Climate Feed

Likely GOP Senate Environment Panel Shuffle Spurs Policy Questions

Fri, 30 Oct 2020 20:31:57 +0000

Expectations that Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) will take over as the top Republican next year on the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee that oversees EPA is prompting questions about how such a committee shuffle could affect environment policy.

Capito, who is currently chairwoman of EPW’s air subcommittee, is expected to take over as the top Republican on EPW, sources say, after current Chairman John Barrasso (R-WY) takes over as the top Republican on the Energy & Natural Resources (ENR) Committee. That panel has jurisdiction over an array of energy and public lands issues particularly relevant to his home state.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who is currently chairwoman of ENR, is limited under GOP rules from remaining on the top slot in the committee in the next Congress.

Regardless of which party controls the Senate after the Nov. 3 elections -- with the Republicans now holding a 53-47 majority but defending multiple competitive seats -- the expected EPW shuffle would mean that coal state senators dominate the top slots on both EPW and ENR, which oversee much of the environment and energy policy in the Senate.

Aside from Barrasso and Capito, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) is expected to retain his position as the top Democrat on ENR, with Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) likely to keep the top Democratic slot at EPW.

The ENR shift has already raised some concerns among environmentalists given Barrasso’s staunch support of the coal industry.

But observers say the practical significance of the shuffle in both panels will largely depend on which party controls the Senate next year.

Observers appear split on whether the change could hamper, or even boost, bipartisanship on the EPW, which for years has been starkly divided on environment-related issues even as senators work more collaboratively on issues such as transportation infrastructure.

“It will take time” for Capito and Carper to figure out their working relationship, says one observer, adding that the shift raises questions about whether apparent EPW agreements on some pending legislation would be reopened if proposals do not move this year.

It is also possible, however, that Capito could prove more amendable to working with Democrats than Barrasso, the current Republican conference chairman, says a former Hill staffer. This source says Capito has sometimes shown more of a willingness to engage and “geek out” on the details of environmental policies.

Pending Proposals

Several environment and energy proposals are either pending in the Senate or awaiting House action, setting up the prospect they could be punted to the next Congress absent action in a lame-duck session.

Such legislation includes a bipartisan bill championed by Barrasso to encourage carbon capture, use and storage (CCUS) technologies, as well a preliminary deal between Carper and Barrasso giving EPA new Clean Air Act authorities to phase down climate-warming refrigerants known as hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) over the next 15 years.

At ENR, Murkowski and Manchin have been crafting a broad package of measures including various research and development provisions to boost low-carbon technologies. That bill has been awaiting Senate floor consideration for months, after a prior battle over the HFC measure derailed its momentum.

Capito’s office in a statement to Inside EPA cited several longstanding priorities with respect to EPW, including “appropriate water standards on per-and perfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFAS) and other emerging contaminants.”

She also pledged efforts to address climate change, citing her prior support for CCUS tax credit legislation as well as a bipartisan bill known as the Clean Industrial Technology Act that would advance low-carbon technology for energy-intensive heavy industries.

Capito’s statement also pledged to work on a five-year transportation infrastructure package, as well as oversight of EPA to ensure it “meets statutory deadlines on things like” its national ambient air quality standards. -- Doug Obey (dobey@iwpnews.com)

Article Type:

Daily News

Tags:

transition

ccs

HFCs

Weight:

Lawmakers Attack Utility’s Efforts To Curb California’s Natural Gas Phaseout

Fri, 30 Oct 2020 20:30:47 +0000

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-CA) are attacking and questioning efforts by Southern California Gas Co. (SoCalGas) to impede the Golden State’s plan to phase out most uses of natural gas, including in homes and commercial buildings, charging the company’s tactics are unethical and possibly illegal.

“We write to express our concern regarding recent reports that [SoCalGas] has worked to undermine California’s

transition away from fossil fuels as it attempts to meet aggressive climate change goals,” the lawmakers say in an Oct. 29 letter to SoCalGas CEO Scott Drury.

They cite an ongoing investigation by the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) Public Advocates Office (PAO) that they claim shows SoCalGas has engaged in a lobbying campaign to “undermine the state’s clean energy goals,” in part by forming a group -- Californians for Balanced Energy Solutions -- “using ratepayer money to advocate for increased natural gas use without clearly communicating its relationship with SoCalGas.”

In addition, the lawmakers complain that the utility has lobbied against the state’s zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate for drayage trucks and other vehicles in the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan of 2017; lobbied against increased efficiency standards for home furnaces; and failed to comply with PAO’s discovery requests for additional documents as part of its investigation.

“Taken together, these actions paint a clear and deeply concerning portrait of SoCalGas’ attempts to systematically undermine greenhouse gas reduction targets in California. As Californians, we must work together in the face of catastrophic climate change or else we will continue to endure year after year of increasingly devastating wildfires, floods and other impacts of climate change,” Feinstein and Barragán write.

Environmentalists applauded the lawmakers’ inquiry.

“For years, California regulators have allowed SoCalGas’ ongoing and egregious attempts to mislead the public and undermine our climate laws to continue,” charged Evan Gillespie, director of the Sierra Club's My Generation Campaign, in an Oct. 29 press release. “We urge California leaders to join Sen. Feinstein and Rep. Barragán in standing up to fossil fuel manipulation tactics by demanding accountability. California regulators should investigate the extent to which companies like SoCalGas, in partnership with the American Gas Association, are subverting public processes and the law to put their own short-term profits over public health."

The utility in a written response to the letter says its “customers have invested in infrastructure that today provides affordable, reliable energy to 22 million people. That infrastructure is, and will continue to be, an indispensable tool in the transition to an integrated, renewable-powered energy system. Data and analysis from CPUC, the California Energy Commission [CEC] and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories make this clear.”

Further, “We are transitioning our system to deliver additional clean fuels -- including renewable natural gas (RNG) and hydrogen,” the statement says. “The gas grid is already enabling new technologies for homes and businesses -- like fuel cells and microgrids and is delivering cleaner fuels to replace diesel trucks.”

California's renewable energy goals “are important, and we support them,” SoCalGas adds. “We look forward to sharing this information with Senator Feinstein and Rep. Barragán and to answer any questions they may have.”

Four Questions

In their letter, the lawmakers ask Drury to respond “in a timely manner” to several questions, including about the relationship between SoCalGas and Californians for Balanced Energy Solutions, as well as a list of donations the utility made to the group.

The lawmakers also ask how much SoCalGas has invested to limit GHG emissions; any “additional context” that explains its lawsuit against the state air board’s ZEV truck rule, in light of the utility’s support for state law requiring 100 percent zero-carbon power by 2045; as well as its “action plan” to achieve such a target and “interim plans” for GHG cuts.

SoCalGas and a utility workers union sued CEC on July 31 over the agency’s efforts to phase out natural gas in favor of electricity to power buildings, homes and vehicles, alleging the commission is flouting several state laws to maximize the benefits of natural gas.

“Despite the California Legislature’s directives to include natural gas in California’s energy plans, the CEC has decided to substantially eliminate its use in the State,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit marked one of many recent battles between companies and industry groups that support the continued use of gas as a major energy source for the state -- including RNG and gas used to produce hydrogen -- and California officials and environmentalists who want to transition the state to an all-electric-powered economy.

For example, SoCalGas and its lobbying outfit have helped persuade more than 100 municipalities around the state to pass resolutions stating their opposition to prohibitions on gas hookups in new housing and commercial buildings, as a counter-measure to a host of major cities passing such bans.

One of those cities, Berkeley, has drawn a lawsuit from the restaurant industry over the ban. -- Curt Barry (cbarry@iwpnews.com)

Article Type:

Daily News

Tags:

california

natural gas

Weight:

Critics Declare Victory As Court Remands BLM Oil Leases For Climate Study

Fri, 30 Oct 2020 17:59:11 +0000

Environmental groups challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) environmental reviews for thousands of oil and gas leases on 1.9 million acres of public lands across the West are declaring at least a partial victory after a federal district court granted the bureau’s request to remand the reviews for further climate change analysis.

Judge Rudolph Contreras of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in an Oct. 23 order granted BLM’s Sept. 11 motion for voluntary remand without vacatur in the case, WildEarth Guardians, et al. v. David Bernhardt, et al. His order remands nearly all of the challenged leases in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico and Montana.

This includes the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis for 24 of 27 oil and gas decisions challenged in the case, “so that BLM may conduct further NEPA analysis,” the order says. The remand includes the environmental assessments (EAs), findings of no significant impacts (FONSIs) and determinations of NEPA adequacy (DNAs) for the leases.

Contreras rejected environmentalists’ request to vacate the leases as a condition of the remand because the court “has not reviewed the EAs, FONSIs and DNAs underlying the leasing decisions -- therefore, it has no basis to vacate the agency action.”

In a statement, the Western Environmental Law Center says: “The law is clear, and our cases have cemented that the federal government must study the climate impacts of the drilling and fracking it allows on public lands. But it is time for the federal government to not just improve its analysis but begin to take action and make decisions that reflect the urgency of the climate crisis. We remain ready to ensure accountability and fight for our children’s right to a livable planet.”

WildEarth in the same statement calls the order a “powerful victory for the climate” because, “Finally, the Trump administration is admitting it can’t legally sell public lands to the oil and gas industry and ignore the consequences of our climate and future.”

In January, the groups expanded their legal challenge to the leases covering nearly 2 million acres across five states. Those NEPA reviews were “similarly unlawful” as separate leases spanning approximately 450,000 acres in Wyoming, Colorado and Utah, which were the subject of the original suit.

Earlier Litigation

In the earlier case, WildEarth Guardians, et al. v. Zinke, et al., Contreras issued a landmark ruling that environmentalists hoped would spur a programmatic review of BLM’s entire leasing program. He held that BLM violated NEPA when it failed to quantify the greenhouse gas emissions from each Wyoming leasing decision -- past, present and foreseeable -- and compare those emissions to regional and national emissions including the cumulative effects.

He remanded the Wyoming leases and enjoined BLM from allowing drilling while it redid the review. That prompted BLM to voluntarily agree to conduct new NEPA climate reviews for the leases in Utah and Colorado as well.

However, BLM in the new Wyoming lease analyses continued to take a narrow approach on GHGs, prompting environmentalists to complain the EAs failed to comply with the court order. They filed an amended complaint last September arguing the reviews purport to address the court’s stringent mandate but instead concluded “that oil and gas development on the 283 Wyoming leases -- totaling 303,998 acres of public lands -- would have no significant climate impact.”

That case has been fully briefed since May 1, when environmentalists filed their consolidated reply charging that BLM “continues to treat compliance with NEPA as a paperwork exercise, rather than as essential to fulfilling the purpose underlying the country’s ‘basic national charter for the protection of the environment.’”

It adds that BLM “slapped together” a supplemental EA in “just weeks, after allowing only six business days for public comment” and says it is “no surprise” that the analysis is filled with errors and shows the agency did not take the required “hard look” at the climate effects. It also arbitrarily failed to quantify total lifetime GHG emissions from the leases, the environmentalist brief adds.

Contreras has yet to issue a decision.

Before the amended complaint was filed early this year, BLM issued a revised NEPA review of the Colorado leases that one environmentalist says “will be implicated” if critics win their challenge over the supplemental reviews of the Wyoming leases, though they have not yet added that state or Utah to their amended complaint.

‘Realistic’ Expectations

In the broader suit, Wyoming has the vast majority of the challenged leases, on more than 1.6 million acres. There are nearly 83,000 acres in Colorado, nearly 23,000 in Montana, 41,000 in New Mexico and nearly 7,500 in Utah.

The environmentalist says the groups are claiming victory on the new remand, even if the court did not vacate the leases, because BLM “wouldn’t have moved for a remand if it didn’t concede” wrongdoing. “That’s a big deal. Agencies don’t normally rush to ask a court to remand their actions, especially under this administration.”

However, the source calls it a somewhat “hollow” victory “because on the ground, nothing really changes,” and the groups only expect BLM to do more paperwork to justify is earlier decision, rather than rethinking its leasing decisions.

Further, BLM might use the White House’s streamlined NEPA rules, which took effect Sept. 14, to re-do the analysis for the challenged leases, meaning the scope of the reviews could be further limited.

It is “conceivable they could try to play games using the new NEPA rules,” the source says. “We expect more craziness. . . . We are claiming victory even as we are realistic about expectations.”

The groups are also weighing whether to seek an injunction to prevent exploration and drilling during the remand, the source says, adding that if BLM does a poor job on the new NEPA reviews, opponents will likely have to file new litigation to challenge them. -- Dawn Reeves (dreeves@iwpnews.com)

Article Type:

Tags:

Weight:

California Autonomous Vehicle Rule Sets GHG, Pollution Reduction Goal

Thu, 29 Oct 2020 21:16:47 +0000

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is advancing a rule for autonomous vehicles (AVs) that would set an overarching goal to reduce greenhouse gas and other air emissions, though the commission is rejecting calls for “sub-goals” for electric vehicles (EVs), reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and environmental justice.

“The Commission adopts the goal to ‘Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, criteria air pollutants, and toxic air contaminants, particularly in Disadvantaged Communities,’” states an Oct. 15 CPUC proposed decision, which the commission is scheduled to adopt Nov. 19. Written comments on the proposal are due Nov. 4, and reply comments are due Nov. 9.

The proposal, which has been in the works for many months and was written by CPUC member Genevieve Shiroma, would allow AV companies to provide passenger transportation services, charge fares and offer shared trips, according to an Oct. 22 CPUC press release.

The plan builds on a May CPUC decision that authorized two pilot programs allowing participants to “transport members of the public as passengers in [AVs] so that the public can provide critical feedback to the CPUC and the permit-holders.”

Specifically, Shiroma’s proposal would create two new deployment programs: the “Drivered Autonomous Vehicle Deployment Program” and the “Driverless Autonomous Vehicle Deployment Program.” Both would let participants “offer shared rides and accept monetary compensation for rides in autonomous vehicles,” according to CPUC.

The regulation will also require applicants to possess a “Permit to Deploy Autonomous Vehicles on Public Streets” from the Department of Motor Vehicles to participate; require applicants to submit Passenger Safety Plans that detail how they will protect passenger safety for driverless operations; require applicants to submit a COVID-19 Emergency Plan; and require participants to submit detailed quarterly data reports that enable stakeholders to track companies’ progress.

In addition to the rule’s GHG and air pollution goal, the proposal establishes three other goals that apply to both the existing pilot programs and the new deployment programs: protect passenger safety; expand the benefits of AV technologies to all of California’s communities; and improve transportation options for all, particularly for disadvantaged and low-income communities, the release says.

Shiroma did not grant prior requests by stakeholders such as the Sierra Club, Greenlining Institute, Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) and San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) to set “sub-targets” for AV companies to reduce VMT and to increase the number of EVs in their fleets to help the state meet its EV goals, which include putting 5 million zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) on the road by 2030.

These groups argued that without such goals, AVs “could harm the environment and worsen congestion by adding cars to the road and increasing the amount of single-occupancy, long distance trips,” the proposal notes. They also argued that applicants to the deployment programs “should demonstrate that a reasonable portion of their AVs are ZEVs and submit a timeline to reach a full ZEV fleet.”

But Shiroma concluded that “at this time it is challenging for the Commission to set uniform, informed, and effective targets” as proposed by the environmental groups and transportation agencies, in part because there are several related programs, or proposed regulations, at different agencies that set similar goals.

Clean Miles Standard

For example, the California Air Resources Board is developing a “Clean Miles Standard” that will establish first-time GHG and electric VMT targets for transportation network companies (TNCs) operating ride-hailing services. The standard, required by the 2018 law SB 1014, will encourage TNCs to increase the number of rides that are shared among multiple passengers to help meet the targets.

“Shared rides have potential to reduce VMT, reduce congestion, and lower fares for service. The viability of shared rides, however, depends on the scale of operations and each company’s business model,” CPUC’s proposal states. “The quarterly data reports for the pilot programs show that, during the testing phase, initial operations have deployed non-ZEVs on the road. This may continue to be the case until AV services mature and expand.”

Nevertheless, recent commitments by Uber and Lyft to transition to 100 percent EVs by 2030 “offers a compelling benchmark for AV companies, and at upcoming workshops the onus will be on the companies to justify different timelines to reach the same target,” Shiroma adds in the proposal. “Until that time, SB 1014 may set emissions standards for AV companies in addition to TNCs.”

The CPUC proposal also omits specific environmental justice goals requested by some of the environmental groups and transportation agencies, which argued that without such goals, “profit-driven business models may leave disadvantaged communities behind,” according to Shiroma’s summary.

Some of the stakeholders proposed a goal that “AV Passenger Service should prevent negative impacts on disadvantaged communities and improve transportation options for all, giving priority to disadvantaged communities with unmet transportation needs,” she writes.

But AV companies such as Waymo argued it is too early to set prescriptive equity goals. Waymo also asserts that “authorizing fare collection encourages companies to expand their service more broadly, including to low-income communities.”

The proposed decision would instead adopt “the equity goal to ‘Improve transportation options for all, particularly for disadvantaged and low-income communities,’” while noting that the “environmental justice goal is addressed by ensuring that disadvantaged communities have preferential access to the greenhouse gas and air quality benefits of AVs.”

Shiroma notes that CPUC has already adopted an Environmental and Social Justice Action Plan, which includes a goal for the commission to improve local air quality and public health in disadvantaged communities, and that AVs “may be an important service to reduce these burdens.”

Ultimately, “it is too soon for the Commission to set uniform equity targets,” the proposal adds. “Companies will operate under different business models and at different scales. Some companies have stated they intend to provide broad market ride hailing services while other companies focus exclusively on shuttle services for single communities. As the market matures, the Commission can reconsider if and when to impose uniform equity targets.” -- Curt Barry (cbarry@iwpnews.com)

Article Type:

Tags:

Weight:

Trump Critics Boost Criticism Of EPA Rollbacks As Election Draws Near

Thu, 29 Oct 2020 19:04:17 +0000

Capitol Hill Democrats and former EPA officials are ramping up their criticism of the Trump administration’s environmental rollbacks in a bid to make them a liability for President Donald Trump just days ahead of the Nov. 3 election, while also seeking to lay the groundwork for undoing the policies if Trump is defeated.

The critiques surface in new staff reports from the House Energy & Commerce Committee and House Natural Resources Committee -- as well as an updated summary of EPA policies from the Environmental Protection Network (EPN), representing EPA alumni. The reports are all harshly critical of a series of agency policies issued since 2017.

Democrats are coupling the criticisms with reference to committee oversight efforts as well as draft legislation that could reverse the policies and address longstanding issues such as climate change and environmental justice.

“For four years, the Trump administration has launched a relentless assault on environmental and public health pollution,” Energy & Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and other committee leaders say in an Oct. 28 press release, citing “dire consequences for Americans’ health -- particularly now in the midst of a global pandemic.”

The lawmakers add that Trump’s continuing dismissals of climate change threats “show just how unabashedly unfit he is for this moment.”

The committee’s report, Environmental Assault: Trump Administration Imperils Public Health and the Environment, details over 100 regulatory rollbacks in five subject areas: climate change, science, environmental justice, toxic air pollution and threats to “clean, safe water.”

The report also flags as “equally harmful as its rollbacks . . . the Trump administration’s institutional attacks on the ability of the EPA to carry out its mission to protect public health and the environment.”

And it references prior testimony to the committee from four former EPA administrators expressing alarm that the Trump EPA is devaluing scientific expertise in its decision making.

“The current administration has been on a steady march to reduce if not eliminate the role of science in developing and implementing environmental policy,” the report says, quoting former George W. Bush EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman.

The Energy & Commerce Democrats supplement their critiques by citing their own activities that could reverse direction and refocus federal efforts on climate change and other environmental priorities, including committee hearings on the proposed Clean Future Act unveiled in January that includes numerous policies to move toward net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Natural Resources Report

A similar mix of Trump administration criticism and potential solutions surfaces in Dirty Deals: Four Years of the Trump Administration Putting Polluter Profits Over People, a report from the Natural Resources panel focused mostly on Trump policies at the Department of the Interior (DOI), the U.S. Forest Service, and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.

The report includes five topics: “gutting our fundamental environmental, public health, and safety protections,” including under the National Environmental Policy Act and other laws; “making dirty energy sources even dirtier”; removing protections from wild lands, waters and wildlife; “ignoring and disrespecting” Native communities; and “leaving the residents of Puerto Rico to fend for themselves in times of grave crisis.”

The Natural Resources staff report also includes critiques of a dozen current or former administration officials, including former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and current Administrator Andrew Wheeler. With respect to Wheeler, it cites his prior work as a “coal industry lobbyist and legislative aide to prominent climate denier Sen. James Inhofe [(R-OK)].”

The staff report also touts the committee’s responses to the agencies’ policies, including over a dozen bills either awaiting a full House vote or being blocked by the Republican-led Senate.

Those measures include H.R 2711, which would require EPA and DOI to reduce methane emissions related to oil and gas operations, and H.R. 5986. The latter bill is focused on environmental justice and would require consideration of cumulative impacts of permitting decisions under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act while also establishing a fund to support fossil fuel-dependent communities as the energy sector transitions to other energy sources.

EPN Report

EPN, meanwhile, is releasing an updated “snapshot” of some of the “most significant” Trump EPA actions with respect to air and climate change; budget cuts; scientific integrity; water quality; drinking water; enforcement; chemical hazards; and land contamination.

“These actions are not simply bureaucratic. They have real life implications for people’s health and the health of the natural world,” EPN says, arguing EPA’s rollbacks and its failure to address emerging threats pose health and environmental harms.

The Trump administration’s scuttling of the Obama EPA’s Clean Power Plan, for example, “will cause more people, especially in front-line communities, to have heart attacks; suffer from asthma, bronchitis and other respiratory illnesses; visit a hospital; and miss days of work and school,” EPN notes, itemizing a variety of pollution and health effects by 2025.

EPN also cites an estimate that the Trump administration’s rollback of vehicle GHG rules will translate by 2050 into “18,500 premature deaths largely due to higher levels of small particles in the air, and $190 billion in health-related costs.” Further, “it will cost $244 billion more to buy 144 billion more gallons of gasoline, and thousands of auto industry jobs will be lost.”

With respect to drinking water contamination, EPN states that, despite the agency’s action plan for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), “EPA’s delay in addressing PFAS contamination will result in communities throughout the country being exposed to toxic PFAS chemicals in their drinking water for years unless states are able, on their own, to find the sources of contamination, treat the drinking water to remove these contaminants, prevent further contamination through regulation, and clean up existing contamination.”

And with respect to EPA’s budget, EPN notes that each year the White House has proposed “unprecedented cuts in funding for EPA programs and the money it provides the states for grants and loans.” -- Doug Obey (dobey@iwpnews.com)

Article Type:

Daily News

Tags:

transition

Weight:

BLM To Use New NEPA Rule For ANWR Review Despite Prior DOJ Claims

Thu, 29 Oct 2020 18:46:09 +0000

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is planning to use the White House’s streamlined National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) rules for its analysis of a controversial oil exploration project in the Arctic, despite a top Justice Department (DOJ) official earlier telling a court that agencies would not immediately use the new rules.

A BLM spokesman tells Inside EPA that the analysis for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) seismic testing project “will be conducted under the new streamlined [Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)] NEPA rules.”

That confirmation is prompting environmentalists to cry foul, noting that one of the reasons they failed to win a preliminary injunction of the CEQ rule is because DOJ assured a federal district court that agencies would not immediately use the new rules, which took effect Sept. 14, because they would first need to write agency-specific NEPA procedures that align with the White House regulation.

Jeffrey Clark, who at the time led DOJ’s Environment & Natural Resources Division but now leads the civil division, said during a Sept. 4 hearing in Wild Virginia, et al. v. CEQ, et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, that CEQ’s rules “won’t be applied to any particular actions for quite a while,” according to a transcript of the hearing.

Following the hearing, Judge James Jones rejected the environmental groups’ preliminary injunction request.

Clark added that there is “another set of regulations that will need to be put together, you know, by the actual action agencies that do things on the ground. And then once those regulations are done, the CEQ regulations and the agency-specific NEPA procedures will need to be applied in order to decide on actions.”

He said the “follow-on, agency-specific NEPA regulations that the new regulations call for haven’t even, . . . gotten much off the ground. So, there’s a lot that’s going to remain to be done.”

In contrast, attorney Kym Hunter of the Southern Environmental Law Center warned Jones that CEQ’s rule “makes clear that these radical changes will immediately apply to over 100 federal agencies, and it creates a ceiling that controls agency NEPA evaluations from Sept. 14 onwards.”

She also argued the rule makes sweeping changes that will limit the scope of NEPA reviews, including removing requirements to consider indirect and cumulative effects, as well as “big-picture issues like climate change.”

Now, BLM is pledging to use CEQ’s new NEPA rule to govern its environmental assessment (EA) of the ANWR project -- announced Oct. 23 and subject to just a two-week comment period.

Environmentalists charge that the Trump administration is seeking to “ram through” approval of drilling in ANWR ahead the Nov. 3 election in which Democratic nominee Joe Biden is seeking to deny a second term for President Donald Trump.

Because BLM has “only made a few pages of information about the proposed [ANWR] project available for a sliver of public comment,” it is difficult to say what exactly the bureau is doing, one environmentalist says. “But if it is indeed moving forward under the new CEQ regulations, it is doing so without having amended its own NEPA regulations or guidance, contrary to what the government said . . . in trying to get the Virginia case dismissed.”

The source adds: “The CEQ regulations, of course, are themselves badly illegal and are the subject of five separate lawsuits, including one from 20 states, so any agency or company that bets on the longevity of those rules is making a bad choice.”

Additionally, the administration’s August adoption of a programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) opening ANWR’s entire coastal plain to leasing and seismic testing is the subject of four other lawsuits including one by 15 states, the source notes.

‘Poor First Test Case’

ANWR was opened to drilling for the first time as part of the 2017 Tax Cuts & Jobs Act, where lawmakers promised that NEPA and other laws would be followed. But a second environmentalist argues, “If you then start applying these new CEQ rules that really gut these protections . . . it really undercuts that promise.”

A third environmentalist says BLM’s plan for the ANWR review is disturbing because “CEQ cannot change how [other agencies] implement NEPA because they all have their own regulations.” The “assumption” was the agencies would have to go through their own rulemaking processes before applying the new rule, as Clark indicated.

“That was the open question, when are the agencies going to start” using the new rules? the source notes.

The second environmentalist acknowledges a “major fear” that the ANWR review “could be a very high-profile, as-applied challenge to the NEPA regulations.” The fast timeline for the review suggests “a quick and dirty EA” will be issued and “leads to our fear that this could be a really damaging first test case and a poor first test case, given how high the stakes are.”

Environmentalists argue that a seismic project needs to undergo a thorough EIS, not a less-rigorous EA, because there is “no question” it would impose significant impacts. But CEQ’s new rules for what triggers an EIS leave “all sorts of room for abuse,” the third source says. The streamlined rules also limit EAs to 75 pages, which is “laughable for something like what is being proposed here.”

Activities will include potential harms to polar bear dens, spilled diesel fuel on the tundra, dragging camps across the tundra, building snow trails, compressing vegetation on which caribou rely and changing the hydrology through water withdrawal from lakes.

Because the new rules do not include a requirement to study indirect or cumulative effects, these sources warn that BLM is unlikely to assess the effects of future drilling in its analysis, even though that is the “whole purpose” of the exploration, the third source says, adding that the programmatic EIS issued over the summer takes “the highest-level look” and promises more in-depth study in further analyses.

“Here we are with the first test case . . . and if you apply those new NEPA regulations, I am deeply worried that the later analysis would be meaningless,” particularly by curtailing public input, given the limited comment period and concern that this may be the only chance to weigh in before the activity begins.

“All bets are off” regarding what BLM might do, the third source continues. “They are rushing to get this across the finish line, and my suspicion is there won’t be a draft EA and they will just post, six weeks from now” a final EA, a final finding of no significant impact and a decision to issue a permit.

At that point, environmental groups’ only recourse would be going to court, “rather than having a chance to actually see a draft of the analysis,” which is how NEPA is supposed to work, the source says.

Environmentalists plan to raise these concerns in comments on the BLM notice by the Nov. 6 deadline.

NEPA Precedent

In the Wild Virginia case, Jones in a Sept. 11 opinion denied environmentalists’ preliminary injunction request and allowed the CEQ rule to take effect. He wrote that the plaintiffs “may ultimately succeed” in their legal challenge, “but at this point they have not made” the clear showing required to win an injunction.

Jones also denied CEQ’s motion to dismiss the case, so it will proceed to the merits, along with four other district court challenges to the new NEPA rules.

Clark, in an exclusive July interview with Inside EPA, said facial challenges to the new rule should be dismissed but endorsed as-applied challenges to agency actions using the new NEPA regulation, including challenges to agency decisions that it need not conduct a NEPA review for a particular project.

He added that the new rule is intended to erase some court precedents long governing NEPA analysis. “If a court of appeals had a decision contrary to the new NEPA regulations, our position is the new NEPA regulations control,” he said.

Environmentalists are also worried about how that argument would play out for both facial and as-applied suits over CEQ’s rule.

A fourth environmentalist says courts might broadly agree with DOJ that the revised NEPA rules erase decades of precedent, with the ANWR review possibly serving as a high-profile, high-risk test.

Environmental advocates are also flagging as concerning -- though unlikely to be enacted -- a package of NEPA bills introduced by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), including an Oct. 21 bill that seeks to overturn key Supreme Court precedent for how courts assess environmental harm. The full package would dramatically curtail the reach of the bedrock environmental law, the sources argue.

Overall, Lee is sponsoring five bills -- fully introduced Oct. 26 and dubbed “Undoing NEPA’s Substantial Harm by Advancing Concepts that Kickstart the Liberation of the Economy Act,” or UNSHACKLE. Co-sponsors include Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Kevin Cramer (R-ND), with the bills codifying some aspects of the CEQ rules while also going further in some areas, particularly in curtailing legal challenges.

Environmentalists dismiss the legislation as not serious and based on “false rhetoric about NEPA, that it’s simply a tool of delay.” But they say the bills’ fate -- just like ANWR drilling and many other issues -- is largely dependent on the outcome of the Nov. 3 elections. -- Dawn Reeves (dreeves@iwpnews.com)

Article Type:

Daily News

Tags:

NEPA

fossil fuel leasing

Weight:

Experts’ Mid-Century Climate Roadmap Estimates Massive Job Gains

Wed, 28 Oct 2020 22:00:47 +0000

A new expert report is touting an array of short- and longer-term strategies to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, estimating that job gains under the approach would dwarf job losses and that the effort would not boost oil and gas sector unemployment over the next decade.

The proposed Zero-Carbon Action Plan (ZCAP), released Oct. 27 by nearly 100 researchers as part of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), includes immediate action items for next year that the federal government and states could pursue, largely echoing plans cited as possible priorities for a potential Biden administration.

The plan is likely to provide fresh fodder for climate action supporters to tout the economic benefits of low-carbon investments and other GHG policies, while perhaps assuaging concerns of near-term employment effects in the oil and gas sector.

Its jobs-related findings could aid backers of climate policies as the oil industry has sought to boost political scrutiny of remarks by Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden during the Oct. 22 debate affirming his goal of transitioning away from the oil sector “over time.”

SDSN is focused on implementing United Nations sustainability goals as well as the Paris climate agreement. Its U.S. branch is co-hosted by Columbia University, Yale University, and the University of California-San Diego.

“The [plan] lays out a strategy for putting Americans back to work building a vibrant 21st Century U.S. economy based on advanced technologies, good jobs, clean energy, climate safety, and economic security,” SDSN says in a statement.

Given that it outlines potential pathways to achieving mid-century climate targets, the plan might also help inform targets floated by a potential Biden administration as it re-joins the Paris deal.

President Donald Trump is poised to formally remove the U.S. from the Paris deal on Nov. 4 -- the day after the general election that will determine if he gets a second term.

If former Vice President Biden secures the White House, he could quickly re-join Paris, though he would have to float a new national GHG target, as well as potentially an updated strategy for achieving mid-century emissions goals. The Obama administration in the days after the 2016 election floated such a plan, as called for in the Paris deal, in an effort to influence long-term thinking on climate efforts.

SDSN’s mid-century plan includes array of recommendations across six energy-producing and energy-consuming sectors: power generation, transportation, buildings, industry, land use, and materials.

It includes over a dozen near-term priorities, many of which are in line with existing proposals from the Biden campaign, Hill Democrats or other groups.

Immediate recommendations include calls for new federal commitments toward: at least $2 trillion over the next four years to kick-start the zero-carbon effort; creation of a new White House climate office; rejoining the Paris Agreement while embracing the 2050 goal and an interim 2030 target; new legislation committing to a net-zero GHG goal by 2050; and work by multiple federal agencies on “intermediate and sector specific emission reduction goals” for power, transportation, industry, buildings and land use.

Other federal recommendations include making procedural and substantive commitments to equitable sharing of jobs benefits from the energy transition; moving forward with direct investments in the energy system; acceleration of research and development of zero-emission technologies, energy efficiency and carbon removal; and establishing a “scientifically based” social cost of carbon geared toward limiting global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Employment Estimates

But SDSN President Jeff Sachs said during an Oct. 27 launch event that the plan’s “backbone” is a “technology-based pathway analysis” spelling out a step-by-step transformation over the next 30 years across numerous sectors. “It will create jobs, it is affordable, it is at low cost,” he said.

University of Massachusetts-Amherst economics professor Robert Pollin at the event flagged modeling estimates that the plan would spur average per year job gains of between 2.3 million and 4.6 million between now and 2050 -- a figure that reflects additional jobs in a given year beyond what would otherwise occur without the strategy.

“It is overwhelmingly a job creation model relative to the jobs that are going to be lost in fossil fuels,” he said.

The jobs estimates supplement broader projections that the proposal’s incremental costs would equal just 0.4 percent of GDP in 2050, “a small fraction of America’s annual energy spending,” according to the report. That figure also does not take into account the economic benefit of averted climate damages.

The plan states that realizing the full job creation benefits for workers requires creating a role for unions, establishing training initiatives and ensuring that jobs are available to minorities. The high-end estimates of job gains also assume requirements for domestic production of related zero-carbon goods.

The plan acknowledges that job gains would be partially offset by job losses, but also notes that the actual unemployment effects are limited due to looming attrition within fossil fuel industries.

Estimated job losses include 56,000 in the coal mining sector between now and 2030 -- and 477,000 oil and gas extraction jobs between 2030 and 2050. But voluntary retirements mean the actual number of workers needing re-employment would be only around 12,000 in the coal sector, and around 34,000 in the oil and gas industry.

These totals are a tiny fraction of the estimated job gains under the plan, requiring transition-related aid of around $1.5 billion a year to 2030 and roughly $3.5 billion a year between 2031 and 2052, Pollin noted.

That dollar figure is “miniscule” compared with the size of the economy, at “less than one hundredth of one percent of the average GDP that would be sustained over the course of this 30-year transition period,” he added. “It is a matter of just doing it. It can be done. It can be done cheaply.”

The estimates of unemployed workers that would actually require new jobs under the plan are lower than projections of threatened jobs released this month by a coalition of eight energy-intensive unions. There, the labor groups argued the Biden campaign’s target for a net-zero power sector by 2035 threatens 1.4 million direct and indirect jobs, requiring between $12 billion and $18 billion in annual transition assistance.

These unions also argued their requested transition funding is small relative to Biden’s pledge to spend $2 trillion on climate efforts over four years, though they are also arguing that the 2035 power sector goal is too aggressive.

Other Recommendations

The ZCAP report more broadly delves into significant detail on both potential federal and state actions in numerous sectors to reach a mid-century net-zero target, including recommendations for stimulus spending on multiple sectors.

The plan’s vehicle-related provisions, for example, envision Congress enacting several national zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandates, including a requirement that ZEVs account for 30 percent of all light-duty vehicle sales by 2030 and 100 percent by 2040.

The plan also advocates for a national low-carbon fuel standard that requires a reduction in fuels’ carbon intensity by 20 percent by 2030 and 80 percent by 2050.

Also, the plan includes an array of recommendations for states and other groups, including calls for states to implement renewable energy or zero-carbon energy standards in line with the 2050 goal, and prepare plans for net-zero emission by 2050 covering transportation, buildings and industry. -- Doug Obey (dobey@iwpnews.com)

Article Type:

Tags:

Weight:

U.S. Industry, Environmentalists Say IMO Plan To Cut Ship GHGs Too Weak

Wed, 28 Oct 2020 21:09:43 +0000

A working group of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) that sets global environmental standards for shipping is recommending a series of draft energy efficiency measures to further limit greenhouse gases from shipping, but the plan is facing criticism from the U.S. shipping industry and environmentalists for being too weak.

At its Oct. 19-23 session, the working group on GHGs, which includes the United States, agreed on draft measures it will forward to the organization’s Marine Environment Protection Committee for consideration in November, and possible adoption in 2021. The United States is a member of the IMO and implements the global standards through domestic rulemakings.

Some environmentalists are describing the latest GHG measures as inadequate and “cosmetic,” while some in the U.S. shipping industry also view the focus on energy efficiency as too little to achieve fundamental change.

The IMO is weighing steps to reach the goal of reducing GHGs from shipping by 50 percent by 2050, and of reducing the carbon intensity of shipping by 40 percent by 2030, compared to 2008 baseline emissions.

The working group is advocating two new mechanisms that build on existing IMO energy efficiency mandates; the technical requirement to reduce carbon intensity, based on a new Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI); and the operational carbon intensity reduction requirements, based on a new operational carbon intensity indicator (CII).

Hence the new measures would address existing vessels, covering both their technical equipment, and also their operational practices, such as steaming speeds and fuel efficiency in carrying cargo.

The shipping industry in the United States has largely welcomed the push for reduced emissions, and encouraged compliance with IMO mandates.

However, the ambitious long-term goals will require fundamental advances in technology that have yet to be developed or implemented on a wide enough scale, industry officials say.

For example, the World Shipping Council (WSC), a trade body based in the United States, has advocated a long-term process to boost new propulsion and fuels technologies, such as hydrogen or ammonia as fuel, or increased use of batteries to provide power either at sea or in port.

WSC has proposed an industry-funded International Maritime Research and Development Board to pioneer radical new technologies and methods to achieve GHG reductions.

‘Move Further, Faster’

In an Oct. 26 statement on the latest IMO working group proposal, WSC CEO John Butler said, “Whilst it is easy to criticize the outcome of the intersessional [panel meeting], it is worth remembering that anything short of a global solution represents long-term failure on climate change. We need to stick with this hard work, but the task is urgent, and we must move further, faster. As long as our only fuel options are carbon based, GHG reductions will be limited. Efficiency is important, but it will not solve the problem.”

Butler added, “We must keep our eye on our ultimate goal of decarbonisation and accelerate research, development, and deployment of new fuels and technologies. The industry needs R&D at scale to make progress in time. To halve shipping emissions by 2050, we need zero carbon ships on the water in the early 2030s. We should have started ten years ago, so there is even more reason to act decisively now.”

Environmental group Transport and Environment, which has observer status at the IMO, called the proposal “cosmetic” and called on IMO states to reject it unless it can be significantly strengthened. According to an Oct. 23 statement by the group, “This means the proposal would, at best, now curb GHG[s] by only 0.65% to 1.3% by 2030 compared to business as usual pathway without IMO regulation.”

The group calls on governments to abandon the IMO process and push forward with tougher measures on a national or regional level, as the European Union is considering doing. The latest proposal “contains no carbon intensity target, and somehow, reduces the stringency of the required EEXI for many ship types,” the group says.

Further, it contains a loophole that would mean “non-compliant ships will be able to continue underperforming for three consecutive years before they even have to file a plan to make improvements, and can easily game underperformance indefinitely by ensuring one compliant year every three years,” the group says.

Also, enforcement provisions considered earlier by the panel have been removed, meaning there would be “no actual enforcement” of the measures if adopted by IMO, according to the group.

Proposed Requirements

Current IMO mandates include the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI), for new build ships, which means they have to be built and designed to be more energy efficient than the baseline; and the mandatory Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP), for all ships that requires ship operators to have in place a plan to improve energy efficiency through a variety of ship specific measures.

In an Oct. 23 statement, IMO explains that the proposed EEXI “is required to be calculated for every ship. This indicates the energy efficiency of the ship compared to a baseline. Ships are required to meet a specific required [EEXI,] which is based on a required reduction factor (expressed as a percentage relative to the EEDI baseline).”

Meanwhile, the CII “determines the annual reduction factor needed to ensure continuous improvement of the ship’s operational carbon intensity within a specific rating level.” The CII applies to ships of 5,000 gross tonnage and above, which are already subject to a data collection requirement for fuel oil consumption.

“The actual annual operational CII achieved (attained annual operational CII) would be required to be documented and verified against the required annual operational CII. This would enable the operational carbon intensity rating to be determined,” IMO says.

“The rating would be given on a scale - operational carbon intensity rating A, B, C, D or E - indicating a major superior, minor superior, moderate, minor inferior, or inferior performance level. The performance level would be recorded in the ship’s Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP). A ship rated D for three consecutive years, or E, would have to submit a corrective action plan, to show how the required index (C or above) would be achieved.”

Also, the GHG working group proposes a review mechanism that requires the new measures be rated for their effectiveness by Jan. 1, 2026 at the latest, and further measures developed and implemented if necessary.

In order to be adopted by IMO, however, the proposed new measures would have to undergo a “comprehensive impact assessment” that would “provide a detailed qualitative and/or quantitative assessment of specific negative impacts on States, and be evidence-based and should take into account, as appropriate, analysis tools and models, such as cost-effectiveness analysis tools, e.g. maritime transport cost models, trade flows models, impact on Gross Domestic Product (GDP); updated Marginal Abatement Cost Curves (MACCs); and economic trade models, transport models and combined trade-transport models.”

IMO states have disagreed sharply in the past over the ambition and timing of measures to reduce GHGs from shipping, and the impact assessment will once more provide an opportunity for arguments between those member states most in favor of GHG reductions, such as small island states or European countries, and others, such as oil-producing states, which have historically resisted tough measures to reduce GHGs. -- Stuart Parker (sparker@iwpnews.com)

Article Type:

Daily News

Tags:

international

Weight:

Clean Energy Group Floats Policies For Post-Pandemic Rebuilding

Wed, 28 Oct 2020 18:30:25 +0000

Just days before the Nov. 3 election, a major coalition of clean energy businesses and trade associations is floating policy recommendations to significantly curb carbon emissions, encourage a diverse energy sector workforce and boost infrastructure resilience in response to vulnerabilities highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Leverage and integrate the diverse portfolio of high-value energy efficiency, advanced natural gas and renewable energy technologies to protect and strengthen critical infrastructure in the face of COVID-19, to greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to enhance U.S. community resilience to disasters,” the Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE) says in its new energy and climate change policy recommendations released Oct. 27.

The BCSE statement echoes some of the goals of the Biden campaign’s climate platform, and it comes as national and state polling continues to show former Vice President Joe Biden leading President Donald Trump in the race for the White House a week ahead of Election Day.

BCSE’s principles and recommendations are short on specifics, but they offer a roadmap of sorts for energy business leaders to coalesce around a legislative and administrative agenda for next year.

The recommendations could be applicable to several legislative proposals observers have floated for a potential Biden administration, including a COVID-19 response bill, an infrastructure package and legislation specifically targeted at mitigating climate effects.

BCSE officials emphasized the group’s focus of building on recent progress and current investments in low-carbon technologies, while laying out a plan for rebuilding the national economy in the wake of the ongoing health and economic crises.

“Together, these clean energy industries offer a pragmatic approach to future action on energy and climate change policy, as well as economic recovery,” BCSE President Lisa Jacobson said in a statement announcing the “Recommendations for Energy and Climate Change Policy.”

A senior official with National Grid, an international investor-owned gas and electric utility, emphasized the transitive nature of the BCSE plan in addressing both economic and racial distress.

“The ongoing energy transition to cleaner fuels and technologies, our country’s economic and social upheaval and the persistent challenges presented by climate change must all be taken into account as policymakers weigh energy policy options,” said Emily Duncan, the director of government relations for National Grid US who is also chairman of BCSE’s board of directors.

Principles and Recommendations

The group’s principles offer several policy goals including: meeting customer expectations for affordability and reliability; relying on “sound science” in responding to climate change; supporting a “diverse and inclusive” expansion of clean-energy jobs; harnessing digital technologies “to reduce and manage energy consumption, track and measure greenhouse gases, and develop more resilient energy infrastructure”; and leveraging public and private investments at local, state and regional levels.

BCSE is also recommending five specific policy actions, including enacting “market-based measures and complementary energy policies that signal rapid investment in economy-wide greenhouse gas emission reductions” and building on regional, state and local policies.

The group also endorses economy-wide policies that “account for the externalities associated with” greenhouse gases, arguing the policies should be technology-neutral and aim toward carbon neutrality.

Another recommendation is “an ambitious national infrastructure innovation program to support clean energy deployment and enhanced resilience,” which can include grants, loans and public-private partnerships. These technologies “can be deployed at home and offer significant export opportunities,” BCSE adds.

The group further calls for “financing and tax incentives that leverage private and municipal investments and that lower energy costs and net savings for consumers over time.”

Last, the group seeks “workforce development support and resources” to help recruit “the next decade of clean energy professionals.” -- Rick Weber (rweber@iwpnews.com)

Article Type:

Daily News

Tags:

election 2020

Weight:

Unions Float ‘Just Transition’ Costs For 2035 Net-Zero GHG Power Target

Wed, 28 Oct 2020 18:16:25 +0000

A coalition of eight energy-intensive labor unions is renewing concerns about job losses in the energy and manufacturing sectors from Democrats’ power sector climate plans, while pushing for significant federal funding for a “just transition” to handle such a shift.

The coalition, known as Unions for Jobs and Environmental Progress (UJEP), warns in an October paper that Hill Democrats and the Biden campaign’s broad goal of making the electricity sector have net-zero carbon emissions by 2035 would threaten 1.4 million direct and indirect jobs, representing $84 billion in annual lost wages.

Providing “just transition” assistance over three years, to give workers time and resources to find new employment, will cost between $12 billion and $18 billion a year -- a large number but far below 1 percent of last year’s U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), the paper says.

UJEP includes eight unions representing iron workers, boilermakers, electrical workers, Teamsters, transportation, communications, plumbing and mine workers.

The new paper was sent to majority staff on the House Energy & Commerce Committee as well as the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee.

The paper is a follow-up to a May memo from seven of the eight unions urging House Democrats drafting climate change legislation to include an “energy transition fee” such as a wires charge or production fee to provide revenue to help displaced workers and to promote carbon sequestration research.

That memo, which did not include the Teamsters, opposed a carbon tax, given that these unions have long supported a cap-and-trade system. It similarly predicted that at-risk jobs, except for automakers, under a 2050 economy-wide carbon-neutral target would total 9 million, including 2 million in the energy sector.

The unions’ new paper does not address the source of the requested transition revenue. Nor does it reference specific legislation or Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s climate plan, “but it is all about the 2035 target for decarbonization of [the power sector], which we find to be extremely problematic from the standpoint of our jobs,” one source familiar with the paper says.

The paper notes that “some current climate change proposals” call for the elimination of carbon emissions from fossil-based electricity by 2035. “This accelerated phaseout -- 15 years in advance of the targets set by the [United Nations] Paris Agreement -- would eliminate 800 gigawatts of coal- and natural gas-fueled capacity, representing 67 percent of total U.S. electric generating capacity.”

Biden has called for a net-zero carbon power sector by 2035, and leading Hill proposals for a clean energy standard (CES) broadly align with that aim.

At-Risk Jobs

But the energy unions argue such a target would cause 1.4 million job losses through the closures of power plants, coal mines and natural gas production facilities, while railroad jobs would be lost with the elimination of coal transportation. All of these sectors are heavily unionized with relatively high wages and benefits, according to the paper.

Roughly 275,000 of the potential job losses are labeled as “direct,” while more than 1.1 million are deemed “indirect.”

The paper breaks down the loss of direct and indirect jobs at four major industries: fossil-fueled power plants, coal mining, natural gas extraction and transportation, and coal-dependent railroads. The estimates of transition assistance are based on replacement wages of 67, 75 and 100 percent, while none include lost benefits.

Many of the affected facilities are located in rural areas and are often the largest employer and source of tax revenue, with many indirect jobs supported by these core jobs, the paper notes.

Direct assistance to displaced workers “is a highly effective means to avoid severe community disruptions such as large-scale closures of businesses, destruction of housing values, and loss of police, fire and other essential services,” the paper says. It cites COVID-19 stimulus funds as a model for helping “many communities to avoid even more devastating losses.”

For natural gas jobs, the paper says the average compensation would amount to $60,230 per worker at a 67 percent replacement rate, while the average for indirect workers at the same rate would be $35,677. Estimated annual assistance for that sector would be between $4.5 billion and $6.5 billion.

The source familiar with the paper notes that former Vice President Biden has proposed that 2 percent of U.S. GDP be allocated to climate change programs over four years. “What we are talking about here is less than 1/10th of 1 percent for the mainly unionized workers who will lose their jobs if that plan is implemented.”

Despite the price tag, the paper calls the assistance “an effective means” to provide support for displaced workers. It adds that most of the natural gas job losses are concentrated in West Texas, the Gulf Coast and other major supply regions such as rural Pennsylvania where few other job options exist.

These funds “would recirculate through communities, much as COVID-19 state and federal assistance” did, the unions add.

2035 Target

In addition to making a push for transition funding, the paper is also aimed at delaying Democrats’ 2035 target date. “That goal needs to be re-evaluated,” the source says, noting that Lonnie Stephenson, president of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, is an adviser to Biden’s transition team while also claiming he has been pushing back on that timeline.

Stephenson has not publicly pushed back against the target, but rather has focused his statements on the jobs that would be created under Biden’s plan.

The source familiar with the paper argues 15 years is unrealistic to replace 800 gigawatts of generation capacity.

“Because by the time this goes through legislation and regulation at EPA, you are talking two to three years from now at a minimum, and that makes it not a 15-year target but maybe a 12-year target,” the source says.

Also, the source argues 2035 is an arbitrary date not supported by science. The Paris Agreement seeks global decarbonization by 2050 to meet its goal of limiting average global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Meeting a 2-degree target pushes that date back to 2068, according to the union source.

The 2035 year “is simply a political number that is supported by folks who would rather do things sooner than later,” even though it will take a long time to replace that much electricity with renewable generation, which will require new transmission lines and grid capacity.

Regarding transition funds, this spring’s COVID-19 stimulus legislation is a good model because that program put “cash in the hands of the unemployed” and is “more helpful . . . than government feel-good programs.”

The unions’ request is based “loosely” on the German approach when that country shut down its coal industry and provided 100 percent wages and benefits to its displaced coal union workers.

The source adds that there are not many other job options in the areas to be hardest hit by an energy transition. “There’s a reason why there’s not much out there now,” the source says, adding that these places lack “attributes that would attract Amazon to locate there.”

The union source adds: “Look at West Texas. There’s nothing out there except the oil industry. Mr. Biden, I don’t think, is fully aware there are 1.2 million workers in the oil industry in Texas alone,” referencing Biden’s remarks at the Oct. 22 presidential debate that he would seek to “transition” away from oil. -- Dawn Reeves (dreeves@iwpnews.com)

Article Type:

Daily News

Tags:

green new deal

Weight: