The bipartisan Senate energy bill which moved relatively easily through committee and was supposed to sail as easily to approval on the Senate floor was derailed this week over partisan battles related to water contamination issues in Flint, Michigan, amendments designed to kill the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), and President Obama's decision to temporarily end federal coal leasing.

 

The bill, aimed at increasing energy research, modernizing liquefied natural gas export permitting, requiring reliability and security fixes to the national electrical grid, and raising efficiency standards for federal and commercial buildings, took on new importance in the wake of Sen. Ted Cruz's (D, TX) win in the Iowa caucuses despite ethanol opposition to his stand on sunsetting the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), and the Michigan water crisis.

Opponents of the RFS, which mandates how much biofuel must be blended with gasoline each year, saw the Cruz victory as a strong signal the RFS must go, and several amendments aimed at either killing the RFS or dramatically reworking the system were filed on the energy bill.  Sens. Pat Toomey (R, PA) and Diane Feinstein (D, CA) filed an amendment to repeal the corn ethanol part of the RFS; Sen. Bill Cassidy (R, LA) filed an amendment to kill the RFS, and Sen. Jeff Flake (R, AZ) filed an amendment to stop USDA from spending federal dollars on blender pump installations. 

However, given the controversy surrounding the RFS and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R, KY) priority on moving the energy bill, most of those amendments may be talked about, but won't get formal votes. 

The energy bill also became Sen. Debbie Stabenow's (D, MI) vehicle of choice for an amendment to provide federal intervention and assistance to Flint, Michigan, to fix corrosion problems in the city water system and provide aid to families affected by lead levels in Flint water. 

When bipartisan support for Stabenow's effort did not appear - critics called it an "earmark" aimed at rebuilding a single water system when nationally, several others need help - and then a cloture vote to limit debate failed, the GOP floated a compromise proposal to counter Democrat-supported actions for Flint.  The Republican approach would provide federal loan guarantees to help the city fix and replace its water system.  Discussions are expected to continue this weekend in hopes of reaching an agreement by early next week to finish work on the bill. 

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy will appear before the full House Agriculture Committee on February 11, to explain "the impacts of EPA actions on the rural economy."  At the same time, this week, the House Energy & Commerce Committee took a look at two bills designed to counter EPA "overreach."

"America's farmers and ranchers are the original conservationists, and they have a vested interest in protecting our natural resources. Yet, when it comes to the regulatory agenda of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), we are repeatedly confronted by an agency seemingly oblivious to the voluntary conservation efforts of America's farmers and ranchers, and perhaps most alarmingly, apparently addicted to writing regulations that ignore Congressional intent, ignore the input of stakeholders - including other Federal agencies - and put our ability to produce food and fiber at risk in the U. S.," said Rep. Mike Conaway, chair of the House ag panel.  "Next week, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy will be called on to explain her agency's decisions and discuss with members of Congress how we might work together to ensure that future actions by the EPA do not harm American agriculture."

In the Energy & Commerce Committee, the panel examined HR 3797, the Satisfying Energy Needs & Saving the Environment (SENSE) Act, to shift EPA rules to ensure that the coal "refuse-to-energy" continues to provide affordable energy, while remediating formerly polluted coal sites.  The other bill, yet to be introduced, would minimize or eliminate industry interference from EPA rules, now challenged in court, under the "Brick MACT" rulemaking. 

The 12 Pacific Rim nations which successfully negotiated the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, met this week in Auckland, New Zealand, for a formal TPP signing ceremony.  Now, each nation must officially approve the trade pact, and the road to U.S. approval is just beginning.

President Obama must now submit his formal TPP package to Congress, requesting it approve the treaty.  Congress can't amend the final TPP agreement, but could disapprove the treaty, with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle pointing out their problems with the massive trade agreement.  Leadership in both the House and Senate have said there will be no vote on TPP before the November general election, and votes in the post-election lame duck session may be elusive as well. 

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R, UT), chair of the Senate Finance Committee, said he shares Obama's goal of getting TPP approved as soon as possible, but said this week on the Senate floor, "No one should be under any illusions that, because the TPP is signed today, an up or down vote on the agreement is imminent, or that our oversight responsibilities are at an end.   It's not an exaggeration - or even all that remarkable - to say that it can take years to get an agreement through Congress after it is signed."

Sen. Pat Roberts (R, KS), Senate Agriculture Committee chair, said the treaty's prospects for a vote this year are dim at best.  He told the annual meeting of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) that TPP approval "ain't going to happen this year."  At the same meeting, House ag panel ranking member Rep. Collin Peterson (D, MN), said, "From what I'm hearing, if they brought up that agreement now in the House, it would fail."

TPP proponents strongly urge Congress to approve the treaty this year. 

In 2014, the U.S. exported more than $10 billion in feed, feed ingredients and pet food, including soybean meal, corn co-products and other feed additives, and about 60% of feed/ingredient those exports go to TPP countries, said the American Feed Industry Assn. (AFIA) after the New Zealand signing ceremony. "Congress should vote to approve TPP. International trade offers the greatest potential for the U.S. animal food industry's future growth, through both direct feed and ingredient exports and the increased overseas sale of U.S. livestock, poultry and dairy products.  Free trade agreements, such as TPP, are the tools that open those international markets and make continued U.S. growth possible," AFIA said in a statement.  

The American Soybean Assn. (ASA) echoed the feed industry statement, saying, "With valuable established markets alongside promising emerging markets, the 11 partner nations within TPP combine to make this one of our most significant policy priorities right now."

However, congressional approval may be an uphill battle in the country.  Agri-Pulse newsletter reported this week that a new poll it commissioned by Aimpoint Agriculture shows 74% of farmers and ranchers aren't "familiar" with TPP."  Of those who knew something about the treaty, only 33% said they would support congressional passage, while 36% said they wouldn't, and 31% said they didn't know how they felt.  

USDA is putting together a "programmatic" draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that will allow it to evaluate several options as it moves to modernize biotech review and approval regulations and is looking for public comment on what the EIS should include, as well as definitions the agency will use.

The Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has wanted to rewrite parts of its biotech regulations since 1987, to keep pace with the technology and "lessons learned" on plant pest and noxious weed risks.  The current effort would "increase the efficiency and precision of our regulations."

"The proposed revisions would align the range of risks that may be considered under APHIS' biotechnology regulations with both the plant pest and noxious weed authorities of the Plant Protection Act (PPA) to ensure a high level of plant health protection, improve regulatory processes so that they are more transparent to stakeholders and the public, and provide regulatory relief so that unnecessary regulatory burdens are eliminated," the agency said.

The agency previously withdrew a similar rulemaking effort because federal rules limited how much "ex parte" communication about alternatives with stakeholders could be conducted, APHIS said.