State environmental legislation (2015)
From Ballotpedia - Reading time: 11 min
 |
|
State governments proposed laws or regulations on environmental issues in 2015. Below is a list of proposed or enacted legislation and/or regulations in 2015 related to environmental issues in the states. For an overview on environmental policy in the United States as a whole, click here.
Proposed 2015 legislation and regulations[edit]
Arizona[edit]
On February 16, 2015, the Arizona State Senate committee approved by a vote of 5-1 a measure to block the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating non-navigable waters or waterways in the state. SC R1015 was introduced by State Sen. Steve Pierce (R-Prescott). The bill would nullify the EPA's proposal to regulate certain waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act. In November 2014, Arizona approved Proposition 122, a constitutional amendment. The measure was designed to allow the state to opt out of federal laws deemed unconstitutional by the voters or the state legislature. Under the provisions laid out in Proposition 122, if this occurs, the state is prohibited from devoting any resources toward enforcing the law, and the federal government is responsible for its enforcement. If passed in the legislature, SCR 1050 would be put up for a vote by the state's residents. The bill would "prohibit any federal agency or official from enforcing any federal regulation that purports to regulate nonnavigable, intrastate waters or waterways within the boundaries of this state unless that regulation is clearly and manifestly authorized by an act of Congress."[1]
SCR 1015 would also prohibit the state from using any resources or state personnel to assist a federal program regulating non-navigable, intrastate waters in Arizona unless the regulations are presented to an Arizona court for approval. As of February 2015, the bill was referred to the Arizona Senate Rules Committee.[1]
Colorado[edit]
Colorado Senate Bill 15-092 was introduced in the 2015 legislative session. The bill would require that any state plan to meet requirements under the EPA's Clean Power Plan, a federal rule aimed at regulating carbon dioxide emissions at power plants, be submitted to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. The commission would hold hearings on the state's compliance plan and determine how the plan would impact air pollution reduction, the use of natural gas, economic development, and electricity prices. As of March 2015, the Colorado Senate Committee on State, Veterans, and Military Affairs postponed review of the bill.[2]
California[edit]
Governor of California Jerry Brown (D) endorsed additional state policies to address potentially human-caused climate change in his January 2015 inaugural address. His proposals included a requirement that 50 percent of California's electricity come from renewable sources by the year 2030, reductions in gasoline use by California drivers, and requirements that older buildings install technologies aimed at making the buildings more energy efficient by the year 2030. In February 2015 California Senate Democrats submitted bills similar to Brown's proposals. In February 2015, State Senate Leader Kevin de León (D) said, "We want the same goal. ...We're on the same page."[3]
The proposed bills would require additional automobile standards aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions and greater construction of renewable energy facilities. In addition, the proposals would require reduced gasoline in the state by the year 2030. The reduction in gasoline use would come from the use of more alternative fuels, additional requirements for fuel efficiency in motor vehicles, and a reduction in miles driven by California residents. Other proposals would prohibit California-run pension funds from investing in coal companies. The proposed bills are similar to previously passed legislation. In 2006, California required that the state reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. One proposed bill would increase that reduction to 80 percent of 1990 levels by the year 2050.[3][4]
In response to the proposed legislation, the president of the Western States Petroleum Association stated, "Legislative mandates designed to constrain the availability of conventional energy supplies are not a smart or effective way to encourage development of available or affordable alternatives."[3]
Connecticut[edit]
Connecticut Representatives Mary Mushinsky (D) and James Albis (D) introduced Connecticut House Bill 5733 in February 2015. The bill would require the Connecticut State Treasurer to prevent state investments or funding for coal, oil, and natural gas companies. The bill would achieve this through a gradual reduction in state investments to companies that extract oil, coal, or natural gas. The bill's purpose is "to discourage the extraction of fossil fuels and avoid a significant increase in global warming."[5] As of January 2015, the bill was before the Connecticut House Environment Committee.[6]
Idaho[edit]
In 2013, the Idaho State Legislature's Federal Lands Interim Task Force began studying a proposal to transfer federal ownership of federal land to the state. In January 2015, the group released a report arguing that a state-led lawsuit against the federal government to claim state ownership of federal land "would be a time-consuming and expensive endeavor, without a great deal of certainty as to the outcome." The task force held approximately 12 meetings between 2013 and 2015. The report did not rule out a potential lawsuit and argued that "current management of federal lands isn't producing the array of multiple-use benefits" promised.[7]
A 2014 study published by the University of Idaho's Policy Analysis Group argued that net revenue from the state's management of federal timber lands could range from a loss to the state government of about $6 million to a profit of $129 million per year for the state. The precise net revenue would depend on harvest levels and timber prices. The study also argued that highway, recreation and rangeland management costs, if included with timber land management, would create a net loss to the state ranging from $24 million to $111 million, although the state could receive as much as $58 million annually in income tax revenue through job creation on formerly owned federal lands.[7]
Indiana[edit]
In January 2015, Indiana State Senator Scott Schneider (R) introduced Senate Bill 569 in response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed Clean Power Plan. The bill would require the Governor of Indiana and the Indiana Attorney General "to protect the state's sovereignty and police power authority in light of the designed federalism under the federal Clean Air Act."[8] The bill would also require that the Indiana Department of Environmental Management study the Clean Power Plan and any related regulations for their legality under the Clean Air Act. The bill was considered by the Indiana Senate Utilities Committee as of January 2015.[8]
Maryland[edit]
In 2015, Maryland State Senator Paul Pinsky (D) introduced Maryland SB 258. The bill would require a Commission on Climate Change in the Maryland Department of the Environment to advise the Governor of Maryland and Maryland State Legislature on how to mitigate the potential impacts of human-caused climate change. The commission would advise state government bodies on issues related to preparing for and adapting to the potential consequences of climate change. The bill would also require the commission to report to the governor and state legislature annually on its research and would require the University of Maryland's Center for Environmental Science to map projected sea level rises due to human-caused global warming. As of February 2015, the bill was before the Maryland Senate Committee on Education, Health and Environmental Affairs.[9]
Minnesota[edit]
HB 333 would require the Minnesota State Legislature to approve any state plan to comply with the EPA's Clean Power Plan. As of February 2015, the bill was before the Minnesota House Job Growth and Energy Affordability Policy and Finance Committee.[10]
Montana[edit]
State Senator Jennifer Fielder (R) introduced Senate Bill 215, a bill that would prohibit the sale and transfer of public land by Montana if the state were to acquire federally owned land. The bill would keep such lands under state ownership. Fielder argued, "Some people have asserted that if the state assumes responsibility, we would foolishly sell the lands. I don't believe the people of Montana want that to occur."[11] As of February 2015, no committee action on the bill occurred before the Senate Natural Resources Committee. A February 2015 survey by Western States Survey that 58 percent of Montana respondents said that federal lands belonged to the United States as a whole. 49 percent of those respondents said that they felt strongly about that statement. 54 percent of Montana respondents supported federal ownership while 37 percent of respondents supported state ownership. 9 percent of respondents supported shared ownership.[12]
Missouri[edit]
In January 2015, State Senator Gary Romine (R) introduced SB 142, which would require the Missouri Division of Environmental Quality to submit any state implementation plan complying with the federal Clean Air Act and federal Clean Water Act to the Missouri State Legislature and the Governor of Missouri for review and approval. The bill would also require the state conduct a cost-benefit analysis before its compliance plans are sent to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval.[13]
New Mexico[edit]
In early 2015, the New Mexico House Agriculture, Water and Wildlife Committee voted 9-1 in favor of legislation to study the state's potential options regarding the transfer of federal land ownership to state ownership. The bill would establish a commission called the New Mexico Federal Land Management Study Commission, which would consist of four New Mexico state legislators, state agency officials, and three members voted on by the public. The commission would receive $100,000 in state funds to study the issue. Similar bills were introduced in 2013 and 2014.[14][15][16][17]
Virginia[edit]
In 2015, State Senators Bill Carrico (R) and A. Benton Chafin (R) introduced SB 750, which would require the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to submit any implementation plan complying with the EPA's Clean Power Plan to the Virginia General Assembly for approval.[13][18]
In 2015, Virginia Delegate Ronald Villanueva (R) introduced House Bill 2205, which would allow Virginia to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a voluntary organization of states that participate in a market-based cap and trade program for greenhouse gases. Villanueva argued that Virginia's participation in the initiative would generate $200 million for the state, half of which would go to coastal communities affected by potential rising sea levels and flooding. As of February 2015, the Virginia House Special Subcommittee on Energy tabled the bill.[19]
West Virginia[edit]
The West Virginia House of Delegates passed HB 2004 in February 2015. The bill would allow state legislators to vote on any state compliance plan involving the EPA's Clean Power Plan. The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) would be required to submit the state's implementation plan to the state legislature for approval before it submits the plan to the EPA. Delegate John Shott (R-Mercer) argued, "This is not meant to diminish the role of the DEP. ... It preserves the role of the Legislature to evaluate policies to be imposed on the state."[20] The bill was sponsored by Delegate Josh Nelson (R-Boone).[20] The West Virginia State Senate had its own version of the bill, SB 4, which was introduced January 2015 and is pending action.[20]
Wyoming[edit]
In early 2015, the Wyoming State Legislature considered two bills that would require an evaluation about the cost and feasibility of the Wyoming state government's management of federally owned lands. The Wyoming State Senate considered Senate File 56, a bill that would require a study evaluating the cost and feasibility of transferring federal land ownership to the state. The Wyoming House considered House Bill 209, a bill that would require the federal government to transfer its ownership of federal land (excluding national parks) and wilderness areas) to the state government by the year 2017. In 2015, the Senate bill passed by a vote of 26-4 and the Wyoming House Judiciary Committee voted 6-3 to pass the Senate bill. Committee chairman David Miller (R-Riverton) argued, "Permitting in Wyoming is atrocious on federal lands. ... If you look at those states that don't operate on federal lands, they get their permits in a week or two. Here it takes much longer."[21] Miller further argued that the Wyoming state government would be a better manager of federally owned lands. As a supporter of the Senate bill, Sen. Eli Bebout (R) argued, "Are we ready to take it over tomorrow? No. ... But it's pretty simple to me. I would rather deal with people in Wyoming on federal land issues than Washington, D.C."[21]
Recent news[edit]
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms State environmental legislation. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also[edit]
- Environmental policy in the United States
- Environmental policy by state
- Glossary of environmental terms
- Fracking legislation
- Clean Power Plan
Footnotes[edit]
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Tenth Amendment Center, "Arizona Senate Committee Passes Measure to Effectively Nullify New EPA Rules over Intrastate Waters," February 16, 2015
- ↑ National Law Review, "Colorado Legislature Considers How to Implement EPA’s Clean Power Plan," January 17, 2015
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Los Angeles Times, "Lawmakers take step toward fulfilling state climate change goals," February 7, 2015
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Sides square off over climate change proposals by California Democrats," February 10, 2015
- ↑ Connecticut General Assembly, "Proposed Bill No. 5733," accessed February 12, 2015
- ↑ LegiScan.com, "Connecticut House Bill 5733," accessed February 12, 2015
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Spokesman.com, "Updated: More groups speak out against states' federal land grab," February 4, 2015
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 Indiana General Assembly, "Senate Bill 569," accessed February 12, 2015
- ↑ LegiScan.com, "Maryland Senate Bill 258," accessed February 12, 2015
- ↑ LegiScan.com, "Minnesota House Bill 333," accessed February 17, 2015
- ↑ Bozeman Daily Chronicle, "Federal land transfer bill simple but contentious," February 9, 2015
- ↑ Helena Independent Record, "Poll finds Montanans believe federal lands belong to U.S., not state," February 10, 2015
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 Energy and Environment Publishing, "Republican statehouse gains load the dice for anti-EPA bills," January 12, 2015
- ↑ The Gazette, "New Mexico bill calls for study of federal land transfer," February 11, 2015
- ↑ Daily Lobo, "Public Land debates addressed in bill," February 5, 2015
- ↑ Albuquerque Journal, "New Mexico sportsmen to rally against public lands transfer," January 29, 2015
- ↑ WatchDog.org, "New Mexico lawmaker: State, not feds, should manage its land," January 28, 2015
- ↑ Virginia General Assembly, "2015 Session: Senate Bill 740," accessed February 10, 2015
- ↑ RVA News, "Subcommittee rejects coastal protection bill," February 11, 2015
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 West Virginia State Journal, "WV House passes bill to involve lawmakers in state Clean Power Plan compliance," February 6, 2015
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 Casper Star Tribune, "Public lands transfer legislation advances in Wyoming Legislature," January 30, 2015
| |||||||||||
EncycloReader
is supported by the 
KSF