Speaker 1: Today on the podcast, state legislator has just got a
Speaker 1: ton of money for the environment and more specifically to
Speaker 1: fight climate change. What are they going to use all
Speaker 1: this money for? And will some of them not use
Speaker 1: it at all? Hello, and welcome back once again to
Speaker 1: Parts per Billion, the environmental podcast from Bloomberg Law. I'm
Speaker 1: your host David Schultz. So we all know there are
Speaker 1: a lot of environmental provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act,
Speaker 1: also known as the IRA or IRA depending on which
Speaker 1: everyone sounds better to you. The tax breaks in the bill,
Speaker 1: especially for electric vehicles, got a lot of the headlines,
Speaker 1: but there was also a lot of money for things
Speaker 1: less glamorous than a shiny new tesla, things like efficiency
Speaker 1: in buildings and air pollution reduction. And a big chunk
Speaker 1: of that money is going directly to states. But what
Speaker 1: about the states that don't really think climate change is
Speaker 1: a big priority? How are they going to spend this?
Speaker 1: Are they going to spend this? We're gonna get into
Speaker 1: that today with Zach Bright, a Bloomberg Law reporter who
Speaker 1: just wrote a story about what legislators in Annapolis, Olympia
Speaker 1: and St. Paul want to do with their new climate bucks. Zexas.
Speaker 1: Climate hawks and democratic leading states are pretty thrilled with
Speaker 1: this infusion of cash, even if they have some misgivings
Speaker 1: about how I wrote. Ultimately turned out, and he started
Speaker 1: off by outlining exactly what type of funding is in
Speaker 1: this bill for states? Yeah, well, there's definitely a lot
Speaker 1: of stuff in this bill overall. Um, the things that
Speaker 1: I focused on in my article where I looked at
Speaker 1: how state legislators might levy some of that money and
Speaker 1: what they're most interested in. Um, one of the things
Speaker 1: that stuck out were to four point three billion dollar
Speaker 1: programs to kind of electrified buildings, retrofit buildings, and then
Speaker 1: there was also an additional billion dollars for building code upgrades.
Speaker 1: And then, uh, some other pots of money that they
Speaker 1: were interested in were five billion dollars for states, municipalities, tribes,
Speaker 1: air resources boards like they have in California to develop
Speaker 1: emission reduction plans and to implement them. And then seven
Speaker 1: billion dollars for UM low income and underserved communities to
Speaker 1: actually implement technologies that reduce carbon emiss. Something that caught
Speaker 1: my ear just now is electrifying buildings. Uh what does
Speaker 1: that mean? I mean, I know it doesn't mean giving
Speaker 1: buildings electricity because most buildings have electricity, but what, um,
Speaker 1: you know, does that mean removing you know, fossil fuel
Speaker 1: burning heating systems and buildings and replacing them with electric
Speaker 1: Is that what we're talking about. Yeah, yeah, that's definitely
Speaker 1: part of it. A lot of buildings still, you know,
Speaker 1: don't have heat pumps, and heat pumps are more energy
Speaker 1: efficient way of heating a building. UM. So that's part
Speaker 1: of what they want to do. And watherizing buildings can
Speaker 1: also be helpful to prevent you know, heat from going
Speaker 1: out on cold days and the cold from going out
Speaker 1: on hot days. Um. And that helps towards that energy efficiency.
Speaker 1: The whole idea is if you you know, make a
Speaker 1: building run on electricity and then you clean up the
Speaker 1: source and you have all that power coming from clean energy,
Speaker 1: then you don't really have any emissions. Yeah, that makes sense. Um.
Speaker 1: And you also spoke with the state lawmakers who are
Speaker 1: looking at this money and sort of already making designs
Speaker 1: for what they want to do with it. Can you
Speaker 1: tell me about who you talked to and sort of
Speaker 1: what they want to do? Yeah, definitely. So I talked
Speaker 1: specifically with three state legislators UM Maryland Delegate Lord Chercotian,
Speaker 1: Minnesota Representative Fuli, and then UM Washington State Senator Christine Rolfus,
Speaker 1: and UM, it was really great to talk to all
Speaker 1: three to get these different perspectives UM on like how
Speaker 1: exactly they'd implement the IRA. But I mean, overall, one
Speaker 1: caveat that's important is that this is very much in
Speaker 1: the beginning stages. The law was signed very recently. When
Speaker 1: I talked to these state legislators, you know, they were
Speaker 1: very excited overall, I would say, but at the same time,
Speaker 1: they weren't exactly sure what they were going to do.
Speaker 1: But there was definitely some talk about possibilities and some
Speaker 1: of those possibilities UM. You know, when I spoke with
Speaker 1: the Delegate Sharkutian, she had said that, UM, maybe it
Speaker 1: could mean bigger offshore wind goals for Maryland. UM or
Speaker 1: you know, representatively had talked about UM really benefiting the
Speaker 1: low and UM middle income families, often people color, he
Speaker 1: said in his Minneapolis district. Senator Rolfus from Washington has
Speaker 1: had that that could really you know, tie in well
Speaker 1: with the state's already existing UM cap and invest program.
Speaker 1: That makes sense. And or I should say in the
Speaker 1: interest of full disclosure, Delegate Arcudian is, uh, my delegate.
Speaker 1: She represents me, so I am her constituent. UM. But
Speaker 1: I want to focus on what delicately said about sort
Speaker 1: of focusing on low income residents. You know, this is
Speaker 1: a concept known as as climate justice. UM. Do you
Speaker 1: think that a lot of this money will go toward that,
Speaker 1: towards sort of helping people who are from disadvantaged communities
Speaker 1: weather climate change. Yeah, I think there's definitely like an
Speaker 1: intentionality within the bill, and these um state legislators as
Speaker 1: well seem to have like a very you know, UM
Speaker 1: strong recognition that when these climate investments are actually put
Speaker 1: into action, they need to act really benefit low and
Speaker 1: middle income communities because oftentimes those are the ones who
Speaker 1: um don't really get the benefits and who are even
Speaker 1: overburdened by pollution. You know, for example, with the whole
Speaker 1: vehicle electrification movement, the idea that you know, we we
Speaker 1: need more electric vehicles and less gas powered ones. You know,
Speaker 1: one of the big pushes there is to kind of
Speaker 1: allow your everyday family to buy into that market, because
Speaker 1: right now it's it's it's very difficult if you wanted
Speaker 1: to get an electric vehicle to do that, and the
Speaker 1: i RA does include provisions to do that, and that
Speaker 1: that would be individual rebates for citizens, so that wouldn't
Speaker 1: even have to go through the state. That's kind of
Speaker 1: something that is implemented UM directly from the top down.
Speaker 1: That makes sense because you know, there has been a
Speaker 1: lot of talk about this provision in the bill that
Speaker 1: would make it easier to get tax breaks for electric vehicles,
Speaker 1: but you know, a lot of these vehicles are out
Speaker 1: of reach for many many people. UM, it sounds like
Speaker 1: there are also provisions in the bill to make sure
Speaker 1: that you know, that's not the only kind of thing
Speaker 1: that uh, you know it is going to be happening
Speaker 1: with this money, right. Yeah, there's definitely other UM investments
Speaker 1: as well. Like I mentioned earlier, there's a billion dollar
Speaker 1: investment UM towards building cold upgrades, and then more specifically,
Speaker 1: there's seven billion dollars dedicated toward low income UM communities
Speaker 1: to make sure that they can actually harness all these
Speaker 1: different technologies. That includes electric vehicles, but then also that
Speaker 1: includes you know, building retrofits and just everyday needs that
Speaker 1: really focus on reducing carbon emissions. So you spoke to
Speaker 1: UM lawmakers from Washington, Maryland, in Minnesota, which were all
Speaker 1: pretty blue states or in some cases, you know, very
Speaker 1: very blue states. Uh. And you know these are all
Speaker 1: Democratic politicians, and the interesting dynamic that you had in
Speaker 1: your story is that they were all pretty excited about,
Speaker 1: you know, potentially using this money for climate goals and
Speaker 1: for environmental goals, but they also were a little bit
Speaker 1: ambivalent about the bill itself because you know, as we
Speaker 1: actually talked about in our last episode, it also gives
Speaker 1: a lot of concessions to the fossil fuel industry. Can
Speaker 1: you tell me a little bit about the ambivalence there?
Speaker 1: I mean there it sounds like they're happy but not happy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's exactly what Delegate Shercodian said. You know, she's happy
Speaker 1: with the bill, um, and she's celebrating that. But at
Speaker 1: the same time, um, you know she mentioned, and then
Speaker 1: the other lawmakers had mentioned, you know, there there are
Speaker 1: things in this bill that could be better. First of all,
Speaker 1: you know, Senator Role has mentioned that it might be
Speaker 1: better to have like a national pollution framework. She talked
Speaker 1: about how in Washington they have a Captain invest program.
Speaker 1: It's similar to California's cap and Trade program, and all
Speaker 1: the West coast states Washington, Oregon, and California have programs
Speaker 1: like that, but they're isn't one at the national level.
Speaker 1: She was saying, maybe something like that could be considered
Speaker 1: as a regulatory framework. There's a lot of carrots in
Speaker 1: the bill, but maybe there could be more sticks and
Speaker 1: then UM in terms of like the oil and gas
Speaker 1: leasing as well. You know, that can have really big
Speaker 1: impacts for frontline communities that Delgo. Sharcutian and UM representatively
Speaker 1: had both pointed out. You know, yeah, that's just something
Speaker 1: that they have to bear in mind, and they definitely
Speaker 1: understand the political necessity of getting this bill forward, but
Speaker 1: at the same time, you know, they think it could
Speaker 1: have been better. So finally, this is something that I
Speaker 1: really want to dig deep into. UM Again, as we mentioned,
Speaker 1: you know, this is what lawmakers in blue states are
Speaker 1: wanting to do. What about in red states? You know,
Speaker 1: this is uh. You know, there are some states where
Speaker 1: Republicans are control and climate measures. Climate mitigation is not
Speaker 1: really their top priority or any priority. Are they going
Speaker 1: to be using this money or are they going to
Speaker 1: leave it on the table, or are gonna be using
Speaker 1: the money for something that the Bill didn't intend them
Speaker 1: to do. I'm really interested to hear what is going
Speaker 1: on there. Yeah, I think that's a really interesting question.
Speaker 1: And that's actually something I kind of pursued and further
Speaker 1: reporting that wasn't part of this story. UM. I talked
Speaker 1: with a couple of mayors, and I'm going to continue
Speaker 1: talking with some mayors who are really interested in climate
Speaker 1: action UM. But the catches is that they're from states
Speaker 1: where the legislatures and the governor's mansions are controlled by Republicans. So,
Speaker 1: for example, I spoke with UM mayor Satia Rhodes Conway
Speaker 1: from Madison, and she's in Wisconsin, where you know, there's
Speaker 1: a Democratic governor, but the Republicans controlled the legislature, and
Speaker 1: she was saying, you know, it actually turns out that
Speaker 1: there was some foresight to a degree, UM in that
Speaker 1: kind of situation. You know, what comes to mind for
Speaker 1: me is when UM states received the option to expand
Speaker 1: medicaid and so I just chose not to. And you know,
Speaker 1: that kind of implement implementation problem is certainly possible with
Speaker 1: some things, but in general, UM, the way to circumvent
Speaker 1: is to either a UM make those benefits flow directly
Speaker 1: to people so things like the electric vehicle tax rebates,
Speaker 1: for example, those don't have to go through the legislature.
Speaker 1: And then also UM things can be implemented directly by
Speaker 1: federal agencies and then they wouldn't have to go through
Speaker 1: the legislature. But that's not to say that there's nothing
Speaker 1: that state legislatures might prevent. So one instance that UM
Speaker 1: Mayor wrote Conway had subsided was that and Madison. If
Speaker 1: they wanted to, for example, make building codes UH stronger
Speaker 1: than the state standards and make them more efficient to
Speaker 1: reduce carbon emissions, they couldn't do that at all because
Speaker 1: the state UM has law on the books that says
Speaker 1: you can't UM exceed our state standards. That's really interesting.
Speaker 1: So it sounds like when Democrats and the President were
Speaker 1: crafting the bill they anticipated that there would be some
Speaker 1: states that wouldn't be on board, and they inserted measures
Speaker 1: into it. Yeah. Yeah, that's definitely the case UM. And
Speaker 1: in blue states like in Maryland, for example, they've asked
Speaker 1: a climate law back in April, and this money pairs
Speaker 1: really well with that UM. So for states that are
Speaker 1: willing to act on climate, this is going to be
Speaker 1: a huge help to reaching those goals and make things
Speaker 1: actually achievable for the states that might not be interested
Speaker 1: in climate might I think climate is not an issue
Speaker 1: at all for those UM legislators and UM executive officeholders.
Speaker 1: You know that there are still things that can be done,
Speaker 1: just maybe not everything, maybe not every tool in the
Speaker 1: tool kit, but you and that you know. You contrasted
Speaker 1: this with the infrastructure bill that was passed last year
Speaker 1: and how almost all of the money from that bill
Speaker 1: did go to to states, whereas in this case it's
Speaker 1: you know, a lot more varied. I think was that
Speaker 1: that sounds like it was intentional? Yeah, I think, um
Speaker 1: there was some intention there. I can't speak to you
Speaker 1: know totally, like, um, who exactly created those designs and
Speaker 1: the butt us actually something I'm trying to UM find out.
Speaker 1: What I can say is the Infrastructure bill a really
Speaker 1: interesting comparison because UM that the Infrastructure law gave states
Speaker 1: a lot of money, and at the time, a lot
Speaker 1: of state legislators thought, well, this is all we kind
Speaker 1: of have to combat climate. You know, we have to
Speaker 1: tailor this, you know, spoon into a fork and use
Speaker 1: it to eat. And now they have a fork which
Speaker 1: is the I ra A. So I don't know if
Speaker 1: that's maybe the best analogy, but they have a tool
Speaker 1: that's very precise, and those funds have to be for
Speaker 1: climate so I don't think I think it's less likely
Speaker 1: you would see a situation now where UM state legislators
Speaker 1: might take this money and use it for priorities that
Speaker 1: aren't based on climate change, because they kind of have
Speaker 1: to if they want to use it. That makes sense,
Speaker 1: all right, Spoons Forks and Zach bright Uh here talking
Speaker 1: about the new i R A Inflation Reduction Act. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much for joining us. Yeah, thanks for having me, David,
Speaker 1: And that'll do it for today's episode of Parts for Billion.
Speaker 1: If you want more environmental news, check out on Twitter.
Speaker 1: We use the handle at environment just that at Environment.
Speaker 1: Today's episode of Parts for Billion is produced by myself,
Speaker 1: David Schultz. Parts for Billion was created by Jessica Combs
Speaker 1: and Rachel Dagle and is edited by Zach Sherwood and
Speaker 1: Chuck McCutcheon. Our executive producer is Josh Block. Thanks everyone
Speaker 1: for listening. Have you ever thought to yourself, how is
Speaker 1: that legal? Why is that legal? Have you ever seen
Speaker 1: a big trial in the news and wondered what's really
Speaker 1: happening there. Have you ever pondered the question why are
Speaker 1: lawyers the way that they are? And how much money
Speaker 1: do they really make? Anyway, these are the things we
Speaker 1: live and breathe over it. On the Merits, Bloomberg Laws
Speaker 1: weekly legal news podcast. On the Merits looks into the
Speaker 1: biggest stories playing out in the legal industry right now,
Speaker 1: and we feature the finest journalists covering the biggest legal
Speaker 1: stories from across the Bloomberg Law newsroom. You can hear
Speaker 1: it wherever fine podcasts are found. Thanks for listening.