AGC urged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to not issue a final endangerment finding that current concentrations of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the atmosphere endanger public health and welfare and that new motor vehicles (and engines) contribute to this endangerment.  An endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act (CAA) would open the door for EPA to control GHG emissions under the Act. AGC took the opportunity in this comment period to resubmit its November 26, 2008 comment letter to the agency regarding its advanced notice of proposed rulemaking for regulating GHG emissions under the CAA.  In that letter, AGC maintained that the CAA is the wrong tool to regulate GHG emissions and identified several onerous regulatory programs in the Act that would be triggered should EPA regulate GHG emissions under any section of the Act. In its June 23 comment letter on the proposed endangerment finding, AGC argued that the disastrous implications of regulating GHG emissions under the CAA would provide EPA with a "reasonable explanation as to why it will not exercise its discretion to determine whether GHGs contribute to climate change."  The Supreme Court ruling, which charged EPA to reevaluate its decision not to regulate GHGs, did not go so far as to require EPA to make an endangerment finding determination.  AGC also urged the agency to postpone its regulatory efforts in light of the fact that legislators are actively working to address GHG emissions.  EPA should allow Congress to act with policy specific to GHGs, instead of trying to force the CAA to address a pollutant that it was not intended to control.To read AGC's June 23 comment letter on the proposed endangerment finding, click here.For background information on the proposed endangerment finding, click here.  For background on the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking and AGC's November 2008 comment letter, click here.  For additional information, contact Melinda Tomaino at (703) 837-5415 or tomainom@agc.org.

On June 26, the U.S. House passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, by a vote of 219 to 212 (8 Republicans supported the bill, and 44 Democrats voted against it).  While elements of the legislation could create jobs by inducing demand for energy efficiency improvements to buildings and alternative energy generation, no one is certain of the true impact on the economy.  AGC believes that the bill goes too far too fast and that Congress has not adequately mitigated the impacts.Policy makers have acknowledged that the "cap and trade" program in the bill would increase electricity costs with varying regional effects.  A climate change cap and trade bill would significantly increase the cost of energy used in producing construction materials and powering construction equipment.  The bill also includes provisions giving free rein to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate small stationary emitters and to implement standards for a variety of mobile sources used in construction-including new heavy duty trucks and off-road equipment.  The increased costs and new regulations would ultimately decrease demand for construction at a time when the U.S. economy can least afford it, especially when one in every five unemployed workers is a construction worker. AGC appreciates the response by individuals in the construction industry that answered the call to action and sent over 2,000 messages to Congress in opposition to the bill.  The legislative debate will move to the Senate where a vote could occur as early as September. The Senate will likely refer to, or use, the House bill in drafting their legislation.  Meanwhile, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources approved the American Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA) on June 17, 2009.  Some of the ACELA provisions are similar to the House bill, but it does not yet address cap and trade of greenhouse gases, which the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee may consider as early as this month.  The resulting legislation from the Senate will need to secure passing votes in both houses of Congress before a final bill is sent to President Obama to sign.AGC urges all members and Chapters to weigh in with their Senators and urge them to oppose the House bill as written.  For more information and to send a letter to your Senators, please use AGC's Legislative Action Center.  For more information, contact Karen Lapsevic at (202) 547-4733 or lapsevick@agc.org.

On June 9, AGC submitted comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on a proposed rule that would require thousands of facilities to monitor their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions starting in January 2010 and report those emissions to EPA in 2011.  All facilities that produce Portland cement or manufacture lime would be required to report.  Additionally, thousands of small emitters would be scrambling to determine whether their emissions fall within the threshold for reporting or face the risk of high penalties for noncompliance. 

Last week, the U.S. House passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, by a vote of 219 to 212 (8 Republicans supported the bill, and 44 Democrats voted against it).  While elements of the legislation could create jobs by inducing demand for energy efficiency improvements to buildings and alternative energy generation, no one is certain of the true impact on the economy.  AGC believes that the bill goes too far too fast and that Congress has not adequately mitigated the impacts.

AGC of America urged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to not issue a final endangerment finding that current concentrations of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the atmosphere endanger public health and welfare and that new motor vehicles (and engines) contribute to this endangerment.  An endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act (CAA) would open the door for EPA to control GHG emissions under the Act. 

AGC's new online recycling toolkit will help contractors recycle construction and demolition (C&D) debris and reuse industrial materials in new construction projects.  AGC worked with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Industrial Resources Council (IRC) to make this tool available.

As of June 26, 2009, all new construction and major renovation projects registering to use the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating SystemTM need to use the newest version-LEED 2009. The changes to the rating system are part of an over-arching evolution of the LEED system-LEED Version 3.  In this guest article, AGC Environmental Network Steering Committee Chair Thomas Taylor (Vertegy, an Alberici Enterprise) provides a quick look at some of the changes in the new version.

On June 18, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed S. 787 the Clean Water Restoration Act.  The legislation was offered as an amendment sponsored by Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Senator Max Baucus(D-Mont.) and Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.). Republican committee members criticized the bill as a substantial expansion of federal jurisdiction over water by removing the term "navigable" waterways.  Ranking Member Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Senator John Barasso (R-Wyo.) offered multiple unsuccessful amendments to address "negative impacts" on rural and agricultural communities.In a June 17, 2009, letter to EPW Committee members, AGC opposed this legislation because it gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction over all wet areas-however remote or intermittent-and over all activities (e.g., construction) affecting those waters. Consequently, the bill would require construction contractors and project owners to obtain and be regulated by federal Clean Water Act permits far more frequently than is currently required.AGC will continue to fight this legislation as it is considered by the full Senate. Senators Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) have placed "holds" on the legislation, making it unlikely that it will see floor time in the near future. Similar legislation in the House of Representatives has yet to be introduced, however T&I Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) has indicated his support for similar legislation in the House of Representatives.For more information, contact Karen Lapsevic at (202) 547-4733 or lapsevickk@agc.org.

In close coordination with the AGC of California and its San Diego Chapter, AGC of America continues to press California for relief from its potentially nationwide rule on off-road diesel emissions.   Last December, AGC petitioned the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to reopen the rule.  AGC also urged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to deny the state the federal approval that it requires to enforce the rule's core requirements.  Since then, AGC has persuaded CARB to make an objective assessment of how greatly the recent economic downturn has already reduced emissions from off-road diesel equipment, and to share background information on the agency's past projections of such emissions with the association.The state finalized the rule in June of 2008 and sought federal approval of its strict standards for emissions from existing fleets of off-road diesel equipment two months later.  If the state's standards meet with federal approval, they will begin to take effect in March of 2010.  In addition, most if not all of the other states will be free to adopt identical standards.  While the Clean Air Act generally preempts the states' authority to set emission standards, the statute carves out an exception for California and any California standards that meet with federal approval.The new standards are for nitrogen oxides (precursors to ozone) and particulate matter.  These standards are fleetwide averages, and do not apply to individual pieces of equipment, but they steadily decline over a period of eleven years, and in each year in which a construction contractor cannot meet the standards, the firm has to retrofit, repower, replace and/or retire a certain percentage of its horsepower.   When it finalized the rule, the state estimated that the cost of compliance would be $3.4 billion.  The state's construction industry originally estimated that the cost would reach $13 billion, and its latest estimates are even higher. This spring, the new rule's reporting requirements started to take effect, and CARB has now amassed a wealth of new data on the off-road equipment in the state's construction industry.  More importantly, the agency has agreed to share much of that recently collected information with AGC.  The agency staff has an October deadline for determining how current emissions compare with the agency's original projections, in the wake of the economic downturn.AGC met with the agency staff in mid-April and again in mid-June, and it appears that the agency is willing postpone any decision on AGC's petition to reopen the rule at least until the agency can take a hard look at the latest information.  Major issues are far from resolved, and AGC has made a point of retaining all of its legal options, but in recent meetings, the agency staff has been forthcoming and generally cooperative.  Stay tuned!For more information, contact Mike Kennedy at (703) 837-5335 or kennedym@agc.org.

The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote Friday on the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), a bill that would require "cap and trade" and other regulatory schemes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from stationary and mobile sources.  AGC supports reasonable climate change policies that would reduce GHG emissions while maintaining the competitiveness of U.S. companies in the global marketplace.  While there may be opportunities for the construction industry under the bill to contribute towards building a clean energy economy, on the whole, AGC believes that the bill as it is currently drafted would increase the cost of construction, discourage investment in our economy and impact our ability to meet the infrastructure and mobility needs for a growing population.  AGC sent a letter to Capitol Hill June 25 in opposition to ACES as currently drafted.AGC urges all members and Chapters to weigh in with their Representatives and urge them to oppose the bill.  For more information and to send a letter to your Representative, please use AGC's Legislative Action Center.