Environment Update
Volume IV, Number 2
March 18, 2003
An Information Service of the NCSL Environment and Natural Resources Committee
Previous Issues
FY2003 Appropriations
On February 13, 2003, Congress passed the long overdue conference report for the omnibus FY2003 appropriations package (H.J. Res. 2) combining 11 of the 13 remaining appropriations bills totaling $397 billion. The conference report appropriates $8.1 billion for FY2003 to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a $200 million increase from the FY2002 enacted level. The Department of the Interior received $19.1 billion, $100 million less than the amount appropriated for FY2002. The package includes a rider that would direct the National Academy of Sciences to study the health and environmental effects of EPA's rule that would exempt certain power plants from the New Source Review (NSR) requirements. The compromise rider is weaker than language offered by Senators John Edwards (D-N.C.), Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.), that would have suspended the administration's final and proposed NSR regulations until the study was completed.
President's FY2004 Budget Request
On February 3, 2003, President Bush unveiled his FY2004 budget proposal. The president's budget requests $7.63 billion for the EPA in FY2004 - a decrease from the $8.1 billion appropriated for FY2003. The largest cut was in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) which would receive $850 million - a decrease of $500 million from the FY2003 level. EPA Administrator Christie Whitman stated in a press conference that the CWSRF budget cut was not significant because the agency is pressing states to consider other innovative and flexible spending techniques. The administration requested $1.39 billion for the Superfund program - an increase of $90,000 over the FY2003 level. It remains unclear, however, where the additional funds will come from - the general fund or the depleting Superfund Trust Fund.
Multi-Emissions Bills Introduced
On February 27, 2003, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, and Representative Billy Tauzin (R-La.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, reintroduced the administration's Clear Skies Initiative legislation (S. 485, H.R. 999). On February 12, 2003, Senator James Jeffords (I-VT), Senate EPW Committee ranking member, introduced the Clean Power Act (S. 366), the Democrats' version of the Clear Skies Initiative. Both proposals provide a cap on SOx, NOx and mercury. The Jeffords proposal also includes a cap on CO2 emissions - a point of controversy. Senator Inhofe argues controls on CO2 emissions would shut down the coal industry and hurt overall economic growth. Senator Inhofe, however, warns that all Democrats and some Republicans in the Senate support CO2 controls, and therefore a Senate bill that includes controls on CO2 emissions may be unavoidable. Senator Inhofe explained, however, that the House is unlikely to pass multi-emission legislation that includes CO2 emissions controls and any CO2 provisions in the Senate bill would be stripped out in a conference committee. More information on the Clear Skies legislative proposal is available at http://epw.senate.gov/Releases/release_02-27-03.htm.
Administration Starts Initiative to Slow Greenhouse Gas Growth
On February 12, 2003, top administration officials and business representatives announced their commitment to "Climate VISION" (Voluntary Innovative Sector Initiatives: Opportunities Now) - a voluntary greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan. The administration said the announcement was the beginning of a continuing dialogue between government agencies and the industry. The Climate initiative is part of the climate change plan President Bush set forth one year ago designed by the administration as an alternative to the Kyoto Protocol pact, that the Bush administration rejected because of fears it may harm to the U.S. economy. The program proposes to reduce greenhouse gas intensity - the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output or the gross domestic product (GDP). The plan will allow greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) to continue to grow but at a slower rate than the economy. The initiative also requires the Department of Energy to design a voluntary GHG trading registry that will be based on the greenhouse gas registry created by the Energy Policy Act of 1998. This improvement will provide businesses incentives to invest in new, clearer technology and voluntarily reduce GHG emissions. Companies will be encouraged to voluntarily register, track and report emissions in order to gain credits for use in any future emissions trading program. The initiative calls for additional measures in 2012 if the proposed reductions are not met. More information is available at http://www.energy.gov/.
States Threaten to File Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lawsuit
On February 20, 2003, attorneys general from seven states (New York, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Washington) sent a letter to EPA Administrator Christie Whitman announcing their intent to sue the EPA under the Clean Air Act for its failure to regulate power plant emissions. The states' notice of intent was sent in part in response to the administration's Climate VISION proposal, which many environmentalists argue will fall short of adequately cutting greenhouse gases. The states cite in the letter their "intent to sue EPA for its failure to review and, if appropriate, revise the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS)". The letter argues EPA is required to review the NSPS at least every eight years, and the states claim that EPA has not undertaken a review of the standards for at least two decades. The letter claims the existing law needs to be revised because it does not set standards for CO2 emissions- the pollutant believed to cause global warming - and standards for SOx and particulate matter fail to reflect recent technological advances. The letter was sent as a 60-day required notice of intention to file a federal lawsuit. The notification letter is available at http://www.oag.state.ny.us/.
Administration is Urged to Reinstate Superfund Tax
On February 5, 2003, Representative Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) introduced H.R. 610, legislation that would reinstate the Superfund Trust Fund tax - a tax paid by the oil and chemical industries used to fund the cleanup of Superfund sites when the responsible party cannot be found. H.R. 610 is a companion bill to Senator Barbabra Boxer's (D-Calif.) Toxic Clean-up Polluter Pays Renewal Act (S. 173) introduced in January 2003. Representative Pallone introduced the measure in response to the administration's failure to propose reinstating the tax in the FY2004 budget request, while raising the Superfund request to $1.39 billion for FY2004 ($1.3 billion enacted in FY2003). The Superfund tax authorizinglegislation expired in 1995, meanwhile the trust fund level has dwindled from $3.8 billion to an estimated $36 million at the end of FY2004. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), co-sponsor of the Senate bill, claims that the FY2004 budget "proposes to take $1.1 billion from the general fund." The administration is committed to a "polluter pays" principle for cleaning up Superfund sites and does not support reinstating the tax. The administration explains that when companies were paying the Superfund tax, regardless of whether they were polluting, the companies would often pass the expense on to consumers. Environmental groups disapprove of the administration's position, arguing that 30 percent of responsible parties cannot be found or are unable to pay the cleanup cost. Other supporters of reinstating the Superfund tax say the low trust fund levels will slow the pace of Superfund cleanups. NCSL supports the reinstatement of the Superfund tax. NCSL's Superfund Reform policy states, "Superfund taxes on industry that finance the Superfund Trust Fund, that expired in December 1995, should be reauthorized."
New Source Review Deadline for Comments Extended
On February 14, 2003, the EPA announced its decision to extend the comment period for the proposed rule published December 31, 2002, regarding the New Source Review's new regulatory definition of routine maintenance, repair and replacement. The March 3, 2003 deadline for stakeholders to submit comments on the proposed rule will be extended until May 2, 2003. The comment period extension was made in response to members of Congress and stakeholders who complained the 60-day comment period was not adequate for a rule of such scope. A formal notice extending the deadline will be published in the Federal Register soon.
States Request to Block New Source Review is Denied
On March 6, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied the request of plaintiff states to stay the March 3, 2003 implementation of an EPA final rule on New Source Review until the states' case against the rule was considered (New York v. EPA, See Environment Update V. 4 N.1, January 21, 2003). The court, however, has indicated it will consider New York v. EPA on an expedited basis. The New York v. EPA plaintiff list has now grown to 14 states and the District of Columbia.
|
