A proposed rule requiring federal contractors to disclose their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and reduction targets and have them validated by an international non-governmental body could harm national security and readiness, warn Republican leaders on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.
The Republicans say “the decision to outsource the responsibility for validating emission reductions to an international organization—particularly one with a history of problematic actions, potentially in conflict with U.S. interests—is disturbing.”
Public comments on the proposed rule for federal contractors, including defense companies, were due in February. The Defense Department, General Services Administration and NASA last November published the proposal that would apply to two categories of contractors, those that received more than $50 million in federal contract obligations in the prior fiscal year, which are “major” suppliers, and “significant” businesses that received between $7.5 million and $50 million on contracts.
Major contractors would have to disclose scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions and significant contractors would have to reveal their scope 1 and 2 emissions. The first category of emissions are those that an organization owns or controls, and scope 2 are those caused indirectly by a company. Scope 3 emissions are out of an organization’s control and cover things such as employee commutes, how a customer uses a product, and supplier’s operations, all of which are nearly impossible to measure.
The international organization at the heart of the Republican’s concerns is the Scienced Based Target Initiative (SBTi), which is made up four globally organized partner organizations. The House members want to know why the U.S. agencies that oversee their contractors can’t validate the GHG targets on their own.
“It’s unclear why government agencies are unable to independently validate emission reduction targets for their own contractors and would instead delegate such responsibilities to an international entity outside of the government’s supervision and whose loyalties and mission do not align with those of the United States,” Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (Okla.), and three of his subcommittee chairmen—Brian Babin (Texas), Jay Obernolte (Calif.) and Max Miller (Ohio), write in a March 10 letter. “The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR) must explain its reasoning for inserting this requirement into the proposed rule and for arbitrarily selecting SBTi to both set emission reduction targets and validate compliance with those same targets.”
The letter was sent to FAR Council Chairman Matthew Blum. The FAR Council is within the White House Office of Management and Budget.
The partners in the SBTi include the Carbon Disclosure Project, which is registered in Britain and has offices worldwide, including the U.S., the United Nations Global Impact, an initiative of the UN Secretary General, a global non-profit headquartered in Washington, D.C., and the World Wildlife Fund, a non-government entity headquartered in Switzerland.
The House Science Republicans point out that the proposed rule would implement an executive order from President Biden on Climate Related Financial Risk that they say doesn’t direct GHG emissions “reduction target validation by a private international non-governmental organization.” That suggests the FAR Council has “gone far beyond the scope” of the directive, they say.
An example of how the SBTi’s goals don’t align with U.S. goals, according to the Republicans, is that the organization doesn’t allow oil and gas companies to submit proposals for science-based GHG emission reduction targets, which means that if the proposed FAR rule goes into effect, these companies might not be able to bid on government contracts without a waiver.
“This would severely hurt our national security and mission readiness since a large part of our government, specifically our military, still depends on fossil fuels including jet fuel and rocket fuel for which there is no current electrical alternative,” Lucas and company say.
They also cite recent analysis by the New Climate Institute, a Germany-based policy organization that supports sustainable development, questioning “good approval” scores from SBTi for 18 companies that disclosed their GHG emissions. The New Climate Institute found these scores “’either contentious or inaccurate’” and highlighted that one of the companies that received a good rating, the Netherlands-based furniture store IKEA, donated $18 million to SBTi.
“While there is no evidence of wrongdoing, it is clear the potential of strong conflicts of interests exists, especially for those companies who both donate to SBTi and seek their services,” the Republicans say.
Lucas and his colleagues also wrote the same letter to Brenda Mallory, chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.