An often unexplored dimension of air quality issues, port communities have been disproportionately subjected to air pollution, but are now able to secure essential funding for port electrification and emissions-reduction through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act. This announcement from the EPA provides a guiding light for port officials to improve the health of their already-overburdened communities.

Learn more about our work to protect port communities from air pollution.

Terrance Bankston, Senior Ports and Freights Campaigner at Friends of the Earth, released the following statement:

We’re elated by the EPA’s decision to finalize a significantly stronger air quality standard that will better protect all Americans, especially port communities. Many Americans have been subjected to disproportionate health risks from air pollution via port operations for decades. The biggest offender has and continues to be soot pollution from port emissions. For LatinX residents, the exposure to soot pollution is 75% higher. For Black Americans, the risk of dying from soot pollution is the highest, with a rate of over triple that of White Americans.

Today, we celebrate the EPA’s choice to prioritize people and the planet. Tomorrow, the hard work continues as we urge port officials to take advantage of the $3 billion that will be available through the EPA’s Clean Ports Program to fund zero-emission port equipment and technology. As a follow up to today’s action taken by the EPA, ports must focus their attention on implementing funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. These bills create unique opportunities to support port emission-reduction efforts, which haven’t been prioritized historically. We encourage port stakeholders to use the EPA’s announcement as an opportunity to be on the right side of history.

Altorice Frazier, Executive Director and Community Organizer for Parents Engaging Parents New Jersey, said:

Parents Engaging Parents Inc. recognizes the critical strides made towards cleaner air with the EPA’s updated soot pollution standards. This progress reflects our mission to advocate for the health and well-being of all families, especially in Newark, New Jersey, where Black, Brown, and economically disadvantaged communities have faced longstanding disparities in environmental quality. The efforts of President Biden and EPA Administrator Regan to enforce stricter pollution controls align with our vision of a healthier, more equitable environment where children, regardless of their background, can play outside without the threat of asthma or other health risks. We celebrate this advancement towards reducing soot pollution but also acknowledge the need for ongoing action to ensure environmental justice. Consistent with our commitment to support parents and communities, we urge further policy enhancements to protect our air and health, guaranteeing everyone the right to clean air and a safe, vibrant community life.

Sharon Lavigne, Founder and Executive Director for RISE St. James in Louisiana, said:

Clean air is a fundamental right for all, so we appreciate this milestone change.  From the burning of fossil fuels to the bustling activity along ports, trains, the mighty Mississippi River, and the constant flow of big trucks throughout Cancer Alley, we find ourselves surrounded by pollutants.  This serves as a steppingstone, and we extend our heartfelt appreciation to President Biden and EPA Administrator Regan.  By reducing soot particles, health outcomes should also improve such as respiratory problems and cardiovascular diseases.

Jeffrey Richardson, Chairman for the Delaware Community Benefits Agreement Coalition in Wilmington, DE, said:

The announcement this week by the EPA that a lower level for Pm 2.5 has been established is objectively an improvement, as the previous level of 12 PM2.5, µg/m3 has been reduced to 9 PM2.5, µg/m3.  This is a step in the right direction. It must be tempered by the fact that the World Health Organization recommends a level of 5 PM2.5, µg/m3 . The new guidelines will provide port adjacent communities, like the ones in Wilmington Delaware, with another tool to address the damage of 100 years of port operations. There has been little regard to the concerns of community residents. This is a time for dramatic change on all environmental fronts and coordinated efforts to ensure that impacted communities actually receive the benefit of resources that have been allocated to clean the environment and specifically ports.

Paulina Lopez, Executive Director for the Duwamish River Community Coalition (DRCC) in Seattle, WA, said:

As a member of the Duwamish Valley in South Seattle, a near Port community, I am very grateful for this long overdue final rule towards clean and healthy air for overburdened communities with health inequities. We suffer from dangerous exposures to PM2.5.  Our community is one of the city’s most culturally and racially diverse neighborhoods and also the most overburdened with environmental pollution like black carbon and heavy metal concentrations.  We will be looking very closely at how our community meets revised standards and work with the Port of Seattle closely to move towards zero-emission technology to protect communities historically impacted by multiple pollution sources.

Communications contact: Erika Seiber, eseiber@foe.org

The post Environmental Justice Groups Celebrate EPA’s Decision to Raise Soot Standard appeared first on Friends of the Earth.

Terrance Bankston, Senior Ports and Freights Campaigner at Friends of the Earth and Environmental Justice Activist based in Newark, issued the following statement: 

Polluters who want a permission slip to perpetuate environmental inequalities and inequity must be checked at the door. It’s not surprising that New Jersey’s Environmental Justice Rule faces legal challenges by those who are most inconvenienced by it – that is, groups representing industries that want to expand facilities while poisoning our most disadvantaged communities. We will continue to advocate for this crucial legislation and ensure that permitting has strict regulations that protect our New Jersey communities from pollution and political bullying. 

Communications Contact: Erika Seiber, eseiber@foe.org

The post Friends of the Earth Condemns Legal Attack on New Jersey Environmental Justice Legislation appeared first on Friends of the Earth.

This is why it is vital that U.S. ports transition to zero-emission vehicles in order to greatly reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions. This shift will help align us with obligations under the Paris Agreement and national climate goals. Above all, it will provide much needed relief to portside environmental justice communities. 

Unfortunately, one of the biggest barriers for port electrification has been the cost of the transition. However, with federal funding provided by port-related provisions in the IRA and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), the time is now for ports to transition. 

$3 billion has been allocated in Clean Ports Investments as part of the IRA. These funds help port authorities purchase zero emission equipment or technology, assist in planning for these purchases, and aid in developing climate action plans in order to reduce air pollution. These additional provisions in the IRA could be applied to benefit port-adjacent communities. For the 2022 fiscal year, the Port Infrastructure Development Program (part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law), offered $450 million for ports to plan and execute projects that improve the safety, efficiency, reliability, and environmental performance of the movement of goods through and around ports. If the trend continues, we can expect a similar amount, if not more, for  fiscal year  2023. This fact sheet provides some examples of items and projects that PIDP can fund. 

There are plenty of ways in which funding from PIDP has been used to benefit U.S. ports. Some examples of projects include: the construction of on-site fuel cell facilities, the implementation of offshore wind infrastructure, the evaluation of resiliency and sustainability plans, and the purchases of electric equipment (electric cranes, drayage trucks, cargo-handling equipment, freight trucks, ferries, etc.) 

There is a path to a greener, safer future for shipping in the U.S. The technology for electrification exists and the funds for the transition are available. 

Port authorities simply cannot overlook the social and environmental importance of leveraging newly available federal funding to transition to green port operations now. 

The post Ports Need to Take Advantage of Inflation and Infrastructure Funding appeared first on Friends of the Earth.

Summary
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is many things at once: It makes Big Polluters pay more than they have in a generation; It is a doubling-down on the disastrous status quo for oil and gas leasing; It is an investment in renewables designed to support good paying jobs, domestic supply chains, and historically marginalized communities; And it is a lifeline to blue hydrogen, carbon capture, and other fossil fuel industry scams. The good and the bad all need to be considered together.

THE GOOD

Superfund Tax
The Superfund Program to remediate legacy contamination sites was always predicated on the simple principle that polluters should pay for their own messes. When the program was first established in 1980, this principle was reflected in the three taxes through which the program was funded: A per barrel excise tax on oil refiners, an excise tax on chemical producers, and a 0.12% income tax on polluting industries. Unsurprisingly, when the taxes all expired in 1996, the budget for the program began to shrink without a dedicated source of revenue. 
The situation changed in 2021, when the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill restored the tax on chemicals. Now, the IRA is proposing to restore and nearly double the tax on refiners from 9.4 cents per barrel to 16.9 cents, boosting funding for remediation and sending Big Oil an estimated tax increase of $11.7 billion. If the IRA becomes law, this will be the single biggest targeted tax increase on oil and gas since 2005.

National Green Bank
Sec. 60103 “Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund” provides nearly $30 billion for what advocates are dubbing a National Green Bank. This includes funds to states, municipalities, tribal governments, and certain nonprofits (that provide capital) which, in turn, will provide grants, loans, other forms of financial assistance, and technical assistance for zero emissions technologies and projects that reduce or avoid greenhouses gasses (GHGs), with a priority on low income and disadvantaged communities. 

In theory, these funds could support green financing by public banks that Friends of the Earth (FOE) and allies have been campaigning to establish in California and other states. Funds could also potentially support local Community Development Financial Institutions, which have been increasingly interested in funding projects that help low income and disadvantaged communities respond to climate change.

If enacted, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will administer the Fund. As with many aspects of the IRA, definitional and operational details will need to be encouraged, supported, and watchdogged.

Green Ports
The IRA includes billions of dollars in spending to lessen air pollution from port-related activities, thereby improving air quality and reducing climate-warming emissions. The main provision being $3 billion in Clean Ports Investment. These funds would be used to purchase zero-emission equipment or technology, plan for such purchases, or develop climate action plans in order to reduce air pollution at ports (Sec. 60102).

In addition, the following provisions could be applied to ports or port-adjacent communities:

• $1 billion for Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles grants and rebates for the purchase of zero-emission trucks (Sec. 60101)
• $60 million in Diesel Emissions Reduction funds to identify and reduce diesel emissions resulting from goods movement operations in low-income communities (Sec. 60104)
• $117.5 million to Address Air Pollution funding to deploy, integrate, support, and maintain various air monitoring stations (Sec. 60105)
• $50 million in Multipollutant Monitoring Stations grants to expand monitoring networks and to maintain existing monitors (Sec. 60105)
• $3 million in Air Quality Sensors in Low-Income and Disadvantaged Communities grants for air quality sensors in these communities (Sec. 60105)
• $50 million for Addressing Air Pollution at Schools funding to monitor and reduce air pollution at schools in low-income and disadvantaged communities (Sec. 60106)
• $3.045 billion for a Neighborhood Access and Equity Grant Program grants for community development (Sec. 60501)
• $5 billion for a Climate Pollution Reduction Grant Program funds for reducing greenhouse gasses (Sec. 60114)
• $3 billion for an Environmental and Climate Justice Grant Program community-focused funding to combat environmental and climate threats (Sec. 60201)

Renewable Energy
Renewable energy tax credits have existed in various forms for decades. Never permanent parts of the tax code and often extended temporarily as part of last minute deals, the 30% investment tax credit (ITC) for solar and the $15 per mwh production tax credit (PTC) for wind have nonetheless been the most generous and effective federal incentives for clean renewables. The IRA is poised to change this system significantly, and for the better.

The IRA would offer a decade of incentives for wind, solar, and storage technologies. Beginning in 2025, any zero-emission power source would be eligible to opt for a new “technology neutral” option with the opportunity to apply either the PTC or the ITC to new projects. Most important of all, it would create a new system of “adders” designed to steer the renewable energy economy towards justice. The full value of the credit will only kick in if projects are built with workers paid at the prevailing wage. If projects are constructed with inputs from US manufacturers or in historically marginalized communities, the value of the credit can be increased by an additional (and stackable) ten percent each.

Unfortunately, these new provisions to harness renewable tax credits for justice do not include the vital mechanism of direct pay. A tax credit worth $100 is only useful to someone with a tax bill of $100 or more. What direct pay does is allow for the value of the credit to be treated as a tax refund — in other words, as a direct infusion of cash.

Although direct pay featured prominently in versions of Build Back Better negotiated in 2021, it has been narrowed significantly in the IRA so that only entities without tax obligations like churches and co-ops can utilize it. This is certain to foster continued dependence on something called the tax equity market. In essence, financial institutions provide equity investments in eligible projects and in exchange claim the credits for themselves. The result is a handful of rentier Wall Street mega-banks delaying the deployment of wind and solar while netting a handsome tax windfall for themselves. This could have been prevented with a more robust commitment to direct pay–a possibility that Manchin himself foreclosed.

THIS SHOULD BE BETTER

Environmental Justice Provisions
The bill contains funding for environmental and climate justice activities. While fact sheets from the Senate Majority Leaders office calculates $60 billion in funding for Environmental Justice (EJ), other analyses by the Indigenous Environmental Network, the Climate and Community Project and the Just Solutions Collective calculate less funding. There are also definitional concerns in the bill over what qualifies as EJ funding as well as who is eligible to receive the funding. More broadly, with a generous accounting of $60 billion, there is deep disappointment that more resources are not available for communities that have been both deeply scarred by the fossil fuel economy and perpetually forgotten.

Additionally, we have deep concerns that the EJ provisions appear to provide a very limited spend down window for investments in low income and disadvantaged communities while fossil fuel, nuclear, and renewable provisions extend the entire length of the bill. 

Inadequate Leasing Reforms
The IRA contains a suite of economic reforms to the leasing program that FOE generally supports from a taxpayer fairness angle. However, pro-fossil fuel and centrist voices have argued that these economic reforms to the leasing program should replace efforts for comprehensive changes to the leasing program, which FOE adamantly opposes. 

Royalty Rates
The bill raises the minimum royalty rate for offshore oil and gas leases from 12.5% to 16.66%, with a cap at 18.75% while shallow water lease royalty rates would rise to at least 16.66%. Current royalty rates for deepwater leases are already at 18.75% and would be prevented from raising any further. While these adjustments begin to address taxpayer fairness issues, they are not nearly high enough to have any real impact on production or climate emissions. The text also attempts to limit the ability of the Interior Department (Interior) to raise rates further.

Rental Rates
Additionally, minimum rental rates would be raised to $3/acre per year for 2 years, $5/acre per year for 6 years, and $15/acre per year thereafter. Reinstated leases would have rental rates raised to $20/acre per year. Again, these changes begin to address taxpayer fairness issues, but are not sufficient to address climate concerns.

Noncompetitive Leasing
Currently, parcels of public lands that receive no bids during competitive auctions can be scooped up by industry for a little as $1.50 per acre. The IRA ends this practice, which will help stem the tide of public lands falling into the hands of industry and allow Interior to manage lands for other purposes. However, much of the land that is leased non-competitively has a low potential of actually being developed.

Methane Royalties
All leases will include an unspecified royalty on extracted methane. This will generate revenue and, when combined with EPA regulations, help discourage unmitigated flaring and methane pollution. However, there are exceptions for gas vented or flared in emergency situations, used or consumed within the area of the lease, or routine burn-off — coined as “unavoidably” lost by the industry.

Bonding Requirements
We are glad that the minimum bonding requirements, money companies must set aside before drilling to pay for cleanup, would be raised to $150,000 for individual, $500,000 for statewide, and $2 million for nationwide with an adjustment for inflation required at least every four years. This will help shift the burden for cleanup from taxpayers to industry.

THE BAD

Nuclear Energy
One of the most unfortunate provisions of the IRA is an industry-wide rescue of the country’s aging and increasingly uneconomical nuclear fleet. At an estimated cost in revenue of $30 billion over nine years, the bailout would take the form of a production tax credit (PTC) worth $15 per megawatt-hour (MWh) that would begin to phase out for reactor revenue above $25 per mwh.

This is some of the worst spent money in the entire bill for the simple reason that the nuclear industry already got a bailout in 2021. As part of Manchin’s bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), $6 billion was set aside for economically distressed reactors whose premature closure might increase emissions. Eligible reactors would be able to “bid” for subsidies to stay online and payments would be prioritized based on where operations could continue most cheaply. Although far from perfect, the policy is a fair answer to the nuclear question: Targeted, means-tested subsidies only when old nukes can’t be replaced quickly enough with new renewables.

In contrast, the PTC is a blatant cash grab likely to steer billions towards a handful of profitable corporations. It won’t reduce emissions and it likely won’t even prevent any imminent reactor closures. With the shuttering of Palisades in Michigan earlier this year and the planned retirement of the two reactors at Diablo Canyon in California, only two more reactors are even scheduled to be relicensed between now and 2028. Constellation and Energy Harbor, the biggest potential beneficiaries, will net billions, but no emissions increases will be prevented that existing policy couldn’t prevent more cheaply and efficiently.

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
The IRA would supercharge one of Big Oil’s favorite giveaways: The 45Q tax credit for carbon capture and sequestration. This subsidy will now award $85 per ton for underground storage and $60 per metric ton for enhanced oil recovery, a sharp increase from the current levels of $50 and $35 per ton, respectively. This expansion would occur without addressing the long pattern of 45Q fraud and the underlying uncertainty of carbon storage leaking. 

Perhaps most problematically of all, the new 45Q would establish weak requirements for qualifying projects. For example, in the power sector it requires a unit design capability of at least 75% capture. Since actual capture rates are commonly much lower than the touted maximum capability, this is a potentially major loophole. Arguably, utilities with CCS units within the qualifying design capacity would be incentivized to minimize any shortfall by the tax credit itself. However, the fact remains that the only way to ensure that 45Q only subsidizes CCS with at least 75% capture rate in real operating conditions is to require that CCS achieves that capture rate. This language did not happen by accident and shows that even fossil interests aren’t confident in the ability of CCS to meet even the already weak requirements of 45Q.

The standards for capture in the industrial sector are even weaker, only requiring a minimum  12,500 metric tons of capture with no minimum capture percentage. One of the biggest expected winners of this new low standard is the ethanol industry.

This highly subsidized liquid biofuel made predominantly from corn starch has long been a driver of harmful farming practices and the resulting product is often worse for the climate than gasoline. Despite this, ethanol producers are poised to rake in massive federal subsidies under the guise of being a ‘clean’ transportation fuel. Ethanol production is easier to pair with carbon capture, as it is substantially cheaper to capture some amount of carbon while producing ethanol than it is while burning fossil fuels. CCS in ethanol production costs between $25-35 per ton of carbon, meaning ethanol producers can cover their costs and still make up to $60 in pure profit off the 45Q tax credit. Biomass advocates included the 45Q changes in their victory lap about biofuel subsidies in IRA, and over 30 new ethanol CCS projects are in the wings, ready to cash-in on this credit. 

Hydrogen
The IRA includes a new $13 billion PTC for ‘clean’ hydrogen, an umbrella term that bundles hydrogen produced from fossil gas with CCS, renewables, nuclear, and biomass. Although the hydrogen PTC outlined in the IRA certainly subscribes to the erratic ‘all of the above’ philosophy that characterizes this bill, its structure is a moderate improvement over previous subsidies for “clean” hydrogen, including the billions in fossil-based giveaways Manchin included in last year’s bipartisan infrastructure bill. 

Crucially, the PTC requires a lifecycle analysis of the carbon intensity of hydrogen production, rather than the mere facility-level analysis required for Manchin’s $8 billion hydrogen hub program. However, the implementation of lifecycle analysis will likely not disqualify fossil-based blue hydrogen from the lowest tier of the subsidy. The upstream emission leakage of fossil gas is frequently underestimated in models, such as ANL’s GREET model which assumes a methane leakage rate of slightly over 1% rather than the more realistic 3.5%. Nevertheless, even with this underestimation of upstream emissions, blue hydrogen would have to achieve approximately 80% capture rates to qualify for the lowest tier of PTC, $0.12 per kg of hydrogen or $0.60 with the labor multiplier.

Renewably produced green hydrogen and nuclear pink hydrogen would likely qualify for the full PTC of $0.60 per kg of hydrogen or $3 per kg of hydrogen with the labor multiplier. This reverses the highly problematic equal treatment of green and blue hydrogen in Manchin’s earlier bipartisan bill — an approach that effectively skews the market towards the currently cheaper blue hydrogen technology, despite the dramatically better climate outcome from green hydrogen. The economics of the hydrogen PTC tiers will likely continue to shift in favor of green hydrogen over time if the Department of Energy (DOE) Hydrogen Shot (and other countries’ similar initiatives) successfully brings green hydrogen costs below $1 per kg in the next decade and if the volatility of fossil fuel prices continues to drive up the cost of blue hydrogen.

An important caveat is that blue hydrogen production will be able to qualify for either the PTC or 45Q. At first glance the PTC will be much more lucrative, allowing producers to earn up to $600 per metric ton of hydrogen. However, this will require high capture rates — approximately 80% capture — and must account for upstream and downstream leakages. A friendlier approach for blue hydrogen producers may be  the 45Q tax credit, which would allow a facility just barely ineligible for the PTC to claim as much as $0.50 per kg of hydrogen. Although less than the PTC, the barriers to entry for higher emitting blue hydrogen projects would be lower. This is because under 45Q the carbon intensity of the hydrogen would be irrelevant and to qualify producers would only need to reach the very low minimum annual capture requirement of 12,500 metric tons.  

In a notable deviation from the renewable tax credits, hydrogen and CCS will benefit from direct pay options. Project developers can opt for full direct pay for five years, then a gradual direct pay phase out over seven years. This makes hydrogen and CCS more attractive and accessible for project developers and operators — unlike with the renewable PTC. If the hydrogen PTC or the 45Q credit exceeds their tax liability, they are eligible for a tax refund. This is a clear favoring of fossil fuels over renewables.

Oil & Gas Leasing
Fossil fuel extraction on public lands accounts for nearly 25% of U.S. climate emissions. This is before we consider the impacts of emissions from offshore extraction. Overhauling the federal fossil fuel leasing program was one of the few actions President Biden could take without Congress to meaningfully reduce emissions from the oil and gas industry. The IRA attempts to tie the Biden administration’s hands by mandating sales move forward, including sales previously canceled by the administration, and attempts to validate leases from a sale that has been vacated by a federal court. This undermines public participation and our bedrock environmental laws. 

Perhaps most troubling is the way the IRA perpetuates the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska’s Cook Inlet as sacrifice zones. The IRA mandates reinstating offshore oil and gas leases on 1.7 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico, disregarding a court’s vacatur of the sale, and attempts to force additional sales forward in these two regions, where people of color and Indigenous peoples have been enduring harm from the fossil fuel industry for generations. The bill also fails to reinstate protections for the Arctic Refuge, which were included in previous packages. All of this injustice has been committed without any opportunity for feedback or input from impacted communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis. 

Perhaps most concerning is that the IRA ties the development of renewable energy on public lands and waters to the continued development of fossil fuel resources for the next decade. This faulty addition to the IRA has nothing to do with appropriations or spending, and should be uncoupled by the Parliamentarian prior to a vote. These disturbing provisions essentially mandate that renewables carry the fossil fuel industry on their back. Biden promised to end new fossil fuel leasing on public lands and waters. Congress is substantially delaying a just transition for impacted communities who have been living with the harms of fossil fuel production for generations. The IRA prohibits offshore wind development until Interior first holds an offshore oil and gas lease sale totaling at least 60 million acres. It also prohibits onshore renewable energy development until Interior has completed at least one offshore oil and gas lease sale within the previous quarter, and must be either less than 2 million acres or 50% of the land nominated by industry. Further, any acceptable bids must result in a lease being issued, undermining Interior’s ability to make decisions on the appropriate management of public lands.

“Permitting Reform” Side Deal
Behind closed doors, members of Congress are currently working up an additional bill that is closely connected to this package. This forthcoming bill is expected to streamline a slew of dirty energy projects, from pipelines to fossil fuel development, including gutting the full application of federal conservation laws like the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act. Not only would this place the climate and vulnerable ecosystems at substantial risk, but it would rob communities of their voice and role in the administrative process and decision-making. Even with renewable energy, this streamlined push is a dangerous one. We need to treat new technology with great care to ensure it’s done right. The bill would also attempt to expedite court processes, limit the court’s ability to provide adequate remedies for unlawful agency action, and undercut agencies ability to fully comply with court orders to correct unlawful action.

Regardless of what happens to the IRA, any and all attacks on our bedrock environmental laws must be defeated.

Agriculture

Summary
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) includes $20 billion in agriculture spending to mitigate climate change, including:

• $3.25 billion for the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). CSP pays farmers for implementing conservation activities like cover crops, rotational grazing, and transitioning to organic farming. Despite being the largest federal conservation program by acreage, it is heavily oversubscribed so increased funding, especially for conservation activities that mitigate GHG emissions, will help more producers participate in this effective program.
• $8.45 billion for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). EQIP is another voluntary conservation program that provides technical and financial support to producers implementing conservation practices. Unfortunately, a significant portion of EQIP funds support practices that do not reduce GHG emissions and fund highly polluting Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) that are actively making the climate crisis worse. Meanwhile, thousands of farmers applying for money for beneficial practices are turned away. If Congress does not focus this funding on effective practices and limit subsidies to CAFOs in the 2023 Farm Bill, this additional support for EQIP will have a mixed impact.
• $1 billion for the Natural Resources Conservation Service to provide technical assistance on conservation to producers. If focused on the most effective conservation practices, this additional funding could have a significant positive impact.
• $300 million to carry out a carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions quantification program. While quantifying the carbon sequestration and GHG reduction benefits associated with various practices is a good thing, the provision provides no guidelines for who can receive this money, opening the door for dubious projects led by large agribusinesses.
• $6.75 billion for the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), which is a dramatic increase to this program designed to address natural resource challenges at a regional scale. While additional funding could yield tremendous benefits, the IRA provisions could also allow USDA to set up carbon markets for methane and nitrous oxide emissions, a counterproductive measure.    

Unfortunately, the IRA also includes additional subsidies and tax breaks for so-called “biofuels” and “biogas” infrastructure, including support for factory farmed methane gas. Not only do biofuels compete with food production for land and water, they also increase fertilizer and pesticide use, water pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. In the case of biofuels generated from factory farms, these provisions provide yet another subsidy to CAFOs, further entrenching this unsustainable model of agriculture.

What’s Next
Our food and agriculture system accounts for around a third of global greenhouse gas emissions and is the largest source of U.S. methane emissions. Increased conservation spending (as envisaged in the IRA) is critical to curtail agriculture-related GHG emissions and achieve U.S. climate goals. However, unless this new funding is spent on effective conservation practices, coupled with adequate oversight and guardrails, these programs could actually do more harm than good. To ensure these investments have the intended effect, Congress must:

• Require that USDA prioritize conservation funding for high-impact ecological management practices (e.g. cover cropping, nutrient management, filter strips, and conservation tillage) that have been found to be most effective in reducing GHG emissions, air and water pollution;
• Prevent USDA from setting up carbon markets, which generate negligible climate benefits while allowing industry to continue polluting and harming frontline communities;
• Prevent conservation subsidies from going to CAFOs other than to support a transition to well-managed pasture-based animal production or production of plant-based foods; and
• Insofar as conservation subsidies go to CAFOs, impose safeguards such as requiring recipients of funding to limit herd size expansion and adopt the best available technologies to mitigate pollution from CAFOs.

The post The Climate & Agriculture provisions of the IRA appeared first on Friends of the Earth.

Air pollution from large container ports has been a historically neglected environmental justice issue. Near-port communities tend to be communities of color, low-income, or otherwise disadvantaged and are disproportionately exposed to pollutants. While there have been significant efforts to reduce emissions from the transportation sector, efforts to reduce emissions at ports have been slow and far behind other industries. However, as the harms of environmental injustices are increasingly recognized, port emissions have received heightened focus.  

Port operations release high amounts of climate change-causing greenhouse gases (GHGs), as well as particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), which are known to have negative human health impacts, among other pollutants. Particulate matter is the mixture of small airborne particles, such as dust, soot, and liquid droplets. Both coarse particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) are known to cause respiratory health problems and can lead to premature death.1 Fine particulate matter accounts for between 85,000 and 200,000 premature deaths in the U.S. each year2 and a recent scientific study found that people of color are exposed to disproportionately high levels of PM2.5 from nearly all major emissions sources.  

A 2020 study conducted in Newark, NJ  found that communities located adjacent to ports, high-density truck and bus routes, and related infrastructure experience higher levels of diesel truck traffic as well as higher pollutant exposure, exacerbating health concerns. The study found that non-roadway sources, particularly ports, were the dominant contributor of PM2.5 emissions; port operations and rail yards were responsible for around 85% of PM2.5 and black carbon exposure.  

Reducing emissions from roadway sources (e.g., trucks) could meaningfully reduce exposure to pollutants in the study areas near roadways, but when assessed across the entire study area, focusing on roadway emissions would only reduce emissions exposure by one to two percent, due to the magnitude of port and rail yard emissions exposure. This study demonstrates the outsized impact ports have on local air pollution and near-port communities, but efforts can be taken to reduce port air emissions and create a cleaner environment for near-port communities, while also mitigating the impacts of GHGs and climate change.  

Expanding the use of renewable energy and moving toward electrification of port operations are  making inroads at ports across the country. Yet air emission reduction efforts at the top ten container ports in the US (by TEU) vary significantly. Of the top ten U.S. container ports, eastern and southern ports tend to be far behind those on the west coast, with the Port of New York and New Jersey as a possible exception. Lagging ports can look to the west coast ports as examples for emissions reductions they could achieve through implementing renewable and electrification initiatives.  

The first step in understanding port emissions is conducting an emissions inventory at regular intervals. An emissions inventory is a comprehensive assessment of air emissions of pollutants and their sources, which can be used to understand baseline emissions and track progress over time. For example, the Port of Los Angeles (LA) conducts an annual emissions inventory that tracks emissions of eight pollutants (e.g. PM10, PM2.5, NOx, etc.) from five different port sources (ocean-going vessels, harbor craft, cargo handling equipment, locomotives, and heavy-duty vehicles).  

The Port of LA has conducted annual emissions inventories since 2005. In 2019, the most recent inventory available, the Port had reduced PM2.5 emissions 86% from 2005 levels across all sources. Of the top ten U.S. container ports, only the Port of Savannah has not completed an emissions inventory in the past 10 years or have a plan to complete one in the future.  

With an emissions inventory to understand port air emissions, ports can then create long-term goals to reduce emissions. The Northwest Ports Clean Air Strategy (Strategy) lays out a vision for four Northwest port entities to phase out emissions from seaport-related activities by 2050.  

The Strategy was first adopted in 2008, and progress is documented annually. In 2016, the four port entities had collectively reached their 2020 emissions targets, significantly reducing their port-related air pollution since the baseline year of 2005. While only one of the top ten container ports does not have a recent or ongoing emissions inventory, the Port of Virginia, the South Carolina Ports Authority, and the Georgia Ports Authority all lack a long-term strategic plan for emissions reductions. 

The combined efforts of an air emissions inventory and a long-term strategic plan for emissions reductions have led to west coast ports notably reducing their port-related air pollution. With or without an emissions inventory or a long-term plan, there are several measures ports can carry out to achieve reductions in air emissions 

Clean Trucks 

Replacing old, inefficient diesel trucks with newer, cleaner trucks is one way to reduce diesel emissions. Drayage trucks, trucks that transport containers and bulk freight between the port and other near-port facilities, are of particular concern. These trucks can have major impacts on nearby communities, particularly through the use of residential streets.  

In 2008, as part of the San Pedro Bay Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP), the Ports of LA and Long Beach launched a Clean Truck Program to phase out the oldest, dirtiest trucks serving port terminals by banning trucks older than 2007 engine model year. The 2016 emissions inventories for the ports showed that truck-related diesel particulate matter emissions had decreased 97% since 2005, and to date the Clean Truck Program has reduced air pollution from harbor trucks by more than 90%. Of the top ten U.S. container ports, all but Jacksonville (JAXPORT) have implemented some form of clean truck incentive program or have utilized federal grant funding to purchase cleaner trucks. 

Vessel Shore Power 

Vessel shore power is the ability for marine vessels to plug into the local electricity grid while at berth, allowing ships to turn off their auxiliary diesel engines. According to the NWSA, “for a ship that is at the dock for 40 hours, [shore power] avoids burning about ten metric tons of marine gas oil (diesel fuel for ships) and avoids emitting about 32 tons of CO2 and 22 pounds of diesel particulate matter.”  

The TOTE Terminal in Tacoma, WA has had shore power installed since 2010, and the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma have been expanding their shore power capabilities with a goal of 100% of their major cruise and container berths to have shore power installed by 2030. While shore power can achieve beneficial emissions reductions, it requires landside infrastructure for vessels to connect to the local electric grid as well as shipside power modifications. Only five of the top ten U.S. container ports currently have shore power capabilities. 

Electrification of port infrastructure 

Ports can also move toward electrification of infrastructure such as cargo handling equipment. Cargo handling equipment is any motorized equipment used for routine maintenance and function of port activities (e.g., rubber-tired gantry cranes (RTGs), container handlers, terminal tractors). The Port of Long Beach has received $80 million in total grant funding for six projects to demonstrate zero emissions equipment and advanced energy systems in port operations. One of these projects includes 12 battery-electric yard tractors and nine fully electric RTGs, the nation’s largest deployment of fully electric RTGs at a single terminal; RTGs make up only 5% of the terminal fleet, but account for up to 20% of equipment emissions. While these types of equipment may not be numerous or top of mind when thinking about port emissions, electrification of these operations can lead to notable emissions reductions. 

Supporting renewable energy on-site

Although not directly related to port equipment operations, ports can support renewable energy through installation of renewable energy infrastructure on-site. For example, the Port of Seattle has installed four solar arrays on port properties, demonstrating the port’s commitment to developing renewable energy and achieving their goal to meet all increased energy needs through conservation and renewable sources. One of these solar arrays is designed to generate approximately 120,000 kilowatt hours annually, which will offset greenhouse gas emissions by about 2.0 to 2.5 metric tons of CO2 and save $10,000 in energy costs per year.  

Conclusion 

Purchasing and implementing low- and zero-emissions technology requires overhauling sizable amounts of existing infrastructure. Unfortunately, building out this infrastructure is not cheap – the Port of Long Beach has completed more than $185 million worth of dockside power hookups and other infrastructure for vessel shore power alone. 

Thankfully, the federal government has funded grant programs, such as the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Program, that can be used to fund port emission reduction projects. In addition to existing grant funding mechanisms, there is movement within Congress to create new grant programs and additional funding to implement these types of initiatives at ports. 

The Climate Smart Ports Act (CSPA), introduced by Representative Barragán (D-CA), would establish the Climate Smart Ports Grant Program to award grants to eligible entities to purchase, and as applicable install, zero emissions port equipment and technology, and would authorize $10 billion over ten years for the program. Additionally, there is movement within the Biden Administration for port infrastructure. The American Jobs Plan would invest an additional $17 billion in inland waterways, coastal ports, land ports of entry, and ferries, including a Healthy Ports program to mitigate the cumulative impacts of air pollution on near-port communities. 

If the Biden Administration and environmental groups are serious about addressing environmental justice concerns, port air emissions and their impact on near-port communities cannot be overlooked. Ports have the ability and technology to reduce air emissions from their operations, but it will take money and public pressure for more ports to actually implement these technologies and initiatives. 

Implementing the mentioned programs will help mitigate climate change and impacts to environmental justice communities that are disproportionately harmed by air pollution. There is now greater momentum than ever to make sweeping changes at U.S. ports.  

The post US Ports Poorly Address Environmental Justice Concerns appeared first on Friends of the Earth.