ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

Air Pollution

H.R. 2944, the "Electricity Competition and Reliability Act"
Current Electric Utility Restructuring Proposals Lack Necessary Environmental Protections. The debate over national legislation to guide electric restructuring around the country is heating up, with many bills being put forward and legislation poised to move this year. Rep. Barton (R-TX), chairman of the House Commerce Committee's Energy and Power Subcommittee, marked up his utility restructuring legislation "Electricity Competition and Reliability Act" (H.R. 2944) on October 27, 1999 in subcommittee. Senator Murkowski (R-AK), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, will be introducing draft electric restructuring legislation. These two major proposals, however, fail to include needed environmental provisions, specifically provisions that address the environmental impacts of electricity generation, the largest industrial source of air pollution in the country. Although electric power plants create over two-thirds of sulfur dioxide pollution and about one-third of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury pollution, these proposals lack national emissions standards for these pollutants. They also lack provisions for energy efficiency and low-income energy services, and fail to promote renewable energy sources or require suppliers to disclose environmental information about the electricity they generate. However, on October 26, 1999, a bipartisan group of 45 representatives, led by Rep. Boehlert (R-NY), released a letter calling on members of Congress to include significant environmental provisions, including financial incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy development and a phase-out of pollution control exemptions for older power plants, in any utility restructuring bill.

S. 1369, the "Clean Energy Act of 1999"
H.R. 2569, the "Fair Energy Competition Act of 1999"
H.R. 2980, the "Clean Power Plant Act of 1999"
H.R. 2900, the "Clean Smokestacks Act of 1999"
S. 1949, the Clean Power Plant Modernization Act of 1999"
S. 172, the "Acid Deposition and Control Act"
Growing Demand to Reduce Power Plant Emissions. A number of bills would address the serious pollution caused by old electric power plants. Senator Jeffords (R-VT) and Senator Lieberman (D-CT) introduced the "Clean Energy Act of 1999" (S. 1369) designed to reduce power-plant emissions and promote renewable energy sources and energy efficiency. This bill includes environmental protections that should be included in any utility restructuring bill but are currently missing from both House and Senate draft restructuring bills. A similar House initiative, the "Fair Energy Competition Act of 1999" (H.R. 2569) has been introduced by Rep. Pallone (D-NJ). In addition, the following bills were also introduced in the House that would reduce emissions from power plants: the "Clean Power Plant Act of 1999" (H.R. 2980) introduced by Rep. Allen (D-ME) and the "Clean Smokestacks Act of 1999" (H.R. 2900) by Reps. Waxman (D-CA) and Boehlert (R-NY). In the Senate, the "Clean Power Plant and Modernization Act of 1999"(S. 1949), introduced by Senator Leahy, and the "Acid Deposition and Control Act" (S. 172), introduced by Senator Moynihan (D-NY), would also reduce power plant emissions.

S. 1053, "A Bill to Amend the Clean Air Act"
Efforts to Weaken the Clean Air Act Continue. S.1053, which is a bill to weaken the Clean Air Act requirements that federal transportation dollars be spent to promote clean air as well as mobility, was approved on September 29, 1999 by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. This bill was introduced by Senator Bond (R-MO), who may try to attach it to an appropriations bill this year. This bill would reverse a recent federal court decision restoring incentives for regional and state transportation agencies to develop transportation projects consistent with state clean air plans. Rep. Talent (R-MO) introduced the House companion bill, H.R. 1876, on May 19, 1999.

H.R. 2380, the "Energy Efficiency Technology Tax Act"
An Opportunity to Pass An Energy Efficient Tax Incentives Bill May Exist. Rep. Matsui (D-CA) introduced a bill, H.R. 2380, the "Energy Efficient Technology Tax Act," which promotes the use of energy efficient technologies that contribute to economic growth and cut emissions of greenhouse gas pollution and health-related air pollution. This bill provides multi-year tax credits designed to help companies develop and market new energy efficient technologies. The bill typically has two or more tiers of tax credits that provide larger tax credits for greater energy savings. For housing and building technologies, it creates both a simple, prescriptive compliance option and a performance-based approach with independent compliance and third-party certification programs to assure that energy and cost savings are real. The bill also includes credits for more efficient heating, cooling, and water heating equipment. While the Matsui bill has not moved at all, there may be opportunities to gain bipartisan support for a similar bill that also includes nonresidential buildings - greatly increasing energy and cost savings – that could be included in a tax bill or an appropriations bill this year.

S. 1886, a bill "To amend the Clean Air Act to permit the Governor of a State to waive the oxygen content requirement for reformulated gasoline …"
MTBE Bills Likely to Advance This Session. Senator Inhofe (R-OK) introduced a bill (S. 1886) to allow state governors to waive the oxygen content requirement for reformulated gasoline, which would enable states to reduce or eliminate MTBE in gasoline. (MTBE is methyl tertiary butyl ether, a gasoline additive which makes it burn cleaner but has been found to contaminate ground water.) This bill, however, currently does not ensure that future gasoline will retain the air-quality benefits of current reformulated gasoline, as any bill designed to eliminate MTBE must do. There are also several other MTBE bills pending in the House and the Senate.

Land and Water

H.R. 701/ S. 25, the "Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999"
Agreement Reached in House Committee on Conservation Funding Bill. House Resources Committee Chairman Young (R-AK) and Ranking Minority Member Miller (D-CA) agreed on a bill to provide $2.8 billion a year for 14 years from outer continental shelf oil and gas drilling revenues for federal and state land and water conservation, coastal area restoration and coastal impact aid, and state wildlife programs. The Resources Committee approved this consensus substitute, based on Chairman Young’s "Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999" (H.R. 701) and Rep. Miller’s H.R. 798, on November 10 by a vote of 37-12. Environmental groups are extremely concerned, however, with provisions that offer major incentives for offshore oil development, particularly off Alaska, and that allow coastal states to spend huge sums on environmentally damaging construction projects. The bill also fails to ensure full federal funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, among other problems. While the House is moving forward with conservation funding legislation, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is having difficulty coming to agreement on a companion conservation funding bill based on S. 25, Senator Landrieu’s (D-LA) and Senator Murkowski’s (R-AK) "Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999". The Senate bill has even more problems than the current House bill.

H.R. 1487/ S. 729, the "National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999"
Bill Hindering Designation of National Monuments Passes House and Moves in Senate. On October 20, 1999, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved H.R. 1487, introduced by Rep. Hansen (R-UT), which would change the process for declaring national monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906. The House passed H.R. 1487 on September 24, 1999. While H.R. 1487 does not diminish presidential authority to designate lands as national monuments, it directs the president to seek public input and to consult with the governor and congressional delegation of any affected state at least 60 days before declaring a national monument. Such a requirement could invite concerted lobbying by industries opposed to national monument protection for a given area, and perhaps even provide a disincentive to presidential action. It would undermine the Antiquities Act, which has worked well for nearly a century to protect American treasures such as the Grand Canyon, Denali National Park, and the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal along the Potomac River. Senator Craig (R-ID) has introduced the "National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999" (S. 729), a similar bill that awaits further consideration by the Senate Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands.

H.R. 883/ S. 510, the "American Land Sovereignty Protection Act"
House Approves Legislation Interfering With the Protection of Biosphere Reserves. Introduced by House Resources Chairman Young (R-AK), H.R. 883 passed the House as amended on May 20, 1999. A companion bill (S. 510) was introduced in the Senate by Senate Indian Affairs Chairman Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO). Dubbed the "Black Helicopter Bill" because it is grounded in distrust of the United Nations, this bill would require Congress to approve U.N. designations of Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites within the United States. This bill would prohibit federal designation of Biosphere Reserves unless there is no adverse effect on state and local government revenue and adjacent nonfederal property is not restricted in use. The bill effectively ends U.S. participation in these two international programs that fully recognize national sovereignty and foster tourism. According to Chairman Young, these designations infringe upon private property rights because they require a 10-mile buffer around the U.N.- designated lands. Unfortunately, passing this legislation also would infringe upon the ability of the United States to protect its natural and cultural resources. This bill, however, appears to have stalled in the Senate and faces a veto threat by the White House.

H.R. 2372/ S. 1028, the "Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 1999"
House Subcommittee Considers Takings Bill. On February 2, 2000, the House Judiciary Committee’s Constitution Subcommittee approved by voice vote the "Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 1999"(H.R. 2372), introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Canady (R-FL). This bill, virtually identical to legislation passed by the House in 1997 (H.R. 1534), would create new opportunities for developers and other private landowners to bring "takings" claims; that is, seeking compensation for not polluting or not building on protected land. It would allow developers to circumvent local zoning procedures so that they can sue towns, cities, and counties directly in federal court. Senate Judiciary Chairman Hatch (R-UT) has introduced a similar bill, the "Citizens Access to Justice Act" (S. 1028). President Clinton has vowed to veto similar legislation in the past and is expected to announce that he will veto this bill as well.

H.R. 3035, the "Utah National Parks and Public Lands Wilderness Act"
Utah Wilderness Bill May Advance. Sometime early this session, the House Resources Committee is likely to mark up National Parks and Public Lands Subcommittee Chairman Hansen’s (R-UT) H.R. 3035, the Utah National Parks and Public Lands Wilderness Act. In designating wilderness areas on Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service lands, this bill not only would exclude much of the wilderness land in the West Desert, but it would deny important water rights necessary to protect the desert and give the Air Force unrestricted access to these areas.

H.R. 2389, the "County Schools Revitalization Act of 1999"
Bill Links County Payments to Timber Sales in National Forests. On November 3, 1999, the House passed the "County Schools Revitalization Act of 1999"(H.R. 2389), as amended by Agriculture Forestry Subcommittee Chairman Goodlatte (R-VA), by a vote of 274-153. Currently, rural counties receive 25 percent of federal revenues generated by timber sales on national forest lands for county services such as education and road building. H.R. 2389 establishes a guaranteed payment equal to the average of the three highest federal payments in each county since 1985. Environmental groups oppose this bill because it retains a destructive and unnecessary link between county payments to rural counties and timber sales from public forests; an incentive for timber sales. The bill also requires that counties use 20 percent of these federal payments for community-based projects in national forests, projects which include commercial timber sales. Rep. Udall (D-CO) offered an amendment that would have provided counties with the option of dedicating all federal funds for schools and not for new timber sales. Unfortunately, the Udall amendment was defeated by a vote of 186-241. The administration has indicated that it is strongly opposed to the revised bill. Aides to Senator Wyden (D-OR) and Senator Craig (R-ID) note that the Senate may consider moving the House-approved bill.

S. 1706, the "Water Regulation Improvement Act of 1999"
New Bill Would Roll Back Water Protections. On October 13, 1999, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held hearings on Senator Hutchison’s (R-TX) bill, S. 1706, which would roll back environmental protections in the Clean Water Act by amending the act to exclude construction activities on less than 5 acres, routine road maintenance, and vegetative drainage ditches from stormwater regulation.

H.R. 2669, the "Coastal Community Conservation Act of 1999"
Damaging Amendments Added to Coastal Zone Management Bill. A bill to reauthorize the coastal zone management act, the "Coastal Community Conservation Act of 1999"(H.R. 2669), is likely to be considered on the House floor early this session. The originally non-controversial bill, introduced by House Fisheries Conservation Subcommittee Chairman Saxton (R-NJ), would reauthorize for five years a popular program that provides federal grants to 33 of the 35 coastal states for coastal management. The bill, however, was dramatically worsened during full committee markup as a result of two damaging amendments. Rep. Hansen (R-UT) stripped the bill of important language that would have encouraged states to continue to develop and implement programs to control nonpoint pollution (pollution not from a single industrial source but from diffuse sources such as agricultural runoff and city sewer overflows). Rep. Pombo (R-CA) created additional controversy by adding an amendment that would alter current legal standards that apply to the taking of private property in coastal areas and require American taxpayers to pay users of private property for restrictions on their use of that property, effectively repealing most of the coastal zone program and nullifying many of the protections in state coastal programs.

H.R. 999/ S. 522, the "Beaches Environmental Assessment, Cleanup, and Health Bill"
Beach Cleanup Bill Approved by the House.On April 22, 1999, the House overwhelmingly approved the "Beaches Environmental Assessment, Cleanup, and Health Bill" (H.R. 999). Riding a wave of bipartisan support, H.R. 999 authorizes $30 million for states to establish minimum water quality standards, monitor their coastal recreational waters and notify the public when beach waters are contaminated with disease-causing pathogens. A companion bill (S. 522) was introduced in the Senate by Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ) but no action has been taken in the Senate.

H.R. 828/ S. 914, the "Combined Sewer Overflow Control and Partnership Act of 1999"
Bad Bill on Combined Sewer Overflows is Likely to Move this Year. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Smith (R-NH) is likely to try to move his sewer bill (S. 914) this year. This bill would delay necessary combined sewer overflow planning and progress until states have completed their water quality standards review without providing incentives or mandates to complete this review. The bill lacks enforceable deadlines and provides for unlimited exceptions. Under this bill, municipalities would be able to re-open fully negotiated administrative or judicial decrees without demonstrating any need. Litigation could increase because the bill contains many vague terms that are likely to invite court challenges. The House companion bill, H.R. 828, was introduced by Rep. Barcia (D-MI).

H.R. 3160, the "Common Sense Protections for Endangered Species Act"
H.R. 1142, the "Landowners Equal Treatment Act of 1999"
Endangered Species Bills to Get Hearings in the House. On February 2, 2000, the House Resources Committee held a hearing on Chairman Young’s (R-AK) controversial Endangered Species Act bill (H.R. 3160). Environmentalists oppose this bill because it reduces public input in listing and planning decisions, while at the same time increases the influence of those who oppose new endangered or threatened species listings. This bill also provides state governors with the ability to block federal protections and provides developers with new tools to undermine the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. Chairman Young also plans to move a controversial bill (H.R. 1142) that would provide compensation for takings claims asserted by private property owners as a result of the ESA.

Public Health

H.R. 2580, the "Land Recycling Act"
H.R. 1300, the "Recycle America’s Land Act"
Superfund Bills Could Be a Priority for Congress Early This Year. Chairman Smith (R-NH) has indicated that, as the new chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, he will make Superfund legislation a priority this year. On the House side, two separate Superfund bills, the "Land Recycling Act" (H.R. 2580) and the "Recycle America’s Land Act"(H.R. 1300) made it out of committee last year but failed to get to the floor because House Ways and Means Chairman Archer (R-TX) refused to reinstate the Superfund "polluter pays" taxes. Without these taxes, Democrats who had supported these Superfund bills withdrew their support. As a result, movement on the House Superfund bills halted. Both bills would rewrite the current Superfund law, weakening cleanup standards and granting broad exemptions from liability for large groups of polluters responsible for contamination at toxic waste sites. They would limit EPA’s ability to hold polluters accountable for cleanup and shift the costs of hazardous waste site cleanup from the polluters to the public.

H.R. 1592/ S. 1464, the "Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act of 1999"
Pesticide Bill Gains Support in the House. Rep. Pombo (R-CA) is the lead sponsor of this bill which has garnered over 200 cosponsors. This bill would add new, burdensome requirements to the EPA’s existing process for regulating the safety of pesticides. The bill would eliminate important protections in the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 that are designed specifically to reduce children’s exposure to dangerous pesticides. Senator Hagel (R-NE) introduced a companion bill in the Senate with 30 cosponsors (S. 1464).

H.R. 45/ S. 1287, the "Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments of 1999"
Damaging Nuclear Waste Disposal Approved by the Senate. On February 10, 2000, the Senate approved Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Murkowski’s (R-AK) Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage bill by a vote of 64-34. Although the bill passed, there were enough votes against the bill to uphold a presidential veto, and the administration has indicated that the president will veto the bill in its current form. The bill would strip EPA of the authority to set allowable radiation levels for the proposed permanent nuclear disposal facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, until June 2001. It also would allow nuclear waste to be transported to the proposed permanent storage site at Yucca Mountain as early as 2007. Some provisions in the bill would make interim temporary waste storage more likely, even though the express interim storage provisions were dropped. While industry supports the new bill, the Clinton administration and environmentalists continue to oppose it.