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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 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

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

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

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

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

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