more net benefits" (E&E Daily, Dec. 10, 2015).
The new bill would also require the Congressional Budget Office and OMB to submit to Congress a detailed annual report on the cost of federal regulations.
"It is time to bring the true costs of federal regulations out of the shadows and into the light," Enzi said in remarks yesterday.
Enzi brought a chart to the Senate floor, showing 20 federal agencies that oversee 160 housing programs. "Can we consolidate programs? Can we be sure they have measurable goals and hold them to achievement?" he asked.
Across the Capitol, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) laid out his plan to unveil six substantive policy proposals, including one from a task force on "reducing regulatory burdens." The panel, comprised of nine standing committee chairman, put out a 10-principle platform this spring (E&E Daily, March 2).
"We're happy to partner with them and work with them," said Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.), sponsor of the House version of the Lee legislation.
The new bill's five backers include some of the chamber's most conservative members and none of its standing committee chairmen.
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee's panel on regulations, said the push was harmful to health and safety. Johnson said GOP anti-government rhetoric has contributed to the political rise of people like billionaire Donald Trump.
"It is the reason for the anger that we see among Republican voters who are sick and tired of their loss of revenue and their loss of basic governmental protection," Johnson told E&E Daily. "They've been misled into blaming the federal government for their plight.
"Our job," Johnson added, "is to help explain to people what the real Republican agenda is."
Click here to read Lee's policy brief on the regulatory budget legislation.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/05/26/stories/1060037903
-
D.C. Appeals Court Set to Determine Fate of Several Obama Initiatives
May 25, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Brent Kendall
The Supreme Court may be keeping a lower profile while it is short-handed, but high-stakes cases remain in Washington—at a powerful appeals court that could determine the fate of several important Obama administration initiatives.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is preparing for cases examining signature Obama administration climate change regulations on power plants, as well as economic-crisis era rules for the nation’s largest financial firms. The court also soon could be reviewing a challenge to the implementation of President Barack Obama’s signature health-care law, a showdown between the administration and House Republicans.
In other cases, court watchers are awaiting D.C. Circuit rulings on the legality of broad new government open-Internet rules, and on the structure of a consumer watchdog agency created by the 2011 Dodd-Frank financial overhaul.
The cases underscore the importance of the D.C. Circuit, which is frequently the venue for prominent challenges to federal regulations and enforcement actions. It also is a reason why Democrats and Republicans have clashed heatedly on nominees for the appeals court.
“If it’s a big case against the government, there’s a pretty good chance it goes through the D.C. Circuit,” said Brigham Young University law professor Aaron Nielson, a former law clerk at the appeals court and the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court can and does review some D.C. Circuit decisions, though the appeals court often is the last word in many cases, as the high court only accepts about 70 cases a year. Federal appeals courts may take on additional prominence in the near term because it is possible the Supreme Court could be operating with eight justices well into 2017. The justices, at risk of splitting 4-4 on issues that divide them, have slowed their pace of accepting new cases.
The D.C. Circuit itself has been affected by the stalemate over replacing Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February. President Obama’s high court pick, Merrick Garland, is the D.C. Circuit’s chief judge. He hasn’t been participating in cases since he was nominated.
Mr. Obama didn’t place his first judge on the D.C. Circuit until 2013.
He has since added three more judges there, but the Senate confirmation battles led to a full-blown meltdown between the two parties over judicial nominations.
The climate change case, examining Environmental Protection Agency rules requiring a 32% cut in power-plant carbon emissions, could provide an early test of how much the president’s appointees have changed the dynamics of the court, which now has a liberal majority after years in which conservative judges often held sway.
So far, “any changes have been only at the margins,” because D.C. Circuit judges have found common ground in many cases since the new members joined, Mr. Nielson said.
Common ground hasn’t been the early hallmark of the EPA case.
In February, a divided Supreme Court issued an emergency order blocking the power plant regulations from going into effect during D.C. Circuit litigation brought by an array of business groups and more than two dozen states. Conservative justices, including the late Justice Scalia, formed a majority to block the EPA, though the court didn’t rule on the merits of the regulations. It was one of the last high court actions before Justice Scalia died.
The D.C. Circuit normally hears cases in three-judge panels, but last week it chose to skip that process and hear the environmental case “en banc,”meaning a much larger roster of judges will participate in the review. The court rarely considers cases in that fashion, highlighting the importance of the dispute.
In the health-care case, the Obama administration is expected to appeal to the D.C. Circuit soon in an Affordable Care Act case examining how the government is reimbursing insurers for reducing the out-of-pocket insurance costs for very low income individuals.
A federal trial judge, Rosemary Collyer, earlier this month ruled the administration was violating the Constitution by paying insurance companies with money that Congress never appropriated for that purpose, a ruling cheered by House Republicans who filed the lawsuit in 2014.
The case could set important precedent on separation-of-powers issues and have significant financial implications for the insurance industry and the operation of the law’s health-insurance exchanges.
The administration already has appealed another major decision by Judge Collyer against the government, in a case about federal regulation of financial firms whose failure could put the economy at risk. The judge ruled regulators wrongly designated MetLife Inc. for federal oversight. The government wants the D.C. Circuit to consider the case on an expedited basis, saying the judge’s ruling affects its authority to address threats to U.S. financial stability.
The D.C. Circuit last December heard oral arguments in the Internet regulation case, which examines Federal Communications Commission rules that prohibit the blocking or slowing of Internet traffic. A decision could come any time.
And in April arguments, a panel of conservative D.C. Circuit judges questioned whether the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau gives its director, Richard Cordray, too much power. The bureau has come under fire from Republicans and business groups since its 2011 founding. A ruling is expected in the coming months.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/d-c-appeals-court-set-to-determine-fate-of-several-obama-initiatives-1464190583
-
Feds Spend Billions on Ancient Technology, Report Says
May 25, 2016 | AP
The government is spending about three-fourths of its technology budget maintaining aging computer systems, including platforms more than 50 years old in vital areas from nuclear weapons to Social Security. One still uses floppy disks.
In a report to be released Wednesday, nonpartisan congressional investigators say the increasing cost of maintaining museum-ready equipment devours money better spent on modernization.
Despite a White House push to replace aging workhorse systems, the budget for modernization has fallen, and will be $7 billion less in 2017 than in 2010, said the Government Accountability Office. The report was provided to The Associated Press ahead of a House oversight committee hearing.
GAO said it found problems across the government, not just in a few agencies. Among those highlighted in the report:The Defense Department's Strategic Automated Command and Control System, which is used to send and receive emergency action messages to U.S. nuclear forces. The system is running on a 1970s IBM computing platform, and still uses 8-inch floppy disks to store data. "Replacement parts for the system are difficult to find because they are now obsolete," GAO said. The Pentagon is initiating a full replacement and says the floppy disks should be gone by the end of next year. The entire upgrade will take longer.
Those findings echo a 2014 report on CBS News' "60 Minutes" highlighting the obsolete technology still being used at U.S. nuclear weapons facilities. Lesley Stahl spoke with two of the young Air Force personnel charged with monitoring and controlling nuclear missiles, including a 23-year-old who confessed that until she started the job, "I had never seen one of these [floppy disks]."Treasury's individual and business master files, the authoritative data sources for taxpayer information. The systems are about 56 years old, and use an outdated computer language that is difficult to write and maintain. Treasury plans to replace the systems, but has no firm datesSocial Security systems that are used to determine eligibility and estimate benefits, about 31 years old. Some use a programming language called COBOL, dating to the late 1950s and early 1960s. "Most of the employees who developed these systems are ready to retire and the agency will lose their collective knowledge," the report said. "Training new employees to maintain the older systems takes a lot of time." Social Security has no plans to replace the entire system, but is eliminating and upgrading older and costlier components. It is also rehiring retirees who know the technology.Medicare's Appeals System, which is only 11 years old, but facing challenges keeping up with a growing number of appeals, as well as questions from congressional offices following up on constituent concerns. The report says the agency has general plans to keep updating the system, depending on the availability of funds.The Transportation Department's Hazardous Materials Information System, used to track incidents and keep information relied on by regulators. The system is about 41 years old, and some of its software is no longer supported by vendors, which can create security risks. The department plans to complete its modernization program in 2018.
GAO estimates that the government spent at least $80 billion on information technology, or IT, in 2015. However, the total could be significantly higher. Not counted in the report are certain Pentagon systems, as well as those run by independent agencies, among them the CIA. Major systems are known as "IT investments" in government jargon.
"Legacy federal IT investments are becoming obsolete," GAO concluded. "The federal government runs the risk of continuing to maintain investments that have outlived their effectiveness and are consuming resources that outweigh their benefits."
The report also profiled aging systems operated by the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, Justice, State, and Veterans Affairs.
The White House has been nudging agencies to identify obsolete systems and start replacing them, but GAO said that clearer, more specific goals and timetables are needed. A starting point could be recent legislation supported by the White House to create a revolving fund of $3 billion for replacing or upgrading older technology. It seems certain that President Barack Obama's successor will have to grapple with the issue.
"The federal government is years and in some cases decades behind the private sector," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in a statement. "Taxpayers deserve a government that leverages technology to serve them, rather than one that deploys insecure, decades-old technology that places their sensitive and personal information at risk."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-government-spends-wastes-billions-on-ancient-technology-gao-report-says/
-
(ACC Mentioned) FM Alert: USGBC Launches New LEED Pilot Credit For Building Materials
May 25, 2016 | Facility Executive
Project teams and manufacturers will be encouraged to assess human health related exposure scenarios for products during their installation and use phases, thanks to USGBC’s new LEED pilot credit—Building Material Human Hazard & Exposure Assessment.
“LEED v4, the latest version of the LEED green building system, has begun a shift in how we think about health and building materials,” said Scot Horst, chief product officer, USGBC. “We have a focus on transparency and optimization so specifiers can know what they are using and can reward innovation. But understanding how a material impacts human health requires a full understanding of hazard and exposure. The new pilot credit is a first step toward evaluating exposure by encouraging product inventories in order to prioritize decision making.”
The pilot credit seeks to reward manufacturers who perform hazard and exposure assessments that can serve as a basis for developing products designed to minimize human health impacts during installation and use of the products. These assessments can, in turn, be an important consideration for alternative assessment of building materials. By requiring exposure to be considered during product development, this pilot begins to make linkages between the product’s ingredient inventory and hazard assessment required by the existing Materials Ingredients credit and performance testing required by LEED’s Low Emitting Materials credits.
The Hazard & Exposure pilot credit continues USGBC’s work to advance LEED users’ knowledge and understanding of the materials used to build and operate buildings. USGBC’s ultimate aim is that project teams have a full and complete picture of building materials and products—all in one place—which will help enable transparent, informed decisions around important attributes of materials and products used in our offices, homes, schools and other structures.
This pilot credit was developed by USGBC in conjunction with the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and its members, as part of the partnership announced in 2014. The partnership was established to expand collaboration between suppliers and specifiers, leverage scientific expertise and make LEED a more effective tool to deliver positive economic, environmental and social outcomes. This initiative acknowledges USGBC’s success in leading the transformation of the built environment and sets up a pathway to take advantage of the materials science expertise of ACC and its members.
“ACC welcomes the new pilot credit, which rewards products that have undergone rigorous and scientific hazard and exposure assessments,” says Debra M. Phillips, vice president, ACC. “Through Responsible Care, ACC members support scientific and systematic approaches to managing and continuously improving the safety of their products. ACC members also undertake third-party verification of their systems and approaches. This new credit brings such a scientific, systematic and third-party validated approach to the important issue of health.”
All USGBC members are eligible to submit pilot credits for consideration; pilot credits are evaluated based on applicability to the goals of LEED, relative impact compared to other LEED credits or pilot credits, technical rigor and achievability.
“Today, exposure information and the assumptions that go into it aren’t required to be shared by manufacturers,” added Horst. “This new pilot credit will facilitate information sharing that will help us guide future credit writing.”
To fulfill the credit requirements, LEED projects must submit product documentation from manufacturers, including calculations and assumptions, to GBCI, the third-party verification body for LEED. This information will be combined with data from other ongoing pilots and credits and synthesized by USGBC and GBCI to inform technical development of this pilot and other materials-related LEED credits.
http://facilityexecutive.com/2016/05/usgbc-launches-new-leed-pilot-credit-for-building-materials/
-
California Carbon Market's Latest Auction Results Show Continued Resilience
May 25, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Erica Morehouse
The results of California and Quebec’s latest carbon auction show that an ongoing lawsuit challenging the cap-and-trade program’s allowance auctions is likely impacting market dynamics, but that California’s market is proving resilient, in part due to the strength of its design.
The May 18 auction, the second of 2016, offered 67,675,951 current vintage allowances (available for 2016 compliance) and sold only 7,260,000. Just under one million of the just over ten million future vintage allowances (available for use in 2019 and after) were sold. The unsold California state allowances will go back to the auction holding account and will not be available for sale until the auction clears above the floor price for two consecutive auctions, a critical regulatory feature that removes unexpected, excess supply from the market and provides further price support. Utility allowances that were consigned to auction and did not sell will be offered again for sale at the next auction.
Increased attention to the litigation brought by the California Chamber of Commerce and the Morning Star Packing Co. et al., as well as higher participation in the secondary market, caused lower demand for allowances in the May auction. Secondary market prices have traded as low as 44 cents below the floor price in the last couple of months. But the real story is the positive and stabilizing impact of the floor price itself.
Other markets without such a strong floor price have seen price drops that are much more dramatic when the market receives a disturbance. But in California, the volume of trades on the secondary market has been higher than usual, showing that some entities are taking the opportunity to buy allowances at a discount.
It's worth noting that these results in no way impact the overall performance of California's program, which will continue to incentivize carbon pollution reductions.EDF’s take on the litigation of the cap-and-trade auction program’s legality
At this critical juncture, opponents continue to litigate and challenge carbon auctions, an integral component of the cap-and-trade program that promotes equity and a healthy carbon market.
We are confident, however, that California courts will ultimately confirm the Legislature’s broad grant of authority to the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to design effective programs to address the imminent threat of climate change, and will reject the claim that auctioning valuable, marketable emission allowance constitutes an unconstitutional “tax.”
In supplemental briefings submitted May 23 to the California court, ARB argued persuasively that, even if the intermediate appellate court were to find a legal flaw in the auction, there would be no valid legal justification for disrupting the cap-and-trade program including its auction components while the state Supreme Court considers the case or ARB develops a suitable solution. This outcome is well-grounded in legal precedent affirming courts’ obligation to avoid remedies that imperil public health and welfare or cause needless disruption to public and private interests that rely on the current status quo.
While EDF has a high degree of confidence that the lower court decision rejecting the challengers’ claims will be upheld, even if it is not, settled judicial procedures should help to ensure that the environmentally and economically important cap-and-trade program continues with minimal disruption.
California’s ability to continue utilizing a cap-and-trade program that is designed to best meet the state’s needs through 2020 and beyond is essential not just to California itself, but also to global climate momentum.
We’re at a watershed moment for climate action, and California is at the forefront. The U.S., China, and 173 other countries signed the Paris Agreement last month, and a group of leaders convened by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund expressed a goal of moving from 12% to 50% of global carbon emissions covered by carbon pricing by 2030. All the while, California is providing one of the most successful examples of economy-wide carbon pricing that is reducing emissions and promoting equity while the state’s economy is thriving.
There is every reason for confidence both in the legality of CARB’s choice to auction allowances and in the commitment of California’s leaders to deliver on California’s climate goals. We expect that a resilient cap-and-trade program will remain at the heart of the state’s increasingly ambitious and effective climate strategy long into the future.
http://blogs.edf.org/climatetalks/2016/05/25/california-carbon-markets-latest-auction-results-show-continued-resilience/
-
Is Washington Creating More Flints?
May 25, 2016 | Politico
By Danny Vinik
The lead-poisoning scandal in Flint, Michigan, seems like exactly the kind of crisis that demands Washington's help: a cash-strapped city with governance problems found itself delivering toxic heavy metal to its children through their faucets. Now, it desperately needs money to update its water system safely.
And from a distance it appears that Congress is riding to the rescue: A bill currently in the Senate would try to help towns like Flint by pumping another $1 billion a year into water utility projects across the country. If it passes, it would boost total spending by Washington on water utilities to around $5.3 billion per year.
But pull back far enough, and Washington's approach looks less like a rescue than a long, slow abandonment. The past 38 years have actually been marked by a huge federal retreat from helping cities fund water projects. Accounting for inflation, the Congressional Budget Office estimates federal spending on water utilities has dropped 75 percent since 1977. The U.S. population has grown by 100 million people over that time, which means the burden of supplying and cleaning their water has gone up—and is now borne almost entirely by cities and states. It takes an especially heavy toll on the people of poorer cities like Flint, with an average income of $39,000. The city’s lead problem was, after all, the result of a badly managed attempt to save money.
Talk long enough to people who think seriously about America's water infrastructure and it becomes clear that they don't expect Flint to be the last such case. “We are going to reach a time where the infrastructure is going to be in such poor condition that there is the potential for catastrophic issues,” said James McGoff, director of environmental programs for the Indiana Finance Authority, who manages his state’s funding for water infrastructure projects.
The $1 billion that Congress hopes to find is dwarfed by the likely cost of basic nationwide water maintenance. Expensive to build in the first place, water systems require millions of dollars in upkeep over their life spans; the Environmental Protection Agency estimates U.S. cities and towns will need to find an additional $655 billion just for routine operations and maintenance over the next 20 years. And another estimate looms even higher than that: Taking into account population growth and climate change, which are expected to put further stress on the system, the American Water Works Association says the total funding gap could be as high as $1 trillion over the next 25 years just for drinking water.
Is this Washington's fault? There's always a reasonable argument over just who should pay for big projects like water systems; their benefits are local, after all. But in the world of infrastructure, water stands out for the startlingly small role the federal government plays in building and maintaining our crucial systems. In 2014, federal dollars accounted for 22 percent of mass-transit money, 28 percent of highway spending and 44 percent of aviation projects.For water utilities, that number was just 4 percent.
Water isn't a sexy topic in Washington, but among people who pay attention, there is a growing belief—on both sides of the aisle—that it’s time for the federal government to start investing much more in water infrastructure. Politically that’s unlikely to happen, as the limited funding coming from Congress after Flint suggests.
But in the absence of new money, one new idea has been arising: finding better ways for cities to help finance their own projects. The federal government has financial levers besides pure spending programs, and the water funding squeeze has forced policymakers to develop new ways to turn scarce federal dollars into larger loans for local communities.
The bill that passed the Senate committee also included a grab bag of policies to help pay for water, including capitalizing the yet-to-be-funded Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act and establishing a water infrastructure trust fund modeled after the Highway Trust Fund. The Obama administration has also created multiple centers to create innovative ways to increase private investment, though some are so new that few water experts have heard of them.
These unproven financing ideas could ultimately succeed in funneling private dollars for the public benefit—but they could also fail, leaving state and local officials with few options. With thousands of water main breaks and safety issues each year, federal policymakers have limited time to find a solution.
GO BACK FAR enough in history and water was a purely local problem. But the 20th century saw water systems become far more ambitious undertakings: They expanded into regional networks, and cities realized they needed to take on the whole new responsibility of treating dirty water as well as supplying clean. It was in 1972, with the nation facing a massive backlog of sewage-system construction, when Congress decided that the problem had hit a scale in which federal help was needed.
A provision in the Clean Water Act authorized a large new pot of federal construction-grant money for wastewater system construction. Over the next 10 years, the federal government’s spending on water utilities surged. By 1976, it was up to almost $10 billion, from $2 billion in 1970. (All numbers are adjusted for inflation and in 2014 dollars.) Five years later, federal spending on water utilities hit $16.6 billion.
After Ronald Reagan took over the White House in 1981, water spending never regained the momentum of the 1970s. By 1987, Congress had reduced funding for the construction grants program to $7 billion. The same year, lawmakers tweaked how the government would pay for water: Instead of providing direct grants, Congress began doing it through a financing scheme. Washington would provide "capitalization grants" to states, which would then provide loans to local communities. Instead of receiving money to pay for a new system, cities would take out loans and have to pay their states back. Today, the two big loan programs—known as "state revolving funds," one for wastewater and one for drinking water—are the predominant way that the federal government helps fund water utilities. The total outlays for those two funds are now down to just $2.3 billion a year, with another $2 billion going to a grab bag of water programs run by other agencies.
In one sense, loan funds are a very effective away to use limited money: States are required to match some of the federal spending, and local communities often find ways to leverage even more money through the private sector. “There have been times when we’ve been able to leverage about 9-to-1,” said Shellie Chard-McClary, water quality division director at the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality.
But the revolving funds also have drawbacks—especially in small and poorer communities that can't afford to pay back loans. Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan, chairman of the Senate subcommittee with jurisdiction over water infrastructure, noted that some communities in his state don’t have any water infrastructure at all. “To be honest, most of my colleagues don’t know that there are still entire communities that essentially don’t have any of that,” he said. “And one of my frustrations is you then have much, much higher levels of infection [and] disease in those communities.”
The loan programs have weaknesses when it comes to big cities as well: Though cities can borrow money on the bond market, their infrastructure needs can be so vast that a water program in a major metro area can often eat up a state’s entire allocation of federal funding for a given year.
After the Flint crisis made national news, the Obama administration proposed increasing funding for the drinking water revolving fund by about $200 million. But it also proposed a reduction of about $400 million in the revolving fund for sewage and wastewater construction. Taken together, the budget calls for a 13 percent cut in the programs—“robbing Peter to pay Paul,” said Erik Olson, a water expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Joel Beauvais, the top water official at EPA, said the agency, like the rest of the government, faces tight fiscal constraints in making its budget.
The Senate has not released its spending bill specifying funding for the two revolving funds in 2017 while the House bill, released Tuesday, proposes a small reduction in total funding. Despite the many disagreements over the budget, the Obama administration and congressional Republicans agree on one thing: There won't be more money for America's main water funds.
SO IF WASHINGTON doesn't have the appetite to spend money on the scale that national water systems appear to need, what next?
Policymakers and thinkers have come up with a handful of ideas to make scarce federal funds go further and attract new private capital. Many are based on similar programs already in existence for transportation projects. In 2014, Congress passed the Water Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act, or WIFIA, based on a similar program for transportation projects that has succeeded in helping states leverage federal dollars to fund highway projects by attracting private capital investment. WIFIA is specifically designed to help large communities finance large, expensive projects.
Another idea is a water trust fund, which would receive revenue from a dedicated funding source and then give those funds to the two revolving funds to be distributed to states. While the Highway Trust Fund is largely funded through the gas tax, the water infrastructure trust fund would be funded by a voluntary fee on consumer goods. Critics point out that a voluntary fee isn't exactly the most secure source of money for a necessity like water, but Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon—who has been working to create a water infrastructure trust fund for almost 10 years—suggests that there are plenty of companies for whom the good PR of helping Americans access cleaner water would be worth the cost.
Just one problem for both these programs: They're part of a bill, the Water Resources Development Act, that passed a committee in April but has yet to receive a Senate vote. The House hasn't even taken up its version.
WIFIA has even gotten caught up in arguments within the water community, as many groups who benefit from the revolving funds worry that Congress will cut funding from the state revolving funds in favor of WIFIA.
In the absence of congressional action, the White House has stepped in with a handful of programs dedicated to boosting private-sector investment in water. It recently created multiple centers within different departments, including the Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center at EPA. In December, the Department of Interior created the Natural Resources Investment Center to help connect investors looking to deploy capital with state and local communities.
These haven't exactly transformed American water—yet. Almost no one I spoke with had heard of the Natural Resources Investment Center, which is just a few months old; more people were aware of the EPA’s Water Infrastructure Resiliency Finance Center. But the administration is hopeful that these new ideas will help reimagine the government’s role in water infrastructure; instead of funding individual projects, it will help lower the cost of financing through new innovations. One idea: Standardize a contract for upgrading water systems for multiple communities and then bundle them together in a new financial security.
To the Obama administration, the federal government’s main role in facilitating this financial transformation is to provide technical assistance. That doesn’t make for a sexy tagline, but it also doesn't cost that much money—and the White House hopes it could pave the way for states and communities to dramatically lower their costs. Water experts in the administration want more states to pursue private capital, including from philanthropic sources, and follow innovative examples like that of DC Water, the utility in the capital, which was the first water utility to offer a “century bond,” which it will pay off over the next 100 years.
“We know that there is a growing interest from investment funds or philanthropic investors to want to look at water resources as a place to invest their money and try to get a stable return or to try to do impact investing,” said Michal Connor, deputy secretary of the Department of Interior. “[We want to] take these ad hoc victories we’ve had and try to have a much more methodical approach.”
AT THE HEART of funding investment in water utilities is a question about what role the federal government should have in water infrastructure. Nearly everyone I spoke to for this story—including Republican spending skeptics—suggested that Washington does rightly play a role in ensuring that Americans have access to clean water. But they struggled to specify what it should look like.
“Drawing that line is something people have wrestled with for a long time,” said Tracy Mehan, head of the D.C. office for the American Water Works Association.
Traditionally, the users of government services are supposed to be the ones who pay for them. That’s the underlying logic behind the gas tax: drivers pay for the roads they rely on. But this approach isn't applied consistently, and it also creates inequities over time. For instance, some gas tax revenue is used for mass transit projects—and owners of fuel-efficient vehicles pay less in tax than those who own gas guzzlers, even though their cars create just as much wear and tear on roads.
In light of this, some conservatives have argued that the federal government should repeal the gas tax and devolve responsibility for roads and bridges totally to the states. (Currently, states pay for about three-quarters of their roadbuilding costs.) The idea of getting Washington out of roadbuilding entirely, however, has never garnered much support: While highway infrastructure does clearly benefit local populations, it's also undeniably a network crucial to the well-being of the country writ large.
Water policy mavens point out that water—despite the fact that it's locally consumed—has many of the same qualities. Ensuring every community has access to safe water is critical not just to local economies but to the national economy as well. “Water has a habit of not observing jurisdictional boundaries,” said Blumenauer. Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, further argued that since the feds require local communities to abide by many federal regulations, they should also help cover those costs.
And deep-seated equity issues, like the lead poisoning among the poor in Flint, are often areas in which the government has a natural interest in stepping in. The current programs partly take that into account; the revolving funds do preferentially allocate money to needier states. Many experts want to see Congress implement a new water-bill subsidy for poor Americans, modeled on the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps poor families afford their energy bills. That would also help their communities, which could rely on residents having more water money to help upgrade their local infrastructure.
Clean water, like roads and public safety, is one of the achievements that holds civilizations together, and the grim thing about Flint is that it suggests the U.S. has taken its eye off this particular ball. While more money would help, the amounts currently on the table are barely a rounding error in the big estimate of need—suggesting that the federal government really needs a far deeper review of its water policy. What regulations are necessary? How can the federal government help disadvantaged communities afford clean water? How can state and local communities make their water infrastructure sustainable? Those questions aren’t easy to answer—but as more and more Flint-level crises strike the country, Congress can’t push off the discussion much longer.
“We need a national water policy. We need to have national investment. We need to revisit the laws under which we allocate water,” said Blumenauer. “This is a big deal.”
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/05/water-funding-washington-flint-000128
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested