Although budget negotiations significantly dominated legislative discussions the past two months, some environmental provisions of interest to cities and towns have seen action. Most notably, in late July, the full House rejected the Senate's omnibus regulatory reform proposal, HB 765 Regulatory Reform Act of 2015, and both chambers appointed conferees to work out the differences. This regulatory reform package followed an earlier Senate effort that is also in conference negotiations now, HB 44 Local Government Regulatory Reform 2015.
The House's vote on the Senate's version of HB 765 vote occurred after it held a rare committee meeting to discuss the provisions of the bill. It originated in the House as a one-page technical corrections bill, but upon receiving that bill, the Senate added dozens of provisions that ballooned the bill to 58 pages. Procedurally, when a bill is sent back to the chamber in which it originated with changes made by the other chamber, there is only the opportunity for that originating chamber to vote up or down on whether it agrees to the changes, known as a "concurrence vote." Because additional changes cannot be made by the originating chamber, these concurrence vote bills typically go straight to the originating chamber's floor and do not receive a committee hearing.
However, the House Environment Committee took the opportunity to discuss the bill and take public comment prior to the House vote. Also, in comments offered throughout the meeting, members of the committee cited the greatly enlarged scope of the bill and lack of review time as major reasons for recommending rejection of the Senate package.
As mentioned in previous EcoLINC coverage, the largest concern for cities in the bill was a provision that would prohibit public entities from using their judgment in the selection of piping materials for water, wastewater, or stormwater projects. The League opposed this provision and has continued to work with a coalition of stakeholders to remove it from the final negotiated bill. Five speakers testified during the public hearing, both in opposition to and in favor of this piping preference provision, including League allies from the Professional Engineers of North Carolina and the NC Rural Water Association.
Regarding another issue of concern for cities and towns in this package, other speakers backed the League's opposition to the elimination of recycling fees paid by certain electronics producers. A portion of those fees support state-mandated municipal collection of these recycled products.
Before the bill can advance further, both chambers must adopt a conference report negotiated by the conferees. However, since July, negotiations slowed because many of the conference committee members remained tied up in budget negotiations. In addition, the progress of HB 765 will likely lag that on HB 44; the League has heard that the chambers will conclude negotiations regarding HB 44 before discussing HB 765 in detail. Read more analysis of these two omnibus bills in the July edition of EcoLINC.
Wastewater Systems Must Accept Heating/Cooling Condensate
Another environmental bill of interest to cities and towns moved quickly into law early last month when the House unanimously voted to concur with the Senate's amendments to HB 538 Water and Sewer Service Related Changes. That bill included a late add-on that put a new requirement on wastewater systems to accept liquid condensate from residential heating and cooling systems. These provisions became law upon receiving the Governor's signature on August 11.
Historically, the condensate, or liquid that results from the operation of residential heating and cooling units, is drained outside the house. However, with the installation of new high efficiency units that produce more condensate, drain lines have frozen in the winter, resulting in a shut-off of heat for homes and broken drainage lines. These problems led to a push for the liquid to be piped into a residential unit’s wastewater collection system. Issues of concern with wastewater systems being required to accept this liquid include (1) the low pH of the condensate; and (2) if a large amount of connections are requested, the increased volume of water requiring treatment could take up needed capacity and be a detriment to a wastewater treatment system's efficiency. Requiring wastewater systems to accept this liquid, especially if large numbers of connections are requested, could create concerns for municipal systems.
