House Bill Would Force States to Cut Transportation Emissions, with ‘Consequences’ for Those that Don’t

by Ian Duncan (Washington Post) A Provision in the Budget Bill Would Reward Transportation Agencies for Bringing down Missions from Driving, while Penalizing Others -- A measure in the House’s $2 trillion economic initiative would require states to cut greenhouse gas emissions, promising rewards for transportation departments that post reductions and “consequences” for those that don’t.

To its supporters, the proposal — set forth in a few dozen lines in the mammoth budget bill — is an overdue acknowledgment that decisions about transportation infrastructure shape how much carbon people emit as they get around. But its opponents say it is unfair to single out transportation departments, while setting standards that could be unattainable in rural areas.

...

According to the proposal, states that cut emissions could tap a $1 billion pot of money and potentially receive other bonus funding from the federal government. The bill doesn’t spell out potential consequences for not reducing emissions, leaving the decision to federal transportation officials. Experts said they could include barriers to accessing highly prized grant funds.

...

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), the leading Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the approach would undermine flexibility for states that was built into the infrastructure law. She has proposed striking it from the bill.

“This provision in the reckless tax and spending spree legislation seeks to undo that flexibility and give Washington unchecked power over a state’s transportation decisions,” she said in a statement.

...

The infrastructure package allocates $6.4 billion to a transportation “carbon-reduction program” that states could use for projects ranging from transit facilities to energy-efficient streetlights. But advocates for an emissions-incentive system say it could help to steer the hundreds of billions of additional dollars for highways in a greener direction.

“A provision like this holds cities and state politicians accountable not just for the next two years, but for the next 20 years,” said Julia Thayne DeMordaunt, principal of the urban transformation team at environmental advocacy organization RMI.

Opposition to the emissions measure is deep-seated. The heads of five Western state transportation departments wrote to Capito’s committee last month saying the proposal would harm rural areas because options like congestion pricing or collaborations with transit agencies are not well-suited to sparsely populated places.

...

The head of the influential organization that represents all the state transportation departments said it doesn’t make sense to single out those state agencies when there are multiple factors that influence emissions, including fuel economy standards for cars and local decisions about where to build shops, offices and homes.

“The concern that we have with it is that it doesn’t take a more holistic approach,” said Jim Tymon, executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. “It’s a very targeted approach towards state DOTs. The issue of greenhouse gases is not one that state DOTs have sole control over.”

...

Colorado has recently elected to go it alone, proposing rules that would require estimates of emissions from new transportation projects to meet carbon-reduction goals. READ MORE