Law and the Environment : Environmental Lawyer & Attorney : Foley Hoag Law Firm : Boston, Washington D.C.

While Congress may be fiddling on climate legislation, Senators Carper and Alexander are attempting to put three pollutant legislation back on the congressional agenda. Yesterday, they introduced an aggressive three pollutant bill. Here are the highlights. The bill would:

Codify the CAIR program through 2011

Gradually reduce the cap on SO₂ emission allowances to 1.5 million tons by 2018 – substantially more stringent than the CAIR would have imposed. 

Reduce NO_x caps to 1.6 million tons by 2015. 

Create two NO_x trading zones. Zone 1 includes 32 Eastern states and the District of Columbia. Zone 2 includes the remaining 16 contiguous states.

Coal- and oil-fired power plants would have to reduce mercury emissions by 90%. There would be no trading program for mercury.

I still find it remarkable that Senator Alexander, a coal-state Republican, is a co-sponsor of the bill. Nor does he seem to be half-hearted about it. Money quote:

We have a number of different things to work out on carbon.…  But there's no excuse for waiting a minute on SOx, NOx and mercury because we have the technology, we know what to do, and we shouldn't be operating coal plants without pollution control equipment. (My emphasis.)

I have, until recently, assumed that climate change legislation would happen this year. Now that that seems less likely, and with Senator Alexander as a sponsor, it will be interesting to see if the Senate is able to move this legislation, as an alternative. It is worth noting that climate change legislation necessarily would also have resulted in reductions in SO₂, NO_x, and mercury. Unfortunately, the converse is not also true. In the absence of GHG controls, three pollutant legislation would actually increase GHG emissions, because the traditional means of reducing emissions of SO₂, NO_x, and mercury are energy hogs. Oh, well.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Until now, I haven’t posted about the climate change email brouhaha. I haven’t thought it mattered. I didn’t think it affected the underlying validity of climate change science and I still don’t. That science seems overwhelming to me. 

However, I have concluded that the email issue matters.  Yesterday’s ClimateWire reported that climate scientists had repeatedly ducked Freedom of Information Act requests, in ways that demonstrate an astounding degree of arrogance. Here’s the money quote from Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia:

When the FoI requests began here, the FoI person said we had to abide by the requests,… It took a couple of half-hour sessions -- one at a screen -- to convince them otherwise, showing them what CA [Climate Audit, climate skeptic Steve McIntyre's Web site] was all about. Once they became aware of the type of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA ... became very supportive.

In other words, the Freedom of Information Act is meant only to provide information to those who agree with you? I don’t think so. 

Doesn’t it seem as though there’s a reason why environmentalists are often described as elitists? Isn’t this the essence of elitism? I know what the data means and you don’t and you can’t be trusted to have it, because you’ll do bad things with it. I may be naïve, but I don’t think that’s what democracy’s about.

Which is what brings me to a related criticism – self-righteousness. God is on my side. The future of the planet is at stake. I can therefore do anything to ensure what I personally know to be the right outcome. 

Sorry, folks. Doesn’t sell. Most people have very sensitive self-righteousness detectors and it’s a major turn-off. Precisely because climate change is so important, climate scientists need to knock it off. Right now, they are their own worst enemies.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Given the stories this week of continuing efforts in Congress to preclude EPA from regulating GHGs under existing Clean Air Act authority, I couldn’t resist this headline. 

The first story is that three House members, including two Democrats (House Agriculture Committee Chair Collin Peterson and Missouri Rep. Ike Skelton) have followed the lead of the Senate – where there are also Democratic sponsors – and introduced legislation preventing EPA regulation. According to Representative Skelton, the bill would “get the EPA under control.”

In light of the efforts in Congress, it just seemed too perfect not to note that EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Air, Gina McCarthy – never one to mince words – was quoted in GreenWire today as saying that

We are furiously ensuring that we get the light-duty vehicle out and ready in March…. There is no hesitation about that. It will be happening.

I don’t doubt that EPA is working furiously to get the rule done, particularly since President Obama has acknowledged that a cap-and-trade bill might not get passed this year. Whether EPA is actually furious, I don’t know. It does appear that some members of Congress may be furious in March if EPA goes ahead and issues the rule. Stay tuned.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Earlier this week, EPA announced release of a draft North Coastal Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System General Permit. Once finalized, the General Permit will affect 84 communities in eastern Massachusetts. EPA has noted that similar MS4 General Permits will also be rolled out for the rest of the Commonwealth.

The draft General Permit is only the latest salvo in an ongoing debate among EPA, MassDEP, municipalities and the regulated community regarding how to control stormwater discharges. The background to all of this is the increasing attention being given to the TMDL process and NGO efforts, including litigation, to ensure that EPA and the state actually make the TMDL process work.

As followers of this blog know, in November 2008, MassDEP released an extremely ambitious set of draft stormwater regulations. I think it is fair – and apt – to say that MassDEP was deluged with comments. While MassDEP may not accept this characterization, the length of time which has passed without issuance of final MassDEP regulations suggests that MassDEP may in fact have, as requested by the regulated community, gone back to the drawing board.

One of the issues raised by the regulated community in commenting on the MassDEP proposal was precisely that, because EPA regulates MS4s, it would make sense for the federal MS4 program, rather than a new state program, to be the bedrock for stormwater regulation. One big question left hanging with today’s announcement by EPA will be the extent, if any, to which MassDEP now builds on the MS4 permit, rather than creating its own program from scratch.

Since the regulated community to some extent asked for this permit, I can’t complain about the concept, but make no mistake, the MS4 General Permit will impose significant changes on municipalities and those changes will absolutely trickle down to the regulated entities.

The draft permit is 57 pages, not including appendices, so it is far too long to summarize here, but I will note some highlights:

Municipalities within the Charles River Watershed subject to approved TMDLs will have to develop specific Phosphorus Control Plans to demonstrate how they will attain the phosphorus reductions required.

New and increased stormwater discharges will face stringent requirements. In some cases, such discharges will not be eligible for coverage under the General Permit, but will instead require individual permits.

Municipalities will have to reduce discharges to the Maximum Extent Practicable, or MEP, through the use of Best Management Practices. 

Municipalities will be required to enhance programs to identify and eliminate illicit discharges.

Notwithstanding the existing General permit for construction sites, permittees will have to continue to develop their own construction site stormwater program.

Permittees will have to establish a program to minimize post-construction run-off by tracking the extent of impervious surfaces and imposing new requirements on new development and redevelopment.

Municipalities have already cried foul based on concerns about the cost of implementing the General Permit. Unfortunately, unless Congress amends the Clean Water Act to eliminate the TMDL program, it is difficult to see how a general permit in some form can be avoided. Indeed, as already noted, the MS4 level is probably the right place to focus stormwater reduction efforts. The question will be how efficiently the program can be implemented and whether EPA and MassDEP can harmonize their respective programs in a way that allows progress towards attaining compliance with the TMDL program in a cost-effective way.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As we noted a few weeks ago, EPA has proposed lowering the NAAQS to a range of from 0.060 ppm – 0.070 ppm. Earlier this week, EPA’s Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, or CASAC, met and endorsed EPA’s proposed range. Some CASAC members did express concern about EPA’s proposed secondary seasonal standard, intended to protect crops and forests. However, overall, the CASAC seal of approval is pretty much the end of this argument.

It is important to recall how we got here. CASAC already endorsed the 0.060 ppm – 0.070 range several years ago, before EPA’s last ozone standard was issued. It was EPA’s refusal to follow the CASAC recommendations, and instead propose a 0.075 ppm standard, which led to litigation challenging the standard and the current controversy. 

It is difficult to overstate the weight given the CASAC’s views. Indeed, EPA’s fine particulate standard was vacated in significant part because EPA failed to follow CASAC’s recommendations.

Thus, a standard that does not comport with CASAC’s recommendations would likely be rejected by the courts as arbitrary and capricious. However, I suspect that CASAC’s influence also runs the other way. Assuming that EPA does indeed promulgate a revised NAAQS in the 0.060 ppm – 0.070 ppm range, and assuming that industrial interests challenge the new standard, it will be very difficult to establish that the new standard is arbitrary and capricious if it has been endorsed by CASAC. 

As I noted in connection with the fine particulate standard, it’s not obvious to me that this is a good thing. Depending on whose ox is being gored, anyone can get up on a soapbox and say that they want science to be free of politics. However, these are really policy decisions. It’s one thing to acknowledge that these are complicated issues and we thus have to allow Congress to delegate its authority to the EPA administrator. It’s another effectively to delegate the decision further to the CASAC, which is about as obscure an acronym body as we have. Do we really want standards which will result in compliance costs in at least the tens of billions of dollars being made by groups which truly are not accountable in any meaningful way?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued interpretive guidance yesterday which requires publicly traded companies to consider the impacts of climate change – both the physical damage it could cause, as well as the economic impacts of domestic and international greenhouse gas emissions-reduction rules – and disclose those risks to investors. As we noted when discussing the potential for this announcement in October, the disclosure requirements are likely to affect companies in a wide range of industries. 

In its press release announcing this decision, the SEC said that this interpretive guidance neither creates new legal requirements nor modifies existing ones; rather, SEC guidance is intended to provide consistency among issuers in their disclosure to shareholders of bottom-line risks and consequences. The guidance will cover:

• Risk Factors
• Description of the Business
• Legal Proceedings
• Management’s Discussion and Analysis

The interpretive release will be published in the Federal Register and posted on the SEC’s website. The press release summarizes the key points as these:

• Impact of Legislation and Regulation: When considering potential disclosure obligations, companies should determine whether the impact of existing laws and regulations regarding climate change is material. In some cases, companies should also evaluate the potential impact of pending legislation and regulation related to environmental issues and climate change.
• Impact of International Accords: Companies should consider, and disclose if material, the risks related to or effects upon their business of international accords and treaties relating to climate change.
• Indirect Consequences of Regulation or Business Trends: Legal, technological, political and scientific developments regarding climate change may create both new opportunities and new risks for companies. For example, a company may face decreased demand for goods that produce significant greenhouse gas emissions, or increased demand for goods that result in lower emissions than competing products. Companies should consider the actual or potential indirect consequences they may face due to climate change-related regulatory or business trends.
• Physical Impacts of Climate Change: Companies should also evaluate for disclosure purposes the actual and potential material impact of environmental matters on their business. It is not entirely clear what the SEC means by this, although one example might be agricultural risks associate with altered climate trends that appear to have reduced or increased annual rainfall in particular locales.

When the interpretive release is available, we will provide you with full information. It is likely that pressure from shareholder groups on this issue will continue (here, for instance, is CERES' statement), given that cap-and-trade legislation appears bogged down in Congress and that the prospects for EPA regulation under the Clean Air Act are unclear.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last month, I noted with some trepidation that EPA Administrator Jackson had stated that "I don't believe this is an either-or proposition," referring to the possibility that there could be both climate legislation and EPA regulation of GHGs under existing EPA authority. Today, it’s looking more like a neither-nor proposition.

First, with respect to the prospects for climate change legislation, Senator Gregg was quoted in ClimateWire as saying that “the chance of a global warming law passing this year was ‘zero to negative 10 percent.’" Whether Senator Gregg has the odds pegged exactly right, legislation certainly seems less likely than was thought even a month ago, as health care legislation struggles and Scott Brown (R. Mass.) takes office.

At the same time, Senator Murkowski is moving forward with a resolution to disapprove EPA’s endangerment finding, in order to preclude EPA regulation under existing authority. While binding Congressional action to preclude EPA regulation is unlikely, because it would require approval by President Obama, Senate action does not appear out of the question at this point, given that Senator Murkowski has obtained three Democratic co-sponsors of the resolution, Senators Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.). A Senate vote in favor might not preclude EPA regulation without House and Presidential concurrence, but it’s hard to see how such a vote wouldn’t be a further black eye for the administration.

The situation certainly seems to warrant ClimateWire’s lede that “Climate chaos reigned on Capitol Hill yesterday.” Unfortunately, as I have noted previously, uncertainty is not really to anyone’s benefit. Does anyone doubt that, in the longer run, there will be some kind of climate regulation in the U.S.? How are regulated entities supposed to do cost-effective planning for such regulation in the face of this kind of uncertainty?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I have never been a fan of specialized courts, but I have to admit that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s MEPA jurisprudence is strong evidence for the other side. It’s almost hard to describe how badly the SJC has mangled MEPA. The most recent example is yesterday’s decision in Town of Canton v. Commissioner of the Massachusetts Highway Department. (Requisite disclaimer – this firm represented the Town of Canton in the case.)

In Canton, the SJC ruled that a party bringing suit to challenge the adequacy of the Certificate issued by the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs an on EIR must do so within 30 days following issuance of the first permit issued to the project under review – even if the plaintiff doesn’t care about that permit. For example, in Canton, the case was dismissed because suit was not brought within 30 days of issuance of a sewer connection permit, even though Canton’s complaint was that the EIR did not adequately address traffic issues and the Highway Department had not yet acted on the necessary traffic approvals.

The basis for the decision is a plain language reading of the statute – 30 days of the first permit means 30 days. However, the Court’s policy logic is exactly backward. The SJC stated that it is necessary to adhere to the strict 30 day rule in order to make challenges to projects efficient and not unduly delay them. I fear that the development community will not be happy with the results of this case, however. The purpose of MEPA is consultative. Get all the information out there and make sure that the agency considers it before issuing approvals. The import of Canton, however, is to short-circuit the review process. The next time this fact pattern appears, plaintiffs will be forced to bring suit, without even giving the Highway Department a chance to get it right. How does encouraging litigation before it is known even to be necessary help citizen plaintiffs, developers, or agencies?

In fairness to this Court, while I think that they got the decision wrong, it is at least understandable given prior SJC MEPA jurisprudence. The problem is that the SJC began getting MEPA wrong in the Cummings and Enos cases, and they haven’t stopped since. The notion that parties challenging the adequacy of an EIR cannot sue the EEA Secretary – the person that approved the EIR – is just nuts. Put Enos and Cummings together with Canton and here’s the result, taking the agencies in play in the Canton case. 

1.         EEA approves an EIR

2.         DEP issues sewer connection permit

3.         Highway Department issues traffic approvals.

Where has the SJC left us? The citizen plaintiffs care about 1 and 3, and not 2, but suit is triggered when 2 happens, even though the plaintiffs don’t yet know whether the Highway Department will do the right thing or not.

Here’s another scenario likely to happen with some frequency. EEA secretary approves EIR. Citizen plaintiff believes that endangered species analysis was deficient. As is often the case, however, the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife takes some time to issue the needed permit. DEP, however, issues an unrelated permit. Once more, action by DEP triggers a need to sue, even though the plaintiff cares about the Secretary’s approval of the EIR and the DFW take permit, which hasn’t yet been issued – and may never be issued.

Which is going to come first, a legislative fix, the SJC revising the whole structure of MEPA jurisprudence, or hell freezing over?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Those of us who advise clients regarding compliance with environmental regulations have often been in the awkward position of agreeing with clients that the agency position is, shall we say, misguided, yet at the same time advising against legal challenge, because the judicial review deck is stacked so heavily in favor of the agency. (In another time or place, one might ask why this is so.)

Nevertheless, occasionally, the agency loses and, when it does, that loss can be instructive. Yesterday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that MassDEP may not impose conditions on registrations under the Water Management Act without first promulgating regulations to guide its discretion in imposing such conditions.

Under the WMA, withdrawals existing as of the date of Act were grandfathered and persons with such withdrawals are allowed to maintain them by registering the withdrawal with MassDEP. Such registrations must be renewed periodically, but MassDEP may not reduce the size of the withdrawal. (New or increased withdrawals, on the other hand, require a permit and are subject to more stringent regulation.)

In the last round of registration renewals, MassDEP began imposing conditions on the registrations in order to increase water conservation. However, while the statute authorizes MassDEP to impose conditions on permits, similar language does not exist with respect to registrations. 

The SJC spent some time discussing MassDEP’s authority to promulgate regulations that would impose conservation requirements on registrants, but made clear that the plain language of the statute did not seem to authorize MassDEP to impose conditions on registrants absent regulations.

What’s the lesson here? With respect to the WMA, it’s “no shortcuts.” If MassDEP wants to impose conservation requirements on registrants, it must do so pursuant to validly promulgated regulations. What’s the broader lesson? Challenging the agency may be an uphill battle, but legislative language does matter and, where the language is clear, the courts will – at least sometimes – enforce it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, I reported on a decision by EPA Administrator Jackson, in an appeal from a permit issued by the Kentucky Division of Air Quality, to the effect that the developer of an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant, which converts coal to gas for combustion, had to consider use of natural gas as BACT, because the plant already had plans to use natural gas as a startup and backup fuel.

This week, Administrator Jackson went one step further – granting an objection to a permit for a traditional coal plant in Arkansas on the ground that it did not consider IGCC as BACT. As with the Kentucky decision, the issue in the Arkansas case was whether requiring IGCC would be to “redefine” the source. Also as with the Kentucky decision, the Administrator ruled that, while requiring consideration of IGCC as BACT might be to redefine the source, neither the permittee nor the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality had built a record sufficient to make that conclusion.

As David Bookbinder of the Sierra Club succinctly put it in Greenwire: "Control technology for conventional coal is IGCC and control technology for IGCC is natural gas." In short, the way to control emissions from a coal plant is to burn natural gas instead. 

I think that Bookbinder is exactly right concerning the import of the two decisions. I also think that the result is nuts. Can anyone say with a straight face that they really believe that this approach is consistent with the statutory intent? As I noted last week, EPA didn’t think so when they wrote in the New Source Review Workshop Manual that

applicants proposing to construct a coal-fired electric generator, have not been required by EPA as part of a BACT analysis to consider building a natural gas-fired electric turbine although the turbine may be inherently less polluting per unit product (in this case electricity).

I also think that this is what happens when the agency ties itself into knots to reach a certain result based on statutory language written in another time for another purpose. Might there be a lesson in this for EPA’s efforts to regulate GHG utilizing existing CAA authority?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last April, I noted that the one certainty associated with EPA regulation of greenhouse gases under existing Clean Air Act authority was that there would be unintended consequences. If anyone doubted that this would be so, they might want to read some of the comments submitted to EPA in connection with EPA’s proposed Tailoring Rule, which would exempt facilities emitting less than 25,000 tons per year of CO_2e from the PSD provisions of the Clean Air Act after CO_2e becomes a regulated pollutant under the CAA.

Greenwire has a helpful collection of some of the more notable comments. What I found most interesting is that the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, or NACAA, has told EPA that the transition to the new rule will not be as simple as EPA had thought – tough to disagree with that one – and that states will need more time to adapt their own regulations to the new regime. NACAA is thus proposing that EPA determine that CO_2e is a “regulated pollutant,” not when the mobile source rule is promulgated (expected in March 2010), but rather when those regulations take effect in 2011 or as late as January 2012. However, David Bookbinder of the Sierra Club, which has been generally supportive of EPA’s approach to the Tailoring Rule, took the position to Greenwire that EPA does not have the discretion to allow states more time.

Meanwhile, the Center For Biological Diversity, which has pretty much staked out the extreme left in this debate, is still saying that EPA is proposing to take too much time to regulate smaller CO_2e emitters. If anyone thought that EPA could propose a Tailoring Rule that would not be subject to litigation, the likelihood seems to be growing smaller daily.

I still think that, if a climate bill doesn’t pass and EPA regulates GHG under existing CAA authority, it will not be long after the program goes into effect that there will be an audible sound as every stakeholder in the nation slaps its actual or metaphorical forehead and says “Did we really do that?!”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As I noted on Friday, EPA has proposed to revise the NAAQS for ozone to a range of from 0.060-0.070 ppm, a reduction from the 0.075 ppm standard promulgated in 2008 by the Bush administration.  EPA’s analysis of the available date indicates that 650 counties – out of 675 counties which have ozone monitors – would be in violation of a 0.060 ppm standard. For those counting, that’s more than 96% of all counties in nonattainment. Even if the standard were set at 0.070 ppm, 515 counties would be in non-attainment.

In fact, EPA estimates that, even by 2020, 203 counties would remain in nonattainment at 0.060 ppm and 99 counties would be in nonattainment at 0.070 ppm. EPA’s estimate is that the cost to comply with a 0.060 standard would be $52B to $90B per year in 2020. I confess that I have not reviewed the rule closely enough to know exactly what that means, given EPA’s prediction that more than 30% of all counties would not be in compliance at that time. We’re going to spend $52B to $90B per year to comply with the standard – and still not meet the standard?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Wednesday, EPA released a proposal to reduce the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ground-level ozone from the 0.075 ppm standard set by the Bush administration in 2008 to a range of from 0.060-0.070 ppm. EPA also proposed to set a secondary standard intended to protect sensitive ecological areas, such as forests and parks.

As almost everyone knows, the 2008 standard was, to put it mildly, controversial from the start. The proposal today was based on recommendations made to EPA by its science advisors prior to the 2008 rulemaking. Following apparent intervention from the White House, then EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson set the primary standard above the scientific recommendation and declined to promulgate a secondary standard. Not surprisingly, a number of environmental organizations and public heath groups sued EPA over the failure to promulgate a new NAAQS consistent with the scientific recommendations.

Given that the Supreme Court already ruled, in Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, that EPA may not consider cost in setting NAAQS (and given the Bush EPA record before appellate courts), the 2008 standards always had “arbitrary and capricious” written all over them, so it’s no surprise that the Obama administration revisited the issue. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that, unlike most of EPA’s rules, the projected benefits of this rule may not even exceed the costs.  According to EPA, the benefits of the rule would range from $13B to $100B, while the costs are projected to range from $19B to $90B.  Not much of a net benefit, it seems to me.  (I'm still waiting for Cass Sunstein to ride to the rescue of cost-benefit analysis in this administration.)

EPA expects to finalize the rule by August 31. Then the rubber really hits the road – when states have to revise SIPs in order to meet the new standards.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Earlier this week, Energy & Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian Bowles announced the release of the nation’s first ocean management plan. The plan is similar, but not identical to, the draft plan issued last July. Here are the highlights

A Prohibited Area off the coast of the Cape Cod National Seashore, where most uses will be – you guessed it – prohibited

Multi-Use Areas, constituting approximately two-thirds of the planning area, where uses will be permitted if they comply with stringent standards for protecting marine resources

Renewable Energy Areas, where commercial- and community-scale wind projects have been found to be appropriate.

One significant element of the final plan, and one highlighted in Secretary Bowles’s press release, is that, where projects are proposed in areas including sensitive marine resources, it will be presumed that an alternative project outside the resource area would be less environmentally damaging. Project proponents would have to meet a balancing test, demonstrating that the project has public benefits which outweigh the detriment to the resource.

It’s going to take some time to digest the entire plan. However, most of the nation outside Houston has accepted the concept of zoning on land for almost 100 years – and land-based zoning affects private property. It’s difficult to argue with the concept that the Commonwealth should plan for resources – state waters – that it does own. In addition, having a defined framework for reviewing proposals to utilize state waters should help remove some of the uncertainty associated with the current ad hoc review that necessarily occurs in the absence of a plan. 

Deerin Babb-Brott – time to take a well-earned vacation!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Shortly before the holidays, EPA Administrator Jackson issued an Order in response to a challenge to a combined Title V / PSD permit issued by the Kentucky Division for Air Quality to an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or IGCC, plant. The Order upheld the challenge, in part, on the ground that neither the permittee nor KDAQ had adequately justified why the BACT analysis for the facility did not include consideration of full-time use of natural gas notwithstanding that the plant is an IGCC facility. 

The Order may not be shocking in today’s environment – all meanings of that word intended – but the lengths to which the Order goes to avoid its own logical consequences shows just what a departure this decision is from established practice concerning BACT. BACT analyses have traditionally involved the proverbial “top-down” look at technologies that can be used to control emissions from a proposed facility. In other words, EPA takes the proposal as a given, and then asks what the best available control technology is for that facility. 

In EPA’s own words – from its New Source Review Workshop Manual (long the Bible for BACT analysis):

Historically, EPA has not considered the BACT requirement as a means to redefine the design of the source when considering available control alternatives. For example, applicants proposing to construct a coal-fired electric generator, have not been required by EPA as part of a BACT analysis to consider building a natural gas-fired electric turbine although the turbine may be inherently less polluting per unit product (in this case electricity).

Apt example, don’t you think? (In case you are wondering, EPA’s decision does not discuss or refer to this text from the NSR Manual.)

What was the basis for EPA’s decision here? Largely, it is that the IGCC facility will be designed to burn natural gas as well as syngas and the permittee specifically stated that it planned to combust natural gas during a 6-12 month startup period. On these facts, EPA concluded that the permittee and KDAQ had to do a better job explaining why full-time use of natural gas should be considered “to redefine the design of the source.”

As noted above, EPA went to great lengths to minimize the scope of the decision. It states that the Order:

should in no way be interpreted as EPA expressing a policy preference for construction of natural-gas fired facilities over IGCC facilities.

should not be interpreted to establish or imply an EPA position that PSD permitting authorities should conclude … that BACT for a proposed electricity generating unit is … natural gas.

does not conclude that it is not possible or permissible for the permit applicant … to develop a rationale which shows that firing exclusively with natural gas would “redefine the source.”

EPA does not intend to discourage applicants that propose to construct an IGCC facility from seeking to hedge the risk of investing in … IGCC technology by proposing … utilizing natural gas for some period….

Methinks EPA doth protest too much. If I may say so, this is a freakin’ IGCC facility. Isn’t it obvious that one doesn’t plan or build an IGCC facility if one plans to burn natural gas? Don’t you think that EPA could have taken administrative notice of what IGCC technology is?

All of EPA’s protestations about the Order’s limits may be designed to mollify IGCC supporters, but what does its rationale mean for all of the existing facilities – coal and oil – that are already capable of firing on natural gas? Next time they are subject to NSR/PSD review, must they evaluate the possibility of switching completely to natural gas? As I’ve said here before, yikes!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

EPA announced yesterday that it had reached a settlement with Duke Energy to address allegations of New Source Review violations at Duke’s Gallagher coal-fired generating plant in New Albany, Indiana. A jury had already found Duke liable for certain NSR violations at the plant. The settlement obviates the need for a remedy trial, which had been scheduled for early 2010.

The settlement requires Duke Energy to repower Units 1 and 3 at Gallagher with natural gas or shut them down and to install emission controls at Units 2 and 4. Duke will also pay a $1.75 million penalty and spend $6.25 million on various mitigation projects. 

The settlement is not that surprising, particularly given the prior liability findings. It nonetheless serves as a useful reminder that EPA continues to focus on coal plants and that it is going to use all the tools at its disposal to reduce coal plant emissions. Although the press release does not mention global warming, these settlements are another way for EPA to attack the climate change problem under existing authority, even in advance of rules regulating GHGs under the PSD program.

BTW, if it seems as though I am inundating you with posts today, the blog will be on vacation until January 4, so I wanted to get some last posts done. Happy holidays to all.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

EPA has published its annual Compliance and Enforcement Annual Results FY 2009. It always makes interesting reading. This year, EPA has added something new: a web-based map showing the location of all enforcement actions, with links to summaries of the specific actions taken. It’s actually a little tricky to navigate. I had to find an area of interest and zoom in far enough for the dots to be replaced by flags to be able to click on particular sites and obtain the detailed information.

I can see NGOs making a lot of use of this map, and I therefore recommend that regulated entities spend some time with it as well. Forewarned is forearmed. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, Judge William Griesbach, of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, issued an important Superfund contribution decision, which shows just how much equitable discretion judges have in resolving contribution claims. In Appleton Papers v. George Whiting Paper, Judge Griesbach ruled, on summary judgment, that one equitable factor, knowledge of the potential environmental harm caused by PCBs, trumped all others, and that the plaintiffs, who had manufactured carbonless copy paper, or CCP, had no right to contribution from paper companies which used CCP and as a result discharged substantial amounts of PCBs into the Fox River.

The basis for Judge Griesbach’s holding was that “between parties who produced the product and those who merely processed it and recycled it along with all other paper products or water sources, these latter parties are significantly less blameworthy.” (The Judge’s italics, not mine.) This is not necessarily an unreasonable conclusion and probably within the Judge’s discretion to make, but does it follow that that is a sufficient basis to determine, without a trial, that the defendants were – literally – infinitely less blameworthy?

Interestingly, the plaintiffs had produced evidence that the defendants’ discharges had polluted the Fox River, even aside from PCBs. The Judge held that, because such other pollution did not cause response costs, it was irrelevant to the equitable judgment regarding who should pay to clean up PCBs.

The Judge also acknowledged that much of the contamination occurred before the plaintiffs themselves knew of the environmental risks posed by PCBs. Notably, however, the Judge did not discuss whether response costs would have been any different had discharges ceased as soon as the plaintiffs gained knowledge of the risks.

I’m not surprised that the plaintiffs in this contribution action are being held to bear the lion’s share of response costs. I am surprised that, on summary judgment, the court was able to conclude that the defendants’ share, notwithstanding their knowing pollution of the Fox River, and notwithstanding that much of the harm was caused before anyone had knowledge of the risks posed by PCBs, was a big, fat, zero.

What’s the real lesson here? The real lesson is that, while Judge Griesbach both noted that his equitable power is “broad and loose,” and acknowledged that it is “not unfettered,” the emphasis is greatly on the side of "broad and loose," and less so on the side of “not unfettered.” 

I’ve made this point in the past, but lesson one of Superfund contribution actions remains – Get The Judge On Your Side.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Earlier this month, EPA released its semi-annual regulatory agenda. True policy wonks can review the agenda here. There are always some nuggets buried in the agenda. This agenda includes two proposed rules governing nanotechnology. They are:

A reporting rule under § 8(a) of TSCA. The rule would require persons who manufacture nanoscale materials to notify EPA of information concerning production volume; methods of manufacture and processing; exposure and release information; and available health and safety studies.

A test rule under § 4(a) of TSCA. The proposed rule would apply to “certain multi-wall carbon nanotubes and nanosized clays and alumina.”

Since the entire point of nanomaterials is that they act differently than the same materials as sizes beyond the nanoscale, it is certainly conceivable that such differences could include impacts on human health and the environment. EPA can therefore reasonably propose rules such as described in the regulatory agenda, requiring testing and reporting. My concern is that EPA not leap to conclusions. EPA often has to regulate under uncertainty; I just don’t want the agency to regulate simply because of uncertainty. Nanomaterials hold the promise of contributing to the solution of numerous environmental problems, even aside from their overall economic promise. 

If EPA were to obstruct the development and use of nanomaterials on the basis of the precautionary principle, the environment, as well as the economy, would likely suffer. Since Cass Sunstein, head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB, has called the precautionary principle “deeply incoherent,” let’s hope that EPA will proceed cautiously, gathering information necessary to determine if regulations are necessary, but not rushing willy-nilly to throw roadblocks in the way of such promising technology.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As most of my Massachusetts readers know, on Friday, Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Ian Bowles and DEP Commissioner Laurie Burt announced that Massachusetts would retain its moratorium on new construction or expansion of municipal waste combustors. Although the overall outcome is not really a surprise from this administration, a few points are worth noting.

The announcement says nothing about new technologies, such as plasma arc gasification. Arguably, such a technology is not “incineration” or “combustion,” so we’ll have to see whether the administration remains open to such alternatives to traditional incineration.

The administration emphasized that it is committed to decreasing the volume of the waste stream and noted some specific initiatives that it intends to pursue:

Comprehensive producer responsibility legislation for discarded electronics – The announcement did not refer to any specific legislation (see here for a helpful table summarizing the current state of e-waste legislation nationwide, including in MA), but the administration is clearly going to be pushing for some kind of E-waste bill.

Expansion of the bottle bill to cover water and sports drinks. Since I have joined those who consider bottled water use a pet peeve, I can’t complain about this one.

Finally, the Secretary stated that he had directed DEP to cease permitting any use of construction and demolition, or C&D, waste as fuel in any energy facility until a comprehensive review can be completed.  The announcement specifically called out the Palmer Renewable Energy facility as being affected by the halt.

It is clear that the current economy is not discouraging the Patrick administration from its aggressive environmental agenda.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link