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

The US Securities and Exchange Commission released a staff bulletin yesterday that reverses a Bush administration policy that excluded shareholder resolutions which asked companies to disclose their climate-related financial exposure. While not the rule-making we discussed last week, this could be a significant change for the boards of large companies who may now be forced to respond to shareholder concerns about the risks that greenhouse gases and climate change can create.

The Bulletin states that going forward, the Corporation Finance Division will no longer automatically allow the exclusion of proposals that deal with the evaluation of risk, but will look at the subject matter giving rise to the risk.  The Division will generally not permit a company to exclude a shareholder proposal that deals with significant policy issues relating to the evaluation of risk.  The Division noted in its decision that risk management and risk oversight can have major impacts not only on the shareholders, but on the company itself, and that application of the Bush administration framework in SLB No. 14C led to unwarranted exclusions.

CERES, which had long lobbied for such a change in the SEC's policies, applauded yesterday’s announcement, concluding that “the guidance strikes the right balance of ensuring that resolutions about critical matters reach company share owners, without opening the floodgates to proposals of more questionable significance.”

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

Public and private developers spend a lot of time talking about NIMBY, or Not In My Backyard. With the increasing number of coastal development projects, ranging from wind farms to LNG facilities to plans for casinos, we should perhaps be talking about another acronym: NIMO, or Not In My Ocean. Yesterday, a decision from the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Weaver's Cove LNG v. Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council gave some hope that NIMO will not mean that states can simply squelch development of ocean resources.

Weaver’s Cove, as originally proposed in 2003, was to be an LNG terminal  located up the Taunton River, in Fall River, Massachusetts. To address safety and related concerns, the proposal has been moved off-shore.

The only element of the project that is subject to the jurisdiction of Rhode Island authorities is dredging that would be necessary in Rhode Island waters. That dredging requires a federal consistency determination by the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, or CRMC. In addition, Rhode Island state law requires that the CRMC provide a license to the project, known as an Assent. Here, the CRMC refused to provide either the federal consistency determination or the state law Assent. Weaver’s Cove LNG sued, won in the District Court, and won again yesterday at the Court of Appeals.

The facts of the case are complicated and the Court limited the decision as far as it could to the case-specific facts. Nonetheless, there are two points to be gleaned from the decision that may be of broader import

The Coastal Zone Management Act contains a provision, specifically intended to prevent states from frustrating the purposes of the CZMA, which provides that, if a state fails to act on a consistency request within six months, the state’s concurrence is “conclusively presumed.” Here, Rhode Island argued that the clock hadn’t begun to run, because Weavers’ Cove hadn’t provided all of the information necessary for CRMC to make a consistency finding. The Court didn’t buy it. Again, the facts here won’t translate to other cases, but what will transfer is the Court’s refusal simply to accept Rhode Island’s request that the Court defer to a state agency’s interpretation of its own law. Calling the CRMC’s interpretation of Rhode Island law “untenable” and “clearly erroneous,” the Court rejected it and held that, because of the CRMC’s failure to act, consistency would indeed be “conclusively presumed.”

Perhaps even more significantly, the Court concluded that the Rhode Island law which would require that the CRMC issue an Assent before the project could move forward is preempted by the Natural Gas Act (NGA). While the Court did not find that the NGA explicitly preempted Rhode Island law or that it occupied the field, it did conclude that, in this case, state law conflicted with the NGA. 

Notwithstanding the Court’s efforts to limit its preemption holding, I think it will provide grist for preemption arguments in other cases, as will its reluctance to defer to state agency interpretation of state law, where such deference might create obstacles to the accomplishment of federal objectives.

It’s too much to say that this decision represents the end of NIMO. However, it’s also difficult to see this as totally abstracted from an awareness by the Court of the delays experienced by the Cape Wind project. We’ve got to figure out a way to get to an answer more quickly. The answer my be “no” to some projects, but it shouldn’t take six years to get an answer.

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

A few weeks ago, we noted EPA’s release of its long-awaited “Tailoring Rule,” specifying how EPA would apply its PSD program under existing Clean Air Act authority to greenhouse gases, once they definitively become a regulated pollutant under the CAA some time next spring. Today, the proposed rule was published in the Federal Register. Comments are due December 28.

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

The Chairman's Mark of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733), released late Friday night by Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chair Barbara Boxer, fills in some of the details left out of the earlier-introduced Boxer-Kerry bill, notably identifying which sectors will get CO₂ allowances allocated to them for free. The bill largely follows the lead of the House-passed ACES, and in some areas uses identical language. For instance, as in ACES, the largest share of allowances (30%) is allocated to state-regulated local electric-distribution companies, who are instructed to use any revenue from the allowances to protect consumers from electricity price increases.

The precise allocation numbers are sure to be a source of debate as the negotiations move forward through the remaining 5 committees and individual Senators negotiate for their states’ interests to be met in the bill. But do the allocation numbers actually matter? A recent post by Harvard Professor Robert Stavins makes the case that once the decision has been made to allocate a set number of allowances for free, to whom they are assigned does not have a significant impact on the environment performance of the cap and trade regime or on the overall social costs imposed by the regulatory system.

That's why it is significant that one of the largest differences between the Chairman's Mark of the Senate Bill and ACES is how many allowances will not be allocated for free.  The size of the pot of allowances in the Senate bill to be set aside for the Treasury Department's use for deficit reduction rises from 10% in 2012 to a high of 25% between 2040 and 2050.  In comparison, the House bill earmarks for the Treasury Department only those allowances which are not already freely allocated or auctioned, a piece which falls to 1% by 2014.  The set of allowances marked for direct sale at auction is also larger in the Senate bill -- 15% of all allowances will be auctioned each year through 2029, rising to 18.5% in later years.  As in ACES, one of the key uses for the auction revenues are direct rebates to consumers to help them deal with higher energy bills.

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

Waxman-Markey. Boxer-Kerry. Public nuisance litigation. EPA regulation under existing authority. What’s next in the arsenal of weapons against climate change? How about including climate change impacts in reviews under NEPA?

In February 2008, the International Center for Technology Assessment, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club petitioned the CEQ to “clarify” its regulations to require the assessment of potential climate change impacts in environmental reviews performed under NEPA. CEQ has not yet formally responded to the petition, but that hasn’t stopped noted environmentalist Senator James Inhofe (R. Okla.) from weighing in preemptively. Calling NEPA a “bedrock environmental statute,” Senator Inhofe has informed Nancy Sutley, CEQ Chairwoman, that NEPA “is not an appropriate tool to set global climate change policy.” It’s not obvious to me why a bedrock environmental statute shouldn’t be used to address the impacts of climate change.

In any case, whether Senator Inhofe is correct or not, it seems likely that CEQ will eventually take some action, whether by guidance or regulation, to require inclusion of climate change assessments into NEPA reviews. Moreover, this is yet another area of climate change policy in which the federal government will be following the laboratories of democracy, the states, rather than leading. As we have previously reported, a number of states, including California, Massachusetts, and New York, already require GHG assessments in reviews under their state NEPA analogues.

Going forward, those planning large projects, whether the projects are public or private and whether they are state or federal, should expect to have to assess the climate change impacts, including whether alternatives to the project are available that would have reduced climate change impacts.

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

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is re-examining its rules regarding whether companies should or must disclose climate change related risks. According to an article in ClimateWire, revisions could be issued by the end of October. On Friday, SEC Commissioner Elisse Walter said that SEC staff are working on preparing recommendations, and two options are still on the table. One option is a rule-making that would set specific rules for disclosing climate risks. The other would be a re-interpretation of Form 10-K disclosure rules to require companies to disclose and comment on operations tied in with mitigating climate-change risks.

These changes likely result from frequent criticism by shareholder groups that companies are ducking requirements under the current SEC rules to disclose the climate-related liabilities they face from greenhouse gas emissions, including emerging regulations, rising commodity prices, potential for property damage and long-term costs associated with replacing equipment and infrastructure after climate-related risks take their toll. Spurred on by shareholder initiatives and corporate social responsibility programs, a number of businesses have already started to voluntarily report their climate risks and disclose information on potential financial impacts. But, as stated in the Investor Network on Climate Risk's most recent letter to the SEC on this issue, climate risk disclosures in SEC filings still remain relatively rare. A June 2009 survey by INCR and CERES found that only two of 100 companies in the oil and gas, electric power, coal, insurance and transportation sectors disclosed more than half of the climate-related information sought by investors in their Q1 2008 reports. Changes to the SEC rules could make such reporting a requirement.

Even with forthcoming changes to the rules, the SEC's Walter urged companies not to wait for the SEC to act. As ClimateWire reported, "People should be looking at their own particular facts and circumstances," Walter said. "For example, if you're operating a plant in an area where there's drought, and there are serious water needs, and you don't know if you can satisfy them, costs will triple. That would be one example."
 

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

Two more decisions were released last week concerning whether nuisance claims could be brought with respect to harm alleged to have resulted from private conduct contributing to climate change. First, in Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corporation, the District Court dismissed nuisance claims. Second, in Comer v. Murphy Oil, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a District Court dismissal of nuisance claims related to damage resulting from Hurricane Katrina.

Village of Kivalina first. In this case, an Inupiat Eskimo village claimed that global climate change traceable to the defendants has essentially made their village uninhabitable. Notably and, I think, shrewdly, they did not seek injunctive relief, but sought only damages related to the cost of relocating the village. The District Court concluded both that the law suit raised non-justiciable political questions and that the plaintiffs did not have standing, because their harm was not fairly traceable to the defendants’ conduct.

The Fifth Circuit wasn’t buying either of these arguments in Comer v. Murphy Oil. To the Fifth Circuit, like the Second, in the American Electric Power case, the complexity of the underlying proof is not sufficient to render these types of cases non-justiciable. The cases involve tort claims; courts resolve tort claims – pretty much, end of story. I’ve got to say, from my lowly perch, that I think that the Second and Fifth Circuits got it right here. It’s easy to say that it would be better for Congress to deal with climate change than state legislatures or, as here, courts. However, that’s not that same as courts declining to exercise jurisdiction. I’d be surprised if the political question argument  has any real legs.

Standing is a different matter. I still think that both the traceability and redressability elements of standing are problematic. Plaintiffs in both Village of Kivalina and Comer v. Murphy Oil solved the redressability issue by seeking only damages, and not injunctive relief. Both the Second and Fifth Circuits noted that traceability, as a standing issue, necessitates only that the plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ conduct “contributes to” the plaintiffs’ injuries. This is not a stringent test. However, in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, I could imagine some courts looking askance at the types of allegations made in these complaints, even at a pleading stage.

On balance, what these cases tell me is that some of these cases are actually likely to be litigated all the way through to trial. Notwithstanding the potentially huge recoveries, it seems here that the cost to the defendants of paying out anything more than nominal damages would be high, and the prospects of successful defense of these claims are still reasonably good. That’s a recipe for trial, as far as I can tell.

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

New York Governor Patterson last week announced a plan to divert $90 million in funds raised from New York’s share of RGGI auctions to deficit reduction. The reaction was not positive from environmental NGOs, who are understandably concerned about the “precedent-setting nature of this move.”

It shouldn’t really be surprising in these times of fiscal challenge for state governments. It’s no different than what happened with the diversion of money from tobacco settlements away from smoking prevention programs to deficit reduction.

The interesting questions will be whether other states follow New York’s lead and whether this has any effect on the debate in Congress regarding preemption of state and regional trading programs in the context of a federal cap-and-trade program.

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

Environment & Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) announced Tuesday that committee hearings on the Boxer-Kerry climate bill, S. 1733, will begin on October 27 and that a mark-up will be planned for early to mid-November. Meanwhile, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee is continuing its hearings on emission allocations, with the next hearing scheduled for Oct. 21.

After announcing the hearing, Boxer said she would try to win over all of the Environment & Public Works Committee Democrats, including coal-state Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Arlen Specter (D-PA).  Boxer said she does not expect to secure any Republican votes. She plans to release a modified version of the Boxer-Kerry bill before the legislative hearings begin, with only a handful of "tweaks" compared to the version unveiled last month.

This aggressive timetable might be enough to have a bill in hand before the Copenhagen discussion in December, a goal the White House is pressing very hard to meet.

One change that would be more than a tweak would be a boost to nuclear energy. The Boxer-Kerry bill has a modest nuclear title focused on worker training and research into waste management technologies.  But the bipartisan blueprint for a comprehensive energy and global warming bill that Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) spelled out in their joint op-ed in the New York Times Sunday calls for additional incentives for nuclear power, stating that “nuclear power needs to be a core component of electricity generation if we are to meet our emission reduction targets.”   In the op-ed, Kerry and Graham called for a streamlined permit system that maintains vigorous safeguards while allowing utilities to secure financing for more plants.  As E&E reports, Tom Carper (D-Del) yesterday called for a nuclear energy amendment that could help bring aboard swing votes who support the industry, such as Senators Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Graham, who are seeking more federal financial backing and other support. Carper’s plan involves more funding to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, rather than a focus on streamlining.

As notable as this change would be, one problem with basing a consensus for the climate bill on nuclear power is that it's nuclear. Puns aside, opinions run strong on the issue of nuclear power, particularly among the environmental lobby, and too much emphasis might lose more votes than it picks up.  With only a few legislative weeks left before the end of the year, it will be interesting to see if the fast-paced timetable holds, and whether a consensus can be built in time.

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

In an interesting decision issued a few weeks ago, a District Court in Georgia held that a property manager at a strip mall could not be held liable as an owner of a facility under CERCLA. However, the court held that the property manager could be liable as an operator of the facility. I don't think that the decision is correct, but if it is the law, then property managers would be wise to consider carefully what responsibilities they are willing to assume and what sort of indemnification agreements may be required with the actual property owners.

The case, Scarlett & Associates v. Briarcliff Center Partners, involved a strip mall which had as one of its tenants – surprise, surprise – a dry cleaning operation. The owner had almost no connection to the property. It had leased the entire strip mall. When the lessee ran into financial problems, its lender took over the property and engaged Faison & Associates to manage the property for it. Faison managed the property for approximately two years, until the bank sold the lease.

It seems obvious that Faison was not an owner of the property, since it neither owned nor leased the property, and the court agreed.

However, the court denied Faison’s motion for summary judgment on operator liability. Looking to the Bestfoods decision, the court concluded that there was sufficient evidence that Faison "manage[d], direct[ed], or conduct[ed] operations specifically related to pollution….” The evidence cited by the court, however, is troubling, to say the least. In ruling against Faison, the court noted that Faison had informed the dry cleaner of certain EPA requirements and requested documentation that the dry cleaner was in compliance. There was also evidence that Faison “generally was responsible for managing and maintaining the shopping Center and performing all acts necessary to effect [the bank’s] compliance with all laws….”

I don’t think that that’s enough. In fact, the reverse seems to be the case. Don’t we want property managers to be taking steps to ensure that operating lessees comply with applicable regulations? If that can be evidence that the manager is an operator, the only result will be to cause property managers to be more hands off, which means less oversight, which means less compliance. The law has to be that property managers can take steps to ensure that lessees are in compliance without such steps being interpreted as “operation” of the facility by the manager.

Nonetheless, with this decision out there, if I were a property manager, I’d be very carefully reviewing my contracts both to ensure that I have minimized the likelihood that I will be considered an operator and to ensure that I have received proper indemnifications from the property owner.

Good luck.

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

Late last week, Elliott Gilberg, Acting Director of EPA’s Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) issued an Interim Policy on Managing the Duration of Remedial Design/Remedial Action Negotiations. Members of the regulated community may not be surprised by the contents of the memo, but they certainly will not be pleased. In brief, the memorandum fundamentally makes two points:

EPA wants to shorten the duration of RD/RA negotiation

EPA is going to use the heavy hammer of unilateral administrative orders, or UAOs, to keep PRPs’ feet to the fire and ensure that negotiations move quickly.

PRPs will likely agree that shortening the duration of negotiations would be a good outcome in the abstract – but achieving it by greater use of UAOs? I don’t think so.

I can only wonder if EPA has even considered the impact of the Burlington Northern decision here. Is this a perverse reaction from EPA? A metaphorical throwing down the gauntlet to PRPs? It certainly feels that way.

I have a different suggestion, if EPA truly wants to shorten negotiations. First, acknowledge Burlington Northern and compromise on the merits in those great majority of cases where there are legitimate divisibility arguments. Second, stop acting like the last bastion of command and control regulation. Set cleanup standards and then, to the maximum extent permitted by existing law, let PRPs clean up to those standards, without micromanaging every detail of the cleanup process.

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

On Thursday, EPA issued its long-awaited proposed rule describing how thresholds would be set for regulation of GHG sources under the existing Clean Air Act PSD authority. Having waded through the 416-page proposal, I’m torn between the appropriate Shakespeare quotes to describe it: “Much ado about nothing” or “Methinks thou dost protest too much.”

First, notwithstanding its length, the proposal is quite limited in scope. In essence, it has three parts:

Establishment of an applicability threshold for PSD and Title V purposes of 25,000 tons per year of CO₂e.

Establishment of a PSD significance level of from 10,000 tpy CO₂e and 25,000 CO₂e.

Development over the next five years of means to streamline GHG regulation of sources greater than the current statutory levels of 100-250 tpy.

Basically, EPA’s position is that, once it begins to regulate GHGs as a pollutant by promulgating its mobile source rule – expected next spring – stationary source regulation under the PSD and Title V programs follow automatically. Thus, the issue for EPA at this point is not whether to regulate stationary sources, but how to do so without the entire program grinding to a halt.

Here’s where the protestation comes in. Most of the proposal is devoted to explaining EPA’s reliance of the doctrines of “absurd results” and “administrative necessity” to justify exclusion of sources that would seem to be categorically included by the explicit language of the statute. Members of the regulated community will understand the irony in EPA’s extensive discussion regarding how the purpose of the PSD program is to achieve environmental protection and economic development – and that this latter purpose would be jeopardized by regulation of sources at the 100/250 tpy threshold. I don’t think we will ever again see EPA devote this many pages to a description of its concern about economic growth.

I’m not going to predict here whether EPA will win any challenge to the higher thresholds. Certainly, the absurd results doctrine argument is the stronger of the two. It is noteworthy that the four leading environmental cases EPA cites in support of its administrative necessity argument, while acknowledging the existence of the doctrine, all went against EPA.

More relevant still is the question of who would in fact challenge this regulation and what would be the result even if the challenge succeeded. Following the debacle that resulted from vacation of the CAIR rule, what is the likelihood that a successful challenge would result in vacation of the rule in its entirety? Isn’t it more likely that the rule would stay in effect as to the large sources, with the court remanding the case to EPA to promulgate rules governing smaller sources? In fact, that’s what EPA is already doing, which is probably EPA’s strongest practical argument in support of the rule.

Public comments will be due 60 days from Federal Register promulgation and there are some issues that the regulated community should consider. These include the significance threshold, and suggestions regarding how to streamline the program for smaller sources. EPA has proposed some interesting ideas, including presumptive BACT determinations and general permits. 

Bottom line? Large sources better get ready to comply. Smaller sources, take a deep breath and count your blessings – for now. 

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