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

On August 12, in Sierra Club v. Otter Tail Power Co., the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the Sierra Club’s suit related to the Big Stone Generating Station, a coal fired power plant in South Dakota. In doing so, it disagreed with EPA and sided with what appears to be the majority on a question that has produced differing responses amongst the courts - whether the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) program prohibits only the construction or modification of a facility without a PSD permit, or whether it imposes ongoing operational requirements. Finding that PSD requirements are conditions of construction or modification, and not conditions of operation, the court held that violations related to the defendants’ failure to obtain PSD permits occurred at the time the modifications were made, and that the claims were thus barred by the statute of limitations.

The Sierra Club challenged three modifications undertaken at the Station: a 1995 change in fuel source from lignite coal to sub-bituminous coal; a 1998 boiler modification; and, 2001 changes which allowed the Station to supply steam to a nearby ethanol plant. In June 2008, the Sierra Club filed a citizen suit alleging, among other things, that the defendants violated and continued to violate the Clean Air Act in that they had failed to obtain PSD permits prior to the modifications and, as a result, were operating without appropriate permits and without abiding by best available control technology (“BACT”) limits that would have been imposed had PSD permits been obtained.

The Eighth Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal of the case, basing its decision largely on the language of the PSD statute, which prohibit a facility from being “constructed” without meeting PSD requirements, and the citizen suit provision, which authorizes suit “against any person who proposes to construct or constructs,” as well as the related regulations.  Finding the language unambiguous, the court refused to defer to the contrary interpretation of EPA, which participated as an amicus party. The court rejected the argument that the CAA and PSD regulations should be interpreted as establishing operational duties based on the program’s purpose and the fact that PSD permits impose requirements on the operation of facilities, finding that such requirements are not enforceable independent of the permitting process. In addition to finding the Sierra Club’s civil penalty claims barred, the court held that its claims for equitable relief seeking to bring the Station into compliance with the Act were also barred. 

Under the Eighth Circuit’s reasoning, while a facility must obtain a PSD permit prior to construction or modification, and, having done so, must operate in accordance with the permit, if the operator fails to apply for such a permit, claims relating to its failure to obtain or operate pursuant to an appropriate PSD permit are barred unless brought within five years of the construction or modification. Given the potential difficulties involved in detecting PSD violations, the decision places a burden on plaintiffs seeking enforcement of PSD requirements to identify and file claims related to such violations as early as possible. Given that this issue has come up a number of times and there is some disagreement amongst the courts as to the right answer, it is possible that the Sierra Club will seek further review of this issue.

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

In February, President Obama tasked the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage with the ambitious goal of overcoming the barriers to widespread, cost-effective deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) within the next 10 years.  As the first bold step, the 14-agency and executive department group released its findings in a report on August 12. 

The report concludes that widespread cost-effective deployment of CCS will only occur if the technology is commercially available (i.e. scale-able and cost-effective) and a supportive national policy framework is in place to both fund and regulate it.  The task force believes that,  in the long run, there are no insurmountable technological, legal, institutional or regulatory barriers that will prevent CCS from playing a role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  But that does not mean the early years will be easy.  

CCS is a three-step process that includes the capture and compression of CO2 from power plants and industrial sources (usually coal-fired, since their carbon emissions are the most plentiful); transport of the captured CO2 , usually in pipelines; and storage of that CO2 in geologic formations, such as oil and gas reservoirs and unmineable coal seams.   The report points out that technologies for all three components of CCS already exist, and there are four existing commercial CCS facilities in other parts of the world.

The US government has bought in to CCS in a big way, committing $3.4 billion in stimulus funds,  including $1 billion for FutureGen, and just this week, DOE announced 15 projects receiving $21.3 million over the next three years.  

So what is stopping the technology?  The key barrier identified by the task force is the lack of comprehensive climate change legislation.  Without a price on carbon (and a relatively high one, at that), there is no stable framework for investment in the technology.  Even with significant federal funds pouring in, projects of this scale still need private investment.  But legal and regulatory uncertainty, unsurprisingly, make funding the projects a shaky prospect. 

The report concludes that early CCS projects -- like the 5 to 10 DOE-supported CCS demonstration projects slated to begin operations by 2016 -- can proceed under existing laws, but that the experience gained from those initial projects must be incorporated into a new regulatory framework before we embark on more widespread deployment.  

The report lays out a plan for a federal agency roundtable, championed by DOE and EPA, to oversee and continually review the adequacy of technology, incentives, and safety during this initial period.  The plan includes a lot of work for EPA, such as formulating new regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act that deal with the novel problems posed by storing commercial-scale amounts of pressurized carbon. 

Of course, one of those problems is that the stored gas might escape.  The Task Force also made recommendations on procedures for long-term liability and stewardship, including creation of an industry-financed trust fund to support long-term stewardship activities and compensate parties for damages after site closure.  The report cautions against having open-ended federal indemnification to address the long-term liabilities.

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

EPA shows no signs of slowing down in its efforts to use the Clean Air Act’s PSD/NSR provisions as an enforcement club. The latest target in EPA’s crosshairs is the Detroit Edison Monroe Power Plant. Late last month, DOJ filed a complaint alleging violations of PSD/NSR requirements in connection with a project to replace the high temperature reheater and the economizer at Monroe Unit 2. Aside from the broad sign that EPA remains committed to these cases, the most recent action is notable for at least two reasons:

The suit names both Detroit Edison, which owns the plant, and DTE Energy, Detroit Edison’s parent. The complaint alleges that DTE Energy “employees make decisions involving construction and environmental matters at the plant” and that it “must approve major capital expenditures at” Monroe. Naming the parent is consistent with actions EPA has taken with respect to some of this firm’s clients; Parent companies would be wise to pay attention to this trend.

The project that is the subject of the complaint took place this year; we’re not talking about EPA reaching back to projects completed in the 1980s or 1990s. The complaint alleges that DTE provided one day’s notice before commencing the project. I’m not involved in the case, so I don’t know the details, but it’s hard to imagine that there isn’t some relevant background here. Either Detroit Edison and DTE, relying on some of the more favorable PSD/NSR decisions, decided just to pay their money and take their chances, or someone at EPA or the State of Michigan led the plant astray. Time will tell.

There has been no doubt for some time that EPA is going to continue to seek reductions in conventional pollutant emissions through these types of enforcement actions. This action is also a good reminder, however, of the type of action we have to look forward to, assuming that the Tailoring Rule is upheld. If there is no Congressional action, the PSD/NSR program is going to be EPA’s only leverage to get GHG reductions.

I can’t wait.

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

The good news is that EPA is relying on good science. The bad news is that the science says things will keep getting worse.

After several months of review, on July 29, EPA denied 10 petitions to reconsider its 2009 Endangerment Finding for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The petitions, which were filed by, among others, the attorneys general of Texas and Virginia and the US Chamber of Commerce, pointed to errors in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the University of East Anglia “Climategate” email scandal as examples of how the science underpinning EPA’s ruling may have been flawed or skewed.  A number of petitioners have vowed to appeal the ruling.

In rejecting the petitions, the EPA confirmed, in a 217-page denial and 360-page response to each charge, that there are no scientific or other bases to change its finding that climate change caused by emissions of greenhouse gases threatens public health and the environment. As the denial concluded, the evidence proving climate change is a human-caused problem remains “robust, voluminous and compelling.”   

The science supporting the Finding has also been reinforced by recent additional major science assessments. One of these is this week’s report by NOAA on the State of the Climate, which, though it is a rigorous and solid report, is one depressing read.  The report draws on the work of more than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries, taking observations from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean, all of which reach the same conclusion – our climate is unmistakably changing. The report looks at 10 measurable planet-wide indicators -- all of which are moving quickly in the direction they should not.  Among the notable conclusions and statistics are that the decade of the 2000s was the warmest yet and the average temperature on Earth has grown a full degree Fahrenheit over just the past 50 years.

People may be unhappy about the conclusions and may disagree about appropriate policies to address climate change, but the probability that a court will overturn the Endangerment Finding seems approximately zero.

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

Now that the Senate has put an end to speculation about a federal cap-and-trade program, the laboratory of the states and patchwork of regional regulation seem even more important.   The Western Climate Initiative (WCI) will likely involve a little of both.

Yesterday, the WCI Partner Jurisdictions (seven US states and four Canadian provinces) unveiled their comprehensive strategy for a cap-and-trade program with the goal of reducing regional greenhouse gas emissions by 15% below 2005 levels before 2020. The program is planned to begin in 2012, although apparently only California, New Mexico, Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia are on track to have trading systems operational by that date. Even so, these two states and three provinces account for 70 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions the WCI partners produce.

The report recommends standards for regulations governing allowances, creation and use of offsets, credits for early action reductions since 2007, and other design features of a cap-and-trade program, but does not itself dictate specific regulations. Instead, the regional goal will be reached through individual states’ and provinces’ implementation of separate programs that supply allowances for quarterly regional auctions. While this individualized approach makes sense given the wide diversity of settings and the fact that WCI crosses not only state but national boundaries, it does leave a large number of factors up to the individual jurisdictions.  

Among the details that are undecided is how many allowances will be at play (a critical issue and lesson learned from the implementation of RGGI). Each state or province will adopt its own budget and determine how allowances within that budget will be distributed to emitters – through allocations, direct sales or auctions. In yesterday's report and a more detailed one from early July, WCI recommends that each jurisdiction’s 2012 allowance budget be the expected 2012 actual emissions, rather than starting with an initial cut, but then begin to decrease (at a rate to be set by each jurisdiction), with another increase in 2015 when the cap expands to cover transportation fuels and residential and commercial fuels as well.  

Offsets would be more tightly defined by the regional structure: an offset certificate issued by a WCI partner jurisdiction must meet all recommended offset criteria and result from a project located in Canada, the US or Mexico. It is recommended that each jurisdiction restrict the use of offset certificates to 49% of aggregate emissions reductions – such a limit will be expressed as a portion of each emitter’s emissions that may be covered by offset certificates or allowances from other programs.  

The WCI partner jurisdictions seem to have adopted a number of RGGI’s features, including a quarterly regional, single-round, sealed-bid auction structure, 3-year compliance periods, unlimited banking of allowances, and an auction floor price.  But as the report notes, the partner jurisdictions expect auctions to be only one component of allowance distribution – different from RGGI, where nearly 100% of allowances are auctioned.  The portion of allowances that each jurisdiction submits to the quarterly regional auctions may vary across jurisdictions and may also change over time.  Such flexibility could allow each jurisdiction to address competitiveness and leakage issues more directly than a regional plan. 

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

My apologies if this post is a mash note to Judge Wilkinson. Sometimes a decision is written with such clarity and simplicity that you have to sit up and take notice. Such is the case with yesterday’s decision in North Carolina v. TVA, reversing the District Court decision imposing an injunction against four TVA plants that would have required installation of additional controls for NO_x and SO₂ , notwithstanding the absence of any allegation that the plants were violating their permits under the Clean Air Act. My apologies also to my friends in the environmental community and the Massachusetts AG’s office, who supported the District Court decision, but I have a hard time seeing this decision as anything other than the death knell for this kind of public nuisance litigation.

My only complaint with the opinion is that second paragraph of the decision is such a cogent summary that it’s not obvious to me that the decision needed to go on for another 30 pages. That paragraph states:

This ruling was flawed for several reasons. If allowed to stand, the injunction would encourage courts to use vague public nuisance standards to scuttle the nation’s carefully created system for accommodating the need for energy production and the need for clean air. The result would be a balkanization of clean air regulations and a confused patchwork of standards, to the detriment of industry and the environment alike. Moreover, the injunction improperly applied home state law extraterritorially, in direct contradiction to the Supreme Court’s decision in International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481 (1987). Finally, even if it could be assumed that the North Carolina district court did apply Alabama and Tennessee law, it is difficult to understand how an activity expressly permitted and extensively regulated by both federal and state government could somehow constitute a public nuisance. For these reasons, the judgment must be reversed.

While I will thus leave the bulk of the opinion to readers particularly interested in the subject, one other paragraph stands out for me. After discussing the contours of public nuisance litigation, Judge Wilkinson noted that:

while public nuisance law doubtless encompasses environmental concerns, it does so at such a level of generality as to provide almost no standard of application. If we are to regulate smokestack emissions by the same principles we use to regulate prostitution, obstacles in highways, and bullfights, see Keeton, supra, at 643-45, we will be hard pressed to derive any manageable criteria. As Justice Blackmun commented, "one searches in vain . . . for anything resembling a principle in the common law of nuisance."

There’s no question in my mind that this decision is the end of public nuisance litigation as a viable cause of action for traditional pollutants, where those pollutants are comprehensively regulated under a federal statute. Moreover, it certainly provides a roadmap for dismissal of public nuisance claims concerning GHG emissions. As I noted last year in discussion Connecticut v. AEP, even though the 2^nd Circuit allowed GHG nuisance claims to proceed, part of its argument was that there is no comprehensive federal regulatory scheme with respect to GHG. Its argument clearly suggested that, once such regulations are in place, public nuisance defendants might have better luck. The promulgation of the Tailoring Rule now means that public nuisance defendants can point to North Carolina v. EPA and say that the federal rules have displaced the common law of nuisance. I think that they will probably win that argument. They certainly should.

Thank you Judge Wilkinson.

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

Climate change legislation is dead for now. I won’t pretend it’s not depressing, even though I avoid the political channels and ignore the rhetoric. For those of us who haven’t refudiated climate change science, it’s a victory for the pessimists and evidence that Congress has a hard time addressing long-range problems, even if consequential.

With respect to regulation of GHG, it’s the worst of both worlds and no one should be happy (which is why I held out hope until the end that cooler heads would prevail). We’re still going to have regulation of GHG, the mechanism being EPA’s recently promulgated Tailoring Rule for GHG. One word. Ugh. Does this really make climate skeptics happy? Do they really think that they will somehow succeed in rolling back the Tailoring Rule? I don’t think so. On the other hand, we don’t have an economy-wide cap-and-trade or carbon tax regime. Are environmentalists happy? I still don’t think so. 

I’m left feeling a little like Rodney King. Certainly, the issue isn’t going to go away before the next Congress is sworn in.

As I have noted before, however, problems with climate change legislation don’t mean that Congress can’t enact legislation further regulating traditional pollutants. The three-pollutant bill now before the Senate already has a Republic co-sponsor, Lamar Alexander. Now, according to a report in E&E Daily, even Senator Inhofe is stating that he’s interested in working with Democrats to move three-pollutant legislation. Given the failure to move GHG legislation, hell is likely to get hotter before freezing over, but if Inhofe can really be brought on board, there’s no reason why legislation couldn’t pass.

Three-pollutant legislation shares one significant feature with the GHG issue. Like GHG regulation, efficient regulation is hampered by limitations in existing law, as we saw with the D.C. Circuit’s rejection of the trading regime in the CAIR regulations, and EPA’s much more limited trading program in the Transport Rule. Senator Voinovich, another Republican that three-pollutant legislation supporters would like to have with them, noted as much, saying that the transport rule would be a "stringent and inflexible regime." New legislation could provide for a more robust trading regime. We’ll see if that’s enough to bring Republicans on board.

I sure hope so. Right now, all we’ve got is a GHG regulatory program that won’t do much for climate change, but will cause my clients endless headaches, and a Transport Rule that’s probably the best EPA can do on traditional interstate pollution, but not nearly as cost-effective as it might be with new legislative authority. I remain an optimist, but sometimes it’s difficult.

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

On July 6, 2010, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) released a proposed rule, dubbed the “Transport Rule”, which would replace the Clean Air Interstate Rule (“CAIR”). As you likely recall, in 2008 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in North Carolina v. EPA, found that CAIR had a number of fatal flaws and remanded it to the Agency. (Due to its environmental benefits, the Court agreed to leave CAIR in effect while EPA worked on addressing its concerns).  

EPA has clearly attempted to address the problems identified in North Carolina v. EPA. Most significantly, while the Transport Rule still contains a trading component, trading is limited and the Rule ultimately requires that each state provide the reductions required to mitigate that state’s contribution to the interstate air transport problem. At 1,300 pages, the Rule is too long even to summarize here. For a quick summary, take a look at our Client Alert. You might also want to take a look at EPA’s helpful Fact Sheet and presentation summary for slightly more detail.

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

Not surprisingly, the secondary market price for Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) allowances fell for the 4th quarter of 2009, as noted by RGGI Market Monitor Potomac Economics in their recent report.  Trading in RGGI allowances futures declined from 319 million allowances in the third quarter of 2009 to 127 million in the fourth quarter, despite the number of firms participating remaining the same.  Futures prices also declined 8% -- from $2.45 to $2.25.   Even so, futures prices remain notably higher than the clearing prices of the RGGI auctions, which were $2.19 and $2.05, respectively, in the September and December 2009 auctions.

One reason for the continuing decrease in RGGI allowance prices, both through auction and on the secondary market, is the steep decline in CO₂ emissions from the RGGI-subject power plants.   As highlighted in a recent report by Environment Northeast, due to the economic crisis, fuel switching energy efficiency programs, and renewable energy, emissions from those plants have fallen 34% since the start of the program, to just above 120 million tons of CO₂.  This is well below the current RGGI cap of 188 million tons, and even below RGGI's ultimate 2018 goal of 10% reductions from 2005 levels. As such, RGGI allowances will likely remain a surplus commodity well into the future. 

Even given these facts, though, RGGI allowances are far from worthless.  Particularly given that the House-passed ACES bill, as well as all of the front-runner energy and climate bills possibly considered by the Senate have contained provisions for the exchange of federal allowances for RGGI allowances, even the RGGI allowances that might not be needed by RGGI-covered entities could still be worth their weight in federal CO₂ credits sometime in the future.

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

It has long been understood that Massachusetts that the Commonwealth cannot meet its renewable energy goals with solar power alone. Solar is great, but really ratcheting up the percentage of energy supplied by renewable sources is going to take a big commitment to wind. In fact, Governor Patrick announced a goal of 2,000 MW of wind on- and off-shore in Massachusetts by 2020. There are currently 17 MW of wind power in Massachusetts.

Everyone knows the permitting travails – now, hopefully, over – that Cape Wind has faced. It is less known that on-shore wind has not been any easier to develop in Massachusetts. Yesterday, in Ten Local Citizen Group v. New England Wind, the Supreme Judicial Court released a major on-shore wind project from permitting appeal purgatory. The New England Wind project (perhaps still better known as Hoosac Wind) in Florida and Monroe, Massachusetts, was proposed in 2003. Not uncommonly for projects of this sort, the appeal that delayed project implementation had nothing to do with the merits of on-shore wind. It was an appeal over wetlands approvals needed for a gravel access road. By the time MassDEP issued a Superseding Order of Conditions, the opponents requested an adjudicatory hearing, the hearing was held, the ALJ issued a 78-page recommended decision rejecting the permit, the Commissioner issued a 31-page final decision affirming the permit and rejecting the ALJ’s recommended decision, the Superior Court affirmed the Commissioner, and the SJC affirmed the Superior Court, it was July 6, 2010.

I don’t know about you, but I’m out of breath just typing this history. There has to be a better way. It’s certainly safe to say that if wind projects – wherever located – take 7 or 8 years to permit, it’s going to be 2120, not 2020, before we have 2,000 MW of wind in Massachusetts. As some readers will be aware, the Administration has been supporting legislation to facilitate siting of wind power facilities in Massachusetts, but it hasn’t been enacted yet and the forces that make it difficult to obtain final permits in Massachusetts go far beyond the issues that would be addressed by the wind siting legislation. 

For the lawyers among my readers, the decision breaks little ground. Yes, the Commissioner of DEP has considerable discretion in interpreting her own regulations. No, the ALJs who hear adjudicatory appeals and make recommended decisions are not entitled to any deference. 

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

When we blogged about the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program regulations last fall, we noted that the EPA had excluded from the final regulations emission source categories such as wastewater treatment plants and underground coal mines that were initially included in the draft rules.  No longer. Yesterday, EPA finalized regulations requiring an estimated 680 facilities in the four sectors of underground coal mines, industrial wastewater treatment systems, industrial waste landfills and magnesium production facilities to begin collecting emissions data on January 1, 2011, and submit their first annual report in March 2012. Despite being few in number, these facilities, which primarily emit methane, are responsible for about 1% of national greenhouse gas emissions.  As in the existing reporting rules, 40 CFR Part 98, these businesses are required to report their emissions to EPA if they emit 25,000 metric tons CO₂ equivalents or more per year.  

The final rule also clarifies EPA’s decisions on the remaining categories: EPA will exclude ethanol production and food processing from distinct subparts requiring reporting, as well as suppliers of coal (at least for now).  However, these types of facilities are still required to report emissions under other subparts of the rule, if they meet the reporting threshold of 25,000 metric tons CO_2e per year. In addition, now that EPA has made final decisions on "all outstanding source categories and subparts" from last year's draft rule, additional sectors can only be added through new rulemaking.

EPA also released proposed rules reflecting what data submitted by facilities under the greenhouse gas reporting program will be released to the public and what will be withheld as confidential business information. EPA hopes to have these rules in place before the 10,000 facilities that produce about 85% of the nation’s emissions submit their first reports in March 2011. 

As you may recall, the greenhouse gas reporting rules require both direct emitters and suppliers of fuels and industrial gases to report.   For the “direct emitters,” EPA proposes to release information such as the facility name and physical address, emissions, methodology and data used to calculate the emissions, and test and calibration methods, but withhold as confidential business information data on production, throughput, or raw materials that are not inputs to the emissions equations. As the emissions reported by the suppliers of fuels and industrial gases are not emissions from their own facilities, but potential emissions from the eventual use of their products, the individual companies' reports are less important than the overall figures.  As such, EPA proposes a balancing approach – making sector-by-sector determinations and releasing data about emissions only when it would not cause substantial harm to the businesses’ competitive position. (Specifics on how data will be treated are available here.)   Comments are due 60 days after the proposed rules are published in the federal register.

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

Two seemingly unrelated reports last week serve as a reminder that coal remains very much under siege. First, Earthjustice, on behalf of a number of environmental organizations, filed a petition with EPA under § 111 of the Clean Air Act requesting that EPA identify coal mines as an emissions source and, consequently, establish new source performance standards for coal mine emissions of methane and several other categories of pollutants. 

Second, as Daily Environment reported, the Army Corps of Engineers suspended use of Nationwide Permit 21 for the six states in the Appalachian region, covering Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. The decision means that, at least for now, mountaintop removal mining operations in these states will have to apply for and obtain individual Clean Water Act permits, rather than relying on the Nationwide permit.

Other significant regulatory actions affecting the long-term economics of coal include EPA’s decision to tighten regulation of coal combustion residuals, whether through identification of CCR as a hazardous waste or through regulation under RCRA subtitle D – with the current betting being on listing of CCR as a hazardous waste, and EPA’s Tailoring Rule, which will focus initial regulation of GHG emissions on large stationary sources, the most obvious of which are large coal-fired power plants.

All of these actions are nominally independent, but if anyone thinks that at least the NGOs such as the Center for Biological Diversity and Earthjustice don’t see these as related actions the cumulative goal of which is to end use of coal, they’re just not paying attention. Does Lisa Jackson feel the same way? I doubt she’ll ever tell us, but I think I know the answer.

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

It may be time to learn a new acronym.  The 10 RGGI states, plus Pennsylvania and Washington DC have banded together to create the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) -- a group that has pledged to create a plan to address the estimated 30% of greenhouse gas emissions on the eastern seaboard caused by the transportation sector. 

In a Declaration of Intent released Wednesday, the leaders of the environmental, transportation and energy agencies of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington DC, pledged to develop and implement a three-year work plan that outlines how the region can cut greenhouse gases from vehicles and improve efficiency of regional transportation systems.   The TCI builds on RGGI (which does not itself regulate fuels or transportation, but began the states' collaborative efforts on the issue of greenhouse gas emissions) and the 11-states' low carbon fuel memorandum of understanding signed in December.

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

EPA held a public hearing this week on its proposed MACT standards for industrial boilers. The issue may not be as sexy as climate change, but it’s an important rule and not just for those operating industrial boilers. For example, the cement industry has burned 50 million tires – including steel belts – according to its own data. EPA wants to classify such tires as a solid waste, rather than a fuel, which would subject cement kilns to incinerators standards. This has the Rubber Manufacturers Association up in arms. (Query: Does the Michelin Man have arms?)

Industry representatives say that the standards simply can’t be met, arguing that EPA cherry-picked the best performance for different air contaminants across a range of facilities, but ignored data showing that no facilities can actually meet all of the standards. According to the Daily Environment Report, Matthew Todd of the American Petroleum Institute described the proposal as “Franken-MACT.”

I suspect that EPA is going to be very skeptical of these claims. Rightly or wrongly, EPA’s view is that industry tends to cry wolf regarding the feasibility of complying with new regulatory standards. In any case, EPA also tends to think of technology-forcing as part of its mission. Time will tell on this one, regarding both EPA’s willingness to meet industry at least part way and industry’s ability to comply with the standards.

The tire issue, which is merely one example, also calls to mind EPA’s current debate regarding regulation of coal combustion residuals. How does EPA balance what it regards as fidelity to statutory requirements with the need to encourage beneficial and economic reuse of what would otherwise be waste materials? At this point, EPA’s thumb appears to be on the regulatory side of the scale, rather than the reuse side. Not surprising, but not necessarily encouraging. 

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

A week after the Senate’s rejection of the Murkowki resolution last week, where does climate change stand in Congress? The defeat of the resolution is not the end for those who don’t want EPA to regulate under existing authority. Senator Rockefeller hopes to get to the floor a bill that would delay EPA regulation of stationary sources for at least two years, but keep in place the mobile source compromise reached last year. Rockefeller has stated that he hopes to get the votes of some Senators who opposed Murkowski’s resolution.

What about cap-and-trade legislation? Notwithstanding the President’s stated commitment to getting it passed, it’s not obvious that the votes are there. Senator Lieberman, one of the sponsors, is now saying that the bill deserves a debate, notwithstanding the absence of 60 votes. Not exactly an encouraging prognosis for those who want legislation to be enacted.

I’ve got to say, it looks as though paralysis remains the word of the day. The Senate may be the world’s greatest deliberative body, but with respect to climate change, it’s difficult to see anything other than sound and fury, signifying nothing, for the near term. 

And that’s two Shakespeare quotes in one month.

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

In the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative's (RGGI) eighth auction of CO₂ credits on June 9th, the clearing prices were the lowest yet – $1.88 for 2009-2011 credits and the auction floor of $1.86 for 2012-2014 allowances.  Despite these low prices, the auctions still brought in some $80 million.  In total, cumulative RGGI proceeds to be used by the 10 participating states for renewable energy, energy efficiency and low-income energy assistance programs now total $662.8 million.

RGGI's announcement of the auction results highlights some of the specific programs in which the states have invested, and the returns we are already seeing from these investments.  For example, in Connecticut, electric and gas energy efficiency programs, funded in part by RGGI proceeds, are producing more than $4 for every $1 invested.  New York reports a return greater than 8 to 1 for its investments in renewable energy systems.  And the predictions are even larger:  Massachusetts reports that energy efficiency programs, funded in part by RGGI, will generate roughly $6 billion in consumer energy savings in Massachusetts over the next 3 years. 

On the whole, the RGGI states are investing around 60% of the proceeds from the auctions in energy efficiency.  Energy efficiency measures such as building retrofits, heating system replacements and appliance upgrades are predicted to shave 20 to 30% off consumers' utility bills over the next few years. States are also investing in large-scale renewable energy development as well as programs to deploy distributed generation, such as solar energy and hot water systems on  homes, schools, and businesses.

Although participation and prices were both down for this second auction of 2010, all 2010 vintage and 2013 vintage allowances available for purchase were sold – a change from the previous two auctions, in which supply for allowances to be used in the 2012-2014 compliance period outpaced demand.   Perhaps due to the drop in the number of entities participating, electric generators subject to RGGI purchased 92% of the 2010 vintage allowances – up from 85% in March's auction – and 100% of the 2013 vintage allowances.

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

Last Friday, the Court of Appeals for the 5^th Circuit issued an order – boggling the minds of lawyers and non-lawyers alike – dismissing the plaintiffs' appeal in Comer v. Murphy Oil, one of the climate change nuisance cases. As the order and dissents make clear, it’s quite a set of circumstances. The District Court dismissed the case. A panel of the 5^th Circuit reversed. A request to rehear the case en banc was made. Seven out of 16 judges recused themselves. Of the nine remaining judges, six voted to rehear the case en banc. 

Three months later, one of the nine judges who voted on the en banc petition recused herself, leaving only eight – or half – of the judges. After requesting and receiving letter briefs from the parties, five of the remaining eight judges concluded that the last recusal deprived the Court of Appeals of a quorum, which means that the Court cannot hear or decide the appeal. Since the Court had already determined that, pursuant to its rules, the original panel decision was vacated when the decision to hear the case en banc was made, there is now no Court of Appeals decision; nor will there ever be one. The District Court decision dismissing the case, which had been reversed by the panel, is now in effect again, and the plaintiffs’ only remedy is a Supreme Court appeal.

As readers of this blog know, I’m not a believer in climate change nuisance litigation. As a formal matter, I think plaintiffs probably lack standing in these cases. As a practical matter, nuisance litigation is not the right way to regulate GHG emissions. However, I have to admit that I find the order breathtaking. The plaintiffs have a formal statutory right of appeal. As Judge Dennis pointed out in a scathing dissent,

federal courts lack the authority to abstain from the exercise of jurisdiction that has been conferred…. Just as courts have an “absolute duty … to hear and decide cases within their jurisdiction, [] litigants have a corresponding due process right to have their cases decided when they are properly before the federal courts.”

I’ll spare you the details, but Judge Dennis provided several different practical solutions that the Court could have utilized to hear the case.

My initial reaction is that this will slow Supreme Court review of this issue. The 5^th Circuit was likely to affirm the District Court decision, which would have created a split with the Second Circuit. The order issued last week means that there is no circuit split at this point. While the plaintiffs can appeal the order to the Supreme Court. even if the Supreme Court were to reverse the order, it would only be to order the 5^th Circuit to hear the appeal on the merits. If the 5^th Circuit is to hear the case, it’s years away at this point. 

Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, anyone?

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

In 1972, Christopher Stone published his seminal book “Should Trees Have Standing?” That same year, Justice Douglas posed essentially the same question in his dissent in Sierra Club v. Morton, in which he argued that inanimate objects should have standing “to sue for their own preservation.”

I hadn’t thought of this for some time, but was reminded of the issue by an article in GreenWire this week, reporting on a study which has concluded that kudzu, an invasive species which is, one might say rhetorically, taking over the southeastern United States, increases NO_x levels and thus leads to the formation of ground-level ozone. Indeed, the study concluded that if kudzu does in fact take over – to the point where it covers all non-urban, non-agricultural soil – the number of areas exceeding the ozone NAAQS would increase by more than one-third.

Now, what’s the point of this other than the opportunity for a snappy headline? Perhaps nothing. I love a snappy headline. On the other hand, the report does serve as a useful reminder that environmental science and policy are really complicated. I do not use this complexity to suggest that the government should not act in the face of uncertainty, but I do believe that it can serve as a useful reminder of the limits of our knowledge and the appropriateness of a prudent caution before we assume we know all the answers. 

At a practical level, can EPA set up an offset program that would allow new sources of NO_x to move forward if they remove a certain number of acres of kudzu? After all, no one likes kudzu, anyway.

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

It now appears that Senator Murkowski’s resolution disapproving EPA’s endangerment finding will come to a vote in the Senate sometime in June. The complexity of the political dynamic is highlighted by the speculation regarding what such a vote will mean.  On the one hand, there are those who argue that a significant number of votes for the resolution will mean that climate change legislation is dead. On the other hand, Senator Graham has now predicted that the resolution will pass precisely because most Senators do want to pass a climate bill.

As a logical matter, Senator Graham is right. Being against EPA regulation of GHG under existing authority doesn’t necessarily mean that one is opposed to climate change legislation. Indeed, my guess at this point is that at least a plurality and probably a majority of the regulated community supports climate change legislation, but thinks that regulation of stationary sources under existing authority would be a bad idea. 

In terms of practical politics, however, it seems likely that there may be very little correlation between Senators’ views on climate change legislation and their vote on the Murkowski resolution. Some senators may vote for it because on the merits they think that GHG should be regulated pursuant to specific legislation enacted by Congress. However, many will just be taking a stand against any government regulation of climate change. On the other side, there may be many Senators who would prefer that climate change be addressed through legislation, but since legislation is not guaranteed, want to be certain that some kind of regulatory program is in place. 

Of course, it’s also important to remember that the Murkowski resolution would not just preclude regulation of stationary sources. Because it would disapprove the endangerment finding, it would also jeopardize the carefully negotiated agreement on mobile sources. They aren’t very many people who want to reopen that agreement, I assume.

The world’s greatest deliberative body? We’ll see about that.

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

First Kerry-Lieberman, then the Tailoring Rule – a busy week for climate change. Senator Kerry certainly did not miss the coincidence. He called the release of the Tailoring Rule the “last call” for federal legislation. I’ve noted before the leverage that EPA regulation would provide, but this is the most explicit I’ve seen one of the sponsors on the issue.

As to the substance, there are not really any surprises at this point. EPA is certainly working to soften the blow of GHG regulation under the PSD program. Here are the basics (summarized here):

January 2, 2011 – Facilities obtaining PSD permits for pollutants other than GHGs after that date will need to meet BACT for GHG (whatever that may be) if their GHG emissions will increase by at least 75,000 tpy.

July 1, 2011 – New facilities with emissions of at least 100,000 tpy of GHG will need to obtain a PSD permit and meet BACT (whatever that may be) for GHG, even if they do not need a PSD permit for other pollutants. Modified facilities with increases of at least 75,000 tpy will have to obtain a PSD permit and meet BACT (whatever that may be) for GHG, even if they do not need a PSD permit for other pollutants.

July 1, 2012 – EPA will conclude a further rulemaking to address smaller sources. EPA has already committed to not regulate sources with GHG emissions below 50,000 tpy and further stated that permits would not be required for smaller sources before April 30, 2016.

As I’ve subtly hinted above, we still don’t know what EPA thinks BACT for GHG may be. EPA has at least suggested that, with respect to coal plants, BACT may be Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or IGCC, and with respect to IGCC plants, BACT may be natural gas. If so, we’re not going to see many traditional coal plants permitted after this rule takes effect.

What about opposition to the rule? It’s near certain that someone will challenge it. While environmental groups support it and have suggested that opponents may not have standing, I’m skeptical. I think it likely that someone with standing will challenge it. I also think that there is a reasonable chance that the rule is overturned, because it’s not obvious to me that the courts will buy the “administrative necessity” argument. The more fundamental point is that I’m not sure it matters. If the Tailoring Rule is struck down, a court is still unlikely to vacate the rule. Instead, the court is likely to keep the Tailoring Rule in place, while giving EPA time to figure out how to comply with conflicting mandates in a way that doesn’t bring the world as we know it to an end.

At bottom, the problem isn’t the Tailoring Rule. The problem is that Massachusetts v. EPA makes regulation of GHG under the existing Clean Air Act inevitable absent congressional action. In other words, John Kerry is right; the Tailoring Rule is last call for the climate bill. I happen to agree with opponents that regulation of GHG under existing authority will be a nightmare. Even exempting small sources, PSD is just a terrible way to go – one of the last vestiges of command and control regulation and a nearly incomprehensible one, at that.

However, given Massachusetts v. EPA, Congress really only has two ways to fix the problem. The first would be to pass climate legislation. The second would be to pass legislation to preclude EPA regulation of GHG under existing authority. Right now, neither alternative seems likely, but once EPA rules are in effect, they’ll both be more tempting. We’ll see which we Congress moves.

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

So, Kerry Lieberman (Graham?), also known as the American Power Act, is here. What does it mean?

My immediate reaction is that, in a big picture sense, they got it just about right. The fundamental issue, which was previously acknowledged by Senator Graham (can we start calling him “he who must not be named?”), is that we’re not going to solve the energy independence or climate change problems unless we put a price on carbon. This bill does that.

Frankly, the rest of the issues really only matter either to particularly constituencies or, as a related concern, to particular members of Congress. What are some of these other issues and how would they be handled in this bill? We’ll be getting a more detailed client alert out shortly, and if you can't wait, you can review the short summary or the section by section analysis, but here’s the very quick version.

Basic cap-and-trade provisions –

Goal is to reduce CO₂e by 4.75 percent of 2005 levels by 2013 and 83% by 2050, with interim targets in 2020 and 2030

EPA administrator will set allowance numbers to reach those targets

Only facilities emitting >25,000 tpy CO₂e will be subject to the program

Generating facilities are subject to the program in 2013; manufacturing facilities will not be subject until 2016.

Initial price floor of $12/ton and price ceiling of $25/ton

Limits on who can participate in the carbon market to avoid market manipulation

Allowances used primarily to cushion consumers from energy price increases, but also to support various industries

Includes a “WTO-consistent border adjustment mechanism.” In the absence of a global agreement, tariffs will be imposed on countries without similar GHG controls

Nuclear power – lots of help for the nuclear industry

Off-shore drilling – Provides substantial revenue sharing to certain coastal states, but allows states to prohibit leasing within 75 miles of their coastline

Coal – significant support for carbon capture and sequestration

Renewable energy – Does not include a national renewable energy standard, or RES, though does provide for federal assistance to encourage development of renewable energy technology

Preemption – preempts state cap-and-trade programs, but not other state regulation of GHG. Precludes EPA regulation:

No listing of GHG as criteria pollutants based on climate change impacts

No listing as hazardous air pollutants based on climate change impacts

Limitation – but not complete preemption – of GHG regulation under existing NSR authority

Don’t yell at me if this list does not include your favorite provision. This is a blog, not a treatise. As to the big political picture, I still think that, if Senator Graham can be brought back on board, there is a reasonable chance that this bill passes. If not, then I’m pretty skeptical. 

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

Yesterday, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs released its Revised MEPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol. For those who cannot get enough of this stuff, they also released a summary of revisions to the policy and a response to comments. On the whole, EEA took an appropriately moderate, incremental approach to revising the GHG policy. Indeed, it’s telling that the very first “change” identified by EEA in its summary is not a change at all – it’s EEA’s decision to retain the current case-by-case approach to determining appropriate performance standards and mitigation requirements. EEA decided not to establish numerical GHG emissions limits or emissions reductions targets.

Some of the other noteworthy aspects of the revised policy include:

Establishment of the state building code in effect at the time the ENF is filed to determine the project baseline

Elimination of the requirement to include a formal analysis of a separate “better” alternative. Although EEA said it was in some circumstances unrealistic to propose something “better” than the preferred alternative, to me it was simply that the MEPA process for the analysis of mitigation is the appropriate avenue for determining GHG improvements. That mitigation process was already in place, is always what MEPA has been about, and works well. Thus, the separate alternative was inappropriate.

No requirement to analyze life-cycle emissions. EEA was pushed to require full life-cycle analysis, including such components as emissions associated with construction, waste generation, water use, and wastewater generation. However, EEA concluded that such analyses would not be cost-effective: “the effort and cost associated with making these calculations may outweigh their usefulness….”

Retention of the self-certification process for verifying mitigation efforts. The policy does require that agencies include the self-certification requirement in Section 61 findings for permits.

An updated list of mitigation measures.

As EEA noted, the MEPA program has never been about standards; it is about project-specific analysis of impacts and potential mitigation measures to address those impacts. Particularly inthe GHG arena, where both technology and science are changing so rapidly, it makes even more sense to maintain the case-by-case approach, rather than adopt overly prescriptive standards. The devil is in the details regarding how MEPA implements the policy, but given the legislative mandate in the Global Warming Solutions Act, the policy continues to provide an appropriate framework for integrating GHG analysis into MEPA.

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

There has been a fair bit of evidence in recent weeks that getting a climate bill through Congress remains a difficult task. It is a sign of just how perfectly aligned the stars will need to be that the two recent problems for the bill were either completing unrelated to climate change or at best tangential.

First, as everyone knows, Senator Graham got annoyed that Senator Reid (locked in a tough reelection battle and needing Hispanic votes) suggested that he might move an immigration bill before the climate/energy bill. Senator Graham, as about the only Republican willing to work with Democrats, and knowing the leverage that he possesses, actually used that leverage. Senator Reid appears to have backed off at this point and my sense is that Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham were so close that it’s difficult to believe that they wouldn’t have been able to get a bill trhough in the next couple of months.

Then, of course, BP”s Deepwater Horizon drill rig sank. The resulting oil spill and potentially catastrophic damage to the Gulf Coast has quieted, for now, the Drill, Baby, Drill, crowd, and emboldened opponents of off-shore drilling. Notwithstanding the obvious reaction to the spill, expanded off-shore drilling was a likely part of the compromise necessary to get a climate bill over the finish line. Moderate and conservative senators are still going to require something that will allow them to vote for the bill as an economic development measure.

More coal? Oops. Forgot about the Upper Big Branch Mine explosion.

I still think that a bill will happen. Partly because I’m an optimist. Partly because it just seemed that Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham were to close to fail, as it were.

Which brings up the second part of this post. If I’m right, we’re going to get a bill. Will it be a good bill? Last week, the Rasmussen Reports announced the results of a poll showing that most Americans favor passage of a climate bill. However, at the same time, most American’s don’t want to pay anything for it. Now, that’s not really a surprise. Nonetheless, since most environmentalists, most economists, and even Senator Graham believe that we have to put a price on carbon, it does make it politically difficult for Congress to do what it has to do (and, yes, I do know that we can put a price on carbon and still provide rebates that will leave consumers both facing carbon prices and in the same net economic position).

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

Yesterday, Senator Lieberman (I -CT) confirmed that the climate bill that he, Senator Kerry (D-MA) and Senator Graham (R-SC) plan to announce next week will include preemption of state and federal initiatives, including EPA's Clean Air Act authority.  Leaving aside the potential in his statement for the bill to also preempt state renewable energy and efficiency programs, the goal of predictability and one nationwide cap-and-trade system is an approach that we endorsed a few weeks ago, and one that H.R. 2454 also contained, albeit with a 5 year moratorium, rather than a complete preemptive ban.

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

The Western Climate Initiative is scheduled to begin its cap-and-trade program in 2012.  But as ClimateWire highlighted today, the number of states who will be ready and willing to participate in the program is quickly dwindling.  Utah is the latest member of the seven-state, four-Canadian-province agreement to announce that it will not have the state authority needed to actually implement a cap-and-trade program in 2012.  Montana, Washington and Oregon will also probably miss the 2012 start date, and Arizona's governor withdrew from the cap-and-trade program entirely in February.   Meanwhile, New Mexico's implementation of regulations may be derailed by a lawsuit from utility and oil and gas companies which contends that the state Environmental Improvement Board cannot regulate greenhouse gases without setting ambient air quality standards.

This leaves only California, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec as the original members of the agreement who may be on track to take part as planned.   But even California's ability to participate in 2012 might face challenges -- as ClimateWire noted on Monday, a ballot initiative set for November would cancel the state's authorizing statute, A.B. 32, until the unemployment rate falls.

Although California and the Canadian provinces account for 70% of the region's emissions, and WCI is working on a plan to allow other states to join the cap-and-trade program in subsequent years, these defections may cause significant issues for the Initiative.  One important issue to iron out for California's participation is which jurisdiction controls the allowances that cover electricity imports.  Under the WCI framework, electricity imports from outside of the region are counted as part of the cap in the jurisdiction where they are used, but generation originating inside the region is assigned to the generating facility.  This could create a large problem for California, which imports nearly half of its electricity from neighboring states.

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

As Senators Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham get ready to release their version of a climate bill, negotiations with moderate Democrats are heating up. Ten Democrats, apparently let by Sherrod Brown and Debbie Stabenow released a letter outlining what they call “key provisions for a manufacturing” package as part of an overall bill. Here are some highlights the Senators' wish list:

Investments in clean energy manufacturing and low carbon industrial technologies.

Ensuring law energy costs for manufacturers, including a “firm price collar”

A phase-in for regulation of GHG emissions from manufacturing

Allowance rebates for energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries

Tariffs on imports from countries without comparable GHG regulatory regimes

Preemption of state GHG regulation

If Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham can actually bring these Senators along, they will have come a long way towards getting a bill passed. However, there are still a number of moderate to conservative Democrats who have not signed this letter and whose support is by no means a sure thing. 

Similarly, one wonders what kind of Republican support there will be, if any. One thing is clear, if a bill is enacted, President Obama and the Congressional leadership are going to owe a big debt to Senator Graham. If he stays on board, it’s hard to see how Senators such as Collins and Snowe don’t sign on as well. 

Environmentalists are the ones who may have to be dragged across the finish line, assuming that final legislation includes preemption, support for nuclear energy and clean coal, a phase-in for manufacturing compliance and, perhaps, off-shore drilling.

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

Yesterday’s New York Times had a very interesting article regarding the use of advanced municipal waste combustor technology in Europe. As the article notes, such plants are relatively commonplace in Europe, whereas literally no new waste-to-energy plants are being built in the United States. Ian Bowles, our own Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs – and someone who has generally been a very successful promoter of renewable energy technology – acknowledged that “Europe has gotten out ahead with this newest technology.” 

This shouldn’t be surprising given that states such as Massachusetts have moratoria on new municipal waste combustors. It’s difficult to keep up with Europe when you order people not to try. In fairness to Secretary Bowles, the article pretty much makes clear why it is that Massachusetts has a moratorium in place and why we’ve fallen behind Europe. Laura Haight, at New York PIRG said that

Incinerators really are the devil.

Glad that there’s no rhetorical excess at NY PIRG. In any case, it’s difficult for regulators to move forward when one of their prime constituencies thinks that the technology is the devil.

Is it possible that the U.S. environmental community is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good on this issue? NY PIRG wants to get to a “zero waste” economy. I think we’ll get to a zero carbon economy before we get to a zero waste economy.

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

Last week, Judge Thomas Varlan handed the power plant sector a major win in the NSR enforcement arena, ruling that economizer and superheater replacement projects in 1988 at the TVA Bull Run plant were routine maintenance not subject to NSR/PSD regulations. Judge Varlan ruled for the TVA notwithstanding that: 

The projects cost millions of dollars (but less than $10M each)

They extended the life of the plant by 20 years

The costs were identified as capital, not maintenance, expenses

The projects were more extensive than other economizer/superheater projects that had previously been implemented at the Bull Run facility

Why did the Court rule for the TVA?

Although expensive, the projects’ costs were consistent with a wide range of maintenance projects conducted at Bull Run during the time frame

These projects were routine in the industry, even if not commonly performed more than once at individual facilities

Life extension, while a result of the projects, was not their primary purpose

If this decision is upheld on appeal, it will significantly weaken EPA and citizen NSR/PSD enforcement efforts in the power plant sector – at least in the Sixth Circuit, where there are a lot of coal-fired power plants.

Whether the decision is right or wrong – and neither reversal nor affirmance by the Sixth Circuit would surprise me – I’d like to take this opportunity to get on my soapbox about the NSR program as a whole. Why are we fighting about whether projects implemented 22 years ago were routine maintenance? Wouldn’t it make more sense to rely on trading programs that are proven to work cost-effectively to reduce emissions than to try to figure out whether replacement of a superheater provides sufficient leverage to require a power plant to install a scrubber or SCR?

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

Now that the SEC has indicated that public companies should be considering climate change in evaluating financial risks, the pressing questions include what should be evaluated and how it should be reported.  ASTM's newly released standard on Financial Disclosures Attributed to Climate Change, E2718-10 may be just the thing.  The standard, which has been under development for the last 2 years, provides guidance on processes for identifying, quantifying and disclosing potential material impacts related to climate change, both the benefits and liabilities. 

As with much in financial disclosures, the trick is to find the right balance.  ASTM notes that it will not be possible to eliminate uncertainty regarding the financial impacts of climate change, and cautions that subsequent disclosures should not be used to criticize previous disclosures, which hindsight and new standards may paint with an unfairly harsh light.  ASTM has also acknowledged that the costs to obtain information about the financial impacts of climate change should not outweigh the benefits of the information, but that it is important to use all of the relevant and reasonably ascertainable information a company can access.

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

Last year, EPA delayed implementation of the Bush EPA’s Aggregation Rule; at the time, I said that the rule was on life support. Earlier this week, EPA announced that it was formally proposing to revoke the aggregation rule. It looks as though the rule is now off life support and it’s time for the last rites.

The aggregation rule always seemed to me a piece of simple, common-sense regulatory reform; it was not a case of wild-eyed right wing radicals trying to gut environmental regulations. The basic issue is this. EPA wants to make certain that regulated facilities don’t avoid NSR review by carving big projects up into lots of little ones, each of which might escape review. That’s a perfectly reasonable goal, but I still don’t understand what’s wrong with having a simple test – whether the separate projects are “substantially related” – to determine whether to aggregate them. One way to put it is to ask why EPA would ever want to aggregate projects that are not “substantially related.” 

EPA has stated that the term “substantially related” is “vague.” It may not be perfect, but few things are in this world, particularly the world of NSR regulation. In any case, that very vagueness would give EPA a lot of discretion in determining whether aggregation would be required. EPA also noted that the rule fails “to consider a company’s intent.” Is it really better for EPA to be in the business of determining a company’s subjective intent than to answer the objective question of whether projects are in fact substantially related?

After criticizing the subjective element of EPA’s preferred approach, I should hesitate to speculate about EPA’s motives here, but this is what I think EPA’s proposal is about. EPA believes that the NSR program is its best tool for obtaining emissions reductions and it will craft every piece of the NSR program to provide maximum ability to coerce reductions – regardless of whether such coercion is consistent with the statutory provisions or whether the regulatory approach is cost-effective. Moreover, EPA’s position pretty much explicitly states that it does not trust business – a truer look into EPA’s views on the regulated community than any platitudes EPA may provide about wanting to work with the business community in crafting workable environmental regulations.

My depression is substantially related to the flaws in the NSR program.

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

Just over a year ago, we noted the surprising, unanimous decision by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) to adopt rules requiring insurers to publicly disclose the impacts of climate change on their business decisions, to begin May 1, 2010.  Well, not so fast.   As Climate Wire reported, at Sunday's NAIC meeting, a the commissioners voted 27-22 to make the disclosure rules optional for states to adopt, submissions to be voluntary, and insurers' survey answers to be kept confidential.

The revised questionnaire adopted by NAIC includes the same 8 questions that were endorsed at last year's meeting, but notes that submission of the survey is at each state's discretion and that insurers' responses will be considered confidential.  Instead of publishing all responses, as originally envisioned, participating states will work with NAIC to develop a public report which will give information about insurers' responses in the aggregate. 

Now that the states may have different requirements, NAIC set out rules for what happens when an insurer serves multiple states with different disclosure rules -- the surveys are intended to be submitted to the regulator of the insurer group's lead state (i.e. the one with the largest direct written premium).  Such a rule could make disclosure particularly interesting if California goes ahead with its own set of proposed rules and mandatory disclosures, as California controls a large segment of the insurance industry.

NAIC's seemingly abrupt policy change comes on the heels of the SEC's interpretive release requiring companies to disclose climate change risks when appropriate, which might have created some overlap with mandatory insurer disclosures.  Per the NAIC Task Force's January minutes, it seems like the commissioners may have decided to let the SEC regulate instead.   

Another interesting update is the revised questionnaire's disclaimer denying that the survey expresses an opinion on the existence or absence of climate change.  Was the disclaimer motivated in part by the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies' comments to NAIC about the "questionable integrity" of contemporary climate science in the wake of the release of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit?

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

EPA has finally issued its formal reconsideration of the Johnson Memo. As EPA had telegraphed, it confirms that a pollutant is only subject to PSD permitting requirements when that pollutant is subject to “a final nationwide rule [that] requires actual control of emissions of the pollutant.”

As EPA had also already indicated, the reconsideration states that PSD permitting requirements are triggered, not when a rule is signed or even on the effective date of the rule, but instead when the nationwide controls actually take effect under the rule. In other words, assuming that EPA finalizes the mobile source GHG rule as proposed, its effective date would be January 2, 2011, and stationary sources would be subject to PSD permitting requirements for GHG as of that date.

For those who want somewhat more detail, but aren’t up for reading the 114 pages of the reconsideration, EPA has issued a very helpful fact sheet – only 4 pages.

In short, no surprises, but further confirmation, for those who needed it, that EPA continues to march on in its regulation of GHG under existing Clean Air Authority. I believe that the next move belongs to Senator Murkowski. 

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

Last week, I noted that Gina McCarthy, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, suggested that, in the short run, the most significant pressure on inefficient energy sources would come, not from climate change legislation or from EPA GHG regulations, but instead from all of the conventional pollutant regulations that EPA expects to promulgate that will make use of coal much more expensive. While Gina was referring to a variety of air regulations, such as CAIR, MACT rules, and SIP revisions following a more stringent PM standard, even Gina may have been too narrowly focused. Today, EPA announced that it was proposing to veto a mountaintop mining permit issued to the Spruce No. 1 Surface Mine, in West Virginia.

The proposed veto was based on a number of interrelated concerns, including impacts on water quality and fish and wildlife, an inadequate mitigation plan, and the cumulative impacts of Spruce No. 1 and other mining operations in the aptly named Coal River basin. The cumulative impact issue must, by itself, terrify mine owners.

I’m sure that EPA made this decision (rightly or wrongly) on the merits under the Clean Water Act. Nonetheless, does anyone think that Gina McCarthy - and Administrator Jackson - are not aware of the broader picture? Even if they were not, the environmental organizations that are looking to end use of coal certainly are. When one piles CAIR and mercury and increasingly stringent particular standards on top of limitations on mountaintop mining, the phrase that occurs to me is indeed “cumulative impact.” However, it’s the cumulative impact of all of these regulations and regulatory decisions on those using – or financing – coal plants that set me thinking. Perhaps that’s why a separate story in today’s GreenWire was headlined “Coal: Outlook grim for new power plants”

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

Now that health care legislation has passed, the question is whether passage of the health care bill will unleash a cascade of other legislation, including a climate change bill, or whether Congress will be so exhausted and so polarized that nothing else will happen. I lean to the former position, but only time will tell. One positive indication was Senator Graham’s statement that, notwithstanding his views on the health care bill, he will continue to work towards passage of a climate change bill. Another shout out seems in order for Senator Graham.

The second positive indicator is the chorus of concern recently voiced by environmental groups about the direction in which climate legislation seems to be heading. If the Center for Biological Diversity is expressing grave concern, I suspect that negotiations are probably about where they need to be for a bill to pass. The concern expressed most recently by environmental groups is that the Senate negotiations appear to be headed towards inclusion of language preempting both state regulation and EPA regulation under existing Clean Air Act authority – both of which seem to me to be no-brainers. 

I’m sure that the CBD truly is appalled at the idea of preemption; I hope that the more mainstream environmental groups are more practical and will simply use their opposition as a bargaining chip. While I’m not really in the prognostication business, I’d be about willing to guarantee that there won’t be a bill unless there is preemption language.

Another issue that’s jumped up on the radar screen is off-shore drilling, with a number of Senators indicating that it has to be part of a bill, while 10 Democrats have written to Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman indicating that they may not be able to support a climate change bill that provided for increased off-shore drilling.

Finally, E&E Daily reported that Obama staffers, including Carol Browner, met with Senate Democrats yesterday to discuss ways to move Senate legislation in April. The report indicates that Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman hope to draft a bill in the next few weeks. I don’t think we’re going to see the Senate pass a bill any time soon, but it does look as though things are starting to move.

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

Last week, Judge John Darrah handed the government a defeat in a PSD/NSR enforcement action, when he ruled that the requirement to obtain permits under the PSD program prior to making major modifications was solely a pre-construction obligation and did not constitute a continuing violation. 

United States v. Midwest Generation was one of the recent wave of government PSD/NSR actions, filed last summer. The problem with the government’s case was that Midwest Generation had purchased the six facilities at issue in the case from Commonwealth Edison in 1999 and all of the alleged changes but one were made prior to the purchase.

Although the court thoroughly reviewed the case law – and found it generally supportive of its conclusion – its major focus was on a plain reading of the statutory language (and we know how much this Supreme Court likes plain readings). The relevant statute provision provides that:

No major emitting facility … may be constructed in any area to which this part applies unless … a Permit has been issued…. 

To Judge Darrah,

the plain meaning of the statute’s introductory language … thus prohibits the construction of a “major emitting facility’ unless [the statutory requirements] are met…. On its face, nothing in § 7475 prohibits the subsequent operation of such a facility without a permit. (Emphasis in original.)

There are other counts in the government’s complaint, including claims of operating permit violations. However, the decision on the NSR/PSD claims is quite significant. The case does not simply dismiss, as some other decisions have done, penalty claims. This is not a statute of limitations decision (though the Judge did also follow most other cases in dismissing, on statute of limitations grounds, the penalty claims with respect to the one alleged modification that occurred after Midwest Generation bought the facilities). As Judge Darrah made clear, the government is not entitled to “any relief on those claims – injunctive or otherwise.” (Emphasis in original.)

Score one of generators – particularly merchant generators who bought facilities after modifications had already been made.

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

Despite the relatively low clearing prices in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative’s (RGGI) seventh auction of CO₂ credits on March 10^th -- $2.07 for 2009-2011 allowances, and the auction floor price of $1.86 for 2012-2014 allowances – cumulative RGGI proceeds to be used by the 10 participating states for renewable energy, energy efficiency and low-income energy assistance programs now total $582.3 million.

As reported in today’s announcement of the auction results, this half billion dollars is being funneled into state-run programs that make investments in energy efficiency, accelerate the deployment of renewable energy, and, at the bottom line, create thousands of jobs. In the report, RGGI highlights success stories from regional companies in sectors such as energy audits and weatherization, and the US Department of Energy’s statistic that every million dollars invested in building weatherization creates more than 50 jobs in installation and another 10 to 20 jobs in the production of energy efficient building materials.  Also notable for Massachusetts is DOER Commissioner Phil Guidice’s statement that energy efficiency programs funded in part by RGGI are expected to create or maintain nearly 4,000 jobs in Massachusetts in the coming three years.

This auction was RGGI’s first in 2010, and the first to offer new years’ allowances for sale. Participation increased in both auctions, perhaps as a result of the green shoots of the new economic recovery. 

Participation in the auction of 2010 vintage allowances, which may be used to cover CO₂ emissions from power plants in the first compliance period of 2009-2011, was robust, with 51 entities submitting bids to purchase 2.3 times the available supply of 40.6 million allowances. The clearing price of $2.07 is up from December’s low of $2.05, even though this auction offered 40.6 million allowances for sale, a significant increase from the prior two auctions offerings of roughly 28.5 million each. Eighty-five percent of the 2010 vintage allowances were purchased by entities regulated under RGGI or their affiliates.

Participation also increased in the auction of allowances to be used in RGGI’s second control period (2012-2014). Although Wednesday’s auction marked the second time that supply outpaced demand for these allowances, the quantity of allowances for which bids were submitted increased 31% from December’s Auction 6 of 2012 vintage allowances. Ninety-eight percent of the 2.1 million 2013 vintage allowances offered for sale sold to nine generators regulated under RGGI at the $1.86 mandated auction floor price. As with the unsold allowances from December, the additional allowances may be sold at future auctions, or a state may choose to retire them. 

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

Last week, I posted about improvements in air quality since 1990. It’s a good thing air quality is improving, because, at the same time, the science keeps suggesting that ever lower pollutant levels pose risks to public health. The latest news was EPA’s draft review of the appropriate level at which to set the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for particulate matter.

EPA most recently revised the PM standard in 2006, setting it at 15 ug/m³, notwithstanding the staff recommendation to set the standard at between 13 ug/m³ and 14 ug/m³. As I have discussed, EPA’s decision was struck down by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, because EPA could not justify its departure from the scientific recommendations it has received.

Now, the draft Policy Assessment has concluded that the 15 ug/m³ is not sufficiently stringent. The draft suggested two ranges for potential revised standards:

Annual standard of between 12 and 13 ug/m³; 24-hour standard of 30 to 35 ug/m³

Annual standard of between 10 and 11 ug/m³; 24-hour standard of 25 to 30 ug/m³

A more stringent PM standard is going to have significant implications. These include:

1.         Strengthening the logic for three pollutant legislation. First, the health effects described in the Policy Assessment suggest the need for such legislation, because the targets of three pollutant legislation are among the big contributors to PM emissions. Second, in order to meet a more stringent standard, reductions of the sort contemplated in three pollutant legislation are going to be necessary.

2.         It may be simply a restatement of the first point, but the pressure on old fossil fuel plants, particularly old coal plants, is only going to increase as a result of the Policy Assessment. In this context, it is noteworthy that, at a seminar on Friday, Gina McCarthy, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, in discussing the number of rules EPA is obligated to issue in the next 12-18 months, indicated her sense that the biggest impact on GHG emissions might not result from EPA’s tailoring rule and direct regulation of GHGs, but would instead result from the secondary effect from the full panoply of traditional pollutant regulations on EPA’s docket. In other words, once EPA is done with new CAIR regulations, MACT rules, and SIP revisions following a more stringent PM standard, the economics of old coal plants will be such as to force switching to more climate-friendly energy sources, even aside from direct GHG regulation.

I think that Gina is probably right, and I’m particularly appreciative that she is able to take the long view. In the short run, coal remains cheap. Moreover, traditional control technologies for SO₂ and NO_x require energy, increase station service, and thus actually do not help with GHG reductions. Nonetheless, if one does take the long view, more stringent traditional regulation, including that resulting from more stringent PM standards, will increase the cost of fossil fuels and help drive the economy towards energy sources that are more climate friendly.

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

I know that despair is always more fashionable than optimism, but it is sometimes useful to remember that not everything is going to hell in a hand basket. Yesterday, EPA issued a press release announcing publication of its latest report on trends in air quality. The report, titled “Our Nation’s Air: Status and Trends Through 2008”, makes clear that, overall, air quality has gotten significantly better, particularly since 1990.

What I find most notable is that reductions in NO_x largely occurred after 2002, whereas reductions in other pollutants, such as PM and SO₂, have occurred since 1990. Notice anything about these dates? After 1990, the acid rain trading program came into effect. With respect to NO_x, the report itself acknowledges that the improvements resulted from implementation of the NO_x SIP call and EPA’s NO_x Budget Trading Program. 

What do you know? Trading programs work. Anyone in Congress pondering climate legislation paying attention?

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

It’s difficult to keep up with the various moves in Congress, attempting either to advance climate change legislation or to preclude EPA climate change regulation. On the advance side, E&E Daily had a very helpful summary earlier this week on the various issues affecting those senators that will need to be brought on board to reach 60 yes votes in the Senate. The identified issues include, not surprisingly: (1) coal, (2) nuclear power, (3) trade-sensitive industries, (4) oil and gas drilling, and (5) sector-specific limits. In what is probably a sidelight to the whole debate, Vernon Ehlers, a Republican, but the first research physicist elected to Congress, has taken climate change skeptics to task, saying that the scientists relied on by the skeptics are not “the experts in the field.”

On the preclusion side, Congress is being deluged with requests, including from some of its own members, to stop EPA from regulating GHG under existing regulatory authority. In the past week:

20 governors (if you include Puerto Rico and Guam) wrote to Congress opposing any EPA regulation of GHG under existing authority. The letter specifically says that they seek not just a delay, but preclusion of any regulation absent specific Congressional authorization.

98 industry groups, including such left-leaning groups as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the API, wrote to all senators in support of Senator Murkowski’s resolution to disapprove of EPA’s endangerment finding. The letter specifically asserts that EPA’s tailoring rule “has little legal foundation” – while at the same time criticizing for not going far enough to protect smaller sources of GHG.

Senator Levin wrote a letter to Senator Kerry which, while indicating support for climate change legislation, stated that industrial sources should not be regulated for at least 10 years

I still find it difficult to believe that the resolution disapproving the endangerment finding will be enacted. While Senator Murkowski recently referred to EPA’s efforts as a “backdoor” attempt to regulate GHG, EPA’s is doing pretty much what the Supreme Court ordered it to do, and it seems to be making every effort to minimize the economic impact of those regulations. I still agree that EPA regulation will be a mess, and it’s not obvious to me that the tailoring rule will survive legal challenge, but it’s difficult to see how EPA could be doing anything less than what it is doing in light of Massachusetts v. EPA.

All of which gets back to those fence sitters and the difficulty of getting 60 Senators to agree on enough to move a bill. One aspect is looking more and more certain. If there is a bill, state authority is going to be preempted and EPA authority under prior CAA provisions is going to be superseded.

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

Late last week, Senate and House Democrats piled more pressure on EPA’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gases under existing Clean Air Act authority. Senator Rockefeller and Representatives Rahall, Boucher, and Mohollan introduced companion House and Senate bills to preclude EPA regulation of stationary source GHG emissions for two years. Unlike the resolution sponsored by Senator Murkowski, which would simply overturn the endangerment finding and thus preclude all GHG regulation, the new legislation would specifically allow mobile source regulation to proceed.

As long as the White House and important committee chairs oppose the legislation, it still seems unlikely to pass, though there have been enough political surprises in the past few months, and there are enough moderate Democrats supporting some kind of preclusion of EPA regulation, that I would no longer rule it out.

Even if the bills are not enacted, the filing of the legislation remains noteworthy. First, Representative Boucher was one of the early, and perhaps most surprising, supporters of cap-and-trade legislation. At a policy level, support for legislation and opposition to EPA regulation under existing authority is perfectly reasonable. I should hope so, because it’s a view that I share. Nonetheless, it still strikes me as a telling example of how much momentum seems to be building to slow down the more aggressive aspects of EPA’s approach to GHG regulation.

The flip side of this coin is EPA’s announcement that it will not require permits for GHG emissions until 2011 and that the program will initially cover only sources emitting at least 75,000 tpy of GHG. Time will tell whether administration opposition and EPA’s moves to limit the pain of stationary source GHG regulation will be enough to beat back the opponents of any GHG regulation under existing authority.

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

Seemingly just in time to lend support to the revived idea of a carbon tax that we noted on Monday, an Obama Administration inter-agency workgroup has released a report that attempts to do the critical math necessary to put a price tag on CO₂ emissions.

The report sets out four dollar figures that represent the “social cost of carbon,” or the potential damages associated with not stopping the emissions of each incremental ton of CO₂. The figures, which differ due to the use of different models and discount rates, designed to capture different views about the impact of climate on future decisions, include such damages as changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk, and the value of ecosystem services. 

Not surprisingly, the numbers vary widely – spanning, in 2007 dollars, from $5 to $65 per ton for 2010 emissions, up to as high as $136 per ton for 2050 emissions.   The report outlines the potential shortcomings of the figures in detail, for instance, the potential impact of the other 5 greenhouse gases included in the EPA’s endangerment finding which have not yet been quantified, and the possibility of  “tipping point” scenarios in climate systems that could drastically change the marginal impact of each ton of emissions.  

However, even given these limitations, this valuation could be a critically important step towards determining such figures for use in policies like a carbon tax.  After all, internalizing the externality and cost to society is one main purpose of a carbon tax.

The more immediate impact of the report may also be significant.  Federal agencies are required, by Executive Order 12866, to assess the costs and benefits of regulations before deciding to act.  These figures will be used to incorporate the social cost of carbon into this analysis for all agency decisions, even those which might only have a small impact on global emissions.  As most federal agency decisions will have some impact on global emissions, even if only marginal, adding in the cost of CO₂ could have wide-ranging implications.

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

To date, the only circuit courts that have reviewed public nuisance claims related to climate change, the Second Circuit, in American Electric Power, and the Fifth Circuit, in Comer v. Murphy Oil, have ruled that such suits can proceed. However, last week the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided to hear Comer v. Murphy Oil en banc, which certainly has to give the plaintiffs pause. While I am not fully versed in this issue, a quick glance at the web indicates that statistical analysis confirms one’s naïve assumption, i.e., that a full appellate court often decides to hear a case en banc because a majority thinks that the panel got it wrong.

As I noted when the original decision was issued, even under liberal standing rules, which suggest that the plaintiffs’ harm can be “traced” to the defendant as long as the defendant’s conduct “contributed” to the harm, it’s going to be very difficult for plaintiffs, particularly under the Supreme Court’s new pleading rules, to argue that, for example, Murphy Oil “contributed” to the harm caused by Katrina. If the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc affirms the District Court dismissal in Murphy v. Comer, we could be headed back to the Supreme Court on climate change, since that would set up a conflict between the Second and Fifth Circuits.

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

A few weeks ago, I queried whether three pollutant legislation might be back in play, particularly given the current rough sledding for broad climate change legislation. Now, it certainly appears that way. The bill has been formally introduced. In addition to Alexander, there are now three other GOP co-sponsors (Gregg, Graham, and Snowe), not including Senator Lieberman, who is also a sponsor. There will be a hearing on March 4.

The basic provisions are as follows:

Reduction in SO₂ emissions of 80% by 2018

Statutory authorization of the CAIR rule through 2011

Reduction in NO_x emissions of 53% by 2015

Reduction in mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants of 90% by 2015. 

I still don’t have a crystal ball on the likelihood that this bill will move, but there are certainly a number of reasons why it might. Uncertainty about the CAIR rule motivates a number of sources to prefer a legislative solution. The difficulties in moving the climate change legislation make a bipartisan agreement on three pollutant legislation attractive to both sides of the aisle. We’ll know more after the hearing, but the Ozone Transport Commission has already criticized the NO_x provisions as insufficiently stringent, which I take as a good sign for the bill’s prospects.

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

Since I did a post earlier today indicating the cap-and-trade legislation is unlikely to become law in the near term, it’s only fair that I also do a post on efforts by Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman to resuscitate the legislation. The bill's prospects are too uncertain to spend too much time on the details. In short, it would include a phased-in approach to regulation, starting with the biggest emitters, such as utilities, combined with a carbon tax on transportation fuels that has been supported by several major oil companies.

To me, the most notable statements come from Senator Graham, the only Republican in the gang of three. Senator Graham has turned out to be one of the more intriguing and less predictable members of Congress in recent years. This may have its pluses and minuses and I have no idea whether he can bring any GOP support along, but you have to sit up and take notice when a Republican says

Cap and trade as we know it is dead, but the issue of cleaning up the air and energy independence should not die -- and you will never have energy independence without pricing carbon.

Of course, he’s right. The sad thing is that the rest of his party has so demonized any and all taxes that no Democrat could possibly say something like this – and many of the distortions in the various bills we’ve seen to date have resulted from strenuous efforts to avoid having consumers see any price signals about the cost of carbon emissions.

Keep sayin’ it, Brother Graham.

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

The uncertainty surrounding EPA regulation of GHG emissions under existing Clean Air Act authority was driven home for me last week when the same conference resulted in two diametrically opposed headlines in the trade press. Regarding a forum held by the International Emissions Trading Association, the Daily Environmental Reporter headline was “Existing Law Too Inflexible to Accommodate Market-Based Emissions Cuts, Executives Say.” Over at ClimateWire, the headline was “Some Companies Want EPA to Establish a CO2 Cap-and-trade System.” 

Of course, in fairness to the two publications, both headlines are true – and that’s the problem with the current EPA efforts. Notwithstanding current efforts in Congress to preclude EPA regulations, the endangerment finding seems almost certain to withstand legal challenge. Thus, GHGs will be regulated. Almost everyone wants that regulation to be in the form of a cap-and-trade program, but the last time EPA tried that without explicit Congressional authority, it was shot down in the courts. This may be why the Daily Environment Report story indicated that Vickie Patton of EDF had “pleaded” with executives to support cap-and-trade legislation.

At this point, the most likely near-term outcome appears to be no federal cap-and-trade legislation, and a stripped-down EPA regulatory program that would only apply to really large emitters, so that the inefficiencies inherent in the facility-specific BACT approach won’t appear too unreasonable, because the only people complaining about it will be some very unpopular polluters and all of my economist friends.

Or, as the Stones might have said in their more cynical moments:  Not only can’t you get what you want, but you can’t even get what you need.

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

Yesterday, EPA Administrator Jackson issued a letter to Senator Jay Rockefeller responding to certain questions regarding EPA regulation of GHGs under existing Clean Air Act authority, including promulgation of the so-called “Tailoring Rule”, describing how stationary source regulation under the existing PSD program would be phased-in once GHGs are subject to regulation. Here are the highlights:

EPA still expects to promulgate the Tailoring Rule by April 2010.

The GHG permitting threshold will be “substantially higher than the 25,000-ton limit that EPA originally proposed.”

No permits will be required until 2011. Initially, only facilities otherwise subject to CAA permitting will be required to obtain permits. The smallest facilities will not be subject to GHG permitting before 2016.

You can talk all you want about global warming, but it seems to me as though it’s EPA that’s feeling the heat. EPA has clearly heard the threats of a Congressional resolution barring EPA regulation of GHGs under existing authority. The reaction from Congress is all the evidence one needs. Both Senators Rockefeller and Murkowski praised the letter. While neither indicated that the letter would be sufficient to stop them from pursuing Congressional action, it might be enough to peel off some fence-sitters who might otherwise have felt compelled to support the legislation.

What does EPA’s statement of intent mean for various law suits swirling around this issue?

I don’t see any impact on litigation against the Endangerment Finding; it will still proceed and it will still lose.

The likelihood of law suits from environmental groups alleging that EPA is shirking its responsibilities under the CAA has certainly increased. Moreover, while EPA has a lot of discretion, I could imagine courts saying to EPA:  “Nice try, but the CAA doesn’t give you the kind of flexibility you have asserted in the Tailoring Rule. Only Congress can provide that flexibility by amending the CAA.” In this respect, the situation is similar to litigation over the CAIR regulations, which pretty much everyone liked, but which were struck down because the approach EPA took in the CAIR rule wasn’t consistent with the CAA.

Finally, any kind of regulation by EPA will provide an additional defense to private nuisance litigation. As I have previously noted, one question raised by the nuisance law suits is whether EPA has regulated GHG in a manner sufficient to “displace” the common law of nuisance. In this respect, the sort of program described yesterday by Administrator Jackson may be the best possible outcome for the regulated community, because it will narrow EPA regulations while providing a ground to preclude nuisance litigation.

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

The grand total is 16 separate challenges to EPA’s endangerment finding, according to Greenwire. I’m not one of those lawyers who regularly bash the legal profession. I still recall my law school professor, Henry Hansmann, stating that the role of lawyers is in fact to be transaction-cost minimizers, and I think that that is largely true. That being said, I am certainly wondering what all of this litigation is about.

The endangerment finding is basically a scientific determination. As I have previously noted, EPA discretion in this area is substantial and the likelihood that a court would reverse EPA’s scientific determination seems about as close to zero as possible. Apparently, some of the law suits do not attack the underlying scientific underpinnings of the determination, but instead attack EPA’s procedures for carrying it out or the expected regulatory and thus economic implications of the finding. If possible, these seem even less likely to succeed.

Finally, before we get to the merits of either of these arguments, there are substantial standing questions, given that the endangerment finding itself imposes no regulatory requirements on any of the plaintiffs.

It is more likely that these law suits are tactical in nature, filed as part of the broader battle to stop EPA from using existing Clean Air Act authority to regulate GHGs. I support that battle in that I agree that regulation under existing authority will be a nightmare. However, I think it’s a losing battle and I don’t see the litigation challenging the endangerment finding as likely to help in any case.

Hope springs eternal, I suppose.

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

Late last week, the CEQ issued its long-awaited draft Guidance on how to factor climate change into NEPA reviews. CEQ explicitly stated the draft is not effective at this time. CEQ will take comment for 90 days and “intends to expeditiously issue this Guidance in final form” after close of the comment period. Assuming CEQ does so, it will join several states, including California, New York, and Massachusetts, which already require that climate change be addressed in their state NEPA analogues.

The draft is very limited in scope at this point; CEQ may have decided that what is most important is simply the statement that climate change is real, it matters, and it therefore must be taken into account under NEPA. For example, CEQ proposes a threshold a 25,000 tpy of direct emissions CO₂e for NEPA applicability. The Guidance does not propose to apply this threshold to indirect emissions, “the analysis of which must be bounded by limits of feasibility.” Shocking recognition of what’s actually possible.

There are some tidbits that will nonetheless give pause to those who expect to be subject to this Guidance. First, the Guidance does discuss the need to consider the cumulative effects of GHG emissions. This is not surprising, given that NEPA already requires consideration of cumulative impacts outside the GHG context, but since all GHG impacts are cumulative, it is of particular importance here. Second, the Guidance also notes that project planners must consider the impact of climate change on projects, as well as the impact of projects on climate change. The example given in the Guidance is a plan for transportation infrastructure on a barrier island. The Guidance also suggests a longer-term time horizon than may have been used in the past. The example here is that of an industrial process drawing water from a source that relies on snow pack that is expected to decrease as a result of climate change.

As noted above, CEQ spends a lot of effort making the case that the Guidance is not a radical document. The phrase “rule of reason” is used no less than four times in the draft Guidance – and it feels like more. Nonetheless, I doubt opponents will be satisfied. I suspect that they – like the CEQ itself – believe that the fact of the document is more important than its immediate requirements.

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

Earlier this week, the Southeastern Legal Foundation filed a petition for review of the EPA Endangerment Finding with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. It’s not really surprising that someone filed suit, but the list of plaintiffs is interesting – though more for who is not on it than who is. There is not a single Fortune 500 company on the list of plaintiffs. Whether that speaks to the larger corporations doubting the merits of the challenge or simply making a strategic decision that it is not worth it to be associated with the litigation, I leave for them to say.

I will say that the likelihood that this challenge succeeds is vanishingly small. Ever since Ethyl Corporation v. EPA, courts have given EPA extraordinarily broad discretion when regulating on “the frontiers of scientific knowledge.” Whatever concerns dissenters may have about climate change science, I think it is pretty clear that EPA has a stronger record to support the Endangerment Finding than it had in Ethyl Corporation.

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

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 (3)
• 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

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

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

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

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

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

Yesterday, Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman sent to President Obama a “framework” for Senate climate change legislation. The framework is short on details and does not contain many surprises. For example, it proposes “near term” – near team is undefined – reductions of 17% from 2005 levels and “long-term” – also undefined – reductions of 80%. 

The framework is nonetheless noteworthy, particularly for its inclusion of strong support for both the coal and nuclear industries. Senator Kerry was must have loved writing “Additional nuclear power is an essential component of our strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” And this: “We will commit significant resources to the rapid development and deployment of clean coal technology.”

It is clear from the public statements that the Senators have made what this language really means. The translation is fairly easy, but for those not in the know, here goes:

“Nuclear power is essential” means “We need some Republican votes.”

“We will commit substantial resources to … clean coal” means “We need some coal-state Democratic votes.

If this weren’t so important to the environment and our economy, I might enjoy watching this.

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

On Tuesday, District Judge Roger Titus issued an injunction against the construction of the Beech Ridge Energy wind project – 122 wind turbines along 23 miles of Appalachian ridgelines – unless the project can obtain an incidental take permit, or ITP, under the Endangered Species Act. Judge Titus concluded, after a four-day trial, that operation of the turbines would cause a “take” of the endangered Indiana Bat. 

I’m not going to get into the details of the decision, though it certainly does not seem crazy on its face. I am going to go on a rant that there has to be a better way.

Those of us who are old enough to have gotten interested in policy in the 1970s will recall TANSTAAFL – there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Appalachian ridgeline turbines kill Indiana Bats. Offshore wind turbines kill sea birds or spoil pristine views. Remember when everyone thought that hydroelectric power was the “clean” energy? Dams kill fish and alter ecosystems. Nuclear power creates long-lasting wastes. I probably don’t need to explain the costs of coal. TANSTAAFL.

Today, people look to solar, and geothermal, and tidal power. I don’t know about you, but while I’m open to persuasion, my default assumption is that geothermal and tidal power could bring changes to complex systems that we really don’t begin to understand. Maybe solar has no environmental costs, but I wouldn’t bet on it. TANSTAAFL.

In a world where everything has costs, we need to find a way to balance those costs to achieve societal objectives. Maybe the harm to the Indiana Bat would be so great that the Beech Ridge Energy project is not worth it. Maybe not. Either way, does anyone think that the ESA provides a mechanism to make that judgment? Of course not; it’s not designed to do so. It’s designed to protect the bats.

We really need an overarching statute that allows the government to assess the unavoidable trade-offs, because there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch, and decide which projects should move forward. Lest my environmentalist friends think that I want to be able to give developers a blank check, I can only say, no, no, no. I’m agnostic on the outcomes, but I’m quite certain that the approach I advocate would only make thorough (which is not to say slow) review under NEPA and related statutes more important. Decision-makers can’t balance the costs and benefits of different projects unless they have a thorough understanding of what those costs and benefits are.

TANSTAAFL.

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

As anyone not hiding under a rock has by now probably realized, EPA officially announced Monday that it has concluded that GHG from human activity threaten public health and the environment. Since the announcement was not exactly a surprise, the question remains what impact it will have.

In the short run, the timing certainly seems intended to coincide with the Copenhagen talks and help to demonstrate to other nations that the U.S. is taking concrete steps to address climate change. We’ll see shortly how successful the endangerment finding is in that respect.

Since I spend most of my time down in the trenches, I’m more concerned with the impact of the endangerment finding on the domestic front. There are really three fronts here:

Litigation – If there was any suspense regarding whether anyone would challenge the endangerment finding, such suspense was quickly relieved by an announcement from the Competitive Enterprise Institute that it would indeed sue. CEI’s press release stated that the global warming “models are about to sink under the growing weight of evidence that they are fabrications.” Uphill battle barely begins to describe the likelihood that CEI wins that case.

Prospects for Cap-and-Trade Legislation – Notwithstanding Administrator Jackson’s protestations to the contrary, it’s hard not to see the announcement as a further prod to Congress to get moving, particularly since the Administration keeps saying that it would prefer enactment of a cap-and-trade bill. Even so, however, some members of Congress indicated that the announcement would have little impact, because the endangerment finding was expected and thus adds little new.

EPA Development of Regulations – EPA is moving forward with regulatory development, though Administrator Jackson gave no time line for when stationary source regulations would be promulgated. There was an indication that EPA would issue BACT guidance in advance of issuing NSR regulations. Notwithstanding the promise of BACT guidance, it appears that states are not ready for the brave new world of using the NSR program to regulate GHGs. ClimateWire reported that Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, believes that states will have hard time getting ready to process stationary source permits by March.

I actually found the biggest take-away from the announcement to be the Administrator’s statement that she wanted EPA regulations that would be complementary to new legislation. "I don't believe this is an either-or proposition," ClimateWire reported her saying. 

Uh-oh. 

I thought that the deal had always been that legislation would substitute for regulation under the existing CAA. Otherwise, what do the administration’s statements that it would prefer legislation to regulation mean?   I’m having difficulty imagining a world with both a cap-and-trade program and NSR regulation of GHGs.

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

The states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) announced the results of their 6^th quarterly auction, held on December 2^nd, which brought in the lowest prices for carbon dioxide (CO₂) allowances yet. Wednesday’s auction also marks the first time that RGGI allowances offered for sale outnumbered demand. Only 1.6 million of the roughly 2.1 million allowances for the 2012 vintage sold at RGGI’s required price floor of $1.86. Depending on each state’s regulations, these unsold allowances may be sold in future auctions, or a state may choose to retire them.  Although retirement this early in the game is a somewhat remote possibility, it will be interesting to see whether this will have an impact in RGGI's second compliance period, 2012-2015. 

Prices for the nearly 28.6 million 2009 vintage allowances sold fell from the September auction’s clearing price of $2.19 to $2.05, down significantly from June’s clearing price of $3.23. Despite these low prices, the number of participants in the 2009 vintage auction actually increased significantly: 62 entities, compared to 46 who participated in September’s auction. 

In the 2012 vintage offering, however, the quantity of allowances for which bids were submitted decreased 32% from September, resulting in bids for only 74% of the supply of 2012 allowances offered for sale. As in September’s auction, no non-compliance entities (businesses or persons not regulated under RGGI) participated in the 2012 vintage auction.  In comparison, non-compliance entities submitted 38% of the bids for 2012 allowances in the 4^th RGGI auction, back in June. 

The range of bid prices in the 6^th auction, not surprisingly, was also the lowest that RGGI, Inc. has reported. Bid prices for the 2009 vintage allowances ranged from the minimum clearing price of $1.86 to just $5.00, down from a high of $12.00 in the June and September auctions,  while bid prices for the 2012 vintage allowances topped out at $2.41, down significantly from March’s high bid price of $4.40.

As we said after prices fell in September’s auctions, the national (and international) efforts toward developing carbon regulation that would preempt RGGI are likely having an impact on bidders’ perceptions of RGGI’s future. Combined with additional reports that the RGGI allowance pool is over-funded, these low prices are not too surprising, and will likely continue. 

Nonetheless, RGGI is still bringing in a lot of money. The report highlights that the RGGI program has brought in more than $494.4 million over the last 15 months of auctions for investment in a state-specific programs that are targeted to reducing emissions, building the clean energy economy, and saving consumers money. If you’re interested in where the funds are going in your state, check out RGGI’s convenient summary.

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

According to a report released last week by Environment America, power plants were responsible for 42% of the CO₂ emitted in the United States in 2007, substantially more than any other sector, including transportation. What’s the explanation? Largely, it’s the age of the United States power plants. The report, based on EPA data, states that 73% of power plant CO₂ emissions came from plants operating since prior to 1980.

What’s the solution to this problem, in the absence of cap-and-trade legislation enacting? EPA’s already told us, and we shouldn’t be surprised – promulgation of EPA’s “Tailoring Rule,” subjecting existing facilities emitting more than 25,000 tons per year of CO_2e to EPA’s New Source Review program.

And what’s the problem with this solution? To a significant degree, it’s that it is the NSR program that got us in this mess in the first place. As my friend Rob Stavins has noted, regulatory programs – such as NSR – that impose different requirements based on the age of a facility, known in the lingo as “vintage-differentiated regulations” or “VDR”, not surprisingly lead to the perverse result that older, more-polluting, facilities stay in service longer than if regulations were imposed in an even-handed manner on different vintages of facilities.  In other words, we have the NSR program to thank for the situation described in the Environment America report.

Can anyone doubt, therefore, that application of NSR rules to GHGs will cause those who own such facilities to try to operate them as long as possible without implementing any “modifications” that would trigger application of NSR? Moreover, can anyone doubt that application of NSR rules to new facilities would give old facilities a further cost advantage? Sure, EPA can try to tighten the NSR rules and continue to pursue NSR enforcement cases in order to discourage existing facilities from disguising “life-extension” projects as routine maintenance. However, it’s still a jury-rigged system at best. After all, the program is called New Source Review for a reason.

I’m just a poor country lawyer, but I still think that a cap-and-trade program is a better solution for all sides. Add a traditional three-pollutant piece to it, trade that for elimination of the NSR program in its entirety, and you’d really have something. 

Still dreaming, I know.

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

I spoke a few weeks ago at a NAIOP event concerning implementation of the Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act. During that talk, I described the GWSA as “the future of everything.” Why? Because to achieve even medium-term greenhouse gas emission targets in 2020 or 2030, let alone the 2050 target of an 80% reduction, is going to require significant changes throughout the economy. Even substantial reductions in the power plant or transportation sectors alone are not going to be enough.

Need more evidence? How about this story from yesterday’s Greenwire. The E.U. has reached agreement on a directive that will require almost all large buildings, including large houses, to attain “nearly zero” energy use. Existing buildings will have to improve energy efficiency during any renovations, if feasible. Sounds like a BACT analysis for building renovations.

The directive still must be approved by the European Parliament and then be written into the laws of the individual E.U. countries. However, unless Massey CEO Don Blankenship can convince Al Gore that we are entering a period of global cooling, can there be much doubt that something like this is in our future here as well?

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

Boston Celtics’ fans know the phrase “fiddlin’ and diddlin.” Well, the Senate continues to fiddle and diddle over climate change legislation. Those who have worked with Gina McCarthy, current EPA air chief, know that she has probably never fiddled or diddled in her life, and I certainly don’t expect her to do so with respect to GHG regulation under existing Clean Air Act authority in the absence of comprehensive legislation. As a result, it now seems likely that EPA will be issuing climate change regulations before any legislation is enacted.

What’s the basis for this conclusion? First, the Senate side:

E&E Daily reported today that Senate leaders are not planning to bring the cap-and-trade bill to the floor until after work on health care and financial regulation bills has been completed.

Senator Webb today “blasted” cap-and-trade legislation as “enormously complex.” (Even with a tailoring rule, good luck eliminating the complexity from EPA regulation under current authority)

So, things aren’t exactly cooking with gas on the legislation front. What’s up at EPA?

Last week, EPA sent the endangerment rule to OMB for final review

EPA’s stakeholder group on the tailoring rule has been hard at work at work and expects to have a preliminary report out by the end of the year. The Daily Environment Report gives a good flavor of the complexities faced by this project, but there is no question that the group and EPA are moving forward.

The bottom line is that unless a health care bill passes soon, and unless passage relieves a bottleneck in the legislative pipeline, we will all be participating in the experiment to see if EPA can make climate change regulation work under existing CAA authority. 

May you live in interesting times.

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

My post on the Portland Climate Action Plan has gotten some reaction, which I take as a good thing. For as reasoned a defense of local climate action as is possible in the space of a blog post, take a look at Holly Doremus’s response in Legal Planet, the Law and Environmental Policy Blog. If the Portland plan really were just about filling in the interstices and addressing local issues, I would be more inclined to agree. However, that’s not how I see the plan. We won’t know the details of how the plan will be implemented for some time, but much of it is simply regulatory. Moreover, it’s very likely that those regulations will be of a traditional command and control sort and will indeed duplicate in some way what a federal program is or should be doing.

In any case, thanks for the reaction. Next time, post a comment. If someone hadn’t let me know about your response, I never would have seen it.

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

Last week, the City of Portland, Oregon (together with Multnomah County) released an updated Climate Action Plan. The Plan presents a number of aggressive goals and targets, with ultimate goals of GHG reductions of 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050.

The details of the Plan are obviously only relevant to those in the Portland area, but for those anticipating what regulation might look like in California, Massachusetts, and other states that have enacted or will soon enacted some version of a Global Warming Solutions Act, the Plan provides a helpful catalogue of the types of changes that might be sought. Therefore, a quick summary of some of the 2030 goals seems warranted

Reduce energy use from existing buildings by 20%-25%

All new buildings – and homes -- should have zero net GHG emissions. 

Reduce VMT by 30% from 2008 levels

Recover 90% of all waste generated

Reduce consumption of carbon-intensive foods

Expand “urban forest canopy” to cover one-third of Portland

Reduce emissions from City and County operations by 50% from 1990 levels

What’s my take? I have two immediate reactions. First, if any further evidence were needed that attaining significant GHG emission reductions is going to involve major social and economic changes, this is certainly it. 

Second, and perhaps more importantly, this Plan, and others like it, have to constitute a heavy thumb on the side of the scale arguing for comprehensive federal legislation. In the past, I’ve argued that federal legislation would be preferable to a patchwork made up of EPA regulation under existing Clean Air Act authority, public nuisance litigation, and state and regional initiatives. To that list, we can now add comprehensive local regulation. I don’t mean to be too sanguine about the ability of federal legislation to harmonize this entire process; the existing bills would not preempt most state, regional, and local regulations (other than cap-and-trade programs). Nonetheless, delays in federal enactment can only contribute to the proliferation of state, regional, and local programs, some of which may be beneficial, but many of which will be inefficient, contradictory, or both.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• 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

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

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

After a number of stories indicating that the prospects for climate change legislation were dimming for 2009, the convergence of a number of factors suggests that legislation may still be possible.

Yesterday, Senator Boxer and Senator Kerry released a draft of climate change legislation. This doesn’t mean that Senate passage is imminent. The bill has not been formally introduced and, like the early drafts of the Waxman-Markey bill, leaves some sections blank. Senator Boxer apparently intends to issue a mark-up of the bill sometime in October. One note for the politically-minded readers of this blog – just don’t call the bill “cap-and-trade” legislation. Senator Kerry stated that he does not know what “cap-and-trade” means and denied that this is “cap-and-trade” legislation – notwithstanding that it would cap emissions of CO₂ and allow regulated entities the right to trade allowances to emit CO₂.

Meanwhile, EPA continues to work on climate change regulations. Last week, OMB apparently completed its review of EPA’s proposal to apply PSD rules to sources of CO₂ greater than 25,000 tons per year. EPA apparently intends to issue the rules some time this week. 

Opposition to climate change legislation among the regulated community appears to be splintering. In the past week, three members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce left the Chamber due to its intransigence on climate change. Perhaps even more tellingly, the Chamber yesterday issued a statement that it supports “strong federal” climate change legislation – though it still appears to oppose significant parts of the Waxman-Markey bill. The Chamber also stated that it prefers legislation to regulation by EPA. Finally, it is worth noting that the Chamber’s statement accused environmentalists of distorting its position, without addressing the withdrawal of three utility members.

The decision in Connecticut v. EPA allowing the public nuisance litigation against six generators to continue. If the threat of EPA regulation hasn’t been enough to tip the balance in favor of legislation, the threat of regulation by injunction may be enough to do so.

Whether these developments will be enough to push climate change legislation over the threshold remains to be seen. Certainly, they improve its prospects.

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

EPA released its final version of the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule today.  The Rule (which we blogged about in its draft form here) will require large emitters of greenhouse gases to begin collecting emissions data on January 1, 2010 and file their first self-certified reports in March 2011.  The EPA will then verify the data, as in other Clean Air Act programs. The new program will cover approximately 85% of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions and apply to roughly 10,000 facilities, down from the 13,000 that EPA had predicted in its draft rule in March. 

The rule has changed somewhat since it was proposed, through two public hearings and over 17,000 written public comments.   Some of the more significant changes include reducing the number of source categories that are automatically required to report (excluding, interestingly, food processing, waste water treatment, and suppliers of coal) and allowing facilities that reduce their emissions below the annual threshold of 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent ( CO_2e) to cease reporting after 5 years.  The rule also adds a provision to allow the use of best available data in lieu of required monitoring methods for the first few months of the reporting period (through March 2010). 

As in the draft rule, the threshold for reporting is generally 25,000 metric tons or more of CO_2e per year, although some source categories are automatically included.  Reporting is conducted at the facility level, except for suppliers of fossil fuels and engine and vehicle manufacturers, who will report at the corporate level.  With this rule, the EPA will be counting emissions from cars, too.  Vehicle manufacturers begin their reporting with CO₂-only for model year 2011, and phase in other greenhouse gases in subsequent model years.

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

On Monday, the Court of Appeals for the 2^nd Circuit finally issued a decision in Connecticut v. American Electric Power Company, reversing the District Court decision which had dismissed this public nuisance law suit against six large generating companies. The decision is notable in a number of different respects and may have far-reaching implications

·  Standing. Following Massachusetts v. EPA, it is not really surprising that the plaintiffs were able to establish that they have suffered injuries sufficient to provide standing. The more questionable point is redressability. The Court acknowledged that it must be “likely” that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. The Court’s response to this issue was that the plaintiffs need not demonstrate that a favorable decision will eliminate the injury, only that it will provide some measure of relief. Even so, could plaintiffs really prove that even elimination of all CO₂ emissions by the defendants would have any impact on climate change? I’m extremely skeptical. The Court did note that there is a “lowered bar for standing” at the pleading stage, so we may see more of this issue as the case proceeds.

·  Displacement. Connecticut v. American Electric Power, unlike the North Carolina v. TVA case decided in January, is basically premised on federal common law of public nuisance. However, federal common law only exists in the absence of legislation addressing the same issues and is subject to “displacement” by such legislation. Following Massachusetts v. EPA, there is no doubt that the CAA provides authority to regulate GHG. What, therefore, is the role of federal public nuisance claims at this point? The Court’s ruling here left defendants alive to argue this issue another day. The Court noted that EPA has not yet issued a final endangerment finding and certainly has not issued regulations limiting GHG emissions from stationary sources. Thus, the problem complained of by plaintiffs “has not been thoroughly addressed by the CAA.” In other words, if either Waxman-Markey passes or EPA moves forward with regulations on its own, defendants may have another crack at dismissing Connecticut v. American Electric Power. 

·  Nuisance Claims in Other Contexts. In tandem with North Carolina v. TVA, this case certainly puts new life into nuisance as a potentially important arrow in the quiver for environmental plaintiffs. As we noted in January, the TVA decision left room for nuisance claims even where National Ambient Air Quality Standards have been attained. This leaves substantial room for nuisance claims in a variety of contexts, as long as underlying legislation hasn’t specifically preempted such claims

·  Prospects for Federal Climate Change Legislation. We have already discussed the choice between regulation by EPA and comprehensive federal cap-and-trade legislation. Now it appears that this dilemma has three horns, not just two. Which would generators prefer? Waxman-Markey or judicial injunctions following nuisance litigation?

It’s a lot to consider.

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

On Tuesday, EPA announced its intention to issue new effluent guidelines for the Steam Electric Power Generating industry by sometime in 2012. The announcement follows an EPA study in 2008 which indicated that toxic metals, particularly those collected as part of flue gas desulfurization processes, can pose a problem in facility effluent. EPA’s announcement is not particularly surprising, given the ongoing study and given that EPA has not revised the guidelines since 1982. Indeed, notwithstanding EPA’s announcement, Environmental Integrity Project, Defenders of Wildlife and Sierra Club announced that they would still sue EPA over its failure to timely update the guidelines.

There are two reasons why this announcement is significant beyond just its implications for effluent discharges from these facilities. First, it’s hard to see EPA’s announcement – and the threat of NGO litigation – as anything other than another bullet aimed squarely at the coal industry. From climate change, to attacks on mountaintop removal, to the reaction to the TVA spill, to this effort to make the effluent guidelines more stringent, there is no doubt that coal is in the cross-hairs at the moment. If there are any doubters concerning this point, Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers isn’t among them. He was quoted in this morning’s Energy & Environment Daily as saying that it is at least possible to envision a world in 2050 “where coal is not in the equation.”

The other reason why this announcement is significant is that it raises fairly squarely the question regarding the very structure of our current regulatory system.  It’s not really any more than happenstance and political convenience that we regulate different environmental media differently. In this context, it is noteworthy that EPA’s Science Advisory Board just recommended that EPA consider setting multi-pollutant standards under the Clean Air Act, rather than regulating each pollutant separately. Theoretically, that’s good as far as it goes, but it doesn’t really solve the problem of the balkanization of EPA’s different regulatory programs.  In the long run, EPA’s regulatory efforts would be much more cost-effective – and would probably garner much more public support – if they were rationally based on an overall assessment of risk, across pollutants and across media.

I’m not holding my breath.

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

As BNA reported this morning, at yesterday's Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers in New Brunswick, the six New England governors adopted The New England Governors' Renewable Energy Blueprint.  Through this plan, the governors of Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont agreed to speed regional development of renewable energy by coordinating state reviews of proposed interstate transmission lines and synchronizing solicitation and decisions on power procurement and long-term energy contracts.  The blueprint calls for states to hold joint hearings and coordinate decisions when appropriate, but even using common applications and timelines could have a significant impact on how long the siting process takes.  

The blueprint is based on conclusions reached in a study conducted by ISO-New England, called the Renewable Scenario Development Analysis, which concluded that there is a large quantity of untapped renewable resources in the New England region, including more than 10,000 MW of on-shore and off-shore wind power potential, but that such resources could not easily be developed without coordination between the states on siting transmission.

The blueprint also discusses the option of New England states tapping into renewable energy sources located in Canada and calls for a state-federal partnership in which the federal government uses regional plans as guidance for interconnection-wide analysis and federally-funded renewable energy infrastructure development.  It will be interesting to see the impact that such regional developments have on the national level.

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

The silence from Congress recently concerning climate change legislation has been deafening. The continued health care debate does not bode well for early passage of the Waxman-Markey bill. Meanwhile, EPA is not sitting on its hands.

Daily Environment Report noted last week that EPA has sent to the OMB a proposal to reverse the Agency’s policy that CO₂ is not a pollutant subject to the PSD provisions of the Clean Air Act. Also last week, Greenwire reported that: “As Hill debate flounders, EPA plows ahead on emissions rules.” [And for those of you who can’t get enough of the debate between “founder” and “flounder”, take a look here.] The Greenwire story reports that EPA is moving ahead on rules governing emissions of GHGs from automobiles and large stationary sources.

The biggest debate continues to be whether EPA has legal authority to exempt small sources of CO₂ (probably those emitting less than 25,000 tons per year) from PSD rules. Certainly, the D.C. Circuit’s treatment of EPA’s CAIR rule should give everyone pause that the Court will approve rules that don’t seem to have authority in the CAA, just because everyone thinks that the rules would be good public policy. The strongest argument in support of the exemption – or at least the one mentioned most often – is simply that no one would challenge such a rule, because it would obviously be such a good idea. I’m skeptical. Major sources who want to torpedo the entire rule might easily challenge such an exemption.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I keep coming back to a slightly different question: Who in their right mind would prefer EPA rules under current CAA authority to comprehensive legislation, however imperfect the legislation might be? Those assessing the merits of legislation can’t compare it to the status quo, because, as these recent moves by EPA demonstrate, the status quo cannot hold for long. The comparison must therefore be between the Waxman-Markey bill and the world as it will be once EPA regulates under existing authority.

It’s looking more and more likely that Congress may not have sufficient momentum to pass legislation until the reality of EPA regulation becomes manifest. I’m not looking forward to that.

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

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) has released the clearing prices from its 5th quarterly auction of CO₂ allowances, held on September 9, 2009.  Prices for the 28.4 million 2009 vintage allowances sold fell sharply from the June auction's clearing price of $3.23 to $2.19, and the 2.1 million 2012 vintage allowances sold for only $1.87, just one cent above the market floor of $1.86, and well below the $3.05 that they earned at the March 2009 auction, which was the first at which these later vintage allowances were offered for sale. 

Interestingly, while the number of participants in the 2009 vintage auction remained relatively steady, no non-compliance entities (persons not regulated under RGGI) participated in the 2012 vintage auction.  These participants had amounted to 38% of the bids for 2012 allowances in the June auction. 

RGGI, Inc. has also released the range of bid prices in the 5th auction, allowing some insight into how the players value these allowances.  Bid prices for the 2009 vintage allowances ranged from the minimum clearing price of $1.86 to $12.00, the same as in the 4th auction, while bid prices for the 2012 auction ranged from $1.86 to just $3.00, down from June's high bid price of $3.84 and March's high bid price of $4.40.

Wednesday's auction was the first since the passage of ACES by the House in late June.  ACES provides for an even exchange of RGGI allowances for national allowances, something that could increase the value of RGGI allowances going forward, as it removes some uncertainty.  Nonetheless, pundits had predicted lower prices from this auction for a number of reasons, including doubt about the likelihood that the Senate will pass a national cap-and-trade program

The decrease in prices and lack of participation in the 2012 auction is also interesting given a report released on Wednesday by Point Carbon which predicts that actual emissions from the RGGI-regulated northeastern power plants will already be much lower than the RGGI cap, set at 188 million allowances per year.  According to Climate Wire, the report notes that the economic downturn, combined with a cool summer and warm winter reduced the amount of fuel for electricity used in the 10-state region. Falling natural gas prices have also prompted generators to switch away from more carbon-intensive fuels like coal and oil to natural gas.  The report predicts that the CO₂ emissions from the 233 power plants regulated under RGGI will emit 155 million tons this year, well below the cap.

Although the RGGI cap will begin decreasing by 2.5% each year in 2015, the years until then may provide an opportunity for regulated generators and other interested bidders to stockpile  allowances.  Given that RGGI allowances may be banked for future use without restriction, such a large number of allowances being banked could keep prices depressed for some time.

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

Although we had earlier predicted that comprehensive climate legislation could reach a floor vote in the Senate as early as October, that deadline is likely to move to November or later.  As reported by BNA this morning, the lead democratic authors of the bill, Senators Boxer and Kerry, announced yesterday that they need more time to craft the Senate bill and will put off introduction until the end of September. 

The plan had been to introduce the bill on September 8th, when the Senate returns from its month-long August recess.  The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which Senator Boxer is the chair, would begin mark ups as soon as a week afterward.

Introducing the bill in late September means that the six committees with jurisdiction over the Senate climate legislation -- Agriculture, Commerce, Energy & Natural Resources, Environment & Public Works, Finance, and Foreign Relations -- will not begin markups on the bill until late October. 

One driver of the timing of the bill is the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, which begins December 7.   As Greenwire reported, during the August recess, a number of Senators have been speaking out about the climate bill, what they hope to see in it, who is likely to support the bill or oppose it, and how likely meeting the UN climate summit deadline will be.  It will be interesting to see how this delay affects that strategy.

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

In another sign that the NSR program is alive and well under the Obama administration, the United States (together with the State of Illinois, filed suit Thursday against Midwest Generation, alleging violations of NSR requirements at six coal-fired power plants. Although the action is not too surprising, given that the Bush EPA had issued a notice of violation to Midwest Generation in 2007, it remains noteworthy. Each new prosecution serves to remind generators that failure to comply with NSR rules can lead to significant costs.

Of course, that in terrorem effect on other generators is precisely what the administration and environmental groups want. Unfortunately, for those of us who believe that the NSR program is an incredibly wasteful way to reduce air pollution, such litigation only detracts from efforts to make air pollution control regulations more cost-effective.

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

According to an article by BNA published this morning, EPA may soon act to apply the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) provisions of the Clean Air Act to facilities that emit more than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually.  Presumably, EPA's action is either an effort to exert leverage on Congress to pass pending climate change legislation or to ensure that GHG are regulated in the event that legislation doesn't pass -- or both.  

Under the Clean Air Act, PSD applies to major new sources, which are defined by their emissions level -- for pollutants in identified industrial sources categories, the threshold is 100 tons per year, while for others it is 250 tons per year.  Assuming that EPA moves forward with its its proposed endangerment finding, the default assumption (and the doomsday scenario presented by the Chamber of Commerce) would be that all GHG sources greater than 250 tons or 100 tons, depending on the source, would be subject to PSD regulations.

As an example, per the General Reporting Protocol's conversion factors, burning only 265.3 tons of coal or 1,173 barrels of fuel oil would produce 250 tons of CO₂.  However, the 25,000 ton threshold is the same used by the EPA in the endangerment finding and its proposed mandatory reporting regulations, so seems likely to be applied here as well.

As we previously noted, the EPA's official current position on this point is still the memorandum issued December 18th by former EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, which said that since CO₂ is not a regulated pollutant under the Clean Air Act, PSD does not apply.  However, current EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson issued a letter on February 17 stating that the agency will reconsider this position. 

As noted in the BNA article, there is reason to question EPA's authority to exempt small GHG sources from PSD requirements once GHG are found to be pollutants which endanger public health and the environment.  Moreover, EPA's record in defending creative interpretations of the Clean Air Act -- even where they are generally supported, such as in the CAIR regulations -- has not been sterling.  

The entire debate is likely to get messier before it is resolved. 

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

EPA announced today that it had reached yet another six-figure penalty settlement in an anti-idling case.  This time, the penalty was $650,000. This is one of the larger penalties EPA has obtained in this area.  There appear to be several reasons for the magnitude of the penalty.  First, the defendant, Paul Revere Transportation, LLC, was apparently a recidivist.  It has been the subject of an anti-idling enforcement action in 2003.  Second, Paul Revere refused to settle, making EPA go to trial to prove liability.  Finally, at the trial, EPA established a substantial number of idling violations.  Facing a separate trial regarding the penalty, Paul Revere quickly negotiated a settlement on the penalty amount.

EPA Region I has now targeted bus companies, transit companies, rental car companies, and waste haulers. Truly, any company which operates a large fleet of vehicles is at risk for an anti-idling enforcement action if it does not have a written company idling policy.  Moreover, a paper policy is not enough; companies must take care to ensure a top-down emphasis on compliance with its anti-idling policy.  Letting drivers start trucks before going inside to drink their coffee will not pass muster.

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

EPA announced this week that it was granting a petition for reconsideration of the final National Ambient Air Quality Standards for lead, specifically the portion requiring monitoring of lead emissions near certain sources. The petition was brought in January by a number of environmental organizations and groups concerned about childhood lead poisoning. 

The existing lead monitoring requirements were finalized in October 2008, at the same time that EPA tightened the national air quality standards for lead for the first time in 30 years. EPA reports that the revised standards are 10 times more stringent than the previous standards and require states to place monitors near sources that emit one or more tons of lead a year. They also require a monitor to be operated in each of the 101 urban areas with populations greater than 500,000 to gather information on the general population’s exposure to lead in air.

As part of the reconsideration, EPA will evaluate whether additional monitoring near industrial sources and in urban areas is warranted. EPA notes in its fact sheet that it is not reconsidering the lead standards, and that implementation of those standards and the existing monitoring requirements will move ahead on schedule.  States are required to make recommendations for areas to be designated attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable by October 2009.

If EPA decides to revise the lead monitoring requirements later this summer, it would issue a final rule in the spring of next year, following public review and comment.

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

 Comprehensive Energy and Climate legislation is moving along through the Senate, and could come to a floor vote by October. Six Senate committees – Agriculture, Commerce, Energy & Natural Resources, Environment & Public Works, Finance and Foreign Relations -- have jurisdiction over portions of the bill, a tactic that Senate leadership hopes will give a number of influential, but as yet undecided, Senators input and a stake in the bill’s passage. Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee Barbara Boxer (D-CA) will go first with a draft, and plans to unveil her climate bill September 8^th, following the Senate’s return from summer recess. As Greenwire reported, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) hopes to do work out as many problems as possible before bringing the bill to the floor, but is still shooting for a vote as early as October.

So what’s going to be in the bill? A lot of what was in ACES, for one. Greenwire reports Chairwoman Boxer as saying that "the Waxman-Markey bill is the mark we're working off to write our bill. I would say tweaks are more of what you're going to see than major changes." 

But Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), who is also a member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, could be a roadblock to passage of the bill. Baucus has increased his climate, energy and trade staff, bringing as many as 10 aides into various meetings on the legislation, and said he plans to mark up climate provisions dealing with emissions allocations and trade. It is not yet clear if his Finance Committee will schedule a markup before the Environment & Public Works Committee, or whether Baucus will wait until after EPW reports out a bill. Either way, Baucus will play a critical role as the most senior Democrat on Boxer's committee and a leading centrist Democrat with a voice that carries tremendous weight in the leadership ranks. 

Members of the Senate Agriculture Committee will also play a key role in shaping the bill. The Committee plans to hold hearings to explore the role for agriculture and forestry in climate change legislation. Two major farm groups on opposing sides of the debate, as well as senior Obama Administration officials will all testify at the hearing. Agriculture Committee Chairman Harkin (D-Iowa) noted today that one of the provisions he would like to see changed is the allocation of allowances to the utility sector based on both historic emission levels and retail sales – a compromise that the Edison Electric Institute focused on including in the House bill.  

Meanwhile More liberal members such as Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) are pushing for tighter emissions limits than the 17% target included in the House-passed bill. 

Ultimately, compromise is likely to be the name of the game, just as it was in the House. 

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

Last Friday, in NRDC v. EPA, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down parts of EPA’s Phase 2 rule for achieving compliance with the ozone NAAQS. The most important part of the ruling was the Court’s conclusion that EPA could not rely on compliance with the NO_x SIP Call to satisfy the requirement that sources in an ozone nonattainment area demonstrate achievement of reasonably available control technology, or RACT. The basis for the decision was the Court’s conclusion that the plain language of the relevant portions of the CAA did not allow use of a cap-and-trade program to substitute for the source-specific compliance requirements imposed by the statute.

In this case, § 172(c)(1) of the CAA “requires that nonattainment areas achieve ‘such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area’ as can be achieved by the adoption of RACT.” For the Court, this was simple and dispositive.

Thus, the RACT requirement calls for reductions in emissions from sources in the area; reductions from sources outside the nonattainment area do not satisfy the requirement.

In other words, a cap and trade program won’t do, if it allows sources to avoid explicit statutory requirements. There is nothing in the Act that precludes layering a cap-and-trade program on top of RACT requirements – but that would defeat the purpose of the cap-and-trade program, which is to allow emissions reductions to be made wherever they can be achieved most cost-effectively. To require minimum reductions at all facilities precludes such cost-effective decisions.

Frankly, while I’m a fan of cap-and-trade programs, the decision is neither unreasonable nor surprising, after the decision in North Carolina v. EPA striking down the parallel provision in the Clean Air Interstate Rule. As courts like to say (especially when Supreme Court confirmation hearings are under way), their job is not to make good policy; it is to interpret and enforce the law. If Congress wants to expand the role of cap-and-trade programs, it knows how to do so.

Of course, the elephant in the room is climate change legislation. If Congress does not enact a bill, North Carolina v. EPA and NRDC v. EPA circumscribe EPA’s discretion in implementing a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases under existing law.  I take the point made by Administrator Jackson and environmentalists that, if no one wants to regulate churches and schools, then EPA can probably figure out a way to do so.  However, exercise of such discretion is not the same as promulgating rules that will ensure that those facilities which are the subject of regulation have the flexibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the most cost-effective manner possible.  

Is anyone in Congress listening?

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

Earlier this week, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed a decision of the Superior Court in Georgia that would have required Longleaf Energy Associates, developer of a coal-fired power plant, to perform a BACT analysis of CO₂ emissions control technologies in order to obtain an air quality permit for construction of the plant. The case is a reprise of the Deseret Power case regarding a coal-fired plant in Utah.

The court in Longleaf Energy concluded that CO₂ is not yet a regulated pollutant under the CAA, and thus that no BACT analysis is required. There were several bases for this conclusion:

The “Johnson Memo,” issued in response to Deseret Power, has not been withdrawn by EPA, though it is under reconsideration. Even EPA’s proposed endangerment finding for CO₂ noted that such a finding would not make CO₂ a regulated pollutant under the CAA.

As discussed in the Johnson Memo, neither the CAA nor any existing EPA regulations impose emissions limitations on CO₂.

Such a finding would “preempt” Congressional and EPA decision-making on the issue and impose standards in Georgia to which facilities outside of Georgia would not be subject.

The Longleaf Energy decision is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the CAA – but it’s not the only plausible interpretation. I mention this in order to highlight a point I have made previously. As members of Congress and stakeholders consider the costs and benefits of federal climate change legislation, they have to consider the alternative. Most people, including me, have framed the question as a comparison of the legislative option with regulation by EPA under existing authority. This is largely correct, but misses two points. First, it’s going to take EPA some time to promulgate regulations. In the meantime, there will be more Deseret Power and Longleaf Energy decisions and there is no reason to be confident that such decisions will be consistent or even reconcilable. Second, even after EPA issues regulations, the Longleaf case gives me pause as to whether such regulations would be effective in creating any kind of uniform national interpretation of these issues.

There is just no question that, in the absence of federal legislation, the resulting patchwork of regulations and federal and state decisions concerning the regulation of CO₂ and other GHGs is going to be a big mess.

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

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) yesterday published a final amendment to the first set of Global Warming Solutions Act regulations, 310 CMR 7.71.  These regulations set a baseline for Massachusetts' 1990 emissions and create a reporting system that will track emissions going forward, providing a framework for economy-wide reductions of 10% to 25% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.  The regulations are the first phase of implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act, passed last August, which, at the time, called for the largest cuts in greenhouse gas reductions seen in the nation.

In short, the reporting regulations require any facility that emitted more than 5,000 short tons of CO₂ equivalents from stationary sources (whether from fossil fuel combustion or biofuels), and any facility that is required to have an air permit under Title V of the Clean Air Act to report annually its greenhouse gas emissions.  The regulations begin with reporting 2009 emissions of CO₂ from the combustion of fuels, and ramp up in 2010 to require reporting of emissions for all six greenhouse gasses (CO₂, methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, per fluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride), whether or not they were produced by the combustion of fuels. Most reporting entities will also have to report emissions from vehicles (both off-road and on) that are owned or leased by the company and used in support of a facility.  As DEP provided in its response to comments, this could include cars given to executives for commuting.  

The final regulations make substantial changes from the emergency regulations, issued in December, 2008.   Among them, reporters must certify their emissions and have independent third-party verification of emissions every three years.  Also notable is the provision that requires every retail seller of electricity in Massachusetts to report the megawatt hours it sold the previous year and the greenhouse gas emissions that are associated with that power.  To calculate the emissions, DEP will create four emissions factors every year -- one based on fossil fuel-powered generators in Massachusetts, one based on biofuel-powered generators in Massachusetts, and two that are based on New England-wide emissions.

Now that the 1990 baseline has been officially set at 94 million metric tons, DEP must next establish a firm target for reductions of between 10% and 25% below that baseline to be reached by 2020, and issue an economy-wide plan to achieve that target by January 2011.   DEP estimates that 300 facilities in Massachusetts will report their emissions under 310 CMR 7.71.  It will be interesting to see the percentage of the reduction the Commonwealth will call upon those 300 entities to achieve.  If the Commonwealth looks solely to those entities to achieve the reductions, then there will surely be complaints about both fairness and efficiency.  If the Commonwealth looks beyond the 300, then there will be questions as to how compliance will ultimately be monitored. 

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

 The House of Representatives narrowly passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 by a vote of 219-212 on Friday, June 26.  The bill, the first piece of major legislation on global warming that has passed either house of Congress, is 1,428 pages long, and includes 5 titles covering everything from renewable energy and efficiency to adaptation and transitioning to a clean energy economy.  While it retains many key concepts from the draft introduced by Representatives Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, some of revisions and additions that ensured its passage were significant and have generated controversy as the sponsors made certain compromises in order to reach a majority. 

Attention now turns to the Senate, which, according to statements by key committee members and Obama Administration officials, will likely not reach a vote on global warming legislation until this fall, at the earliest.  Should the Bill fail to pass in the Senate, greenhouse gas emissions may still be regulated through other methods, such as state and regional climate change initiatives and possibly direct regulation by the EPA through the Clean Air Act, under its endangerment finding.

For more details on the bill and an in depth analysis of the Cap-and-Trade title, please take a look at our recent client alert. 

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

In the category of dog bites man, EPA today announced it was granting the State of California a waiver that will allow California to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. The granting of the waiver was expected after Obama’s election and became pretty much inevitable after the administration announced in February that it was reconsidering the waiver request.

Substantively, it is not clear that the waiver matters that much, given the announcement on May 19 of the “grand bargain” among California, the federal government, and automakers to improve fuel economy nationwide. The real significance of today’s notice is that it is further evidence of a coordinated national strategy by the administration to address climate change. Although the administration has not yet finalized its endangerment finding with respect to GHGs, EPA’s notice today stated in part that California had a need to regulate GHG due to “compelling and extraordinary conditions”  resulting from the cumulative impacts of GHG on California and the US as a whole. Sounds like endangerment to me.

In other words, in light of the close vote in the House on the Waxman-Markey bill, interest groups on both sides of the bill should keep in mind their BATNA – one acronym that has stuck with me in 25 years since the Kennedy School – their best alternative to a negotiated agreement.  If there isn’t a bill, is there any doubt at this point that EPA will regulate GHGs on the basis of existing authority? Furthermore, is there any doubt that such regulations would be uglier, messier, more complicated, and less efficient than whatever might come out of Congress?

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

While some of my colleagues are laboring in the climate change vineyards (and we should have posts soon summarizing the House bill), I thought I would note another interesting enforcement decision issued this week.  United States v. Oliver is, in some respects, a run of the mill decision.  A mom-and-pop medical waste incinerator (the adjective is the court’s not mine; it does give one pause) failed for several years to comply with EPA regulations governing such facilities.  EPA sought and obtained a permanent injunction ceasing facility operations until the defendants can demonstrate to the satisfaction of EPA and the court that it can comply with the applicable regulations.

The interesting part of the decision relates to the Court’s imposition of a penalty.  EPA took the position that the Court should presume that the maximum penalty should be imposed, citing Pound v. Airosol and United States v. B & W Inv. Properties. Doing so in this case would have generated a penalty of $220,080,000 before any mitigation were considered. That EPA itself only sought a penalty of $445,000 demonstrates the absurdity of even starting with the maximum penalty. The court, noting that the defendant had two employees and was poorly capitalized, stated that the size of the business argued for a penalty “far smaller” than what the government sought.

The court also considered, as a separate factor, the impact of the penalty on business operations. While previously noting that the defendants showed no real likelihood of being able to come into compliance, the court nonetheless noted that imposition of a large penalty would pretty much make it impossible for the defendants to operate in compliance with applicable regulations, and therefore concluded “that the penalty should be dramatically lower than the amount sought by the United States.”  The court imposed a $75,000 penalty.

I’m not sure I’d read too much into this decision, but it does give defendants a basis for arguing that courts should not start with the maximum statutory amount in determining an appropriate penalty.  It also puts the defendant’s ability to pay front and center in the penalty calculus.

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

At the fourth auction of CO₂ allowances under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) on June 17, participation was certified as robust by market monitor Potomac Economics, but auction prices decreased. Last week’s clearing price for 2009 vintage CO₂ allowances was $3.23 per allowance, only slightly above the clearing price of $3.07 at RGGI's initial auction in September 2008, and below March’s clearing price of $3.51.  The 2.1 million 2012 vintage allowances offered for sale in last week’s action sold for $2.06, almost one-third below the $3.05 price that they earned at the March auction, which was the first at which these later vintage allowances were offered for sale.  

RGGI, Inc. has released the range of bid prices from the fourth auction, allowing some insight into how CO₂ is valued by the players in these auctions.  Bid prices for the 2009 vintage allowances ranged from $1.86 (the minimum clearing price) to $12.00, up $2 from the maximum bid in the March auction, while bids for the 2012 vintage allowances ranged from $1.86 to $3.84, down from March’s high bid price of $4.40. Participation in the 2009 vintage offering remained high at 54 entities, while participation in the 2012 vintage auction was down from March’s 20 entities to only 13.

Interestingly, the share of non-compliance entities (persons not regulated under RGGI) who participated in the 2012 vintage auction rose this time, with only 62% of the bids submitted in that auction coming from compliance entities (power plants regulated under RGGI).  Even so, regulated generators and their affiliates continued the trend from previous auctions of winning the vast majority of the allowances – 85% of 2009 allowances and 81% of 2012.

The difference in the clearing price for the 2009 vintage and the 2012 vintage is not surprising. RGGI allowances may be banked without limitation and used in future years, making the 2009 allowances more valuable than later vintages.  What is notable is the drop in both participation in the 2012 vintage allowance and the clearing price (nearly 33% less than it was only 3 months ago). It seems that many market participants are uncertain about the value of the 2012 allowances, given the possibility that RGGI may be replaced by a national cap-and-trade program whose provisions are not yet known. 

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

Thinking about how to take advantage of funding for energy efficiency retrofits from the federal stimulus package, state-level programs like Massachusetts’ Green Communities Act, or even utility-funded programs?  You should also think about whether your actions will create another income stream – offsets under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) – and whether taking funds will prohibit the creation of offsets when the project is finished.

RGGI, Inc. this week released model applications for offset projects which could create interesting incentives if implemented by each of the RGGI states. Unlike some of the offset provisions proposed under ACES, all of the RGGI offset categories are outside of the electric generation sector that RGGI regulates. The 5 categories of emission reductions that are eligible for offsets in RGGI include landfill methane capture and destruction; reductions in sulfur hexafluoride in the electricity transmission and distribution sector; sequestration of carbon due to afforestation; avoided methane emissions from agricultural manure management, and, most interestingly, reductions or avoidance in CO₂ emissions from natural gas, oil or propane in residential or commercial facilities due to energy efficiency in the building sector. 

RGGI has a notoriously strict stance on additionality which certainly shows in the application for energy efficiency offsets. To qualify, the applicant must certify that the project did not receive any funding or incentives from any state run programs or programs funded with RGGI auction proceeds. Given that a large portion of the money from RGGI auctions is being directed by the states toward energy efficiency improvements, being able to provide this certification may be difficult. The application also notes that any renewable portfolio standard (RPS) attributes generated by the offset project must be transferred to the state regulatory agency, rather than sold separately. 

Energy efficiency projects that can qualify for offsets are not necessarily complex. The types of energy efficiency projects that can qualify for offsets include:

• Improvements in the energy efficiency of combustion equipment that provides space heating and hot water, including a reduction in fossil fuel consumption through the use of solar and geothermal energy
• Improvements in the efficiency of heating distribution systems, including proper sizing
• Installation or improvement of energy management systems
• Improvement in the efficiency of hot water distribution systems, including reduction in demand for hot water
• Measures that improve the thermal performance of the building and reduce the building envelope air leakage
• Measures that improve the passive solar performance of buildings or utilize active heating systems using renewable energy
• Fuel switching to a less carbon-intensive fuel in combustion systems, including the use of liquid or gaseous eligible biomass (but not conversions to electricity).
  

On the other hand, the projects must achieve very high efficiency gains to qualify. Whole-building energy projects must be 30% above ASHRAE 90.1-2004 standards, and retrofit projects that commenced after January 1, 2009 must show that the energy conservation method they employ has a market penetration rate of less than 5%, although the market or class of buildings can be defined by the applicant. In addition, the baseline from which reductions in CO₂ are measured is based on a combination of the current building code and the actual equipment to be replaced, so not all of the gains from retrofits can be certified as offsets. 

If your summer home improvement efforts this year include upgrading to a state-of-the-art boiler, you didn’t take RGGI funds from the state to do so, and you are persistent enough to endure certification and verification of the reductions, you could qualify for up to 10 years of offset credits to sell to electric generators in the 10-state region. It is certainly something to think about.

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

According to a quote from House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman in an E&E article this morning, the Waxman-Markey bill could reach a floor vote inside of 3 weeks.  Speaker Pelosi had set a deadline of next Friday, June 19, for the 8 House Committees still evaluating HR 2454 to conclude their review, but has not indicated when Democrats will bring the legislation to the House floor.  Waxman said yesterday that he wants debate to begin on June 22 and the bill to go to a vote before the July Fourth recess -- "I think the speaker and the majority leader and the administration agree with that timing, and we're going to do all we can to stick to it because after we come back from the July Fourth recess, it is health care for the rest of the month."

The tension in scheduling the Administration's dual priorities of energy and health care seems to be an issue.  Ways & Means Chairman Charles Rangel reported that in the Democratic committee members' meeting with the President this week , the President did not give lawmakers a specific deadline for sending him a climate bill -- a marked contrast with the firm deadline for health care legislation.  Rangel told reporters that in order to concentrate on both climate and health care, the Ways & Means Committee might skip markup of the climate bill and instead work out their concerns with Chairman Waxman before a floor vote or during floor vote, via amendments.

What the bill will look like when when it reaches the floor is still under discussion.  One committee expected to offer substantial amendments on hot-button issues like biofuels and offsets is the House Agriculture Committee.   While the offsets debate may be even more heated than that for the allocation of credits, biofuels may be the first amendment offered.  As Climate Wire reported Wednesday, House Agriculture Committee members are considering a legislative fix for EPA's proposed regulation of biofuels.  At EPA's public hearing on the recent proposal, which involves the requirement of a 100-year long lifecycle analysis for biofuels international impact, testimony from both biofuel advocates and environmentalists urged changes.  Particularly since the lifecycle emissions of petroleum production are not evaluated in the same way, calculation of biofuels' carbon footprints will have a huge impact on whether the Congressional mandate to ramp up biofuel use to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022 can be met. 

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

In Congressional testimony last month, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson apparently told Congress that amendments to the CAA may be necessary in order to ensure that any revised CAIR rule issued by EPA would be safe from legal challenge.  The testimony is not really a surprise. Anyone reading the decision striking down the original CAIR rule would understand that the Court had concluded that the cap-and-trade program promulgated under CAIR was not authorized by the CAA.

Like the situation posed by EPA’s obligation to address climate change endangerment following the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, the threat of further litigation and court mandates may be the best hope of getting something done.  EPA is expected to issue a new rule in 2010 and if the agency does not have legislative authority for a cap-and-trade program, then we’re going to see a command-and-control rule. The unattractiveness of that possibility may be what’s necessary to get the legislation sought by EPA.  

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

Last week, Judge Larry McKinney issued an order requiring to shut down three coal-fired generating units at its Wabash Station facility by no later than September 30, 2009. The decision actually struck me as a thoughtful analysis of injunctive relief issues in a situation where a violation of NSR regulations had already been proven. Although the decision has gotten most press for the order shutting down the units, it covers a number of issues important to injunctive relief situations, and there are some nuggets which are potentially useful to generators; it is not a one-sided decision. Here are some highlights:

The shut-down order – although significant, is not as earth-shattering as it seems. Cinergy gave the judge little choice by testifying that it would not be economic to install pollution controls on the units, given their age and size. The fight was thus about when, not whether, the units would be shut down. The judge was clearly annoyed that, following the liability finding, Cinergy had seemingly taken no action to plan for a shut-down. The judge, in response to reliability concerns, did allow the units to operate through the summer of 2009.

Irreparable harm discussion – a few noteworthy aspects here

The court relied on modeling which demonstrated that Wabash emissions contributed to PM_2.5 levels downwind

The court noted that contributions of “just a few tenths of a ug“ can be significant when an area is on the border between compliance and noncompliance.

Like the court in the TVA injunctive relief case we posted about earlier this year, the court specifically noted that adverse health affects can occur at levels below the NAAQS

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that acid deposition and mercury emissions from Wabash had caused irreparable harm, concluding “that Plaintiffs did not provide sufficient nexus between the relevant excess emissions and the negative … effects. 

In a win for generators, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ position that BACT for NO_x emissions in 1989 was SCR technology. This is an important issue, because EPA and the states will sometimes try to take the position that unproven technologies are nonetheless BACT. The decision squarely rejects that argument.

Surrender of SO₂ allowances. The court required Cinergy to surrender SO₂ allowances equal to the excess emissions from the May 2008 jury verdict to the time the units are shut-down. However, it is important to note that the Plaintiffs had requested that the court order Cinergy to install BACT on larger units at the Station that had not violated NSR rules. The court rejected that argument, noting that the Plaintiffs’ proposal “does not bear an equitable relationship to the degree and kind of harm it is intended to remedy …. Imposition of such a remedy is punitive in nature.”

In sum, although the decision is important, it is not surprising in context. Indeed, the finding on BACT, which was favorable to Cinergy, may have the most precedential significance.

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

For those of you looking for a cogent and concise economic analysis of the current debate regarding the distribution of allowances in the Waxman-Markey bill, take a look at this post from Rob Stavins.  Rob makes several important points, but I think that two are most fundamental.  First, with some caveats, how allowances are distributed does not affect the environmental results attained by the program.  Second, the allocation proposed in the Waxman-Markey bill is by no means a “give-away” to industrial interests. 

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

Earlier this week, the jury reached a verdict in the Cinergy – now Duke Energy – NSR retrial. The short version is simple:

Condensor retubine – no need to go through NSR

Pulverizor replacement – requires NSR

I don’t know all of the details of the case.  For example, I don’t know if the pulverizer capacity was expanded when they were replaced.  If any readers know the details and want to share them, I’d be grateful.

The decision does call to mind a previous post, in which I suggested that environmentalists might trade elimination of the NSR program for a requirement that all existing facilities comply with NSPS by a date certain. If instead of the current NSR program, the CAA had been amended in 1977 to give existing facilities until 2002 – 25 years – to be as clean as new facilities, there would have been howls of outrage at the time from the environmental community, but today we would be in a much better place.  Although the same howls would be heard today, shouldn’t it be possible to reach a deal, particularly given the pressure old facilities will be under as a result of a cap-and-trade program, that would eliminate NSR in return for a date certain by which existing facilities have to be clean as new?  It might be 15 years later than if the deal had been struck in 1977, but that doesn’t mean it would be a bad idea now.

BTW, for a cogent economic analysis of this issue, take a look at my friend Rob Stavins' post from a few weeks ago.  I'm tempted to say great minds thing alike, but perhaps I'll just go with a great mind thinks alike.

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

As highlighted in yesterday's issue of Greenwire, one of the controversial aspects of the  American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) passed by the House Energy & Commerce Committee last night is that 35% of the allocated allowances created in the cap-and-trade program will go for free to the electric power industry.  30% will go to Local Distribution Companies, or LDCs, traditional regulated utilities who sell power directly to consumers, and 5% will be allocated to independent merchant energy generators that sell power to wholesale power markets, primarily in the Northeast, Great Lakes, California and Texas.

Not surprisingly, the allocation between LDCs and merchant generators is the subject of substantial political infighting. Merchant generators own 40% of the nation's generating capacity, but as Greenwire reports, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, which represents the LDCs, is campaigning to knock out any share of allowances for merchant generation.  

Following an amendment to ACES that passed Committee yesterday, the emission allowances given to local distribution companies must be used exclusively for the protection of retail ratepayers against rising electricity rates.  In other words, utilities have to pass on the savings from their 30% of allocated allowances to their customers.  Not so for the allowances given to merchant generators, who sell power into the grid, rather than directly to consumers.  Their 5% share could apparently be worth $2.7 billion to $5.5 billion a year, depending on how high the price of carbon allowances are in the program's first years. 

The 5% allocation to merchant generators is seen as necessary to obtain support from House members from Texas and the Midwest who represent a number of coal-fired merchant generators.  Such votes could be critical in a House floor vote, which is the next hurdle for ACES.

Even though ACES was voted out of the Energy and Commerce Committee last night, the allocation debate is not necessarily finished.  Chairman Waxman said he would accommodate Republican requests to have at least one more day of additional hearing testimony over the distribution of emission allowances next month. 

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

Apparently in an effort to demonstrate to Congress that coal states also support greenhouse gas regulation, the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord last week released draft design recommendations for a GHG program. Several facets of this announcement are interesting:

1.                   The Waxman-Markey bill would basically preclude the MGGRA from implementing its program.

2.                   If the point of the effort is to demonstrate to Congress that coal states indeed do support GHG regulation, they might be more successful if they had managed to bring Indiana and Ohio into the fold.

3.                   The program as tentatively proposed would include a cap-and-tax approach, in which, like other cap-and-trade models, GHG emitters would need allowances for each ton of CO_2e that they emit. However, they would also have to pay a fee, suggested to be in the range of $2-$4/ton of CO_2e, for each allowance.

It’s difficult to imagine the MGGRA approach going anywhere at this point, but I don’t want to be too dismissive. Like potential EPA regulation under existing CAA authority, the threat of yet another regional program has to add to the weight of issues pushing fence-sitting members of Congress towards a willingness to support a federal program.

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

Congressmen Waxman and Markey today released their proposal for allocating allowances under a cap-and-trade program. At least 15 different categories of entities will receive a piece of the allowance pie. Here’s the list:

Local Distribution Companies –                           30%

Merchant Coal and PPAs –                                      5%    

Natural Gas Distribution Companies –                   9%

States (for home heating oil users) –                     1.5%

Low/moderate income households –                   15%

Energy intensive / trade-exposed industries –    15%

Domestic oil refiners –                                          2%                                                     

Carbon capture / sequestration –                          2%    

Renewable Energy / energy efficiency –             10%

Advanced automobile technology –                       3%

Research and development –                                1%

Tropical deforestation / offsets –                         5%

Domestic adaption –                                             2%

International adaptation/technology transfer –    2%

Worker assistance / job training –                        0.5%

If you think that this adds to more than 100%, you are correct, though it is also true that these numbers vary over time. Most significantly, the first four items above would phase out in the period from 2026.

What’s notable here? The total amount of allowances allocated to LDCs and merchant generators is about what was expected, but of that 35%, the merchant generators may have expected to get more than they did.  We’ll see how the coal industry responds to this proposal. 

The phase-out period is almost certainly more generous than environmentalists expected or hoped for, and is evidence that the vote counters did not believe that the votes would be there for the bill otherwise.  For allowances to utilities and power producers not to begin to phase out until 2026 would be a major victory for the industry.

Obviously, this is not the end; we’ll see over the next few days how the Waxman-Markey proposal is received. The bill itself is scheduled for release later today.

(If the percentages in the columns aren't justified, blame our blog host; I just couldn't make it work and still get this done this century.)

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

Are Representatives Waxman and Markey near settling on language that will get a majority in Committee for the climate change bill?  The tenor today was significantly more positive than in the past few weeks.  An update seemed worthwhile, given the number of specific provisions on which agreement has apparently been reached.

1.                   The initial CO_2e reduction goal will be 17% over 2005 levels by 2020.  This compares to 14% sought by the President and 20% in the original draft bill.

2.                   35% of allowances would be distributed to local distribution companies and 15% of allowances would be distributed to industries subject to international trade issues, though the percentages would decrease over time.

3.                   The renewable electricity standard, or RES, would be set at 15% by 2020.  The efficiency standard, or EERS, would be set at 5% by 2020.  If s state demonstrates that it cannot meet the 15% RES, the RES could be set as low as 12%, as long as the state makes up the difference by increasing the EERS percentage so that the total of the RES and EERS equals 20%.

It’s still not obvious when a bill will be done or if there is a majority, but House Majority Whip James Clyburn was quoted as indicating he thinks he can deliver the votes on the House floor. 

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

It seems that news on the behind-the-scenes dance in the House in an effort to bring major energy and climate change legislation to a floor vote by Memorial Day emerges every few hours, changing pundits' predictions and analysis.  Even so, this morning's article by E&E contained enough interesting tidbits to warrant highlighting it here.  

In short, Energy & Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman has set his goal to produce an amended draft of ACES this week, and intends to stick to his Memorial Day deadline, although it remains unclear whether the markup will begin in the full committee or the Energy & Environment Subcommittee.   

E&E reports that lawmakers are focusing on finding consensus in four critical areas: targets and timetables for domestic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (latest prediction: 14% cut below 2005 levels by 2020); distribution of allowances (latest prediction: at least some allocation during the first 10 to 15 years of the program); use of offsets to ease industrial compliance costs; and a nationwide renewable electricity standard (Waxman has apparently revised his 2025 target from 25% to 17.5%).

E&E also reports on lawmakers' discussions of alternatives and compromises, most interestingly the idea of coupling cuts in CO2 with increases in drilling.  This controversial idea was floated by an unnamed senior Obama official to a reporter for The New Yorker.  As the New Yorker reports, the idea is a "grand bargain" energy deal which would include a "'serious' and 'short term' increase in domestic production -- perhaps opening up for oil exploration places like the waters off the coast of California—that would appease the “Drill, baby, drill” crowd, while also adopting a cap-and-trade plan that could take effect one or two (or more) years after 2012, which is when Obama’s current plan would start."   The official characterized it as "something like T. Boone Pickens and Al Gore holding hands on a broad compromise."  

While Administration officials have not provided any more details and I have seen no reports that Waxman would include such changes in ACES, the move could come from elsewhere within the House.  E&E quotes House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall as saying that "it's certainly my feeling that this is the time to explore those options of exploring oil and gas drilling under protection of certain sensitive areas." 

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

Based on the current pace of developments, weekly updates on climate change legislation seem to be about the right frequency. This week’s forecast is bullish on more free allowances.

The news this week has centered on the delay in scheduling a mark-up on the Waxman Markey bill in the house. It has been widely reported that the mark-up has been delayed because the sponsors don’t yet have enough votes to pass the bill in committee. I wouldn’t read too much into the difficulty at this point. It doesn’t mean that a bill won’t get out of committee or won’t get passed. It just means that these are difficult issues, which we already knew. As Senator Reid said: “Health care is easier than this global warming stuff.” Now that’s a quote likely to chill an environmentalist’s heart.

In terms of getting a sense where the substantive terms of the bill are headed, I thought that the most revealing quote was from Representative Gene Green (D-Texas), who apparently told reporters that the mark-up has to wait for another hearing, and that that hearing should take place after the bill’s sponsors fill in the blanks on how allowances will be allocated. This remains the $64,000 question – or perhaps it’s more like the $64,000,000,000 question (that’s a lot of zeros to type). 

We previously reported that the administration has pretty much acknowledged that some allowances would be allocated for free, at least initially, and it is looking more and more as though that will be the case. As each day passes, my prediction regarding the number of allowances that will be allocated for free to existing generators increases.  

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

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

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

 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

The results of EPA’s annual auction of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) allowances under the acid rain program provide empirical support for a proposition that the regulated community repeatedly advances – certainty is critical to the success of complex regulatory regimes. Prices for 2009 allowances fell from last year’s average of $380/ton to $70/ton, or more than 80%. Prices in the 7 year advance auction fell even more dramatically, from $136/ton in 2008 to $6.65/ton, or more than 95%.

The short explanation for the crash in prices? Uncertainty over the fate of EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule. Although there may be a number of other factors in play, the consensus seems to be that CAIR is the primary culprit. Having a rule issued, challenged, struck down, vacated, and then temporarily reinstated does not provide much of a basis for rational investment planning by corporations that might need allowances.

The number and identity of the bidders are also interesting. Two bidders purchased more than 98% of the spot auction allowances. One bidder – JP Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation – purchased essentially 100% of the 7 year allowances. (Though you will all be comforted to know that “Bates College Environmental Econ” was able to purchase 2 allowances in both the spot and 7 year auctions.) Of course, most of the allowances are allocated to existing emitters; fewer than 3% of allowances are auctioned. Nonetheless, this seems like remarkably little interest.

Is there a lesson here for a CO₂ cap and trade program? Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good might be one candidate. Another would simply be not to tinker too much. The importance of cost certainty in corporate planning may be obvious, but that does not mean that it doesn’t bear repeating in times such as these.

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

RGGI, Inc. the operators of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) today announced the results of its third auction of CO₂ allowances, held on March 18, 2009.  The auction offered allowances from all ten states participating in RGGI -- Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. 

 As we noted earlier, new for RGGI’s third auction was that the states offered just under 2.2 million allowances for the 2012 vintage, providing a first-look at future market prices for RGGI allowances. These 2012 allowances sold at a clearing price of $3.05, while the 31.5 million 2009 vintage allowances offered sold at a clearing price of $3.51 per allowance, up nearly 4% from the December 17^th auction’s clearing price of $3.38 and significantly above the initial auction’s clearing price of $3.07. This increase seems particularly notable given current economic conditions.

For the first time, RGGI, Inc. also released the range of bid prices, allowing some insight into how CO₂ is valued by the players in these auctions. Bid prices for the 2009 vintage allowances ranged from $1.86 (the minimum clearing price) to $10.00, while bids for the 2012 vintage allowances ranged from $1.86 to $4.40. Regulated generators and their affiliates continued the trend from the first two auctions of winning the vast majority of the allowances – 78% of 2009 and 93% of 2012.

It is interesting, though not surprising, that 2009 vintage allowances raked in higher bids than the 2012 vintage allowances. Given that RGGI allowances may be banked without limitation and used in future years, the 2009 vintage allowances are arguably more valuable. Even so, the fact that the 2012 vintage allowances sold for $3.05, lower even than the first RGGI auction’s clearing price of $3.07, indicates some lack of confidence in those allowances’ future value. The 2012 allowances are the first to fall within RGGI’s second three-year compliance period (2012-2015), which is significant because 2015 is the first year that the RGGI cap begins its annual process of ratcheting down 2.5%. One might think that this feature would make the allowances more valuable.  However, there remains significant uncertainty regarding what the carbon emission market will look like in 2012, whether there will be a national cap-and-trade system, and whether RGGI will still exist. Given that uncertainty, this relatively low price is understandable.

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

In connection with the nomination of Cass Sunstein to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB, I noted my hope that the Obama administration would be a Nixon in China moment for regulatory reform. Given the administration’s aggressive early steps to combat global warming and to roll back some of the more extreme moves by the Bush EPA, the new administration could, if it chooses, give regulatory reform back its good name.

So far, the signs are not encouraging. In February, EPA announced that it was deferring until May 18 the effective date of the NSR aggregation amendments that the Bush administration promulgated on their way out the door. Notwithstanding the midnight rulemaking feel to issuance of rules five days before inauguration of a new administration, the aggregation amendments seem to me to be little more than a common sense reform of an often mind-bogglingly complex set of regulations, i.e, the NSR/PSD rules. The aggregation amendments would have clarified EPA’s rules on aggregation of projects for NSR jurisdictional purposes so that only projects that are “substantially related” need be aggregated.

Unfortunately, the NRDC appears to be feeling its collective oats and, not surprisingly, EPA seems to listen the NRDC more than they listen to me. Last week, EPA announced that it was proposing to further defer implementation of the aggregation amendments, until November 18, 2009. 

While EPA has not yet withdrawn the aggregation amendments, this latest move has to mean that they are on life support.  I fear, to mix yet one more metaphor, that the baby of regulatory reform is rapidly going down the drain with the bathwater of the Bush administration.

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

An update to a development we noted a few weeks ago --  as reported by Climate Wire today, at the national meeting of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) yesterday, regulatory officials from all 50 states, the District of Columbia and five U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands) unanimously voted in favor of rules requiring insurers to disclose the impacts of climate change on their business decisions. 

The mandatory survey's adoption comes shortly after Maplecroft, a British risk management firm, reported that, although third world countries are more likely to experience climate-related fatalities, the US ranks #1 in the study's list of nations facing financial climate risk, and averaged $18 billion annually in economic losses from natural disasters between 1980 and 2008. 

As insurance is regulated by each state independently, the climate risk rules must still be adopted by individual states in order to be enforced.  Nonetheless, given that all members voted in favor of the rules, adoption seems likely.   To ensure that the rules are applied evenly, the NAIC Climate Change Task Force plans to monitor states' actions and collect sample answers from insurers to see how the surveys are completed. 

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

Greenwire reported yesterday that EPA plans to issue its endangerment finding on emissions of greenhouses gases, in response to Massachusetts v. EPA, by the end of April. Greenwire also released EPA’s internal presentation regarding its recommendation to the Administrator.

Although EPA’s anticipated decision is not a surprise, it is still noteworthy. Among the highlights:

• The finding will conclude that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health (the proposed endangerment finding that the Bush administration EPA had prepared, but then withdrew, was limited to public welfare issues.
• The finding will apparently note that there are environmental justice implications associated with climate change. This is particularly interesting, given that there is also concern that there are equity issues associated with the likely responses to climate change – Warren Buffett this week described a cap-and-trade plan has as a “regressive tax.”
• EPA’s preferred option at this point is to base the endangerment finding on identifying the entire group of GHG as the “air pollutants” that cause the endangerment. One specific rationale is that doing so will facilitate flexibility in setting standards for these pollutants. In other words, if GHG are grouped together, EPA will be able to propose a regulatory program that will allow netting and offsets among the different GHGs. 

Other than the nod to regulatory flexibility provided by grouping GHGs, EPA has not tipped its hand regarding the nature of any regulatory regime for GHGs, let alone when it might be able to propose and finalize such regulations. Doing so remains a gargantuan task. 

Moreover, while EPA is clearly committed to addressing this issue, if one believes the statements of Congressional committee chairs to the effect that climate change legislation will get done promptly, there is a certain logic to waiting for such direct legislative authority. On the other hand, fear of what EPA may do remains part of the calculus on Capital Hill, so EPA may decide to move forward aggressively with regulatory development under current Clean Air Act authority simply in order to keep pressure on Congress. 

It’s going to be a busy – and interesting – year.

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

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today proposed regulations which create the first nationwide system for reporting emissions of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases emitted by major sources in the US.  The proposed regulations are promulgated pursuant to the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act  which was signed into law in December 2007, and instructs the EPA to require mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions in all sectors of the economy.  Approximately 13,000 facilities will be subject to the rule, accounting for 85% to 90% of greenhouse gases emitted in the U.S.   Despite this large number, EPA believes that most small businesses will not be subject to the rule, as the primary threshold is set at 25,000 metric tons of CO₂ equivalent, an amount equal to the emissions from 2,200 homes, 58,000 barrels of oil, or 131 rail cars of coal.

In addition to facilities that directly emit 25,000 metric tons of CO₂ equivalent per year, the proposed rule also requires suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial greenhouse gases, as well as manufacturers of vehicles and engines, to submit annual reports to EPA, cataloging all 6 greenhouse gases.  The rule does not require control or caps on emissions, but only that the sources monitor and report greenhouse gas emissions. EPA will use the data gathered from this reporting process to formulate and assess the impacts of future policies.

Interestingly, the rule requires reporting of emissions from both upstream production facilities and downstream emission sources, which could result in some double-reporting of emissions – for instance reporting of emissions by both an upstream supplier of fuel oil and the large end-user facility who burns the oil. In guidance that accompanies the proposed regulation, EPA clarifies that such double reporting is consistent with the appropriations language, and will provide information to EPA to craft policies that address both sides, such as cap and trade upstream and end-use emissions standards downstream.

If adopted, the proposed rule would require reporters to submit their first annual greenhouse gas emissions report by March 31, 2011, based on emissions data from 2010.  Facilities who already report emissions data quarterly (such as for the Acid Rain Program) would continue to report quarterly. Requirements for vehicle and engine manufacturers would kick in with the 2011 model year.

For the majority of reporters, EPA will collect data at the facility level. Vehicle and engine manufacturers, fossil fuel importers/exporters and local gas distribution companies will report at the corporate level. Verification of reported data will be verified by EPA, as in other Clean Air Act programs.

For more information on which facilities are subject to the rule and what emissions they will have to report, we recommend this chart, from EPA guidance.

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

As the New York Times reported on Friday, New York Governor David Paterson may increase the number of carbon allowances that New York gives to power plants for free, creating a significant policy departure from New York's earlier approach to RGGI.   New York, together with seven other RGGI states, had earlier committed to auction nearly 100% of its allowances.  As such, New York gave away only a small portion of its allowances this year (1.5 million out of 62 million) through a program designed to lessen the impact of RGGI on the price of electricity. Paterson's proposed adjustment would increase that number four-fold, giving away 6 million allowances to regulated power plants, at an estimated value of $21.9 million per year.  That money could have otherwise been used by the state to fund energy efficiency programs.  

If New York were to change its allocation structure, the state would have to reopen its regulations, and any change would require notice and public comment.  As a result, any changes would not impact the next auction, scheduled for March 18th, or, apparently, the following two in June and September.  Although New York controls 31% of the allowances in the RGGI program, this potential shift would not affect overall carbon emissions from power plants.  Both the amount of allowances allocated to New York and the total number of allowances in the RGGI program are capped. 

Regardless of the number of allowances now to be allocated, the change is potentially politically significant. The statement from the Governor's office is framed in neutral language -- "we have an obligation to monitor how a program is working and advance any needed changes to make the program more effective."  Nonetheless, one wonders whether the lawsuit filed last month by Indeck against New York, alleging that the state agencies did not have the authority from the New York legislature to implement the program, played any part in the Governor's decision.  That lawsuit and this potential change in New York's allocation structure are both underpinned by the idea that New York's implementation of RGGI adversely affects against electric generators that are bound by long-term fixed-price contracts, and cannot pass the added price of allowances on to consumers. 

New York's shift might also make it more difficult for the other RGGI states to stick with their 100% auction, in face of pressure from industry groups to increase allocation, though, as ClimateWire reports, some state leaders have discounted the potential impact. It also remains to be seen what effect this will have on the national debate.  As we noted last week, the debate over how a cap-and-trade or carbon tax would operate is beginning to heat up.  Since RGGI is the nation's first CO2 cap-and-trade system to be implemented, experiences with RGGI are likely to have a significant impact on national legislation.

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

As we noted last week, President Obama’s budget includes revenue from auctioning 100% of allowances under a cap-and-trade system. ClimateWire today reports two competing versions of the prospects for a 100% auction approach. First, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy signed up a number of economists, including Franklin Fisher of MIT, in support of the President’s plan to auction all allowances from the get-go. Part of the argument reflects environmental justice concerns, stemming from the recognition that a cap-and-trade program will increase utility costs. The Southern Alliance is expecting that some of the auction proceeds would be rebated back to low-income consumers, thus cushioning that blow.

As ClimateWire notes, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which includes the NRDC, EDF, and the Nature Conservancy, has already lined up behind a plan that would allocate up to 40% of allowances to industry at the beginning of the program, with the amount of allocated allowances decreasing to zero over time.

In the same issue, ClimateWire reported that Abyd Karmali, the head of carbon emissions for Merrill Lynch, has concluded that the President’s proposal won’t fly in today’s economy.  Mr. Karmali predicts that not more than 30% - 50% of allowances will be auctioned initially.

Will the President get his way or is Mr. Karmali correct?  Over the past year, people have underestimated President Obama at their peril.  At the same time, it’s hard to argue with Mr. Karmali’s assessment of the current political climate.  Unless we get some prompt political climate change, I’d guess that a 100% auction approach remains some years away.

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

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

The batting average of the Bush administration EPA in appeals of its regulatory proposals may now have dropped below the proverbial Mendoza line. This week, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia remanded a substantial part of EPA’s particulate rule. That the Bush administration could achieve results where the Mendoza line is even a close metaphor is a testament to just how low its stock has fallen in the courts.

The case itself is important for a number of reasons, but is too lengthy for detailed analysis here. Highlights include:

• First, the basic holding: the court remanded EPA’s primary annual standard for PM_2.5, because EPA did not justify that the 15 ug/m³ standard was sufficient to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. Second, the court also remanded EPA’s determination of the secondary, public welfare, standard for PM_2.5.
• The court gave great weight to the role of the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC) and staff recommendations in the regulatory process. After this decision, EPA is going to think twice about choosing a regulatory course difference than that recommended by CASAC and staff. On balance, I think that this is a bad thing and more evidence of the collateral damage from the extreme positions taken by the Bush administration. After all, while the Clean Air Act sets some boundaries, these are ultimately policy decisions that should be made by the President and his or her chosen staff, not by a committee no one’s heard of or low-level staff.
• Unlike the chaos created when the court vacated the CAIR regulations, the court appears to have learned its lesson. This time around, the court remanded the rule, but left the standard in place for now.
• The court’s decision to remand the public welfare standard will have implications for current efforts to implement the its Regional Haze Rule. The extent to which this decision throws Haze Rule implementation back to the drawing board may not be known for some time.

How many more cases can the Bush administration lose after it’s already out of office? At least one. Greenwire reports today about speculation that this decision means that the EPA rules regarding the nitrogen oxide NAAQS may also be in trouble.

The interesting question in all this is the extent to which the abysmal record of the Bush EPA in defending its decisions in the courts will damage EPA’s credibility and thus result in a long-term weakening of the deference given EPA by the courts. At this point, my assumption is that, in the long run, these cases will be seen as an aberration and courts will resume their prior practice of granting EPA substantial deference. Of course, whether that is a good thing or not is a separate question.

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

Strange as it sounds, the next industry group to take substantive action on climate change might just be insurers.  In Tuesday's key vote by the Climate Change and Global Warming Task Force of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, 18 state insurance commissioners voted to approve rules requiring insurers to disclose the impacts of climate change on their business decisions. If the rules are approved by the full committee in March, and each state adopts them, reporting could begin as early as May 2010.

The survey approved by yesterday’s vote asks insurers to annually answer eight questions involving what the company is doing to measure and mitigate its own emissions, how it identifies climate risks in its portfolio, how emerging climate risks could affect coverage, whether the company has altered its investment strategies in light of climate change risks, and what the company is or could be doing to change the behavior of millions of Americans, and reduce our overall risk from climate change.  The survey is based on the Carbon Disclosure Project questionnaire, the tool through which over 1550 companies voluntarily reported their emissions in 2008.

The proposed survey is not without controversy. In December, the Task Force agreed to remove a requirement that would have mandated survey answers to be included in each company's annual financial statements, and made the questions more general to avoid requiring companies to disclose confidential competitive information.

The Task Force is also working on guidance to help insurers answer the questions, and examples of how insurers can change their procedures to reach climate change goals. One idea that has been mentioned is pay-as-you-drive insurance, a policy that could reduce car emissions by rewarding motorists for driving less.

The next step for the proposed survey is a final vote by the full association at the national meeting in March. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners is a voluntary organization of the insurance regulatory officials of all 50 states, the District of Columbia and five U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands).  As insurance is actually regulated by each state independently, there is no guarantee all states will adopt the survey. Nonetheless, it seems likely that at least some reporting requirements for insurers are on their way, and with them, probably other companies, too.

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

As Congress considers approaches to climate change legislation, with pragmatists seeming generally to support a cap and trade system, while purists support a carbon tax, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has now weighed in with a new approach: How about both?

Although Massachusetts dithered a bit at the end of the Romney administration, it rejoined the Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission under Governor Patrick in time to participate in the first auction under the RGGI cap and trade program. Last week, the Governor balanced the scales, announcing a proposal for a 19-cent increase in the gas tax. Now, to be fair to the Governor, the gas tax increase is not being touted as a carbon tax. Moreover, there is no doubt that the Commonwealth has a gaping hole in its infrastructure budget – to the tune of $15 billion to $19 billion over the next 20 years, according to the Findings of the Transportation Finance Commission. Indeed, the true need to improve the Commonwealth’s infrastructure has led development interests to support a gas tax increase for some time now.

Nonetheless, a tax is a tax, and an increase in the size of the gas tax will inevitably have some impact on vehicle miles traveled. Just as anti-smoking advocates view cigarette taxes, environmentalists will applaud this move either way. It will almost certainly decrease VMT, thus decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, because people will still drive, the revenue from the tax will facilitate important infrastructure spending, including various transit projects that environmentalists have long supported. In fact, even aside from the gas tax itself and the funding of mass transit, the Governor’s announcement included provisions to make the Commonwealth’s transportation infrastructure more green and to reduce transportation-related GHG emissions.

If the Governor can get the tax through the legislature – and use the revenue as he has indicated (as opposed to funding legislators’ pet projects) – and implement the reforms he has described – then maybe we’ll be able to talk about a real win-win situation.

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

The next Bush-era rule to be tossed overboard may be a big one, namely EPA's hands-off stance on regulation of CO₂ for PSD purposes.   EPA  Administrator Lisa Jackson said today in a letter to the Sierra Club that the agency would grant the group's petition seeking reconsideration of former Administrator Johnson's December 18th memo which described why EPA should not regulate CO₂ emissions from new coal-fired plants.  Although EPA did not stay the effectiveness of the Johnson memo, the letter emphasizes that the memo does not bind States issuing permits under their own State Implementation Plans, and cautions other PSD permitting authorities against assuming that the Johnson memo is the final word on interpreting the Clean Air Act requirements.  EPA will take public comment on concerns raised over the Johnson memo and the appeals board's decision, and plans to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking soon.

As we previously noted, the new administration was likely to be saddled with the decision of whether CO₂ emissions must play a part in PSD decisions, given the Deseret Power decision that the Clean Air Act was ambiguous on whether the EPA must impose a BACT limit for CO₂.   Now it looks like the Obama administration may take the issue on soon.

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

We posted recently about the revival of EPA’s NSR enforcement program. Now, yet another shoe has dropped. The Center for Biological Diversity has announced the creation of the Climate Law Institute, the purpose of which is to use citizen law suits under existing laws to advance regulations intended to address climate change. The press release states that the Institute has $17 million in funding with which to pursue its mission.  

While that mission will focus on climate change, as its name implies, it will not be limited to litigation under the Clean Air Act. It was the CBD which led the litigation resulting in the listing of the Polar Bear under the Endangered Species Act.  The Institute indicates that, in addition to the Clean Air Act, the ESA, NEPA, and the Clean Water Act may all be utilized as part of its overall litigation strategy.  

Among other specific targets identified in the press release, the Institute states that it aims to prevent the construction of any new coal-fired power plants and to phase out existing coal plants as quickly as possible.

Unless EPA moves very quickly across a number of fronts – which may well happen – it looks as though we’re going to see a lot of climate-related litigation in the near future.

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

While a lot of attention has been paid to whether EPA would reverse the Bush EPA decision denying California’s petition to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources,  it is now clear even outside the climate change arena that life at EPA is going to be substantially different under the current administration.  As if evidence were really needed for that proposition, EPA announced this week that it was putting on hold the NSR aggregation rule that EPA had promulgated on January 15, 2009.

The rule, which had been long sought by industry, would have provided that nominally separate projects would only have to be combined – aggregated for NSR/PSD purposes – if  they are “substantially related.” It also would have created a rebuttable presumption that projects more than three years apart are not substantially related. Responding to a request from NRDC and the OMB memo asking agencies to look closely at rules promulgated before the transition but not yet effective, EPA concluded that the rule raises “substantial questions of law and policy.” Therefore, EPA postponed the effective date of the rule until May 18, 2009 and also announced that it was formally reconsidering the rule in response to the NRDC petition.

To those in industry, the aggregation rule was not a radical anti-environmental roll-back of environmental protection standards.  Rather, it was more of a common-sense approach towards making the NSR program simpler and clearer.  It is one of my pet peeves with the prior administration, however, that it gave regulatory reform a bad name.  

In any case, I feel as though I should open a pool regarding what will be the next Bush-era rule to be tossed overboard.  We surely won’t have to wait long for it to happen.

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

Coal has taken its lumps this week. Today, legislation was introduced in Congress to require EPA to promulgate MACT standards for mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants within one year of enactment of the legislation.

There has been some suggestion that the legislation was filed simply to prod EPA to drop its appeal of the decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejecting EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), which would have created a cap and trade program for mercury emissions. If so, it worked, if only by telepathy, because, in a separate announcement today, EPA withdrew that appeal.

One way or another, it is clear that EPA will be promulgating, as soon as it reasonably can manage, MACT standards for mercury emissions. What is also clear is that complying with those standards will be more expensive than compliance with the CAMR would have been. What’s not clear is whether EPA will figure out a way to harmonize the mercury rule with other air rules issued and to be issued, so that, while compliance will have to occur on a facility-specific basis, it can at least be achieved as cost-effectively as possible at each facility.

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

In addition to our post yesterday and the items highlighted in the New York Times Green.Inc blog on the difficulties facing new and existing coal-fired power plants this week, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Justice have launched what they call a new national crackdown targeting coal-fired plants that violate the Clean Air Act.

As the first piece of this campaign, the agencies filed suit on Wednesday against a Kansas power plant for PSD violations dating back to 1994, and following a notice of violation issued to the plant owners in January 2004.   

EPA and DOJ  had been criticized for not pursuing new cases against power plants during the Bush administration, but it looks as though efforts to take on the coal industry are ramping up again.

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

The EPA and DOJ announced yesterday that Kentucky Utilities (KU), a coal-fired electric utility, has agreed to spend approximately $135 million on pollution controls to resolve violations of the Clean Air Act New Source Review program.  KU will also pay a $1.4 million civil penalty plus $3 million in implementing supplemental environmental projects, or SEPs.  Finally, KU will also surrender over 50,000 SO₂ allowances shortly after entry of the consent decree, and annually surrender any excess NOx allowances resulting from the installation of pollution control equipment.   

The consent decree, which covers one of the three coal-fired electric generating units at the E.W. Brown plant in Mercer County, Kentucky, requires KU to meet the most stringent limit for nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions ever imposed in a federal settlement with a coal-fired power plant.  According to the EPA's fact sheet, the new pollution control equipment will reduced combined emissions of SO₂ and NOx by more than 31,000 tons per year to just 10% of the 2007 emission levels.  KU has also agreed to install controls to reduce particulate matter emissions by approximately 1,000 tons per year.

Notably, one of the SEPs provides for KU to contribute $1.8 million towards a $7 million carbon capture and sequestration pilot project led by the University of Kentucky.

This Consent Decree is the sixteenth judicial settlement in the series of cases begun in 1999 against 32 plants in 10 states to bring the power plant industry into full compliance with the NSR and PSD requirements of the Clean Air Act.  It shows that although these cases have been around for a while, the EPA and DOJ are still focused on enforcement for NSR violations.

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

While Congress considers climate change regulations, and states pursue regional cap and trade plans, it becomes apparent that the number of different ways to regulate carbon emissions is limited only by the creativity of those doing the regulating. Last week, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) issued a certificate of need for the construction of transmission lines necessary to carry power from a new coal-fired plant, known as Big Stone II, to be built in South Dakota.

The certificate of need includes several provisions affecting CO₂ emissions by the utilities. It requires that an older coal plant be closed by 2018 (though of course there is an exception if the plant is needed). The new plant must be constructed to be “carbon capture retrofit ready.” Finally, and most notably, the certificate provides that Otter Tail Power, which is one of the utilities building the new plant and which, because it is located in Minnesota, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Minnesota PUC, may not recover CO₂ emission control costs from the ratepayers to the extent those costs exceed $26/ton.

In fact, at this point, $26/ton seems like a high number. Environmental advocates had sought complete rejection of the certificate of need request and are not happy about the $26/ton cap. Nonetheless, the important story here is not the level at which the cap is set in this case. The important feature is the imposition of the cap as part of the certificate of need process. 

Today $26/ton. Tomorrow, who knows? Departments of public utilities could be the next front in the climate change battle.

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

Sometimes it seems as though the days for coal are short. With a new administration that seems truly committed to addressing climate change, it can be difficult to envision a long-run future. 

Other days, coal, like Citigroup, seems too big to fail. Today, I’m in the latter camp. Yesterday, Zurich Financial Group announced that it would provide insurance to cover risks associated with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) projects. It’s one thing for Congress, where climate change advocates may need votes from coal-state legislators, to support CCS projects, but when the market starts suggesting that CCS projects are viable, it’s time to sit up and take notice.

Time will tell whether CCS really has a future as part of a climate change strategy, but certainly Zurich’s announcement is a positive one for coal.

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

In a decision that could have significant impact on states’ efforts to limit cross-border pollution, Judge Lacy Thornburg of the District Court for the Western District of North Carolina issued an affirmative injunction against the TVA this week, requiring it to install pollution control equipment at its facilities located nearest to North Carolina and imposing specific emissions limits from those facilities. The basis for the injunction was a finding, after trial, that the facilities created a public nuisance as a result of the air pollution transported from those facilities to North Carolina.

The decision is notable for a number of the findings and holdings.

• Generally speaking, compliance with regulations does not preclude a finding that air emissions constitute a nuisance. (The Court applied the nuisance law of the states in which the plants were located.)
• Ozone and PM_2.5 can create adverse health impacts at concentrations below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This suggests that facilities contributing to concentrations of air pollutants can be subject to an injunction requiring the facility to decrease emissions, even if the area is in attainment of the NAAQS.
• The Court looked to survey data indicating that Blue Ridge Parkway visitors would pay $328 in annual taxes in order to improve visibility. As many readers will know, this kind of survey research is extremely controversial and may lead to some extraordinary damages findings.
• The Court declined to impose an injunction against TVA facilities that were not proximate to North Carolina, essentially on the ground their impacts on North Carolina were de minimis. The court found that those plants against which an injunction was entered contributed to somewhere between 5% and 10% of ambient contaminant concentrations. The other plants contributed less 0.1% of ambient concentrations.
• The Court imposed a stringent schedule by when pollution control equipment must be installed. The Court gave the TVA 27 months to install scrubbers and 21 months to install SCRs. This time frame was substantially shorter than that proposed by the TVA.

The one piece of good news for generating plants was the court’s causation analysis with regard to more distant plants. That analysis, if followed, suggests it would be extremely hard for a public nuisance plaintiff to prevail in a global warming case, since the causative contribution of any facility or even group of facilities to the global warming problem is almost certain to be even more attenuated than for those TVA plants distant from North Carolina.

The decision undoubtedly gives downwind states a substantial hammer against upwind sources of contamination (and could be applied to water pollution cases as well as air pollution). Indeed, in the current set of Congressional negotiations, industrial interests could conceivably be tempted to accept more stringent emissions limits in return for preemption of state nuisance laws. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in Congress.

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

RGGI, Inc. announced today that its third auction of CO₂ allowances will be held on March 18, 2009, and will offer allowances from all ten states participating in RGGI -- Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. The sealed bid format and the reserve price of $1.86 remain the same as the previous two auctions, but one big change is in the works.

New for this auction:  the participating states will offer approximately 2.2 million allowances from vintage 2012, in addition to the 31.5 million CO₂ allowances from 2009. These 2.2 million allowances from 2012 comprise about 5% of that year's cap, and will be sold in a separate, but parallel offering from the 2009 allowances.  The offerings occur simultaneously from 9 AM to 1 PM on March 18, a bidding window that is 1 hour longer than in previous auctions. 

The sale of 2012 allowances could offer an interesting insight into how bidders perceive the future of carbon cap and trade and RGGI itself. Will the 2012 allowances go for a higher price than the 2009 vintage? On one hand, since RGGI allowances may be banked without limitation into future years, a 2009 allowance is arguably the most valuable of them all.  On the other hand, 2012 allowances are our first taste of allowances within RGGI's second three-year compliance period (2012-2015), a period which spans 2015, the first year that the RGGI cap decreases by 2.5%.  Then there’s the question of RGGI’s future amid federal legislation. We might have a national cap-and-trade system by 2012, or some other system entirely, and it might (or might not) allow for the exchange of RGGI allowances.

We shall see. RGGI, Inc. plans to announce the results of the third auction on March 20.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

It’s now de rigueur to say that there is no conflict between a healthy economy and a healthy environment. President-elect Obama said so himself as recently as December 15, when he introduced members of his environmental and energy team. Certainly, in a perfect world, where information is free and everyone agrees on the economic value to be placed on protecting environmental interests, that would be true as a matter of definition.

Unfortunately, we live in the real world and in the real world, there are often trade-offs to be made between economic growth and environmental protection. This critical tension was brought home last week, when news broke that Governor Schwarzenegger was seeking to expedite, and have the authority to waive, certain environmental reviews for infrastructure projects deemed critical to economic stimulus efforts. Among other authorities, Governor Schwarzenegger – who has been a leading figure in state efforts to fight climate change – wants to exempt a dozen highway projects from environmental reviews and to create a three person “super-Cabinet” that would have authority to waive environmental reviews on other projects. He has also suggested that federal NEPA review be waived for any project funded as part of a federal stimulus package.

Environmentalists, of course, are having none of it. Tina Andolina, of the California Planning and Conservation League, called the Governor’s plan’s “ridiculous.” But are they? Anyone involved in any kind of development project, whether highway or mass transit or power generating – or even schools or low income housing – knows that environmental reviews can slow such projects by months or even years. In fairness to the environmental review process, that’s part of the purpose – to make certain that projects aren’t developed without careful consideration of their impacts.

However, everyone seems to agree that we are in the midst of an extraordinary time. President-elect Obama has himself said that prompt economic stimulus is critical, in order to avoid an even worse economic crisis. A substantial part of the stimulus plan is for infrastructure projects that every thinking person must acknowledge could conceivably have adverse environmental impacts. What if it simply isn’t possible both to thoroughly assess those impacts and get the projects started sufficiently quickly to have the stimulus that everyone agrees is needed?

Given the dire state of the economy, I’d certainly err on the side of facilitating projects, but I’m sure that some of my readers would disagree. 

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

As the sun sets on the Bush administration, it is at least maintaining its seemingly unmatched record for turning the notion of judicial deference to administrative action on its head, as the D.C. Circuit has rejected yet one more EPA Clean Air Act rule. This time, the Court struck down EPA’s rule exempting startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions (SSM) from emissions standards under § 112 of the CAA.

As with some of EPA’s other judicial defeats, this one was based largely on the Court’s reading of the plain language of the CAA. The Court concluded that “EPA’s decision to exempt major sources from compliance with section 112 emission standards during SSM events is contrary to the plain text of the statute and arbitrary and capricious in any event.” The Court noted that § 302(k) of the CAA defines an “emission standard” as a requirement to “assure continuous emission reduction.” Thus, the Court concluded, Congress required continuous standards under § 112.

Anyone who operates facilities subject to the CAA knows that SSM events pose special challenges. In this context, it is noteworthy that the Court emphasized that EPA had not purported to act under § 112(h) of the CAA, which provides that a standard may be relaxed “if it is not feasible in the judgment of the Administrator to prescribe or enforce an emission standard for control of a [HAP] (hazardous air pollutant).” 

It would be surprising if industry groups did not seek relief under § 112(h) at this point, though whether the Obama EPA will be interested is another matter.

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

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a report on Friday that concludes that the cuts in emissions from power plants within the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) region may be compromised by power generated outside the RGGI region and imported into the region. This problem is called "leakage" in carbon-capping jargon, and it is a problem for which RGGI, Inc. has never found a satisfying solution.

The UCS report highlights that although RGGI caps the emissions of power plants in 10 Northeastern states, ratcheting down emissions to 10% below 2005 levels by 2018, it does not preclude utilities that supply electricity to homes and businesses within the region from buying more electricity from coal-fired plants outside the region. UCS estimates that use of the excess capacity of existing coal plants to the west and south of the RGGI region -- the equivalent of 15 new coal plants -- could produce emissions greater than three and a half times the expected cuts of CO₂ emissions from RGGI. With the addition of the six coal-fired plants that are under or near construction in states near the northeast, emissions from outside the region could equal 140% of RGGI's reductions. The problem comes not only from the fact that cost of electricity within the RGGI region is already higher than in surrounding states, but also from planned efforts to expand the capacity of the grid, allowing less expensive power produced in coal-intensive states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia to be imported into RGGI states at higher levels.

The report makes 4 suggestions for RGGI states to help "plug the leak":

• Limit the ability of in-state electricity suppliers to contract for power from more polluting plants, whether inside or outside the region.
• Cap global warming emissions for the entire portfolio of each local electricity supplier.
• Together or individually, RGGI states could require local electricity suppliers to account for global warming emissions from electricity produced outside the region as well as inside it, offsetting the advantage of imported coal power. States could, for example, require local suppliers to offset any increases in emissions linked to higher imports by expanding their investments in energy efficiency, renewable energy, or another public good.
• RGGI states could insist that proposed transmission projects to expand the import of power from states with abundant coal consider the Northeast’s goals for cutting global warming pollution.

The majority of these suggestions would require new legislation -- as the RGGI implementing statutes in each of the states only reach generators above 25 MW, not utilities -- but several states have already moved to require local electricity suppliers to account for greenhouse gas emissions generated by the power they sell, whether it is produced within the state, within the RGGI region, or imported. Such a provision is expected to be included in Massachusetts' second round of regulations implementing the Global Warming Solutions Act (see Thursday's post for more information), and New Jersey's draft report on implementing its Global Warming Response Act suggests managing imports as a solution to the issue of leakage.

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

Following briefing from the parties, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today withdrew its vacatur of EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule. While the decision striking down the rule stands, the Court determined that keeping CAIR in effect while EPA prepares a replacement rule “would at least temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR.”

EPA rejected a request by the industry plaintiffs to impose a deadline on EPA for issuing the replacement rule, but emphasized to EPA that it “did not intend to grant an indefinite stay of the effectiveness of this court’s decision.”

The decision to keep CAIR in place for now will provide a measure of certainty and should be particularly well received by state environmental agencies which had been trying to determine whether they needed to reinstate their NO_x SIP Call rules.

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

As we previously noted, the recent Environmental Appeals Board decision in the Deseret Power matter raised the possibility that CO₂ and other greenhouse gases need to be considered in PSD reviews. On December 18, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson issued an interpretation which concluded that GHG still do not need to be considered in PSD reviews.

Senator Boxer, not always known for her restraint, has already asked Attorney General Mukasey to reverse the interpretation, calling it “illegal.” Illegal or not, I’d guess that Senator Boxer will get her wish soon after January 20.

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

RGGI, Inc., the operators of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) announced today that the second auction has proceeded smoothly and as planned.  All 31,505,898 allowances offered for sale at Auction 2 on December 17 were purchased at a clearing price of $3.38 per allowance.  This price is above the first RGGI auction's clearing price of $3.07, and in line with recent prices for RGGI futures on the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange, which traded Monday at the same price. Auction 2 was the first to feature allowances from Delaware, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and New York, a factor which might have caused the increase in price.

RGGI's market monitor Potomac Economics noted that the majority of winning bidders were compliance entities or their affiliates, as in the first auction.  So far, it seems like the concerns about market manipulation and entities taking advantage of RGGI's 100% auction structure remain unfounded.

RGGI will release more data January 6th, including the names of the "potential bidders" who qualified and filed an intent to bid in Auction 2 (whether or not they actually bid). 

Meanwhile, Governor Patrick's office has announced that Massachusetts will spend its $14.8 million share of Auction 2's $106.5 million total proceeds as set forth in the Green Communities Act, or more specifically:

• $2.4 million for 2008 utility-administered energy efficiency programs
• $5 million for start-up funds for the Green Communities program
• $2 million for heating system replacements for low-income households
• $400,000 for administrative and vendor costs for the RGGI auction
• $5 million for a new program, Energy Efficiency Skills and Innovation Institute providing job training for energy auditors and seed grants for innovative delivery methods of efficiency

RGGI compliance obligations for fuel-fired generators over 25 MW begin January 1, 2009.  The next auction will be March 18, 2009.

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

Massachusetts and California seem to be neck-and-neck in the race to be the first state to cap greenhouse gases economy-wide.

Massachusetts issued emergency regulations last week which create the first phase of a mandatory reporting program, thus taking the title of first state to implement the beginnings of an economy-wide cap and trade plan.   The regulations commence January 1, 2009, so Massachusetts facilities that might need to report should read Foley Hoag's Client Alert on the new regulations very soon.

Not to be outdone, California also released big news last week.  With the Air Resources Board's approval of the Scoping Plan, California now claims it will be the first in the nation to approve a greenhouse gas cap that includes every sector of the economy.  

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

On the eve of the second RGGI auction, it is reasonable to ask what the trend is in CO₂ emissions in the RGGI states. Environment Northeast just issued a report which seeks to answer that question. According to ENE, which utilized data from EPA and the RGGI states, CO₂ emissions in the RGGI states through the third quarter of 2008 are trending 16 percent below the RGGI cap.

As ENE notes, both oil and coal prices were extremely high during this period, so there is no guarantee that these low emission levels will be reflected in data for the fourth quarter 2008 or in 2009. However, the cause of the recent price drop – lowered demand resulting from the contraction in economies worldwide – suggests that emissions will probably be low in 2009 as well. If total purchases of oil drop, it does not matter whether the cause is a shift along the demand curve due to higher prices or a shift in the demand curve due to lower economic output (though it is certainly true that, even with lower demand for energy overall, decreases in oil and coal prices will lead to shifts towards coal and oil).

The critical point to remember in all this is that businesses which have significant CO₂ emissions cannot be expected to reduce those emissions efficiently unless clear and stable price or regulatory signals are sent. Therefore, I for one hope that the ENE report does not lead regulators to conclude that the cap is too high and should be reduced. If we do that, do we then raise the cap again if emissions exceed the cap for more than the expected amount? What is needed is as stable a downward trajectory in greenhouse gas emissions as we can manage.

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

As we have noted, there have been a number of arguments regarding the implications of a decision by EPA to utilize current Clean Air Act authority to regulate greenhouse gases. The Chamber of Commerce has been in the “sky is falling” camp. Nonetheless, environmentalists are already pressing President-elect Obama to regulate greenhouse gases under the CAA, without waiting for what could be a lengthy legislative process.

According to a story in the Daily Environment Report, at a recent forum held by the American Law institute and the American Bar Association, the prevailing view was that the sky would not fall and that EPA’s authority under the CAA is sufficiently flexible as to allow it to regulate greenhouse gases without regulating every source that emits more than 250 tons per year of CO₂, which is the usual major source threshold for criteria pollutants – and a level that is certainly exceeded by many, many, more facilities than are currently subject to regulations.

William Harnett, director of EPA’s Air quality Policy Division, identified at least two ways to avoid regulating sources that emit greater than 250 tpy of CO₂. First, he suggested that EPA could rely on “administrative necessity,” taking the position that it does not have the resources to regulate all sources above 250 tpy. Harnett also suggested that EPA could take the position that the result of regulating all sources above 250 tpy would be absurd – a proposition with which the Chamber of Commerce would probably agree – and therefore could not be what Congress intended.

I’m not sure that I would like to have had to defend either of these arguments in law school. However, as David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel at the Sierra Club noted, if EPA, business, and environmental groups all do not want EPA to regulate small sources of CO₂, then, as a practical matter, EPA should be able to find a way to make CO₂ regulation work under the existing CAA framework. That does not mean that everyone would be happy with the format of such regulations. However, if the Obama administration does not want to wait for Congress – or if they want to put pressure on Congress to act – EPA will probably figure out a way to regulate under the CAA.

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

On the better late than never front, I finally got around to reviewing the still relatively recent decision in United States v. Cinergy Corp. regarding the scope of injunctive relief available with respect to violations of the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review, or NSR, provisions. Although the decision was issued in mid-October, its significance is great enough to mention here.

As most readers here will know, the Cinergy case is one of the remaining NSR enforcement cases originally brought by the Clinton administration. The defendants had previously been found liable for NSR violations at the Wabash River power plant. The recent decision involved the defendants’ efforts to preclude the government from seeking retroactive injunctive relief, i.e., not penalties, and not prospective relief to prevent future violations, but injunctive relief intended to remedy, mitigate, or offset the prior violations.

The relevant statutory language, from § 113 of the CAA, provides that a court may “restrain” violations, impose penalties, and, critically, “award any other appropriate relief.” The court in Cinergy held that this broad language authorizes injunctive relief focused on past harm, rather than just restraint of future violations.

It is one thing to order restoration of an illegally filled wetland. In that context, such a remedy is understandable and its scope necessarily somewhat limited. In the case of air pollution, however, once the emissions have occurred, it is obviously impossible to identify the location of that pollution or the scope of the remedy appropriate for such past harm. In other words, demonstrating an appropriate nexus between the harm and the remedy will often be difficult, if not impossible. 

One obvious possible form of relief would be to calculate the excess emissions resulting from the non-compliance and require the defendant to overcontrol in the future until it has offset those excess emissions. Whether the court will order such an offset or any other form of remedial injunction is not yet known, because the court concluded that it needed to have an evidentiary hearing regarding what relief it should in fact order. However, the mere possibility that such relief may be available certainly provides the government with a significant hammer to use during settlement negotiations in pending or future NSR enforcement cases. 

One issue of concern is whether such relief might be ordered against a current owner of a facility even if the original NSR violation was caused by a prior owner. In that case, the prior owner is not capable of offsetting the historical excess emissions, but the current owner would have a strong equitable argument that a remedial injunction should not be imposed against it.

As always, some of these questions are obviously going to have to wait for future judicial decisions.

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

In October 2007, the Massachusetts MEPA office issued its Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”) Policy, requiring certain limited categories of projects subject to MEPA to assess the GHG impacts of those projects and include mitigation of those impacts in the environmental impact review. In short, projects with obvious traffic or air emissions impacts were subject to the policy.

On August 8, 2008, Governor Patrick signed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2008. Among other provisions, the Act provided specific statutory authority for the MEPA GHG Policy and provided that greenhouse gas emissions should be addressed in any state permits.

As a result of this change, the MEPA office has revised the MEPA GHG Policy to require that any project that will require an Environmental Impact Report must comply with the GHG Policy. This revision to the jurisdiction of the policy will be applicable to any project proponent who files an Environmental Notification Form after the February 2, 2009 MEPA filing deadline. The Secretary has retained discretion to require compliance with the GHG Policy for any Notice of Project Change filed after the February 2, 2009 filing deadline. For your convenience, the MEPA office has provided a summary of the changes to the policy.

Let the fun begin.

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

In the struggle to control greenhouse gases, one debate has been which should come first, innovation or regulation. The Bush administration, of course, came down firmly on the side of innovation. It invested money – though many argued, not enough – in developing energy efficient technologies or means of controlling greenhouse gas emissions, but it fought to end against regulation of CO₂ as a pollutant.

From a theoretical point of view, the Bush position was certainly inconsistent with traditional economic theory – as well as with off-stated conservative positions on issues. Once one accepts that greenhouse gas emissions lead to climate change, i.e., in economic terms, that there is a negative externality associated with energy generation, then the economic answer should be to put a price on the externality, so that economic entities that generate greenhouse emissions have to internalize the full cost of those emissions. 

Moreover, conservatives – and some liberals – don’t necessarily assume that government knows best which technologies will prove the winners in the market. Why should we believe that government will fund the right technologies? Thus, these twin arguments go, government should set a price on carbon and get out of the way. This is called technology-forcing, and it has a solid history in environmental regulation.

Recently, however, Michael Shellenberger & Ted Nordhaus, who certainly have solid environmental pedigrees, advocated for spending on innovation in advance of imposing regulation on carbon emissions. In fact, they state that “cap and trade regulations, which would cap greenhouse gas emissions and allow companies to trade reductions, cannot work in the U.S.--and are not working in Europe.” They also argue that, in a serious recession, deficit spending on innovation in energy efficiency and greenhouse gas control makes more sense than imposing significant new taxes.

I have to say that I’m open to persuasion on this. My default position is that I would rather have the market than the government make bets on technology (which is not to say that government funding doesn’t have a role, particularly in fundamental research). However, the complexities of greenhouse gas regulation truly are terrifying and the potentially adverse impacts on the economy are, to put it mildly, non-trivial, if we get it wrong.

Unlike those who supported the losing vice-presidential candidate in the recent election because she is like them, my position is firmly that I hope that President Obama understands this stuff better than I do, and I sure hope he gets it right.

Your thoughts?

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

In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court concluded that greenhouse gases, including CO₂, are “air pollutants,” the it left (barely) open the question whether CO₂ is “subject to regulation” under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). 

Following Massachusetts v. EPA, there have been a number of cases in which advocates of climate change regulation have sought to require EPA to regulate CO₂ as a pollutant. One of those cases, In re Deseret Power Electric Cooperative, was just decided by the EPA Environmental Appeals Board. In Deseret Power, the Sierra Club had challenged issuance of a PSD permit issued by EPA Region 8 which would have allowed Deseret Power to construct a coal-fired power plant near Bonanza Utah. The basis for the challenge was the failure of EPA to impose a best available control technology, or BACT, limit on CO₂ emissions.

Notwithstanding the decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, EPA took the position that it historically had not interpreted the term “subject to regulation under the Act” to include CO₂. Moreover, it claimed in Deseret Power that it did not have authority to impose a BACT limit on CO₂ emissions. The EAB firmly rejected EPA’s position that it did not have authority to impose BACT limits on CO₂. However, the EAB also rejected the Sierra Club’s argument that EPA was required to impose compliance with BACT for CO_2.  In fact, the EAB concluded that “the statute is not so clear and unequivocal as to preclude Agency interpretation of the phrase ‘subject to regulation under this act,’ and therefore the statute does not dictate whether the Agency must impose a BACT limit for CO₂.”

So where does the Deseret Power decision leave the regulation of CO₂ under the CAA?  Probably pretty much where it was before the decision was issued – that is, right in the lap of the new administration. However, if I were a betting man, I would certainly be reluctant to back new ventures that involve significant CO₂ emissions unless the developer has a plan for addressing CO₂ emissions.

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

Can a party found liable of violating the Clean Air Act's New Source Review provisions be required to reduce future pollution more to mitigate emissions caused by past violations?  According to a recent U.S. District Court decision, maybe.

In U.S. v. Cinergy Corp., S.D. Ind., No. 99-1693, decided October 14, 2008, the first court to rule on whether retroactive, as opposed to prospective relief, is available under Section 113 of the Clean Air Act found that the court does have the authority to grant such relief.  Although the court stopped short of ordering this relief (procedurally, this opinion was a denial of the defendants' summary judgment motion), the court held in sweeping language that nothing in the Clean Air Act limits the full range of equitable relief that courts can order.

This recent ruling relies heavily on a 1946 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395, 398 (1946), in which the Supreme Court held that when a court's equitable jurisdiction is invoked by a statute, "all the inherent equitable powers of the District Court are available for the proper and complete exercise of that jurisdiction," unless the law by "clear and valid legislative command" or "necessary and inescapable inference" has restricted the court's equitable powers.

In Cinergy Corp., the district court said its equitable powers were invoked by the phrasing of Section 113 of the Clean Air Act which gives a court, "jurisdiction to restrain [a] violation [of the Clean Air Act], to require compliance, assess [a] civil penalty, to collect any fees owed the United States... and to award any other appropriate relief."   Applying this rule, the court determined that it would have the authority to require the three defendants to take appropriate actions that remedy, mitigate and offset harms to the public and the environment caused by their proven violations of the Clean Air Act.

In this particular enforcement suit, three companies -- Cinergy Corp. (now part of Duke Energy Corp.), PSI Energy Corp., and the Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. -- were found liable in May of long-term violations of the New Source Review requirements in their operation of a power plant in West Terre Haute, Indiana. The US requested in their filings that the court impose specific measures to reduce pollution beyond what is required for prospective compliance, in order to make up for the nearly two decades of illegal pollution caused by the plant. 

A trial on remedies is expected to begin in February, 2009.

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

Opening yet another front in the effort to force EPA to take more aggressive action to combat global warming, the Environmental Defense Fund recently announced its intent to sue EPA for its failure to update emissions standards with respect to emissions of methane from landfills. As EDF has alleged, Section 111 of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA update its New Source Performance Standards every eight years. EPA last updated the landfill NSPS in 1996.

Of course, at the time EPA last promulgated landfill NSPS, climate change was not part of the equation. Now, it is. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, 21 times more potent than CO₂. Although landfills have increasingly made efforts to capture methane for waste-to-energy projects, these efforts are apparently not fast enough or comprehensive enough for EDF.

Specifically, in its 1996 promulgation, EPA determined that energy recovery from landfill methane was not available. EDF, in its Notice, cites sources indicating that energy recovery is now feasible, even at smaller landfills. 

The likelihood that EPA will revisit this issue in the limited time remaining to the current administration seems vanishingly small. However, there is no doubt that this issue will be revisited in the next administration. Given methane’s potency as a greenhouse gas, it seems likely that regulations will target this area, whether as part of a revision to NSPS or as part of a broader strategy aimed directly at climate change. Once cap and trade programs expand beyond the power generation sector, as seems likely, regulators are certainly going to be looking at reductions from landfills, among other non-power sources.

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

Has the D.C. Circuit had second thoughts about its decision to vacate EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule? As we noted last month, after Congress pretty much threw up its hands at efforts to salvage some part of CAIR, EPA, states and private stakeholder were left wondering how to proceed. Now, the Court may have provided a life-line to CAIR. In surprise Order issued last week, the Court requested additional briefing on the scope of its decision to vacate the rule.

The order does not suggest any retreat by the Court from its decision that the regulations have several serious flaws. However, on the remedy side, the Court appears to have realized that no one was really expecting CAIR to be vacated in its entirety – and that no one knows what to do if the vacatur stands. Thus, the Order requests briefing on two subjects: (1) whether indeed any party seeks vacatur and (2) whether the court should stay its mandate until EPA promulgates a revised rule.

Of course, the Court is not bound to any specific approach just because it has asked for briefing. However, it seems unlikely that the Court would request the briefing if it did not at the least have serious concerns regarding the impact its vacatur of CAIR would have on the stability and predictability of regulations in this area. Once more, we can only say: stay tuned.

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

It’s not really a surprise, but the nation’s financial woes have begun to affect state government. On Wednesday, Governor Deval Patrick announced a set of wide-ranging budget cuts, intended to save more than $1 Billion. The cuts were made necessary by a steep drop in tax revenue and predictions that the drop will continue for the rest of the state fiscal year. The Governor’s stated intention is to avoid cuts in local aid and education funding and this announcement did avoid any cuts in these areas.

Therefore, it is not surprising that agencies such as the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and the Department of Environmental Protection have had to make cuts, though the Governor apparently did take into account the severity of the cuts made at DEP during the last downturn, and spared DEP more than what might have been expected.

One area where the cuts may be felt is in the speed of environmental permitting and responsiveness to the regulated community. Among the cuts at DEP are $100,000 from the Clean Air Operating Permit and Compliance Program and $45,000 from the Hazardous Waste Cleanup Program. Although Governor Patrick has frequently trumpeted his goal of having DEP and other permitting agency respond “at the speed of business,” such cuts cannot help but slow down DEP’s ability to respond to permit applications and other filings by businesses.

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

The operators of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI, announced today that all of the 12,565,387 CO₂ allowances offered for sale at the first RGGI auction on September 25 have been purchased at a relatively low price of $3.07 per allowance. This is only marginally above the auction reserve price of $1.86 per allowance, and below recent prices on the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange.

RGGI did not announce the names of the winning bidders, but did note that there were 59 participants in the auction, from the “energy, financial and environmental sectors.” In total, the bidders sought to purchase more than 51 million allowances, or approximately four times as many as were offered. 

The auction was administered by World Energy Solutions, Inc., and RGGI also retained an independent market monitor, Potomac Economics, to oversee the auction. Potomac Economics stated that most of the allowances were purchased by compliance entities or their affiliates.  Given that RGGI seems here to stay, at least in the absence of federal cap and trade legislation, it is good to know that fears that allowances would be bought up by someone seeking either to control the market or to put fossil fuel generators out of business seem to have been laid to rest, at least for now, though we won’t really know how well RGGI is working until we see who the winning bidders are and until RGGI gets a few more auctions under its belt without incident.

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

Since the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule in its entirety, EPA and Congress have been working on a variety of fixes. As we recently noted, Congressional Democrats recently put together a plan to enact CAIR’s Phase I SO2 and NOx limits. Enacting those limits would result in emissions reductions of approximately 45% of SO2 and 50% for NOx.

However, to enact the limits during the 110^th Congress, the bill would require 2/3 support in the House and unanimous consent in the Senate. The word is now out on Republican reaction to the planned fix, and the word is not good. Key House Republican Joe Barton rejected a request from Democrats that he support the quick CAIR fix. While Representative Barton stated that he was willing to make a thorough review of the Clean Air Act, including CAIR, a priority for the next Congress, he is not willing to expedite a CAIR fix in this Congress.

Without support from key Republicans such as Representative Barton, it is difficult to see how Congress can enact a CAIR fix in the 110^th Congress. Nonetheless, pressure is certainly going to continue to build to fix or replace CAIR, if not in this Congress, then in the next.

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

There was a time when EPA was almost uniformly successful in defending its regulations in the courts. EPA would note the deference provided to agency decision-making under Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC, remind the court of its expertise in interpreting some very complicated statutes, and the case would essentially be over. Not any more.

In recent years, as the Bush administration has embarked on some quite ambitious regulatory reform efforts, EPA’s record has slipped considerably. The most famous case at this point is Massachusetts v. EPA, in which the Supreme Court rejected EPA’s efforts to avoid regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. However, EPA has had a number of other significant failures in court. Of these, the continued rejection of EPA’s efforts to reform the New Source Review, or NSR, rules is perhaps most notable. In decisions in 2005 and 2006, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia threw out two critical pieces of EPA’s NSR reform effort.

Now, in the latest setback for EPA, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has vacated another piece of EPA’s NSR reform agenda. The rule at issue in the latest case would have precluded state and local regulatory authorities from imposing monitoring requirements beyond those required by EPA. While noting that its review was governed by Chevron, the Court concluded that the Clean Air Act “unambiguously precludes EPA’s interpretation.”

Given the change in administration that will occur next year, it is difficult to imagine EPA pursuing its NSR reform agenda for much longer. The more significant question is whether EPA’s efforts at NSR reform have done long-term damage to its ability to defend its regulatory choices in court.

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

EPA’s enforcement efforts under the New Source Review, or NSR, program have had more twists and turns during the past ten years than it is possible to catalogue, at least in a blog post short enough to avoid crashing the server. In brief, EPA began under the Clinton administration an ambitious effort to bring NSR cases against numerous power plants. Those efforts have had substantial, though not perfect, success in court. Settlements with some targets have also yielded hundreds of million dollars in agreed-to upgrades in plant emission controls.

The Bush administration, of course, sought to amend the NSR regulations in ways that were inconsistent, at least going forward, with the pending enforcement actions. The Administration nonetheless continued to prosecute the cases that had already been brought, though at least for a time it decided that it would only bring new cases if they were consistent with its new NSR regulations. Still with me?

A settlement recently reached by EPA with St. Marys Cement, demonstrates that EPA’s NSR enforcement efforts still have some life. The settlement is the first by EPA with a company in the cement industry. All of the prior settlements were either with power plants or refineries. In the settlement, St. Marys agreed to pay $800,000 in civil penalties and to implement emission control projects. While the consent decree does not state the expected cost of the emission controls, these projects often cost in the millions or tens of millions of dollars.

There is no reason to think that the St. Marys settlement is a one-off by EPA. Other facilities in the cement industry should be assessing their potential NSR exposure, and any facility, whether power plant, refinery, cement kiln, or other major source, should assess the NSR rules in making decisions regarding facility maintenance or upgrades. 

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

EPA has publicly taken the position that the current Clean Air Act is ill-suited to regulation of CO₂ as a pollutant.  In an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA stated that regulation of greenhouse gases “could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that would have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy and touch every household in the land.”  (Of course, proponents of regulation of greenhouse gases under the CAA might say that that is precisely what is needed to address the problem of global climate change.)

Given EPA’s stated reluctance to regulate CO₂ and other greenhouse gases under the CAA, it came as something of a surprise this week when it became widely known that EPA recently approved an amendment to Delaware’s state implementation plan, or SIP, incorporating state regulations in which Delaware would in fact regulate emissions of CO₂ from stationary sources in that state. 

While EPA is apparently still taking the position that CO₂ is not a regulated pollutant under the CAA – and is apparently having second thoughts about its approval of the Delaware SIP amendment, environmental groups are taking a different position.  Patrice Simms, with the NRDC recently told the BNA that the Delaware SIP does make CO₂ a regulated pollutant under the CAA.  In the absence of a formal change of heart by EPA, this decision is certain to be cited broadly by those seeking immediate regulation of CO₂ by EPA. 

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

Since the Supreme Court issued its decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, Congress, EPA, state regulators, environmentalists, and industry groups have been trying to determine what it would mean to regulate CO₂ under the Clean Air Act. While both presidential candidates are on record as supporting some kind of climate change legislation, the currently proposed legislation is extraordinarily complex and there are certainly no guarantees that legislation will in fact be enacted any time soon.

In the meantime, Massachusetts v. EPA does not seem to leave EPA much wiggle room, notwithstanding the agency’s current unwillingness to move forward on CO₂ regulation. In the absence of new legislation, it seems likely that, at some point, some court is going to order EPA to promulgate regulations governing emissions of CO₂ as a pollutant. 

So, what would be the scope of regulation of CO2 under the Clean Air Act? Based on a recent report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the answer is – really, really, broad. The Chamber assumes that any facility emitting more than 250 tons of CO2 per year would be regulated as a stationary source under the Clean Air Act. The Chamber report estimates that more than 1,000,000 million facilities would be subject to such regulati9ons. 

Making these estimates is quite difficult; EPA’s own estimates were lower than those in the Chamber report. However, whether the estimate is several hundred thousand or more than one million, the picture is not pretty. The bottom line is that everyone has an interest in climate change legislation, because, in the absence of legislation, regulation will come at some point – and when it does, its impacts will be felt everywhere.

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

In the days following the decision by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to vacate EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule – CAIR – regulators, industry, and environmentalists have been attempting to answer one fairly basic – and quite critical – question. What now? Although a variety of parties had challenged various aspects of CAIR, it seems that no one was quite prepared for the decision by the Court of appeals that the entire rule had to be vacated, due to “several fatal flaws” in the rule. CAIR required 28 states and the District of Columbia to require additional reductions in NO_x and SO₂. Elimination of CAIR leaves a gaping hole in the regulatory landscape for these important criteria pollutants.

Recent development provide at least some idea what the post-CAIR landscape may look like. First, on September 2, 2008, EPA sent letters to states subject to CAIR asking them to revive their NO_x Budget Trading Programs (“NBPs”)which had been promulgated pursuant to EPA’s NO_x SIP Call. A number of states subject to CAIR had eliminated to scheduled to sunset their NBPs, because CAIR made them unnecessary. Repromulgation or maintenance of NBPs would at least provide a backstop for NO_x regulation in CAIR states.

The other venue for post-CAIR planning is Congress. The Bush administration has requested that Congress simply enact CAIR into legislation. Congressional Democrats have opposed this approach, fearing that enacting CAIR would make it more difficult to enact more stringent limitations down the road. Recently, Senator Tom Carper and Representative Rick Boucher apparently have reached agreement on CAIR legislation. Their approach would limit the legislation to SO₂ and NO_x. The proposed legislation would implement the first phase of CAIR for these pollutants, requiring a 45% reduction in SO₂ and a 50% reduction in NO_x.

However, in order to get the legislation enacted during the 110^th Congress, Carper and Boucher are looking to utilize expedited rules that would require the approval of 2/3 of the House and unanimous consent in the Senate. Time will tell whether unanimous agreement that something has to be done will translate into unanimous agreement in the Senate on a particular piece of legislation. Stay tuned.

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