WASHINGTON (AP) — The 2015 Paris climate agreement is not the boogeyman that punishes the United States that critics such as President Donald Trump claim. But it hasn’t quite kept the world from overheating either.

The Paris agreement is a mostly voluntary climate pact originally written in ways that would both try to reduce warming and withstand the changing political winds in the United States.

In his first hours in office, Trump started the year-long process to withdraw from the pact. It’s the second time he’s done it — then-President Joe Biden had the U.S. rejoin on his second day in office.

Once the withdrawal takes effect next year the United States joins Iran, Libya and Yemen as the only United Nations countries that are not part of the agreement.

The U.S. withdrawal, while expected, triggered heavy reactions from around the world. That’s because the United States is historically responsible for the largest share of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, has been a leader in international climate negotiations and is the world’s largest producer of the fossil fuels that cause the problem in the first place.

When the agreement was signed Dec. 12, 2014, then-President Barack Obama called it “the best chance to save the one planet we have.”

What is the Paris Agreement?

The main goal is to keep long-term global temperatures from warming 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times and if not that well below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees) by slashing planet-warming emissions from coal, oil and gas.

“The Paris Agreement is a framework, not a stand alone solution,” said Mohamed Adow, founder of PowerShift Africa and a veteran climate negotiations observer. “Tackling climate change is not a pass-or-fail scenario. The Paris Agreement was never a solution itself, just a structure for countries to take action. And in large part that is what countries are doing.”

It is a pact that is part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which started in 1992 with the Rio Earth Summit. Technically, the Paris agreement itself is not a treaty so its adoption by America did not require U.S. Senate approval.

Is it mandatory?

It works as a binding but voluntary program. Every five years countries are required to submit a goal or plan for what it will do about heat-trapping emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other gases. And those goals — called National Determined Contributions or NDCs — are supposed to be more ambitious every five years, said Cambridge University climate negotiations historian Joanna Depledge.

“The countries themselves” decide what it’s in those goals with no punishment for countries missing goals, Depledge said.

Every two years, countries have to report how much greenhouse gases they emit.

The pact also says that rich countries, such as the United States, need to help poor countries decarbonize their economies, adapt to the impacts of climate change, and most recently be responsible in some ways for damage done by climate change.

Last year international negotiations set a goal of rich nations contributing $300 billion a year to help poor nations with climate change. The United States disputes that the $300 billion goal is legally binding, Depledge said.

How much does it cost the U.S.?

No industrialized country is assigned a portion of the $300 billion.

Historically, the United States has been criticized for providing less than its share of the global financial climate aid, given the United States’ history as a major climate polluter and it being the world’s largest economic power.

“Formally, there is no agreement on how much the U.S. should provide. However, our work on Fair Shares – based on U.S. historical emissions and ability to pay – finds that the U.S. contribution should be $44.6 billion per year,” Mercy Corps climate lead Debbie Hillier said in an email.

Last year, Biden announced that the U.S. climate aid to poor nations was up to $11 billion a year.

How did it come to be?

The 1998 Kyoto Protocol — which Al Gore and the Clinton Administration helped forge — called for mandatory emission cuts and was rejected by non-binding votes in the U.S. Senate. Then George W. Bush withdrew America from the deal.

That eventually led to an agreement being fashioned in Paris in a way that didn’t need U.S. Senate approval and was not mandatory. A bilateral agreement between the United States and China in 2014 paved the way for the agreement in Paris.

“One of the main reasons that countries are not legally required to actually meet the emissions reduction pledges they put forward under the Paris Agreement is because the Obama administration indicated that with the increased political polarization around climate change over the two decades following the Rio Earth Summit, obtaining 67 votes in support of the agreement in the U.S. Senate would have been challenging,” said veteran climate analyst Alden Meyer of the European think-tank E3G.

Has it worked?

Last year Earth temporarily passed the primary Paris 1.5 degree threshold, said several of the global monitoring groups. And while the 1.5 degree goal is about a 20-year average, the overwhelming majority of scientists say the world is likely to eventually breach the 1.5 mark for good. The long-term warming is now 1.3 degrees (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times.

In 2015, Climate Action Tracker, a group of scientists, said the world was on path to 3.6 degrees Celsius (6.5 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming since pre-industrial times. Now the same group has the world on path for 2.7 degrees Celsius (4.9 degrees Fahrenheit).

Experts call it a partial success, saying negotiators in Paris never figured that the agreement alone would be sufficient.

Mercy Corps’ Hillier said that while reduced warming projections are “far from sufficient, it is shows that the collective commitments under the Paris Agreement have made a difference.”

What does U.S. withdrawal mean?

Once withdrawn, the U.S. can attend negotiations, but not be part of decision making.

There’s little direct impact on domestic U.S. climate policy, but “the decision may undermine U.S. credibility in climate diplomacy, likely reducing its influence in global environmental policy,” said Scott Segal, a Washington lawyer who represents energy interests, including fossil fuel companies.

Several experts say the United States will lose out on a trillion dollar plus renewable energy boom, leaving other countries like China to rule the green economy.

“The world is more likely to warm slightly more,″ said Climate Analytics and scientist CEO Bill Hare. “The more the world warms the faster we will experience more extreme weather events such as flooding, extreme hurricanes, fire, weather, drought, and heat. The U.S. will not be exempt from such events.”

Science writer Seth Borenstein covered the 2015 Paris Agreement live. Follow him on X at @borenbears

Read more of AP’s climate coverage at http://www.apnews.com/climate-and-environment

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Albuquerque-born author Kyle Paoletta takes readers on a virtual road trip around his native region, transporting us across hundreds of years and thousands of miles in his new book “American Oasis: Finding the Future in the Cities of the Southwest.”

He introduces us to what he calls the great cities of the arid Southwest, places that already know much about survival: Las Vegas; Phoenix; Tucson, Arizona; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and El Paso, Texas. Las Vegas built a destination for international visitors in the middle of a scorching desert. Phoenix has embraced widespread air conditioning to keep people alive in triple-degree heat that would otherwise kill them.

“For so many Americans,” he writes, “it is only in recent years that the climate has begun to be understood as a hostile force. To them, I say: Welcome. We Southwesterners have never known anything different.”

Paoletta then recounts the region’s history and diverse culture, stretching back millennia to when Indigenous peoples adapted to the hot, arid land, building structures with the ribs of Saguaro cactus plants and digging canals to transport water for crops in the Phoenix valley.

Later, the tribes had to contend with Spanish conquistadores as much of the land in the Southwest came under the control of Spain dating back to years before the pilgrims set sail for Plymouth.

Most of the region eventually came under Mexican rule, until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 gave the United States an area that today includes California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado.

The promise of overnight wealth later drew Anglo boosters to the region, especially Las Vegas, where East Coast crime boss Bugsy Siegel set up legal casinos and put the city on the road to becoming a premier gambling destination.

But such success didn’t touch many groups that continued to suffer extreme inequities into the 20th century.

Blacks in Phoenix were forced as late as the 1960s to live south of the railroad tracks by racist real estate covenants that barred them from owning property in white neighborhoods. Latinos in Tucson suffered into the 1970s under municipal neglect that razed their barrios for highways or turned them into environmental disaster areas.

And along the U.S.-Mexico border, migrants continued to arrive in the sweltering heat in hopes of getting their own shot at the American Dream, many dying along the way.

People who live in and outside of the Southwest must learn how to care for themselves and others amid the drought and extreme heat if the region and beyond are to survive, Paoletta says.

“We can focus on sustaining ourselves, housing each other, and making room for new migrants willing to live by the same ethos of community and environmental care,” he writes. “Or we can continue to emphasize economic growth at all cost.”

AP book reviews: https://apnews.com/hub/book-reviews

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump says he will again withdraw the United States, a top carbon polluting nation, from the landmark Paris climate agreement, dealing a blow to worldwide efforts to combat global warming and once again distancing the U.S. from its closest allies.

The White House announcement, which came as Trump was sworn in Monday to a second term, echoed Trump’s actions in 2017, when he announced that the U.S. would abandon the global Paris accord. The pact is aimed at limiting long-term global warming to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels or, failing that, keeping temperatures at least well below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels.

The 2015 Paris agreement is voluntary and allows nations to provide targets to cut their own emissions of greenhouse gases from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas. Those targets are supposed to become more stringent over time, with countries facing a February 2025 deadline for new individual plans. The outgoing Biden administration last month offered a plan to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by more than 60% by 2035.

Laurence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation and a key architect of the Paris agreement, called the planned U.S. withdrawal unfortunate but said action to slow climate change “is stronger than any single country’s politics and policies.”

The global context for Trump’s action is “very different to 2017,” Tubiana said, adding that “there is unstoppable economic momentum behind the global transition, which the U.S has gained from and led but now risks forfeiting.”

The International Energy Agency expects the global market for key clean energy technologies to triple to more than $2 trillion by 2035, she said.

“The impacts of the climate crisis are also worsening. The terrible wildfires in Los Angeles are the latest reminder that Americans, like everyone else, are affected by worsening climate change,” Tubiana said.

Gina McCarthy, who served as White House climate adviser under President Joe Biden, a Democrat, said that if Trump, a Republican, “truly wants America to lead the global economy, become energy independent and create good-paying American jobs,” then he must “stay focused on growing our clean energy industry. Clean technologies are driving down energy costs for people all across our country.”

The world is now long-term 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit (1.3 degrees Celsius) above mid-1800s temperatures. Most but not all climate monitoring agencies said global temperatures last year passed the warming mark of 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, and all said it was the warmest year on record.

The withdrawal process from the Paris accord takes one year. Trump’s previous withdrawal took effect the day after the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to Biden.

While the first Trump-led withdrawal from the landmark U.N. agreement — adopted by 196 nations — shocked and angered nations across the globe, “not a single country followed the U.S. out the door,” said Alden Meyer, a longtime climate negotiations analyst with the European think tank E3G.

Instead, other nations renewed their commitment to slowing climate change, along with investors, businesses, governors, mayors and others in the U.S., Meyer and other experts said.

Still, they lamented the loss of U.S. leadership in global efforts to slow climate change, even as the world is on track to set yet another record hot year and has been lurching from drought to hurricane to flood to wildfire.

“Clearly America is not going to play the commanding role in helping solve the climate crisis, the greatest dilemma humans have ever encountered,″ said climate activist and writer Bill McKibben. “For the next few years the best we can hope is that Washington won’t manage to wreck the efforts of others.”

About half of Americans “somewhat” or “strongly” oppose U.S. action to withdraw from the climate accord, and even Republicans aren’t overwhelmingly in favor, according according to a poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Only about 2 in 10 U.S. adults “somewhat” or “strongly” in favor of withdrawing from the Paris agreement, while about one-quarter are neutral.

Much of the opposition to U.S. withdrawal comes from Democrats, but Republicans display some ambivalence as well. Slightly less than half of Republicans are in favor of withdrawing from the climate accord, while about 2 in 10 are opposed.

But carbon dioxide lasts in the atmosphere for centuries, so the United States has put more of the heat-trapping gas that is now in the air than any other nation. The U.S. is responsible for nearly 22% of the carbon dioxide put in the atmosphere since 1950, according to Global Carbon Project.

While global efforts to fight climate change continued during Trump’s first term, many experts worry that a second Trump term will be more damaging, with the United States withdrawing even further from climate efforts in a way that could cripple future presidents’ efforts. With Trump, who has dismissed climate change, in charge of the world’s leading economy, those experts fear other countries, especially China, could use it as an excuse to ease off their own efforts to curb carbon emissions.

Simon Stiell, the U.N. climate change executive secretary, held out hope that the U.S. would continue to embrace the global clean energy boom.

“Ignoring it only sends all that vast wealth to competitor economies, while climate disasters like droughts, wildfires and superstorms keep getting worse,” Stiell said. “The door remains open to the Paris Agreement, and we welcome constructive engagement from any and all countries.”

Associated Press writer Linley Sanders contributed to this report.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find the AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

About 75% of the 3.4 million tires annually discarded in Connecticut are shipped to a plant in Maine, where they are burned to generate electricity. But many of them end up illegally dumped, creating environmental hazards and costing municipalities to discard them using tax-payer dollars, officials have said. Last year, one Connecticut town reported spending $50,000 to clean up hundreds of tires illegally dumped nearby a popular park.

Until 2014 — when the tire-derived fuel incineration plant Exeter Energy in Sterling closed — about 75% of the roughly then-3.1 million scrap tires generated annually in the state had been burned. Since then, there have been fewer outlets for retreading, recycling, or using scrap tires in Connecticut, increasing illegal dumps.

In 2014, more than 16,000 illegally dumped tires were picked up by the Connecticut Department of Transportation, according to officials.

“Illegal dumping of tires is a big problem in the state that cuts across the full spectrum of urban, suburban and rural municipalities,” said Will Healey, spokesperson for the state’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. “We have spoken with tire processors who respond to calls for illegal dumping of tires and have confirmed it is a significant problem based on the number of calls for service that they get.”

A new law signed by Gov. Ned Lamont went into effect on Jan. 1, aims to ensure that each tire sold in the state is accounted for and not dumped on the sides of the state’s roadways, woodlands or vacant lots.

Connecticut became the first state to pass an extended producer responsibility bill for tires last legislative session. The bill, HB 6486, requires manufacturers of tires sold in Connecticut to join or create a state-supervised industry stewardship program responsible for collecting and recycling used or discarded tires.

In addition, manufacturers would be required to finance, operate and report to the state on the post-consumer management of their tire products. Connecticut’s first EPR law, for electronic waste or “e-waste,” was passed in 2007.

The bill was sponsored by state Rep. Joseph Gresko, D-Stratford, and co-sponsored by state Sen. Heather Somers, R-Groton, along with an additional 11 co-sponsors. A tire EPR law has long been advocated for by Product Stewardship Institute board member Tom Metzner, EPR lead for the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, and Jen Heaton-Jones, executive director of the Housatonic Resources Recovery Authority.

The state says it expects the bill to decrease illegal dumping, better protect consumers and boost tire recycling.

“We’ve been fighting for this for seven years now,” Heaton-Jones said “This is all about consumer transparency, financial responsibility as well as limiting the environmental impact. Retailers historically were charging $5 per tire and telling consumers that they were getting recycled, when in fact many were being illegally discarded or dumped. So often times, consumers were being charged twice, because municipalities usually have to clean up dumped tires using tax-payer dollars.”

Historically, consumers paid a $5 fee to discard tires when purchasing replacements. Now under the new EPR law, the cost of managing scrap tires will be the responsibility of tire manufacturers, so no customer, repair shop, transporter or retailer has an incentive to illegally dump tires, officials said. Under the new law, the entire system must be managed by tire manufacturers, including auditable reporting to the state — as officials hope more transparency will prevent illegal dumping and protect consumers.

“The cost is now baked into the tire as the manufacturers absorb the EPR cost within the price of the product,” Heaton-Jones said. “Mattresses and paint both have EPR laws in Connecticut. So when you go to the store and get paint, you pay an extra 75 cents per gallon that goes to the stewardship organization to run the program to collect, transport and recycle that paint. The same for mattresses in the state. It’s a transparent fee and it’s not a tax as the government never receives it. The stewardship program is managed by the producers.”

The law, the first of its kind in the country, requires the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection to audit the stewardship program, at a minimum of least once every three years and a maximum of every year, according to language in the bill. The tire law is the sixth EPR law in Connecticut and marks the third time the state has led the nation by enacting a first-of-its-kind product EPR bill. It did the same with mattresses in 2013 and fuel cylinders in 2022, according to officials.

“The illegal dumping of tires does present environmental risks as these tires can harbor standing water that provides an opportunity for disease-carrying insects such as mosquitoes to propagate, as well as providing shelter for rats and other rodents. Tires are a significant fire risk, and tire smoke is toxic.  It is also a blight issue in our cities and towns,” Healey said.

The law also requires the Department of Transportation to test the utilization of tire-derived asphalt on state highways, in an effort to broaden the use possibilities for recycled tires other than burning them as fuel. Tire-derived asphalt is a road paving material made from asphalt and ground-up recycled tires that is already in use in California, officials said.

A flaw in the bill

Currently, after replacing a customer’s tire, Connecticut retailers and repair shops charge a tire recycling fee, which is intended to cover the cost of recycling or disposal. While the new EPR law applies to manufacturers of tires sold in Connecticut, it does not include retailers.

“The one thing we missed unfortunately is the loophole that retailers don’t have to participate in the program,” Heaton-Jones said. “So the law was passed, and we’re really proud of that, yet we realize there is this major flaw. The whole point of the bill was to stop illegally dumped tires and bring more transparency to the process. But now we will need to amend the bill this year that either requires retailers to participate or not charge an extra fee.

“We still now have a consumer transparency issue, because there’s no way of tracking tires disposed of by retailers. I will be advocating strongly for an amendment this session and my hope is it will get passed. There was widespread bi-partisan support for the bill last session and I hope there will be for an amendment,” she added.

Proposed H.B. 5017 would tweak an important component of the existing tire EPR law by requiring tire retailers to participate in the program. Gresko, who sponsored the original bill, introduced the amendment on Jan. 8, and referred it to the Joint Committee on Environment.

“The fee that we pay when we go in and get new tires hasn’t been tracked by the state since 1997,” Gresko said. “This is where the illegal dumping happens because there’s no way of tracking what retailers do with the tires. We thought retailers would be willing partners and good corporate citizens, but they’re not. We gave them a chance to be part of the group, but now we are saying you have to be part of the group.”

By requiring retail participation, the primary incentive for illegal tire dumping — namely, the fee currently charged for disposal of used tires — is eliminated, officials said.  With manufacturers assuming responsibility for managing tires at the end of their life through a stewardship organization, generators of used tires such as tire retailers will no longer have to pay for disposal or recycling under the proposed amendment.

“The retailers have enjoyed pretty much the Wild West for the last 30 years now,” Gresko said. “I would hope they would just say thanks for a good run and now we’re ready to get on board. Because with all the illegal dumping, we need to track retailers on what’s happening with these tires. In addition, consumers should know that they’re tires are being disposed of properly.”

Stephen Underwood can be reached at sunderwood@courant.com.

The Connecticut Green Bank recently announced the closing financing of the Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy for the system at the 21,000-square-foot facility. The business provides printing creative design, finishing and mailing services. Hitchcock Printing was founded in 1904 and is located at 191 John Downey Drive.

“The addition of our solar system is a key to staying competitive now and in the future,” said Anthony Bracco, president of Hitchcock Printing in a press release. “State-of-the-art equipment and a highly trained youthful workforce accompanied with a plan to manage our energy costs will ensure that we have an edge in the years to come.”

Monroe-based Smart Roofs Solar Inc developed and installed the 227- kilowatt system.

Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy has helped in more than 400 projects with expected savings of nearly $420 million. Commercial owners are able to install the green energy upgrades and can pay for them over time at low-interest rates.

“We are seeing continued interest in C-PACE from energy-intensive businesses seeking ways to reduce their energy-cost burdens, especially through the addition of solar systems,” said Mackey Dykes, vice president of financing programs at the Connecticut Green Bank. “It’s exciting when companies with long histories in their community, like Hitchcock Printing, take advantage of green technologies to enhance their bottom line.”

The Connecticut Green Bank was established by the Connecticut General Assembly in 2011. It was the nation’s first state-level green bank, and the organization boasts more than 30,000 green jobs in the state and reduced energy costs to 77,000 families, businesses and nonprofits.

The report, released by the Western Connecticut Council of Governments, shows how these spills, many involving potentially hazardous contaminants, seep through the cracks in the state’s environmental laws, especially in the 80% of public water supply watershed land that is privately owned and not subject to state regulation.

The report found that 120,000 unauthorized spills into Connecticut waterways were reported to the state’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection between 1997 and 2022. The vast majority of unauthorized spills came from untreated sewage with over 21 billion gallons of sewage released into the state’s rivers leading to the Long Island Sound

Republican state Sens. Stephen Harding and Tony Hwang have drafted a letter to DEEP commissioner Katie Dykes, asking for clarity around the state’s water spill reporting database after the report found the database difficult to use.

“While the nation’s attention is focused on the Los Angeles wildfires and questions regarding reservoirs and water supplies, we are also focused on a recent report by the Western Connecticut Council of Governments. The report reveals that Connecticut’s water supply is vulnerable to contamination,” the letter reads.

“The Western Connecticut Council of Governments notes that DEEP’s database is not user-friendly and that spills were reported but not well publicized. Is DEEP taking any steps to make the database more accessible and to better publicize spills?” the letter says.

Charles Vidich, senior project manager with WestCOG and the primary author of the report, told the Courant how it took him weeks to go through all the reports in DEEP’s database and organize them.

“I think part of the reason this went under the radar is that DEEP’s database is very hard to use. So it took me weeks to categorize the information and put it into a format to filter each spill out. Once we did, it became crystal clear that we were sitting on top of a giant iceberg, where these were reported but not well publicized. Some of those larger spills were reported on in the Courant, but many were not reported,” Vidich said.

According to DEEP officials, spills are reported to DEEP emergency dispatch throughout the year and are then tracked in a database.

“Sen. Hwang and I saw the report and it raised concerns,” Harding said in a statement to the Courant. “DEEP should be looking at ways to make this spill reporting database more accessible and transparent. The public deserves that transparency, especially on a vital public health issue like this.”

Will Healey, spokesperson for DEEP, said the agency does have a new platform in place that allows the public to access information on hazardous spills. Healey said that, since 2022, the public may view documents and photos of each spill as a way of increasing public transparency.

“DEEP has a lot of data related to releases to Connecticut watersheds and multiple databases available for members of the public to access, so clarification as to Mr. Vidich’s statement about the particular data and databases he’s referring to would be needed to respond with accuracy. We’re happy to assist him or anyone who may be having trouble accessing data wherever possible. We can provide summarized information upon request,” Healey said.

“Regarding the data that is available publicly, we’ve made improvements over the last few years to allow for easier downloading of data, and improved filtering and analysis of the data,” he added.

Healey told the Courant DEEP receives reports of releases of all types of oils and chemical spills throughout the year. The information is exported monthly to the CT Open Data portal.  This includes two data sets related to oil and chemical spill incidents, from 1996 to June 2022 and from July 2022 to the present.  These datasets reflect the information provided at the time the incident was reported to DEEP, according to the agency.

But since 2022, information related to spills reported to DEEP has been captured in a new platform accessed from DEEP’s online services webpage, Healey said. The platform allows the public to download reports, photos and other documents related to the spill.

“We are also happy to note that in 2022 we added geospatial functionality to our spill incident reporting system. This means we provide automated notifications of oil and chemical spill incidents to local officials, including local health directors and municipal chief executive officers, at the time the spill is reported to DEEP,” Healey said.

“Additionally, we currently automatically flag for the Department of Public Health Drinking Water Section when spills occur in watershed areas and are currently in the process of further enhancing this spill notification system to report directly to water companies and authorities so that they receive real-time notifications of spills within their watersheds,” he said.

Stephen Underwood can be reached at sunderwood@courant.com.

National Water Main Cleaning Company, based in New Jersey and owned by Carylon Corporation based in Chicago, waived its right to be indicted and pleaded guilty Friday before U.S. District Judge Kari Dooley in Bridgeport to a felony violation of the Clean Water Act, according to the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut

The company reportedly discharged a pollutant into Cuff Brook while refurbishing a large culvert pipe in Cheshire in July 2019, officials said. The unauthorized discharge of uncured geopolymer mortar killed more than 150 fish and contaminated Cuff Brook.

Under the terms of the plea agreement, if accepted by the court, NWMCC will be under federal probation for three years and must pay a $500,000 federal penalty and $500,000 to fund aquatic ecosystem enhancement projects in the south-central coastal watershed, as administered by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, according to officials.

Court records show that NWMCC submitted the lowest bid and entered into a contract with the town of Cheshire to repair a decaying 11-foot culvert pipe underneath Marion Road. Cheshire’s project specifications required that the work be done under dry conditions along with environmental controls to prevent uncured geopolymer mortar from leaking into Cuff Brook.

With a Cheshire Department of Public Works representative present each day, NWMCC began work on July 15, 2019, according to court documents. However, from July 16 to July 18, NWMCC reportedly sprayed geopolymer mortar onto the culvert pipe without the mandated environmental controls. On July 17, 2019, NWMCC crews continued to work despite heavy rain, which led to uncured geopolymer mortar seeping into Cuff Brook.

On July 18, 2019, a Cheshire resident with property abutting Cuff Brook observed dead fish and discolored water with an oily sheen in the brook and smelled a chemical odor similar to lighter fluid, officials said. DEEP officials responded and determined that NWMCC was responsible for the pollutant release, thereby killing more than 150 fish and contaminating the waterway.

The government’s investigation revealed that NWMCC was aware that its environmental controls were deficient but did not remediate these deficiencies during the project, according to officials. Although the company attempted to blame the pollutant release and fish kill on a single employee, the investigation showed that he had been inadequately trained, directed to complete the job in an unrealistic timeframe and was never informed that the uncured geopolymer mortar was hazardous to the environment.

The investigation also revealed that NWMCC lacked a meaningful and comprehensive environmental training program for its employees, particularly concerning the CWA, even though NWMCC’s core business is repairing and rehabilitating infrastructure that interfaces with public waterways. In addition, NWMCC’s bonus policy incentivized site supervisors and executives to push their work crews to perform projects quickly and maximize the number of jobs completed.

“Any business operating in Connecticut that ignores environmental laws does so at its own peril,” said U.S. Attorney Vanessa Roberts Avery. “By prioritizing its bottom line over environmental compliance, NWMCC allowed a hazardous substance to escape into Cuff Brook, causing a fish kill and contaminating a public body of water. This prosecution under the Clean Water Act is a reminder that a profit-driven approach to environmental protection will not go unpunished in Connecticut. We thank the EPA for its invaluable work in protecting the environmental integrity of Connecticut’s waterways.”

Sentencing is scheduled for Feb. 27, according to officials.

The case was investigated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Criminal Investigation Division with the assistance of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General.

Stephen Underwood can be reached at sunderwood@courant.com.

As the smoke clears from devastating Los Angeles wildfires, efforts to clean up the affected areas are being complicated by burnt-out electric and hybrid vehicles and home-battery storage systems.

Lithium batteries from Tesla Inc., along with those from other carmakers, have added to the mix of toxic materials requiring specialized removal in the wake of the fires, delaying the fire victims’ return to their properties.

“A lot of the cars in the evacuation area were lithium batteries,” said Jacqui Irwin, a state assembly member representing the Pacific Palisades, one of the neighborhoods hardest hit by the fires. “We’ve heard from firefighters that those lithium batteries burned fires near homes – like those with power walls – for much longer.”

The LA wildfires, which began Jan. 7, have taken at least 27 lives and destroyed thousands of homes. While the dry, dangerous winds are forecast to end — a lack of rain and another possible round of winds next week has kept officials concerned that the danger is not over.

Estimates for insurance losses from the fires have rapidly jumped to as high as $40 billion and BlackRock Inc. Chief Executive Officer Larry Fink has warned it could take a decade to rebuild the city. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has already allocated $100 million to the cleanup effort.

There were over 431,000 Teslas in operation in the Los Angeles area as of October 2024, according to data from S&P Global Mobility. Based on new registrations, their market share locally was three times that of the rest of the nation. The Tesla Model Y was the biggest-selling vehicle in the state through September, according to the California New Car Dealers Association.

Fires in lithium batteries can require large amounts of water to put out with automakers publishing guides for first responders detailing how to respond.

In some Palisades and Eaton fire areas, residents who had been under evacuation orders were allowed to return to their homes Thursday. But others whose homes were destroyed or are in areas of heavy fire damage will have to wait until utilities and structures are inspected and determined to be safe before they’re allowed to look for personal items or inspect damage themselves.

At a briefing Wednesday, county Deputy Public Works Director Cid Tesoro urged residents allowed into areas burned by the Eaton fire not to try to clean up debris, which can contain sharp objects and toxic materials, including asbestos, lead, mercury and other chemicals.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is also aware of the complications. In an executive order this week, he said the state is “still adapting to newer technologies” like lithium-ion batteries, which can pose distinct risks when exposed to high heat from fires. Two years ago, Newsom signed an executive order requiring all vehicles sold in the state be zero-emission by 2035, while the state has become a leader when it comes to battery storage.

San Diego firefighter Robert Rezende, a specialist in lithium-battery hazards who’ll be assisting in the cleanup effort, said protocols developed during the 2023 fires in Maui will be used in Los Angeles. But the scale of this event, and the hazards, are magnitudes larger.

“The state has seen other fires, but nothing this urban, with so many neighborhoods and structures where you’d expect to see more electric vehicles and other energy storage systems,” Rezende said. “We’re anticipating a pretty big lift.”

In Maui, the Environmental Protection Agency shipped more than 30 tons of lithium batteries from over 1,400 properties for recycling.

The initial phase of cleanup involves the removal of materials most at risk to public health, according to Tara Fitzgerald, an incident commander with the agency. That includes pesticides, batteries or fuels and other products that would normally be considered hazardous household waste.

The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health issued an order Wednesday prohibiting unsafe removal of fire debris, warning of “substantial” risks to human health and the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed. Independent removal of debris is prohibited without an inspection from approved agencies, including the EPA and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.

“The combustion of building materials such as siding, roofing tiles, and insulation result in dangerous ash that may contain asbestos, heavy metals and other hazardous substances,” the health department said. “Household and business hazardous substances such as paint, gasoline, cleaning products, pesticides, compressed gas cylinders and chemicals may have been stored in business locations, homes, garages or sheds that may have burned or released in the fire.”

The Palisades fire did substantial damage to the neighboring city of Malibu. Mayor Doug Stewart said in an interview that the state is taking responsibility for debris removal, and that it did a good job managing the cleanup after the Woolsey fire there in 2018. That conflagration destroyed 1,600 structures, while the Palisades fire has destroyed or damaged more than twice that.

The rebuilding process will take a long time. Six years after the Woolsey fire, only 182 of 363 single-family homes approved for rebuilding have been completed.

Much of the city is still under evacuation orders and lacking power. Building inspectors are conducting rapid visual assessments of damaged properties and are 35% complete, according to Malibu’s website. Stewart is worried that toxins from burned homes will pollute the beaches and ocean when rains start.

“We’ve got a responsibility to the environment,” he said. “A beautiful day in Malibu is what draws us here and makes life so idyllic. That’s what we have to protect.”

(With assistance from John Gittelsohn.)

©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.