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

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

Late July saw some movement on the cooling water intake structure (CWIS) front. 

On Friday, July 23, in ConocoPhillips, et al. v. EPA, the Fifth Circuit granted EPA’s motion for a voluntary remand of the existing-facilities portion of its Phase III regulation. The Phase III rule, promulgated in 2006, addressed CWIS at existing small power plants and other facilities in certain industries, including the pulp and paper, chemical, primary metals and petroleum and coal products industries, as well as new oil and gas extraction facilities. The Phase III rule did not set a “best technology available” (BTA) standard for existing facilities, and instead continued the current practice of “best professional judgment,” case-by-case determinations of BTA. Not surprisingly, the rule was challenged by a number of entities.

Last year, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, the agency had requested that the portion of the regulation dealing with existing facilities be remanded so that the agency could reevaluate it in conjunction with its proceedings on remand of the 2004 Phase II rule, which addressed CWIS at large, existing, power plants. In Entergy the Supreme Court held that EPA could, but was not required, to employ cost-benefit analysis when determining the BTA and has discretion to consider to what degree costs and benefits should be weighed in making such a determination. The Fifth Circuit’s recent ruling now clears the way for EPA to combine Phase II and Phase III into a single rulemaking covering all existing CWIS facilities. (At the same time that it remanded the Phase III rule as it relates to existing facilities, the court deferred to the agency and upheld the rule as it applies to new offshore oil and gas facilities).

This decision dovetails with the agency’s announcement two days earlier that it would be sending to the OMB for approval a proposed survey that would help the agency determine the benefits of the proposed regulatory options for CWIS. Data collected during the survey, which will be of approximately 2000 households, will be used to calculate willingness to pay for the reduction of fish losses at CWIS. Comments on the proposal must be submitted by September 20, 2010.   

So, it looks like some progress is being made towards a determination of what constitutes BTA for CWIS at existing facilities, but how long it will take for it to be made is unclear. Obviously, it seems that the agency’s previously announced intentions, as reported in the BNA Daily Environment Report, to issue a proposed rule in the middle of this year were a bit optimistic.

• 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

EPA has just released its Interim Guidance on Considering environmental Justice During the Development of an Action. I can’t say I’m excited. The broad issue is probably too complex for a blog post, but the simple version is as follows:

1.                   Congress passes environmental protection laws for EPA to implement.

2.                   Those statutes generally provide for EPA to set standards with something like “an adequate margin of safety.”

3.                   EPA does its job.

Contrast the simplified model process shown above with this diagram from the Interim Guidance.

Trust me; it wouldn't help if it were legible (though you can find the legible version in Appendix B to the Interim Guidance if you want).  Now contrast this model process with Rube Goldberg’s design for a Self-Operating Napkin. 

Might there be a reason why people are leery of large federal bureaucracies?

• 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

Last week, in City of Pittsfield v. EPA, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed denial of a petition by the City of Pittsfield seeking review of an NPDES permit issued by EPA. The case makes no new law and, by itself, is not particularly remarkable.  Cases on NPDES permit appeals have held for some time that a permittee appealing an NPDES permit must set forth in detail in its petition basically every conceivable claim or argument that they might want to assert. Pretty much no detail is too small. The City of Pittsfield failed to do this, instead relying on their prior comments on the draft permit. Not good enough, said the Court. 

For some reason, reading the decision brought to mind another recent appellate decision, General Electric v. Jackson, in which the D.C. Circuit laid to rest arguments that EPA’s unilateral order authority under § 106 of CERCLA is unconstitutional. As I noted in commenting on that decision, it too was unremarkable by itself and fully consistent with prior case law on the subject.

What do these two cases have in common? To me, they are evidence that, while the government can over-reach and does lose some cases, the deck remains stacked overwhelmingly in the government’s favor. The power of the government as regulator is awesome to behold. Looking at the GE case first, does anyone really deny that EPA’s § 106 order authority is extremely coercive? Looking at the Pittsfield case, doesn’t it seem odd that a party appealing a permit has to identify with particularity every single nit that they might want to pick with the permit? Even after the Supreme Court’s recent decisions tightening pleading standards, the pleading burden on a permit appellant remains much more substantial than on any other type of litigant.

Why should this be so? Why is it that the government doesn’t lose when it’s wrong, but only when it’s crazy wrong? 

Just askin’.

• 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

Sometimes, the practice of environmental law just takes my breath away. A decision issued earlier last month in United States v. Washington DOT was about as stunning as it gets. Ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, Judge Robert Bryan held that the Washington State Department of Transportation had “arranged” for the disposal of hazardous substances within the meaning of CERCLA by designing state highways with stormwater collection and drainage structures, where those drainage structures ultimately deposited stormwater containing hazardous substances into Commencement Bay -- now, a Superfund site -- in Tacoma, Washington.  

I’m sorry, but if that doesn’t make you sit up and take notice, then you’re just too jaded. Under this logic, isn’t everyone who constructs a parking lot potentially liable for the hazardous substances that run off in stormwater sheet flow? 

For those who aren’t aware, phosphorus, the stormwater contaminant du jour, is a listed hazardous substance under Superfund. Maybe EPA doesn’t need to bother with new stormwater regulatory programs. Instead, it can just issue notices of responsibility to everyone whose discharge of phosphorus has contributed to contamination of a river or lake.

The Court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment regarding whether the discharges of contaminated stormwater were federally permitted releases. Since the Washington DOT had an NPDES permit, it argued that it was not liable under § 107(j) of CERCLA. However, as the Court noted, even if the DOT might otherwise have a defense, if any of the releases occurred before the permit issued – almost certain, except in the case of newer roads – or if any discharges violated the permit, then the Washington DOT would still be liable and would have the burden of establishing a divisibility defense. 

If one were a conspiracy theorist, one might wonder if EPA were using this case to gently encourage the regulated community to support its recent efforts to expand its stormwater regulatory program. Certainly, few members of the regulated community would rather defend Superfund litigation than comply with a stormwater permit.

You can’t make this stuff up. 

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

Last year, I analogized PRP efforts to have CERCLA’s unilateral administrative order provisions declared unconstitutional to Chevy Chase’s repeated announcements during the first year of Saturday Night Live that Francisco Franco was still dead. Eventually, that joke wore out. With yesterday’s decision by the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in General Electric v. Jackson, upholding EPA’s UAO authority, these legal challenges may be similarly about to wear out. 

The analysis in GE v. Jackson is pretty straightforward. EPA may not obtain fines or treble damages if a PRP defies a UAO unless the agency goes to court and the court concludes that the PRP is in fact liable under CERCLA and that none of the statutory defenses apply. Because PRPs thus have a “pre-deprivation” remedy, there is no due process violation. At a formal level, that’s hard to dispute. The formal pre-deprivation remedy and the absence of a circuit split make it unlikely that the Supreme Court will have any interest in hearing this case.

GE’s most cogent argument, to me, is that, as a practical matter, the deck is so heavily stacked in EPA’s favor that it really is very difficult for PRPs to take advantage of the due process rights that CERCLA provides. The Court gave this argument short shrift, noting that, out of 1,638 recent UAOs, PRPs had refused to comply with 75, or 4.6%. However, we do not know the details underlying these data. Many of these 75 non-complying PRPs could simply be deadbeats, rather than viable PRPs who considered themselves not liable or had reason to believe that EPA’s remedy was arbitrary and capricious. 

There are limits to the use of anecdotal evidence, but does anyone who has a lot of CERCLA experience really deny that the coercion faced by PRPs is extreme? This is why liberal friends of mine who consider themselves environmentalists, but who aren’t lawyers and don’t know how CERCLA works, are often shocked when I describe some of these cases – in an unbiased way, of course – and ask how CERCLA can be constitutional.

My own sense is that the D.C. Circuit decision is probably right as a matter of constitutional law. Not every law that is unfair is unconstitutional. I certainly think that CERCLA’s UAO provisions are unfair. I also think that they are bad law, masquerading as “polluter pays” provisions. However, to the extent one can really even speak about Congressional intent given the haphazard way CERCLA was drafted, Section 106, as interpreted in GE v. Jackson, is pretty clearly what Congress intended and, for now, it’s the law. 

Francisco Franco is still dead, and so are constitutional challenges to EPA's UAO authority under CERCLA.

• 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

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

As you might have heard, late yesterday afternoon, the Senate voted 53-47 to reject a procedural motion that would have allowed a vote on Senator Murkowski's disapproval resolution: a long-winded way of saying that, for now, the EPA maintains its authority and scientific finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. 

As Seth noted a few weeks ago, the political dynamics of this vote are complex, bringing together strange bedfellows and inviting interesting predictions about what happens next.  On the one hand, environmental groups are claiming victory in the resolution's failure, which breaks down pretty closely along party lines: all 41 Republicans and six Democrats voted in favor.  On the other hand, some moderate Democrats who voted against the resolution are now rallying behind another bill that would restrict EPA's authority.  That bill, which would create a two-year delay for implementation of EPA climate rules for stationary sources was introduced in March by Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia, who himself voted in favor of the Murkowski resolution.

To further add to the strangeness, it's the narrowness of the vote that is being lauded by Senate Majority Leader Reid, who told reporters after the vote, "it's obvious people want some rules and regulations."

But what rules and regulations do they want?  That's the real question of the hour.  Perhaps after next week's full Democratic caucus, we'll have a better idea, at least about what rules and regulations might be likely to come to a floor vote.

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

Last week, EPA released its Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2008 Report to Congress. I have three immediate reactions to the Report. The first is that there are a lot of needs out there. The Report’s bottom line is that there is currently an expected shortfall of $298 billion over the next 20 years for clean water infrastructure. As Congress turns from short-term stimulus spending to long-term concerns about the deficit, it’s difficult to see Congress being eager to hear National Association of Clean Water Agencies Executive Director Ken Kirk say that

the federal government must become a long-term partner in developing a sustainable funding mechanism to address the growing infrastructure funding gap.

My second reaction is that I’m skeptical of these numbers. I don’t doubt the big picture funding gap, but it’s clear in a quick review that different states report these numbers differently. For example, as readers of this blog know, both EPA and Massachusetts DEP are making big pushes to increase stormwater regulation in Massachusetts. However, the Report states that, while Massachusetts has almost an overall $8 billion shortfall, its stormwater needs are only $41 million. The Report further states that Massachusetts needs literally zero money for stormwater conveyance infrastructure and only $22 million for treatment systems. Pennsylvania, on the other hand, apparently needs $6 billion for stormwater infrastructure. 

As much as I love my adopted state, I’m doubtful that Massachusetts is that far ahead of Pennsylvania. I sure hope that, before spending decisions are made, someone takes a closer look at these numbers.

My third reaction is one of fear, particularly on the stormwater front. Nationally, the overall shortfall associated with stormwater is nearly $43 billion. We’ve already seen in Massachusetts efforts to push stormwater compliance costs onto private landowners. With that sort of shortfall, the pressure to do so can only increase, particularly as local governments are starved for revenue. 

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

Last week, EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response announced release of its Community Engagement Implementation Plan. Who could be against community engagement? It’s as American as apple pie. It’s environmental justice. It’s community input into decisions that affect the community. It’s transparency and open decision-making.

Call me a curmudgeon, but I’m against it. Study after study shows that, in terms of the actual risks posed by Superfund sites, we devote too many of our environmental protection dollars to Superfund sites, when we should be focusing on air and water. Why do we keep doing this? Because the community demands it. As Peter Sandman has noted, perceptions of risk are driven only partly by the actual hazard posed. To a significant degree, those perceptions are more driven by outrage over the situation. In some circumstances, what Sandman calls outrage management makes sense, but I’m skeptical that EPA’s community engagement initiative is really about outrage management.

In any case, here’s the public policy question of the day. Does it really make sense to spend scarce environmental protection resources, not to reduce risk, but to reduce outrage?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

When the Burlington Northern decision was first announced, I concluded that “never has the Supreme Court done so much by doing so little.” On May 5, Judge John Mendez, of he Eastern District of California, proved me at least half right. In United States v. Iron Mountain Mines, joint and several liability was imposed on the defendants in 2002. The 2002 decision stated that “given the nature of pollution at the site, it would be difficult to identify distinct harms.” The court did not analyze whether there was a reasonable basis for apportionment of liability. 

Following the Burlington Northern decision, the defendants moved for reconsideration, arguing that Burlington Northern constituted an intervening change in the law. Defendants argued that “the Supreme Court clearly meant to send a signal to other courts that they must begin evaluating apportionment in a different way.” I think that the defendants in Iron Mountain were right.  Unfortunately, that’s not the standard for a motion for reconsideration.   If Iron Mountain were being decided for the first time today, the defendants might get a better result, but that doesn't mean that they win their motion for reconsideration.

What the Supreme Court really said in Burlington Northern isn’t that the law was wrong; it is that District Courts weren’t applying the law correctly. District court judges had their collective judicial thumbs firmly on the side of the government. The Supreme Court simply told the lower courts to take those thumbs off the scales. I hope that this decision will not encourage lower courts to keep the thumbs on the scales.

• 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

EPA is proceeding with its plan to establish a new program to regulate stormwater discharges from new development and redevelopment, with a target date for a final rule by November 2012. The next step: the reissuance of draft mandatory questionnaires that, once finalized, will be sent to various stakeholders, including approximately 738,000 owners and developers of residential, industrial and commercial sites. According to EPA, the “target population for the Owner/Developer Questionnaires is all development establishments in the United States,” as defined by 8 NAICS codes (see Part A.4 of EPA’s Supporting Statement for further information on whether your business would be covered).

The questionnaires request detailed information about real estate improvements during the last five years as well as the financial characteristics of development companies and their projects. There are two versions of the Owner/Developer questionnaire, but only the longer version -- which will be sent to “selected recipients” -- seems to address the types of stormwater controls actually used, or the cost of those controls, in any detail. Thus, while the longer questionnaire will present an additional burden for its recipients, it will also allow developers to report key information for the regulated community, including the cost-effectiveness and context of stormwater controls (e.g. soil types, urban vs. rural settings). 

Among other stakeholder groups, EPA will also send questionnaires to owners and operators of municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) and to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting authorities. That means that one party that apparently won’t have to fill out a questionnaire is the Massachusetts DEP, which, along with 4 other states and the District of Columbia, does not have NPDES permitting authority. Particularly in light of MA DEP’s own recent stormwater proposal, EPA might consider asking all state environmental authorities about the scope of their current and planned regulatory efforts with respect to stormwater, so as to better coordinate state and federal programs. 

We’re pleased that EPA is making an effort to base its regulatory proposal on good information. Nevertheless, developers should watch the rulemaking process carefully between now and 2012. The 30 day public comment period on the draft questionnaires ends June 9, 2010.

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

Environmentalists have been pushing for years to overturn the Bevill Amendment and get coal combustion residuals (CCR) regulated as a hazardous waste. The failure of an impoundment at the TVA facility in Kingston, Tennessee, in 2008 almost guaranteed that EPA would do something to regulate CCR. Like Hamlet, however, EPA seems to be having trouble making up its mind. Earlier this week, EPA announced two different potential regulatory approaches, one regulating CCR as a hazardous waste under RCRA Subtitle C and one regulating CCR as non-hazardous waste under Subtitle D of RCRA.

Entities with coal generating assets have two problems, broadly speaking, with regulating CCR as a hazardous waste. The first is just the sheer magnitude of the costs required to address existing surface impoundments and find alternatives to impoundments going forward. I realize that there are significant scientific questions regarding whether migration of contamination from existing impoundments in fact poses any significant risk. However, this question was answered at a political level once the Kingston impoundment failed. It’s difficult to see any regulatory regime going forward that doesn’t strictly regulate impoundments.

The second significant issue is beneficial reuse. A very substantial amount of CCR is safely and economically reused. Strict regulation of CCR as a hazardous waste would, to put it mildly, put a crimp in the CCR recycling market. EPA, at least based on its public pronouncements to date, appears to get it, though time will tell whether the program the agency ultimately implements will nonetheless create needless obstacles to recycling CCR.

Thus, if I had to guess – and to paraphrase the Bard – recycling of CCR is to be, disposal of CCR in surface impoundments is not to be.

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

Last year, I noted that EPA had made its ECHO data base more user-friendly, creating a web-based map of enforcement actions. Last week, EPA took the effort a step further, at least with respect to Clean Water Act enforcement action. EPA’s Clean Water Act Annual Noncompliance Report, or ANCR, is available on the web in an interactive format that allows interested citizens to see where the noncompliance and enforcement action is taking place. 

As some of my clients are unfortunately aware, I’ve been seeing a lot of enforcement action recently, at both the federal and state level. It’s not clear long the agencies can maintain a vigorous enforcement posture in the face of repeated budget cuts. I still think that efforts such as providing interactive access to EPA’s ANCR is going to facilitate citizen suits, ensuring the private enforcement is available even if the agencies ease up.

Whether that's a good result is of course a separate question.

• 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

EPA Region 1 continues to roll out new programs on the stormwater front, and this week’s development is particularly important for private property owners in the Charles River watershed. The agency released proposed amendments to the Residual Designation for the Charles River (“RDA”) and a Draft General Permit for Residually Designated Discharges. While the proposed permit only affects the Massachusetts communities of Milford, Bellingham, and Franklin, EPA has stated that it may expand the General Permit to include other Charles River communities in the future, so property owners along the entire length of the Charles River should be paying attention.

The full set of materials can be found on the EPA’s website, but here are a few highlights: 

2-acre threshold: “Designated Discharges” covered by the permit consist of two or more acres of privately-owned impervious surfaces. (Many publicly-owned properties located in the Charles River basin will be subject to the Massachusetts North Coastal Small MS4 General Permit, released in draft by EPA Region 1 earlier this year.)

Aggregation: As those of you following stormwater issues in Massachusetts are aware, the first draft of the RDA was linked to the proposed state stormwater regulations, which included an “aggregation rule” with a number of onerous consequences. The amended RDA and the draft General permit are no longer connected to the stalled state regulations, but they still include the concept of requiring a single permit for contiguous but separately owned properties that share stormwater controls. Fortunately, unlike the state proposal, each co-permittee will only be responsible for ensuring compliance for “all terms and conditions of this permit applicable to the activities that it controls or has the right to control.”

Permit requirements: The draft permit includes a series of stormwater control requirements including a 65% phosphorus load reduction target (derived from the Lower Charles River TMDL) that permittees can implement on-site through structural or non-structural controls or through a “Certified Municipal Phosphorus Program.”

Comments are due June 30. We expect EPA to take a lot less time to finalize these documents than MassDEP has taken to finalize its own stormwater program.  

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

As I have previously noted, Cass Sunstein, now head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB under Obama, has called the precautionary principle “deeply incoherent.” Why? Because, as Sunstein notes, “costly precautions inevitably create risks.”

I hope that Sunstein is as troubled as I am by the news, reported recently by Inside EPA, that Mathy Stanislaus, head of EPA’s Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response, has said that implementing the precautionary principle is a key to EPA’s environmental justice efforts.

When Stanislaus says that “we can’t wait until we have all the conclusive interpretive science to make a decision,” I agree with him, but that’s not the precautionary principle, that’s just a willingness to regulate under uncertainty, which has been a bedrock of environmental law.

However, the precautionary principle is something different and much more insidious. It’s not “regulate in spite of uncertainty” – it’s “regulate because of uncertainty.” It seems to stem from an almost Luddite fear of new technology and, as Sunstein points out, a philosophical view that nature is good and man-made is bad.

Stanislaus is head of OSWER. Is he going to oppose use of new cleanup technologies based on nanotechnology, because the precautionary principle says that we don’t know that nanomaterials are safe?

Stanislaus wants to “operationalize the precautionary principle.” Be worried, be very worried.

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

What will happen to state and regional energy and carbon-related regulations if (perhaps when) federal climate legislation is enacted?  If the Attorneys General of California and 6 New England and Mid-Atlantic states have anything to say about it, very little.  

As E&E reported last night, the Attorneys General of Massachusetts, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Rhode Island, Vermont and California sent a letter this week to Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman in which they urge the Senators to incorporate provisions in the climate bill expected to be announced later this month, which save existing state initiatives.  Drawing a parallel to California's emissions standards waiver under the Clean Air Act, they urge coexisting federal and State authority to spur energy independence and reduce global warming pollution.

Some suggestions make a lot of sense for both regulators and the regulated community: allowing time for industries participating in regional programs to transition to federal programs, providing for an exchange of RGGI allowances, and maintaining EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate in the absence of functional federal programs created by new legislation could all allow the transition between programs to flow more smoothly. 

However, their call to keep cap-and-trade initiatives like RGGI viable in the midst of federal cap-and-trade, and at most impose only a temporary moratorium for a fixed period of time, seems more like a land grab than good policy.  The AGs say it would provide a valuable incentive to ensure rigorous implementation and enforcement of the federal program.  No. Overlapping cap-and-trade programs would only create a mess.  A nationwide and comprehensive cap-and-trade program is clearly preferable, for both the economy and achieving reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

Last week, EPA proposed to veto a permit for the No. 1 Spruce Mine in West Virginia. Yesterday, EPA went much farther, announcing new guidance – effective immediately – which will impose numeric water quality based effluent limits, or WQBELs, on effluent from surface mining projects. EPA has at least tentatively concluded that high conductivity resulting from discharges of mountaintop fill has adversely affected streams downstream of surface mining operations.

The guidance is fairly straightforward – and for those to whom is it not sufficiently simple, EPA has provided a six-page summary version. Basically, EPA has concluded that permits for mountaintop mining must contain WQBELs that will ensure that in-stream conductivity levels do not exceed 500 microsiemens per centimeter (500 uS/cm). If modeling suggests that mining activities will result in any level above 300 uS/cm, “EPA should work with the permitting authority to ensure that the permit includes conditions that protect against conductivity levels exceeding 500 uS/cm.”

If you’re wondering what those levels mean and how big an impact the requirement to impose WQBELs will have, E&E Daily reported that EPA Administrator Jackson stated last evening that there are "no or very few valley fills that are going to meet this standard."

Though the guidance is effective immediately, EPA is characterizing it as a proposal and will take comment until December 1, 2010.

• 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

Some stories are just to much fun to ignore. Late last week, the GAO issued a report on the joint EPA/DOE Energy Star program. The sub-head says it all: “Covert Testing Shows the Energy Star Program Certification Process Is Vulnerable to Fraud and Abuse.” GAO found that it was able to obtain Energy Star certifications for 15 out of 20 bogus products for which it had sought certification, including a gasoline-powered alarm clock and a room air cleaner for which GAO submitted a picture of a space heater with a feather duster attached.

What significance, if any, does this story have with respect to broader debates about environmental regulation and the effectiveness of EPA? To be fair, not very much. On the other hand, for those with concerns about bureaucracy, the GAO investigation provides legitimate grist for the mill. If EPA and DOE can’t effectively manage a relatively small program such as Energy Star, how can they be expected to manage the many-headed monster that will be climate change and energy legislation?

• 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As 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

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

Yesterday, EPA released its effluent guidelines for construction sites. The guidelines establish the first national standard containing numeric limitations on stormwater discharges. The final standard imposed is 280 nephelometric turbidity units. It will apply to all construction sites greater than 20 acres in size as of 18 months following the effective date of the regulations (which will be 60 days after Federal Register promulgation) and sites larger than 10 acres 4 years after the effective date.

As expected, EPA did not take NRDC and Waterkeeper Alliance up on their suggestion that EPA impose post-construction controls. However, since EPA has already signaled that its long-term plan is to impose stormwater controls beyond the current universe of industry and construction sites, it seems at this point that broader stormwater regulation by EPA is more a question of when than whether.

• 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

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

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

EPA wants to shorten the duration of RD/RA negotiation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

While many people today look to the Daily Show and the Colbert Report for political commentary, the Boston Red Sox leave me with insufficient TV time, so I rely on the Borowitz Report. Whenever the press reports as news something blindingly obvious to normal Americans, Borowitz will refer to the statement as having been authored by D’Oh Magazine.

Last week, in a story that should have been reported in D’Oh Magazine, a Daily Environment Report headline stated that the “Link Between State of Environment, Agency Actions Should be Clear, EPA Told.” The story concerned advice EPA was given by its own Science Advisory Board regarding EPA’s next Report on the Environment, due to be issued in 2012. Among other recommendations, the SAB stated that:

The link between reductions in pollutants and improvements in environmental quality should be made, with the goal of answering the question, “how much reduction in emissions or environmental concentration is needed to produce environmental improvements?” The overarching conceptual model for the ROE needs to include the feedback loop of EPA regulation and policy as an action/response that affects the environment.

I don’t mean to be flip, but isn’t that precisely what EPA and other regulatory agencies are supposed to be doing 100% of the time? I understand that real-world science is messy, but if EPA and other environmental agencies aren’t sure of the link between their regulatory programs and reductions in or prevention of pollution, shouldn’t they be hesitating before they regulate?

Am I missing something?

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

In a story from today’s Daily Environment Report, Cynthia Giles, the new Assistant Administrator for Enforcement at EPA, stated that she was looking increase the number of criminal investigators at EPA, noting that

Criminal enforcement is a very important part of our arsenal in achieving compliance and has a powerful deterrent effect. It's important to us that we're out there and that we pursue the criminal cases.

There’s no doubt that, in a simplistic way, she is correct. Generally speaking, as the plausible threat of enforcement increases, the amount of noncompliance will be expected to decrease. However, for criminal enforcement to be a truly useful enforcement tool, EPA has to communicate clearly and unambiguously what conduct constitutes a criminal violation of environmental laws and what does not. Where language is ambiguous and interpretations shift, criminal enforcement only works as the roughest kind of hammer. It may decrease noncompliance, but it will also decrease productive, compliant, economic activity, because the risk posed by uncertainty will not be worth the reward.

Anecdotal evidence is always dangerous, but from where I sit, the risk that EPA will fail to wield its bludgeon with due care is substantial.

• 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

As we have reported, EPA and MADEP have both been taking steps over the past year to broaden the scope of their stormwater programs beyond existing regulation under the rules concerning stormwater discharges associated with industrial or construction activity. EPA has proposed using residual designation authority in Maine and Massachusetts and the MADEP proposed sweeping rules governing existing private facilities.

In the regulated community, there has been substantial concern that these efforts have focused too narrowly on private properties, with the MADEP proposed rules, for example, potentially requiring costly retrofits on many properties without consideration of whether there might be more cost-effective ways to control stormwater pollution, such as through increased focus on MS4s.

Based on this week’s news, EPA may have heard these complaints.

On Wednesday, EPA Region I announced enforcement actions against municipalities for violations of MS4 requirements. EPA proposed to fine nine communities in Massachusetts and New Hampshire; EPA also issued orders requiring that the municipalities take certain actions to come into compliance with the MS4 requirements.  Given the current economic climate and the erosion in municipal budgets, the willingness to impose penalties demonstrates EPA’s seriousness in enforcing the MS4 requirements.

So why does the private sector need to remain worried? One word in the first sentence of EPA’s press release says it all: “integrated.”  Wednesday’s enforcement announcement was part of “a new integrated effort” to enforce stormwater requirements.  While this notice was focused on illegal connections to storm sewers, is there any doubt that this is also part of a broader “integrated” effort to attack stormwater pollution more generally?  Now, when EPA and MADEP come calling on the private sector, the agencies can respond to complaints about unequal focus by noting that they have already made municipalities take their medicine; now it’s time for the private sector to do so as well.

Spoonful of sugar, anyone?

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

Construction and development companies praying for an economic recovery next year have something else to worry about: pending new EPA regulations regarding stormwater discharges from construction activities – and claims from environmental groups that EPA’s proposal isn’t stringent enough.

EPA issued a proposal on November 28, 2008. That proposal is complex, but the aspect of it that has received the most attention is the requirement that certain construction sites greater than 30 acres meet numerical turbidity limits (specifically, 13 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs), which I had to include in this post just because it sounds so cool). Developers have opposed the numeric limits; the National Association of Home Builders estimates that the cost to comply would be $15,000 to $45,000 per acre.

On the other hand, the NRDC and Waterkeeper Alliance have threatened to sue EPA if EPA does not revise the propose rule to include post-construction controls as part of the rule. EPA has stated that it is not planning to do so. It’s not obvious that NRDC and Waterkeeper Alliance have the better of this specific debate, but the argument regarding post-construction controls is similar to the ongoing discussion in Massachusetts and elsewhere regarding the need for ongoing stormwater controls at properties other than industrial facilities that are already regulated.

The issue is not going to go away.  EPA is under a deadline to issue the rule by December 1, 2009.

• 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

I assume that environmental agencies’ focus on the annual dollar total of enforcement fines and penalties drives my clients as crazy as it does me. After all, the correlation between such figures and any environmental outcomes is pretty limited. Indeed, less enforcement may mean more compliance rather than more undetected violations.

It thus comes as at least limited good news from Inside EPA that EPA is looking at ways to measure the impact of enforcement efforts other than by measuring the amount of fines and penalties. Instead, as indicated by a presentation made last month by EPA’s Office of Compliance, EPA is going to try to measure the environmental benefits of its enforcement efforts.

(Of course, it’s more than a little depressing that the motivation for this change is the expected decrease in the dollar value of settlements in FY 2009 from the Bush administration’s FY 2008 numbers. God forbid that the Obama administration should recover fewer environmental enforcement dollars than the Bush EPA!)

While congratulations will be due to EPA for whatever strides they make in this area, it is only the tip of the iceberg. The problem of identifying the benefits of environmental programs extends far beyond the enforcement arena; it is endemic to the entire gamut of environmental regulatory programs, state and federal. 

EPA occasionally generates very gross overall numbers demonstrating that the benefits of some program outweigh the costs. However, such figures provide no real assistance in determining whether some other approach to regulating a particular air contaminant would have been more cost-effective or, more fundamentally, whether allocating resources to other contaminants or even other media would be a better place to spend environmental protection dollars. As I noted in one of my Superfund rants, a small town in New Hampshire can legitimately ask whether it could save more lives by devoting resources to public safety improvements than to cleaning up a Superfund site.  The fault is not that of EPA alone or that of state environmental agencies.  It’s very easy for Congress, under pressure from some apparent crisis, to create a regulatory program that explicitly or implicitly forbids considerations of cost-effectiveness or cost benefit analysis.

To hark back to a different rant of mine, on the subject of regulatory reform, is it too much to ask of the Obama administration that it make efforts to increase the cost-effectiveness of our regulatory programs?  If Obama is serious about bipartisanship, this might be one way to achieve it. 

• 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

As a confirmed optimist and believer in technology, I’ve long thought that we can meet the challenge posed by global climate change – as long as we implement the right policies to provide incentives to develop the necessary technologies. Having the wide engineering knowledge that being a lawyer – as well as one of six political science graduates from MIT my year – provides, I have assumed that nanotechnology would play a substantial part in whatever the ultimate solution turns out to be.

Climate change is a big problem and we’re not there yet – especially since the incentives aren’t yet in place. Contaminated site remediation presents a more manageable set of problems, and nanotechnology finally does seem to be making significant headway in the remediation arena. According to a report just published in Environmental Health Perspectives, in-situ nanotechnology can reduce soil and groundwater remediation costs, as well as help to reach the cleanup end point more quickly. The study identifies a number of nano-scale materials that are being used for remediation, but the most common at this point and the one discussed in most detail in the study is zero valent iron.  The study is not definitive, but is based on a review of 45 sites at which nanotechnology has been used or is in process.

In conjunction with the study, the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies has also produced a map showing the location of sites at which nanotechnology has been used as a remediation technology and providing some information about each site.

• 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 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

For those of you who cannot get enough of Superfund, I spoke at a Boston Bar Association panel on this subject yesterday about the implications of the Supreme Court’s Burlington Northern decision. Thanks to EPA Region I and Joanna Jerison, head of the Region I Superfund Legal Office, for being willing to speak on so obviously sore a subject. And thanks to Craig Campbell for participating on the panel as well.

As you can see from her presentation and mine, it appears that EPA and the private bar do not yet have a common understanding of the implications of the case. Isn’t that a surprise?

I still think, as I said at the meeting, that never has the Supreme Court done so much by doing so little. With respect to the divisibility issue, which is of the greatest long-run significance, the Court explicitly did not change the law at all. And yet …. We all know that they did. Now, instead of divisibility being an insuperable hurdle, it should become something like routine.

Or so I hope.  

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

For those who missed it, just a quick note that EPA has once more extended the date by which subject facilities need to prepare or amend SPCC plans to comply with the latest revisions to the applicable regulations. The original compliance date was February 3, 2009; this marks the third time EPA has extended the date.

• 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

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

Particularly this week, one needs to make a conscious effort to remember that it is not “all climate, all the time” on the environmental front. While climate change is obviously the President’s top priority at the moment, the administration did take the time this week to send letters to congressional leaders voicing the its support for amendments to the Clean Water Act to eliminate uncertainty concerning the Act’s scope following the Supreme Court decision in Rapanos. 

While the administration has not provided suggested statutory revisions, the letters state that: “It is essential that the Clean Water Act provide broad protection of the nation's waters, consistent with full congressional authority under the Constitution.” This suggests that the administration might look kindly on the simple fix proposed under the Clean Water Restoration Act, , S. 787, which would basically just substitute “waters of the United States” for “navigable waters of the United States” wherever it appears in the Act.

There is no doubt that such legislation would reduce uncertainty regarding the scope of the CWA, which is unambiguously a good thing.  Whether there is a way to reduce uncertainty without expanding the scope of the Act’s jurisdiction to the full scope permitted under the Constitution, and whether such an expansion would be wise policy, are questions that neither the administration nor congressional Democrats appear to be asking at this point.

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

Laura Rome of Epsilon has helpfully reminded me that the maturity of a regulatory program is also relevant to whether an agency should proceed by guidance or regulation.  With newer programs that remain in flux, the flexibility inherent in guidance – and the easier amendment process for guidance – counsels in favor of guidance rather than regulation.

Laura’s comment also reminded me that, a few years ago, NAIOP was sufficiently concerned about MassDEP’s use of guidance as an end-run around the formality of the regulatory process that it submitted to MassDEP suggested “Guidance on Guidance.”  The overarching principles contained in the NAIOP proposal are helpful reminders regarding the uses and limitations of guidance documents.

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

There are not too many areas of environmental law where practice intersects frequently with academic theory. One such area is whether agencies should use notice and comment rule-making any time they want to set forth policy or whether they should instead be permitted to use flexible guidance documents. The real issue from the practitioner’s point of view is the extent to which use of guidance permits street level bureaucracy a degree of unfettered discretion that is truly scary. Like Judge Roy Bean, these bureaucrats are the law West of the Pecos – or at least outside agency headquarters. The flip side of the debate is the notion that modern environmental law is simply too complicated to specify all rules through notice and comment rule-making. Agencies need, as a practical matter, the flexibility to operate through informal guidance.

The debate is illustrated by two D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decisions. First, in Appalachian Power v. EPA, issued in 2001, the Court struck down EPA use of a guidance document. The Court nicely summarized the issue:

The phenomenon we see in this case is familiar. Congress passes a broadly worded statute. The agency follows with regulations containing broad language, open-ended phrases, ambiguous standards and the like. Then as years pass, the agency issues circulars or guidance or memoranda, explaining, interpreting, defining and often expanding the commands in the regulations. One guidance document may yield another and then another and so on. Several words in a regulation may spawn hundreds of pages of text as the agency offers more and more detail regarding what its regulations demand of regulated entities. Law is made, without notice and comment, without public participation, and without publication in the Federal Register or the Code of Federal Regulations. … The agency may also think there is another advantage--immunizing its lawmaking from judicial review.

The Court dismissed EPA’s contention that the document was not binding, and said this in response to EPA’s reference to its boilerplate statement that the guidance created no rights: 

“[R]ights” may not be created but “obligations” certainly are…. The entire Guidance, from beginning to end – except the last paragraph – reads like a ukase.

Haven't all our clients felt what it is like to be under agency ukase?

Unfortunately for those who liked the outcome in Appalachian Power, it seems to have been the high-water mark for those wanting to circumscribe agency use of guidance. More recently, the D.C. Circuit refused to review EPA guidance as though it were a rule. In Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, responding to an Appalachian Power-type challenge, the Court concluded that EPA had not treated the guidance at issue as binding and noted that, in response to Appalachian Power, EPA had edited the guidance to make it look less binding. The Cement Kiln plaintiffs thought this was evidence of subterfuge; the Court did not buy it. The Court did acknowledge that an agency assertion that guidance is non-binding “will not make it so where there is evidence —or practice – to the contrary."

The immediate context for this post is efforts by the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, or MEPA, office to take a second look at its greenhouse gas (GHG) policy in light of the legislative passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act. The work group (of which I am a member) reviewing this issue has been considering whether it is better to leave aspects of the policy as guidance or whether to put them in regulation.

As you can probably tell from the start of this post, my gut reaction is always to make the agency put its rules into notice and comment regulation. I’ve had too many experiences of street level bureaucrats who take advantage of the “flexibility” of agency guidance documents to become their own version of Roy Bean.

However, my friend Sam Mygatt, whose judgment I trust, has strongly endorsed the approach of leaving many of these issues to guidance. After puzzling over this for some time – How could Sam be right and I be wrong? – I realized what the answer is:

The size of the bureaucracy matters. 

The rules -- or guidance -- at issue here are promulgated by the MEPA office.  This is also the agency Sam deals with most frequently (he did run it at one time, after all). The MEPA office has a handful of reviewers. The consultants, such as Sam, who have large MEPA practices deal with the MEPA reviewers repeatedly. They are able to build relationships of confidence and trust; it is very difficult for these reviewers to see Sam as the devil, merely looking to desecrate the environment to benefit his client. 

Larger bureaucracies are different. Street level bureaucrats have inherently more autonomy in larger bureaucracies. Moreover, while we may all get to know some staffers at DEP or EPA, it is impossible to build the same type of relationships as is possible with the MEPA office.

At a casual empirical level, this distinction seems to have substantial force. For smaller bureaucracies, stick with guidance; with larger bureaucracies, make them issues rules.

Your take?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One more note on the Burlington Northern decision.  A client of mine has already noted that one impact of the decision will be to result in more litigation over divisibility, which will be good for private lawyers (ouch!).  She’s right, as my clients always are, but she shouldn’t be.

Litigation should only increase if EPA does not adjust its settlement demands. If EPA responds appropriately, and makes demands which reflect a fair resolution of a divisible liability, then there shouldn’t necessarily be more litigation than there is today.  However, if EPA continues to negotiate with PRPs as though liability is always joint and several, then there will certainly be more litigation – and EPA will start to lose some more cases.  

Anyone care to bet which response by EPA is more likely?

If EPA adjusts its settlement demands downward in response to the decision – or if we start to see litigation in which courts find liability to be divisible – then EPA’s ability to fund Superfund cleanups will be under even more pressure.  This could provide some additional momentum behind the current Congressional effort to reinstitute the Superfund tax.

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

Those of us who have practiced in the Superfund arena for some time know that the government, in those rare cases where it has been forced to litigate, has used the same oral argument in every case: “Good morning, your honor. My name is ______. I represent the government in this action and we win.” Today, the Supreme Court made clear that that the government now needs a new oral argument template.

In Burlington Northern v. United States, the Supreme Court issued two important decisions in one. First, the Court held that a defendant must actually intend its waste to be disposed of before it can be found liable as an arranger under § 107(a)(3) of CERCLA. The facts were these. Shell Oil sold pesticides to Brown & Bryant, Inc., which operated a chemical distribution business. As part of the transfer of pesticides from Shell to B&B, some pesticides were released on the property. There was evidence that Shell knew that releases were a regular part of the transfer process. Both the District Court and Appeals Court concluded that Shell’s knowledge that releases occurred was enough to establish arranger liability.

Noting that CERCLA does not define the term “arrange[e] for”, the Court looked the phrase’s ordinary meaning. Doing so, the Court concluded that liability may attach only where the defendant “takes intentional steps to dispose of a hazardous substance.” The government argued that, because the defendant knew that disposal was the inevitable result of its sale of product to the site owner, the defendant had “intended” disposal to occur. The Court rejected this argument. The Court was very clear: The defendant “must have entered into the sale of [the product] with the intention that at least a portion of the product be disposed during the transfer process.”

The direct holding with respect to Shell will be important in a number of cases and is helpful in setting a fairly bright line on arranger liability. Even beyond the immediate holding, however, I wonder what, if anything, this case means for what is known as transshipment liability. Under section 107(a)(3), a person is liable as an arranger if they

arranged for disposal or treatment … of hazardous substance owned or possessed by such person, by any other party or entity, at any facility or incineration vessel owned or operated by another party…

It has always seemed to me that the plain reading of § 107(a)(3) is that the defendant must have “arranged” for the disposal of the hazardous substances at the site where disposal occurred. In those not uncommon situations where the site operator transshipped the waste – without the generator’s knowledge or consent – the generator should not be liable under CERCLA at the transshipment site, because it did not intend for any disposal at the transshipment site. Given the Supreme Court’s emphasis on what the generator intended, I think that, in the right case, a transshipment generator defendant would stand a pretty good chance of winning, if he or she were willing to litigate the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. 

I hope someone will and I hope I’m right. 

The second holding in Burlington Northern may be of even more practical significance. In it, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld the District Court’s original divisibility finding with respect to the Burlington Northern Railroad. The District Court used a simple formula based on percentage of the site owned by Burlington Northern and the percentage of time that Burlington Northern leased the land as compared to the total duration of site operations. What’s most significant is that the Court did not even require any significant analysis to uphold the District Court; Justice Stevens’ opinion merely stated that there was evidence that contribution from the railroad parcel to the overall contribution was limited, so that, “[w]ith these background facts in mind, we are persuaded that it was reasonable for the court to use the size of the leased parcel and the duration of the lease as the starting point for its analysis.”

This seems obvious, but is probably a game changer in government Superfund litigation. The overwhelming tenor of lower court opinions has been that the defendant’s burden in a divisibility argument is almost overwhelming and that the burden will be satisfied in the rarest of cases and only upon almost perfect evidence of divisibility. The Supreme Court has made clear that that is simply not the case. Superfund cases are no different than other cases and there is no unstated higher burden of proof. 

Thus, while a district court judge might still be affirmed if he or she concludes that the defendant did not meet its burden of proving divisibility, the real import of the decision is that now district court judges need not fear that they will be automatically reversed if they do conclude that the harm is divisible. Given the standard stated in Burlington Northern, it might go too far to say that most cases will be divisible, but divisibility findings should not be at all rare – and that’s definitely news.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In summary, the bill contains four titles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This week, the practice of mountaintop removal – chopping the tops off mountains in order extract the coal – received two blows: one from EPA and one from Congress. First, EPA offices Region 3 and Region 4 announced that they plans to assess the Central Appalachia Mining's Big Branch project in Pike County, Ky., and the Highland Mining Company's Reylas mine in Logan County, W.Va., before permits are issued for those projects. 

Although the broad brush is important here, so are some of the details. First, both letters raise concerns about the cumulative impacts of multiple mountaintop removal projects. Second, the Region 3 letter raises the possibility that EPA might use its authority under section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to prohibit issuance of the required permit, noting that the “extensive cumulative and other impacts give this proposed project high potential” for action under § 404(c).  

The second blow was the introduction in Congress of legislation that would prohibit mountaintop removal. Of course, introduction doesn’t guarantee passage, but it does seem notable that one of the two sponsors is Lamar Alexander, both a Republican and a Senator from a coal mining state. Senator Alexander’s support suggests that a tipping point may have been reached on this issue.

• 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

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

Although it appeared initially as though Congress might be the first to move towards greater regulation of coal ash following the TVA spill, EPA has seized the initiative. Yesterday, Administrator Jackson announced a two-pronged initiative. First, EPA has issued information requests to facilities maintaining coal ash impoundments in order to gather information necessary to support new regulations. Second, she confirmed that EPA will indeed then promulgate regulations designed to prevent future spills.

In response to the Administrator’s announcement, Nick Rahall, Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee withdrew his own coal ash regulation bill, H.R. 493, from mark-up.

EPA has not yet tipped its hand regarding the likely nature of such regulations, including whether coal ash would be handled as hazardous waste under RCRA or whether it would instead be handled as a solid waste.  Facilities operating coal-fired power plants have likely resigned themselves to increased regulation of coal ash, but could be expected to fight tooth and nail against efforts to regulate ash as a hazardous waste.  Such regulation would greatly increase management/disposal costs and would preclude many current reuses of coal ash.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

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

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

Readers of a certain age will recall Chevy Chase’s Weekend Update segment during the first year of Saturday Night Live, when, for a number of shows, he would report that Francisco Franco was still dead. (And isn’t it great that there is actually a Wikipedia article on the subject of Franco still being dead!).

This segment was brought to mind by the report of this week’s decision out of the District Court for the District of Columbia, in the case of General Electric v. Jackson, affirming that EPA’s authority to issue unilateral administrative orders under § 106 of CERCLA had survived an as applied constitutional challenge brought by General Electric. Clients have been asking their lawyers whether CERCLA could possibly be constitutional ever since it was passed more than 28 years ago. Today, with this decision, I can report that CERCLA is still constitutional.

The same court had rejected a facial challenge to CERCLA’s constitutionality in 2005. In the recent decision, the court concluded that EPA’s “pattern and practice” in implementing § 106 also survived challenge. GE had raised two concerns. The first is that, under the decision in Ex Parte Young, EPA’s coercion of PRPs through its use of § 106 deprives PRPs of their due process rights. The court rejected this argument on the ground that the availability of the sufficient cause defense and the ultimate availability of judicial review meant that EPA’s issuance of § 106 orders is not unconstitutionally coercive.

Second, GE argued that EPA’s process for issuing § 106 orders deprives PRPs of a constitutionally protected property interest and that, in order to do so, EPA must provide more process, in particular a neutral decision-maker, prior to issuing orders. Here, while the court found that issuance of § 106 orders does deprive PRPs of a property interest, the balance of harms weighs in EPA’s favor and imposition of greater pre-issuance process would impose substantial costs on EPA without providing significant benefit to PRPs.

Francisco Franco is still dead. CERCLA is still constitutional. Plus ca change, plus c’est la même chose.

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

We have previously noted that efforts to achieve economy-wide reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will necessarily go beyond the electricity generating sector. One obvious target will have to be greenhouse gas emissions from buildings, which EPA estimates account for 17 percent of U.S. carbon emissions.

Although there have been efforts, particularly in California and Massachusetts, to use state NEPA analogues to control carbon emissions from new projects going forward, and there have been similar efforts to build energy efficiency into state building codes, existing buildings will inevitably become a focus, simply because their carbon emissions are too big to ignore.

Yesterday, EPA Region II and Cushman & Wakefield got out ahead of the curve, announcing a voluntary agreement pursuant to which Cushman & Wakefield agreed to reduce energy consumption from the 3,000+ buildings it owns or manages by 30 percent by 2012. There are other aspects to the agreement as well, such as a commitment to achieve LEED certification for new construction. 

The size of the reduction to which this agreement commits Cushman & Wakefield is notable, in that a 30 percent reduction by 2012 is more aggressive that the nascent regulatory schemes are envisioning. It certainly suggests, as environmentalists have argued for some time, that there is a lot of low-hanging fruit to be found in the energy demand management area.

This type of agreement is almost certain to become more common as the threat of mandatory regulation becomes more tangible. In fact, depending on the nature of greenhouse gas reduction regulations, such agreements could provide significant economic benefit to the Cushman and Wakefields of the world, if they are allowed to obtain early reduction credits or other economic recognition of the reductions achieved under the voluntary agreements.

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

The magnitude of the recent release of coal ash from the TVA dam is hard to fathom, though the pictures certainly give some sense of its magnitude. Now, as regulators and Congress attempt to get their collective arms around the import of the release, some of the regulatory implications of the release are starting to emerge. According to a report in yesterday’s Greenwire, Congressional hearings this week may include a discussion regarding whether coal ash should continue to be exempt from regulation as a hazardous waste under RCRA

The exemption of coal ash is critical to coal-fired power plants. According to the article, 130 million tons of fly ash were generated last year, 42 percent of which were beneficially reused. Moreover, there are approximately 600 landfills and containment ponds holding fly ash. Having helped a coal-fired power plant defend a law suit involving an on-site ash landfill some years ago, I can tell you from personal experience that placing fly ash within the ambit of RCRA hazardous waste rules would be a major headache for coal-fired power plants – and a major new weapon in the armory of those who want to shut down coal plants any way possible.

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

While many economists are worried about the possibility of deflation in the current economic crisis, EPA still is concerned about inflation – specifically inflation in the amount of statutory civil penalties under statutes enforced by EPA. In a Federal Register notice dated December 11, 2008, EPA announced increases in its civil penalties. 

Some of the increases are not trivial. It is of course true that EPA rarely obtains, or even seeks, the maximum permissible penalty, but the maximum does set the boundary for negotiations with the agency. 

All joking aside, EPA has a statutory obligation under the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 to review penalty amounts at least every four years and to adjust the penalties based on the provisions of the DCIA. Nonetheless, in the current situation, EPA’s sense of timing is impeccable.

• 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

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

Hopefully, since I like to think the readers of this blog are largely law-abiding, this post will not be relevant to very many of you, but it seemed newsworthy nonetheless. On December 10, EPA announced a new web site dedicated to helping to locate and bring to justice fugitives from environmental crimes. The new web site includes profiles of 25 men wanted for a variety of environmental claims.

The web site is largely self-explanatory, but I did want to note two items. First, in a transparent bid to limit my liability, I will note, as does EPA on the web site, that it is a bad idea to try to apprehend any of these individuals yourself. Second, as a Red Sox fan, I need to emphasize that the David Ortiz who was recently apprehended is definitely not our own Big Papi. Sorry, Yankees fans.

• 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

Demonstrating that the recent announcement of new stormwater controls for the Charles River in Massachusetts were not an aberration, EPA, joining with the Maine DEP, announced last Friday that it will be imposing new stormwater regulations for discharges into Long Creek, which ultimately flows into Casco Bay.

Responding to petitions from the Conservation Law Foundation, EPA has exercised its Residual Designation Authority under its NPDES permitting regulations.

The new designation can be found on EPA’s website. Notably, the new program will apply to impervious surfaces larger than one acre. This is a smaller area than is currently proposed for the Charles River. EPA estimates that regulating impervious surfaces one acre and up will place 90% of all impervious area in the Long Creek watershed under NPDES jurisdiction.

Owners of properties in other degraded watersheds, you may be next on the list.

• 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

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is set to publish a Final Rule creating an optional, alternative set of generator requirements for hazardous waste generated or accumulated in laboratories at “eligible academic entities”: (1) colleges and universities; (2) non-profit research institutes owned or affiliated with a college or university; or (3) teaching hospitals owned or affiliated with a college or university. 

The Rule will append a new subpart, Subpart K, to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste generator regulatory requirements of 40 CFR 262. Eligible academic entities may choose to have their laboratories subject to Subpart K in lieu of existing generator requirements. Notable provisions of Subpart K, include the following:

(1) Rather than requiring a hazardous waste determination at the time of generation, Subpart K allows eligible academic entities to make hazardous waste determinations when the waste is removed from the laboratory or within four days of arriving at an on-site central accumulation area (CAA) or on-site interim status or permitted treated, storage, or disposal facility (TSDF).

(2) Eligible academic entities will need to create Laboratory Management Plans (LMPs), a portion of which will be enforceable by EPA, describing how the entity will label containers and manage “unwanted materials” prior to hazardous waste determinations.

(3) Once every twelve (12) months, each laboratory will have thirty (30) days to clean-out any hazardous waste that consists of unused or commercial chemical products and will not have to count such waste towards the entity’s generator status. 

Eligible entities that have developed successful programs consistent with the existing generator regulations may choose not to become subject to the increased burden of Subpart K. I believe, however, that the Rule will be a welcome option for entities that have had a difficult time managing large numbers of laboratories (and students) generating small amounts of hazardous wastes that vary in type by semester.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

As those of us who have practiced in the Superfund arena for some time know, in the early years of Superfund litigation, such litigation was, from the defendant’s perspective, brutish and short, if not nasty and mean. The DOJ attorney would, in essence, march into court, state “I am from the government; I win,” and the case would be over.

In recent years, that approach has not proven quite so uniformly successful. The key case in the defendants’ arsenal is United States v. Bestfoods. In Bestfoods, the Supreme Court looked to traditional common law principles regarding corporate law to assess the potential liability of a parent corporation under CERCLA. The Court concluded that a parent corporation could not be held liable for the acts of its subsidiary unless the traditional test for piercing the corporate veil could be met.

In a recent decision, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals also looked to common law principles in assessing liability under CERCLA. Once more, reference to the common law spared the defendant – at least temporarily – from the Superfund gallows. In United States v. Capital Tax Corporation, the defendant had purchased tax certificates from Cook County with respect to certain contaminated property. After it found a buyer for the property, Capital Tax then actually obtained tax deeds to the property. Capital Tax had no written agreement with the buyer and did not transfer the tax deeds to the buyer, because the buyer never made full payment of the purchase price. 

Eventually, EPA issued an administrative order to Capital Tax requiring it to clean up the property. When Capital Tax refused to do so, EPA performed the cleanup and sued Capital Tax, seeking recovery of response costs and penalties for failure to comply with the order. Capital Tax defended the case, arguing that, although it did hold legal title to the property, it did so only as security for the balance of the purchase price. In other words, Capital Tax asserted that it was entitled to the security interest defense under § 101 of CERCLA.

The Court found for Capital Tax, but took a slightly different approach. The Court concluded that Capital Tax should have an opportunity to establish that it is not the current owner of the property because, under the doctrine of equitable conversation, the true owner was the party to whom Capital Tax intended to sell the property. 

Ultimately, the facts of the case are complicated, obscure, and not necessarily transferable to other cases. What is transferable is the Court’s insistence that state common law rules about ownership are important in determining whether a party is an owner under CERCLA. As the Court stated,

The understanding that state law governs property and the expectations built around that understanding strongly suggest that the federal standard should be rooted in an adoption of state property law. … To invent out of whole cloth a distinctly federal law of property would be inappropriate, if not impossible.

The lesson from Capital Tax is thus a simple one, even if its application may be complicated in specific cases. CERCLA does not mean that the government always wins. It does not mean that common law is irrelevant. If a party’s status is the determining issue for Superfund liability, then the party should carefully consider what applicable state common law says about that status. The government may still win most of the time, but the defendants now have at least a few arrows in their quiver.

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

On September 22, EPA issued a new Stormwater Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) to cover 4,100 facilities with discharges associated with an industrial activity. The permit replaces the MSGP that was issued in 2000 and expired in October 2005. The expired permit continued to be valid for facilities that were covered by the permit at the time it expired.

The new permit applies to states not authorized to implement EPA’s NPDES program, including Massachusetts and New Hampshire. It will be effective as of September 29, 2008.

Although EPA claims of regulatory reform sometimes ring hollow, the new MSGP truly does seem to be an improvement over the prior MSGP for industrial facilities. One significant improvement is that permit now separates technical requirements for effluent limitations from the requirement to prepare and implement stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPP). Importantly, EPA has clarified that a SWPPP is not an effluent limitation. Therefore, industrial facilities may amend SWPPP without EPA approval. More important, because the SWPPP is not an effluent limitation, noncompliance with the SWPPP will not subject a permittee to claims that he/she has violated an effluent limitation (though noncompliance with a SWPPP may be a violation of a record-keeping requirement).

EPA has also significantly streamlined its filing and compliance systems. First, notice of intent to be covered by the MSGP may be made electronically, through a new “eNOI” system. Second, EPA has created a “Water Locator” tool, which will enable facilities to obtained certain relevant information, such as applicable total maximum daily loads, or TMDLs, on-line. Facilities will also be able to provide required monitoring data on-line.

In short, while the new permit may not eliminate any substantive complaints that industrial facilities may have with EPA’s stormwater program, it should reduce transaction costs associated with compliance.

• 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