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

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

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

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

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 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

Developers and others who appear before local boards know what an uphill battle it is to challenge decisions of those boards. After all, there’s a reason for the existence of the phrase “You can’t fight City Hall.” Of course, it’s never a good idea to fight City Hall unless you absolutely have to do so, but a recent decision from the Massachusetts Appeals Court gives some hope to those forced into that position by a board taking an extreme position.

In Pollard v. Conservation Commission of Norfolk, the local conservation commission, acting under its local wetlands bylaw, rejected a request for an order of conditions – a permit, to those of you outside Massachusetts – on the ground that the developer had not met its burden of demonstrating that the proposed work would not adversely affect a resource area. The developer had submitted a report by a consultant, in which the consultant opined that the project would not adversely affect the resource area and would comply with the bylaw.

The only evidence in the record before the commission was the report from the developer’s consultant. The commission took no other evidence. Instead, the commission simply concluded that the expert’s report was not credible. Since the developer had the burden of demonstrating compliance with the bylaw, the commission concluded that this was a sufficient ground on which to reject the permit application. 

The Appeals Court concluded otherwise.

While noting that the commission was not required to credit the developer’s expert, even though uncontradicted, the Appeals Court concluded that the commission was required to provide a basis for its rejection of the expert, noting that “evidence of a party having the burden of proof may not be disbelieved without an explicit and objectively adequate reason.” Since the commission had made no effort, either in its decision or in court, to explain its rejection of the expert opinion, the Court had no way to determine whether the commission “decision was arrived at with fairness and without predisposition.”

Developers cannot necessarily take this decision to the bank. As long as local boards provide some reasoned basis for their decision, a successful challenge will remain a long shot. However, where a local board truly ignores available evidence, there is some hope that courts will ensure that reason prevails.

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