[caption id="attachment_506" align="alignleft" width="200" caption=" "][/caption] Trey Pebley (center), Vice President of McAllen Construction, Inc., of McAllen, Texas, testified Wednesday before the House Small Business Committee on the impact of federal regulation over water and wetlands on small businesses and family farmers.

Trey Pebley, Vice President of McAllen Construction, Inc., of McAllen, Texas, testified Wednesday before the House Small Business Committee on the impact of federal regulation over water and wetlands on small businesses and family farmers.The Committee conducted the hearing to gather testimony on the impact of legislative efforts to remove the term "navigable waters" from the Clean Water Act. Pebley, an elected Trustee of the McAllen Public Utilities Board, explained to the Committee that such a legislative change would fundamentally expand federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act to include all waters and wetlands and would increase the need for federal discharge permits (i.e., Section 404 permits).Pebley also expressed concern that a bill called the Clean Water Restoration Act would also extend federal jurisdiction over groundwater, as well as all surface waters. If the bill were enacted, underground contractors, could be required to obtain a federal permit for every project.Pebley reiterated AGC's commitment to water quality and the protection of public health and welfare as builders. However, he continued that the federal reach over waters and wetlands should have a limit and that states and local governments are best equipped to look after their water and land use. To provide the long sought-after clarity that the construction industry needs to comply with the existing complex regulatory process, the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency should conduct an administrative rulemaking to define crucial terms to delineate federal jurisdiction, Pebley added.Last month, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved its version of the Clean Water Restoration Act, S. 787, with a so-called "compromise" amendment. As the amended legislation would still fundamentally expand federal jurisdiction over all waters and wetlands, AGC opposes the bill.To contact your Senators to oppose S 787, use AGC’s Legislative Action Center.To view a copy of Pebley’s written statement to the House Small Business Committee, click here.

AGC submitted comments in June 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. If finalized, EPA's proposal would require reporting of GHG emissions from all sectors of the economy in very short order.  EPA has identified "source categories" wherein all of the facilities with that source of emissions within their boundaries would be subject to the rule.  These source categories include large operations such as petroleum refineries, power plants, Portland cement plants, landfills, etc.  In addition to these sources, EPA has suggested a threshold of 25,000 metric tons per year of carbon dioxide equivalent (metric tpy CO2e) above which other facilities would be required to report annual GHG emissions from stationary fuel combustion sources (boilers, process heaters, etc.).For more information, click here, or contact Melinda Tomaino at (703) 837-5415 or tomainom@agc.org.

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.To read the full article, click here. For more information, contact Melinda Tomaino at (703) 837-5415 or tomainom@agc.org. 

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.For more information, click here, or contact Melinda Tomaino at (703) 837-5415 or tomainom@agc.org. 

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.