Latest news with #IEPA
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Could Trump sidestep new tariff ruling? Fmr. trade rep weighs in
The US Court of International Trade has rejected several of President Trump's tariff policies — particularly his sweeping import taxes against Canada, Mexico, and China — and put a temporary pause on them. The ruling identified some of the "Liberation Day" tariffs imposed on April 2 as illegal, citing them as an example of "unbounded authority" from the Trump administration. Wiley Rein LLP Partner Greta Peisch sits down with the Catalysts team to talk more about the trade court rulings and how Trump officials may go about appealing or circumventing these measures as the administration continues trade negotiations with other countries. Peisch has previously served as counsel for the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) under the Obama and Biden administrations, respectively. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Catalysts here. A federal trade court is ruling that most of the sweeping global tariffs President Trump imposed on April second are illegal, exceeding his authority under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act or IEPA. Goldman Sachs says Trump will likely find other ways to impose those tariffs and that this ruling poses just a minor setback joining us here. We've got Greta Paasche. She is a partner at Wiley Rein and as well a former general counsel at the office of the United States Trade Representative. We also still have Paul with us for the conversation. Greta, it's fantastic to get your insights this morning because uh we are all looking for clarity on what this is going to mean for US trade policy going forward. What is your take on what this ruling means for Trump's tariffs? Well, uh I would agree with um the analysis that you've cited. It's a setback. Um it is a ruling that this authority that the president has relied on, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or IPA, can't be used in this way for these tariffs. Um it doesn't mean that the uh the president can't find other uh means or authorities to try to implement this policy and it's also just the first step in litigation. Um the administration has already uh filed a motion to stay or or sort of pause the order and has filed uh a motion to appeal. So this is certainly going to see further fights in the courts which uh creates uncertainty as to whether this ruling will hold. Um but at the same time the administration is certainly looking at other avenues to pursue the policy that the president seems to be really dedicated to. Yes, so Greta, where do you see this sort of netting out? Do you see the administration being successful in its attempts at further litigation or do you see them successfully getting their tariffs through through other measures like Section 122, which was suggested to the administration in the ruling? Well, they're certainly going to pursue both avenues. And in the short term, it may be that they use a section 122 that you mentioned in order to uh displace the tariffs that have been removed, particularly those worldwide tariffs that were set at at at least currently at 10%. Um and then at the same time, continue to pursue the um the the courts and and try to make their case that in fact the IEPA does allow the types of tariffs that have been imposed. And I think um as Paul mentioned, a third option is to look to Congress. Um of course, Congress is considering the reconciliation bill right now, um where tax um budget issues are on the table. Um could the the president put um before Congress uh um ideas to expand tariff authorities or put in place some of the pieces of his tariff agenda? You know, possibly. Mhm. And Greta, my co-host for the hour, Paul Gruenwald, has a question for you. Yeah, I think Greta, you partially answered it. I was going to ask you, what's the likelihood that some of this actually uh migrates into Congress? You know, if the president's able to uh invoke IEPA, he's got a got control of the negotiations. But if Congress actually passes the tariff, then I guess they would lose some of that. So how likely do you think that is that we get some tariff action in the Congress or do you think this is going to stay mostly with the executive branch? Well, I think it's, you know, at the end of the day, I think the political calculus is that it would be a really uphill battle even to get all Republicans on board with expanding tariff authority or putting new tariffs in place, right? That's going to be controversial. Um you have uh Republican members of Congress who have expressed concerns about uh the tariff and the tariff policies to date. Um now, uh that doesn't mean that the president won't uh test and and pursue whether there's an openness in Congress to doing so. And I think, you know, I I would just say that uh to your question about sort of seating that authority to Congress, um there's probably lots of different uh legislative scenarios you could think of. Certainly Congress could itself put a 10% tariff in place. It could also put a tariff in place and then leave some discretion through a new statutory authority for the president to raise or lower their tariffs. And Greta, I also want to get your take on this from a negotiation perspective as a former US trade representative yourself. What does a ruling like this do to the president's negotiating power? Well, I think that the administration, one reason that they're going to look rapidly at near-term solutions to reinstate or or uh put back in place these tariffs is to retain that negotiating leverage. This is a key uh trade policy objective of the president. Um and so even if the tools that they look to look at are slower or have some restrictions that weren't in place with the the tariffs that have been vacated, um they want to at least put the threat of tariffs back on the table for these negotiating partners that they've been talking to. And and in terms of how a ruling like this kind of impacts those negotiations again, as we've sort of heard of like phone calls going back and forth, maybe maybe not between the administration and several of these countries he announced so-called reciprocal tariffs on on April 2nd, are those phone calls going to start drying up off the back of this ruling? Well, I don't think so because I think the trading partners also know that this is that the the administration has other options and that this is a policy that the president um is determined to pursue. Also, of course, there are tariffs in place that the ruling does not impact. These are the sectoral tariffs, so on steel, aluminum, autos, uh investigations that are ongoing on pharmaceutical uh products, semiconductor products and and and uh goods that contain those products. Um and so uh we saw some of the outcomes of the UK uh negotiations addressing, for example, the auto tariffs and making reference to some of those other sectoral um actions. So there are there's still negotiations to be had. Um there are still tariffs in place and again, there's still the potential threat of new tariffs using other authorities. Yeah, Greta, and I guess the other thing we're hearing is uh with some of the trading partners, I'm thinking of some of the Asian partners like Japan and Korea. Some of the deal could be they buy more, you know, US uh energy products or uh they buy more, you know, pharma or they might buy more planes from Boeing. So it doesn't necessarily have to be all tariff related when we're putting together these deals. Is that is that your view as well? Yes, uh that's been a part of what the administration has been looking for. It seems like as an outcome of these deals, right? We see uh tariffs on the table. We see uh potentially non-tariff barriers, whether that's regulatory or other tax barriers. Um and as you say, sort of purchase commitments or investments, right? So there's been a broader set of asks and uh pieces on the negotiating table that the administration has been working with. Greta, really appreciate your insights and thank you so much, Paul, for the great questions as well. Appreciate you both. Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información
Chicago Tribune
27-03-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
State board ruling may bring longtime dispute over a Waukegan coal ash ponds to a close
A ruling by the Illinois Pollution Control Board disallowing NRG Generation's request for leniency handling the two coal ash ponds and the 'grassy field' which contains coal ash deposits at its decommissioned Waukegan power plant puts a longtime dispute closer to an end. Ruling NRG will get no special treatment from the state, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) is now in a position to move toward imposing a solution on NRG. Waukegan Mayor Ann Taylor said in a statement city officials will soon meet with members of the IEPA. 'This is a major win for Waukegan, as our community has spent over 10 years pushing for the removal of the unlined and leaking coal ash along Lake Michigan,' Taylor said. 'The IEPA has confirmed these sites are contaminating groundwater with dangerous toxins.' The Illinois Pollution Control Board ruled in a 16-page opinion March 20 in Chicago, agreeing with the IEPA all three sites on the property set aside for containing coal ash still have the pollutant on the land. 'The (grassy) area, the east pond and the west pond were originally a settling basin for sluiced (coal ash) and the area still contains historic (coal ash),' the board wrote in its opinion. 'The discharges from the area have caused a negative environmental impact.' After the state enacted the Coal Ash Pollution Prevention Act in 2019, NRG decommissioned the plant in 2022. At the time, it put a plan in motion to remove the east pond, cap the west pond and made no plans for the grassy field. Taylor continues to advocate for full removal. 'Waukegan will continue to push forward with our legislators and community partners to ensure proper cleanup of this site to protect the long-term health of our people and our lakefront,' Taylor said in the statement. After proposing to remove the east pond and cap the west pond, NRG decided to cap both last year. Ann Duhon, a NRG spokesperson at the time, said the procedure is better suited to the situation. 'There are a number of risks associated with removing the coal ash including the risk of exposure to people, the environment and the community,' Duhon said in an email in May of last year. Making it clear NRG violated Illinois law in its handling of the ponds, the board ruled the grassy field is part of the package for cleaning the site because it presents 'environmental and health risks,' according to the opinion. 'Grassy field is an inactive surface impoundment that has never been closed by removal, nor has any type of low permeability cover been installed on top of it,' the board wrote in its opinion. Taylor, state Sen. Adriane Johnson, D-Buffalo Grove, and State Rep. Rita Mayfield, D-Waukegan, all wanted to push for the complete removal of both ponds as well as proper treatment for the grassy field. In early 2022, Johnson introduced legislation that passed the senate to require NRG to remove both ponds. As Mayfield tried to push it through the state House of Representatives, she did not bring it for a vote because there were not enough favorable legislators. Johnson said Thursday she believes legislation is the best way to assure the ponds are removed. She believes NRG will oppose any effort to take action and the best way to ensure compliance is through a law requiring it. 'We must pass legislation to ensure coal ash is properly removed from the Waukegan site,' Johnson said. 'Holding polluters accountable and safeguarding our water, air and public health for generations to come.' Introducing legislation when the Illinois General Assembly opened in 2023, Mayfield made another effort to enshrine the removal of the ponds in law. Again, she fell a few votes short and it did not come to the floor for a vote. She authored a similar bill early this year. 'It had its second reading and when there is a 60-vote majority it will come to the floor for a vote,' Mayfield said stressing she was working to secure the necessary support. She is not disclosing how many votes she has or who they are for fear NRG will lobby them against it. 'NRG has been lobbying very hard against it,' Mayfield said. 'They'll push ever harder if they know who they are.'
Chicago Tribune
18-02-2025
- Business
- Chicago Tribune
Five-term North Chicago mayor faces primary challenge from alderman
North Chicago Mayor Leon Rockingham Jr. and his challenger in Tuesday's Democratic primary, Ald. Kenneth Smith, 5th Ward, have a similar vision for their city's future that includes business development, strengthening infrastructure and forward-thinking. Smith, 65, is finishing his first term on the City Council. A five-term incumbent, Rockingham, 70, is seeking his sixth term as mayor. They both see Sheridan Crossing — a 40-acre parcel at the northwest corner of Sheridan Road and Martin Luther King Jr. Drive — as essential to the city's future. Sheridan Crossing is a key part of the city's strategic plan, with multi-use buildings housing businesses and residences connecting with the downtown area immediately to the north. Rockingham has worked on it for a long time, and Smith thinks it has taken too long. 'He's been here 20 years, and we're still just talking about it,' Smith said. 'We haven't seen anything in that time. I hear the voice of the people, and they want to see things happen.' Before Rockingham took office in 2005, he said Sheridan Crossing was already a problem. The city took ownership a year later when the previous owner went bankrupt. The land was contaminated and needed remediation, which meant working with federal and state regulators, he said. For 20 years, Rockingham said the city worked with the Illinois Environmental Agency (IEPA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to get a plan approved. Funding of $4 million came from the federal government, along with $1 million from the state. 'It was a problem before I got elected,' Rockingham said. 'We had to work with the IEPA, the EPA and RCRA. We were told we could cap it. Then we were told we had to fill it because we wanted to make part of it residential. Our plan is to receive the OK for permits from the IEPA in the first quarter of this year.' Voters will decide whether Rockingham or Smith will receive the Democratic nomination for mayor when they go to the polls Tuesday to select who will join independents David E. Hood and Ald. Anthony D. Coleman, 2nd Ward, in the April 1 general election. Soon after he was elected to the City Council four years ago, Smith said he held ward meetings where he invited city officials to talk to his constituents about things impacting their lives. He invited residents from other parts of the town as well. He also organized a citywide cleanup. 'Community engagement is very important so people know what's going on in their community,' he said. 'This is how we learn their concerns.' Working with other governmental entities, like North Chicago School District 187 and the Foss Park District, is also on Smith's agenda. Though they are separate taxing bodies, they all have a similar goal. 'Everything needs to be at the next level,' he said. 'We have to invest in our schools because that's investing in our kids. They are the adults of tomorrow. I'm all about working together for the benefit of everyone.' Both an accomplished professional photographer for the past 40 years with assignments around the country and beyond, Smith said he is also a minister. His father, Bishop Solomon Smith, heads the Mount Moriah Christian Center in Waukegan. 'Like being in church, an alderman is serving people at a different level,' Smith said. With 20 years leading the city, Rockingham said he wants to guide North Chicago through the implementation of its master plan. It goes beyond the development of Sheridan Crossing to adding middle-class housing so when people go from starter homes to their next residence, they can remain in the city. 'My work is not done yet,' he said. 'There is a lot of good left to do, and I want to continue with my vision.' Smith and Rockingham share the same views on middle-class housing and other elements of the master plan. A member and past president — the first Black president — of the Illinois Municipal League, Rockingham said his membership there and on the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission, the Solid Waste Agency of Lake County and Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning boards puts him in a position to make North Chicago more prominent. During the last four years, Rockingham said the city's crime rate has declined. Currently working with county, state and federal officials, he said he hopes to see the 74-acre Halsey Village — now part of Naval Station Great Lakes — become incorporated into North Chicago and added to its real estate tax base. Early voting is underway. People can vote from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays at the Lake County Courthouse & Administration Building in Waukegan or the North Chicago City Hall through Monday, and from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on weekends. For those voting on election day Tuesday, Lake County Clerk Anthony Vega said they can now vote at any polling place, not just their assigned location.
