In many ways, the greatest impact of the November 2002 elections on environmental legislation will result from the changes in leadership of key Senate committees that shape environmental policy. In many instances, true environmental champions who chaired Senate committees in the 107th Congress will hand over the gavel to those who are either less supportive of strong environmental legislation or downright hostile to environmental safeguards. Republican leadership in the Administration and Congress will be cautious not to look “anti-environment” as we move towards the 2004 elections. It will be key for environmental advocates to closely watch administrative attempts on environmental rollbacks. . With the Senate closely divided, it is important to review new Senate leadership and evaluate their public record on environmental issues to know what priorities each leader will carry:

Energy and Natural Resources Committee: Senator Bingaman (D-NM), the former chair, will be replaced by Senator Domenici (R-NM), who favors increasing domestic energy production from fossil fuels and nuclear power, and opposes incentives to improve energy efficiency and develop cleaner, renewable energy alternatives.

Environment and Public Works Committee: Senator Jeffords (I-VT), a stalwart champion of clean air and renewable energy alternatives, handed over the reins to Senator Inhofe (R-OK), a longtime ally of the oil industry. At the subcommittee level, clean air, water and climate change responsibilities shift from Senator Lieberman (D-CT) to Senator Voinovich (R-OH) – a leading ally of the utility industry.

Judiciary Committee: Senator Leahy (D-VT), a key environmental “watchdog” who has worked to ensure that the administration enforces current environmental protections, was replaced by Senator Hatch (R-UT), who has said he supports the President’s “review” of current environmental protections as being to burdensome on industry.

Appropriations Committee: Senator Nickles (R-OK) and Senator Ste vens (R-AK), both with very low environmental voting records, will chair the Budget and Appropriations committee, respectively. Chief opponent of nuclear waste disposal in Yucca Mountain, Senator Reid (D-NV), will pass the chairmanship of the subcommittee on energy and water development appropriations to Senator Domenici (R-NM), a longstanding supporter of the nuclear industry. Senator Bond (R-MO), also with a very low environmental voting record, will take over the appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Environmental Protection Agency appropriations from Senator Mikulski ( D-MD).

Energy

With Congress having failed to pass the 2002 energy bill, congressional battles over energy policy will continue next year, this time with Republicans controlling the action in both the House and the Senate. Some energy lobbyists want GOP leaders to push for legislation that is similar to last year’s House-passed package, which would have provided $34 million in subsidies to the energy industry and would have allowed oil drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. House Republican staffers say comprehensive new energy legislation will be introduced early next year. But with the Senate still very closely divided, next year’s debate will likely resurrect many of the disputes that doomed the energy bill this year in conference committee. As a result, Senate Republican leaders are considering tacking the Alaska drilling project onto a budget reconciliation bill so it could be passed by a simple majority and thus avoid the need to have enough votes to break a filibuster. Environmental advocates will be interested in moving legislation that shift oil subsidies to more renewable energy initiatives and raising the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.

Transportation

The House and Senate will be tasked with reauthorizing the Surface Transportation Act – formerly known as ISTEA. This large “pork barrel” legislation will consume the majority of lawmaker’s environmental work next year. Lawmakers will be eager to allocate significant dollars for road building and other building projects within their districts. Environmental advocates will be interested in additional funding for public transportation, maintaining Clean Air Act standards within local jurisdictions, a possible attempt to positively affect fuel economy standards, protecting wetlands, and protecting endangered species.

Clean Air

Since the November elections, the White House has indicated that President Bush has resurrected his interest in rewriting the Clean Air Act. President Bush proposes to replace several key parts of the statute with a program that would allow electric utilities to buy and sell “ credits” to emit mercury, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide. Administration officials say the new approach would cut emissions of targeted air pollutants by 70 percent and would be faster and cheaper to comply with than the current law. Opponents disagree. The White House plan rejects the idea of instituting controls on carbon dioxide emissions, which research has linked to global warming.

During the 107th Congress, Republicans introduced legislation outlining Bush’s “Clear Skies Initiative.” But lawmakers paid more attention to a proposal by Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James Jeffords (VT), to control carbon dioxide as well as the three chemicals in Bush’s plan – controlling carbon emissions from power plants has been a key initiative of the religious community. Near the end of the session, a bipartisan group of lawmakers floated a moderate bill to control the four pollutants. That measure could see new life during the 108th Congress.

But the Clean Air Act is not the top priority of the congressional committees with jurisdiction over the law. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will be busy rewriting the Surface Transportation Act, although the committee’s incoming chairman, James Inhofe (OK), ranks overhauling the Clean Air Act as one of his top legislative priorities. The House Energy and Commerce Committee plans to focus its early efforts on writing a new comprehensive energy package as well as beginning hearings on the Clean Air Act. Meanwhile, industry groups that were clamoring for changes to the Clean Air Act now say that many of their concerns were addressed recently when the Environmental Protection Agency eased the rules that had required owners of coal-fired power plants to install up-to-date pollution controls when they expand those facilities.

New Source Review

In October 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency announced a new rule change and proposed future changes that would allow manufactures to expand their facilities without installing up-to-date pollution controls – primarily from old, dirty power plants. This new interpretation of “New Source Review” is a drastic change from how the EPA regulated such pollution controls during the past ten years. Advocates will see environmental groups fight this rule change in the courts and Senator Lieberman has promised to hold committee hearings during open debate over the Clean Air Act.

Department of Defense

With the potential of war facing our country, some lawmakers in Congress have begun talking about the need to further exempt the Department of Defense from needed environmental protection safeguards. The Defense Department has long requested exemption from compliance with the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and other key environmental provisions all in the name of “national security.” Military bases in this country and around the world, the people living around those bases and the surrounding environment must be protected.

Funding for Environmental Protections

As the 108th Congress begins, elected officials are already posturing for the 2004 elections. The Administration has already cautioned those policy makers and industry leaders eager to dismantle long-established environmental safeguards from moving forward to quickly on their goals. A more “quiet” way of halting what is deemed as anti-business growth is to de-fund environmental regulation efforts. Advocates will need to watch the 2003 appropriation process for significant EPA, Department of Energy and Department of Agriculture de-funding.

Clean Water

With an already busy legislative track before it, the Congress will have little time to focus on clean water issues. However, funding decreases for clean water programs at EPA and changes in rules to the Clean Water Act by the administration are likely to move forward. In addition, storm water construction will be an issue during the transportation reauthorization process.

By Douglas Grace