POLICY ROUNDUP

TransCanada went to court Jan. 6 claiming that the Obama administration’s refusal to approve the proposed Keystone XL pipeline violates U.S. obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement. U.S. taxpayers could be on the hook for $15 billion if the company wins, making it the first NAFTA case the U.S. has ever lost.

Part of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement allows foreign investors to sue nations in special tribunals for the alleged appropriation of future profits through changes in laws and regulations. Companies can discourage governments from introducing legislation that might reduce corporate profits, while there is no similar recourse for states to hold foreign investors, often wealthy corporations, accountable for their actions.

Under similar trade and investment agreements, dozens of countries have lost NAFTA cases, including Mexico and Canada, which is the most-sued country. TransCanada may have decent legal claim to support its case. The U.S. has approved other pipelines, while Keystone XL was blocked after social movement politics.

The State Department concluded that the pipeline would not significantly increase North American greenhouse gas emissions. The company argues that President Obama “intruded on Congress’s power to regulate interstate and international commerce” and blatantly disregarded the will of the legislative branch. Congress last year passed a bill approving Keystone, but the president vetoed it.

The White House referred all questions about the legal action to the State Department. — Joana Suleiman

REGULATION

Chemical safety reform bill would gut state crackdowns

A Senate bill passed before the holidays will make it harder for states to regulate chemicals that have already been evaluated by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act aims to update The Toxic Substance Control Act from 1976, but critics say states will pay the price for the rare bipartisanship in Congress.

States that have taken action ahead of the slow-moving EPA would be stopped in their tracks if the final bill comes out as expected. For example, the Washington state legislature is considering banning flame retardant compounds used in furniture and products for children. A bill passed the state house 95-3 and, while the state senate has yet to vote on its own version, the process could be mooted if the federal bill becomes law first.

As California, Maine, Minnesota, Oregon and Vermont contemplate restricting chemicals such as methylene chloride and phthalates, the new law could significantly alter the chemical industry’s regulatory environment.

Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M, who wrote the federal measure with Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said the bill meets all “essential principles” laid out by the Obama administration in 2009. However, the White House has not taken a position on the Senate bill or the House-passed version of the reform. — Joana Suleiman

EDUCATION

Indiana’s charter school laws top states

Indiana’s laws are the friendliest in the nation for public charter schools, according to new annual rankings from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.

States are ranked higher if they give charters equal access to funding and facilities, allow multiple institutions to authorize charters and do not have caps on the number of charter schools, among other factors. Alabama had no charter school law in 2014; now it has the second-best law in the nation. Washington’s charter law slipped from ninth to 12th.

“D.C. has a strong charter law that is supported by effective authorizer practices, both of which contribute to the strong array of public charter choices in the nation’s capital,” said Scott Pearson, executive director of the D.C. Public Charter School Board. Maryland’s laws came in last, with Virginia in 39th.

Eight states have no charter school law and were not included in the report. Charter schools are publicly funded and do not charge tuition. Charter schools have more independence in their operations and curricula than traditional public schools. They are open to all students, but they often don’t have enough space to meet demand, in which case a random lottery is held. — Jason Russell

ENVIRONMENT

Americans willing to pay to head off climate change

A new study by Resources for the Future researchers shows that Americans are willing to pay to head-off the worst effects of climate change.

The authors of the study conclude that households for the most part are willing to pay to avoid increasingly hot and cold temperatures in the winter and summer. But those “preferences and values vary significantly due to a number of factors,” including where a household is located.

“On average, however, households are willing to pay 1 percent of income to avoid less severe climate scenarios and 2.4 percent of income to avoid the more severe,” the new study shows.

Most scientists say manmade greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels is causing the Earth’s climate to warm. Republicans oppose the president’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, citing studies that say the cost will be too high for working families.

Among the facts presented by the study: “Households in the Midwest region, on average, have lower marginal willingness to pay to increase winter and reduce summer temperatures than households in the Pacific and South Atlantic census divisions,” according to the nonpartisan economic think tank.

The authors conclude that their “results suggest that the amenity value of climate could significantly increase estimates of climate damages, even for moderate temperature increases.”

The group says what Americans are willing to pay to experience “warmer winters or avoid hotter summers attributable to climate change … is a significant component in considering the overall costs of climate change impacts. Yet few estimates for the United States exist on actual valuation of such ‘climate amenities.’ “— John Siciliano