The Fabricator - for the original article go HERE.
Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
to help private businesses during this economic slowdown. Perhaps the
most anticipated part of the relief package is the $350 billion Paycheck
Protection Program for small businesses with fewer than 500 employees.
The manufacturing community
did not get everything it wanted in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security (CARES) Act and is watching expectantly as Congress
considers a follow-on stimulus bill. That next package may headline
major infrastructure spending and additional tax concessions, but its
passage, or even its development, by Congress is anything but certain.
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
had called for a $1.4 trillion COVID-19 Resiliency Fund. The CARES bill
did not include such a fund but did provide $350 billion in the form of
a Paycheck Protection Program, which is meant to help small businesses,
and $454 billion in emergency lending to businesses, states, and cities
through the U.S. Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund. But that total
is well short of the $1.4 trillion the NAM sought.
In
accentuating the positive, NAM CEO Jay Timmons said, “The bill also
takes key steps from the NAM plan by increasing the maximum amount of
tax deductions for interest on business loans and by creating an
incentive, through loan forgiveness, for small manufacturers to retain
their employees during this crisis.”
In addition to the tax
benefit on business loans, the CARES Act allows companies to take net
operating losses (NOLs) earned in 2018, 2019, or 2020 and carry back
those losses five years. The NOL limit of 80% of taxable income is
suspended, so firms may use NOLs they have to fully offset their taxable
income. The net interest deduction limitation, which currently limits
businesses’ ability to deduct interest paid on their tax returns to 30%
of earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization
(EBITDA), has been expanded to 50% of EBITDA for 2019 and 2020.
However,
the NAM wanted any bill to adopt a federal designation that deemed the
manufacturing supply chain “essential.” That designation would be
important with regard to state and federal laws allowing essential
companies to remain open during the coronavirus emergency. The federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
issued some guidance—which has no legal standing—on March 19, and it
did include some manufacturers as part of its list of “essential
critical infrastructure workers.”
The Precision Metalforming Association (PMA) said on March 20 that the guidance covers approximately 2,500 companies in its association and companies belonging to the National Tooling and Machining Association.
The DHS guidance explicitly covers manufacturers making medical
devices, food equipment, and packaging equipment, for example, but it
makes no mention of metal fabricators that supply parts to industries
such as automotive, appliances, railroads, energy, and many others.
The
DHS later clarified in update guidance on March 29 that workers who
support crucial supply chains and enable functions for critical
infrastructure should be included in the grouping of essential
personnel. “The industries they support represent, but are not limited
to, medical and health care, telecommunications, information technology
systems, defense, food and agriculture, transportation and logistics,
energy, water and wastewater, law enforcement, and public works,” the
guidance stated. But the 12 pages of detailed listings of “covered
employees” in those industries included very few references to
“manufacturers.”
Christie Carmigiano, PMA spokeswoman, argues the DHS guidance is by end product, not supplier. “PMA
believes that focusing on the end product, while not a clear directive
for the industry, does provide for maximum flexibility as governments
cannot be expected to become experts in the manufacturing process as
they will exclude critical industries, such as stampers who supply those critical products,” she said.
Many metalworking companies
view the $350 billion Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses
with fewer than 500 employees as the most important provision in the
bill. The small-business loans, with a maturity of two years and a 1%
interest rate, are available through any bank approved as a Small
Business Administration lender. The loans can be as much as $10 million
to cover payroll costs, mortgage, and rent payments and health care
benefits for employees, including paid sick leave. In some cases, they
also can cover interest on other debts.
The new loans apply to
costs incurred retroactive to Feb. 15 through June 30. The CARES Act
includes loan forgiveness for companies able to keep employees on
payroll or continue paying bills throughout the coronavirus crisis. The
amount of loan forgiveness will include payroll costs for individuals
below $100,000 in annual income and mortgage and rent obligations,
including interest and utility payments.
Both Democrats and
Republicans in Congress have been talking about another stimulus package
focusing on infrastructure, which manufacturing and construction
companies have been clamoring for since President Donald Trump’s
election in 2016. For example, the chair of the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., said the next
step should be “a true stimulus that creates jobs and rebuilds our
decaying infrastructure.”
Author Bio:
Mr. Barlas is a freelance writer in Washington, D.C. who covers issues inside the Beltway.
House Dems to Approve Tough Pipeline Bill
Pipeline & Gas Journal - for the original article go HERE.
Democrats in the House are about to pass a new pipeline safety bill which is unlikely to attract any Republican support. The Pipeline Safety Act (H.R. 5120), passed by two House committees in November with no GOP votes in favor, also clashes with the bi-partisan bill passed last summer by the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.
The House Democratic bill was praised by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), an environmental group, which has typically been at loggerheads with the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) with regard to how safety and environmental factors should affect pipeline permitting. The INGAA supported a rival bill proposed by Republicans in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. That bill attracted support from one Democrat.
A few days before the Transportation and Commerce Committees voted to approve H.R. 5120 on November 19 and 20, a number of natural gas industry trade groups, including the INGAA and American Petroleum Institute, sent a letter to members of those committees expressing concern about the lack of bipartisan support for H.R. 5120. The letter stated: “Pipeline safety legislation historically has been enacted on a bipartisan basis, and bipartisanship will ultimately be essential to achieve the bicameral support needed in this Congress to reauthorize PHMSA.” The PHMSA is the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Its legislative authorization ceased at the end of September 2019 but the agency can continue to do its business nonetheless although new legislation is eventually needed, and sooner rather than later.
The INGAA letter ticked off a number of actions the industry would support in a new pipeline safety bill, including: enhancing PHMSA’s workforce, increasing funding for State pipeline safety regulators, reauthorizing emergency responder grant funding, promoting innovative technologies, and updating PHMSA regulations to address the intent of relevant National Transportation Safety Board recommendations.
Prior to the November 19 and 20 votes by both House committees, Democrats in the Energy & Commerce Committee supported a much milder version of H.R. 5120. But they ditched that bill and jumped on the more radical—from industry’s perspective—bill presented by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Elizabeth Gore, Senior Vice President, EDF, lauded H.R. 5120 called the Safe, Accountable, Fair and Environmentally Responsible Pipelines Act of 2019. "By putting in place critical new public safety and climate protections, the SAFER Pipelines Act is a win-win for all American families. It's well past time to give PHMSA the tools and direction to contribute to our nation's efforts to prevent the worst impacts of climate change."
One of the provisions of the bill would essentially prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from completing an ongoing rulemaking announced last September which would change current regulations imposed in 2012 and 2016 obligating pipelines to reduce methane leaks. The creation in those years of Clean Air Act new source performance standards (NSPS) subparts OOOO and OOOOa subjected pipelines to limits on emissions of volatile organic chemicals and methane from controllers and compressor stations. There were subsequent legal challenges in 2016 and 2017 which led to the EPA reconsidering a few provisions of the 2016 final rule, including those having to do with fugitive emissions. Then, last September, in a proposed rule, the Trump EPA essentially proposed cancelling the 2016 final rule which dealt primarily with methane.
At the end of November 2019, a week after the House committees acted, the INGAA submitted comments on the EPA’s September proposed rule. The group said it was particularly concerned about the provisions in the 2016 EPA final rule dealing with “certain repairs” but added: “Although INGAA’s participation in the legal challenge of NSPS OOOOa was limited to this particular technical issue, INGAA does support a broad review of these rules...”
The comments point out that the INGAA board of directors had formally committed to methane reductions in voluntary pledges issued on July 19, 2018. These included core principles such as minimizing emissions from interstate natural gas pipelines, pneumatic controllers and compressor stations. More specifically, members of INGAA said they will install air-driven, low-bleed, or intermittent pneumatic controllers when installing new pneumatic controllers, unless a different device is required for safe operations; minimize emissions during maintenance, repair and replacement of pipelines; replace rod packing on all transmission and storage reciprocating compressors; conduct leak surveys at all member-owned and operated transmission and transmission and storage compressor stations by 2022 and at all natural gas storage wells owned and operated by INGAA member companies by 2025; and transparently report methane emissions.
Those voluntary commitments obviously did not move House Democrats. H.R. 5120 goes beyond the Obama-era 2016 “methane release from pipelines regulation” by imposing a host of new federal requirements in the area of leak detection and elsewhere. Another provision would require comprehensive pipeline mapping for the first time. Automatic shutoff or remote-controlled valves would be required on existing, new and replaced pipelines. The maximum civil penalties that could be imposed by the PHMSA would be increased from $200,000 to $2 million per violation. It would be easier for the PHMSA to assess criminal penalties for operators who act recklessly. Operators would have to immediately repair major gas leaks.
Democrats in the House believe those far-reaching actions are necessary. “There are nearly 3 million miles of pipelines transporting hazardous liquid and natural gas just feet below countless communities across the U.S., yet federal efforts to ensure these pipelines are safe, reliable and environmentally-sound are woefully outdated,” Transportation Chair Peter DeFazio (D-OR) said, “Last year alone, there were 636 pipeline incidents that left eight people dead and injured another 90, including the horrific incident that killed one person, sent 21 others to the hospital, and damaged 131 structures in Merrimack Valley, Massachusetts. Moreover, it’s estimated that this industry is responsible for one-third of our country’s emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas that is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide in the first few decades of its release and a major contributor to climate change.”
But those provisions go too far for the pipeline industry, and for Republicans in the House, and most likely, for GOPers in the Senate, where Republicans are in control. After the Transportation Committee vote on November 20, ranking member Sam Graves (R-MO), said, “The most disappointing fact about today’s partisan markup is that if Republicans had been offered the chance to work on these bills with our colleagues in the majority, we could have produced legislation that every member of the committee supported.” The GOP bill, which one Democrat supported, is called the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2019. It includes a number of industry “asks” including prohibiting three overt actions that jeopardize safety: unauthorized turning of a valve; puncturing of a pipe, pump, or valve; and causing a defect to a pipe, pump, or valve. It also creates a safety-enhancing testing program for innovative technologies and operational practices.
Don Santa, President and Chief Executive Officer of the INGAA, said, “The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2019 includes a number of provisions that enjoy wide support…and along with elements of the SAFER Pipeline Act of 2019 reflects the bipartisan approach that has characterized each renewal of this important law. We urge the committees to work together to reconcile these proposals into a legislative package that can be signed into law.”
The House Democratic bill is considerably different from the bill passed by the Senate Commerce Committee on July 31. That bill is milder than even the bill the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed, and then jettisoned on November 19 in favor of the tougher H.R. 5120. The Senate bill is the Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines Enhancing Safety (PIPES) Act of 2019 (S. 2299).
Author Bio:
Mr. Barlas is a freelance writer in Washington, D.C. who covers issues inside the Beltway.
Democrats in the House are about to pass a new pipeline safety bill which is unlikely to attract any Republican support. The Pipeline Safety Act (H.R. 5120), passed by two House committees in November with no GOP votes in favor, also clashes with the bi-partisan bill passed last summer by the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.
The House Democratic bill was praised by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), an environmental group, which has typically been at loggerheads with the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) with regard to how safety and environmental factors should affect pipeline permitting. The INGAA supported a rival bill proposed by Republicans in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. That bill attracted support from one Democrat.
A few days before the Transportation and Commerce Committees voted to approve H.R. 5120 on November 19 and 20, a number of natural gas industry trade groups, including the INGAA and American Petroleum Institute, sent a letter to members of those committees expressing concern about the lack of bipartisan support for H.R. 5120. The letter stated: “Pipeline safety legislation historically has been enacted on a bipartisan basis, and bipartisanship will ultimately be essential to achieve the bicameral support needed in this Congress to reauthorize PHMSA.” The PHMSA is the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Its legislative authorization ceased at the end of September 2019 but the agency can continue to do its business nonetheless although new legislation is eventually needed, and sooner rather than later.
The INGAA letter ticked off a number of actions the industry would support in a new pipeline safety bill, including: enhancing PHMSA’s workforce, increasing funding for State pipeline safety regulators, reauthorizing emergency responder grant funding, promoting innovative technologies, and updating PHMSA regulations to address the intent of relevant National Transportation Safety Board recommendations.
Prior to the November 19 and 20 votes by both House committees, Democrats in the Energy & Commerce Committee supported a much milder version of H.R. 5120. But they ditched that bill and jumped on the more radical—from industry’s perspective—bill presented by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Elizabeth Gore, Senior Vice President, EDF, lauded H.R. 5120 called the Safe, Accountable, Fair and Environmentally Responsible Pipelines Act of 2019. "By putting in place critical new public safety and climate protections, the SAFER Pipelines Act is a win-win for all American families. It's well past time to give PHMSA the tools and direction to contribute to our nation's efforts to prevent the worst impacts of climate change."
One of the provisions of the bill would essentially prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from completing an ongoing rulemaking announced last September which would change current regulations imposed in 2012 and 2016 obligating pipelines to reduce methane leaks. The creation in those years of Clean Air Act new source performance standards (NSPS) subparts OOOO and OOOOa subjected pipelines to limits on emissions of volatile organic chemicals and methane from controllers and compressor stations. There were subsequent legal challenges in 2016 and 2017 which led to the EPA reconsidering a few provisions of the 2016 final rule, including those having to do with fugitive emissions. Then, last September, in a proposed rule, the Trump EPA essentially proposed cancelling the 2016 final rule which dealt primarily with methane.
At the end of November 2019, a week after the House committees acted, the INGAA submitted comments on the EPA’s September proposed rule. The group said it was particularly concerned about the provisions in the 2016 EPA final rule dealing with “certain repairs” but added: “Although INGAA’s participation in the legal challenge of NSPS OOOOa was limited to this particular technical issue, INGAA does support a broad review of these rules...”
The comments point out that the INGAA board of directors had formally committed to methane reductions in voluntary pledges issued on July 19, 2018. These included core principles such as minimizing emissions from interstate natural gas pipelines, pneumatic controllers and compressor stations. More specifically, members of INGAA said they will install air-driven, low-bleed, or intermittent pneumatic controllers when installing new pneumatic controllers, unless a different device is required for safe operations; minimize emissions during maintenance, repair and replacement of pipelines; replace rod packing on all transmission and storage reciprocating compressors; conduct leak surveys at all member-owned and operated transmission and transmission and storage compressor stations by 2022 and at all natural gas storage wells owned and operated by INGAA member companies by 2025; and transparently report methane emissions.
Those voluntary commitments obviously did not move House Democrats. H.R. 5120 goes beyond the Obama-era 2016 “methane release from pipelines regulation” by imposing a host of new federal requirements in the area of leak detection and elsewhere. Another provision would require comprehensive pipeline mapping for the first time. Automatic shutoff or remote-controlled valves would be required on existing, new and replaced pipelines. The maximum civil penalties that could be imposed by the PHMSA would be increased from $200,000 to $2 million per violation. It would be easier for the PHMSA to assess criminal penalties for operators who act recklessly. Operators would have to immediately repair major gas leaks.
Democrats in the House believe those far-reaching actions are necessary. “There are nearly 3 million miles of pipelines transporting hazardous liquid and natural gas just feet below countless communities across the U.S., yet federal efforts to ensure these pipelines are safe, reliable and environmentally-sound are woefully outdated,” Transportation Chair Peter DeFazio (D-OR) said, “Last year alone, there were 636 pipeline incidents that left eight people dead and injured another 90, including the horrific incident that killed one person, sent 21 others to the hospital, and damaged 131 structures in Merrimack Valley, Massachusetts. Moreover, it’s estimated that this industry is responsible for one-third of our country’s emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas that is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide in the first few decades of its release and a major contributor to climate change.”
But those provisions go too far for the pipeline industry, and for Republicans in the House, and most likely, for GOPers in the Senate, where Republicans are in control. After the Transportation Committee vote on November 20, ranking member Sam Graves (R-MO), said, “The most disappointing fact about today’s partisan markup is that if Republicans had been offered the chance to work on these bills with our colleagues in the majority, we could have produced legislation that every member of the committee supported.” The GOP bill, which one Democrat supported, is called the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2019. It includes a number of industry “asks” including prohibiting three overt actions that jeopardize safety: unauthorized turning of a valve; puncturing of a pipe, pump, or valve; and causing a defect to a pipe, pump, or valve. It also creates a safety-enhancing testing program for innovative technologies and operational practices.
Don Santa, President and Chief Executive Officer of the INGAA, said, “The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2019 includes a number of provisions that enjoy wide support…and along with elements of the SAFER Pipeline Act of 2019 reflects the bipartisan approach that has characterized each renewal of this important law. We urge the committees to work together to reconcile these proposals into a legislative package that can be signed into law.”
The House Democratic bill is considerably different from the bill passed by the Senate Commerce Committee on July 31. That bill is milder than even the bill the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed, and then jettisoned on November 19 in favor of the tougher H.R. 5120. The Senate bill is the Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines Enhancing Safety (PIPES) Act of 2019 (S. 2299).
Author Bio:
Mr. Barlas is a freelance writer in Washington, D.C. who covers issues inside the Beltway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)