Tag Archives: U.S. Senate

Keeping Watch on Earth News

What’s good for the climate – and not so good – in the new Inflation Reduction Act


By Roger Straw, July 30, 2022

The proposed Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 is important, no doubt about that.  Here are a number of ways to learn more.

If you’re a wonk for details, read the first of these two articles below, Manchin’s Inflation Reduction Act: What’s Good and Bad for Climate News. by Drilled News.

If you want a one-page exposé on the bill’s weak points, check out the second article, Manchin Poison Pills Buried in Inflation Reduction Act Will Destroy Livable Climate, by Brett Hartl of the Center For Biological Diversity.

Offsite reading – see also:

It’s a sad day when “progress” must be taken in great big baby steps and a few backward leaps.  I fear for the generations to come….

Manchin’s Inflation Reduction Act: What’s Good and Bad for Climate

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Drilled News, July 28, 2022

Weird coincidence: My power was out when the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 was announced. By the time it came back on, Twitter was awash in takes on what Senator Joe Manchin’s proposal means for climate. Quick aside here, how annoying is the dude who shits on everyone else’s proposal and then finally submits his own worst-of-all-versions approach as the most sensible path forward? We’ve all worked with this dude at some point, and he is no one’s favorite.

Negotiating on climate policy with Senator Coal Baron began with the first iteration of the Build Back Better Act, which earmarked more than $500 billion for climate-related programs. That was still less than half of what is needed to actually transition off of fossil fuels, but it was a start and clean energy advocates were particularly excited about the Clean Electricity Performance Program, which would have required electric utilities to clean up their electricity mixes by 4 percent each year. That doesn’t sound like much, but even the fastest-moving utilities were hitting around 2 percent each year (2020 was the best year on record, when the utility sector hit a 2.3 percent increase in clean energy), so the mix of regulation and incentives aimed at pushing them to 4 percent would have delivered meaningful emissions reductions. It was one of the first programs Manchin killed; he said utilities were already moving quickly enough. The fee proposed on methane emissions went too, as did a whole host of other regulatory measures.

“What we’ve seen is that carrots are much easier to pass than sticks,” Dr. Leah Stokes, professor of political science at University of California at Santa Barbara and author of the book Shortcircuiting Policy, about the way utilities have influenced and controlled energy policy over the years, told me at the time. “It’s really hard to actually require change,” she adds. “It’s a lot easier to say, ‘Hey, if you’d like to go solar, cool! Here’s some money. But you know, you don’t have to. You want an EV? Sure, that’s great. But you know, you don’t have to get an EV. Everything is just kinda voluntary and that’s important. Don’t get me wrong. Carrots are really important. But the problem with climate change is that we actually have to move fast enough. We need everybody to be doing the right thing at the pace and scale that’s necessary.”

And therein lies the rub. Politicans are still treating climate change like, well, politics. In doing so they’re missing the one really key difference between this issue and every other issue they might address: time. If Washington fucks up on healthcare, people will die, it’s true. But we’re not locked into mass death year over year, compounding and increasing all the time with no way to stop it. A new policy could literally stop the bleeding from one day to the next. The same is not true of climate. A compromise today may well be smart politics, but it is also genocide. It is a choice to put corporate profits above human life, and not just the humans walking around right now but also those who will walk the Earth 50 years from now. It’s the sort of thing that makes me wonder all the time whether politics is just fundamentally incapable of meeting this challenge.

Which is not to say that doing something, anything isn’t always better than doing nothing. Every percentage of a degree matters, and despite the fact that this Act supports fossil fuel extraction alongside clean energy development, on the whole we will emit less than had Manchin proposed absolutely nothing. So, with our climate realist glasses on, let’s take a look at the details of this proposal, which Manchin and Schumer agreed to and announced on July 27, 2022, and which they say could be law as early as August 2022.

The Weeds

This is a 725-page bill, and I have not read every single page yet, so please if there are climate provisions lurking outside the “Energy Security” section give me a shout. The section begins on page 232, and it starts with “Clean Electricity and Reducing Carbon Emissions.” Here’s what it does (I’ve put ** next to provisions that were part of the original BBB climate proposal):
…….(>>>…continued, click here…)  [An EXTENSIVE listing of provisions follows, a thorough analysis of the bill’s pros and cons.  Excellent for a deep understanding.  – R.S.]

Manchin Poison Pills Buried in Inflation Reduction Act Will Destroy Livable Climate

Press Release by Brett Hartl, Center for Biological Diversity, July 28, 2022

WASHINGTON— A proposed climate and energy package would require massive oil and gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska, reinstate an illegal 2021 Gulf lease sale and mandate that millions more acres of public lands be offered for leasing before any new solar or wind energy projects could be built on public lands or waters.

The provisions, in sections 50264 and 50265, are buried near the end of the 725-page Inflation Reduction Act. The bill was released Wednesday after Sen. Joe Manchin and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced they had agreed to the $370 billion package.

“This is a climate suicide pact,” said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s self-defeating to handcuff renewable energy development to massive new oil and gas extraction. The new leasing required in this bill will fan the flames of the climate disasters torching our country, and it’s a slap in the face to the communities fighting to protect themselves from filthy fossil fuels.”

The bill would require the Interior Department to offer at least 2 million acres of public lands and 60 million acres of offshore waters for oil and gas leasing each year for a decade as a prerequisite to installing any new solar or wind energy. If the department failed to offer these minimum amounts for leasing, no right of ways could be granted for any utility-scale renewable energy project on public lands or waters.

In January a federal judge overturned the 80 million-acre Gulf of Mexico lease sale because Interior failed to address the climate harms from developing the leases. The additional Gulf of Mexico and Alaska lease sales mandated by the bill for 2022 and 2023 were part of a prior five-year leasing plan, but they did not occur.

The Inflation Reduction Act would require offering these minimum lease amounts for 10 years. That translates to more than 600 million acres of offshore leasing — four times the size of the entire Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf.

On average the fossil fuel industry has purchased for lease 1 million acres of land every year since 2009. By requiring 2 million acres per year to be offered for lease — an area the size of Yellowstone National Park — the legislation all but ensures that the fossil fuel industry will maintain current oil and gas production levels without any change for the next decade. U.S. emissions must be cut in half over the next nine years to have even a chance of avoiding catastrophic warming.

“More oil and gas leasing is completely incompatible with maintaining a livable planet, so we’re forced to fight this,” said Hartl. “This deal is unacceptable. If it passes, we’ll fight every single lease the Interior Department tries to approve. Our climate and the health of our communities depend on it.”

Passing new laws to mandate oil and gas leasing would fundamentally conflict with the Biden administration’s climate goals. Multiple analyses show climate pollution from the world’s already producing fossil fuel developments, if fully developed, will push warming past 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Avoiding such warming requires ending new investment in fossil fuel projects and phasing out production to keep as much as 40% of already-developed fields in the ground.

Fossil fuel production on public lands is responsible for about a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas pollution. Peer-reviewed science estimates that a nationwide federal fossil fuel leasing ban would reduce carbon emissions by 280 million tons per year, ranking it among the most ambitious federal climate-policy proposals in recent years.

Federal Regulation (U.S.), Positive Train Control, Rail industry lobby, Rail infrastructure

Senate Republicans pushing 3-year delay for rail safety System

Repost from the New York Times

Senate to Debate 3-Year Delay for Rail Safety System

By Michael D. Shear, July 23, 2015
An Amtrak Acela train in New York bound for Pennsylvania Station. Amtrak has said it will complete installation of an advanced safety system for its trains in the Northeast Corridor by the current December 2015 deadline. Credit David Boe/Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Two months after the high-speed derailment of an Amtrak train killed eight people and injured hundreds more in Philadelphia, a Senate transportation bill headed for debate this week calls for a three-year delay of the deadline for installing a rail safety system that experts say would have almost certainly prevented the Pennsylvania accident.

Lawmakers from the Northeast and train safety experts expressed outrage over the provision, which is included in the 1,000-page legislation to finance highway and transit projects for the next three years. Several lawmakers vowed to fight the extension of the deadline to install the safety system, called positive train control, beyond December 2015.

“It should be done immediately. There shouldn’t be an extension,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York. “Given the high number of accidents, and given the fact that P.T.C. is really effective, they should stick with 2015.”

Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, said he was “deeply disturbed about yet another delay in a potential safety measure” until December 2018 and said the provision in the transportation bill “essentially makes the deadline a mirage.”

In 2008, after decades of delay, lawmakers gave railroad companies, including Amtrak, seven years to complete installation of the safety system, which monitors the speed of trains and automatically slows them down if they approach curves at dangerously high speeds.

The Amtrak train that derailed in Pennsylvania was going 106 miles an hour, more than twice the speed limit, when it careened off the tracks.

Since the accident, Amtrak has said it will meet the existing deadline for installing and activating the safety systems in the busy Northeast Corridor. Craig S. Schulz, a spokesman for the railroad, said Thursday that Amtrak “remains committed” to making good on that promise.

But many railroads across the country still have not installed and activated the necessary equipment and would face federal fines and other mandates if they continued operating past Dec. 31 without it.

The transportation spending measure in the Senate would require railroads to submit plans to the secretary of transportation that include installation of positive train control by the end of 2018.

The willingness to give railroads more time is especially galling to lawmakers from the Northeast, where the Pennsylvania accident highlighted the dangers to millions of riders in the most heavily traveled train corridor in the nation.

Mark V. Rosenker, a former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates train accidents, said he was outraged by the provision and blamed railroads’ lobbyists for pressuring lawmakers to include it.

“Obviously, the railroad lobbyists have gotten to Congress,” Mr. Rosenker said. “We just had a horrible accident. People died and people ended up becoming paralyzed when that technology was available to the railroad. I am very disappointed.”

Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania, also commented on the timing of the proposal. “The idea that a provision to delay positive train control was slipped into this bill just a short time after the Amtrak 188 derailment is shocking and wrong,” he said. “Delaying P.T.C. is a bad idea, and this provision should be stripped out immediately.”

Officials at the Transportation Department are continuing to insist that railroads meet the current end-of-the-year deadline. And at the White House, the press secretary, Josh Earnest, spoke of concerns “about some of the safety provisions that are included in the bill” and said the administration would take a close look at those provisions.

But pressure is mounting in both parties to pass the transportation bill before the Highway Trust Fund runs out of money for road projects across the country. That could happen this summer if Congress does not approve a new long-term authorization for transportation spending. If the Senate passes its measure, it still must win passage in the House as well.

Several senators said concern about the rail safety provision could become a central part of the debate over the bill in the days ahead. Mr. Blumenthal said he disliked the language extending the deadline for railroads to install positive train control.

But in an interview, he said he might be able to accept a new deadline if Congress agreed to dedicate money from the Highway Trust Fund specifically for installation of the rail safety systems, especially for commuter train systems that are struggling to afford the equipment.

Mr. Blumenthal said he intended to propose amendments that would dedicate $570 million a year for three years to commuter-rail safety improvements. He said it was unclear whether Republicans, who control the Senate, would allow the amendments to be offered. And he said it was not certain how hard the Obama administration was willing to fight for them.

“I’m hoping they will lend the full weight of their authority,” he said. “It would make a difference.”

Backers of the deadline extension say they need it because the equipment is costly and time-consuming to install across thousands of miles of track.

They also say the provision gives the transportation secretary authority to reject railroad improvement plans on a case-by-case basis, which they said could leave some railroads subject to the current 2015 deadline. And they said the bill authorized the Transportation Department to prioritize money for rail safety even though it does not guarantee a specific amount of money to be spent from the trust fund.

Ed Greenberg, a spokesman for the Association of American Railroads, which represents freight and commuter systems, praised the provision, saying in a statement that it “sets a rigorous case-by-case framework with enforceable milestones that guarantees sustained and substantial progress, complete transparency and accountability, and a hard end date for full installation by 2018.”

But advocates of greater safety measures for trains said the railroads had been under orders to upgrade their safety systems for years and should have been able to meet the 2015 deadline, which was set by Congress after a California derailment in 2008 that killed 25 people.

Mr. Rosenker, who was acting chairman of the transportation safety board when the crash happened, said the seven-year deadline set by Congress after that crash should not be extended.

“Seven years, in my judgment, is a long time and an adequate time to do it,” he said. “The technology is out there. Let’s put it in.”

 

Bakken Crude, Crude By Rail, Emergency Readiness & Response, Homeland Security

Rep. Mike Thompson bill to study crude-by-rail security from terrorist threats

Repost from The Vallejo Times-Herald
[Editor: … as if risks of derailment and explosion weren’t enough to worry about…  – RS]

Legislation to enhance crude-by-rail safety passes House

Times-Herald staff report  |  06/05/2014

Following an increase in crude oil by rail to the Bay Area, Rep. Mike Thompson has authored legislation aimed at making it safer to transport the highly flammable cargo.

The legislation, which would require an assessment of domestic refinery and rail-related infrastructure, passed the House of Representatives last week by a bipartisan vote of 345 to 59.

It’s currently in the Senate.

“Public safety is the number one priority when we’re transporting and holding crude oil and other cargo through and in our communities,” Thompson said Thursday. “This legislation will let us know if threats exist and how we can fix them.”

Thompson’s district includes three refineries, including the Valero Benicia Refinery, which is seeking approval of a major crude-by-rail terminal. The project’s environmental impact report is due out next week.

Bakken crude from North Dakota, regarded as more flammable than other crudes, is part of the mix of increased crude-by-rail shipments to California. The legislation would require the Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis to conduct an intelligence assessment of the safety of refinery and crude-by-rail infrastructure. After the assessment is conducted, safety recommendations would be submitted to the House and Senate intelligence committees.