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

For those of you who aren’t convinced that Senator Specter’s defection to the Democrats will be the savior of cap and trade legislation, and who are concerned by Senator Durbin’s recent pronouncement that, at this point, there are not 60 votes in the Senate, the question as to how EPA might regulate greenhouse gases under existing authority has taken on greater importance.

The traditional assumption, and the basis for the doom and gloom scenarios projected by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has been that EPA would regulate greenhouse gases under the NSR program. While there have been arguments concerning whether EPA has sufficient regulatory flexibility to avoid regulating de minimis sources of greenhouse gases, a new study from NYU proposes an end-run around this question.

The study, entitled “The Road Ahead: EPA’s Options and Obligations For Regulating Greenhouse Gases,” suggests that EPA has authority to establish a cap and trade program under the Clean Air Act without any new statutory authority.  Several of their conclusions are open to question. To name just one, the D.C. Circuit decision striking down the CAIR rule seems to pose a real obstacle to a cap and trade program without specific new statutory authority.

In fairness to the authors, however, the study acknowledges the various difficulties.  The study also does an excellent job identifying the problems inherent in attempting to regulate greenhouse gases through command and control regulation, such as the NSR program, rather than a cap and trade program.  For anyone thinking about EPA’s options at this point, it’s a must read.

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

We have previously posted about EPA’s efforts to roll back regulatory changes made by the Bush Administration, particularly with respect to the NSR program. There is no question that the roll-back continues. This week, EPA announced it would review three separate NSR rules promulgated by the Bush administration. These include:

The “reasonable possibility” rule, which identified when major sources must keep records even if a contemplated change is not expected to trigger NSR review

The fugitive emissions rule, which limited by source category when fugitive emissions must be taken into account in determining NSR applicability

The PM_2.5 rule, which included provisions regarding submittal of state implementation plans, or SIPs, for PM _2.5 compliance. One particular issue of concern is the provision which deferred until 2011 the date by when states must account for emissions of gases, emitted from coal-fired power plants, which may condense to form PM _2.5.

In a narrow way, EPA’s decision to revisit these rules will likely lead to lower emissions of air pollutants subject to NSR in some cases.  At a broader level, these reviews ignore the fundamental problems with the NSR program and whether the NSR program is a dinosaur of command and control regulation that is not a cost-effective of achieving emissions reductions.

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

As I noted a couple of weeks ago, Representative John McHugh (R-NY) has introduced legislation that would require significant reductions in emissions of SO₂ and NO_x, and mercury from power plants. Now, Senators Carper (D-Del.) and Alexander (R-Tenn.) have announced that they will be introducing their own three-pollutant legislation in the Senate. Since they have not yet introduced a bill, we’ll all just have to imagine the specifics for now, but a few interesting nuggets have jumped out of the press releases and news reports.

First, Representative McHugh apparently wants to tie his legislation to the climate bill. However, Senator Alexander, at least, affirmatively wants to keep three-pollutant legislation separate from the climate bill. Senator Alexander seems to be looking to make a name for himself as a Republican willing to advance environmental causes. In addition to this bill, he is also sponsor of legislation that would preclude mountaintop removal. Keeping this bill separate from climate legislation may be a way to walk a fine line, since one can still imagine a scenario in which there is significant pressure from the GOP leadership to have all Republican Senators oppose climate legislation.

Second, Senator Carper specifically referred to using market forces to regulate SO₂ and NO_x, but he did not use similar language for mercury, which suggests that, like the McHugh legislation, the Senate bill will also require facility-specific mercury reductions, rather than allowing a cap-and-trade program for mercury.

EPA is apparently indicating that it may take two years to promulgate new regulations to replace its ill-fated CAIR regulations. In that context, if the movers and shakers in Congress perceive that three-pollutant legislation can pass relatively quickly, it might be seen as an appropriate way to show some environmental progress while climate change proposals get turned into legislative sausage.

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

While not the most earth shattering development in recent times, I thought I would mention a new web site which sifts through the Congressional Record and identifies which words, other than common words such as prepositions, have been used the most by members of Congress. The site, capitolwords.org, is maintained by the Sunshine Foundation, which is dedicated to increasing government transparency. 

If you’ve got an obscure issue that you need to follow, it might actually be a very helpful tool. Otherwise, it’s just a few minutes of fun for policy geeks. Which Senator do you think used the word “climate” the most in recent years?

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

I’ve made a conscious decision not to blog about every twist and turn in the climate change legislation debate. While a blogger can’t quite take a “wake me when it’s over” position, I think that periodic updates are going to be more than sufficient. That being said, in the wake of EPA’s issuance of its endangerment finding last week, a brief update seems appropriate.

What’s clear at this point is that at least everyone in the political center favors a legislative approach and hopes that the endangerment finding will ultimately have no practical impact, other than serving as an incentive for Congress to Act. When not only David Crane, CEO of NRG Energy, and James Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, but also Fred Krupp of EDF take that approach, it’s clear that the middle ground is firmly occupied.

In the meantime, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is still taking the position that EPA does not have the discretion to regulate greenhouse gases without regulating relatively small emission sources – with the result being economic and political chaos. 

The interesting question in all this is one that will probably never get discussed – whether EPA’s issuance of regulations concerning greenhouse gases under the current Clean Air would violate the nondelegation doctrine. From a purely legal point of view, that question was basically answered by the Supreme Court decision in Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, in 2001, in which the Supreme Court concluded that the Congressional grant of authority to EPA to issue NAAQS did not violate the nondelegation doctrine.  From a policy perspective, however, it’s difficult to avoid the issue.  

When Fred Krupp says that Congress is “better suited … to work out the details than EPA,” he is fundamentally making the point that these are legislative decisions and it is appropriate that they be made by our elected legislators. In their heart of hearts, would even the most vociferous advocates of the need to regulate greenhouse gases as soon as possible say that these are decisions that should be made be EPA, rather than Congress?  Only if they are willing to admit that they don’t believe in our current version of representative democracy.

It’s unclear where this will all end up, but the prognosticator almost most certain to be correct has to be former EPA depute associate administrator Jason Burnett, who helped draft EPA’s original endangerment filing that the Bush administration declined to issue. As Burnett acknowledged, “there’s no question … that there will be some unintended consequences.” 

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

This morning, EPA issued a proposed finding that greenhouse gasses contribute to air pollution and may endanger public health or welfare. The proposed finding comes almost exactly two years after the Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA, ordered the agency to examine whether emissions linked to climate change should be curbed under the Clean Air Act, and marks a major shift in the federal government's approach to global warming.

The finding, which now moves to a 60-day public comment period, identifies the six greenhouse gases that pose a potential threat as a set, a tactic which we discussed the potential impact of a few weeks ago. 

Overall, the proposed finding is very similar to the language released in March. It concludes that “in both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem. The greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.”

Some interesting highlights of the finding include:

• Environmental justice: As the EPA press release states, “in proposing the finding, Administrator Jackson took into account the disproportionate impact climate change has on the health of certain segments of the population, such as the poor, the very young, the elderly, those already in poor health, the disabled, those living alone and/or indigenous populations dependent on one or a few resources.”
• National Security: As the EPA press release phrased it, “Escalating violence in destabilized regions can be incited and fomented by an increasing scarcity of resources – including water. This lack of resources, driven by climate change patterns, then drives massive migration to more stabilized regions of the world.” 
• Vehicles: By including a "cause or contribute" finding for cars, the proposed finding implies that not only are greenhouse gases dangerous in general, but that such emissions from cars and trucks are reasonably likely to contribute to climate change

The finding does not include any proposed regulations.  However, while release of the finding is a huge development, it still seems likely that the Obama Administration will hold off on regulations in favor of a legislative solution. As the Washington Post reported today, at the Aspen Environment Forum last month, Administrator Jackson emphasized that "the best solution, and I believe this in my heart, is to work with Congress to form and pass comprehensive legislation to deal with climate change.” 

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

Now that the initial euphoria following the introduction of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill  has passed, this past week may have reminded supporters of climate change legislation just how difficult it will be and what sort of compromises may be necessary to get it done. First, Greenwire reported again on the difficulty that senators and representatives from coal states will have supporting climate legislation that would increase electricity rates. This was consistent with the recent Senate action that seemingly put the final nail in the coffin on the idea of using the budget process as a vehicle for climate legislation in the Senate (in order to avoid the threat of a filibuster).

Last Thursday, the Obama Administration seemed to acknowledge this reality. White House spokesman Benjamin LaBolt, while stating that the Administration’s goal remains a cap-and-trade program in which all allowances are auctioned, rather than simply allocated to existing emitters, noted that Congress was looking at a number of options and stated that the Administration “will be flexible” in order to get a bill passed. Another White House aide, Joseph Aldy also did not rule compromise on the auction issue.

Part of the Administration’s concern has to be placating the so-called Gang of 16, a group of moderate Senators. It is difficult to imagine climate change legislation being enacted without the support of this group, which includes several senators most people would think of as reliable votes for the Democratic leadership.

The Administration faces a difficult balancing act on this issue. If it signals too early and too strongly a willingness to compromise, that could be perceived as a sign of weakness and the debate could shift too far—from the Administration’s perspective—toward allocating allowances, rather than auctioning them. On the other hand, if the Administration sticks too firmly to the auction approach, it risks losing credibility and influence, as Congress may simply develop legislation without regard to the White House. If I were a betting man, I’d still assume that climate legislation will include an auction, but the percentages may start out relatively low (perhaps with a mechanism to increase that percentage over time).

This post also appeared on the Environmental Protection website, an organization that provides pollution and waste treatment solutions for environmental professionals.

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

I previously noted that some of my friends in the development community were concerned that I seemed to be too welcoming of certain moves by the Patrick administration related to energy efficiency and climate change.  If, as is often the case, developments in California are a harbinger of things to come in Massachusetts, now I am in a position to really give Massachusetts developers something to worry about.

San Diego Congresswoman Lori Saldana, who is part of the Democratic leadership in the California Assembly, has introduced legislation that would require all new residential construction in California to be energy neutral by 2020.

In case anyone has any doubts, this is a heads up, not a statement of support.  As noted by Tim Coyle of the California Building Industry Association, the problem is with existing homes; new home construction is, of course, already much more energy efficient than existing homes. That is only one of many good reasons to oppose such legislation.  However, given our track record in Massachusetts, who would bet against introduction of a similar bill here? 

And I'd give better odds of it passing in Massachusetts than in California. 

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

As some of my clients know all too well, I’ve been spending a lot of time on some Superfund matters recently. Although I can’t remember a period when I didn’t have at least one moderately active Superfund case, significant immersion in complex remedial decision-making and negotiations provides an unwelcome reminder just how flawed CERCLA is. Almost 20 years after the acid rain provisions of the Clean Air Act ushered in wide-spread acceptance of the use of market mechanisms to achieve environmental protection goals and the state of Massachusetts successfully privatized its state Superfund program, the federal Superfund program, like some obscure former Russian republic which remains devoted to Stalinism, is one of the last bastions of pure command and control regulation.

Can anyone tell me why the remedy selection process takes years and costs millions of dollars – before any cleanup has occurred or risk reduction been achieved? Can anyone tell me why, after the remedy has been selected, EPA has to spend millions of dollars – charged back to the PRPs, of course – to oversee the cleanup? Oversight costs can easily exceed 10% of cleanup costs, while oversight during the remedial design and feasibility study process sometimes seem to be barely less than the cost of actually performing the RI/FS.

While there are certainly a multiplicity of causes, there are two factors which greatly contribute to the problem. One was, coincidentally, highlighted in a post today by my friend Rob Stavins. As Rob noted, unlike the acid rain program, which was new at the time, the Superfund bureaucracy is well entrenched and there are a number of actors with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. 

The second issue relates to the genesis of the Superfund program, as well as its continuing raison d’être. Whenever EPA has ranked relative risks from different environmental hazards, Superfund sites come in at the bottom. However, if you think back to Superfund’s origins, what comes to mind? Love Canal and the Valley of the Drums – and some concerned near-by residents who rallied around a cause to ensure that the problem would be addressed. As renowned risk communications expert Dr. Peter Sandman has noted, there is not necessarily a significant correlation between actual risk levels and public outrage, and it’s not possible to decrease outrage simply by providing accurate information about risks.

In short, the public is outraged by hazardous waste sites and does not trust PRPs to clean them properly. All of those EPA oversight costs are, in large part, intended not to decrease risk, but to lower outrage.  Outrage is understandable in some circumstances, and efforts to reduce it are laudable, but is it really an appropriate use of scarce environmental protection resources to spend the money that gets poured into Superfund sites?

There has to be a better way. Indeed, there is a better way. It’s called a privatized system in which PRPs have to meet well-defined cleanup standards, but are allowed to do so on their own, in whatever manner is most cost-effective, subject to audits by regulators. Privatized programs such as the one in Massachusetts are not perfect. However, their flaws – which largely stem from a failure to fully support privatization -- pale in comparison to the waste that is the federal program under CERCLA.

In other contexts, I’ve called on the Obama administration to embrace regulatory reform. Why not start with Superfund? Notwithstanding Rob Stavins’ point about the difficulty of overturning an entrenched status quo, if the states could do it, why not the federal government?

Besides, I have an entrenched personal reason for seeking Superfund reform. This stuff drives me nuts.

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

In an statement this week likely to send chills down the spine of developers, EPA Administrator Jackson called on Congress to provide a clearer definition of wetlands subject to permitting authority under the Clean Water Act. As most readers know, the 2006 Supreme Court decision in Rapanos v. United States narrowed the scope of regulatory jurisdiction over wetlands. Unfortunately, the absence of a majority decision in Rapanos means that, at this point, no one knows quite how much narrower. I think that most observers at least triangulate around Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion, which stated that waters or wetlands with a “significant nexus” to waters that are navigable in fact should be subject to regulation. However, uncertainty abounds.

Uncertainty imposes significant costs on regulated entities (not to mention EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers). Therefore, a statutory fix that simply eliminated uncertainty would probably be welcomed by the regulated community. Of course, the devil is in the details. If the uncertainty is eliminated by subjecting any land that is ever wet to the CWA, such legislation would probably not be welcomed by developers.  Jackson’s statement that “I believe that the country benefits from something broader rather than narrower” is not likely to assuage developers’ concerns.

Time will tell whether compromise is possible in order to eliminate uncertainty that benefits no one.

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

 As we have already noted, Representatives Waxman and Markey released a 648-page discussion draft energy bill last week that provides the first comprehensive look at how Congress may approach the nexus of energy, job creation, and the environment. Although this bill is only being released in discussion draft form, as the first major energy volley by Congressional Democrats, it will undoubtedly have a major influence on the debate in Washington. 

In addition to the global warming provisions that we posted about last week, clean and renewable energy occupies a significant place in the draft bill.  The first 157 pages are dedicated to energy, with additional provisions scattered throughout. 

Title I, the clean energy section, addresses four broad policy areas: (1) creation of a national renewable energy standard, (2) carbon capture and geologic sequestration (“CCS”), (3) low-carbon vehicles and transportation fuels, and (4) electricity transmission including smart grid technologies. In addition, the draft creates a State Energy and Environment Development Fund ("SEED Fund") to act as a repository for monies received through federal energy programs.  Each of these provisions is an example of how policy leaders are beginning to see synergies between job creation and environmental stewardship. 

We take a deeper dive into the energy provisions after the jump.

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

 As we mentioned yesterday, the discussion draft of the Waxman-Markey “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” which was released on Tuesday is notable both for what it includes and the significant portions it leaves to be decided at a later date. 

In summary, the bill contains four titles:

1) a “clean energy” title, which promotes renewable energy through a portfolio standard of 6% in 2012 rising to 25% by 2025, additional funding for carbon capture and sequestration, a low-carbon transportation fuel standard, and authorization for federal agencies to enter into long-term contracts with renewable energy providers;

2) an “energy efficiency” title, which calls for a nationwide building efficiency code, and directs EPA to set emission standards for locomotives, marine vessels and non-road sources;

3) a “global warming” title, which specifies that greenhouse gases are not to be treated as criteria pollutants or regulated in new source review under the Clean Air Act (the authorities currently viewed to be EPA’s best tools in regulating greenhouse gases), lays out up to 83% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2050 and creates the framework for a cap-and-trade auction system to be overseen in part by FERC, but does not specify how allowances would be allocated or auctioned, nor how auction proceeds would be spent, other than giving a portion to preventing international deforestation; and

4) a “transitioning” title which establishes a new council within NOAA to prepare an adaptation plan and fund, but does not provide details on where the funds come from, and lays out various programs creating release valves to be triggered by increasing prices, but again withholds critical details, such as how the programs will provide assistance to consumers.

After the jump, we provide more detail about Title 3, the Global Warming section.

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

Harking back to legislative efforts of a few years ago, Representative John McHugh (R-NY) yesterday introduced legislation that would require significant reductions in emissions of SO₂ and NO_x, and mercury from power plants. The highlights of the bill include the following:

• No later than two years from enactment, EPA must promulgate regulations requiring that powerplants:
  • reduce SO₂ emissions by 75% over the Phase II levels contained in the current CAA acid rain program
  • reduce NO_x emissions by 75% over 1997 levels
• Even aside from the above-described reductions, on the later of 5 years from enactment or 30 years from initial operation, powerplants must meet applicable new source performance standards, or NSPS
• Mercury emissions from coal-fired powerplants will be restricted to 0.6 pounds per trillion Btu. These limits will go into effect:
  • As of the date of operation, for facilities beginning operations after December 31, 2010
  • As of January 1, 2013, for facilities existing as of December 31, 2010

There is no provision for a cap-and-trade program with respect to mercury. The bill would impose a penalty of $10,000 per ounce on facilities that exceed the mercury limit.

Representative McHugh has said that he hopes to attach the legislation to the climate change bill. I haven’t seen any discussion yet regarding the bill’s prospects, but the fact that it was introduced by a Republican, albeit one from New York, suggests that something like this is at least possible. 

To me, the requirement that existing facilities attain NSPS may be the most interesting part of the bill. While the regulated community is diverse, I think that, given sufficient time to meet NSPS, at least some fraction of owners of existing facilities would be willing to do so, if – and it’s a big if – Congress would in return make changes to the NSR/PSD rules so that facility owners would not have to engage in a difficult, expensive, and uncertain NSR review for every conceivable facility modification. Freedom from NSR review in return for compliance with NSPS by a reasonable date certain? That would be an interesting trade-off.

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

I finally found time to review the 648-page “discussion draft” of the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” released by Representatives Waxman and Markey this week. It is fair to way that, though release of the draft may be an important way-station on the road to a climate change bill, there remains a lot of work to do. While the draft includes some important markers that are likely to set boundaries on what might be included in the final bill, it is at least as notable for what is omitted than for what is included. Here are some highlights of Title III of the bill, which addresses climate change: (We hope to post soon about the energy titles as well.)

·  No surprise here – the bill would create a cap and trade program requiring facilities with emissions of more than 25,000 tons per year of CO₂ equivalents to have allowances in order to continue such emissions.

·  Allowances would be allocated so that emissions would decrease 20% from 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% from 2005 levels by 2050

·  The bill contains a framework for an auction system, but it does not specify what percentage of allowances will be auctioned or what will happen to the proceeds.

·  There are several measures designed to address concerns about multiple, conflicting, or inefficient regulatory programs:

o  The President is directed to “harmonize” “to the extent practicable” DOT fuel efficiency standards, EPA regulations, and California regulations regarding motor vehicle emissions

o  Other than regulations implementing the act, EPA is precluded from using existing authority to regulate greenhouse gases as hazardous air pollutants or under NSR rules (unless they have non-climate change related impacts) and precludes listing of greenhouse gases as criteria air pollutants based on their impact on climate change

o  State cap and trade programs would be preempted, at least from 2012 through 2017. It appears as though allowances already issued under RGGI will be folded into the federal program

Overall, this looks like a measured approach designed to win support from both sides. Environmentalists will be pleased by firm caps, including a 2020 cap more stringent than some have proposed. Regulated industries will be pleased by the attempts to harmonize standards on motor vehicles, preclude Clean Air Act regulation of greenhouse gases, and to preempt state or regional cap and trade programs.

If I had to guess, I’d say that this bill marks the death knell for regulation of greenhouse gases under existing Clean Air Act authority (assuming that a bill gets passed; if Congress fails to act, then EPA certainly will use existing authority); it is probably also the beginning of the end of state and regional programs.  On both of these issues, If Representatives Waxman and Markey are already staking out this position, then it seems difficult to imagine a final bill that doesn’t incorporate these elements of the draft bill.  As to the rest, time will tell.

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

As many readers of this blog will have already learned, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Entergy v. Riverkeeper yesterday. The Court reversed the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and held that EPA was within its authority to consider cost-benefit analysis in setting standards for cooling water intake structures under § 316(b) of the Clean Water Act.

I’m definitely getting on my soapbox here, but this should not be news and it should not be controversial – though I certainly realize that it is. If current conditions tell us anything, it is that resources are not infinite. The irony here is that it is environmentalists who tend to make this point most frequently. Unfortunately, they don’t like to acknowledge that, because resources are not infinite, cost-benefit decisions get made implicitly, even when EPA does not utilize cost-benefit analysis in its regulations.

When I was just a poor Superfund lawyer, I attended a public meeting in Somersworth, New Hampshire, as local residents tried in vain to persuade EPA that they could save more lives by installing traffic signals and hiring public safety personnel than by spending millions of dollars cleaning up an old landfill to the nth degree. The simple truth is that when we force regulated industries to incur costs without regard to the associated benefits, other spending gets displaced. It may be better to have power plant owners spend money on closed cycle cooling than on worker health benefits or, God forbid, payments to shareholders, but let’s make the decision honestly and not ignore the trade-offs.

I still don’t understand why the debate can’t be about how fairly to define costs and benefits. There are serious issues here, but there’s certainly no free lunch. I posted recently about my disappointment regarding early indications that the Obama administration will not be a friend to common sense regulatory reform. The same issues arise here. The Obama administration, because of its undoubted credibility, could advance the cause of cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. I fear it is not going to happen.

For the same reason, it’s quite possible that the Riverkeeper decision may be much ado about nothing. Riverkeeper holds that EPA may consider costs and benefits, but does not require it. Environmentalists are already clamoring for EPA to rewrite the 316(b) rules and I wouldn’t be surprised if the agency does so.

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