Tag: infrastructure

H.R. 3684: Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

On November 5, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a $1.2 trillion infrastructure spending bill that will make historic investments in core infrastructure priorities including roads and bridges, rail, transit, ports, airports, the electric grid, and broadband.

The legislation, titled the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (“IIJA”), will have major implications for states and municipalities of all sizes, as well as the entities involved in responding to governments’ needs for hard and cyber infrastructure.

Improvements to roadways, ports and mass transit are the focus of the legislation and the majority of the funding is targeted at these traditional hard infrastructure projects. U.S. Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) has championed the massive infrastructure bill and pushed for its passage.

This weekend, Senator Portman noted the massive impact the IIJA will have on Ohio, highlighting the bill’s bridge investment program which will award competitive grants to certain governmental entities to improve the condition of bridges. “This additional federal funding means we are one step closer to a solution for the Brent Spence Bridge,” Portman said.

The Brent Spence Bridge, which connects Cincinnati, Ohio with Covington, Kentucky has one of the busiest trucking routes in the nation. Questions about its safety and long shutdowns for repair have long concerned area residents as well as the business owners responsible for the more than $400 billion of freight which passes over the bridge every year.

While hard infrastructure priorities like bridge maintenance, port modernization, freight rail, and highway improvements account for a majority of the new spending appropriated by the bill (which totals $550 billion over five years), a sizable portion is dedicated to the expansion of broadband networks and the improvement of cybersecurity.

The new cybersecurity grant program and record-setting investments in broadband development could be game changing for state and local leaders wishing to modernize and protect their communities in these ways.

The U.S. Senate approved the IIJA in August 2020. Friday’s vote means the infrastructure bill will now move to the desk of President Joe Biden, who has indicated a bill signing ceremony will happen soon. Answers to questions about the billions of dollars in new infrastructure grants and programming are below.

Question: How will the money be distributed? 

Answer: The IIJA contains formulaic allocations of funds as well as earmarks and competitive grants. Some categories and sub-categories contain both non-competitive and competitive grants.

  • NON-COMPETITIVE FUNDING ALLOCATION PROCESSES
    • Formulas dictated by the bill are based on criteria like state population, or, potentially for specific items, users (ex: transit funds potentially determined by ridership)
    • Once the money is directed to the states, the local bureaucrats are able to make the important decisions about which projects deserve the funding.
    • States can also decide to allocate some of the funding to the county or city governments within their state
  • EARMARKS AND COMPETITIVE GRANT PROCESSES
    • Earmarks override state plans for how infrastructure funds should be spent. “Earmarks come out of the money that the state was going to get anyway.”
    • Localities must compete for Competitive Grants via an application process. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Discretionary Grant Process is officially outlined on their website.
    • Generally, the award of competitive grants can be influenced by advocates who confer with decisionmakers in the Executive Branch about the merits of certain proposals.

Question: Which projects will qualify for funding?

Answer: The bill details specific funding streams for the specific projects included in its provisions. Categories of projects included in the $550 billion in new spending are below.

  • Roads, Bridges, & Major Projects: $110B — Funds new, dedicated grant program to replace and repair bridges and increases funding for the major project competitive grant programs. Preserves the 90/10 split of federal highway aid to states.
  • Passenger and Freight Rail: $66B — Provides targeted funding for the Amtrak National Network for new service and dedicated funding to address repair backlogs. Increases funding for freight rail and safety.
  • Safety and Research: $11B — Addresses highway, pedestrian, pipeline, and other safety areas (highway safety accounts for the bulk of this funding).
  • Public Transit: $39.2B — Funds nation’s transit system repair backlog, which includes buses, rail cars, transit stations, track, signals, and power systems. This allocation also includes money to create new bus routes and increase accessibility to public transit for those with physical mobility challenges.
  • Broadband: $65B — Funds grants to states for broadband deployment and other efforts to address access issues in rural areas and low-income communities. Expands eligible private activity bond projects to include broadband infrastructure.
  • Airports: $25B — Increases Airport Improvement grant amounts for runways, gates, & taxiways and authorizes a new Airport Terminal Improvement program.
  • Ports and Waterways: $17.4B — Provides funding for waterway and coastal infrastructure, inland waterway improvements, port infrastructure, and land ports of entry through the Army Corps, DOT, Coast Guard, the GSA, and DHS.
  • Water Infrastructure: $54B — Provides a $15 billion for lead service line replacement and $10 billion to address PFAS in water, in addition to other items.
  • Power and Grid: $65B — Funds grid reliability and resiliency projects and support for a Grid Development Authority; critical minerals and supply chains for clean energy technology; key technologies like carbon capture, hydrogen, direct air capture, and energy efficiency; and energy demonstration projects from the bipartisan Energy Act of 2020.
  • Resiliency: $46B — Funds cybersecurity projects to address critical infrastructure needs, flood mitigation, wildfire, drought, coastal resiliency, waste management, ecosystem restoration, and weatherization.
  • Low-Carbon and Zero-Emission School Buses & Ferries: $7.5B — Funds and authorizes the adoption of low-carbon and zero-emission school buses, including through hydrogen, propane, LNG, compressed natural gas, biofuel, and electric technologies. Provides support for a pilot program for low emission ferries and rural ferry systems.
  • Electric Vehicle Charging: $7.5B — Funds alternative fuel corridors and a national build out of electric vehicle charging infrastructure. The federal funding will have a particular focus on rural and/or disadvantaged communities.
  • Reconnecting Communities: $1B — Provides dedicated funding for planning, design, demolition, and reconstruction of street grids, parks, or other infrastructure (funding is especially targeted at infrastructure which is deteriorating due to age).
  • Addressing Legacy Pollution: $21B — Funds to clean up brownfield and superfund sites, reclaim abandoned mine lands, and plug orphan oil and gas wells, improving public health and creating good-paying jobs.

Article By Katherine M. Caprez of Roetzel & Andress LPA

For more legislative and legal news, read more from the National Law Review.

©2021 Roetzel & Andress

President Trump Orders Expanded Use of Emergency Powers to Streamline Infrastructure

On Thursday, June 4, 2020, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) on “Accelerating the Nation’s Economic Recovery from the COVID-19 Emergency by Expediting Infrastructure Investments and Other Activities.” Relying on the COVID-19 declared national emergency, the EO directs federal agencies to invoke their existing emergency authorities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clean Water Act (CWA), and other laws to expedite economic recovery, including taking “all reasonable measures” to speed infrastructure and public works projects. While consistent with prior administrative directives to expedite project permitting, this latest EO likely will have little practical effect on individual projects and generate increased litigation for projects that rely on it.

The EO aspires to expedite a variety of projects that fall under the jurisdiction of several specific federal agencies:

  • All authorized and appropriated highway and other infrastructure projects within the authority of the U.S. Department of Transportation;
  • All authorized and appropriated civil works projects under the purview of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and
  • All authorized and appropriated infrastructure, energy, environmental, and natural resources projects on federal lands managed by the Department of Defense, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Agriculture.

The EO’s main action item is periodic reporting by affected federal agencies to the White House. Agency heads must provide a summary report listing all projects expedited under their emergency authorities no later than July 4th (30 days after the EO’s issuance date), and provide status reports every 30 days thereafter. The EO specifies no end date for the national emergency or use of emergency authorities.

The EO principally relies on the government-wide NEPA regulation for emergency situations.  40 C.F.R. § 1506.11. It also invokes the ESA implementing regulation on Section 7 consultations in emergencies (50 C.F.R. § 402.05 2) and the CWA Section 404 regulations and nationwide permits addressing emergency circumstances. Lastly, the EO directs agencies to review “other authorities” potentially applicable to emergencies, including “all statutes, regulations, and guidance documents that may provide for emergency or expedited treatment (including waivers, exemptions, or other streamlining).”  Overall, the EO intends to allow critical infrastructure and public works projects to move forward more quickly, by abbreviating or waiving legally required environmental reviews, interagency consultation, and public comment.

While the goals of reducing time and paperwork are laudable, the EO will likely be less impactful than other recent efforts (such as One Federal Decision). The emergency exemptions available under NEPA, the ESA, the CWA, and other laws are quite limited pursuant to regulations and case law. They are meant for very narrow or discrete circumstances, not for indefinite national conditions. Moreover, they do not entirely or permanently waive environmental requirements, but rather allow for deferred or alternative procedures that achieve statutory aims. For example, the NEPA emergency regulation provides that when emergency circumstances make it necessary to take actions with significant environmental impacts without observing the typical NEPA process, agencies may consult with the Council on Environmental Quality to make “alternative arrangements” to take such actions. The effort and resources required to develop such “alternative arrangements” may not save time in the overall NEPA review. Nor can an EO legally displace regulations or case law.

Predictably, environmental organizations have already indicated a likely forthcoming challenge to the EO. Though a direct challenge may face jurisdictional obstacles, individual project approvals relying on the EO may be more vulnerable to lawsuits. And given the EO’s focus on timing, preliminary injunction motions at the commencement of lawsuits likely would be a centerpiece of those lawsuits, which likely would offset any advantage that may have been gained from relying on the EO.

© 2020 Beveridge & Diamond PC

Continued Efforts to Bolster Wireless Infrastructure as California Officials Brace for Wildfire Season

California has been plagued by devastating wildfires over the past two summers, with the 2018 Camp Fire the deadliest and most destructive on record. Now that summer has officially started in 2019, officials are bracing for a possible string of new fires, with Governor Gavin Newsom telling officials to “prepare for the worst” in a recent meeting with emergency managers. In a discussion of what to expect for future California wildfire seasons, Chris Field, the Perry L. McCarty Director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, stated:

The combination of climate change, increasing development in the wildland-urban interface, and fuel accumulation from decades of fire suppression dramatically increases the risk of fires that are large and catastrophic. Former California Governor Jerry Brown described the situation as a “new abnormal.” We need to recognize that, in California, we face the real risk that every fire season will be among the most destructive, or even the most destructive, on record.

Federal, state, and local officials, utilities, and residents, among many others, are now grappling with how to best prepare for this “new abnormal.” Efforts range from the U.S. Forest Service and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s fast-tracked forest management projects to Governor Newsom’s June 2019 proposal to create a $21 billion fund to compensate future wildfire victims. One big piece of the puzzle is strengthening wireless infrastructure to ensure that residents are connected to loved ones and vital services in the event of a disaster, particularly as the number of households without landlines continues to grow.

Senate Bill 670

As discussed in this blog previously, cellular service has a number of vulnerabilities that can cause it to falter during an emergency. During wildfires, one of the key risks for wireless infrastructure is physical damage and burning of underground and pole-mounted fiber lines. Gaps in cellular service can prevent residents from being able to reach 911 or receive crucial emergency notifications. This disruption of service is particularly dangerous in the face of a rapidly moving wildfire. Legislation aiming to address part of the problem is currently winding its waythrough the California legislature: Senate Bill 670, authored by State Senator Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg).

The proposed legislation would require telecommunications companies to report outages impacting customers’ ability to access 911 or receive emergency notifications to the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) within 60 minutes of discovering the outage. Cal OES would then forward this information to local first responders so that they can identify any residents cut off from service. In 2018, certain Butte County residents received no official warning of the coming Camp Fire due to damaged cellular towers, with Sonoma County residents facing similar problems in 2017. The gap in communications was compounded by ineffectual use of wireless alert systems at the local level. Senator McGuire also authored Senate Bill 833, establishing statewide emergency alert protocols and regulations, which former Governor Jerry Brown signed in September 2018.

Concerns Regarding Power Supplies for Wireless Infrastructure

In May 2019, the Public Advocates Office (formerly the Office of Ratepayer Advocates), an independent organization within the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) that advocates on behalf of utility ratepayers, filed a legal motion urging the agency to act immediately to ensure that communication systems work during emergencies. As stated in a press release accompanying the motion:

[T]he Public Advocates Office seeks to better protect Californians during emergency situations by asserting that communication providers need to (1) ensure that calls and data be transmitted, without delay, during times of emergencies, (2) install backup generators or battery power at wireless facilities in high fire threat areas to reduce outages, (3) develop plans for alternative methods needed to support 9-1-1 call centers; (4) and take steps to improve their emergency alert and warning systems.

The Wireless Infrastructure Association has responded, pointing to regulatory hurdles inhibiting the expansion of cell sites to accommodate additional power sources and network redundancy. It has asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to collaborate with local governments to prioritize and streamline the approval process.

FCC’s Examination of Disaster Response and Recovery

Meanwhile, the FCC, on June 13, 2019, held the first meeting for the recently re-chartered Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC), which will examine, in part, ways to boost wireless infrastructure during disasters and other emergencies. The committee will study how to accelerate the deployment of high-speed broadband access, focused on the following three areas:

  • Disaster Response and Recovery Working Group. Measures to improve resiliency of broadband infrastructure before a disaster occurs, and strategies that can be used during and after the response to a disaster to minimize broadband network downtime.
  • Increasing Broadband Investment in Low-Income Communities Working Group. New ways to encourage the deployment of high-speed broadband infrastructure and services to low-income communities.
  • Broadband Infrastructure Deployment Job Skills and Training Opportunities Working Group. Ways to make more widely available and improve job skills training and development opportunities for the broadband infrastructure deployment workforce.

Working in tandem with the BDAC, the FCC, in November 2018, launched a re-examination of the Wireless Resiliency Cooperative Framework, a voluntary commitment by mobile carriers focused on restoring communications during disasters and other emergencies, originally approved in 2016. The move was a response to major disruptions in wireless service following Hurricane Michael in the Florida Panhandle, but it is intended as a broader examination of wireless services in the event of a disaster.

 

© 2010-2019 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
For more on mobile & wireless infrastructure, please see the Communications, Media & Internet page on the National Law Review.

Implementation of “Buy American” for Infrastructure Projects Begins May 1st

In 2017, President Trump issued an executive order entitled “Buy American and Hire American” which stated a commitment to do just that. Earlier this year, expanding on this policy, President Trump issued an executive order entitled “Strengthening Buy-American Preferences for Infrastructure Projects.” This order requires federal agencies to encourage contractors working on infrastructure projects that receive federal grants or loans to purchase domestically produced materials. Pursuant to the order, agencies are required to begin encouraging use of domestic products by May 1st, and requires submission of an implementation plan by May 31st.

The new executive order seeks to fill somewhat of a gap in current federal legislation that will no doubt have an effect on an investor’s analysis of a public-private partnership delivery model. The federal Buy American Act applies domestic preference to manufactured materials that are used in the construction of federal projects. Then, there are a set of federal laws that have domestic preference provisions for specific materials in specific construction projects that receive federal funding. The new executive order applies to “covered programs,” which basically includes infrastructure projects that received financial assistance from a federal program, but do not currently include domestic preference requirements. In other words, the policy now potentially applies to any project that receives federal funds, even if it is not solicited by the federal government.

The term “infrastructure projects” is broadly defined, and will apply to local projects that receive federal assistance like aviation, surface transportation, ports, water resources, and energy production projects. The new executive order expands both the types of materials and types of projects for which the Buy American policy is applicable. The interplay with rules for local preference enforced by local governments is unclear, although existing federal regulations typically prohibit the use of local preference for federally funded projects. Also unclear is whether there is or will be an actual enforcement mechanism. The significance and magnitude of this latest push for stronger domestic preference will be revealed in the coming weeks as federal agencies begin to encourage the policy and submit plans for implementation.

© 2019 Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP. All Rights Reserved.

This post was written by Elise Holtzman and Albert E. Dotson, Jr.

Read more about US policy updates on the National Law Review’s administrative & regulatory page.

EPA Issues New Emergency Response Requirements for Community Water Systems

On March 27, 2019,  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Federal Register Notice for New Risk Assessments and Emergency Response Plans for Community Water Systems describing the requirements and deadlines for community (drinking) water systems to develop or update risk and resilience assessments (RRAs) and emergency response plans (ERPs) under  America’s Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) which was signed into law on October 23, 2018 and amends the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).   Additionally, as described below, preparation of an ERP will enable owners or operators of community water systems to apply for grants from EPA for fiscal years 2020 and 2021.

Covered water systems.  Community water systems that serve more than 3,300 people are covered by these requirements. EPA interprets the population served to mean all persons served by the system directly or indirectly, including the population served by consecutive water systems, such as wholesalers.

Deadlines.  Each covered Community Water System completing an RRA and ERP must send certifications of completion by the dates listed below, and then review for necessary updates every 5 years thereafter:

Population Served by the Community Water System

Risk and Resilience Assessment (RRA) Certification

Emergency Response Plan (ERP)

The dates below are 6 months from the date of the RRA certification, based on a utility submitting a risk assessment on the final due date. Depending on actual RRA certification, ERP due dates could be sooner.

≥100,000

March 31, 2020

September 30, 2020

50,000-99,999

December 31, 2020

June 30, 2021

3,301-49,999

June 30, 2021

December 30, 2021

Risk and Resilience Assessment Requirements.  Each covered community water system must assess the risks to, and resilience of, its system including:

  • risk to the system from malevolent acts and natural hazards
  • resilience of the pipes and constructed conveyances, physical barriers, source water, water collection and intake, pretreatment, treatment, storage and distribution facilities;
  • electronic, computer, or other automated systems (including the security of such systems) which are utilized by the system;
  • monitoring practices of the system;
  • financial infrastructure of the system;
  • use, storage, or handling of various chemicals by the system; and
  • operation and maintenance of the system.

Emergency Response Plan Requirements (ERP). No later than six months after certifying completion of its risk and resilience assessment, each system must prepare or revise, where necessary, an emergency response plan that incorporates the findings of the assessment.  The ERP must include:

  • strategies and resources to improve the resilience of the system, including the physical security and cybersecurity of the system;
  • plans and procedures that can be implemented, and identification of equipment that can be utilized, in the event of a malevolent act or natural hazard that threatens the ability of the community water system to deliver safe drinking water;
  • actions, procedures, and equipment which can obviate or significantly lessen the impact of a malevolent act or natural hazard on the public health,  safety, and supply of drinking water provided to communities and individuals, including the development of alternative source water options, relocation of water intakes, and construction of flood protection barriers; and
  • strategies that can be used to aid in the detection of malevolent acts or natural hazards that threaten the security or resilience of the system.

The Federal Register Notice indicates that EPA is not requiring water systems to use any designated standards or methods to complete RRAs or ERPs, provided all of the requirements of the SDWA and AWIA are met.  AWIA already defines resilience and natural hazards. EPA will provide additional tools to foster compliance with its provisions and baseline information regarding malevolent acts no later than August 1, 2019.  With respect to the latter, it is anticipated that the agency will include consideration of acts that may (1) substantially disrupt the ability of the system to provide a safe and reliable supply of drinking water; or (2) otherwise present significant public health or economic concerns to the community served by the system.

Potential Impacts & Next Steps.  Preparation of an ERP will enable the owners or operators of community water systems to apply for grants under the Drinking Water Infrastructure Risk and Resilience Program, under which EPA may award grants in fiscal years 2020 and 2021.  If consistent with its ERP, a community water system may apply for grant funding for projects that increase resilience, such as:

  • Purchase and installation of equipment for detection of drinking water contaminants or malevolent acts;
  • Purchase and installation of fencing, gating, lighting, or security cameras;
  • Tamper-proofing of manhole covers, fire hydrants, and valve boxes;
  • Purchase and installation of improved treatment technologies and equipment to improve the resilience of the system;
  • Improvements to electronic, computer, financial, or other automated systems and remote systems;
  • Participation in training programs, and the purchase of training manuals and guidance materials relating to security and resilience;
  • Improvements in the use, storage, or handling of chemicals by the community water system;
  • Security screening of employees or contractor support services;
  • Equipment necessary to support emergency power or water supply, including standby and mobile sources; and
  • Development of alternative source water options, relocation of water intakes, and construction of flood protection barriers.

The EPA is currently developing a comprehensive training schedule, which will include both classroom and webinar options.

 

© 2019 Van Ness Feldman LLP.
Read more water infrastructure news on our environmental type of law page.

State Investments in Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure

Various studies indicate that an overall lack of charging infrastructure serves as an impediment to the widespread adoption of electric vehicles (EVs). However, the road to transportation electrification is officially under construction following several major state investments.

At the end of May, in the largest single state-level investment in EV charging infrastructure, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved more than $760 million worth of transportation electrification projects by the State’s three investor-owned utilities. The CPUC’s Decision, See A.17-01-020, Proposed Decision of ALJs Goldberg and Cook (May 31, 2018),  authorized Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and Southern California Edison (SCE) to install vehicle chargers at more than 1,500 sites supporting 15,000 medium or heavy-duty vehicles. The FD also approved rebates to San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) residential customers for installing up to 60,000 240-volt charging stations at their homes. Moreover, PG&E was authorized to build 234 DC fast-charging stations.

Besides the total spend and resulting emissions reductions represented by the Commission’s action, the Proposed Decision is also notable for the policy priorities it advances.  For instance, it clearly prioritizes the creation of electrification-related benefits for California’s disadvantaged communities (DACs).  (The authorizing legislation, SB 350, found that “[w]idespread transportation electrification requires increased access for disadvantaged communities . . . and increased use of [EVs] in those communities . . . to enhance air quality, lower greenhouse gases emissions, and promote overall benefits to those communities” § 740.12(a)(1)(C) (De Leon)).  Accordingly, the CPUC focused on promoting construction of charging infrastructure in DACs.   For example, the PG&E fast charging program will target construction in DACs by providing up to $25,000 per DC fast charger in rebates to cover a portion of the charger cost for sites located in DACs.

The CPUC also prioritizes the survival of non-utility charging competition.  For example, the Proposed Decision eliminates utility ownership of the charging infrastructure on the customer side of the meter in the SDG&E residential charging program. Additionally, for the PG&E and SCE’s medium and heavy-duty programs, the utilities will own make-ready infrastructure, but not the Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE). Instead, the utilities will allow customers to choose their own EVSE models, EVSE installation vendors, and any network services providers.

The CPUC noted several benefits of allowing the utility to own electrification infrastructure only up to the point of the EVSE stub.  First, the Commission found that “[u]tility ownership of the charging infrastructure dramatically drives up costs, in comparison to alternative ownership models.” Instead, restricting utility ownership of charging equipment will allow more charging infrastructure to be built at the same (or lower) cost to ratepayers. Second, it allows private parties to compete and innovate, which will improve charging technology and lower costs. Lastly, non-utility competition addresses “stranded cost” fears, since private parties will bear the risks of nascent charging technologies.

While California has made the largest commitment, other states have also joined the effort to pave a national road toward the widespread adoption of EVs.

In New Jersey, utility company PSE&G recently proposed spending $300 million to set up a network of up to 50,000 charging stations. This investment would constitute a massive upgrade to New Jersey’s charging infrastructure, which currently consists of less than 600 charging stations according to U.S. Department of Energy data. The proposed investment is part of a larger $5.4 billion expansion in PSE&G’s five-year infrastructure plan, and represents the first major proposal of New Jersey’s largest utility to invest in EV infrastructure.

In New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo announced a $40 million commitment (that could grow to $250 million by 2025) by the New York Power Authority for its EVolve NY initiative. The new funding will be used to build fast chargers and to support EV model communities. EVolve NY is a part of the broader Charge NY 2.0 initiative, which advances electric car adoption by increasing the number of charging stations statewide. The new funding will aid New York as it aims to meet its particularly ambitious goal of 800,000 electric vehicles on the road by 2025.

Late last year, the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities approved a $45 million charging station program by local utility, Eversource. The program includes investments to support the deployment of almost 4,000 “Level 2 Stations” and 72 DC Fast Charging stations. Even more investment could be on its way to Massachusetts as utility company National Grid has also proposed investing in charging station infrastructure.

And in Maryland, utility companies have proposed spending $104 million to build a network of 24,000 residential, workplace and public charging stations. The program, currently before the state’s Public Service Commission, would be a major part of Maryland’s effort to reach 300,000 electric vehicles on the road by 2025.

On the federal level, energy-related projects could be eligible for the $20 billion “Transformative Projects Program” announced by the Trump administration in February.  However, President Trump recently remarked that his infrastructure plan will likely have to wait until after this year’s midterm elections.  In the meantime, states have shown that they are more than willing to take the lead in investing in transportation electrification infrastructure.  (In related news this week, Colorado’s decision to move toward adopting California’s greenhouse gas emissions standards for light-duty vehicles represents a parallel and noteworthy development, further indicating leadership and action from states focused on developing advanced vehicle technology.)  It’s also notable that in addition to utility commission activity, states are also expressing support for advanced vehicle technology While the states have certainly taken a lead, their investments also complement significant action in the private sector, including the recent effort to stand up the Transportation Electrification Accord.  See our recent post on that subject, and continue to follow Inside Energy and Environment for continued updates on this subject.

© 2018 Covington & Burling LLP

This post also includes contributions from Michael Rebuck, a summer associate.

This post was written by Jake Levine Covington & Burling LLP.

White House Encourages Coordination of Infrastructure Permitting Through One Federal Decision Memorandum

On April 9, 2018, the White House announced that twelve federal agencies had signed the One Federal Decision Memorandum (“MOU”), establishing a coordinated and timely process for environmental reviews of major infrastructure projects. The MOU addresses one of President Trump’s signature policy promises from the 2018 state of the union – to reduce the infrastructure permitting process to at most two years.

The MOU comes in response to Executive Order 13807, signed by the President on August 15, 2017. The Executive Order directed federal agencies to, among other things, develop a two year permitting timeline for “major infrastructure projects,” and designate a “lead agency” to shepherd projects through the permitting process. The President specifically sought to address inefficient and duplicative practices such as multiple agencies producing separate Environmental Impact Statements.

The MOU and its accompanying Implementation Memorandum provide instruction to and agreement among agencies on how to improve the coordination and execution of permitting reviews. Benchmark improvements include:

  • A single Environmental Impact Statement for all agencies

  • A single Record of Decision except in specified circumstances

  • A two-year average time period for concluding all environmental reviews and authorization decisions for major infrastructure projects

  • Written concurrences from cooperating agencies at interim milestones in the consolidated Permitting Timetable governi­­­ng the multi-agency review-and-authorization process for a project

In evaluating the potential impact of these actions in comparison to prior initiatives to improve the permitting process, two additional factors should be considered.

First, this Administration appears committed to improving infrastructure permitting beyond issuing these documents. The current actions anticipate further change within the Executive Branch, at the White House’s direction, whereas similar actions under past administrations represented the culmination of an initiative.

Second, specific requirements in the Implementation Memorandum and MOU will require agencies to change their current processes in order to comply, instead of past efforts which largely encouraged Agencies to achieve better results using existing methods.

For example, the new guidance requires written concurrence from cooperating agencies at specific interim milestones within an established, consolidated permitting timetable. The guidance also requires agencies, with some exceptions, to develop a consolidated record supporting the One Federal Decision, instead of isolated administrative records within each agency. Implementing these and other changes will require modification of the status quo for many agencies. Indeed, the guidance calls for signatory agencies to submit plans (within 90 days) to implement the MOU through new guidance or regulations.

The following is a summary of key points from the Implementation Memorandum and MOU and a detailed list of specific provisions.

General Agreements – Outlines the overarching features of the MOU including a requirement for federal agencies to work together to develop a single Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (“ROD”), and to issue all necessary authorization decisions within 90 days of the ROD.

Permitting Timetable – Provides guidance on the milestones to be included in the Permitting Timetable, including estimated milestones for which the project sponsor is to develop and submit complete applications and any other information required for Federal authorization of the project, including required authorization decisions by non-Federal entities.

Agency Roles and Responsibilities – Provides further details on the duties of lead agencies in preparing the federal EIS and outlines roles for cooperating and participating agencies. For example, cooperating agencies may only provide written comment on issues within their substantive areas of expertise.

Scoping and Concurrence Points – Provides for using the NEPA scoping process to develop relevant analyses, studies and engineering designs needed in order for all agencies to be able to sign a single ROD. Requires that the environmental review process be conducted concurrently with the applicable authorization decision processes, and, as such, the lead agency should obtain a written concurrence from all cooperating agencies whose authorization is required for the project at three key milestones: 1) Purpose and Need, 2) Alternatives To Be Carried Forward for Evaluation, and 3) the Preferred Alternative.

Elevation of Delays and Dispute Resolution – Directs agencies to use dispute resolution procedures within applicable laws and to defer to staff who have day-to-day project involvement. Where disputes are anticipated to delay a Permitting Milestone, disputes are to be elevated within the federal agencies.

Exceptions – Provides a number of exceptions to the MOU including the ability of lead agencies to extend the 90 day decision deadline.

© 2018 Bracewell LLP.

This post was written by Kevin A. Ewing, Jason B. Hutt and Christine G. Wyman of Bracewell LLP.

Developer-in-Chief: How the New U.S. President May Affect the Construction Industry

construction industryEven before the start of Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign, the Trump brand was in lights across the nation. From the original Trump Tower in New York City to the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas, it is a name, a brand and a font recognized by nearly everyone. Long before his inauguration, the new U.S. president had made himself one of the most visible — if not the most visible — real estate developers in the world.

President Trump may be the new commander-in-chief, but he is unlikely to forget his long history in real estate. While the world prepares to learn how his policies will affect the larger economy, real estate developers and contractors are similarly focused on the impact his policies will have on the construction industry. Is the president’s (likely) pro-development stance cause for excitement in real estate circles, or is caution warranted? In the following, we explore subsets of the construction industry and the potential impacts of the new administration on these sectors and issues.

An additional note: It is no exaggeration to state that Mr. Trump’s presidency and many of his official actions, to date, have been contentious. Our goal is to provide a clear-eyed and nonpartisan review of the new President’s possible initiatives.

Infrastructure

The nation’s infrastructure was a major talking point for both candidates during the presidential campaign. There is no doubt it is aging and requires investment. So perhaps it was no surprise that Mr. Trump had something to say about infrastructure investment during his acceptance speech on the Wednesday after the general election:

“We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals. We’re going to rebuild our infrastructure, which will become, by the way, second to none and we will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it.”1

This is a statement that will likely excite many contractors. It also appears to be a strategy that will build on former President Obama’s policies. It was estimated that the controversial American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (a.k.a. the Recovery Act or “stimulus package”) would ultimately cost $831 billion between 2009 and 2019, the bulk of it consisting of investments in infrastructure, education, health and renewable energy.2 Mr. Trump has estimated that projects launched under his direction will inject $1 trillion into infrastructure investment using federal tax credits to generate private-sector involvement.3

Republicans who often opposed Mr. Obama’s infrastructure spending may now be reluctant to support Mr. Trump in similar efforts. Private-sector involvement may be key to overcoming Republicans’ prior reticence to spend government money or increase taxes. However, if the private-sector involvement turns out to be illusory, his plans may be stymied by Congress (regardless of which party is in control).

Single-Family Homes

The Obama administration was effective in reducing risk in lending practices and protecting consumers via the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.4 It also helped homeowners in difficult financial situations refinance their mortgages through the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP).5 As a result of affordable mortgage rates, employment gains and income improvement, the single-family home industry has steadily recovered from the recession.6

Despite this, homeownership — which was 63.5 percent during the third quarter of 2016 — is at its lowest level since the 1960s.7 Constraints do not appear to be on the demand side of the equation; they are on supply, where builders are faced with shortages of lots, labor and lending.8 

Since demand is high, this may be an area in which the new administration can affect the single-family home industry. Mr. Trump has said, “No one other than the energy industry is regulated more than the home-building industry. Twenty-five percent of the cost of a home is due to regulation. I think we should get that down to about two percent.”9 

Mr. Trump has also made clear his affinity for the residential real estate industry, noting that his father was a home builder: “A home builder taught me everything I know. There is no greater thing you can do. If you can build a home, you can build anything.”10

Taken at face value, Mr. Trump’s statements made on the campaign trail paint a positive picture. Combined with the current state of the industry, it may provide his administration with the opportunity to spur new-home construction. As of this publication, however, no clear blueprint for the industry has been put forward.

Energy

Mr. Trump believes the energy industry is the most heavily regulated industry in the nation. And his stated goals for deregulation will likely affect this industry, as well.

The Obama administration invested heavily in renewable energy.11 Mr. Trump, on the other hand, has appointed several cabinet members with strong ties to oil and gas, and he has been abundantly clear in his support for coal. Does this spell dire straits for the renewable energy industry?12

The answer to this question is, as yet, unclear. At a campaign rally in California, Mr. Trump told supporters, “I know a lot about solar — I love solar. Except there’s a problem with it. It’s got a lot of problems with it. One problem is it’s so expensive.”13 Whether he is correct in his assessment is one question. Whether he will invest in solar power to bring its deemed high price down or  scrap the tax credits the industry relies on is a separate — and still outstanding — question altogether.14  If Mr. Trump does cancel the tax credits, some analysts expect that the industry will turn to the U.S. states or even overseas for the subsidies it relies on.15

Mr. Trump’s prior claims that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the government of China may suggest where he stands on this issue; if taken at face value, it may indicate that he is less likely to promote the renewable energy industry and more likely to defer to advisors with interests in oil and gas. However, some believe that the industry has sufficient momentum to maintain itself. Economics, instead of presidential policy, are now the driving factor behind the industry and, with companies already investing billions of dollars in renewable energy, the momentum may be too great for Mr. Trump to have a meaningful effect.16 He may not promote it, but he may not be able to stop it, either.

In the more traditional energy sectors, oil and natural gas have seen an increase in production over the past decade as a result of better fracking technology, despite efforts by the Obama administration to slow down the extraction of resources via this controversial method.17 The Trump administration is expected to open up federal land, previously identified by the Obama administration as off limits, for oil and gas production.18 If this becomes the case, the result will likely be a boon for the industry and any construction that comes with it.

Environmental

Environmentalists are preparing for battle against the Trump administration. But how will the president’s perceived negative attitude towards environmental regulations affect the construction industry? Deregulation would no doubt make real estate development less expensive and, therefore, easier and more appealing. And if Mr. Trump opens up federal land for oil and gas production, against environmentalists’ wishes, construction will likely accelerate.

Construction Costs

On the campaign trail, Mr. Trump discussed some of his potential stances on foreign policy, including trade policy and immigration. With respect to trade policy, he has indicated that the United States should withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and renegotiate — or even withdraw from — the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).19 If these new policies impede trade or place more control on imports, materials prices may increase.20 

Mr. Trump has taken a similarly hard stance on immigration, repeating his plan to erect “an impenetrable physical wall” on the border with Mexico and issuing an executive order limiting entry into the United States of people from certain countries.21 While the latter order is currently less likely to play a role in the construction industry, the former may have a significant impact. Labor is already at a premium and, in an industry that relies heavily on a foreign-born workforce, strict immigration policies may raise wages and increase the cost of construction.22

As with all of the issues listed previously, the construction industry must take a wait-and-see approach to the effects of Mr. Trump’s foreign policy stances. Legal and illegal immigration were strong, regular themes during his campaign and surprises are unlikely in this area, in particular.

Conclusion

It is possible that some of Mr. Trump’s policies and promises will become a boon for the construction industry. Deregulation may reduce project costs and increase the availability of funding for homebuyers and contractors alike.23 Tax cuts for the wealthy may mean that there will be more money to build projects.24 And his promises to spend large amounts of money on infrastructure could result in a flood of projects for contractors.25 

But if Mr. Trump follows through on his immigration policy, the current labor shortage will likely get worse and the costs of available labor will increase.26 Similarly, strained relationships abroad may increase the cost of materials.27

There is certainly reason for hope that Mr. Trump’s real estate experience will spur growth in the construction industry. Although he  has an opportunity to effect significant change,  we may have to wait for several years to see how his policies ultimately reshape the construction industry.

ARTICLE BY David A. Eisenberg of Much Shelist, P.C.
© 2017 Much Shelist, P.C.

1 Donald Trump’s Presidential Acceptance Speech
2 Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
3 Donald Trump Infrastructure Spending
4 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
5 Home Affordable Refinance Program
6 Home Sales Estimates Historically Soft
7 Ibid.
8 Key Takeaways From the Latest Housing Market Reports
9 Trump Vows to Cut Burdensome Regulations in Address to Home Builders
10 Ibid.
11 Obama Has Done More for Clean Energy Than You Think
12 Renewable Energy Sector Remains Optimistic Amid Trump Policy Outlook
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 Economics Will Keep Wind And Solar Energy Thriving Under Trump
17 Trumps Energy Policy 10 Big Changes
18 Ibid.
19 Donald Trump Trade Policy
20 How Will Trump Affect the Construction Industry
21 Donald Trump Immigration Policy
22 How Will Trump Affect the Construction Industry
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.

Congress Begins to Evaluate Infrastructure Needs, Senate EPW to Hold Hearing this Week

Congress Capitol InfrastructureThe Trump Administration has provided few specifics on its trillion-dollar infrastructure proposal, and it has become increasingly clear that Congress will not act on a broad infrastructure bill in the first 100 days of the new administration. Recently, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) said the funding levels of any infrastructure proposal are unknown, and won’t be determined until Congress considers infrastructure funding in the greater context of the upcoming budget process this spring. To date, there is no consensus, even among Republicans, on how such infrastructure spending will be paid for.

However, Congress has begun to consider what issues and investments they will prioritize in an infrastructure bill by holding hearings in both the House and Senate. As we noted last week, the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee will hold a hearing on “Oversight: Modernizing Our Nation’s Infrastructure” on Wednesday, February 8. The Senate EPW hearing follows last week’s kick-off hearing by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on “Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America.”

Recently, Senate Democrats have released their own $1 trillion infrastructure proposal. Their plan, “A Blueprint to Rebuild America’s Infrastructure,” would invest $1 trillion in infrastructure projects over ten years and create 15 million new jobs. The plan calls for enormous increases in Federal grant spending for a wide range of transportation and infrastructure projects, including schools, VA hospitals, and broadband service. For transportation, the plan pledges $210 billion on roads and bridges; $110 billion on water and sewer systems; $180 billion on rail and bus systems; $200 billion for a Vital Infrastructure Program (VIP) for mega-projects; $65 billion for ports, airports, and waterways; and $10 billion for new innovative financing tools such as an infrastructure bank.

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) also recently introduced an infrastructure funding proposal, which would divert a total of $21.4 billion in revenues from Customs and Border Patrol fees to the Highway Trust Fund over FYs 2020-2024. Members of the House, including Rep. John Delaney (D-MD), are also advocating for their own infrastructure proposals.

This Week’s Hearings:

  • On Tuesday, February 7, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has scheduled a hearing titled “Accomplishing Postal Reform in the 115th Congress – H.R. 756, The Postal Service Reform Act of 2017.” The witnesses will be announced.

  • On Wednesday, February 8, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee has scheduled a hearing titled “A Look Ahead: Inspector General Recommendations for Improving Federal Agencies.” The witnesses will be:

    • The Honorable Peggy E. Gustafson, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Commerce;

    • The Honorable John Roth, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland Security;

    • The Honorable Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation; and

    • Allison C. Lerner, Inspector General, National Science Foundation.

  • On Wednesday, February 8, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has scheduled a hearing titled “Oversight: Modernizing our Nation’s Infrastructure.” The witnesses will be:

    • William “Bill” T. Panos, Director, Wyoming Department of Transportation

    • Michael McNulty, General Manager, Putnam Public Service District, West Virginia

    • Cindy R. Bobbitt, Commissioner, Grant County, Oklahoma

    • Anthony P. Pratt, Administrator, President

    • Delaware Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control, American Shore & Beach Preservation Association

    • Shailen P. Bhatt, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Transportation

ARTICLE BY Timothy W. Drake & Patricia Doersch of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

© Copyright 2017 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

President Trump Directs Federal Agencies to Solicit Input from Manufacturing Sector on Streamlined Permitting and Reduction of Regulatory Burdens

Donald Trump manufacturingIn his first week in office, President Trump has signed several Presidential Memoranda and Executive Orders aimed at encouraging domestic infrastructure development. Many of these executive actions direct federal agencies to adhere to a pair of central tenets, i.e., expedited review for high priority infrastructure projects and the use of U.S. materials and equipment.  The “Presidential Memorandum Streamlining Permitting and Reducing Regulatory Burdens for Domestic Manufacturing” signed on January 24, 2017, expands on these themes and directs federal agencies to undertake a notice and comment period, during which U.S. manufacturers can engage and share their thoughts on how the federal government can best support the expansion of domestic manufacturing.

The directive from President Trump is broad and covers all federal agencies that could impact the manufacturing sector.  Companies in the manufacturing sector might consider developing a strategy for federal engagement and formulating comments on potentially burdensome federal regulatory programs, including, as just a few examples, the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review program, conservation programs administered by the Department of Energy, labeling requirements from the Food and Drug Administration, and Department of Labor programs.

60-Day Comment Period on Reducing the Federal Regulatory Burden

Section 2 of the Presidential Memo on Manufacturing directs the heads of all federal agencies to (1) expedite reviews and approvals for proposals to build new or expand existing manufacturing facilities; and (2) reduce regulatory burdens affecting domestic manufacturing.  To accomplish this, President Trump has directed federal agencies to open a 60-day comment period, during which the manufacturing sector can offer thoughts on what federal actions can be undertaken to streamline permitting and reduce regulatory burdens for domestic manufacturers.

The notice and comment process will be directed through the Secretary of Commerce, and coordinated with the heads of the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of Management and Budget, the Small Business Administration, and other agencies “as may be appropriate.” This sector-specific, federal agency-wide approach will allow those engaged in manufacturing to address the multitude of federal regulatory challenges faced by the industry via one commenting process instead of the piecemeal, regulatory battle-by-battle approach.

Report Outlining a Plan for Streamlined Permitting and Regulatory Burden Reductions

Section 3 of the Presidential Memo on Manufacturing directs the Secretary of Commerce to consider the comments received under Section 2 and submit a report to the President within 60 days of completion of the public comment period.  That report should:

  1. set out a plan to streamline federal permitting processes for domestic manufacturing;

  2. set out a plan to reduce regulatory burdens that affect domestic manufacturers;

  3. identify priorities and recommended deadlines for completing actions;

  4. include recommendations for any necessary changes to existing regulations or statutes, as well as actions to change policies, practices, or procedures that can be taken immediately under existing authority.

Recent Past Efforts at Regulatory Reform/Permit Streamlining

Regulatory reform is certainly not a new concept, although the success of past efforts is up for debate.  Congress passed statutes in the 1980s (the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act) and again in the 1990s (the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and the Congressional Review Act) with the goal of putting in place structures to limit the pace of regulatory development.  These statutes require additional coordination for certain information requests, cost-benefit analyses, and allow for the review (and potential disapproval) of major rules by Congress.  However, these statutes are generally forward looking and currently baked into the federal rulemaking process.  While they may augment consideration of new regulatory initiatives, they do nothing to address longstanding, burdensome regulatory programs.

More recent efforts at regulatory reform have been undertaken by Congress and focus on review (and potential repeal) of existing regulatory programs.  For example, on January 7, 2017, the House passed the Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome (SCRUB) Act, which would establish the Retrospective Regulatory Review Commission to conduct a review of all federal regulations to identify regulatory programs or individual rules that “implement a regulatory program that should be repealed to lower the cost of regulation.”  Former President Obama also previously issued an Executive Order focused on improving permitting and review of infrastructure projects.

During the Obama Administration, Congress also made attempts to pass legislation streamlining federal permitting, largely to no avail.  Legislation either stalled or if passed, was limited to major infrastructure projects subject to National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) review. For example, the Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development (RAPID) Act passed the House, but never came to a vote in the Senate.  The Federal Permitting Improvement Act of 2015, bipartisan legislation aimed at improving federal permitting, was passed as Title XLI of the “Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act’’ or the ‘‘FAST Act” but focused on projects that were subject to NEPA and required a total investment of more than $200 million.

The current effort differs from previous attempts at reform in that it focuses on one specific sector of the economy the President seeks to bolster (manufacturing) and also sets up a formal process for that sector to share with the government its thoughts on how the federal regulatory knot can be unwound.  The manufacturing sector covers a wide range of industries, e.g., chemical, products, oil-field equipment, pharmaceutical, textiles, just to name a few; each with unique regulatory challenges.

Subsector Example: Current Approval Burden for New Chemical Manufacturing Facility

As an example of the regulatory/permitting burden faced by just one subsector of the manufacturing industry – chemical manufacturing – it currently takes between three to five years to obtain all of the necessary permits and other governmental approvals necessary to break ground on a major new chemical plant.  Between 50 and 60 separate permits and other authorizations issued by dozens of federal, state and local agencies must be secured, in a process that creates significant uncertainty and delay, challenging project proponents at every turn and severely testing investors’ will to continue project funding.  Many of the required authorizations have overlapping purposes, and agency deadlines, where they exist at all, are often extended multiple times to address issues that have little to no bearing on the concerns that a given approval was intended to address.  Environmental authorizations alone typically make up half or more of the required approvals and can involve as many as 15 to 20 separate agencies commenting on each other’s redundant requirements and engaging in jurisdictional battles with one another, all of which further contributes to delay and uncertainty.  And while labor costs and other considerations also play a role, the inevitable result is that more and more projects end up being built overseas.

Next Steps for Manufacturers

President Trump has established a tight timeline for the public comment period and for the Secretary of Commerce to produce a plan to move forward.  While it may be a significant effort to identify under that timeline the major federal regulatory burdens that impact your manufacturing business and articulate them to the government, the opportunity to share those concerns and potentially help craft a path forward is ripe.

ARTICLE BY Matt Paulson & Michael Weller of Bracewell LLP
© 2017 Bracewell LLP