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

Yesterday, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management issued a notice of availability for the Environmental Assessment it prepared in connection with the issuance of leases for wind energy development off the coast of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. The EA includes a Finding of No Significant Impact, or FONSI. In other words, BOEM concluded that the issuance of leases does not require a full blown Environmental Impact Report. 

The EA also addresses the individual site assessment plans, or SAPs, that will have to be performed by each leaseholder. While BOEM retains the flexibility to determine whether the implementation of the SAPs is covered by the EA, there is certainly the suggestion that SAPs may be not require separate NEPA analysis.

The FONSI is of course not a full green light for wind development off the Mid-Atlantic coast. Once BOEM starts awarding leases, each lease-holder would ultimately have to prepare a Construction and Operations Plan, which would be subject to NEPA review and it would be quite surprising if individual wind projects were not obligated to prepare full EISs before proceeding to construction. 

Even so, establishing this process, and obviating the need for EISs prior to issuing leases and performing at least some SAPs, can only be helpful in getting siting of wind energy in this area off the ground.

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

According to E&E News, Lisa Jackson said Friday that public pressure, not EPA regulation, will clean up fracking. 

Fracking fluids will get greener, water use will get down, all because the industry, quite frankly, will do it, must do it, and will feel the public pressure -- not the EPA pressure -- to do this in a responsible way.

Does she really mean it? Notwithstanding current pronouncements by the GOP Presidential candidates, neoclassical economics has a clear role for government regulation. If economic activity – such as fracking – imposes costs on society that are not internalized to the company doing the fracking, then regulation is appropriate. I think that fracking is of net benefit to society, but it certainly appears to impose at least some externalities that have not to date been internalized to the drilling companies. Thus, government regulation seems to be warranted – and logic tells us that those externalities will not be accounted for in the absence of regulation.

If Lisa Jackson believes that fracking’s externalities will be eliminated by public pressure, that would truly represent a sea change in the government’s view of how environmental problems should be solved. If public pressure is enough to clean fracking, then why wouldn’t public pressure be enough to clean toxics from utility air emissions?  What distinguishes fracking from all of EPA's regulatory programs? Why do we need EPA at all?

Perhaps the GOP candidates have it right.

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

As readers of this blog know, the impact of EPA air rules, including in particular the Utility MACT rule, on the reliability of the nation’s electric grid has been the subject of much speculation. Last week, the Congressional Research Service weighed in, with the exciting headline: EPA’s Utility MACT: Will the Lights Go Out?” Of course, notwithstanding the sexy title, the CRS conclusion can be summarized pretty simply: the MACT rule will not cause the lights to go out. Money quote:

although the rule may lead to the retirement or derating of some facilities, almost all of the capacity reductions will occur in areas that have substantial reserve margins. Two areas that may have difficulty meeting reserve margins, Texas and New England, will experience few plant retirements and deratings, according to industry data. Furthermore, to address the reliability concerns expressed by industry, the final rule includes provisions aimed at providing additional time for compliance if it is needed to install pollution controls or add new capacity to ensure reliability in specific areas. As a result, it is unlikely that electric reliability will be harmed by the rule.

Absent some surprises, I’m done with the subject. Let me know if the lights go out.

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

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

Just in case you are not sated with coverage about the Supreme Court argument in Sackett and the potential implications if EPA loses, I thought I would note that I did a brief (8 minutes) interview with LexBlog Network about the issues it presents. You can see it here. 

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

Last Friday, noting a story about the extent to which concerns about sea level rise from climate change might affect development in East Boston, I wondered whether battles over whether and how to adapt to climate change might be moving from the realm of the hypothetical to the realm of the real. Climate Wire has now begun a series of stories on how cities are planning for climate change. This week, there have been stories about Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and Hallandale Beach, Florida. 

The long-term picture in these cities is no prettier than that of East Boston. The specifics don’t matter so much as the scope, though there are some similarities. In Portsmouth, one concern is that the causeway leading to New Castle will be submerged. In New Hallandale, a recent analysis indicated that 893 miles of roads from Miami to Palm Beach will be under water at high tide if sea level rises by three feet. In Portsmouth, there is concern about what will happen to sewers containing combined storm and sewage flows – now that’s a pretty picture – while in Hallandale Beach, the concern is that encroaching salt water will impact current fresh water supplies. 

The real question is when to start planning, and how. How much planning should be focused on changing standards for new development and how much on protecting existing infrastructure? Of course, as an alternative, there’s always the approach of one of my favorites, Graham Parker, in his song Stick to the Plan.

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

I am generally loath to speculate about what the Supreme Court will do based on oral argument, but the overwhelming reaction to the oral argument in Sackett v. EPA was that EPA is going to lose. What would a loss mean? In simplest terms, EPA would no longer be able to issue enforcement orders under the Clean Water Act without those orders being subject to judicial review. Such a decision would undeniably be significant. Everyone practicing in this area knows how coercive EPA enforcement orders can be. A person who thinks that he is not liable or that the order is inappropriate, and faced with having to violate the order and wait for EPA to bring an enforcement action to obtain judicial review, is truly between a rock and a hard place – or perhaps Scylla and Charybdis (I’m not sure which, but it’s not good, either way). The opportunity for preenforcement review would eliminate much of EPA’s coercive power.

The big question is whether a decision against EPA would be so broad as to make it clear that EPA’s order authority under other statutes, such as CERCLA, would be similarly affected. Here, speculation really is difficult, because the Supreme Court could invalidate EPA’s CWA authority several different ways, with differing impacts on other statutes. Readers who want to explore the issue in more depth than a blog post can review an article I did in the ABA Superfund and Natural Resource Damages Litigation Committee Newsletter.

As long as I am speculating, I’m going to go out on limb and predict that the Court’s decision will not be easily limited to the CWA. I think EPA’s order authority is in trouble across the board.

The next big question is when lower courts are going to actually start paying attention to what the Supreme Court says about environmental cases. I’m tired of this pattern. A series of cases are decided by lower courts, almost universally in EPA’s favor. Indeed, one of the striking things about Sackett is that the Supreme Court took the case without a circuit court split – EPA had won before every circuit court that had reached the question. The Supreme Court applies principles that are broadly accepted outside the environmental arena, but which for reasons unknown to everyone but the lower court judges have been thought inapplicable to environmental cases, and EPA loses. The next several years are spent with EPA, DOJ, and the lower courts merrily constructing some new edifice which allows EPA to continue to win – until the Supreme Court takes another case and says “No, we really meant it.”

There is a lesson here for lower courts, if they would but listen. Environmental cases are not sui generis. EPA does not necessarily win just because it is protecting the environment. General principles of corporate, administrative, and constitutional law apply. Under this framework, EPA will still win most of the time. That’s the nature of administrative law. Expert agencies receive a lot of deference from the courts in interpreting their organic statutes and applying their expertise. But they don’t win all the time, and they don’t win just because they are EPA.

Rant over. Let’s see what the Supremes actually do.

• 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

The decision yesterday in United States v. Minnkota Power Cooperative serves as a useful reminder regarding how important the burden of proof is in review of agency decisions. The case started in 2006, as part of DOJ’s NSR enforcement initiative, when the United States and North Dakota brought suit against Minnkota’s Milton R. Young Station. The parties settled and a consent decree was entered. Apparently, the parties knew at the time of the settlement that there would be a dispute regarding what would constitute BACT for NO_x control and they thus agreed to defer the issue; the consent decree simply provided that the North Dakota Department of Health would determine BACT.

It took the DOH four years to do so, but, in November 2010, the DOH concluded that selective non-catalytic reduction, or SNCR, constitutes BACT for the MRY facility, which has unusual technology involving cyclone-fired boilers combusting North Dakota lignite, rather than bituminous or sub-bituminous coal. EPA wanted SCR identified as BACT and pursued dispute resolution under the consent decree to get it. 

Unfortunately for EPA, the decree provided that the determination by North Dakota would be binding unless EPA “demonstrates that it is not supported by the state administrative record and not reasonable in light of applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.” As the court noted, the consent decree language was not unique; it “mirrors the standard of review” for challenges to state BACT determinations even outside the consent decree context.

The crux of the case was whether cyclone fired boilers combusting North Dakota lignite were sufficiently like other coal-fired boilers that determinations for such boilers that SCRs constitute BACT should essentially be binding here. The North Dakota DOH compiled an extensive record demonstrating that such other coal-fired facilities are not sufficiently like the MRY facility, and the court deferred to DOH’s judgment, based on the record.

Perhaps the most telling evidence was that DOJ engaged an expert consultant, which issued an request for proposals to install SCR at the MRY facility. DOJ in fact obtained two proposals with performance guarantees. The availability of such guarantees is extremely probative of whether a technology constitutes BACT. However, DOJ’s consultant failed to provide in its RFP sufficient detail regarding the specific characteristics of the MRY facility – and when the companies responding to the RFP learned the details, they withdrew the guarantees, almost certainly leaving EPA and DOJ in a worse position than if they had never gone through the RFP process. One might also infer that the court thought that DOJ was trying to pull a fast one, which certainly did not help.

Yesterday’s Cape Wind decision, together with this case, even though involving totally different statutory and regulatory regimes, provide a useful joint reminder of the importance of building the record in administrative cases.

As to this case, would the outcome have been different if EPA had made the BACT decision? Would a decision to impose SCR as BACT have been upheld if the burden were on the person challenging that decision? We’ll never know, but I could see it happening. Burdens do matter.

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

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court today affirmed the decision by the Department of Public Utilities to approve the power purchase agreement, or PPA, between Cape Wind and National Grid. (Full disclosure: Foley Hoag represented the Department of Energy Resources in support of the contract before the DPU.) The decision doesn’t mean that Cape Wind will now get built. Given the (one hopes) temporary problems with the federal loan guarantee program and Cape Wind’s failure thus far to sell the rest of the power from the project, the SJC decision is more of a necessary than sufficient condition to construction.

On the merits, the decision is pretty much a standard nuts-and-bolts review concerning whether there was substantial evidence to support DPU’s decision. The SJC made frequent reference to the deference given both to DPU’s application of its expertise and to its interpretation of statutes it is charged with implementing. 

Going forward, the most significant aspect of the decision is probably the SJC’s finding that, in the absence of a statutory definition of the term “cost-effective,” the DPU was within its authority in in considering

All costs and benefits associated with [the PPA], including the non-price benefits that are difficult to quantify, and including costs and benefits of complying with existing and reasonably anticipated future federal and state environmental requirements.

Similarly, the SJC agreed with the DPU that analysis regarding whether the contract is in the public interest need not be limited to whether lower-priced alternatives exist. The SJC found that there was substantial evidence in the record supporting the DPU’s conclusion that Cape Wind would provide “significant and special advantages by virtue of its location near an area that uses high levels of electricity and the advanced state of the permitting process for the facility.” 

In short, the decision not only affirms the DPU’s decision here, but makes clear that, so long as an appropriate record is compiled, DPU is going to have significant discretion with respect to similar projects going forward.

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

On Wednesday, EPA promulgated the final Utility MACT rule. I doubt that anyone reading this blog isn’t already aware of the big news.

As seems frequently to be the case with EPA rules, this one, weighing in at 2.4MB and 1,117 pages, cannot easily be summarized here. In fact, the rule is so complicated – and controversial – that EPA had to generate four separate fact sheets to summarize the rule and its impacts: (1) Costs and Benefits (or, as EPA carefully puts it, “Benefits and Costs”); (2) Summary of the Rule; (3) Clean Air and Reliable Electricity (I wonder why EPA thought this one necessary?); and (4) Adjustments from Proposal to Final.

We live in a complex world, so there is not much use in complaining about how overwhelming this rule is, and about the problems inherent in a system in which rules with costs of approximately $10B annually and benefits ranging from $37B to $90B annually are this complicated and are probably truly understood by a very small number of people. As I tell my Libertarian friends, even Jefferson wouldn’t be a Jeffersonian today. Nonetheless, it is troubling.

The issues worth noting in a blog post are probably the changes from the proposal. Significant changes include:

·         Use of filterable PM for the particulate emissions limit, rather than total PM (which would include condensables).

·         Use of work practice standards, rather than emission limits, during start-up and shut-down. This is an important change, which will make life much easier for regulated units.

·         Greater flexibility in facility-wide averaging.

Reliability has obviously been the big issue for EPA. Units will generally have three years to comply. Permitting authorities may grant a 4^th year, if necessary, and EPA has said that they expect the extra year to be “broadly available.” EPA has also provided a mechanism for “units that are shown to be critical for reliability to obtain” a 5^th year to comply – though EPA has said that it does not expect many units to require or qualify for the 5^th year.

My predictions on the rule’s fate and impact?

·         I’ll be stunned if the rule does not survive judicial review. Of course, in an 1,117 page rule, there may be some obscure provision that is struck down, but the basic provisions will be upheld.

·         The sky will not fall. Significant numbers of jobs will not be lost, and the increase in electricity prices will be smaller than predicted. Since I whack EPA often enough, I’ll defend it here – to a limited extent. I don’t think that there has been a single big rule ever promulgated by EPA where the implementation costs haven’t been less than expected. That’s been true for one simple reason. When industry has clear rules to follow (even if they are not the cost-effective rules I would prefer), industrial innovation works to bring down compliance costs in ways that were not imagined, either by EPA or industry, when the rule was promulgated.

·         Of course, if there is a Republican President and a Republican Congress, all bets are off. Of course, when Mitt Romney was Governor of Massachusetts, he supported regulations by MassDEP that were essentially a state version of the Utility MACT rule, notwithstanding his criticism today of EPA for wanting to promulgate job-killing regulations. Of course, Mitt Romney has been known to change his mind. Of course,… oh, never mind. 

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

Last week, I noted that the D.C. Court of Appeals had found that the National Association of Home Builders did not have standing to challenge a determination by EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers that two reaches of the Santa Cruz River are traditional navigable waters. On Friday, in National Association of Home Builders v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, the NAHB lost yet another standing battle.

This time, the NAHB was challenging the Corps’ nationwide permit, NWP-46, allowing discharges of dredge and fill material into certain upland ditches. The District Court had found that the NAHB did have standing, but ruled against NAHB on the merits. The Court of Appeals didn’t even let them get that far, once more barring the courthouse doors.

Aside from the NAHB’s bad luck in losing in the court of appeals twice in one week, what’s news here? 

The news is that, once again, the Court has provided useful guidance regarding what regulated entities – or their trade groups – must allege to establish standing in these types of cases. The NAHB had asserted that NWP-46 imposes costs on its members because it is ambiguous and leaves members uncertain when they are in fact subject to CWA jurisdiction for filling ditches. Unfortunately for the NAHB, the Court concluded that the Corps has been asserting jurisdiction over upland ditches for years. Moreover, the Court pointed to an acknowledgement by the NAHB VP for Legal Affairs that the Corps had “consistently suggested that at least some upland ditches were subject to CWA jurisdiction.”

In short, the Court concluded that the NAHB’s injury was not traceable to the permit, but was instead traceable to the Corps’ underlying assertion of jurisdiction, which was not asserted for the first time in NWP-46. Indeed, as the Court noted, because the Corps had previously asserted jurisdiction over upland ditches, NWP-46 benefited NAHB members, by providing them a way to comply with the CWA that is less costly than the individual permit process.

As the two NAHB decisions make clear, a trade group asserting standing on behalf of its members – or those members suing on their own behalf – must address the traceability and redressability prongs of the standing requirement with particularity, and must establish both that the specific regulatory action being challenged is the direct cause of their injury and that vacating the agency action will redress that injury.

I’m sure that the third time will be a charm for the NAHB. 

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

Those following stormwater issues know that EPA is overdue to promulgate a proposed rule for stormwater controls at post-construction sites. The rule has been extremely controversial, with groups such as the Associated General Contractors arguing that EPA has no authority to promulgate post-construction rules. EPA was originally scheduled to issue the proposed rule by September 30. When EPA couldn’t meet that deadline, it negotiated an extension until December 2 (while stating that the deadline for the final rule, November 19, 2012, would still be met). Well, it’s December 15, and no proposal has been issued.

E&E Daily has now reported that, in recent Congressional testimony, EPA Acting Assistant Administrator for Water Nancy Stoner (a law school classmate, I might add) has acknowledged the obvious and admitted that EPA is “behind schedule.” Stoner did not provide a new target for when the rule would be proposed. If I were a betting person, I’d be skeptical that there are any circumstances under which EPA could actually meet the November 19, 2012 deadline for promulgation of a final rule. 

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

Developers have cheered in recent years as the Supreme Court has tightened its standing rules. In a decision issued on Friday in National Association of Home Builders v. EPA, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia may have hoist the developers on their own petard. 

After EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers issued a determination that two reaches of the Santa Cruz River constitute “traditional navigable waters” under the Clean Water Act, the National Association of Home Builders sued. The complaint appears to have attached declarations referring to individuals who own property along tributaries of the two reaches, and who asserted that they are have applied for permits under the CWA. None of this was enough for the Court, which made four important points:

·         The NAHB itself did not have organizational standing. The Court made clear that an organization does not have standing unless it has credibly asserted that the challenged action “’perceptibly impaired’ a non-abstract interest.”

·         NAHB’s effort to assert representational standing for its members generally failed, because it contained no assertions linking this site-specific TNW determination to any broader impacts that would affect developers away from the Santa Cruz River.

·         NAHB’s effort to assert standing on behalf of owners in the vicinity of the Santa Cruz River failed because none of the declarations filed with the complaint alleged any harm specifically tied to the issuance of the TNW determination.

·         NAHB did not have “procedural standing” to challenge the agencies’ failure to provide notice and an opportunity to comment before issuing the TNW determination. Quoting from the Supreme Court decision in Summers v. Earth Island Institute, the Appeals Court stated that “deprivation of a procedural right without some concrete interest that is affected by the deprivation – a procedural right in vacuo – is insufficient to create Article III standing.” As the Court further noted, allegations of procedural violations may be relevant in assessing the redressability issue, but they cannot loosen the requirement that plaintiffs demonstrate that they have suffered a substantive injury traceable to the procedural violation.

The NABH decision appears plainly correct in light of Supreme Court standing jurisprudence. Moreover, it does not substantially narrow access to the courts. In fact, I think it provides a useful roadmap regarding the types of declarations that will be required to establish standing for developers. What it does make clear is that the courts are not simply discouraging environmental plaintiffs in their standing jurisprudence. Instead, the courts are discouraging each side equally – or at least requiring the same demonstrations from developers as well as environmentalists.

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

Yesterday, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, or NERC, released its 2011 Long-Term Reliability Assessment. The NERC report identified environmental regulations as one “of the greatest risks” to reliability. Much of the focus of the concern was on EPA’s MACT rule for hazardous air pollutants and its 316(b) rule for cooling water intake structures. While expressing uncertainty about these not-yet finalized rules, the NERC report took an extremely cautious approach, largely assuming the worst in terms of the stringency and inflexibility of these rules.

Appropriate caution? Not according to EPA.

In a letter to NERC, EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Persciasepe accused NERC of simply ignoring what EPA has said regarding the provisions of those rules and how they will be implemented. For example, with respect to the 316(b) rule, NERC assumes that the rule will require closed cycle cooling, even though EPA has explicitly said it will not require closed cycle cooling on all units and the rule will allow the cost of controls and potential impacts on reliability to be considered in determining appropriate technology. 

As Persciasepe summarized:

NERC’s draft report describes an extreme outcome that arises from a scenario where the most stringent and costly rules imaginable took effect, and no one at the federal, state, or local level took any steps to ensure the continued reliability of the grid.

Fortunately, the EPA’s analysis and several external analyses show that, where the EPA’s actual rules are accurately characterized, there is no adverse impact on capacity reserves in any region of the country. If isolated, local reliability challenges were to emerge due to individual plant retirements, the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act provide flexibility mechanisms to ensure that sources can be brought into compliance over time while maintaining reliability.

In my most recent post on this subject, I noted that a comprehensive look at the reliability issue by FERC would be helpful. While I understand NERC’s approach to err on the side of caution, I agree with EPA that NERC overdid it here. Most of the old plants at risk of retirement are not going to have to install closed cycle cooling. I wouldn’t quite describe the NERC report as Chicken Little, but I don’t think the sky is falling. I’m still waiting for a more balanced and comprehensive review – and still skeptical that such a report would attain universal credibility, even if were to deserve it.

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

There has already been significant attention devoted to whether EPA’s “train wreck” of rules affecting coal-fired power plants would affect electric system reliability. The Congressional Research Service analysis looked at the coming rules more broadly, but did touch on reliability, noting that most of the coal plants likely to be retired as a result of EPA regulations are small and inefficient, and already run infrequently. As we noted last June, the Bipartisan Research Center did focus on reliability, concluding “that scenarios in which electric system reliability is broadly affected are unlikely to occur.”

However, this work has not been enough to satisfy FERC Commissioner Philip Moeller, who recently issued a “Request for Evidence” concerning the impact of EPA’s coming rules. The request is both deep and wide-ranging. It includes 22 separate questions, not including sub-parts. The questions range from the broad -- “What evidence supports the assertion of a reliability problem?” -- to the very specific  -- "Will the loss of the system inertia that is supplied by coal plants impact the power grid in unforeseen ways? Does the topic of inertia require further study?”

In today’s polarized political climate, I’m not sure that there can be an answer to these questions that would satisfy everyone. At least inside the Beltway, decision-makers increasingly seem to know what they know, evidence be damned. Nonetheless, it can only help to have a more comprehensive analysis of the reliability issue by the government agency that has responsibility for ensuring electric system reliability.  A careful assessment by FERC seems even more necessary in light of Wednesday's story in the Daily Environment Report to the effect that EPA's draft MACT rule contained an acknowledgement of reliability concerns when it was sent to the White House for review in February, but that the reliability discussion was edited out before EPA signed and issued the proposed rule in March.

For my part, assuming that the reliability issue can be addressed, I’d rather have the train wreck than Chinese water torture. Precisely because small coal plants might shut as a result of the cumulative weight of the EPA regulations, isn’t it better for everyone that the owners of those plants know about all of the regulations at the same time, rather than have them promulgated seriatim over a number of years? Wouldn’t the owners feel foolish -- and justifiably annoyed -- having spent a bunch of money complying with the first rule to be promulgated, only to decide that the second, or third, or fourth is the straw that breaks the camel’s back? As a matter of both public and private sector planning, it has to be better for EPA to be promulgating these rules in at least the same general time frame.

• 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

It is, as the lawyers say, black letter law that the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, is a procedural statute, which provides no substantive protection to the environment. It merely requires the appropriate level of assessment of the potential environmental consequences of federal action. Whether the action should be taken is outside NEPA’s purview.

Rarely, however, has this critical limitation on NEPA’s scope been stated so plainly as in yesterday’s decision in Save Strawberry Canyon v. U.S. Department of Energy, in which Judge Alsop of the Northern District of California rejected a NEPA-based challenge to a DOE-funded laboratory at the University of California. As Judge Alsop wrote:

We must always remember that NEPA is a procedural – not a substantive – statute. Once the agency takes a hard look at the environmental consequences of the proposed action, the agency is free to destroy the environment. (My emphasis.) NEPA does not require, in making the substantive decision, that any extra weight be given to environmental preservation, sad as that sometimes is.

As an empirical matter, I’m skeptical that judges’ views on the merits of projects don’t infect their thinking regarding whether NEPA procedural requirements have been met, but the decision is nonetheless a salutary reminder of both NEPA’s purpose and its limits.

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

Yesterday, the Daily Environment Report noted the formation of the Coalition for Better Buildings, or C4BB, an alliance of environmental, business, and real estate interests intended to increase the incentives to make buildings more energy-efficient. Its members include real estate trade groups such as the Real Estate Roundtable and the Building Owners and Managers Association, as well as some heavyweight companies, such as Vornado. It also includes environmental groups such as the NRDC and companies who will look to profit from investments in building efficiency, such as Siemens and Johnson Controls.  

The C4BB’s mission is to:

• Propose policy solutions from commercial and multi-family building stakeholders to foster greater energy efficiency in the structures we own, manage, finance and service.
• Save businesses billions of dollars every year by reducing the energy used in commercial and multi-family buildings.
• Create jobs through building efficiency retrofit projects that will put the construction, manufacturing, and service sectors back to work.  

All of this is good stuff and I am always encouraged when environmental and business groups succeed in finding common ground. One obvious intersection is support for tax incentives for building efficiency. Certainly such programs are going to have a greater likelihood of success with this kind of organized support. However, given the gaping hole in federal and state budgets, it will be difficult to enact new tax programs that provide sufficient incentives to make a difference.

The C4BB web page also notes that it supports “improving benchmarking tools including the expansion and enhancement of Energy Star.” This starts to get on to much shakier territory. One form of benchmarking could conceivably be use of building rating systems, which would push buildings towards energy efficiency by giving grades to buildings, with lesser buildings getting the proverbial scarlet “I” for “Inefficient.” As I noted in a post in August, the Institute for Market Transformation – which is a member of the C4BB – has put out a study on the state of building rating systems.

While the environmental groups and the energy efficiency companies may like building rating systems, owners of old buildings may not like them so well. It will be interesting to see whether the Real Estate Roundtable will support or oppose building rating systems. It is important to remember that much of the action in this area is at the state or local level. In states such as California and Massachusetts, rating systems may look better than mandatory efficiency targets. 

In any case, since buildings make up more than a third of energy use, and since some states still are pursuing hard targets for energy usage reductions, the issue of how to increase the energy efficiency of buildings is not going to go away.

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

Earlier this week, the Massachusetts DEP issued a package of regulatory reforms. While the focus of the package was on finding ways for MassDEP to implement its mission with fewer resources, a number of the reforms are specifically targeted at facilitating the development of renewable energy. If you want to see more about that angle, you can take a look at our client alert about the reforms.

On the non-energy side, my personal favorite is MassDEP’s expressed willingness to review the role of its hazard ranking system in the state Superfund, or Chapter 21E, program. Given the way the 21E program now operates, the HRS has outlived its usefulness and could be eliminated completely without any adverse impacts to human health or the environment.

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

As part of its efforts to control the impact of mountaintop removal mining, EPA has implemented a number of changes – both procedural and substantive – into how § 404 permit applications for such activities will be reviewed. None of these changes have gone through notice and comment rulemaking. As we previously noted, Judge Reggie Walton already expressed skepticism about EPA’s mountaintop removal guidance. Last week, in the latest decision in National Mining Association v. Jackson, Judge Walton shot down EPA’s “Enhanced Coordination Process”, or ECP, for reviews of section 404 permit applications.

Although EPA described the modifications as the types of procedural changes that are within agencies’ inherent authority, Judge Walton was having none of it. He concluded that EPA’s authority under the CWA is subject to certain unambiguous limitations. 

The statutory language explicitly establishes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Corps, as the permitting authority, which strike the Court as an express limitation. … The statute is therefore not ambiguous…. Thus, if a responsibility involving the permitting process has not been delegated to the EPA by Congress, that function is vested in the Corps as the permitting authority.

Under the Multi—Criteria Resource Assessment, or MCIR [don’t ask me why it’s “MCIR” and not “MCRA”], EPA, not the Corps, initially applies § 404(b) guidelines, and EPA directs the Corps how to process mountaintop removal § 404 permit applications.  To Judge Walton, these changes exceed EPA’s statutory authority under the CWA.

Judge Walton also concluded that the ECP, including the MCIR violated EPA’s obligation to provide notice and an opportunity to comment on the change in rules that the ECP represents. For those of you who are not APA geeks, the APA exempts from the obligation to provide notice and comment “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” While the ECP sounds procedural – after all, the word “process” is in the label – Judge Walton concluded that the rules were substantive and required notice and comment under the APA. To Judge Walton,

The fact that the creation of the MCIR Assessment removed the task of applying the 404(b)(1) guidelines to pending permits from the Corps and bestowed it upon the EPA signifies a substantive, rather than a procedural, change to the permitting framework. … [I]t is apparent that the MCIR Assessment and the EC Process “effectively amend” the Section 404 permitting process by conferring additional reviewing authority on the EPA – authority that the statute reserves for the Corps. American Mining therefore compels a finding that the MCIR Assessment and the EC Process are legislative rules. 

Another day, another defeat for EPA. The APA lives.

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

EPA may have had problems in court in recent years defending its regulations, but it has generally fared much better in its enforcement cases. Earlier this week, however, EPA suffered what will be, if it is affirmed, a devastating defeat in its PSD/NSR enforcement initiative. In United States v. EME Homer City Generation, Judge Terrence McVerry concluded that the government could get no relief against either the former owners of the facility or the current owners or operator. No penalties. No injunctive relief. No relief under state law. Nothing. Nada.

The facts here were typical of NSR enforcement cases. The facility, in Homer City, Pennsylvania, had implemented a number of projects from 1991 through 1996 which, EPA alleged, required PSD permits. No permits were sought. The owners at the time of the changes sold the plant in 1999. It was sold again in 2001 and is currently operated by one entity and owned by a group of LLCs. 

The court’s analysis was thorough, yet straightforward. According to the court, PSD requirements are one-time, pre-construction requirements. With respect to civil penalties, the United States acknowledged that the five-year statute of limitations precluded claims against the former owners. The court gave the claim against the current owners and operator short shrift. The court concluded that

The alleged PSD violations constitute singular, separate failures by the Former Owners to obtain pre-construction permits, rather than ongoing failures to comply with whatever hyupothetical conditions might have been imposed during the PSD permittingprocess. Thus, the United States was required to file suit to recover civil penalties for an alleged PSD program violation within five years of the construction project.

The big news from the decision is the court’s refusal to grant injunctive relief. While Judge McVerry described the statute as complex and ambiguous, he did not find the decision before him difficult. With respect to the current owners/operator, injunctive relief could not be imposed on them, because no remedy can be imposed without a liability finding. Because the failure to obtain PSD permits was solely attributable to the former owners, the current owners/operator are not liable for the violation. No liability; no injunction. 

The court found the question somewhat more difficult with respect to former owners. They would be liable for the original violation, if proved, and the five-year statute of limitations does not apply to injunctive relief. The court punted on whether it had authority to issue an injunction against former owners, resting its decision instead on the court’s broad discretion to grant or deny equitable relief. Describing injunctive relief as “a rare and extraordinary remedy,” the court concluded that it would be inappropriate to grant relief against former owners where, since they no longer own the facility, injunctive relief against the former owners is not necessary to prevent future violations by the former owners. 

Finally, the court concluded that the current owners/operator did not violate their Title V permit, because the permit does not include any requirement to meet BACT. The court flat-out rejected the idea that the Title V permit could somehow be found to “incorporate” BACT requirements that should have been included in the Title V permit because they should have been included in PSD permits, because the former owners should have applied for them. 

In short, the government was too late to bring claims against the former owners, and could not establish liability against the current owners. Thus, it could get no relief against anyone.

It is difficult to square this opinion with the general rule interpreting police power statutes broadly to effectuate their purposes, because this decision means that there will be some circumstances in which there is a violation with no remedy, even where the impacts of that violation are still being felt, or seen, or inhaled, today. However, the decision is careful and thoughtful and I wouldn’t automatically assume that it will be reversed on appeal. Not a good day for EPA.

• 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 year, I compared EPA’s Interim Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of an Action to Rube Goldberg – and that was only EJ Guidance on Rulemaking. Now EPA has issued its comprehensive Plan EJ 2014. I still find the resources devoted to this subject by EPA and the convolutions it is going through to analyze the issue to be stunning.

I also still think that my simple analysis from last year is not too simplistic. Here’s the way EPA’s job is supposed to work:

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.

There are two significant theoretical issues which could give rise to legitimate concerns about disparate environmental impacts. One is if, as a result of political disenfranchisement, what are known as EJ communities cannot adequately participate in the environmental regulatory process. I don’t doubt that this happens, though I’m skeptical about how often and statistics about the number of solid waste transfer stations in poor or minority communities doesn’t make the case for me. In any case, the broad issue is beyond the capability of EPA to solve and it shouldn’t try. That’s what the Civil Rights Act is for. Moreover, a significant piece of the problem is addressed just by increased disclosure and transparency that is happening anyway, through developments in the electronic, i.e., web-based, dissemination of information.

The other concern frequently raised is the one of cumulative impacts, and it receives a lot of attention in Plan EJ 2014. That one, I really don’t buy. Cumulative impacts are already addressed as appropriate in the EPA organic statutes. That’s what nonattainment with NAAQS and resulting state implementation plans are all about. If an area is in compliance with the NAAQS, that should be the answer. If they are not, everyone contributing to that exceedance gets ratcheted down. If the NAAQS is not sufficiently protective (ozone, anyone?), lower it. The same is true for the Clean Water Act. That’s what water quality criteria and the TMDL process are for. If a water body complies with WQCs, it should be considered safe. If not, dischargers into that water body get ratcheted down. 

I could continue, but I won’t. 

My final pet peeve about EJ is the continuing discussion regarding what Plan EJ 2014 calls “equitable development and place-based initiatives.” As I noted in another post on the EJ issue, EPA is, to put it lightly, somewhat optimistic when it thinks that its EJ efforts can help spur economic development in EJ communities. EJ can be used to say no to economic development in poor or minority communities, but it cannot say yes. EPA cannot make capital go where it does not want to go. 

Prudent developers work with communities. They don’t need EJ rules to tell them that local support is better than local opposition. However, ask those developers most known for working with local communities and I doubt you’d find one who thinks that EPA or state or local EJ rules or guidance help facilitate development in any way, shape, or form.

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

In an interesting decision issued today, in Zoning Board of Appeals of Holliston v. Housing Appeals Committee, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that a local zoning board of appeals cannot use vague local environmental concerns as a basis for denying a comprehensive permit under the Massachusetts affordable housing statute, Chapter 40B. As those practicing in this area know, Chapter 40B consolidates all local permitting before the zoning board of appeals. The board can deny permits based on local needs, but there is a presumption that the need for affordable housing trumps local needs if the stock of affordable housing is less than 10% of total housing in the municipality.

There is no dispute that the stock of affordable housing was less than 10% in Holliston. Nonetheless, the ZBA in Holliston denied on the project, asserting environmental concerns about existing contamination, wetlands protection, and stormwater. The essence of the case was that, as the Court noted, plans submitted to the ZBA are generally preliminary. Details get filled in later. Here, the developer basically said that it would comply with Chapter 21E and the Massachusetts Contingency Plan and obtain a condition of no significant risk, and that it would comply with the Wetlands Protection Act and stormwater requirements and subject its detailed plans to review by the local Conservation Commission and DEP at a later date. The Town said that this was not sufficient. 

Judge Kafker (a former Foley associate, I feel compelled to note) made short work of the Board’s arguments. With respect to the contamination, the Court noted that there in fact is no local by-law that even purports to regulate the scope of remedial work. Since the ZBA review is limited to local concerns, it essentially was without jurisdiction to review the remedial plans. 

With respect to wetlands and stormwater, Holliston has a local bylaw and regulations that are more stringent than the state requirements. However, as the Court noted, the Board “failed to demonstrate that the safeguards the local by-law provides to wetlands interests over and above the protections afforded by the WPA outweigh the community’s need for low or moderate income housing.” Noting that Chapter 40B “curtails” local authority, the Court provided the coup de grace:

It is not enough to simply point out a lack of compliance with local regulations or complain that the local board’s power has been taken away. The board must show that the impacts on the local wetlands outweigh the local need for affordable housing.

The notion that 40B trumps local by-laws is not new. However, this case is the most comprehensive analysis that I have seen regarding the interplay between Chapter 40B and local environmental regulations. The short answer? Local environmental bylaws and regulations do not justify a NIMBY denial of affordable housing projects.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• 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

This week, EPA filed a brief with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that, notwithstanding its fourth delay in issuing a decision on its reconsideration of the NAAQS for ozone, the court cannot and should not order EPA to issue a decision. Industry shouldn’t get too excited, however. In the same brief, EPA telegraphed pretty clearly, consistent with its 2010 proposed rule, that it remains on track to significantly decrease the ozone standard from the 0.075 ppm standard promulgated by the Bush administration in 2008.

As most readers know, the Bush standard was higher than that suggested by EPA’s own Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, or CASAC. In a parallel case, the D.C. Circuit found EPA’s fine particulate standard arbitrary and capricious, largely because it had ignored CASAC’s recommendations. Given the decision in the fine particulate case, and, presumably, the Obama administration’s own views on the appropriate standard, it is not surprising that EPA embarked on a reconsideration effort, rather than trying to defend the Bush standard.

In January 2010, EPA proposed that the standard should be in a range from 0.060 ppm to 0.070 ppm. However, notwithstanding CASAC’s views, the new standard remains hugely controversial and EPA has had difficulty in finalizing the rule. EPA missed an August 2010 deadline to publish a final rule, and then an October 2010 target, and then a December 31, 2010 target, and then a July 29, 2011 target. When EPA, after missing the most recent target, would not even give a date, but instead only informed the court and the parties that a final rule would be issued "shortly", the environmental petitioners, including the American Lung Association, asked the court to order EPA to issue the final rule.

EPA’s opposition is straightforward. First, it argues that the Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction over citizen claims that EPA is late in issuing such rules. Second, EPA claims that it has been “diligent” in its reconsideration effort and that the final rule will indeed be issued “shortly.” 

It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that EPA was, to put it mildly, overoptimistic in its reports to the court regarding how long the reconsideration process would take. They should have known better. That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Court continues to give EPA at least some more time to reach a decision. After all, the court cannot issue a standard itself. What would surprise me would be if EPA does not manage to issue the new standard sometime in the next six months or so. They’ve been boxed in by CASAC and any standard above 0.070 ppm would probably be found to be arbitrary and capricious. 

The ever-reliable internet attributes the “wheels of justice” quote to Sun Tzu. No matter how slowly it grinds, EPA is going to have to issue a rule at some point. It would be best to get it out as far in advance of the election as possible. Moving from Sun Tzu to Shakespeare, “if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly.” 

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

When EPA issued its preliminary plan in May for review of its regulations, I said that the proof would be in the pudding. Well, EPA has now issued its final plan. My review? The pudding tastes ok, but it doesn’t taste as good and it’s not as filling as it could be.

My major complaint with the preliminary plan was its failure to target the single biggest area for reform – those areas where EPA still relies on command and control regulation. Obviously, statutes dictate EPA’s approach in many cases, but not all. There is much more friendly generic language on this score in the final plan. For example, EPA now states that:

To supplement traditional compliance approaches, EPA plans to routinely structure federal regulations and permits as effectively as possible to achieve compliance, through adequate monitoring requirements, public disclosure, information and reporting mechanisms, and other structural flexibilities, including self-certification, and third-party verification.

Unfortunately, specific example of proposed changes to rely on self-certification and third-party verification are few and far between in either EPA’s “early action” or “longer term” lists of potential reforms. Why couldn’t EPA have included one simple bullet? Why couldn’t EPA simply have directed each program to review its statutory authority to shift from technology-based or other command and control approaches to performance standards and market based approaches?

It is telling that only 1 of 35 specific proposals relates to Superfund, which remains purely a command and control program – and even that item concerns only National Priorities List rules, not how cleanups are selected and overseen. I don’t see any provisions in CERCLA that would prevent EPA from revising the NCP to identify risk-based standards for different media and allow PRPs to meet those standards in whatever cost-efficient manner they can identify.

True regulatory reform is clearly not going to happen overnight. EPA’s current plan probably qualifies as a step in the right direction, but it’s not much more than a baby step.

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

Late last week, Greenwire reported that EPA is delaying its proposed construction general permit, or CGP, for stormwater. The delay is certainly a victory for the real estate industry, which has been fighting hard to delay the rule and, in particular, its numeric turbidity limit. The industry had complained about the data on which the standard was based, calculation errors by EPA, and what it views as a 10-fold underestimate of the compliance costs.

EPA denies that the delay was a political decision by the White House or OMB and stated that it needs to gather more information about existing stormwater treatment technologies before issuing the rule. 

We’ll see whether EPA gets any credit from the business community for the delay. They certainly won’t get any from environmental groups. It’s important to remember that the rule is actually the result of litigation brought by the NRDC, so EPA cannot continue to delay indefinitely or it will just find itself back in court. As is often the case, EPA is going to have a difficult time avoiding being caught between a rock and a hard place at some point on this rule.

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

It’s easy enough to complain about EPA; I’ve even been known to do it on occasion. However, in Massachusetts, we have a different problem. We let local municipalities regulate all sorts of matters in which they have no expertise.  We even delegate to municipalities the implementation of our state Wetlands Protection Act. That’s how we end up with cases such as Lippman v. Conservation Commission of Hopkinton. Lippman didn’t make any new law, but it does illustrate what havoc local boards can wreak. 

The Lippmans wanted to build a single family house on land subject to the WPA. They filed the requisite notice of intent. The Conservation Commission held several hearings. On June 16, 2008, there was a motion to close the hearing and issue an order of conditions. It failed. On June 30, there was motion to deny the order. That too failed. The chair announced that the commission was deadlocked and would not decide. On July 14, the Lippmans received a formal letter announcing the deadlock and notifying them of their appeal rights. On July 28, the commission decided to deny the order, but failed to issue any decision. 

On July 30, 2008, the Lippmans requested a superseding order of conditions from DEP, which is the appropriate course when the local commission fails to act. On September 11, the commission “purported” – the court’s word – to issue a formal denial. Notwithstanding this purported denial, DEP issued a superseding order on September 22, 2008.

Faced with the commission’s denial and DEP’s superseding order, the Lippmans’ sought a declaratory judgment that the commission action was void and the superseding order controlled. Although the Lipmman lost in Superior Court, the Appeals Court reversed:

Where a conservation commission does not issue its decision within the required twenty-one day period and the applicant appeals to the DEP, it is the DEP’s superseding order that controls; any late-issued decision of the commission is without effect.

Why does this fairly trivial case matter? For one thing, it’s worth remembering that the Lippmans sought authority to build one single-family house more than three years ago. The commission failed to act more than three years ago. Only now has a court decided in their favor. Indeed, an appeal was filed concerning the superseding order. That appeal was stayed pending the court decision, but now will have to be heard before the Lippmans can actually build.

My firm anecdotal view is that this case is emblematic of the types of results one gets from local boards. However much one may complain about EPA, its decisions are more comprehensible, more predictable, and more transparent than one often gets from local boards. 

Three or four years to get approval to build one single-family house? Cases such as this are recruitment ads for the Tea Party.

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

The fight about guidance and rules is in the news again. Yesterday, EPA finalized its guidance on Clean Water Act permitting with respect to mountaintop mining. As most of our readers know, EPA issued Interim Guidance in April 2010. In January 2011, in National Mining Association v. Jackson, Judge Reggie Walton, while denying plaintiff’s preliminary injunction, signaled that he thought that EPA’s Interim Guidance probably was a legislative rule that should have gone through notice and comment rule-making.

Judge Walton’s decision did not deter EPA, which finalized the guidance without significant changes. As the Legal Planet blog – a supporter of the guidance – noted, “the only differences between the interim guidance and this final one are cosmetic.” What are the nature of those cosmetic changes? They emphasize the flexible, non-binding nature of the guidance, hoping to fare better in the next round of judicial review than the agency did in defending the Interim Guidance. 

EPA reiterates that this guidance is guidance and not a rule. The CWA provisions and supporting regulations described in this document contain the legally and practically binding requirements. This guidance does not substitute for those provisions or regulations and is not itself a regulation. It does not impose legally or practically binding requirements on EPA, the Corps, or the regulated community, and may not apply to a particular situation depending on the circumstances. Any decisions regarding a particular permit will be based on the facts relevant to that permit and will be evaluated in accordance with the applicable statutes, regulations, and case law. Interested persons are always free to raise questions regarding the recommendations in this guidance in a particular situation. EPA will consider whether or not the recommendations or interpretations in this guidance are appropriate in each situation based on the statutes, regulations, and case law. The use of language such as “recommend,” “may,” “should,” and “can” is intended to describe agency policies and recommendations, while the use of mandatory terminology such as “must” and “required” refers to existing requirements under the CWA, its implementing regulations, and relevant case law.

The real trick about guidance is that it is not what EPA says in the document that matters; it is how EPA actually utilizes the guidance in practice. It is in some respects similar to the distinction between a facial constitutional challenge to a regulation and an “as applied” challenge. If EPA actually implements this document as a guide to its decision-making, then it is guidance. If EPA line staff implement it by rote, then it’s a rule. In other words, if it walks like a duck, it’s a duck, even if it does not talk like one.

Time will tell whether the courts believe EPA’s protestations that this really is just guidance. Time will also tell whether EPA implements this as guidance or implements it as a rule.

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

Yesterday, EPA finalized the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, or CSAPR, which was the Transport Rule, which had been the Clean Air Interstate Rule. (EPA must have decided that CSAPR results in a more mellifluous acronym.)

The rule is almost too big to describe, except in its broadest terms. EPA has provided a summary of costs and benefits, but even EPA’s summary does not really explain how the rule will be implemented.

The rough numbers at least give some idea of the scope of the rule and the problem it is addressing. EPA estimates that the rule will reduce SO₂ emissions by 73% from 2005 levels starting in 2012 and will reduce NO_x emissions by 54%. These reductions will eliminate more than 10,000 premature deaths annually, according to EPA’s analysis. Total monetized economic benefits are up to $280 billion annually. EPA estimates annual compliance costs to be only $800 million, though that does not include $1.6 billion in annual costs already being incurred to comply with CAIR. Nonetheless, EPA is going to be able to show any court reviewing this rule an extremely favorable cost-benefit analysis.

I’d be shocked if this rule doesn’t survive judicial review, assuming it is challenged. The D.C. Circuit opinion striking down CAIR pretty much told EPA what to do – it has to implement a rule that ensures that each state meets its own emissions limit. EPA has done that, allowing basically free trading within states, and allowing interstate trading – so long as each state lives within its cap. Given the requirements of the Clean Air Act, it’s hard to see how EPA isn’t required – let alone permitted – to issue at least something very like this rule.

The irony is that the Republicans in Congress who oppose all of EPA’s rules – Representative Mike Simpson (R. ID.) called EPA the “scariest agency in the federal government” – had it in their power to allow EPA to regulate in a more cost-effective manner. Three pollutant legislation that would have allowed interstate trading was on the table in 2009 and 2010. It even had some Republican support. However, now the approach seems to be that it’s better to oppose all environmental legislation, even if that includes legislation that would be unambiguously better than what’s on the books today. 

Oh, well.

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

For those of you who left early for the holiday weekend (You know who you are – and more power to you!), I thought I would note that EPA issued a final rule on Friday, deferring application of the Tailoring rule to biomass facilities for three years. The deferral responds to a petition from the National Alliance of Forest Owners. NAFO asserted that

there is near-universal recognition that CO2 emitted from combustion of fuels derived from biomass should be excluded from GHG regulations because production and combustion of such fuels do not increase atmospheric CO2 levels. 

Of course, EPA received comment suggesting that this may not uniformly be the case and that “the use of certain types of biomass as fuel could increase atmospheric CO₂ levels.” EPA’s bottom line? 

The net atmospheric impact of biogenic CO₂ emissions is complex enough that further consideration of this important issue is warranted.

EPA did not specifically mention what is known as the Manomet Report, which served as the basis for the decision by Massachusetts not to grant renewable energy credits, or RECs, for many biomass projects. Nonetheless, it remains notable that EPA made the deferral decision in order to avoid putting a major roadblock in the industry’s way, while Massachusetts refuses to call most biomass renewable – thus putting a major roadblock in the industry’s way. 

I understand federalism (I think). I don’t see RGGI and other state or regional GHG regulatory efforts as inconsistent with federal policy and they can provide some useful lessons. However, I don’t see any federalism advantage here. These policies are simply working at cross-purposes in an area where uniformity should certainly be the goal.

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

As I noted earlier this month, the Supreme Court denied GE’s certiorari petition seeking to challenge the constitutionality of EPA’s use of unilateral administrative orders issued under section 106 of CERCLA. It thus comes as something of a surprise that the Court today accepted a certiorari petition in Sackett v. EPA. The Sackets are appealing a decision by the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals holding that pre-enforcement review is not available to challenge unilateral administrative orders issued by EPA pursuant to section 319 of the Clean Water Act. Lest anyone think that this is simply the Court reining in that liberal 9^th Circuit, the 9^th Circuit decision followed the lead of all four other circuit courts that have already addressed the question.

So, not only did the Supreme Court grant cert. in a CWA case even though it denied cert. challenging a very similar provision under CERCLA, it did so without a circuit split to resolve.

CERCLA’s order provision does differ slightly from that of the CWA. CERCLA explicitly prohibits pre-enforcement review; the CWA does not. It seemed to me that, while I am firmly on the side of the challengers as to the practical import of unilateral orders, EPA’s legal authority remains fairly solid. As the Court of Appeals noted, even in the absence of a specific statutory prohibition, judicial review is prohibited as long as preclusion “is fairly discernible in the statutory scheme.” Given the distinction between orders and civil enforcement, which is separately provided for in the CWA, and that the CWA does provide for judicial review of civil penalties imposed by EPA, a fair reading of the statute would seem to preclude pre-enforcement review of orders. This conclusion is buttressed by the purpose of the order provision, which is allow EPA to move quickly in particular cases, and the legislative history, which also seems to support preclusion.

The Court’s order granting cert. identified two questions – both the statutory interpretation question and the assertion that a ban on pre-enforcement review violates the due process clause. However, the constitutional claim is precisely what the Court refused to hear in the GE case. Obviously, that is not binding precedent, but why would the Court deny cert. to GE only to grant it three weeks later to the Sacketts?

Whatever the answer, there is a lot riding on this case. Notwithstanding the denial of cert. in the GE case, if the Supreme Court allows pre-enforcement review of orders under the CWA, it will have repercussions beyond the CWA. The CAA order provision would certainly be on shaky ground and, if the Court’s opinion were predicated on constitutional concerns rather than statutory interpretation, CERCLA’s order authority would seem to fail as well.

I should be telling my clients not to get their hopes up, but it's hard not to get one's hopes up.

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

This week, in Webster v. USDA, Judge John Bailey of the Northern District of West Virginia rejected a challenge to the Environmental Impact Statement filed for a USDA flood control project. The decision is not particularly startling and does not break new ground, but it does serve as a reminder just how limited judicial review under NEPA is supposed to be – and just how often that limitation is honored only in the breach, by judges who don’t like particular projects or don’t want to be known as the judge who approved a particular project if something later goes wrong.

As Judge Bailey pointed out:

NEPA does not … impose any substantive environmental obligations upon agencies; it “merely prohibits uninformed – rather than unwise – agency action.”

Just to be clear, Judge Bailey was not off on a frolic and detour here; the quoted language is from the Supreme Court decision in Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council. Moreover, in determining whether the agency committed a reversible “clear error of judgment,” the court

must take a holistic view of the agency’s assessment; “[c]ourts may not ‘flyspeck’ an agency’s environmental analysis, looking for any deficiency, no matter how minor.”

How many federal judges have the restraint to reject a challenge to an EIS, where he/she finds the EIS thorough, but is convinced that the project is “unwise”? And how many practitioners have the experience of judges “flyspecking” a holistically sound EIS, looking for some kind of reversible error, because they had some underlying concern about the substance of the project?

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

After a relatively quiet period, there were a number of items of interest on the air/climate front this week. First, AEP announced that upcoming pollution controls would result in shutting down 6,000 megawatts of coal-fired capacity, or 25% of its coal fleet. AEP also announced that it would spend $6 billion to $8 billion in bringing the rest of its fleet into compliance.

On the flip side of this issue, the Bipartisan Policy Center issued a report concluding that compliance with the various EPA rules in the works (Clean Air Transport Rule, Utility MACT Rule, coal combustion ash rule, Clean Water Act intake structure rule, and NSPS for GHG) would not have a significant impact on electric system reliability. The quick summary is that most of the plants that will close are uncontrolled, older, smaller, plants that already don’t run much, particularly with natural gas prices low. The report acknowledges that some of these small plants are important in addressing peak loads in some areas, but concludes that concerns in those areas can be addressed with appropriate planning.

Next came news that EPA has reached agreement to delay its second round GHG NSPS proposal from July 26, 2011 to September 30, 2011 – though the final rule is still targeted for May 26, 2012. EPA has received extensive comment on this issue and my take is that there is no hidden agenda here; EPA is just trying to take those comments into account and be responsive, where possible.

Finally, former Representative Bob Inglis, whose support for action on climate change was sufficient to get him defeated by a Tea Party Candidate in the GOP primary in 2010, has announced formation of what is described as a “conservative coalition” to address climate change. Money quote:

Conservatives typically are people who try to be cognizant of risk and move to minimize risk. To be told of risk and to consciously decide to disregard it seems to be the opposite of conservative…. What I hope to do is be part of an effort that calls conservatives to return to conservatism and to turn away from the populist rejection of science.

All I can say is that I wish former Representative Inglis the best of luck in that endeavor.

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

The uncertain and often lengthy time to get permitting decisions is always near the top of the list of industry complaints. Section 165 of the Clean Air Act provides some relief by requiring certain permit decisions to be made within one year. Last week, in Avenal Power Center v. EPA, District Judge Richard Leon, in what may comfortably be described as a strongly-worded opinion, held that EPA may not circumvent the one-year limit on permit decisions by carving out from the one-year period the time spent by the Environmental Appeals Board reviewing EPA’s permit decision. 

In March 2008, Avenal Power filed an application for a PSD permit necessary to construct a new gas-fired power plant in the San Joaquin Valley in California. When EPA had not issued a decision within two years, Avenal sued. In February 2011, Gina McCarthy, head of EPA’s air office, announced that EPA would issue a permit decision by May 27, 2011. However, Judge Leon found EPA’s commitment to be “disingenuous,” because EPA's permit decision would be subject to EAB review, and EPA acknowledged that EAB review could take 6-18 months.

Judge Leon’s analysis was, in keeping with the statutory language, quite simple. Section 165 requires permit decisions within one year. EPA’s decision to provide appeals of permits to the EAB is a creature of regulation, not statute. The notion that EPA’s regulatory process could trump the statutory requirements is, to Judge Leon, “absurd.”

It is axiomatic that an act of Congress that is patently clear and unambiguous - such as this requirement in the CAA - cannot be overridden by a regulatory process created for the convenience of an Administrator, no matter how much notice and comment preceded its creation. "The rulemaking power granted to an administrative agency charged with the administration of a federal statute is not the power to make law. Rather it is the power to adopt regulations to carry into effect the will of Congress as expressed by the statute."

EPA apparently tried to persuade the court that section 165 is sufficiently ambiguous to give EPA discretion regarding whether it must squeeze the EAB process into the one-year time frame. Judge Leon’s response to what he called EPA’s “self-serving misinterpretation of Congress’s mandate”?

"Horsefeathers!"

One parochial note for my Massachusetts readers: Massachusetts DEP has recently announced that its permits – although labeled as “Final” – are not final until DEP's own internal adjudicatory hearing process has been completed. Massachusetts law has nothing comparable to Section 165 of the CAA, so MassDEP’s interpretation adds the insult of delay inherent in adjudicatory proceedings to the injury caused by the length of the normal permit process..

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

When President Obama issued Executive Order 13,563, on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, it was not obvious whether the Order was simply an attempt to protect the President’s right flank or whether the agencies would respond substantively. Yesterday, EPA released its Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulations. Initial review of the Plan suggests that EPA has taken the task seriously and has made some constructive suggestions. To me, however, they missed the elephant in the room and therefore cannot be given better than a B grade at this point.

There is a lot of good stuff in the plan, which is certainly too long to summarize here. The highlights from where I sit include the following:

• Increased use of electronic reporting. This falls in the category of “now why didn’t I think of that?” Telling point? EPA has put use of e-manifests under RCRA in the long-term action, rather than early action, category, while acknowledging that this was proposed in 2004. How hard is some of this stuff?

• Improved transparency, i.e., increased public disclosure of compliance and other regulatory information. Cynical translation? If we can provide more information to the public, citizen suits will be easier and we can do less government enforcement. Still, hard to argue with.

• Coordination of emission reduction regulations across multiple pollutants. Interestingly, EPA has put this in the early action category. Although EPA identified the pulp and paper industry specifically, this has to be thought of mainly as a longer-term project. Well worth it, however long it takes.

• Encouraging innovative technology. Who could be against it? This is probably the most important issue, precisely because it is here that the Plan is the weakest. I think that EPA has largely missed the point, because it has not correctly defined the problem. The single action EPA could take that would have the most impact on encouraging innovative technology would be to get out of the command and control business once and for all. The highest priority of this regulatory review should be for EPA to identify areas where it can move from command and control regulation to performance-based standards. A fruitful initial target? CERCLA and the NCP. EPA does not have to privatize Superfund cleanups as several states have done; that would require legislation. Even without privatization, it could simply set standards for what constitutes a significant risk and require PRPs to eliminate such risks. I promise, innovation will follow. Not only that, but EPA could eliminate a significant percentage of its existing CERCLA staff, or redirect that staff to more productive uses. 

EPA is taking comment on the proposed plan, at least through June 27, 2011. Get your comments in here. I am the eternal optimist, though the 7-year delay in implementing an e-manifest program should probably give me some pause as to how quickly EPA can really reform.

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

In an interesting decision issued late last week in Industrial Communications and Electronics v. Town of Alton, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that private citizens who had intervened to defend a local zoning limit on cell tower height could continue to do so, notwithstanding that the cell tower provider and the municipal defendant were prepared to settle the case. 

Industrial Communications sought to build a 120’ cell tower in Alton, New Hampshire. The Local zoning by-law would have limited the tower to 71’. The Town’s Zoning Board denied a variance. Industrial Communications did not appeal the denial. Instead, it sued in federal court, seeking to take advantage of the preemption provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Nearby residents, the Slades, intervened as defendants in the federal action.  

After initially defending the case, the Town negotiated a settlement with Industrial Communications that would allow a 100’ tower. The District Court concluded that, where the original defendant was no longer defending the case, the Slades had no rights themselves to continue to defend the denial of the variance. 

The Court of Appeals noted that the Slades could not compel the Town to continue to defend the denial of the zoning variance. “A government entity is free as a defendant to decline to defend or settle on the best terms it can get.” However, the Court noted, intervenors can usually continue to litigate, as long as they have Article III standing. The Slades alleged that a taller tower would impair their views and cause both economic and aesthetic harm. 

Thus, the court had to balance the rights of parties to settle a case with the rights of the intervenors to continue to litigate. To the Court, the determining factor was that the Slades

have a legal interest under state law in the protection that the zoning laws afford to their property; specifically, they could sue in state court to overturn the variance if it were granted unlawfully…. What is at issue here is not merely a private settlement … but, by virtue of the court’s adoption and entry of a consent decree, a legally operative judgment that overrides state law and the Slades’ rights under state law that would prevail unless overridden by the decree. Given that Article III requisites are established, the Slades are entitled to resist the entry of a decree that terminates their protectable rights unless a violation of the Act is proven.

While Industrial Communications alleged that the denial of the variance violated the Telecommunications Act, the District Court never made a finding to that effect – once it approved the settlement, the court thought that no such findings were necessary. The Court of Appeals therefore remanded the case, giving the plaintiff an opportunity to prove a violation and the Slades an opportunity to deny it.

Although the provisions of the Telecommunications Act may be unusual, cases of federal preemption of state and local environmental laws are not. Industrial Communications makes clear that, even where a state or municipality does not want to defend the local law or regulation, individual citizens who can establish standing may have a right to do so themselves.

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

Late last week, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) filed with the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy of the state legislature proposed final amendments to the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) regulations governing the eligibility of woody biomass facilities and fuels to qualify to earn renewable energy credits (RECs).  DOER originally issued a draft of these regulations in September 2010, and made revisions after receiving written comments and holding 2 public hearings.  In addition to the revised regulations, DOER issued a regulatory package containing two sets of guidance in the forms of Excel spreadsheets, the Guideline for the Calculation of Overall Efficiency and Lifecycle GHG Analysis and the Guideline for the Determination of Forest Derived Eligible Biomass Woody Fuel. The Joint Committee has 30 days to review the rules and submit its comments to DOER for additional review. DOER hopes to promulgate the final rules early this summer.

At a time when the EPA appears to be favoring biomass a fuel (with actions like exempting it from the tailoring rule for 3 years), Massachusetts is making it very difficult to qualify “electricity only” biomass as renewable and eligible for RECs, as the rules strongly favor combined heat and power uses.   While the proposed changes to the regulation do not ban the development of biomass facilities in Massachusetts, they do set a very high bar to qualify for renewable energy credits under the RPS – so high that many believe that large scale biomass units may not be viable absent significant technological advances. Under the regulation, the term Eligible Biomass Fuel will include things like woody pellets, agricultural waste and by-products, food or vegetative material, algae and biogases, but officially excludes Construction and Demolition Waste.

Eligible Biomass Woody Fuel, the largest subset of eligible fuels, is now limited to forest-derived residues from timber operations, limited thinnings and invasive growth; forest salvage from storms or pest infestations; non-forest derived residues from lumber mills and woodworking shops, trees removed in converting forests to agricultural, residential or commercial uses (so long as all other permits have been obtained), yard wastes, and maintenance of parks and rights of way. The final category of Eligible Biomass Woody Fuel is “dedicated energy crops” which includes wood (but not cellulosic fuel) that has been purposefully grown to produce fuel, but contains a remarkably broad restriction that the trees may not have been grown in a place that “sequestered significant amounts of carbon” such as a forest, or on land that has the potential to support crops grown for human consumption as food. 

Biomass units are required to provide to DOER in their applications a lifecycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and demonstrate emission reductions of at least 50% over 20 years compared to a new, combined-cycle natural gas generator using the most efficient commercially available technology. DOER will provide a standard analytical methodology in another set of guidance to accompany the Statement of Qualification Application. Under both the proposed regulations and Guidance #1 on GHG lifecycle analysis, facilities must account for direct emissions from production of the fuel stock and delivery to the biomass facility, as well as indirect emissions from land use changes, and temporal changes in forest carbon sequestration and emissions resulting from biomass harvests, regrowth, and avoided decomposition.

One new provision added since the September draft requires that the amount of forest-derived biomass material eligible to be removed be limited based on soil types and as set forth in Guidance #2 on Forest-Derived Fuel.  The regulation and guidance set a cap by percentage of weight of the total amount of material harvested from the site, ranging from zero (for very poor quality soils) to 40% (for highly productive soils) – the rest of the biomass harvested must be left in the forest for soil nutrient retention. To effectuate this requirement, foresters will have to develop a soil map for each harvest area and determine the maximum eligible biomass tonnage that can be removed. The September draft had set this cap at 15% across the board.

Both the September draft and this week’s proposed final rules require that biomass units meet a minimum overall efficiency rate of 40%, determined based on the biomass input heat content of the fuel, and accounting for GHG emissions associated with fuel refining and processing.  If operating at that level of efficiency, the unit will receive one-half REC for each MWh of generation. Units operating at an overall efficiency of 60% and above would receive a whole REC credit for each MWh they generate, and units between 40 and 60% would receive a proportional fraction of a REC.

Under the revised regulations, electricity generated by a unit that is used on-site (“behind-the-meter”) is included in the calculations of the unit’s overall efficiency. “Merchantable bio-products” (chemicals like additives and lubricants) created from the woody fuels at an on-site bio-refinery will also be netted out in calculating overall efficiency.  Finally, and perhaps most significantly, productive use of the large quantities of heat generated by the biomass facilities, so long as it falls within the defined term “useful thermal energy” under the regulation, will also be included in the overall efficiency calculation.  However, the revised regulation clarifies that any thermal energy used to dry or refine green woody biomass for use as a fuel will not count towards overall efficiency.  

Biomass generating units that have already secured their Statement of Qualifications will also have to demonstrate compliance with the new regulation. They must prove use of Eligible Biomass Woody Fuel by 2013, and comply with all provisions, including the requirement for overall efficiency, by 2015.

 

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

Anyone who does development knows the subtle and not-so-subtle quid pro quos that are sometimes exacted by local planning boards. In Massachusetts, a decision issued on Tuesday by the Appeals Court has emphasized that there are limits to what planning boards may require in return for approval of subdivision plans. 

In Collings v. Planning Board of Stow, the developer was seeking to build a subdivision that included a 1,300 foot street ending in a cul-de-sac (known, with more directness, simply as dead-ends when I grew up in New Jersey). The Stow by-law limits cul-de-sacs to 500 feet, but provides that waivers can be granted. The Planning Board granted the requested waiver, but made it subject to a requirement that the developer devote at least 10% of the subdivision land to open space. Moreover, the Board required that the land be offered to the Town’s Conservation Commission or a land trust.

As plaintiffs noted, Massachusetts law prohibits, as a condition of approval of a subdivision, a requirement to dedicate land to the public use “without just compensation.” The Board ignored this provision. The Land Court actually did address it, but found that a quid pro quo is acceptable. In other words, dedication of land without just compensation is ok, so long as there is consideration, i.e., the developer got a waiver he was not otherwise entitled to obtain.

Not so, said the Appeals Court. To the appeals court, waivers may only be conditioned on requirements that go to the purpose behind the underlying requirement. The purpose of the limitation on cul-de-sacs is to address public safety concerns, particularly related to access for fire fighting vehicles. Thus, the Board requirement to install sprinklers in all of the subdivision houses was reasonable. The open space requirement, on the other hand, was “inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the subdivision control law.” 

The Court acknowledged the bargaining that takes place between developers and towns.

While it may be true that the subdivision control process … doubtless often involves negotiation between the developer and the town, the power of a planning board is limited to the authority “clearly and specifically given by the statute.”

The bottom line?

That waivers from some of the subdivision rules and regulations are required does not authorize a planning board to exact conditions expressly prohibited by § 81Q, and unrelated to the regulation sought to be waived….

Finally, the court emphasized that towns may not use these types of requirements to circumvent the eminent domain process, which is the constitutionally required means of taking private property:

We cannot resist the conclusion that, however worthy the objectives, the conditions imposed attempt to achieve a result which properly should be the subject of eminent domain.”

Will Collings prevent municipalities from overreaching in the future? Unlikely. Most developers know that they need to get along with planning boards. Nonetheless, it’s nice to know that there are some limits.

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

I posted recently that EPA actually seems to be listening to comments from the regulated community and has changed course in some cases in response to those comments. The release by EPA and the Army Corps yesterday of their long-awaited revised guidance implementing the Supreme Court’s Rapanos decision confirms that EPA is in listening mode. Although I am not normally a fan, this new version seems an appropriate use of guidance.

First, it is not a unilateral effort to expand agency jurisdiction. Instead, it responds to the Supreme Court Rapanos decision. Given the lack of a majority decision, Rapanos certainly left both regulators and the regulated community scratching their heads. Moreover, although one of my concerns about guidance is that it can ossify, that is not the case here. The new guidance replaces EPA’s prior Rapanos guidance, issued in 2008.  EPA is entitled to conclude that the prior guidance did not accurately reflect the limits of CWA jurisdiction after Rapanos.

Significantly, in response to substantial pre-issuance pressure to shelve the guidance and instead pursue notice and comment rulemaking, EPA and the Corps have agreed both to take comment on this guidance and to undertake formal rulemaking. Thus, the guidance will serve only to clarify EPA’s and the Corps’ current interpretation pending issuance of a rule.                                                         

On the merits, the guidance seems to be a reasonable interpretation of Rapanos. Everyone knows that Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test is not a model of clarity – that’s why guidance is appropriate. Regulated industries benefit from greater clarity – even if more wetlands will be found to be jurisdictional – because uncertainty imposes its own costs. While the American Farm Bureau Federation has already complained about the new guidance, I think we need to distinguish between complaints about the guidance per se and complaints which really go to the scope of the CWA itself. 

If the guidance itself is too long for you, EPA has provided a useful summary. The summary of the summary? The following waters are protected by the Clean Water Act:

• Traditional navigable waters
• Interstate waters
• Wetlands adjacent to either traditional navigable waters or interstate waters
• Non-navigable tributaries to traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent, meaning they contain water at least seasonally
• Wetlands that directly abut relatively permanent waters

In addition, the following waters are protected by the Clean Water Act if a fact-specific analysis determines they have a "significant nexus" to a traditional navigable water or interstate water:

• Tributaries to traditional navigable waters or interstate waters
• Wetlands adjacent to jurisdictional tributaries to traditional navigable waters or interstate waters
• Waters that fall under the "other waters" category of the regulations. The guidance divides these waters into two categories, those that are physically proximate to other jurisdictional waters and those that are not, and discusses how each category should be evaluated.

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

For those of you who thought that the sky was about to fall in EPA as part of the budget battle, I’m able to report that EPA survived sufficiently intact to continue to issue new rules. Today, EPA proposed a draft revised construction general permit, or CGP, for stormwater discharges from construction sites disturbing at least one acre (or less, if the project is part of a common development plan that is greater than one acre). The revised CGP would replace the current CGP which is set to expire on June 30. EPA has proposed to extend the current CGP through January 31, 2012, in order to give it time to promulgate the new CGP in final form. 

The revised CGP does make some changes. The most notable changes, summarized in EPA's Q&A on the proposal, are intended to incorporate into the CGP the provisions of EPA’s February 2010 effluent limitations guidelines rule, known as the C&D rule. These changes include new requirements concerning:

Sediment and erosion controls

Soil stabilization

Pollution prevention

Inspections

Stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs)

Buffer zones

The buffer zone requirement was included in the C&D rule, but EPA is now proposing to add significant flesh to the bones. Specifically, the rule would require a minimum fifty-foot buffer between the construction site and any waters of the United States which are located either on or immediately adjacent to the site. The rule would provide flexibility to allow the permittee to substitute additional sediment and erosion controls for some or all of the buffer, so long as the controls “achieve the equivalent sediment load reduction as an undisturbed naturally vegetated, 50-foot buffer.”

For my Massachusetts readers, the 50-foot buffer will seem very similar to the buffer zone already required under the MA Wetlands Protection Act regulations. The jurisdictional scope of the CGP will not be identical to Wetlands Act jurisdiction, but they should be fairly similar.

Comments on the proposed rule will be due 60 days following Federal Register publication.

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

Thursday afternoon, EPA and the Tennessee Valley Authority announced one of the largest pollution reduction consent decrees in US history – resulting in between $3 to $5 billion of investment in air pollution controls, and retirement of almost one-third of TVA’s coal-fired generating units within the next few years.  Over the next decade, it will reduce TVA's total emissions of nitrogen oxides by 69% and sulfur dioxide by 67%.  Although the agreement provides a timely victory for EPA amid the current backlash against it in Congress, the settlement actually relates to a New Source Review (NSR) suit commenced by EPA during the Clinton Administration in 1999.  The consent decree resolves all alleged past preconstruction violations, as well as alleged violations of the New Source Performance Standards and Title V regulations.

The TVA operates 59 coal-fired boilers at 11 plants in Alabama, Kentucky and Tennessee, and supplies power to around 9 million people in its service area that spans most of the southeastern US. The settlement involves all 11 plants, and includes an obligation to address 92% of TVA’s coal-fired system between 2011 and 2018 by either installing state of the art pollution controls like SCRs and FGD or repowering with renewable biomass. Another 18 coal-fired units, about 16% of TVA’s coal-fired generating system, totaling 2,700 MW of capacity, will be permanently retired – the largest retirement commitment seen under EPA’s Coal-Fired Power Plan initiative, which has settled 22 such NSR cases so far.  However, Greenwire reports that, even before today's announcement, TVA was already planning to retire about 1,000 MW of coal-fired capacity.

I found the option to repower the units with renewable biomass to be particularly interesting, especially given EPA’s current proposal to continue studying biomass emissions for three years before requiring Clean Air Act permits for greenhouse gas emissions from biomass sources.  In the agreement, “Renewable Biomass” is defined very broadly, with no time-frames or extensive restrictions. Instead, it includes, in part, organic matter that comes from forests or grasslands, as well as residues and byproducts from agriculture, forestry and paper industry. Under the agreement, the repowered units would be deemed “new” emission units, themselves subject to New Source Review and other permitting requirements.

The settlement also includes $10 million in penalties -- $8 million paid to EPA, $1 million paid to Tennessee and $500,000 each paid to Alabama and Kentucky -- as well as $350 million in environmental mitigation projects, including $240 million to be spent on TVA-run energy efficiency projects and $60 million to be divided among Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina and Tennessee for the states to implement projects of their choosing, so long as they're within the categories specified in the consent decree.

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

Sometimes I’m so timely I can’t stand it. This morning, I posted about the difficulty in challenging regulations under Massachusetts law. Later this morning, the SJC agreed. In Entergy v. DEP, the SJC upheld DEP’s authority to regulate cooling water intake structures under the state CWA. Funny how the SJC cited to the same language here as did Judge Sweeney in the Pepin case.

We will apply all rational presumptions in favor of the validity of the administration action and not declare it void unless its provisions cannot by any reasonable construction be interpreted in harmony with the legislative mandate.

Entergy argued that the statute and DEP’s regulations under it have always focused on discharges of pollutants, rather than intake of water. This was not persuasive to the SJC. The Court stated that

[T]he permitting regime for discharges does not foreclose the department from developing compatible methods of regulating water intakes…. Specific statutory authority to act in a particular respect does not bar consistent action under general statutory authority.

The Court’s bottom line? 

We will not substitute our judgment as to the need for a regulation, or the propriety of the means chosen to implement the statutory goals, for that of the agency, so long as the regulation is rationally related to those goals. [T]he purpose of conferring broad power on an expert agency is to permit discretion in determining the best approaches to a complex issue.”

I think that the SJC probably got this case right based on its own precedents. However, the Court’s last statement is almost breathtaking in its scope. Has there ever been a clearer or broader defense of the modern administrative state? With a statement like that, could one imagine the SJC ever concluding that the legislature delegated too much authority to the regulatory agencies? And yet, as conservatives sometimes note, it is the legislators, and not the agency personnel, who are elected and who are supposed to make the big picture decisions.

Jefferson would be turning over in his grave.

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

Anyone who has ever tried to challenge a regulation in Massachusetts knows that it is an uphill battle. Just how tilted the playing field is was reinforced late last month in the decision in Pepin v. Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, rejecting a challenge to DFW’s “priority habitat” regulations. The case involves the Eastern Box Turtle, perhaps the most common of state-listed species.

As our Massachusetts readers know, MESA is similar to, but has some significant differences from, the federal ESA. Fundamentally, MESA prohibits taking “endangered” or “threatened” species or species “of special concern.” The statute provides for a rather cumbersome process by which DFW may designate “significant habitat" in order to protect listed species. Whether it is because the process is too cumbersome, or whether it is because the statute provides that property owners may petition for compensation resulting from a taking of their property following designation of significant habitat, DFW simply doesn’t utilize the process.

Instead, DFW has created regulations concerning “priority habitat,” a term not found in the statute. The priority habitat regulations provide somewhat more flexibility and, importantly, do not have a procedure for compensating landowners for regulatory takings. After part of his property was designated as priority habitat, Pepin sued DFW, claiming that the priority habitat regulations were beyond DFW’s authority under MESA. 

Judge Sweeney of the Land Court was having none of it. First, she noted that MESA gives DFW residual authority to promulgate “any regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this chapter.” Moreover, the statute does not preclude DFW from establishing a second category of protected habitat.  With that as background, Justice Sweeney rehearsed the litany of cases with which Massachusetts lawyers are all too familiar. 

The party challenging the validity of an agency’s regulations bears a formidable burden. This Court gives substantial deference to the agency’s expertise and statutory interpretation, applies all presumptions in favor of the validity of administration action, and declares a regulation void only if its provisions cannot by any reasonable construction be interpreted in harmony with the legislative mandate. 

Given this case law, it is not surprising that Judge Sweeney concluded that MESA does not unambiguously prohibit the priority habitat regulations and that the regulations are consistent with legislative intent. 

Of course, the priority habitat regulations do effectively make a nullity of the MESA provisions regarding significant habitat, but what’s a little nullity among friends. Heads the agency wins; tails the regulated industry loses. What’s new?

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

I’m beginning to feel like a broken record, but the drumbeat of the anti-guidance crowd is not letting up. Earlier this week, the Waters Advocacy Coalition, which is a group of farm and industry trade groups, sent a letter to EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, requesting that EPA and the Corps withdraw their plan to issue further guidance on the interpretation of “navigable waters” post-Rapanos. It’s not surprising that this group would oppose the guidance. What is most interesting – and persuasive – about the letter, though, is this quote from the draft guidance itself:

the agencies expect that the number of waters found to be subject to the CWA jurisdiction will increase significantly compared to practices under the 2003 SWANCC guidance and the 2008 Rapanos guidance.

To me, it would seem a defining characteristic of guidance that it not alter the jurisdictional scope of laws and regulations. That’s what laws and regulations are for. Guidance, on the other hand, to the extent is does have a role, is to guide those affected by regulation, to assist them in their understanding of legal requirements – not to change the scope of those requirements. I think that, by inclusion of this sentence in the draft guidance, EPA and the Corps have made the strongest possible argument against issuing the guidance. 

Perhaps even more notable was the resolution passed last week by the Environmental Council of the States objecting to EPA’s use of interim guidance and rules. Specifically, the resolution states that

EPA should minimize the use of interim guidance, interim rules, draft policy and reinterpretation policy and eliminate the practice of directing its regional or national program managers to require compliance by states with the same in implementation of delegated programs.

EPA should not use its objection authority when based entirely or in part on interim guidance, interim rules, draft policy or reinterpretation policy.

ECOS, of course, is generally on EPA’s side of the fence. The resolution is powerful evidence that EPA’s use of guidance is not simply to facilitate understanding of applicable laws and regulations, but as a substitute for the regulatory process itself – as a way to impose new binding rules.

Taken together, the ECOS resolution and the text of the proposed revision to the post-Rapanos guidance make a compelling case that EPA’s use of guidance has strayed far from true guidance and is in fact often an end-run around the regulatory process.

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

Earlier this week, EPA announced its long-awaited revised proposal for a cooling water intake structure rule for existing facilities. Praise is much less interesting than criticism, and thus less conducive to entertaining blog posts, but I’m afraid EPA has left me no choice. Within the confines of what the Clean Water Act requires, EPA seems to have gotten this one pretty much right.

EPA has a useful summary of the rule here. I could certainly quarrel with aspects of the rule, but the basic structure makes sense. It applies to facilities that take at least 25% of their water from an adjacent waterbody and use more than 2MGD/day. Limits are imposed on total fish impingement, though facilities can meet an alternative standard by limiting approach velocity to 0.5 feet per second. EPA has gotten out of the command and control business, at least for existing units. Facilities that withdraw at least 125 MGD would have to perform studies leading to site-specific standards to address entrainment concerns.  Finally, new units that increase generating capacity would be have to used close-cycle cooling (or something equivalent).

One measure of EPA’s success here may be that environmental NGOs are already criticizing the proposal because, instead of setting immovable national standards, the rule would give too much discretion to state permitting authorities. 

It really is worth noting that the 316(b) proposal is only one of several in which EPA has listened to the concerns of industry and revised rules or proposed rules in response to those concerns. First, EPA revised its proposed Tailoring Rule to raise the jurisdictional thresholds to exclude additional smaller sources. Then, it revised the boiler rule in response to concerns that its original proposal really wasn’t feasible. Now, it has avoided a one size fits all rule for CWIS, allowing site-specific factors to come into play. 

Just so I don’t lose all my credibility with my clients, I must note that there remain areas in which EPA seems completely tone-deaf regarding reasonable regulatory reforms. The last bastion of soviet-style command and control known as the Superfund program certainly springs to mind. However, while I doubt EPA will get much credit for it, it is only fair to acknowledge that there does seem to be at least something of a pattern unfolding here. Whether this is really a change in EPA’s DNA or whether it is simply a response to current political realities, only time will tell. Whatever the cause, it’s certainly welcome.

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

I’ve spent a lot time in this space arguing for increased use of cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis before environmental regulations are promulgated. As difficult as it can be, there’s simply no avoiding it. If we don’t do so explicitly, we do so implicitly – and I vote for explicitness, every time.

The opposition to cost-benefit analysis usually comes from the left, based on concerns that the cost-benefit requirement will hamstring regulators and that the benefits will be understated. The right is normally seen as a fan of cost-benefit analysis.  Now, however, the notion of cost-benefit analysis is being challenged from the right – though I doubt that they would acknowledge it. North Carolina has just passed a law prohibiting until July 1, 2012 promulgation of new regulations that would cost more than $500,000, unless they either result from “a serious and unforeseen threat to the public health, safety, or welfare,” or they are required by federal or state statute or federal regulation. 

Do the North Carolina legislature and Governor Perdue realize that they have just said that cost-benefit analysis doesn’t matter? We don’t want any new regulations if they cost $500,001, even if they have $10 million in benefits? My economist friends must be going nuts, though at least the scorn heaped upon them is now equally balanced on the right and left.

 

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

The issue of guidance v. regulation has been in the news a lot recently. Recently, the anti-guidance side got what some might consider unwelcome assistance from John Graham, who reviewed regulations in the Bush White House. Graham was quoted as saying that:

The whole idea of guidance not being a rule -- there has to be an arrow shot right through the heart of that. [Congress should pass legislation] to make sure that things that look like a duck and quack like a duck are a duck.

Of course, I agree with John Graham about guidance. The only problem is that most observers think that Graham would like to put an arrow through the heart of the real ducks as well. It’s one thing to oppose guidance, because guidance is almost always an effort to impose further regulations without the protections inherent in the regulatory process. It’s another matterif you oppose the regulatory process as well.

Regulations masquerading as guidance? I’m opposed. Regulations imposed that aren’t as cost-effective as they could be? Let’s do better. Throw out the baby with the bathwater? Probably not a good idea.

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

While EPA remains under attack by the GOP-majority House, that doesn’t mean that coal is off the hook. To the contrary, coal remains under attack itself. A number of recent stories demonstrate the multi-pronged effort by those who want to reduce or eliminate use of coal. For example, the Environmental Integrity Project and two Texas-based NGOs just filed suit against the Lower Colorado River Authority's Fayette Power Project, alleging violations of NSR/PSD requirements and exceedances of particulate limits in the plant’s permit. There is no doubt that there is a concerted effort by NGOs to make life difficult for coal. Thus, even if Congress succeeds in muzzling EPA to some extent, citizen suits will only proliferate, unless Congress also amends the CAA and other environmental statutes to eliminate citizen suit provisions.

Next up? A report that TransAlta Corp. has reached an agreement with the State of Washington to shut down Washington’s last coal-fired power plant. The agreement gives TransAlta until 2020 and 2025, respectively, to shut the two boilers at the plant. The story serves as a reminder that, even aside from NGOs, some states are looking to phase out coal-fired generation.

Let’s not forget that coal mining is under attack as well. Here too, notwithstanding Congressional efforts to protect coal mining, NGOs remain active. Daily Environment just reported that a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against Highland Mining Co., ordering it to stop work on its 635-acre Reylas Surface Mine in Logan County, West Virginia. The suit alleges violations of NEPA and § 404 of the CWA.

Finally, we have the economic side of the issue. One factor coal has always had on its side – until recently – was its cost advantage over natural gas. With that cost difference eroded, simple economics may do what years of environmental enforcement couldn’t. Thus we have John Rowe of Excelon, which, of course, has almost no coal assets, asserting that EPA regulation will not kill coal, but only drive out old, inefficient plants. Heck, we even have the Wall Street Journal asking whether coal is “The Energy of the Past.”

Time will tell, but it is at least plain that the current GOP ascendancy has not solved all of coal’s problems.

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

Last week, I discussed EPA’s efforts to “muddle through” on climate change in the absence of comprehensive legislation. This week, I think it’s the Clean Water Act’s turn. If there were any regulatory situation which required some serious muddling through at the moment, interpretation of the Supreme Court’s Rapanos decision almost is a match for the current climate mess. As most of my readers know, Rapanos was a 4-1-4 decision which left EPA, the Corps, developers and environmentalists fairly equally perplexed

Most stakeholders have assumed that Kennedy’s concurring opinion, requiring a “significant nexus” between wetlands and traditional navigable waters before those wetlands are subject to jurisdiction under the CWA, is the law of the land at this point. That is the approach adopted in the Rapanos Guidance issued by EPA and the Corps in 2007. 

A recent decision by the 4^th Circuit Court of Appeals, in Precon Development Corporation v. Army Corps of Engineers, illustrates just how muddled post-Rapanos interpretation has become. The decision in Precon – reversing the District Court – found that the Corps had not built a record sufficient to establish that the wetlands which Precon sought to develop were jurisdictional under the CWA. 

There were two technical issues in Precon. Precon lost what one might have thought would be the more significant issue – the Corps’ finding that, although only 4.8 acres were really at issue in this case, and Precon’s entire development includes 166 acres of wetlands, 448 acres of “similarly situated” wetlands would be examined for a substantial nexus to navigable waters. Precon ultimately won, however, because the Court concluded that the Corps’ record did not contain enough physical evidence to support its determination that a significant nexus exists between the 448 wetland acres and the downstream navigable water. 

The Court’s conclusion raised two issues of broad concern to stakeholders. First, the Court granted little deference to EPA’s conclusion on the significant nexus issue. The Corps argued that its conclusion that there was a significant nexus between the site wetlands and the downstream navigable waters was a factual conclusion. However, the Court concluded that the significant nexus determination was not factual. The Court stated that:

The question is instead whether the Corps’ findings were adequate to support the ultimate conclusion that a significant nexus exists. This legal determination is essentially now a matter of statutory construction, as Justice Kennedy established that a “significant nexus” is a statutory requirement for bringing wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries within the CWA’s definition of “navigable waters.”

Well, this is certainly a nice question of administrative law. The significant nexus issue may now be the ultimate legal question. Nonetheless, I would guess that most wetlands scientists and hydrologists would say that this is largely a factual question. Even if the agency is applying its judgment to answer that question, it’s the type of judgment that requires technical expertise – expertise to which courts have traditionally deferred.

The second of the Court’s important pronouncements was that it would not give the EPA/Corps Rapanos Guidance deference under Chevron. Why not?

Because – although it could – the Corps has not adopted an interpretation of “navigable waters” that incorporates this concept through notice-and-comment rulemaking, but instead has interpreted the term only in a non-binding guidance document.”

Isn’t it timely, then, that EPA and the Corps sent a draft new Rapanos guidance to OMB in December, and GOP leadership in the House is proposing language in a continuing resolution that would preclude EPA from using any funds “to implement, administer, or enforce a change to a rule or guidance document pertaining to the definition of waters under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251).” Perhaps EPA and the Corps should take half a loaf. Why not agree to shelve the guidance and instead proceed with notice-and-comment rulemaking to clarify Rapanos? At least then the Courts might grant EPA and the Corps more deference in implementation.  It’s already been almost five years since Rapanos was issued. EPA and the Corps can hardly argue that it’s necessary to go the guidance route because they don’t have the time to proceed through the full regulatory process.

Enough muddling through. Take the time to do it right and issue regulations. Then, maybe the muddle will abate. (Can one abate a muddle?)

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

As readers of this blog know, the question of guidance v. regulation is one near and dear to my heart. I generally disfavor guidance, because I think it offers none of the protections of the regulatory process and almost none of the flexibility that guidance is supposed to provide. Two issues are of particular concern. First, guidance is not supposed to announce new rules – only clarifying interpretation of existing rules. However, we all know what a slippery slope that can be. Second, notwithstanding the purported flexibility of guidance, how often do regulators on the street – those actually using the guidance, rather than those writing it – treat guidance exactly like regulations and expect the regulated community to follow it to the letter?

The problem was brought to the forefront again recently by the decision in National Mining Association v. Jackson, in which Judge Reggie Walton in the District Court for the District of Columbia stated that EPA’s mountaintop mining guidance likely exceeded EPA’s authority. Although Judge Walton denied plaintiffs’ request for an injunction because they had not demonstrated irreparable harm, he made clear that the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits. Addressing the core issues I noted above, he stated that the EPA mountaintop mining guidance

Qualified as final agency action because, despite the representation that it is an interim document, it is nonetheless being applied in a binding manner and has been implemented in its current version even though the EPA continues to receive comments about it. Therefore,… it appears that the EPA is treating the Guidance as binding.

Judge Walton went on to conclude that the various documents at issue constitute “legislative rules because they seemingly have altered the permitting procedures under the Clean Water Act by changing the codified administrative review process.” He also found that the documents exceeded EPA’s authority, because they ignored “EPA’s limited role in the issuance of Section 404 permits.”

Relatively hard on the heels of the National Mining Association decision, Daily Environment Report this week covered efforts by industry groups to prevent EPA from issuing guidance interpreting the Supreme Court’s Rapanos decision regarding the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction over “waters of the United States.” I’m sorry, but does anyone think that such “guidance” would not be treated in practice as having the finality of regulation? If, under such guidance, certain types of situations are considered to be “waters of the United States,” does anyone doubt that such situations will be subject to CWA permitting requirements 100% of the time? 

Agencies officials generally make two arguments in favor of guidance. One is simply to ask for recognition of the practical reality that getting formal notice and comment rulemaking accomplished is very difficult and often impractical in the modern world. The second is that guidance provides flexibility. However, if the regulators want the rest of us to recognize the practical realities involved in promulgating regulations, then they must recognize the practical reality that guidance almost always immediately ossifies and that those implementing it treat it as gospel. There is often little in it for the regulated community.

Until Rand Paul succeeds in dismantling the modern administrative state, the debate will continue.

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

Back in my public policy days, there was much discussion of “muddling through.” When I look at recent developments on the climate and air regulation front, I just see a muddle. First, we have Gina McCarthy, saying that EPA wants to walk before it runs, and assuring utility executives that New Source Performance Standards for GHG emissions will not have a “dramatic effect.” McCarthy further said that EPA will take a “common sense approach,” comparing it to EPA’s approach to the GHG BACT guidance, which she described as “not overly ambitious.”

At the same time, the first PSD permit for GHG has been issued, to Nucor Corporation's direct reduced iron manufacturing facility in Louisiana. While praising Nucor for utilizing DRI technology, which apparently generates lower GHG emissions than plants utilizing coke, and while acknowledging that this was one of the first GHG PSD applications, EPA raised two concerns that may be troubling to permittees. First, the permit would require a package of good combustion practices, but did not include a numerical limit for GHG emissions. EPA commented that the permit had not justified why a numerical limit would not be feasible. 

Second, EPA noted that the permit did not provide a basis for the conclusion that carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS, would not be feasible for this project. EPA’s comments referred to EPA’s December 2010 GHG BACT guidance as noting that CCS is generally available for iron and steel manufacturing facilities.

To EPA, the BACT guidance may be common sense. However, to the regulated community, it creates uncertainty. Uncertainty means risk. Risk means costs. Will EPA insist on numerical standards? What are those standards going to be? Based on the EPA's comments regarding CCS, it appears that EPA may be intending to treat the GHG BACT guidance as having the force of regulation. If so, we are stuck with the worst of both worlds – the absence of the protection provided by notice and comment rulemaking and the absence of the flexibility in utilizing guidance, rather than regulation. 

Moreover, EPA does not appear to understand the scope of the uncertainty created by such actions. EPA may allow the Nucor facility to proceed without CCS, once the permit application is amended to include an explanation of the infeasibility of CCS. However, there is no point in requiring such an analysis unless there is some possibility that CCS may be required. The regulated community – and state regulators – are left wondering under what circumstances CCS would be considered feasible. The same is true with the analysis of coal and natural gas. It’s difficult to read the BACT guidance without concluding that, under some circumstances, BACT for coal might be gas. However, we don’t know yet what those circumstance would be. 

On the other side of the aisle, as it were, we have the muddle that is Congressional opposition to EPA GHG regulation. Fred Upton, Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has described the NSPS standards as a “backdoor attempt to implement their failed job-killing cap-and-trade scheme.” Sadly, I only wish it were so. He seems to think that describing NSPS standards as a “cap-and-trade” scheme is the worst kind of insult. However, he’s got it backwards. First, unlike the cap-and-trade plan, the NSPS regulations are required under the existing Clean Air Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA. Second, cap-and-trade was proposed precisely because it has been demonstrated to be an economically efficient way to attain pollution reductions. It’s really only fair to describe it as job-killing if you don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change. (I’m too tired to go there today.) If Congress doesn’t want EPA to kill jobs, then give it the tools to regulate as efficiently as possible. 

Moreover, as noted in the Daily Environment Report, while Congress is up in arms about EPA climate rules, Congress is extremely unlikely to limit EPA’s authority to issue the Clean Air Mercury Rule and Clean Air Transport Rule, both of which are going to have more significant impact on power generators and electricity prices than GHG NSPS.

Occupying the middle ground – if not the muddle ground – is Senator Rockefeller, attempting the most delicate of balancing acts. While still complaining about EPA’s veto of the mountaintop removal permit for the Spruce No. 1 mine and backing legislation which would delay EPA’s GHG rules for two years, Rockefeller criticized “EPA-bashing.” Rockefeller’s view is apparently just that coal is important, coal cannot survive serious GHG regulation without CCS, and CCS requires more time. We’ll see how his dance plays back home and with the Chamber of Commerce. I thought that we are now against backing particular technological solutions and I certainly believe that sooner or later, we're just going to have to bite the bullet and put a price on carbon.

For now, though, I guess we’re just muddling through.

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

I don’t normally blog about cases in which I’m involved, but since this one made the front page of the Boston Globe, I suppose it’s sufficiently newsworthy. Yesterday, EPA announced that a settlement had been reached among EPA, MassDEP, our client GenOn Kendall, and the Charles River Watershed Association and the Conservation Law Foundation concerning the NPDES permit for Kendall Station. As a result of the settlement, when all the equipment needed to implement it has been installed, both the water intake and discharge and the thermal load will be reduced by over 95%.

How will this be accomplished? Installation of certain new equipment at Kendall Station and a new steam pipe across the Charles River will allow facility to sell more steam to Boston and avoid putting excess heat into the River. As a result, not only will the impacts on the River be reduced, there will be collateral air emissions benefits, as Kendall’s clean gas displaces fuel oil as a source of steam in Boston.

Credit in the first instance has to go to our client, GenOn, for thinking creatively about how to respond to the problem posed by the very restrictive conditions imposed in its 2006 NPDES renewal. GenOn firmly believed that it had strong technical arguments with which to dispute the permit terms. Rather than focusing on those arguments, however, GenOn instead worked to figure out a solution that will allow the plant to remain economic, while addressing the concerns of the regulators.

Credit also goes to EPA Region I and MassDEP, both of which responded enthusiastically and constructively to GenOn’s proposal. Notwithstanding the win-win nature of the solution, the negotiations were complicated and the permit is extremely complex. However, the agencies kept their eyes on the prize.

Finally, credit also goes to the Charles River Watershed Association and the Conservation Law Foundation. Both of them had appealed the original permit, arguing that it was not sufficiently stringent (well, they are environmental NGOs). They could have tried to play bad cop to the agencies’ good cop. After all, it may take until 2016 until all the new equipment is in place and operational. CRWA and CLF could have used this delay to extort more from GenOn. In fact, while GenOn was pleased to contribute $250,000 to a fish restocking effort in the Charles River that CRWA will help implement, CLF and CRWA cooperated fully in the final settlement.

One aspect of the settlement is particularly worth noting. As discussed, the settlement works because Kendall Station is in an urban location and has a market for additional steam. Many commentators have discussed the important role of combined heat and power in helping achieve the nation’s environmental goals. Not everything is going to be solar and wind. Clean gas facilities that can sell steam will be a major contributor over the coming decades. Often, environmental justice concerns are raised with respect to urban power plants. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. If we want CHP, then we have to put the power where there’s a market for the steam.

However, that full rant can wait for another day. Right now, as Peter Shelley of CLF said in the Globe, “this solution is the type of thing that makes you feel good.”

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

Last month, I noted that, in the absence of comprehensive climate legislation, U.S. carbon policy would be a mish-mash of several elements – including more NSR enforcement. In fact, Phillip Brooks, director of EPA’s Air Enforcement Division, had just told an ALI/ABA forum that EPA’s NSR enforcement initiative is alive and well and he predicted more closures of old coal plants as a result of EPA’s NSR enforcement. Earlier this month, proving that Brooks meant what he said, the United States sued Ameren Corporation, alleging NSR violations at Ameren’s Rush Island facility in Festus, Missouri. 

Apparently, I am not the only person who has noticed the connection between NSR enforcement and efforts to make life generally more difficult for coal plants. (Perhaps Mr. Brooks should not have been so explicit in his ALI/ABA remarks.) This week, Missouri Republican Senator Roy Blunt wrote to Lisa Jackson, criticizing the Ameren enforcement action and describing it as “another backdoor method used by the EPA to broadly penalize the use of coal in the United States.”

Blunt also criticized the “tsunami” of regulations by EPA that will increase the cost of coal-fired electricity generation. We had previously noted the Credit Suisse report which predicted the closure of more than 50 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity. Blunt referred to a study by the North Electric Reliability Corporation which made a similar prediction.

As my readers know, I dislike the NSR program and the enforcement initiative. I do think that many of these projects, often 15, 20, or 25  or more years ago, truly were thought routine, even if EPA may be able to persuade a court that they were not “Routine Maintenance” within the meaning of the regulations. The NSR program is certainly not a cost-effective way to regulate. However, NSR is part of the statute, EPA believes in it, and the case law is, from EPA’s perspective, at worst ambiguous and at best favorable. I expect that EPA would be pursuing many of these cases, even if climate change were not an issue and CO₂ not considered a problem. 

Is EPA sad that its NSR enforcement has the collateral impact of making coal less economic so that small coal-fired plants retire early, thus reducing GHG emissions? I doubt it. Does the climate change issue increase EPA’s enthusiasm? Perhaps so. The question is whether this added motivation is relevant. EPA’s intent may not be relevant to the courts, but it certainly looks as though it is relevant to Congress.

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

In Cool Hand Luke, Paul Newman is sentenced to two years on a chain gang for cutting the heads off of municipal parking meters.  The Mingo Logan Coal Company wants to cut the top off of 3.5 square miles of West Virginia mountaintop. This week, EPA gave the company's Spruce No. 1 Mine proposal the death penalty, using its authority under § 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to veto a permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers in 2007. As EPA noted in its press release, this is only the 13^th time in 38 years that EPA has utilized § 404(c) to veto a permit.

EPA’s decision resulted in howls of protest, not just from the mine’s owner, but also from the two Senators from West Virginia. Joe Manchin, who famously campaigned with an advertisement in which he shot a purported copy of cap-and-trade legislation, described EPA’s decision as a “shocking display of overreach.” 

EPA’s characterization was slightly different. The agency summarized the mine’s impacts as follows:

Burying more than 35,000 feet (more than 6 miles) of high-quality streams under mining waste, which will eliminate all fish, invertebrates, salamanders, and other wildlife that live in them;

Polluting downstream waters as a result of burying these streams, which will lead to unhealthy levels of salinity and toxic levels of selenium;

Causing downstream watershed degradation that will kill aquatic wildlife, impact birdlife, reduce habitat value, and increase susceptibility to toxic algal blooms;

Inadequately mitigating for the mine’s environmental impacts to high-quality streams , by using mining ditches, for example, to offset the functions provided by these natural streams; and

Failure to consider cumulative watershed degradation resulting from past, present, and future mining in the area.

While I’m sure that the owner will dispute some of EPA’s characterization, my money’s on EPA, overreach or not. The impacts of mountaintop mining are substantial and I don’t see a court rejecting EPA’s conclusion that they are, in this case, “unacceptable.”

To bring the situation back to Cool Hand Luke, what EPA and the mining companies have here is a failure to communicate, and EPA is the one in the Strother Martin role, wielding a very painful veto hammer.

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

Justice Brandeis famously suggested that states may “serve as a laboratory” for the rest of the country. If this is so, I think it is fair to say that U.S. EPA has not accepted the results of the biomass experiment conducted in Massachusetts. Last year, following receipt of a study regarding the GHG emission implications of various types of biomass fuels, Massachusetts decided to severely restrict the circumstances in which biomass would be considered a renewable fuel.

Earlier this week, EPA decided not to go along with the restrictive approach taken by Massachusetts, and granted a petition to stay application of GHG permitting to biomass facilities, while EPA further studies the issue. Specifically, EPA promised to amend the tailoring rule to exempt biomass facilities for three years. In a letter EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson sent to Senator Stabenow as part of the announcement, Jackson stated that:

biomass can be part of a national strategy to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and efforts are underway to foster the expansion of renewable resources and promote biomass as ways of addressing climate change and enhancing forest management.

It’s one thing for a state to differ from the federal government or other states on matters of policy. However, my guess is that the federal EPA and the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts have pretty much the same policy goal – reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. This is really a question of science. Does use of biomass help reduce GHG emissions? Shouldn’t the answer be the same everywhere?

I’m not a scientist and cannot comment on the reliability of the Massachusetts biomass study. (And I should disclose that our firm has represented the proponent of one of the biomass plants in Massachusetts.) However, it does seem to me that this is one area in which a uniform national policy is the right approach. Let’s give EPA the three years that it apparently needs to sort out the issue, and then have one policy applicable nationwide.

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

Earlier this week, the United States brought another NSR/PSD enforcement action, this time concerning the Homer City Plant, in Pennsylvania. The suit itself isn’t big news, though it’s helpful to have periodical reminders that the NSR enforcement initiative remains active at EPA and DOJ; it is a significant part of the government’s arsenal against traditional pollutants.

It’s also important to remember that, in the absence of comprehensive climate legislation, the NSR enforcement initiative has become part of the government’s climate strategy. The plant spokesman stated that the plant is “positioned quite well to succeed in whatever environment we might be looking at in the future." However, Randy Francisco, Pennsylvania representative for the Sierra Club's "Beyond Coal" campaign (and doesn’t the name say it all), had a different view: 

I don't think it's worth it to put the money into it to clean it up. This is one of the dirtiest plants in the country, and it really just needs to be put to bed.

Why do I describe this as a fine mess and how did we get here? To mix my comedic metaphors, we have met the enemy and he is us. It’s a mess, because the PSD/NSR program is a clunky, awkward, and vague program and, whatever the merits of the specific legal questions in the various suits, EPA can’t really deny that its interpretation of the program has not been a model of consistency. It’s a mess because it’s difficult to achieve programmatic results through enforcement. It’s a mess because using PSD enforcement to make coal more expensive so that coal plants will shut down and stop emitting GHGs is hardly an efficient way to regulate GHGs. 

Why are we the enemy? Simple. Because the environment would be cleaner and the economy stronger with comprehensive climate legislation combined with significant changes to the NSR/PSD program and we haven’t figured out a way to get there.

The result? No one’s happy (except, perhaps, some busy environmental lawyers and some politicians who can find opportunities for grandstanding). EPA and environmentalists aren’t happy, because we don’t have comprehensive climate legislation. Large emitters aren’t happy, because they are left with the collateral damage of PSD/NSR, a program that should be allowed to die a quiet death.

For those of us who live in the trenches of these battles, at least one detail in the complaint is worth noting.  The United States brought suit, not only against the current owner and operator of the Homer City plant, but also against New York State Electric and Gas Corporation and Pennsylvania Electric Co., both of which owned the plant prior to 1998. Why the emphasis? Because it’s more than six years ago and therefore outside the statute of limitations for the government’s penalty claims. Indeed, the government seeks penalties only from the current owner/operators. Nonetheless, it seeks injunctive relief against NYSEG and PENELEC, even though they’ve had no connection to the plant in more than 12 years. The complaint states that:

They can be ordered to fund and implement contracts with third-party vendors who design, fabricate, and install the air pollution control equipment at issue. They can also take various actions to mitigate their past illegal pollution such as purchasing air pollution credits known as “allowances.”

A fine mess we’ve gotten ourselves into.

• 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.
 

Continue Reading...

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

Today, EPA announced settlements of litigation with states and environmental groups which will require EPA to promulgate New Source Performance Standards for greenhouse gas emissions from electric generating units and refineries. EPA will thus give those of us who practice in this area an opportunity to decide which program we find more cumbersome and ill-suited to regulate GHGs, the PSD/NSR program or the NSPS program.

As with the PSD/NSR regulations, I remain sympathetic to EPA in that, once you take Massachusetts v. EPA as a given, and if you accept the logic of the Endangerment Finding, then it is difficult to see how EPA can avoid these regulations. Moreover, EPA has described its expected set of performance standards as “modest” – though modesty, of course, is in the eyes of the beholder. 

Nonetheless, it’s not surprising that opponents of GHG regulation see this as another stick in the eye. Here is what Senator Murkowski’s spokesman, Robert Dillon, had to say:

The administration used the threat of EPA regulations as a cudgel to force Congress to pass cap and trade. It was a strategy that failed.  You've opened Pandora's box now. You've let the agency loose with these new regulations when they're interpreting the law.

Of course, it’s EPA’s job to interpret the law. That doesn’t make me happy about it.

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

As a follow-up to last week’s post, if you want a handy-dandy rundown of what U.S. carbon policy looks like in the absence of comprehensive federal legislation, take a look at the presentation I gave last week to the Harvard Electricity Policy Group, which summarizes federal, regional, and state regulatory efforts – many of which are not explicitly directed at CO₂ – that are likely to have significant impacts on U.S. CO₂ emissions. Thanks to Amy Boyd, who did the lion’s share of the work on this one.

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

Bill Hogan at the Kennedy School (shameless plug for alma mater) kindly asked me to speak at a meeting this week of the Harvard Electricity Policy Group. I’ve titled my talk “Carbon Policy When There Is No Carbon Policy.” Several items that came across the wires in the past few days buttress the theory behind my presentation, which is that our current carbon policy really is “A little bit of this, a little bit of that.” 

First, Phillip Brooks, director of EPA’s Air Enforcement Division, told an ALI/ABA forum that EPA’s NSR enforcement initiative is alive and well and that it expects to continue to send out information requests to potential enforcement targets concerning those targets operation and maintenance activities. Brooks predicted more closures of old coal plants as a result of EPA’s NSR enforcement.

Second, a report just released on the economic impact of air emissions supports EPA’s Transport Rule, asserting that each dollar spent on upwind emissions reductions results in $50 to $100 dollars in avoided environmental costs in downwind states. Greenwire subtly noted that the research was funded by Excelon, which owns the largest fleet of nuclear power plants in the nation.

Third, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just affirmed a decision by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to require construction companies to assess the indirect air emissions resulting from construction projects and potentially to reduce such such emissions or pay a mitigation fee. The decision in National Association Of Home Builders v. The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District is likely to provide additional momentum to state and local efforts to regulate land use decisions as a way to reduce sprawl and, as a result, GHG emissions.

So, what’s our carbon policy today? A little bit of enforcement of existing regulations, a little bit of new federal regulations of traditional pollutants, and a potentially increasing dose of state and local land use regulation.

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

An adjudicatory hearing decision issued by MassDEP in September just came to my attention. The decision in the case, In the Matter of Town of Plymouth, is worth reading for those of you interested in the emerging issues related to concerns over nutrients and how nutrient discharges will be regulated in groundwater or surface water discharge permits.

What caught me eye about the decision, however, wasn’t its substance, but was instead its procedural history. The Town of Plymouth first obtained a permit for the groundwater discharge from its municipal wastewater treatment plant in 2000. The Eel River Watershed Association appealed that permit. (For my out-of-state readers, such permits are appealed administratively in Massachusetts.) Dispositive motions were filed in 2003 – but were never acted on. 

Although the Recommended Final Decision by the hearing officer (which was adopted by the MassDEP Commissioner) doesn’t provide the entire history, one assumes that Plymouth timely filed a renewal application before the permit’s 2005 expiration date. It took MassDEP until 2008 to issue a permit renewal – at which time the dispositive motions in the appeal of the 2000 permit were still pending. 

Not surprisingly, the Town of Plymouth and MassDEP filed motions to dismiss the appeal of the 2000 permit as moot, once the new permit was in effect. Equally unsurprisingly, those motions were granted. To give MassDEP its due, it has worked hard in recent years to shorten the time needed to resolve adjudicatory appeals. It is noteworthy that MassDEP issued the decision dismissing the appeal of the 2008 permit within two years. Nonetheless, it is sort of chilling that the resolution of a permit appeal can extend beyond the life of the permit being challenged.

Justice delayed is…, oh, never mind.

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

EPA has finally released it long-awaited PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse Gases, also known as the GHG BACT Guidance. E&E News quoted Gina McCarthy as saying that GHG permitting would be “business as usual” and that the transition to issuing PSD permits for GHGs would be relatively smooth. 

Not.

It’s certainly true that the GHG BACT Guidance says nothing particularly new about how permitting agencies should perform BACT reviews. Giving credit where credit is due, I’ll complement EPA for using plain English and describing the basic BACT process about as cogently and concisely as I’ve seen. The BACT Guidance also heavily emphasizes the use of energy efficiency measures in attaining BACT for GHGs, as has been expected. That should provide at least some comfort to the regulated community.

Having praised the BACT Guidance, I’ll now do my best to bury it. I just don’t think anyone can truly say that it actually provides any guidance to either state permitting agencies or the regulated community regarding what in fact will constitute BACT. In fairness to EPA, I think that’s because they don’t know, but that’s hardly a comforting thought. It’s got to be worrisome to regulated facilities that they are now subject to a requirement to demonstrate BACT for GHG when they make a major modification at their facility and they simply don’t know what it will take to comply with the GHG requirements.

Take, for example, EPA’s discussion of when an agency requirement to evaluate a particular control option might be considered to “redefine the source.” The BACT Guidance discusses this issue for six pages, but provides what seems to me to be no guidance at all. The Guidance repeats the bromide that

EPA has recognized that a Step 1 list of options need not necessarily include inherently lower polluting processes that would fundamentally redefine the nature of the source proposed by the permit applicant. BACT should generally not be applied to regulate the applicant’s purpose or objective for the proposed facility.

However, the Guidance then ominously states that permitting agencies must

take a ‘hard look’ at the applicant’s proposed design in order to discern which design elements are inherent for the applicant’s purpose and which design elements may be changed to achieve pollutant emissions reductions without disrupting the applicant’s basic business purpose.

If that doesn't send chills down the spines of engineers everywhere, I don’t know what will.  Similarly, the guidance says that "EPA continues to believe that permitting authorities can show in most cases (my emphasis) that the option of using natural gas as a primary fuel would fundamentally redefine a coal-fired electric generating unit."  Unfortunately, the guidance then notes that where a power plant already combusts another fuel, such as for start-up purposes, it would be appropriate to evaluate whether use of that fuel might be BACT.

The Guidance is too long to summarize fully in a blog post, but I do want to leave you with one image, courtesy of EPA. In discussing the requirement to identify energy efficiency options, the Guidance helpfully states that not “every conceivable improvement that could marginally improve the energy efficiency of the new facility” need be listed. In making this concession, EPA cited to Sierra Club v. EPA, which “recognized the undesirability of making the BACT analysis into a ‘Sisyphean labor where there was always one more option to consider.’”

We can only hope that EPA and state permitting agencies really take those words to heart as this process unfolds. I’m not optimistic.

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

Almost all – 46 – states have delegated programs under the Clean Water Act. One criterion that EPA must determine has been satisfied before approving delegation is that the state has the ability to "abate violations of the permit … including civil and criminal penalties and other ways and means of enforcement."

EPA’s regulations provide that this criterion will be met if :

State law allows an opportunity for judicial review that is the same as that available to obtain judicial review in federal court of a federally-issued NPDES permit. A State will not meet this standard if it narrowly restricts the class of persons who may challenge the approval or denial of permits….

With respect to citizen suits, this language seems fairly clear. As long as the state does not impose heightened standing requirements, the same opportunity for judicial review exists.

When EPA approved delegation of the NPDES program to Alaska, notwithstanding that Alaska has a version of the so-called “English Rule,” which requires that losing parties pay fees to the winners, various citizen groups challenged the delegation, on the ground that the Alaska fee shifting provision means that, as a practical matter, Alaska restricts access to the courts in ways not permitted under the CWA. Last week, in Akiak Native Community v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the delegation. 

I actually wish that the Court had gone further than it did. As noted above, I think that, in the absence of different standing requirements, there is a comparable “opportunity” for judicial review. Instead, the Court’s decision was more limited, holding only that, as a result of certain limits on Alaska’s application of the fee-shifting rule, the plaintiffs had not met their burden to establish that EPA’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. Indeed, the Court noted that EPA could potentially reverse the delegation if it later finds in practice that Alaska courts are applying the fee-shifting provisions in ways that discourage citizen plaintiffs.

I just want to know – what’s so bad about fee-shifting?

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

Last March, I noted that Gina McCarthy’s belief that, in the near term, the biggest impact on GHG emissions would come from EPA’s traditional regulatory programs, rather than through GHG regulation. A report recently released by Credit Suisse indicates that she might be right. Looking at EPA’s upcoming promulgation of the Clean Air Transport Rule and the mercury MACT rule, Credit Suisse predicts that between 50 and 69 gigawatts of old coal plants will be retired between 2013 and 2017 as a result of implementation of the two rules. Credit Suisse also predicts that approximately 100 gigawatts of capacity will require significant additional investment to comply with the rules.

For those with money to invest, Credit Suisse recommends clean plants in dirty markets – a not surprising conclusion. 

For those more interested in the regulatory side of things, it is worth noting that the Credit Suisse analysis is admittedly fairly simplistic. They pretty much just looked at small plants lacking scrubbers as candidates for closure. As the report puts it:

environmental control costs are non-linear (they’re more expensive on a unit of capacity basis at a small coal plant) and because these plants are generally older and less efficient in energy conversion.

Without details about individual plants, the Credit Suisse approach is certainly reasonable. I note only that, where plants are not closed, installation of scrubbers for SO₂ or SCRs for NO_x actually increases GHG emissions, because scrubbers and SCR require additional station service, making the plants less efficient to operate than previously. Overall, I don’t doubt that the closure of coal plants will outweigh the decrease in efficiency in the coal plants that remain operational, but both effects should be included in any analysis of the impact of the Transport Rule and the MACT rule on GHG emissions.

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

In a crisply written opinion by Judge Posner, the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals just reversed a district court judgment against Cinergy in the NSR case involving Cinergy’s power plant in Wabash, Indiana, and directed that judgment enter for Cinergy. It is not obvious that the case will have wide applicability, but it is certainly worth noting.

The first key issue in Cinergy was whether proposed new projects would be subject to NSR review if they were expected to result in an increase in annual emissions or only if they would result in an increase in the hourly emissions rate. In an earlier ruling, the 7^th Circuit decided that annual emissions, rather than the hourly rate, was the appropriate test provided for in the statute and regulations.

However, when the case came to trial, a twist occurred. The jury only found violations with respect to four projects. All of those projects occurred between 1989 and 1992 – and during that time, Indiana’s SIP stated that the applicable test was whether a project would result in an hourly emissions rate increase. Even more complicated, EPA had approved the SIP, even though it also told Indiana that the SIP had to be changed. Indiana had apparently changed its rules prior to 1989, but failed to submit a SIP modification until 1994. The Court ruled that EPA must be held to the SIP that it approved and that was in effect at the time of the projects.

The Clean Air Act does not authorize the imposition of sanctions for conduct that complies with a State Implementation Plan that EPA has approved. The EPA approved Indiana’s plan with exceptions that did not include [the improper test.]

Calling EPA’s approval of the SIP a “blunder,” the Court said that EPA must live with it.

It’s not obvious that this decision will have much relevance outside cases in Indiana involving projects implemented during the time Indiana’s SIP contained the wrong test. However, it is a lesson that the details do matter – in particular, the details of the relevant SIP.

The second aspect of the case is also a lesson in the nitty-gritty of litigation – and may have broader applicability. With respect to NOx emissions [it is not clear why the NOx allegations were not controlled by the prior part of the decision], EPA relied on two experts to testify that the projects would result in increases in annual emissions. However, both experts relied on a formula used for baseload power plants. Unfortunately for EPA, the Wabash facility is a cycling plant, not a baseload plant. The model used by EPA's experts assumes that an increase in capacity would result in a proportionate increase in output. However, that assumption is not valid for a cycling plant. The Court thus ruled that the experts’ opinions should not have been admitted; without them, EPA had no evidence of increased emissions and judgment had to enter for Cinergy.

This aspect of the case provides a cautionary lesson for the government (though I wouldn’t start dancing in the street if I were defending one of these cases). I think that there has been a sense that, if the government wins the legal battle on the issue of annual emissions v. hourly emissions rate and wins the routine maintenance argument, then the defendants are sunk. This case is a reminder that the facts still matter and that the government has to prove its case based on evidence regarding the specific projects being challenged.

What a notion.

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

Earlier this week, I posted about the dire prospects for climate change legislation following the fall elections. The alternative to legislation has always been regulation under existing Clean Air Act authority, so it’s appropriate as a follow-up to briefly examine the pressures on EPA as it moves forward with its stationary source GHG regulations. Two headlines from the trade press today brought home just what a tightrope EPA is walking.

The first headline, from the Daily Environment Report, was to the effect that a “Ban on New Source Construction [Is] Possible In States Without Greenhouse Gas Permitting.” Specifically, Raj Rao, of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, said states that have not taken steps to implement permitting requirements by Jan. 2 could face the construction ban.

The second headline might be described as a corollary of the first. Today’s GreenWire notes that “New rules spark bipartisan fury in midterm elections.” Well, duh. Is it any surprise that in the face of continuing unemployment near 10%, regulations that even EPA acknowledges might result in construction bans in some states would be a topic of debate in congressional elections? In fact, the GreenWire piece was not even primarily about the GHG regulations and made no mention of the potential construction ban. It was largely about other EPA rules, such as the boiler MACT rule.

I have a certain amount of sympathy for EPA on this one. As I’ve noted previously, to a certain extent, EPA is just doing its job. On GHGs, it really has no choice but to regulate. While I have doubts about the legality of the Tailoring Rule, the alternative is only more onerous. The boiler MACT rule is another matter – and is complicated enough to warrant several posts of its own. However, EPA’s options are limited given the stringent provisions Congress itself wrote – and a Republican President signed into law. On conventional pollutants, the science is driving EPA towards lower and lower NAAQS, and more stringent rules on emitters follow like night follows the day.

Just so my friends in the regulated community don’t think I’ve gone soft, I will point out that it is at the least disingenuous for Administrator Lisa Jackson to say, as she was quoted in GreenWire, that:

The Clean Air Act does not place our need to increase employment in conflict with our needs to protect public health.

Somehow, that message has never gotten to the EPA and DOJ lawyers briefing appeals of EPA regulations, where those opposing the regulations say that they are uneconomic, while EPA's invariable rejoinder is that the Clean Air Act doesn't allow for the consideration of the cost of regulations in deciding how stringently to regulate.

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

On a day when ClimateWire reported that thousands of walruses are stuck on land because their usual summer home – sea ice – has disappeared, I’m beginning to wonder whether EPA’s stationary source GHG rules are similarly at risk. It may not be difficult for EPA to brush off a fairly over the top letter from Texas which basically asked EPA “What part of ‘hell no” don’t you understand?”

However, today Greenwire reports that Governor Freudenthal of Wyoming – a Democrat – is asking EPA to defer enforcement of GHG stationary source regulation. So is Ben Grumbles, head of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Grumbles may be a Republican, but he was head of the water office under the Bush EPA, so he has to have some idea of the legal pressure for EPA to regulate GHGs following Massachusetts v. EPA. 

In addition to these latest requests from the states, ClimateWire had a separate story today which noted that Senate efforts to bar EPA from regulating GHG may still be alive and that Democrat Senators Nelson and Dorgan may support attaching the legislation to the EPA appropriations bill. Readers of this blog know that I am a fan of Senator Graham’s willingness to consider climate legislation, but EPA has to be worried if it is counting on Senator Graham’s prediction that the amendment will fail.

I have long said that EPA’s regulations are here to stay, because they are not only defensible, they are - in some form, at least - pretty much mandated by Massachusetts v. EPA. However, where the prevailing metaphor for the November elections is that of a GOP tsunami, one has to wonder whether there is a realistic possibility that, one way or another, EPA regulation of GHG under existing authority could be subject to significant delay.

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

Sometimes, the headline writes the story. EPA’s TMDL program under the Clean Water Act has been the subject of so much litigation since its inception that EPA has a web page devoted to the status of litigation on the establishment of TMDLs.

Bringing things close to home, the Conservation Law Foundation and the Coalition for Buzzards Bay filed suit late last month, challenging implementation by MassDEP and EPA of the TMDL program for certain embayments on Cape Cod and Nantucket. (Full disclosure time – this firm represents the CBB on unrelated matters.)

The law suit claims that MassDEP erred in determining the waste load allocation, or WLA, in establishing the TMDLs for the embayments, because it failed to identify septic systems, stormwater systems, and wastewater treatment systems as point sources. (Since we also represent wastewater treatment system operators – though none that are the subject of these TMDLs – I think that, like Joe Friday, this is going to be a “Just the facts, ma’am,” post.)

With respect to stormwater systems, MassDEP determined that systems located less than 200 feet from the embayments were point sources, but that those farther away were not. The basis for this determination, according to the complaint, was that the more proximate systems in fact discharge to surface waters, whereas the more distant ones discharge to groundwater, so that there is no point source discharge to surface water. 

The complaint does not identify the basis for MassDEP’s conclusion that septic systems are not point sources, but presumably it is also based on a conclusion that the systems discharge to groundwater and thus are not point sources of surface water pollution.  

Without commenting on the merits – just the facts, ma’am – I will note that a determination that septic systems and stormwater drainage systems that discharge initially to groundwater are point sources under the CWA would have dramatic consequences for the regulation of nutrient pollution under the CWA. In situations where there are industrial sources of these pollutants, those industrial sources might be quite pleased to have someone else bear share of the burden of reductions necessary to meet the TMDL. Given the brouhaha over how state agencies would cope with permitting hundreds or thousands of new stationary sources under EPA’s Clean Air Act PSD program for GHGs, however, I cannot imagine that MassDEP – or other state environmental agencies – would eagerly assume the responsibility for permitting septic systems.

Why do I foresee more litigation in the TMDL program’s future?

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

I have previously expressed my distaste for public nuisance litigation to require reductions in GHG emissions. It cannot be more than a tactic in a war to the plaintiffs, because the chaos resulting from regulation of a global problem through a series of individual law suits has to be obvious to everyone. Now, apparently, that chaos is also obvious to the Obama administration, because it has filed a brief with the Supreme Court, asking the Court to accept a certiorari petition filed by the defendants in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, the 2^nd Circuit case in which the Court of Appeals held that the nuisance claims could proceed. 

The United States cited two reasons why the government should take the case and vacate the appellate decision. First, the brief states that the petitioners failed to demonstrate “prudential standing.” In other words, while they may have Article III standing, federal courts should “refrain from adjudicating ‘generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches.’” As the brief notes:

The problem is not simply that many plaintiffs could bring such claims and that many defendants could be sued. Rather, it is that essentially any potential plaintiff could claim to have been injured by any (or all) of the potential defendants. The medium that transmits injury to potential plaintiffs is literally the Earth’s entire atmosphere – making it impossible to consider the sort of focused and more geographically limited effects characteristic of traditional nuisance suits….

Second, and perhaps more importantly, the administration has argued that EPA’s recent regulatory efforts with respect to GHG, including the mobile source rule and the PSD / Title V rules for stationary sources – which occurred after the 2^nd Circuit decision – have “displaced” federal nuisance law. Since the Second Circuit specifically addressed the displacement argument and found for the plaintiffs in part precisely because EPA had not yet regulated GHG, EPA’s intervening regulatory actions certainly would seem to provide a basis for remanding the 2^nd Circuit decision. I think that’s an easy call for the Supreme Court to make.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the plaintiffs’ attorneys were dismayed by the filing of the brief.  According to GreenWire, Matt Pawa, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, said that:

We feel stabbed in the back. This was really a dastardly move by an administration that said it was a friend of the environment. With friends like this, who needs enemies?"

My take is a little different. Why don’t the plaintiffs’ attorneys thank the administration for promulgating the various GHG regulations, admit that the nuisance cases were a tactic to move Congress and the administration, claim a partial victory, because they at least got EPA moving, fold up their tents, and go home.

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

The Cape Wind project cleared another important hurdle yesterday with a 4-2 ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, holding that the state Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) can authorize local construction permits for the project’s transmission lines. The decision in Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound Inc. v. Energy Facilities Siting Board is particularly significant because it means that the renewable energy project has all of the state and local permits it needs to move forward.  

In late 2007, after the Cape Cod Commission denied its proposed Development of Regional Impact (DRI), Cape Wind applied to the EFSB for a “certificate of environmental impact and public interest” -- a composite of all of the individual state and local permits required for the construction of the 18.4 miles of transmission lines that will connect the wind farm to the regional power grid. This suit, brought by the Cape Cod Commission, the town of Barnstable, and the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, challenged the EFSB’s May 2009 decision granting the certificate to Cape Wind. In short, the SJC held that the EFSB had the authority to grant the certificate and upheld the Board’s substantive findings, which balance the environmental impacts of the transmission lines with the need for the project. 

A key aspect of the decision is the SJC's rejection of the petitioners' arguments that the EFSB should have reviewed “in-State” impacts of the wind farm, which is permitted exclusively by Federal authorities, rather than focusing solely on the impacts of the transmission lines, which require state and local permits.  Essentially, if the project is built in federal waters, the EFSB can trust the feds to get it right, the majority said.

Chief Justice Marshall (joined by Justice Spina) dissented, issuing a stern warning:

The stakes are high.  As we have recently seen in the Gulf of Mexico, the failure to take into account in-State consequences of federally-authorized energy projects in federal waters can have catastrophic effects on state tidelands and coastal areas, and all who depend on them. 

The decision also includes a lively debate about the implications of the public trust doctrine and the Chapter 91 licensing scheme in this context.

Writing for the majority, Justice Botsford concluded that the statute which authorizes the EFSB to issue certificates of environmental impact and public interest provides

an express legislative directive to the siting board to stand in the shoes of any and all State and local agencies with permitting authority over a proposed "facility"-- that is, a directive to assume all the powers and obligations of such an agency with respect to the decision whether to grant the authorization that is within the agency's jurisdiction, with regulatory enforcement thereafter returned to that agency.

Again, Chief Justice Marshall disagreed.  Reflecting on the SJC’s recent decisions in Moot v. Department of Envtl. Protection, (2007) and Arno v. Commonwealth, (2010), she reasoned that even in this case -- which has to do with the administration rather than the relinquishment of public trust rights -- the Legislature must act expressly. Here, Justice Marshall concluded,

the siting board has purported to act as the protector of the public's long-standing rights under the public trust doctrine without the necessary express legislative authority to do so.

Of course, underlying this debate is the important policy question of which picture of Nantucket Sound is more protective of the public trust?  The state, and now the SJC, have chosen.

 

   

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The BNA reported today that the Massachusetts Office of Technical Assistance and Technology has developed a guidance document identifying considerations for the safe development of engineered nanoparticles, or ENPs. As many of my readers know, I am deeply suspicious of regulatory agency guidance documents. Guidance is often used as a short-cut so that the agency can avoid notice and comment rule-making. Moreover, it’s generally one-sided; agencies refuse to be bound by guidance, because “it’s only guidance,” but street level bureaucrats effectively treat the guidance as regulations, so that the regulated community is effectively deprived of the flexibility that guidance is supposed to provide.

I’m pleased to say, however, that the OTA guidance appears to be a thoughtful, measured approach to safe handling of ENPs. My view is apparently corroborated by the NanoBusiness Alliance, which, according to the BNA, supports the guidance.

In this case, the guidance clearly is not a trick to avoid notice and comment rule-making. It will be issued by the OTA, which has no regulatory authority. Instead, the guidance appears to advance two goals. First, offers a simple compendium of generally reasonable steps to take to minimize the risks associated with the manufacture, handling, use, and disposal of ENPs. Second, it is intended to be a confidence builder. As the OTA notes, “increasing confidence and trust can enhance commercial prospects” for ENPs.

I certainly expect some kind of robust regulatory regime focused on ENPs down the road. However, it’s important, in this nascent state of the technology, that advocates of the precautionary principle not be in a position impose regulations that could stifle the development of a set of technologies that have so much promise in so many fields – including environmental protection. In this context, guidance such as that set forth by the OTA seems an appropriate effort at facilitating appropriate management practices without unduly burdening nanotechnology business.

• 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

As the Massachusetts legislative session wound down, there was the usual last-minute scramble – heightened, this time, by the Legislature’s focus on casino gambling. Notwithstanding the preoccupation with gambling, the Legislature did manage to enact the Permit Extension Act, which developers have been pushing for some time. Briefly, permits in effect at any time between August 15, 2008 and August 15, 2010, will be extended for two years. To read more, check out our client alert.

The Legislature was not able to get wind siting legislation enacted. The House passed the bill at midnight on the last day, but it died in the Senate. Presumably, those legislators who will defend home rule with their dying breath think that the 8 years Cape Wind has spent in permitting (yes, I know that Cape Wind would not have been affected by the wind siting legislation) and the 7 years that the Hoosac wind project has spent in permitting demonstrate that our permitting system works well and needs no improvement.

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

As many of you know, the Commonwealth's tidelands licensing statute, Chapter 91, is one of my favorites, for no other reason than that it gives me the opportunity to talk about where the "waters ebbeth and floweth."  Deriving from the Colonial Ordinances of 1641 and 1647, Chapter 91 is about as arcane as it gets – which, of course, lawyers are supposed to like. 

The short version is that the Commonwealth holds the fee interest in “Commonwealth Tidelands” – those below the low water line. While the Commonwealth can license private use of Commonwealth Tidelands, only the legislature, acting explicitly, can give up those rights. Private Tidelands, the land between high and low water, are owned by the upland owner, but are subject to public rights in “fishing, fowling, and navigation” – another reason why I love Chapter 91.

In a decision handed down today, the Massachusetts SJC made crystal-clear that nothing short of an explicit legislative act is sufficient to eliminate the public’s ownership rights in tidelands. In Arno v. Commonwealth, the “owner” of land in Nantucket that was filled in the 19^th Century sued the Commonwealth, essentially seeking a declaration that he was the fee owner of the land. His argument was that a prior owner had registered the land in 1922, and the Attorney General, in commenting at the time, did not object to registration or assert that the Commonwealth still owned the land. To the SJC, what the AG did – or intended to do – in 1922 was irrelevant. 

Neither the Land Court nor the Attorney General had the authority to divest the public of its rights in Arno’s parcel…. Only an act of or an express delegation by the Legislature could extinguish the public’s rights.

The decision is probably not a surprise following the SJC’s original Moot decision, but is nonetheless a lesson to those who would claim ownership in tidelands. If the waters ebbeth and floweth – or if they ever did – only the legislature can give them away.

• 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you Judge Wilkinson.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incinerators really are the devil.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ve been waiting to write this headline ever since the SJC took this case. Today, the SJC issued its long-awaited decision in Moot v. Department of Environmental Protection. For those of you who pay attention to where the waters ebbeth and floweth – or at least where they ebbed and flowed in 1641 – you know that this is the second time that Moot has been before the SJC.

After the SJC struck down MassDEP regulations which provided that landlocked tidelands did not need a license under Chapter 91, as the Commonwealth’s waterways statute is now known, the Legislature took a shot at fixing what would have been a major problem by passing new legislation specifically excluding landlocked tidelands from the need to obtain a license. 

Moot challenged the legislation, arguing that it completely relinquished all of the Commonwealth’s rights in private tidelands, without making the findings necessary to justify such a relinquishment. The SJC did not agree. The Court concluded that the Commonwealth has preserved its rights in landlocked tidelands, and noted that projects subject to MEPA must address project impacts on the Commonwealth’s tideland rights. In essence, the Court concluded that the oversight provided by MEPA was sufficient to demonstrate that the Commonwealth could and would still enforce its rights in landlocked tidelands. Since those rights are still protected, the Court concluded, the Legislature had authority to exclude landlocked tidelands from the need to obtain a license under Chapter 91. 

This is clearly the right result. The only question in my mind is the gymnastics that the Court had to go through to get there. The Court may have concluded that the Commonwealth has not relinquished all of its rights in landlocked tidelands, but does anyone think that the MEPA process will ever result in developers being required to make changes to their projects to protect those rights? I sure hope not. Certainly, the first developer forced to do anything different as a result of that process is not going to be a happy camper. It would have been cleaner for the SJC to acknowledge that the Legislature was effectively relinquishing the public’s rights in landlocked tidelands and to affirm that act. Nonetheless, this decision pretty much did what was needed and a large number of landowners – not just the developers defending this case – are breathing a lot easier this afternoon.

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

Massachusetts has an “anti-SLAPP” statute (as do 26 other states at this point, apparently). The law protects “petitioning”, by precluding litigation targeting petitioning, providing an early motion to dismiss, and awarding attorneys’ fees to defendants where a court finds that the defendants were indeed engaged in petitioning activity.

Yesterday, the Massachusetts Appeals Court struck a blow for reason when it determined, in Brice Estates v. Smith, that a trespass is not protected petitioning activity. Those of you outside Massachusetts may be wondering why we needed a court case to tell us this. Those of you inside Massachusetts, particularly in the development community, know where this is headed.

Brice Estates involved a real estate developer, looking to build a large residential subdivision. Low and behold an abutter observed a four-toed salamander – a species protected under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act. Of course, the developer shouldn’t have been surprised, because developers of projects with significant opposition often learn of mysterious discoveries of endangered species at the project location.

The only aspect of this case that was different was that a specifically identified person was known to have gone onto the developer’s property – thus providing the basis for a trespass claim. The Court of Appeals made clear that, while notifying the authorities of the presence of the salamander was protected petitioning activity, the trespass itself was not. Moreover, the court also made clear that, even if the reason why the owner filed suit was the protected petitioning activity, the owner may still bring the action with respect to the non-protected activity.

Time will tell whether the lesson to NIMBY types is “no shenanigans” or “don’t get caught.”

• 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

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

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

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

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

Those of us who advise clients regarding compliance with environmental regulations have often been in the awkward position of agreeing with clients that the agency position is, shall we say, misguided, yet at the same time advising against legal challenge, because the judicial review deck is stacked so heavily in favor of the agency. (In another time or place, one might ask why this is so.)

Nevertheless, occasionally, the agency loses and, when it does, that loss can be instructive. Yesterday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that MassDEP may not impose conditions on registrations under the Water Management Act without first promulgating regulations to guide its discretion in imposing such conditions.

Under the WMA, withdrawals existing as of the date of Act were grandfathered and persons with such withdrawals are allowed to maintain them by registering the withdrawal with MassDEP. Such registrations must be renewed periodically, but MassDEP may not reduce the size of the withdrawal. (New or increased withdrawals, on the other hand, require a permit and are subject to more stringent regulation.)

In the last round of registration renewals, MassDEP began imposing conditions on the registrations in order to increase water conservation. However, while the statute authorizes MassDEP to impose conditions on permits, similar language does not exist with respect to registrations. 

The SJC spent some time discussing MassDEP’s authority to promulgate regulations that would impose conservation requirements on registrants, but made clear that the plain language of the statute did not seem to authorize MassDEP to impose conditions on registrants absent regulations.

What’s the lesson here? With respect to the WMA, it’s “no shortcuts.” If MassDEP wants to impose conservation requirements on registrants, it must do so pursuant to validly promulgated regulations. What’s the broader lesson? Challenging the agency may be an uphill battle, but legislative language does matter and, where the language is clear, the courts will – at least sometimes – enforce it.

• 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

 

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

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

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

As most of my Massachusetts readers know, on Friday, Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Ian Bowles and DEP Commissioner Laurie Burt announced that Massachusetts would retain its moratorium on new construction or expansion of municipal waste combustors. Although the overall outcome is not really a surprise from this administration, a few points are worth noting.

The announcement says nothing about new technologies, such as plasma arc gasification. Arguably, such a technology is not “incineration” or “combustion,” so we’ll have to see whether the administration remains open to such alternatives to traditional incineration.

The administration emphasized that it is committed to decreasing the volume of the waste stream and noted some specific initiatives that it intends to pursue:

Comprehensive producer responsibility legislation for discarded electronics – The announcement did not refer to any specific legislation (see here for a helpful table summarizing the current state of e-waste legislation nationwide, including in MA), but the administration is clearly going to be pushing for some kind of E-waste bill.

Expansion of the bottle bill to cover water and sports drinks. Since I have joined those who consider bottled water use a pet peeve, I can’t complain about this one.

Finally, the Secretary stated that he had directed DEP to cease permitting any use of construction and demolition, or C&D, waste as fuel in any energy facility until a comprehensive review can be completed.  The announcement specifically called out the Palmer Renewable Energy facility as being affected by the halt.

It is clear that the current economy is not discouraging the Patrick administration from its aggressive environmental agenda.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TANSTAAFL.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• 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

As I discussed last week, in response to the current dire state fiscal outlook, Massachusetts Secretary of Energy & Environmental Affairs Ian Bowles announced, pursuant to a request from Governor Patrick, a search for “options for departmental reorganization and consolidation, streamlined operations and procedures, and new models for doing the public's business.” Given that Secretary Bowles has invited public assistance, it should not be too surprising that some folks have stepped up to the plate, so I thought I would share submittals that I have seen. 

Recently, both NAIOP and the Environmental League of Massachusetts have made suggestions to Secretary Bowles. Before going further, I should note that I need to be a little more circumspect here that I might normally be, because I do advise NAIOP on regulatory reform issues and I’m on the board of ELM. Since that is the case, you’re going to get more summary and less commentary than you otherwise might. That being said, here goes.

The NAIOP letter was much more detailed. I think that the regulated community sees this as an opportunity to push for regulatory reform efforts that it truly believes benefit both the regulated community and EEA. The benefits to EEA are precisely those that were the subject of the Governor’s request to his cabinet – by increasing use of general permits, privatizing more audit-type functions, and reducing the number of unnecessary, i.e., not statutorily-mandated regulations and guidance documents, EEA and MassDEP can operate more leanly and conserve precious resources. These types of changes may have a sympathetic audience at EEA, but they are very difficult to implement, because the environmental community is so skeptical of these types of programs. The current budget problems may provide a rare opportunity to advance this part of the regulated community’s agenda.

ELM’s letter was much more limited in its scope. It largely provides the rationale for limiting cuts to EEA departments. I think that this largely reflects a “where you stand depends on where you sit” phenomenon. NAIOP sees the budget problem and the Secretary’s invitation as an opportunity; ELM and other environmental NGOs see it as an exercise in damage control. ELM’s position is understandable and defensible. It is true that DEP, at least, took what many see as disproportionate cuts during the last budget crisis.

If I may mix my metaphors, I’m an optimist, so I sit in the half-full glass, and I thus stand squarely in favor of seizing this opportunity for thoughtful regulatory reform. The budget crisis is obviously a major headache for EEA and its departments. However, many of the suggestions NAIOP has made are good public policy that would maintain – or increase – environmental protection, while allowing the agencies to accomplish this important goal with fewer resources.

• 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

On the be careful what you wish for front, Massachusetts Energy and Environment Secretary Ian Bowles announced yesterday an effort to examine “options for changes in administrative structures and programs to meet environmental goals in light of budget challenges.” The announcement identifies three separate areas of investigation:

Public-Private Partnerships – This makes a lot of sense, but, based on the announcement, seems to be too narrowly focused. The announcement indicates that the review will focus on management of properties owned by the Department of Conservation and Recreation. However, we shouldn’t just be looking at whether to let Disney sponsor the Freedom Trail. For example, I am on the board of the Corporate Wetlands Restoration Partnership, a public-private partnership that leverages private money to assist publicly funded wetlands restoration projects. Surely, there are other, similar opportunities to enlist the private sector in in financing EEA programs.

New Regulatory Models – Here is where the rubber meets the road for most of us attorneys and our clients. The announcement mentions MassDEP’s very successful privatization of our state Superfund program, Chapter 21E, and asks whether there are other opportunities for similar innovations. Some thoughts:

Greater use of general permits.

Other opportunities to privatize, such as inspections and audit functions. Naysayers will raise concerns about the independence of third-party inspections, but it’s a false dichotomy to contrast a world of perfect inspections by DEP with a system of private inspections. Audits and inspections would occur with much greater regularity if regulated facilities were required to pay a third party to audit their facilities every year.  Wouldn't that be a good thing?

Greater consistency in agency decision-making. I don’t think that EEA or DEP realize the costs imposed by their failed efforts to rein in street level bureaucrats who have their own ideas as to what good policy is.

Spend less time writing new guidance and let qualified professionals exercise their professional judgment without wasting precious agency time questioning whether a regulated entity used the proper font in its latest submittal (sorry, rhetorical excess alert).

Reorganization/Consolidation of State Agencies

Secretary Bowles, Commissioner Burt, and others involved should be commended for undertaking this effort. It would be great if the current budget crisis could be turned into a real opportunity for reform. As I’ve said on other occasions, this should be a Nixon-in-China moment for regulatory reform. 

Carpe diem.

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

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

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

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

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

Reduce VMT by 30% from 2008 levels

Recover 90% of all waste generated

Reduce consumption of carbon-intensive foods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although not breaking any new ground, a decision from the Massachusetts Appeals Court last week provides a helpful summary of the discretion typically given to MassDEP in making permitting decisions. In Healer v. Department of Environmental Protection, abutters to a proposed wastewater treatment facility in Falmouth sued MassDEP, claiming that the groundwater discharge from the leach field associated with the facility would damage drinking water supplies and nearby wetlands. The Court affirmed the MassDEP Commissioner’s rejection of the abutters’ challenge.

As the Court noted

the “applicable standard of review is “highly deferential to the agency” and requires the reviewing court to accord “due weight to the experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge of the agency, as well as to the discretionary authority conferred upon it…. We give deference to the decision of an agency interpreting its own regulations … [and] do not intrude lightly within the agency’s area of expertise, as long as the regulations are interpreted with reference to their purpose and to the purpose and design of the controlling statute.”

As if that were not enough of a nod towards agency deference, the Court also noted, in the context of the plaintiffs’’ challenge to the monitoring requirements imposed in the permit, that

The Legislature “has chosen to put into the hands of an expert administrative agency the decision making regarding complex issues of environmental … science…, and has allowed the agency considerable discretion in determining monitoring of applicable parameters in order to carry out its duty….

Finally, the Court made at least one statement about the plaintiffs’ affirmative case that is sure to be cited by MassDEP and permittees in future citizen suits. In rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that toxic household chemicals might cause environmental damage, the Court stated that the “regulations do not require the department to establish permit conditions based on the plaintiffs’ speculative concerns.”

So, what’s the upshot of Healer? It certainly confirms that, as a general matter, courts are not going to reverse agency decisions unless they seem really off-the-wall.  On the other hand, it remains true that MassDEP does not always win and my own jaded view is that courts remain willing to reverse MassDEP, even when deference would require that the court affirm the agency, if the agency decision somehow rubs the court the wrong way.

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

In an important decision yesterday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the operator facility participating in the renewable portfolio standard program did not have standing to challenge a state decision authorizing other facilities to participate in the RPS program. The decision may have broad implications regarding when businesses may challenge the issuance of permits or other approvals to competitors in Massachusetts.

In Indeck Maine Energy v. Commissioner of Energy Resources, the plaintiffs operated biomass facilities which were authorized to sell renewable energy credits. When the Department of Energy Resources authorized two other biomass facilities to sell RPS credits, plaintiffs sued.

As the SJC noted up front, to establish standing, a plaintiff must “allege an injury within the area of concern of the statute or regulatory scheme under which the injurious action has occurred.” At least in Massachusetts, an injury from business competition does not confer standing. However, prior cases held that this rule “does not apply … to competitors in a regulated industry.” The question is thus: What does it mean to be in a regulated industry?

After analyzing the purpose of the RPS statute and its prior cases on this issue, the court came to a relatively simple conclusion:

The question of standing in the context of competitive injury turns not simply on whether an industry is regulated, but rather on how that industry is regulative. The common threat present in the cases in which standing has been found is regulatory schemes that contemplated some form of protection of the competitive interests of the respective plaintiffs.

Accordingly, if an industry is regulated in such a way that it can be said that the protection of competitors is within the regulatory scheme’s area of concern, such a competitor alleging harm deriving from business competition would have standing to sue.

Applying the rule here, the SJC concluded that the plaintiffs did not have standing, because the Legislature “did not seek to protect and thereby confer standing to sue on existing competitors, thereby creating a barrier to market entry.” In other words, a business does not have standing to challenge an approval issued to a competitor unless the very purpose of the regulatory scheme was to protect the competitive position of the plaintiff.

This decision has potentially significant impacts on other permitting regimes, such as those implemented by MassDEP.  Following Indeck, a business harmed by the issuance of an environmental permit issued to a competitor will not have standing to challenge the permit, because it is not the purpose of any of the environmental permitting regimes to create barriers to market entry.

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

As most readers know, Massachusetts and California have been leading the pack in requiring analysis of greenhouse gas impacts in connection with reviews of new development. Now, New York State is catching up. This week, the Department of Environmental Conservation, or DEC, released its Policy on Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Environmental Impact Statements. The policy is certainly similar to the Massachusetts Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol. Nonetheless, the DEC Policy has a few items worth noting.

DEC has provided that, with respect to indirect GHG emissions from: (1) off-site energy generation and (2) vehicle trips, a project proponent may avoid the need to provide a quantitative analysis of these issues if he/she can demonstrate to DEC that the project already “has minimized emissions to the maximum extent practicable.” This opt-out is similar to one provided in the Massachusetts GHG policy, except that the MA policy requires that the developer commit in advance to GHG reductions that are variously described as “exceptional” and “extraordinary.”

The DEC Policy includes specific provisions governing assessment of methane emissions from landfills. It requires use of site specific information, together with EPA’s Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol, Direct Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfilling module (October 2004).

Even aside from the provisions addressing landfill emissions, the Policy requires an assessment of emissions from waste generation and management. This is not required by the MA policy.

Like Massachusetts, the DEC Policy requires that “priority and preference” be given to on-site mitigation measures. Off-site mitigation can be considered, but only after DEC staff have considered the “completeness” of on-site mitigation.

There is no doubt that requiring an assessment of the GHG impacts of new development is a trend at this point – and one that is only going to accelerate. As federal legislation or regulation under existing CAA authority becomes a reality, and as more states start to pass their own version of a Global Warming Solutions Act, as California and Massachusetts have already done, squeezing the maximum GHG reductions out of new development is going to become an imperative. At some point, GHG review may become similar to offset programs in non-attainment areas. New developments are going to have to be as efficient as possible – and may also have to purchase offsets to make such new developments climate neutral.  

Time will tell, but it’s often much easier to go after new development than to try to squeeze emissions reductions out of existing facilities. The result is that increasingly stringent mitigation requirements seem inevitable.

• 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

This week, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs announced release of the draft Ocean Management Plan, developed pursuant to the Oceans Act of 2008. The draft Plan has gotten most press for its identification of specific areas for off-shore wind energy development – as well as its prohibition of wind farms in other areas, including the area of the proposed Buzzards Bay wind farm. EOEEA Secretary Ian Bowles was quoted as saying that Buzzards Bay is too crowded and sensitive for the development of large-scale wind farms.

The Plan is about much more than wind farms, however. It really is zoning brought off-shore. There are areas where certain uses are prohibited, areas in which uses are encouraged, and other areas that will be subject to performance standards to determine whether specific uses should be allowed. Where uses are at least conceptually allowed, there will be provisions to protect sensitive areas, including a provision that requires proponents of uses in such areas to “avoid, or demonstrate that there is no less damaging practicable alternative, or demonstrate that data does not accurately characterize the resource or use.”

The Plan is important for several reasons:

The breadth of its application

The effort to integrate ocean planning with the Commonwealth’s climate change agenda

Its potential precedential effect on other states and nascent federal ocean zoning efforts

Public hearings on the Plan will be held in September, though they have not yet been scheduled. Even in advance of the hearings, comments on the Plan can be submitted here. The schedule calls for the final Plan to be issued by December 31, 2009.

• 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

As we previously noted, last fall Massachusetts proposed sweeping new regulations designed to reduce phosphorus discharges in stormwater. In response to a very large number of comments, MassDEP is taking a second look at the regulations, though the bookies in Las Vegas are laying odds against there being any significant changes made when the regulations reappear.

Now Maryland is also getting into the act, although it is taking a slightly different approach. Under a statute enacted in 2007, developers in Maryland must incorporate the concept of “environmental site design” into their plans. ESD means

using small-scale stormwater management practices, nonstructural techniques, and better site planning to mimic natural hydrologic runoff characteristics and minimize the impact of land development on water resources.

The Maryland statute will be enforced by counties and municipalities. Therefore, the Maryland Department of the Environment has released a Model Stormwater Management Ordinance for use by local governments in implementing the statute.

As one of the contentious issues in the Massachusetts debate has been when redevelopment would subject a property to the requirements of the regulations, it is notable that the Maryland ordinance defines redevelopment as

any construction, alteration, or improvement performed on sites where existing land use is commercial, industrial, institutional, or multifamily residential and existing site impervious area exceeds 40 percent. [Emphasis added.]

To that, I can only say, uh-oh.

One final note on stormwater – Oregon just enacted legislation limiting the phosphorus content of certain soaps.  This is not significant in its own right. However, in Massachusetts, many of the comments from developers and industrial interests noted that the types of stormwater controls proposed by MassDEP may not be the most cost-effective way to reduce nutrient loading to water bodies, and specifically suggested that programs targeted at consumers using products containing nutrients might be a better way to attack the problem in the first instance.

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

I know it’s hard to believe, but some of you may not have realized that today is World Oceans Day. In connection with World Oceans Day, Senator Jay Rockefeller has written a letter to the White House in support of the concept of “ocean zoning.” Senator Rockefeller will also be holding hearings on the issue tomorrow. Among those testifying will be Deerin Babb-Brott, who is the Assistant Secretary in the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and is in charge of Massachusetts’ first in the nation ocean zoning effort.

The Massachusetts effort is based on the Oceans Act of 2008, which called for development of a comprehensive ocean management plan. In other words, ocean zoning. Since enactment of the Act, EOEEA has been working on developing the required plan, with assistance from the Ocean Advisory Commission, which was created by the Act to help guide EOEEA’s development of the plan. The plan has yet to issue and, based on recent documents from EOEEA, it may be some time before the final plan sees the light of day.

Notwithstanding the complexities of the issue – or perhaps because of them – Senator Rockefeller apparently believes that federal ocean zoning would be appropriate. He may be right. Issues such as renewable energy and deepwater aquaculture may be of local concern, but do we really want a patchwork of local laws and regulations dictating policy on issues of broad national concern?  If we go that route, it won’t be very long before there is a yet more complicated set of exemptions and preemptions.

I’m sure that Deerin will not be advocating federal preemption of local ocean zoning efforts, but there is a part of me that hopes that Deerin’s testimony is so effective that he talks himself out of a job.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

As we noted previously, in the face of efforts to include language in the stimulus bill exempting stimulus projects from the requirements of NEPA, Senator Boxer proposed what you can describe either as a compromise or a fig leaf. Section 1609 of the bill provides that NEPA reviews will be expedited and resources will be devoted to facilitate such expedited reviews. According to the Environmental Reporter today, CEQ is going to be providing guidance to federal agencies on how to conduct such expedited reviews.

Despite my normal skepticism about agency guidance documents, such guidance would almost certainly be welcome in these circumstances. Agencies are obviously going to be under a lot of pressure to get the stimulus money out the door and CEQ is not going to want to be in the position taking the blame for being an obstacle. I am therefore hopeful that the guidance will indeed help facilitate these projects. If citizen suits are brought challenging the NEPA review for any particular project, CEQ’s interpretation of what’s acceptable should receive Chevron deference, thus likely insulating agency decisions resulting from following procedures promulgated by CEQ pursuant to § 1609. 

In related news, new CEQ Chair Nancy Sutley has said that she wants “higher-level policymakers” to be more involved in NEPA reviews at their agencies than they have been in the past. If such early involvement is used to identify and resolve issues before they become problems, then who would not be pleased at this initiative? On the other hand, if such involvement is a mechanism for CEQ to have greater influence on agency decision-making, then I would be less sure of the benefits and more worried that politically sensitive agency decisions will just get bogged down, without any corresponding improvement in the quality of agency decision-making.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

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

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

I have posted a few times recently about the tension between environmental regulation and economic development, particularly in the context of current efforts at devising a stimulus package in Congress. Yesterday, Congress rejected an amendment to the stimulus bill, offered by Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), which would have required NEPA reviews to be completed within 270 days for projects funded through the stimulus. Projects not reviewed during this time period would have been constructively approved, i.e., the absence of NEPA review during the 270-day period would have resulted in a determination that the project had no significant impact.

Instead, Congress approved a competing amendment offered by Senator Boxer, which simply requires that NEPA reviews be completed as expeditiously as possible. Senator Barrasso went on record thanking Senator Boxer for at least introducing her amendment recognizing the importance of expedited review.  Nonetheless, the proof will be in the pudding when highway projects – or other projects in the stimulus bill that might have significant environmental opposition – attempt to run the NEPA gauntlet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last week, I posted about the Pollard decision, which made clear that local boards to not have unlimited discretion to ignore evidence provided by project proponents. This week, the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak. In Macero v. MacDonald, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed a decision in favor of a project opponent, on essentially the same analysis as that in Pollard.

In Macero, the developer sought a variance from state and local septic system regulations. The developer provided some information from a professional. However, the local Board of Health did not, apparently, formally review that information, and its decision did not include specific findings that the standards for the variance had been met. As the Appeals Court stated, “the authority of the board is broad…. However, competent judicial review … is … rendered difficult if not impossible by the lack of specific findings and rationale for the agency decision.”

The lesson here? Even if the board is on your side, make sure that they take the time to dot all their i’s and cross all their t’s.

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