Business leaders win key votes on two environmental bills

Colorado legislators pushed backed against environmental activists in two ways Thursday, rejecting a bill to require extensive emissions reporting by large corporations and advancing a plan to study how to consider more fully the impact on jobs of future climate regulations.

The dual decisions by the House Energy and Environment Committee marked an eye-opening change in direction after legislators have spent most of the past six years passing increasing emissions regulations. And Democratic legislators who sided with Republicans and business groups on the bills stated it is time to think more about the economic impact of state rules and to avoid adding burdensome regulations that could have negligible effects on the state’s air quality.

House Bill 1042, which passed to the House Appropriations Committee on an 8-3 vote, would require state officials to review their air-quality-control rulemaking process and report on what extent current rulemaking considers impacts on workforce. An amendment also would require officials to recommend whether to create a standing workforce advisory council at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment — a step down from a requirement in the original bill to launch such a council.

HB 1119, meanwhile, sought to require any corporation with annual revenues of $1 billion doing business in Colorado to report its scope one, two and three emissions, including those produced via its supply chain, wastewater treatment and worker travel. Even after sponsoring Rep. Manny Rutinel, D-Commerce City, made last-minute changes to try to win votes, committee members rejected the proposal by an 8-5 vote, with four Democrats joining all Republicans on the committee in killing it.

Different outcomes than this committee has produced

While it’s premature to make broad judgments about environmental regulatory legislation on the decisions on two bills, it’s worth noting that the E&E Committee last year advanced several sweeping regulatory bills that didn’t end up surviving even to the House floor. And earlier this year, it advanced a bill to promote nuclear energy, which has now passed the full House, over the objections of many environmental groups.

In bucking requests from traditional allies like 350 Colorado and Earthjustice on one or both bills, Democrats emphasized their commitment to the environment but said, particularly on HB 1119, that the return on investment seemed less than the cost of the bill.

“I really admire your intent … but I unfortunately cannot get behind this bill,” said Rep. Jenny Willford, a Northglenn Democrat who helped kill the emissions-reporting effort. “I share your frustrations with greenwashing, but I don’t know that this bill is going to move the needle because requiring a corporation to disclose information does not mean it would get into the hands of anyone who would do something about it.”

Strong business opposition to “hollow” reporting

Business organizations, oil-and-gas industry leaders and corporations live EVRAZ North America warned the requirements of HB 1119 would be excessive and potentially impossible, particularly around collecting emissions information from suppliers in other states or other countries that may not track such statistics. They criticized proposed fines of as much as $100,000 a day for noncompliance, though Rutinel later amended that daily maximum down to $10,000. And they noted that a similar California law is tied up in legal action amid questions from its governor.

Even CDPHE’s Air Pollution Control Division opposed the bill, calling it redundant in some ways to existing reporting requirements on direct emissions production and saying that it was potentially enforceable. Stefanie Shoup, manager of APCD’s office of innovations in planning, said requiring extensive new reporting “is not an emissions-reduction strategy.”

“This proposal is hollow and devoid of any regulatory framework,” Colorado Petroleum Association Executive Director Angie Binder said.

Environmental activists say transparency is needed

Rutinel and his supporters, which included 350 Colorado and a number of academics, shot back that in order to create effective emissions-reduction policy, the state must understand the true scope of emissions from its biggest polluters. Allowances for companies to estimate supplier emissions would reduce their information-gathering burden, supporters said, and several insinuated that businesses opposing the bill must have something to hide.

“While giant corporations profit through business in Colorado, we bear the cost through climate change,” Denver small business owner Ann Fulton told the committee. “Colorado has never waited for the federal government to protect our businesses and communities, so we cannot wait now.”

Instead of ramping up reporting requirements, committee members advanced a bill that could end up leading to limitations on regulations that could stifle or roll back job growth.

HB 1042, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Shannon Bird of Westminster, arose from discussions with business and labor leaders about the profusion of rules that have been coming from the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission. In the past 18 months, the AQCC has established emissions limitations on oil-and-gas wells, midstream-facility operators, large manufacturers, commercial buildings and lawn-and-garden equipment to reach emissions-reduction goals the state has established for 2030 and 2050.

“Balance environmental progress with economic reality”

Echoing frequent concerns expressed by business and industry groups, Bird said that state rule makers need to consider whether their restrictions could be costing workers jobs and hurting the state’s ability to provide for the residents it’s seeking to protect. Representatives from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Rocky Mountain Pipe Trades District Council 5 backed her, saying that while their members care about the environment, they need to be able to build things to feed their families.

The rewritten version of HB 1042 directs CDPHE to review the economic-analysis procedures it uses in adopting air-quality rules, report on the economic factors it considers and explain how those considerations play into final rules. The report must include recommendations on how more data related to workforce impacts can be added to economic-impact analyses and whether having a standing workforce advisory council would improve these analyses.

“For too long, air-quality regulations have been written without consideration to the real-world impacts on the people who run our state,” said Weld County Commissioner Scott James, noting the impact of regulations on his area’s oil and gas industry. “This bill allows us to balance environmental progress with economic reality.”

Is it workers versus the environment?

Several environmental groups — including Earthjustice, 350 Colorado and the Sierra Club — opposed the bill, saying that AQCC decisions like the rules on manufacturers show that industry already has as much if not more sway on regulations than citizens’ groups do. Considerations for the impact of rules on workers should center on their health and safety as much as on their companies’ abilities to grow, or else future reforms could be harder to come by, added Commerce City Councilwoman Renée Chacon.

“I continue to be frustrated with the dichotomy that you’re either for workers or against workers, especially when it comes to the environment,” said Willford, who joined Democratic Rep. Elizabeth Velasco and GOP Rep. Ken DeGraaf in opposing the bill. “I’m not in favor of adding another layer of bureaucracy to a process that is already working.”

By changing the thrust of the bill from creating a standing council to performing a study, Bird was able to reduce its cost significantly — a key change during a year in which legislators must cut roughly $1 billion to balance the state budget. Both its price tag and its outreach to workers are likely to be key points of debate as HB 1042 moves forward.