Let’s Bring Health Into the Climate Policy Debate

The Trump administration is continuing its overhaul of federal pollution restrictions by rolling back Obama-era strictures on coal-burning power plants. The EPA’s proposed Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE) would effectively repeal and replace Obama’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) and comes just weeks after the EPA released its plans to freeze fuel economy standards. The ACE rule establishes guidelines for states to use when developing plans to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at their power plants and defines “the best system of emission reductions” as on-site heat-rate improvements (HRI), which is a policy option to reduce the amount of heat required to produce one kilowatt-hour of electricity. The proposed rule also takes aim at the New Source Review program, which requires power plant operators to undergo EPA preconstruction reviews when they propose modifications to existing facilities that would result in a significant increase in a regulated pollutant.

It should come as no surprise that these modest guidelines and the loosening of the New Source Review program will be seen as  a lifeline to the coal industry, with some arguing the changes will lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions over the course of a year. By rolling back regulations for transportation and now the power sector, the two largest contributors of carbon emissions, the Trump administration has shown little regard for the costs associated with climate change.

What is arguably of greater concern, however, is the effect of forgoing the ancillary cobenefits that would be achieved alongside deeper reductions in GHG emissions, such as reductions in nontargeted pollutants improving air quality and public health. Most notably, reductions in CO2 emissions result in lower concentrations of PM2.5, a pollutant with well-documented health and environmental impacts.

A review of the cobenefits literature and the monetized net benefits of a range of climate-related policies will help to put the impact of the ACE rule in context.

Cobenefits of HRI and CPP

The health cobenefits of climate policies are well-studied. I’ve previously written about an analysis of three separate policy scenarios. It demonstrated that less stringent climate policies, such as the proposed ACE rule, have significantly fewer cobenefits than more stringent policies such as the Clean Power Plan it will replace (let alone a meaningful carbon tax scheme). That Harvard-Syracuse study found that if coal-fired plants were to achieve heat-rate improvements similar to the ones being proposed in the ACE rule, the result would be a modest increase in average annual PM2.5 and peak ground-level ozone concentrations, resulting in a slight increase in premature deaths from heart attacks relative to the reference case. The reference case uses energy demand projections from the Annual Energy Outlook for 2013, and assumes EPA clean-air policies are fully implemented but not changed (either with Obama’s CPP or with ACE).  The study concluded that heat-rate improvements would result in an additional 10 premature deaths per year, as coal-fired plants would work more efficiently but also increase their output. By contrast, it found that over 3,000 premature deaths could be avoided with a carbon tax or CPP policy.

The realized benefits of decreased air pollution are mainly decreases in premature deaths, fewer heart attacks, and fewer hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory issues. The authors of the Harvard-Syracuse study monetized the cobenefits associated with the policy scenario that mimicked the Clean Power Plan. Their analysis found that most counties in the United States gained at least $1 million in annual cobenefits from improved air quality within the implementation year of the policy, and that the value of health cobenefits alone would exceed the costs of the policy in all regions of the country but the Pacific Northwest by 2030.

Climate and Health Cobenefits of ACE

As the Harvard-Syracuse study demonstrated, less stringent heat-rate improvements, similar to the ones in the ACE rule, achieve the smallest amount of cobenefits and would lead to an increase in premature deaths per year. In fact, the results of the Harvard-Syracuse study parallel the findings in the EPA’s own Regulatory Impact Analysis of the ACE rule. The EPA’s own models predict that the heat-rate improvements in ACE would significantly increase emissions of CO2 , sulfur dioxide,, and nitrogen oxides  when compared to the base case of the Clean Power Plan, and would decrease those pollutants modestly relative to no CPP at all.

The proposed rule presents several different pathways states could choose to regulate coal-fired power plants. Under the pathway that the EPA considers most likely, the agency estimates that increases in PM2.5 alone will result in as many as 1,400 premature deaths annually by 2030, and up to 16,000 new cases of upper-respiratory problems.

The impact analysis of the ACE rule includes a section that monetizes the climate benefits and health cobenefits of the proposal. Climate benefits are the direct effects on global warming of reducing CO2, while the health cobenefits are the result of indirect reductions in nontargeted pollutants via reductions in CO2. The analysis reports negative values, which represent forgone benefits, in parentheses. Positive values represent benefits realized by the policy.

Source: Regulatory Impact Analysis for the ACE rule

The table shows the monetized benefits realized under the ACE proposal when compared to the base case of the Clean Power Plan. All estimated benefits are negative, indicating that each of the policy scenarios yield forgone climate benefits, as well as forgone ancillary health cobenefits.

Although total monetary values of the climate and health cobenefits of the ACE rule may be negative, an understanding of the net benefits of the policy is more telling, as it allows policymakers to understand how the monetary benefits compare to the compliance costs of the proposal. The analysis predicts that the ACE rule will have positive net benefits of up to $3.4 billion per year between 2023-2037 when compared to the Clean Power Plan, and $2 billion relative to the no-CPP, alternative baseline. However, this finding of positive net benefits applies  in only one of the three HRI policies that the ACE rule proposes, and only accounts for the domestic climate benefits achieved through reductions in the targeted pollutant (CO2). Including the impacts that the ACE rule will have on health cobenefits significantly changes the net benefits that the proposed policy is expected to deliver.

Source: Regulatory Impact Analysis of ACE Rule

The table above represents the present value, as well as the equivalent annualized value, of the estimated costs, benefits, and net benefits, inclusive of ancillary health cobenefits, relative to the base case of the CPP. In this analysis, the net benefits of every policy scenario proposed by the ACE rule are negative.

Maximizing Cobenefits Through Flexibility and Accountability

The weak emissions reductions suggested by the ACE rule will do almost nothing to stem CO2 emissions. The EPA’s own assessment of the ACE rule suggest that the increases in premature deaths, the serious health impacts, and the negative welfare costs to society make it a hard policy to defend. The inclusion of monetized cobenefits in their policy analysis demonstrates that simply reducing compliance costs will not translate to welfare gains for the overall society.

The hesitation about enacting stringent climate policy is due to the fact that the economic costs of deep CO2 reductions are borne immediately, while the benefits are uncertain and accrue for generations to come. However, accounting for the health cobenefits when analyzing climate policy justifies immediate and meaningful reductions of CO2. These health cobenefits are widespread and can immediately improve the well-being of communities who bear the costs of climate action. They should be counted against the costs of environmental regulation or carbon pricing. Incorporating these health cobenefits into policy impact analysis is necessary in order to truly account for the costs and benefits of climate action.

The post Let’s Bring Health Into the Climate Policy Debate appeared first on Niskanen Center.

from nicholemhearn digest https://niskanencenter.org/blog/lets-bring-health-into-the-climate-policy-debate/

What You Need to Know About the Proposed Rule on Family Detention

Last Friday, the departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and Health and Human Services (HHS) officially published a proposed regulation altering the way immigration authorities detain families and children who enter the United States without legal status—like asylum seekers. By nullifying and replacing the Flores Settlement, the administration can accomplish two goals: legally detaining families together indefinitely and relaxing the standards for the places they are detained, even for unaccompanied children.

Since the late 1990s, the way we treat minors, unaccompanied children, and families at the border has been governed largely by a court agreement known as the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA) and number of conforming regulations. At the time of the enactment of the FSA, the now-defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service handled all individuals encountered at the border.

Now, DHS, HHS, and the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) all share responsibility for entrants, depending on factors like age, legal status, and whether they are alone or traveling with parents or guardians. Rules governing the agencies come from a variety of sources in addition to the FSA, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). Complicating matters, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA) and William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA) also include provisions regarding the way we treat children and families encountered at the border.

At a high level, the breakdown of current responsibilities based on individual is depicted below:

The Flores Settlement agreement was used primarily to protect children who arrived at the border without their parents, but was expanded to include children who arrived with their parents in 2015, thus imposing strict detention, care, and release parameters on the government to ensure minors are not detained for more than 20 days.

The Trump administration’s grumbling response to the relatively high standards imposed by FSA and subsequent anti-trafficking and national security laws intended to protect children and families encountered at the border was to institute a “zero tolerance” policy meant to scare away potential asylum applicants by manipulating the laws to separate parents from their children.

The response was weeks of public outrage over the policy of separating children from their parents at the border and a lack of evidence supporting the administration’s claims that there is rampant asylum fraud. Despite ongoing lawsuits, there are still children younger than 5 years of age who are in custody as of September 6, 2018 according to the joint status report filed in court:

According to the text of the proposed rule, the purpose of the 200+ pages of changes is to terminate the FSA, but also preserve its guiding principle that the “Government treats, and shall continue to treat, all juveniles in its custody with dignity, respect, and special concern for the particular vulnerability.” But given the administration’s shameful track record when it comes to dealing humanely with children and families seeking asylum in the United States, many immigrant advocates are looking to the rule with suspicion, and rightfully so.

The proposed rule quite clearly lays out the administration’s ongoing effort to break down FSA protections and relax all oversight standards in two overarching ways:

1. Keeping more children detained longer and reducing the number of children who benefit from extra protections by virtue of status as an “unaccompanied minor

The proposed rule allows an immigration officer to classify a child encountered at the border as either a minor or an unaccompanied minor (UAC). The distinction is an important one—the proposed rule allows the indefinite detention of minors. Families waiting for a court date for a final decision on a positive credible fear determination can wait years.

UACs are generally afforded significantly more rights than a minor, like the ability to leave government custody to live with a relative. The proposed rule limits who a UAC can be placed with by removing the reference to relative, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, and grandparent, and replaces it with parent or legal guardian. Under the auspices of protecting children from potential tracking, the effect of the change will undoubtedly be the extended detention of UACs.

Further, by cutting off status as a UAC once a child reaches the age of 18—as the new rule proposes doing—their legal status becomes extremely tenuous. It is unknown whether an 18-year-old UAC can remain with their sponsor or whether they have to go to a detention facility while they wait for a court date for their asylum claim.  

For minors encountered with their parents, the proposed rule removes the authority of an accompanying parent or legal guardian to swear out an affidavit designating a person to take custody of the child while the parents remain in detention, meaning that child must remain with them in detention, as opposed to living in the United States with a grandparent or uncle.

By expanding the definition of “emergency” circumstances and when the government is experiencing an “influx” of individuals at the border allows the government to bypass safety standards and potentially the basic needs of children and adults. Given that we have been at “influx” levels for years—and the rule does not propose changing the level—excuses for more lax safety standards will become commonplace.

Finally, by unraveling the rights of minors and UACs in the FSA, the government proposes giving all juveniles a telephone call and literature about their legal rights, but no provisions are made for exceptionally young children who cannot read or write or those who don’t speak English.

2. Weakening standards for detention facilities

Currently, the FSA governs conditions of facilities where children are detained, and requires licensure from an appropriate state agency. The proposed rule suggests that the licensure requirements are too arduous on the state level, and contends that federal licensure should be adequate to provide “materially identical assurances about the conditions of the facility, and thus to implement the underlying purpose of the FSA’s licensing requirement.”

The proposed rule does not lay out the conditions that it would deem satisfactory for federal licensure as a family detention facility, but does propose the requirement on DHS to hire an auditor to ensure compliance with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention standards. Of course, there has been significant concern in the past about the conditions of ICE detention facilities, including allegations of physical and sexual assault, a lack of food and water, freezing and hot temperatures, and a lack of medical care.

The FSA also specifies that children are kept in non-secure facilities, and although the agreement does not define the term, it is meant to allow children to roam relatively freely and play outside. The proposed rule suggests defining “non-secure” by defining what a secure facility isn’t. Provided the facility does not provide a 24-hour living setting that prohibits “delinquent” children from voluntary egress in the building through internal or exterior locks or from the premise through secure, perimeter fencing, it is non-secure. The definition effectively allows the government significant latitude in type of facility they can legally detain children—who have committed no crime— within.

When detained together, as a family unit, children may also be subjected to secure facilities—like jails—if they are “unacceptably disruptive,” are an “escape risk,” or for nonviolent offenses like vandalism or intimidating others. For the purposes of clarity, DHS proposes not defining the list of offenses that might subject a child and their family to be detained in a secure facility. The new rule would also allow a child to remain in a secure facility if an alternative was not “available or appropriate,” leaving open a number of questions about oversight and enforcement of standards.

It seems that the administration is looking for a way to authorize the secure detention of minors. In addition to those listed above, the proposed rule also allows for the secure detention of UACs if ORR determines that while in the presence of an immigration officer, a child commits a chargeable offense. Given the administration’s zero tolerance policy, this could include crossing the border, even to seek asylum, or being unlawfully present in the United States.

Finally, the administration proposes significantly more lax standards regarding the transfer of minors from one facility or another, which can take many long hours, including suggesting that whenever “operationally feasible” the government will “make every attempt” to “transport and hold UACs separately from unrelated adults.” In fact, the rule allows DHS to house a UAC with an unrelated adult for more than 24 hours in emergencies.

Up Next

The most important thing missing from this rule are adequate protections for children. Not only does the rule not add protections, it takes away administrative processes meant to protect children—like the right to a bond hearing. When children as young as 2 years of age must represent themselves in court, it is critical that we ensure that they have more adequate protections until we can provide each of them counsel. We need significant oversight of processes and monitoring standards that are currently inadequate, and will be even further degraded by this rule.

It’s important to remember that this is a proposed rule, so the public has 60 days—until November 6, 2018—to offer official comments asserting alternative facts or presenting information about specific aspects of the rule that the government must consider and address prior to the final rulemaking process.

In the meantime, we can also expect challenges to an unsympathetic court over the administration’s compliance with the current standards, and we can certainly expect challenges to a final rule in the future.

For more information about submitting a comment, click here.

The post What You Need to Know About the Proposed Rule on Family Detention appeared first on Niskanen Center.

from nicholemhearn digest https://niskanencenter.org/blog/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-proposed-rule-on-family-detention/

11 Important Tips When Leasing Warehouse Space

Warehouse and Industrial space can range from storage and manufacturing to distribution.  Each Industrial property you consider will have it’s own requirements and obligations so make sure you understand the use of the facility and ask the owner, landlord, and listing agent lots of questions to ensure the space meets your needs.

Below are a few things you should consider when leasing Warehouse or Industrial space:

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) – The majority of Industrial buildings are not delivered with full building HVAC.  If they choose to have it each tenant is responsible for the installation of their own HVAC unit.  In a lot of cases you end up leasing a space that was previously leased by someone else and they had installed and used an HVAC unit.  Because you don’t know if that tenant properly maintained the unit try to avoid assuming responsibility of a potentially neglected unit.

Negotiate with the landlord that you will pay for an HVAC maintenance contract to keep the existing HVAC unit property maintained, however if the unit needs a major repair or replacement the landlord should be responsible.  Before signing the lease always require that the landlord have the HVAC units inspected and repaired (if needed) and certified in writing that they are in good working condition by a certified HVAC technician.

Operating Expenses (aka NNN) – Make sure you understand what is and what is not included in the operating costs and what can be excluded (e.g. roof repairs).  Operating costs typically include taxes, insurance, and maintenance.  You need to know what the landlord is going to pay for and what you will be responsible for.

Square Footage – Some landlord calculate the square footage differently.  Make sure you know how they are doing their calculations and what they are including.  Ideally you only want to pay for your usable square footage which is the actual space you occupy.  Some landlords will try to include the area beneath the buildings drip lines and some will choose to calculate from the outside of the wall vs the middle or inside.

Parking Area – Parking lots require maintenance (asphalt or concrete) and some landlord’s try to make the tenants pay for that.  Repairs and maintenance should be the landlord’s responsibility because is a long term expense and part of future property value calculations.  What is the use of the parking?  Who will be using it the most?  Do you need to be able to park trucks or vehicles overnight?  If so make sure you have the ability to.

Zoning – Make sure the Industrial or warehouse property is zoned for your intended use.  Some retail tenants (e.g. martial arts) like the idea of leasing an industrial property because the lease rates are cheaper than retail.  However if the property is not zoned for retail use they will not be able to lease it……unless they or the landlord is willing to apply for a zoning change.  You also want to make sure the buildings parking ratio (spaces per 1000 sf) is sufficient for you.  If you need more then consider another building or look at retail space.

Maintenance of the property – Make sure you know what the landlord is responsible for and what you will be responsible for.  Trash will typically be at your expense.

Loading areas – Will you have products delivered or picked up via 18 wheeler or UPS type trucks?  If so then you will need dock high loading and a truck court big enough for 18 wheelers to maneuver.  Do you need the ability to drive trucks or other vehicles into the warehouse?  If so then you need grade level loading.  Whatever the case make sure you ask if the Industrial property has what you need or if the landlord is willing to install what you need.  Trailers and trucks used to be 45 ft +/- however these days they are 60 ft +/-.  What that means is you need at least a 120′ turning area.  Older Industrial properties may not be able to accommodate this.

Electric – Make sure the Industrial properties have electrical power sufficient for your needs.  Do you need 3 phase power?  If you or the landlord does not know what is available then hire an electrician or electrical engineer to evaluate the building.  You want to make sure the building has sufficient amperage and power so you don’t blow transformers or find out it’s underpowered later on.

Ceiling Height – Make sure you ask how high the ceilings are.  If you plan on stacking products or equipment or operating large equipment you want to make sure you know how high you can go.  Heights typically range from 18 ft to 25 ft

Expansion options – Ask the landlord if any adjacent tenants have renewal options.  If you plan on expanding later on it would be nice to know if you have the ability to do so.  If your neighbors have an expansion option on your space then negotiate to have the landlord move you at the landlords cost.

Floor Load – What is the floor load for the concrete slab vs what your intended use will be?

These are just a few things you should carefully evaluate before signing an Industrial or Warehouse lease.  If you have any questions about industrial space for rent in Austin or would like to discuss with us don’t hesitate to contact us!

 

Related Images:

[See image gallery at www.austintenantadvisors.com]

Questions To Ask Landlord Before Leasing Industrial & Warehouse Space

Leasing industrial or warehouse space will be one of your biggest operating expenses so before you sign on the dotted line it’s important to ensure that the warehouse space will meet your business needs and that you know who is responsible for what. For example when negotiating Austin warehouse space for lease tenants are typically responsible for the repair and maintenance of the HVAC units.  Your needs are more than likely different than the next company, however below are a few questions (based on your needs) that you should get the answers to (in writing) before signing a lease.

1. What total monthly lease rate are you quoting?  Please provide me with your quoted base and operating expenses (nnn).
2. Is there any common area factor that I have to pay for or do I just pay for the actual usable square footage of the space?
3. Who pays for electric and water?
4. What all is included in the base rent as well as the operating expenses (nnn)?
5. Does the space have an over head door or loading area?  If so is it grade level or dock high?
6. Is there room for delivery trucks to pick up and deliver my products?  For example can an 18 wheeler back up to my space?
7. I need to make sure I can receive and ship products.  Can you superimpose a WB-67 template on the properties site plan?
8. How high are the ceilings in the warehouse?
9. Does the warehouse have HVAC or is it hot?
10. Who pays for the maintenance, repair, and/or replacement of the HVAC unit(s)?
11. What are my signage opportunities?
12. Am I required to install signage?
13. What type of power is avaialable on the premises?
14. What is the zoning of the property?
15. Are you willing to pay for any tenant improvements?
16. Who are the other tenants that lease warehouse space on your property?
17. Am I allowed to park vehicles over night?
18. What is the parking ratio of your property?
19. What phone and internet providers service your property?
20. How long of a lease term do you require?

How to Find Out Who Owns a Property or House

Finding out who owns a property is as easy as finding your property tax rate or the deed history. Most counties have an online property search data base that allows you to search for property information by address, owner name, etc. If you are in a rural county you may have to go to the local tax assessor’s office or public library to search paper records. Using Travis Central Appraisal District as an example below is how to find the property owner of a house or commercial real estate.

Steps to Finding the Property Owner

1. Go the Travis Central Appraisal District Website

2. Enter the Address in the Property Search Option Box

3. Click on the View Details Link of Property You’re Searching For

4. Under the Property Tab You See the Owner name & mailing address

A Guide to Answering Ten Commonly Asked Questions on Immigration

Only in America is there a deeply resonant story of being a nation of immigrants, but it is increasingly difficult given the misinformation that abounds in the media to see how the whole country wins when we harness the amazing achievements and strengths of immigrants.

The nation’s immigration debate centers on immigrants’ impact on our culture, security, and economy. We need not justify immigration policy solely by tugging at voters’ heartstrings with humanitarian narratives, and we need not assume that concerns about national security are driven by anti-immigrant narratives.

Lawmakers have a unique opportunity to use evidence and pragmatism to communicate that immigrants assimilate into American culture, help protect the United States from terrorists, and contribute to our economy.

This guide is intended to help answer common questions about immigration using economic and national security facts. Read it here.

The post A Guide to Answering Ten Commonly Asked Questions on Immigration appeared first on Niskanen Center.

from nicholemhearn digest https://niskanencenter.org/blog/a-guide-to-answering-ten-commonly-asked-questions-on-immigration/

Lighting a Path to Precision Medicine

Today the Niskanen Center released a new research paper — Lighting a Path to Precision Medicine: Regulatory and Policy Implications of Optogenetic Technology — looking at the emerging science and potential commercial applications of optogenetics. Using light-activated proteins (opsins) embedded in certain cells, optogenetics allows for targeted and controlled activations of these specific cells. As the paper notes, opsin gene expression “offers an unprecedented ability to control specific cell types with precise timing, opening the door to real-time therapeutic control of complex physiological functions.”

The paper describes specific examples of neurological and psychiatric diseases and conditions that could one day benefit from advancements in optogenetic therapies. These include epilepsy, drug addiction, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, spinal cord injuries, and a variety of mood disorders, such as anxiety and depression. While certain safety and efficacy limitations abound, this is a rapidly developing field that could soon be ripe for commercial applications. Indeed, a number of optogenetic therapies for Retinitis pigmentosa, a form of blindness, have already been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for clinical trials in humans, and at least one company is currently in the process of attempting to approve its optogenetic treatment for pain therapy.

Optogenetics promises an innovative new means of delivering precision medical treatment for those suffering from a variety of diseases and disorders, and flexible FDA guidance can play an invaluable role in supporting pathways to market approval.

From the executive summary:

Optogenetics is a bioengineering technology that allows for precisely timed control of brain cells using light. The technology involves adapting genes of light-responsive proteins found in microbial species such as algae to uses in animal and human tissues. Recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has authorized clinical trials for the first-ever human use of optogenetic gene therapy, for treatment of a form of blindness. New biotechnology startups have sprung up with plans to bring optogenetics to the U.S. health care market. Wide-ranging clinical applications, from unique therapies for neurological and psychiatric disorders to new solutions for cardiac problems, make this technology an innovative player in the next generation of precision medicine.

This paper begins with a review of the latest scientific developments in optogenetics, followed by a discussion of the safety and effectiveness issues in clinical optogenetic applications and the complexities of the existing FDA regulatory pathways for approval of optogenetic therapy. The paper concludes by addressing larger social and policy questions surrounding the future use of optogenetics for human-enhancement purposes. Optogenetics is a potentially revolutionary medical technology and the current regulatory and policy landscape may determine its ultimate reach.

Read the full research paper here.

The post Lighting a Path to Precision Medicine appeared first on Niskanen Center.

from nicholemhearn digest https://niskanencenter.org/blog/lighting-a-path-to-precision-medicine/