0:00

Today on the podcast, state legislator

0:02

has just got a ton of money for the environment and

0:04

more specifically to fight climate change. What

0:06

are they going to use all this money for? And will some

0:08

of them not use it at all? Hello,

0:15

and welcome back once again to Parts per Billion, the environmental

0:18

podcast from Bloomberg Law. I'm your host David

0:20

Schultz. So we all know there are a

0:22

lot of environmental provisions in the Inflation Reduction

0:25

Act, also known as the IRA or IRA

0:27

depending on which everyone sounds better to you. The

0:30

tax breaks in the bill, especially for electric vehicles,

0:32

got a lot of the headlines, but there was also a

0:34

lot of money for things less glamorous than a shiny

0:37

new tesla, things like efficiency

0:39

in buildings and air pollution reduction. And

0:41

a big chunk of that money is going directly to states.

0:44

But what about the states that don't really think climate

0:46

change is a big priority? How are they going to spend

0:49

this? Are they going to spend this? We're

0:51

gonna get into that today with Zach Bright, a Bloomberg

0:53

Law reporter who just wrote a story about what legislators

0:56

in Annapolis, Olympia and St. Paul

0:58

want to do with their new climate bucks. Zexas.

1:01

Climate hawks and democratic leading states are pretty

1:03

thrilled with this infusion of cash, even if

1:05

they have some misgivings about how I wrote.

1:08

Ultimately turned out, and he started

1:10

off by outlining exactly what type of funding

1:12

is in this bill for states? Yeah,

1:14

well, there's definitely a lot

1:16

of stuff in this bill overall. Um,

1:18

the things that I focused on in my article where

1:20

I looked at how state legislators might levy

1:23

some of that money and what they're most interested in.

1:25

Um, one of the things that stuck out were to four

1:28

point three billion dollar programs

1:30

to kind of electrified buildings,

1:32

retrofit buildings, and then there was also

1:34

an additional billion dollars for building

1:36

code upgrades. And then, uh,

1:39

some other pots of money that they were interested in were five

1:41

billion dollars for states,

1:44

municipalities, tribes, air

1:46

resources boards like they have in California

1:49

to develop emission reduction plans and

1:51

to implement them. And then seven

1:53

billion dollars for UM low

1:55

income and underserved communities to actually

1:58

implement technologies that reduce carbon emiss.

2:00

Something that caught my ear just now is electrifying

2:02

buildings. Uh what does that mean?

2:05

I mean, I know it doesn't mean giving buildings electricity

2:07

because most buildings have electricity, but

2:09

what, um, you know, does that mean removing

2:12

you know, fossil fuel burning

2:15

heating systems and buildings and replacing

2:17

them with electric Is that what we're talking about. Yeah, yeah,

2:19

that's definitely part of it. A lot of buildings still,

2:22

you know, don't have heat pumps, and heat pumps are more

2:24

energy efficient way of heating a building. UM.

2:26

So that's part of what they want to do. And

2:28

watherizing buildings can also be helpful to

2:31

prevent you know, heat from going out on

2:33

cold days and the cold from going

2:35

out on hot days. Um. And that helps

2:37

towards that energy efficiency. The whole idea

2:40

is if you you know, make a building run

2:42

on electricity and then you clean up the source

2:45

and you have all that power coming from clean energy,

2:47

then you don't really have any emissions.

2:49

Yeah, that makes sense. Um. And you

2:52

also spoke with the state lawmakers

2:54

who are looking at this money

2:56

and sort of already making designs for what they want

2:58

to do with it. Can you tell me about who you talked

3:00

to and sort of what they want to do? Yeah, definitely.

3:03

So I talked specifically with three

3:06

state legislators UM Maryland

3:08

Delegate Lord Chercotian, Minnesota

3:11

Representative Fuli,

3:13

and then UM Washington State

3:15

Senator Christine Rolfus,

3:17

and UM, it was really great to talk

3:19

to all three to get these different perspectives UM

3:22

on like how exactly they'd implement the

3:24

IRA. But I mean, overall, one

3:27

caveat that's important is that this

3:29

is very much in the beginning stages. The law

3:31

was signed very recently. When I talked to these state

3:33

legislators, you know, they were very excited

3:35

overall, I would say, but at the same time,

3:38

they weren't exactly sure what they were going to

3:40

do. But there was definitely some talk about possibilities

3:42

and some of those possibilities UM. You know, when

3:45

I spoke with the Delegate Sharkutian, she had

3:47

said that, UM, maybe it could

3:49

mean bigger offshore wind goals

3:51

for Maryland. UM or

3:53

you know, representatively had talked about

3:55

UM really benefiting the low and

3:58

UM middle income families, often

4:00

people color, he said in his Minneapolis

4:02

district. Senator Rolfus from Washington

4:05

has had that that could really you

4:07

know, tie in well with the state's already

4:09

existing UM cap and invest program.

4:12

That makes sense. And or I should

4:14

say in the interest of full disclosure, Delegate

4:17

Arcudian is, uh, my delegate.

4:19

She represents me, so I am her

4:21

constituent. UM. But I want to focus

4:24

on what delicately said

4:26

about sort of focusing on

4:28

low income residents. You

4:30

know, this is a concept known as as climate

4:32

justice. UM.

4:35

Do you think that a lot of this money will

4:37

go toward that, towards sort of helping

4:39

people who are from

4:41

disadvantaged communities weather climate

4:43

change. Yeah, I think there's definitely

4:46

like an intentionality within the bill, and

4:48

these um state legislators as well seem

4:50

to have like a very you know, UM

4:53

strong recognition that when these

4:55

climate investments are actually put

4:57

into action, they need to act

5:00

really benefit low and middle income communities

5:02

because oftentimes those are the ones who um

5:04

don't really get the benefits and who are even

5:07

overburdened by pollution. You know, for example,

5:09

with the whole vehicle electrification

5:11

movement, the idea that you know, we we need more

5:14

electric vehicles and less gas powered

5:16

ones. You know, one of the big

5:18

pushes there is to kind of allow

5:21

your everyday family to buy into

5:23

that market, because right now it's it's it's

5:25

very difficult if you wanted to get an electric vehicle

5:28

to do that, and the i RA does include provisions

5:30

to do that, and that that would be

5:32

individual rebates for citizens,

5:35

so that wouldn't even have to go through the state. That's kind of

5:37

something that is implemented UM

5:39

directly from the top down. That makes

5:41

sense because you know, there has

5:43

been a lot of talk about this provision

5:45

in the bill that would make it easier to get

5:47

tax breaks for electric vehicles,

5:50

but you know, a lot of these vehicles

5:52

are out of reach for many many

5:55

people. UM, it sounds like there are

5:57

also provisions in the bill to make sure

5:59

that you know, that's not the only kind of

6:01

thing that uh, you

6:03

know it is going to be happening with this

6:05

money, right. Yeah, there's definitely

6:07

other UM investments as well. Like

6:09

I mentioned earlier, there's a billion dollar investment

6:12

UM towards building cold upgrades, and then more

6:14

specifically, there's seven billion dollars dedicated

6:16

toward low income UM

6:19

communities to make sure that they

6:21

can actually harness all these different technologies.

6:24

That includes electric vehicles, but then also that

6:26

includes you know, building retrofits

6:28

and just everyday needs

6:31

that really focus on reducing carbon

6:33

emissions. So you

6:45

spoke to UM lawmakers

6:48

from Washington, Maryland,

6:50

in Minnesota, which were all pretty

6:53

blue states or in some cases, you know,

6:55

very very blue states. Uh.

6:57

And you know these are all Democratic politicians,

7:00

and the interesting

7:02

dynamic that you had in your story is

7:04

that they were all pretty excited about, you know, potentially

7:07

using this money for climate goals and for environmental

7:09

goals, but they also were

7:11

a little bit ambivalent about the bill itself

7:13

because you know, as we actually talked

7:15

about in our last episode, it also gives

7:17

a lot of concessions to the fossil fuel

7:20

industry. Can you tell me a little bit

7:22

about the ambivalence there? I mean there

7:24

it sounds like they're happy

7:27

but not happy. Yeah, that's

7:29

exactly what Delegate Shercodian said. You

7:31

know, she's happy with the

7:33

bill, um, and she's celebrating

7:35

that. But at the same time, um,

7:38

you know she mentioned, and then the other lawmakers

7:40

had mentioned, you know, there there are things in this bill

7:42

that could be better. First of all,

7:44

you know, Senator Role has mentioned that it

7:47

might be better to have like a national pollution

7:49

framework. She talked about how in Washington

7:51

they have a Captain invest program. It's similar to

7:53

California's cap and Trade program, and all

7:56

the West coast states Washington, Oregon, and California

7:58

have programs like that, but they're isn't one at

8:00

the national level. She was saying, maybe

8:02

something like that could be considered as a regulatory

8:04

framework. There's a lot of carrots

8:06

in the bill, but maybe there could be more sticks and

8:09

then UM in terms of like the oil

8:11

and gas leasing as well. You know, that can have

8:13

really big impacts for frontline communities that Delgo.

8:15

Sharcutian and UM representatively

8:18

had both pointed out. You know, yeah,

8:20

that's just something that they have to bear in mind, and

8:22

they definitely understand the political necessity

8:25

of getting this bill forward, but at the same

8:27

time, you know, they think

8:29

it could have been better. So finally,

8:31

this is something that I really want to dig deep

8:34

into. UM Again, as

8:36

we mentioned, you know, this is what lawmakers

8:38

in blue states are wanting to do. What

8:41

about in red states? You know, this is uh.

8:44

You know, there are some states where Republicans

8:46

are control and climate

8:49

measures. Climate mitigation is not really

8:51

their top priority or any priority.

8:55

Are they going to be using this money

8:57

or are they going to leave it on the table, or

8:59

are gonna be using the money for something that the

9:01

Bill didn't intend them to do. I'm really

9:03

interested to hear what is going on there. Yeah,

9:06

I think that's a really interesting question.

9:08

And that's actually something I kind of pursued and further reporting

9:11

that wasn't part of this story. UM. I talked

9:13

with a couple of mayors, and I'm going to continue talking with

9:15

some mayors who are really interested in climate

9:17

action UM. But the

9:19

catches is that they're from states where

9:21

the legislatures and the governor's

9:23

mansions are controlled by Republicans.

9:26

So, for example, I spoke

9:28

with UM mayor Satia Rhodes Conway

9:31

from Madison, and she's in

9:33

Wisconsin, where you know, there's a Democratic

9:35

governor, but the Republicans controlled the

9:37

legislature, and she was saying, you know,

9:40

it actually turns out that there was some

9:43

foresight to a degree, UM in

9:45

that kind of situation. You know, what comes

9:47

to mind for me is when UM states

9:49

received the option to expand medicaid and so I just

9:51

chose not to. And you know, that kind

9:53

of implement implementation problem

9:56

is certainly possible with some things, but in general,

9:58

UM, the way to circumvent is to either

10:00

a UM make those benefits flow

10:03

directly to people so things

10:05

like the electric vehicle tax rebates,

10:07

for example, those don't have to go through the

10:09

legislature. And then also UM

10:11

things can be implemented directly by federal

10:14

agencies and then they wouldn't have to go through the legislature.

10:17

But that's not to say that there's nothing that

10:19

state legislatures might prevent. So one

10:21

instance that UM Mayor wrote

10:23

Conway had subsided was that and

10:26

Madison. If they wanted to, for example,

10:28

make building codes UH stronger

10:31

than the state standards and make them more efficient

10:33

to reduce carbon emissions, they couldn't

10:35

do that at all because the state UM

10:38

has law on the books that says you can't

10:41

UM exceed our state standards. That's

10:44

really interesting. So it sounds like when

10:46

Democrats and the President were crafting

10:49

the bill they anticipated that there would be some states

10:51

that wouldn't be on board, and they inserted measures

10:54

into it. Yeah. Yeah, that's definitely the

10:56

case UM. And in blue states

10:58

like in Maryland, for example, they've asked

11:00

a climate law back in April,

11:02

and this money pairs really well with that

11:05

UM. So for states that are willing to act

11:07

on climate, this is going to be a huge help to

11:09

reaching those goals and make things actually achievable

11:12

for the states that might not be interested

11:14

in climate might I think climate

11:16

is not an issue at all for those UM

11:18

legislators and UM executive

11:21

officeholders. You know that there are still

11:23

things that can be done, just maybe not everything, maybe

11:26

not every tool in the tool kit, but you and that

11:28

you know. You contrasted this with

11:30

the infrastructure bill that was

11:33

passed last year and

11:35

how almost all of the money

11:37

from that bill did go to to states, whereas

11:40

in this case it's you know, a lot

11:42

more varied. I think was that that sounds like it was

11:44

intentional? Yeah, I think, um

11:47

there was some intention there. I can't speak to

11:50

you know totally, like, um, who exactly

11:53

created those designs and the butt us actually

11:56

something I'm trying to UM find out.

11:58

What I can say is the Infrastructure bill a really interesting

12:00

comparison because UM

12:02

that the Infrastructure

12:05

law gave states a lot of

12:07

money, and at the time, a lot of state legislators

12:09

thought, well, this is all we kind of have

12:12

to combat climate. You know, we have to

12:14

tailor this, you know, spoon

12:16

into a fork and use it to eat. And

12:20

now they have a fork which is the I ra

12:22

A. So I don't know if that's maybe the best analogy,

12:24

but they have a tool that's very precise,

12:27

and those funds have to be

12:29

for climate so I don't think I

12:32

think it's less likely you would see a situation now

12:35

where UM state legislators might take

12:37

this money and use it for priorities that aren't based on climate

12:39

change, because they kind of have to if they want to use it.

12:41

That makes sense, all right, Spoons

12:43

Forks and Zach bright Uh

12:45

here talking about the new i

12:48

R A Inflation Reduction

12:50

Act. Thank you so much for joining us. Yeah,

12:53

thanks for having me, David, And

12:56

that'll do it for today's episode of Parts for Billion. If

12:58

you want more environmental news, check out on Twitter.

13:01

We use the handle at environment just that

13:03

at Environment. Today's episode of Parts for

13:05

Billion is produced by myself, David Schultz.

13:07

Parts for Billion was created by Jessica Combs and Rachel

13:09

Dagle and is edited by Zach Sherwood

13:11

and Chuck McCutcheon. Our executive producer

13:14

is Josh Block. Thanks everyone for listening.

13:18

Have you ever thought to yourself, how is

13:20

that legal? Why is that legal?

13:23

Have you ever seen a big trial in the news and

13:25

wondered what's really happening there.

13:28

Have you ever pondered the question why

13:30

are lawyers the way that they are? And how

13:32

much money do they really make? Anyway, these

13:35

are the things we live and breathe over it. On

13:37

the Merits, Bloomberg Laws weekly legal

13:39

news podcast. On the Merits

13:41

looks into the biggest stories playing out in

13:43

the legal industry right now, and

13:45

we feature the finest journalists covering

13:48

the biggest legal stories from across the Bloomberg

13:50

Law newsroom. You can hear it wherever

13:52

fine podcasts are found. Thanks

13:54

for listening.