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

Yesterday, the “Independent Expert Panel” convened by MassDEP to review whether wind turbines cause any adverse health effects issued its report. I was pleased that the headline in the Boston Globe was that “Wind turbines don’t cause health problems.” Similarly, the Daily Environment Report headline was that “Massachusetts Study Finds ‘No Evidence’ of Health Impacts from Wind Turbines.” 

I hope that that’s the way the report will be read, but I’m worried. Perhaps I just have too many NIMBY-related scars. Whatever the reason, I am worried about the report’s statements that there

is limited epidemiologic evidence suggesting an association between exposure to wind turbines and annoyance.

and that

whether annoyance from wind turbines leads to sleep issues or stress has not been sufficiently quantified.

and that there

is limited scientific evidence of an association between annoyance from prolonged shadow flicker (exceeding 30 minutes per day) and potential transitory cognitive and physical health effects.

Can’t you see opponents of wind turbines latching on to these statements and urging the MEPA office to require that wind project developers fill in these “data gaps” before being allowed to proceed in Massachusetts? So climate change is threatening life as we know it (allow me a rhetorical flourish), EPA believes that fossil fuel plants result in significant morbidity and mortality, even aside from climate change, and Massachusetts, which wants to lead the nation in moving to an economy based on renewable energy, is going to get itself tied into knots evaluating claims that wind turbines annoy people? I sure hope not.

I do love that the report acknowledges that “annoyance ‘per se’ is not a biological disease.” Oh, really? That’s good; otherwise, I’d be feeling diseased right about now. We’ve known for years that Bill Koch is annoyed that Cape Wind will be in the view shed from his lovely house on Nantucket Sound (and, to be non-partisan, that the Kennedys are also annoyed). 

On the scales of cost and benefit, I just pray that MassDEP, the MEPA office, and the Massachusetts legislature (which is still reviewing wind siting legislation), give concerns about annoyance exactly as much consideration as they deserve.

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

A story in today’s Boston Globe makes clear that, at least in states where it is permissible to use the words “climate” and “change” in the same sentence, the battle over adaption may no longer be hypothetical. The neighborhood known as East Boston is one that might appropriately be described as having unfulfilled potential. Last month, at a Chamber of Commerce breakfast, Mayor Menino pledged to revive East Boston, specifically calling out five projects that have been on the drawing board for some time.

So what’s the problem? The problem is that East Boston is a waterfront community. Indeed, arguments have long been made that, with the cleanup of Boston Harbor and the revival of other areas of the waterfront, East Boston should not be left behind. In that sense, the waterfront is, of course, a benefit.

The question now is of course what happens to the waterfront in fifty years. Will it still be waterfront or will it be land under the ocean? Today’s Globe story includes a map developed for The Boston Harbor Association, which purports to show the potential impacts of rising sea levels on Boston’s waterfront communities. It’s not a pretty picture. (Well, actually, it is, but you know what I mean.) Some East Boston residents want the potential impacts of sea level rise addressed before significant projects are built in East Boston.

As we noted last fall, the Commonwealth, as part of its implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act, is trying to address adaptation comprehensively. The Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs issued the Climate Change Adaption Report in September 2011 (It also has a pretty picture, shown here, on the impact of sea level rise.) However, while the Adaptation Report includes much discussion, none of its recommendations have been operationalized to date and a lot of work will have to be done before regulations or – dare I say – guidance is issued.

Thus, for some time, these issues are going to be addressed on an ad hoc basis in the context of individual projects. At a certain level, I understand the concern and I’m all in favor of reasonable foresight. On the other hand, is ad hoc decisionmaking a way to decide how close buildings can be built to the water, or whether they need to be built on stilts? The state MEPA office is going to face this issue with increasing frequency in the coming years. Since I don’t believe in preemptive rants, I’ll hold off until we see how MEPA actually starts to handle these types of projects. They do have a lot of discretionary authority.

This really is a stay-tuned situation. All I can say now is that those who put their heads in the sand are likely to drown.

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

Earlier this week, Greenwire noted a Los Angeles Times story reporting that businesses are using the California Environmental Quality Act – California’s version of NEPA – as a tool of economic competition, trying to kill or delay projects for economic reasons. Much like Claude Rains, I am shocked, shocked, to find that there is strategic litigation going on here. In the past two years, I have defended multiple court cases and administrative hearings brought by a 10-citizens group against one particular client. Many of those claims have been premised on our state MEPA statute. Who are the members of the citizens’ group? A competitor of our client, and a variety of employees of the competitor and relatives of the competitor’s principal.

As suggested by the headline, none of this is really news to practitioners, who have to live with this stuff all the time. What really caught my eye in the Times story was this quote from a defender of the status quo:

Environmental advocates say the focus on why groups use CEQA is misplaced. "You shouldn't really be looking at motivations of petitioners," said Doug Carstens, an environmental lawyer in Santa Monica who often files CEQA complaints. "Even if it's a solely economically motivated actor, if they're promoting transparency, good government, why not?"

Why not? Why not? Because transaction costs matter. Because they are a dead weight on the economy. Because they distract agency personnel from focusing on more important and pressing environmental issues. Because they really can kill valuable developments. Perhaps Mr. Carstens is an outlier, but I fear that he in fact remains all too typical in an environmental movement that remains, at its core, very skeptical of, if not downright opposed to, economic development.

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

The abandonment of any discussion of climate change in Washington has not been followed in Massachusetts. Yesterday, Rick Sullivan, the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, released the Massachusetts Climate Change Adaptation Report, providing the fruits of a lengthy process in Massachusetts to look at the impacts of climate change on five areas: Natural Resources and Habitat; Key Infrastructure; Human Health and Welfare; Local Economy and Government; and Coastal Zone and Oceans. 

Certainly, the summary of potential impacts in Massachusetts is not a pretty picture – speaking metaphorically, anyway; many of the pictures in the report actually are pretty cool. For those who want a quick idea, take a look at the 100-year flood in downtown Boston under the high emissions scenario, on page 20 of the Report.

The trick is in choosing adaptation strategies that are cost-effective in the face of some substantial uncertainties. To give them credit, the Report’s authors are aware of the difficulties. We’ll see what happens when regulators start to consider concrete implementation of particular strategies that may limit development in certain areas or impose additional costs or requirements.

While the Report is too long to summarize here, a few highlights are worth noting:

*  An emphasis on combining mitigation and adaptation – look for more requirements to use low impact development approaches and to meet LEED building standards

*  A recommendation to increase buffer zones – do we take land out of development because it may be needed for flood control in 50 years?

*  Assessment of ways “to discourage and avoid siting in current and future vulnerable areas.” How do we decide what constitutes a vulnerable area and over what time horizon? Do we forbid construction? Require extensive insurance and rely on the market to control investment?

*  Consideration of the development of guidance “to fully implement” existing requirements that new buildings for “non-water-dependent uses” under Chapter 91 “be designed and constructed to … incorporate projected sea level rise during the design life of buildings.” Given existing requirements to devote the ground floor of such buildings to “facilities of public accommodation”, perhaps we could simply require owners to devote the first floor to salt water swimming pools!

Levity aside, this is serious stuff. The projections are certainly scary. That doesn’t make the regulatory decisions easy, however. Decisions regarding time horizons, discount rates, and how much to rely on regulations versus market incentives will be difficult, but getting them right will be critical to ensure that appropriate adaptations are made without adapting ourselves out of all economic growth.

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

Last week, SouthCoastToday and the Herald News both reported that a large expansion by Meditech of its facility in Freetown was on life support, after the Massachusetts Historical Commission required Meditech to strip the top two feet of soil from 21 acres and sieve it for archeological artifacts, at a projected multi-million dollar cost. The Herald News quoted various local leaders calling the MHC’s decision “incomprehensible…arbitrary…bizarre… and unacceptable.” What they did not point out, and what is even more troubling than just the decision here, is that the best description of the MHC action is simply this: business as usual. 

It’s telling that the state MEPA office approved the project, but that MHC is the stumbling block – and that Representative Michael Rodrigues was quoted as saying that

I’ve had several conversations with [Assistant Secretary of State] Michael Maresco. He told me the secretary is not going to meet with me or the applicants, and they have to comply with what his office dictates.”

People both in and out of government have been complaining – quietly – for years about the fiefdom known as MHC. Even the MEPA office cannot get MHC to play nice. Why has the criticism been so quiet? Because the MHC is located within the Secretary of State’s office. Because we live in a one-party state and Secretary of State likely has the job for life, if he wants it. Because state legislators don’t even want their name associated with a bill that would limit MHC’s authority or move it out of the Secretary of State’s office into some part of the administration managed by our actual Governor. Because developers fear retribution from the MHC.

Is the likely failure of the Meditech project going to the catalyst for real change at MHC? One can only hope. It’s time for the legislature, the administration, municipalities, and the private sector collectively to rise up and say "I'M AS MAD AS H___, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"

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

Yesterday, the SJC issued its eagerly awaited decision in Ten Persons of the Commonwealth v. Fellsway Development. I think that the SJC probably got it right. It says something about MEPA jurisprudence, however, that the decision is good for neither citizen plaintiffs nor for developers. I’d suggest that the legislature go back to the drawing board, but it won’t happen and, if it did, I wouldn’t trust the legislature to get it right.

Fellsway Development involves an proposed development within the Middlesex Fells Reservation. After running into certain obstacles, the developers reconfigured their project to avoid the need for any permits and thus any MEPA review. To do so, they eliminated any roadway changes that would have required approval from the Department of Conservation and Recreation. DCR initially concluded that it still had to perform some roadway changes itself in order to mitigate adverse traffic impacts. EEA, in turn, concluded that such changes by DCR would constitute financial assistance to the project, which would bring it back into the MEPA universe.

Fellsway Development had a creative solution to that determination. It entered into an MOU with DCR pursuant to which DCR would do the work, so the project would not require a permit, but Fellsway Development would pay for the work, so that it would not be receiving any financial assistance. EEA blessed the deal with an advisory opinion concluding that MEPA review would not be required.

The unhappy citizen protectors of the Reservation were not so pleased. They sued, arguing that the advisory opinion was wrong, and that the MOU constituted both a form of permit and that it constituted improper “segregation” of the project, because, whatever Fellsway Development said, the roadway improvements were really a necessary part of the project.

Following its decision in Cummings v. Secretary of Environmental Affairs, the SJC concluded that the EEA Secretary is not subject to suit under Chapter 214, § 7A, because he cannot cause “damage to the environment” by making a flawed ruling under MEPA. This decision is almost certainly right under Cummings, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not nuts. In traditional administrative law terms, this case – and all MEPA cases – are about whether the Secretary’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. How is it that our case law has thus determined that the Secretary is not a proper party to the case?

The SJC also handed one victory to developers, by making clear that Chapter 231A, the declaratory judgment statute, does not provide standing to citizen plaintiffs. The court reiterated that:

We discern nothing in MEPA’s language, purpose, or administrative scheme, however, to suggest a legislative intent to confer standing on residents who bring suit alleging a generalized harm to nearby property.

Unfortunately, this was largely a pyrrhic victory for the developers, because the SJC concluded that the citizens had stated a claim under Chapter 214 7A, adequately alleging that DCR and Fellsway Development had violated MEPA by improperly segmenting the project. In a backhanded compliment, the SJC stated that “we do not suggest that the Secretary’s opinion [that no MEPA review was required] is unpersuasive.” Instead, the Court just fell back on the generous pleading requirements of Rule 12. While giving a nod to recent decisions imposing more rigorous pleading requirements – “We look beyond the conclusory allegations of the complaint” – the SJC nonetheless concluded that “plaintiffs have pleaded facts sufficient to support a claim that the DCR and the developers delayed specific roadway alterations, which might otherwise require a permit, in order to ‘phase or segment a Project to evade, defer or curtail MEPA review.’”

What’s the bottom line? 

1.                   The Secretary still will not be a party to cases asserting his/her MEPA decisions were wrong.

2.                   Developers remain at risk of having projects delayed because courts bend over backwards to give those challenging MEPA or permitting decisions their day in court.

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

In what might not be an overstatement, Seth has described Massachusetts' Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA), as "the future of everything".  If so, welcome to the future of the future of everything.  The GWSA requires the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) to set a 2020 goal for state-wide reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, and, before January 1, 2011, to create a plan outlining how to get there.  Just in time, EEA yesterday released the Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020, which sets the 2020 emissions goal at 25% below 1990 levels (the maximum reductions authorized by the GWSA) and outlines how the Commonwealth will comply with that limit. 

The 2020 Plan announces a portfolio of policies in five categories – buildings, electricity, transportation, non-energy emissions, and cross-cutting policies (essentially agency procedures that do not fit into the other categories) – representing the suite of policies that the Patrick-Murray administration is committed to pursuing over the next four years, to work toward the 2020 emissions limit.  Together, the policies could result in as much as a 33% reduction of greenhouse gases below 1990 levels, and set the groundwork for the 80% reductions required by 2050 under the GWSA.  EEA also predicts that these policies will reduce Massachusetts’ reliance on imports of energy and fuels, and create or maintain 42,000 to 48,000 jobs in Massachusetts in 2020.

For a summary of specific points included in the 2020 Plan, keep reading after the jump.
 

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

Stop the presses: According to the Daily Environment Report, EPA’s director of the Office of Federal Activities, Susan Bromm, has acknowledged that concerns about climate change and environmental justice are “contributing to the size, cost, and time-consuming nature of environmental impact statements….” Nonetheless, Ms. Bromm apparently asserted that these "analyses do not have to be overwhelming,” and she blamed, at least in part, agencies which “overreact to the fear of litigation.”

Not surprisingly, a speaker on the same panel from DOT felt otherwise. According to Helen Serassio, an attorney at DOT:

We’ve gotten to the point where they’re kind of out of control.

Ya’ think?

The notion that agencies are overdoing environmental reviews under NEPA because they are unreasonably concerned with potential litigation would strike many as absurd. It’s so easy for a judge, who doesn’t want to be the one who approved a nuclear plant that later has some kind of disaster, to say that the EIS wasn’t sufficiently thorough. For any worst case analysis, there’s always something worse, and for any nervous judge, it’s just too easy to ask for that additional analysis.

What’s lost from the discussion is any perspective, any sense that compliance with NEPA costs money and that delay of important projects imposes its own set of costs. I’m a supporter of NEPA. The requirement to assess environmental consequences of federal decisions certainly improves those decisions. However, those reviews do come with costs attached and, from where I sit, the judicial thumb is firmly on the side of more review at this point, without regard to any kind of cost-benefit analysis. As Ms. Serassio said:

We’ve gotten to the point where they’re kind of out of control.

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

Those who operate industrial facilities or do development in Massachusetts often know far more than they would like about Chapter 214, § 7A, the environmental citizens’ suit provision of the Massachusetts General Laws. Chapter 214, § 7A, eliminates plaintiffs’ usual obligation to demonstrate standing and simply gives 10 citizens the right to sue to prevent or eliminate “damage to the environment.” The damage does have to constitute a violation of a statute, regulation, ordinance, or by-law, the major purpose of which is to prevent damage to the environment.

Chapter 214, § 7A, does not contain any statute of limitations. Does this mean that ten persons can sue any time, even if the conduct complained of is allowed under a permit and the permit was issued long ago, as long as the plaintiff alleges that the permit should not have been issued and the conduct in fact violates a statute or regulation? Thankfully, Judge Locke of the Superior Court recently answered that question, posed in EarthSource v. Burt, with an emphatic “No.”

Full disclosure time – this firm (including yours truly) represents Covanta, the private defendant, in EarthSource v. Burt.

Earthsource v. Burt deals with efforts by Covanta, which operates four municipal waste combustors in Massachusetts, to initiate a process at its SEMASS combustor in which it would take what are known as fats, oils, and grease (or FOGs) from restaurants, separate the FOGs from the associated wastewater, recycle the wastewater, and combust the FOGs at the SEMASS facility. EarthSource is a competitor of Covanta in the FOGs processing business. It and some citizens (many, if not all, of them affiliated with EarthSource or related entities) brought suit against MassDEP and Covanta, not just to stop the FOG project at SEMASS, but alleging wholesale violations by Covanta at all of its Massachusetts facilities. Routinely, the complaint alleged that DEP misinterpreted its own regulations, should not have issued the permits, and that the permits were void “ab initio.” 

Covanta and DEP both moved to dismiss those counts that involved claims related to permits issued outside the appeal period provided in either the applicable substantive statute or in the Massachusetts Administrative Procedure Act, ch. 30A, § 14. EarthSource argued that the APA does not limit the time in which suits can be brought under Chapter 214, § 7A. Judge Locke concluded otherwise, noting that:

a contrary rule would be disruptive to the permitting agencies and that G.L. c. 214, § 7A should not become a means to disturb otherwise settled permits whenever a group of plaintiffs chooses to file suit sometime in the future.

Truer words were never spoken. Going forward, the rule for persons who don’t like permits is going to be “speak now or forever hold your peace.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An updated list of mitigation measures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.         EEA approves an EIR

2.         DEP issues sewer connection permit

3.         Highway Department issues traffic approvals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 2000, 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

In December, I posted about the decision in Canton v. Paiewonsky, in which Judge Fabricant held that a party seeking to challenge the certificate of the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs approving an Environmental Impact Report must do so within 30 days of issuance of the first permit for a project – even if the plaintiff’s concerns about the project are totally unrelated to that permit and the plaintiff would not be harmed by issuance of the permit. As before, I’ll provide the disclaimer that this firm represents the plaintiff in the Canton case.

That acknowledgment aside, it is difficult to read today’s Appeals Court opinion in Hertz v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs as saying anything other than that Judge Fabricant got it wrong. Hertz is technically not even a decision about MEPA. The plaintiffs in Hertz challenged an amendment to a municipal harbor plan. The Appeals Court ruled that they did not have standing, notwithstanding that they abutted the property that was the subject of the amendment to the plan, because they did not suffer a particularized harm that was protected by the municipal harbor plan process.

What is most interesting about the decision in Hertz is that, even though it is not a MEPA case, the Court’s analysis focused on the Supreme Judicial Court decision in Enos v. Secretary of Environmental Affairs – which is a MEPA decision and which is the case on which the Town of Canton relied for the argument its suit was timely. Reading the opinion in Hertz together with Enos, the conclusion seems clear that, had Canton sued to challenge the adequacy of the EIR upon issuance of the first permit issued to the project, Canton’s inability to allege that the issuance of the permit would cause it to suffer particularized harm would have meant that the suit would have been dismissed for lack of standing. That being the case, the statute of limitations cannot begin to run on issuance of the first permit; the statute of limitations has to begin to run on issuance of the permit about which the plaintiff is complaining, because only then has the plaintiff suffered a harm sufficient to provide it with standing to sue.

We’ll see what the SJC does with the appeal in Canton, but it still seems here that the better reading of the MEPA statute is that the statute of limitations for a suit challenging a certificate on an EIR must begin to run when the permit that is the subject of the plaintiff’s concern is issued, rather than when the first permit is issued, regardless of whether the plaintiff has any concerns about that first permit.

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

It looks as though Massachusetts is going to at least try to avoid having lengthy environmental reviews create obstacles to spending its share of the federal stimulus package. A draft report prepared by the Commonwealth’s Permitting Task Force makes several recommendations which, if implemented, would indeed help to ensure that the money can get out the door and the shovels in the ground. Highlights include:

·                     Allowing projects to proceed, at their own risk, during permit appeals.

·                     Providing that appeals related to any stimulus projects would be heard in the permit session of the Land Court.

·                     Exempting stimulus projects from federal review. This echoes a suggestion previously made by Governor Schwarzenegger and by at least one Republican Senator. The Senate has already rejected it. As described in the Task Force report, the exemption would be limited to projects where the only basis for federal review is federal funding. There would be no general exemption from federal permitting requirements. Unlike Governor Schwarzenegger, the Task Force is not recommending that MEPA, the state environmental review statute, be waived for stimulus projects.

·                     Efforts to bring the Massachusetts Historic Commission to the table – MHC declined to participate in the Permitting Task Force

·                     Creation of permits by rule for certain types of projects in order to avoid delays resulting from individual permit applications/reviews

Time will tell whether the Commonwealth adopts any or all of these recommendations. This is only a draft report at this point. Time will also tell regarding the stimulus effort itself and efforts in Congress to smooth out the environmental review process. 

In any case, these common-sense recommendations could only help

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

A recent Superior Court decision may significantly affect how appeals are conducted in MEPA cases. In Canton v. Paiewonsky, Judge Fabricant ruled that Canton’s challenge to the MEPA certificate for the Westwood Station project was filed too late, because it was not filed within 30 days of the issuance of the first permit issued to the project, even though the first permit had nothing to do with the basis for Canton’s challenge to the MEPA certificate.

First, a bit of disclosure: this firm represents the Town of Canton in this case. Nonetheless, I truly believe that, unless I were representing Westwood Station, I would think that this decision is plainly wrong and will have several adverse consequences, even if we had no connection to the case.

The basis for the decision is the language in the MEPA statute, which provides that an action to challenge a MEPA certificate “shall commence no later than thirty days following the first issuance of a permit or grant of financial assistance by an agency.” The court concluded that this language is plain on its face – end of inquiry.

Canton made two arguments.  The Court gave them both short shrift. Canton noted that the first permit, a beneficial use determination, or BUD, by MassDEP, was not the subject of public notice, so the limitations period almost certainly would run before any member of the public were aware that it had even started. The court’s solution was simple, if totally unrealistic and impractical – “properly timed public records requests.”

Canton’s second argument was that it had no basis to sue on issuance of the BUD, because it had no concerns about the BUD, which was irrelevant to Canton’s claims that the MEPA certificate was flawed. In other words, Canton suffered no injury from issuance of the BUD, so it had no standing to sue. Canton’s concerns were largely about traffic issues. The Court largely ignored the case law cited by Canton, on the ground that those cases did not address the statute of limitations issue explicitly.

Interestingly, the Highway Department did not join in Westwood Station’s motion to dismiss, perhaps because the Department realized that, outside the four corners of this case, the decision does no one any good. First, with respect to the notice issue, resource-constrained state permitting agencies will certainly have to respond to many more public records requests. As a practical matter, even with more requests, it will be impossible for interested parties to know about all the approvals issued to development projects.

Even developers, aside from Westwood Station, will not benefit from this decision, because the result will be to force potential challengers into court early, increasing transaction costs and potentially making amicable resolution of development challenges more difficult. The court’s willingness to ignore the real ripeness issue will require project proponents to bring suit on issuance of the first approval, even if negotiations are still proceeding on the approval that really matters.

Sometimes a plain reading is not quite as plain as a judge thinks it is.

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

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

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

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

Let the fun begin.

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