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

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

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

With everyone in agreement that cap-and-trade legislation is dead in Congress for the near term, attention is now turning to whether Congress might be able to pass some kind of renewable or clean energy standard. In fact, even Thomas Donahue, President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, sworn foe of cap-and-trade legislation, is saying that the Chamber could support some kind of climate change legislation – presumably a CES including nuclear power – as long as the legislation precludes EPA regulation of GHG under existing authority. 

For those who are taking the half a loaf approach to climate legislation, I recommend this post by Rob Stavins at Harvard and Dick Schmalensee at MIT, which compares cap-and-trade legislation with CES legislation. The piece is a remarkably cogent short analysis of the issue, so I hate to excerpt something which can be read in a few minutes. Nonetheless, for the lazy among my readers, the bottom line is that:

Carbon cap-and-trade has been killed in the Senate, presumably because of its costs. Renewable electricity standards or clean energy standards would accomplish considerably less and would impose much higher costs per ton of emissions reduction than cap-and-trade would. This does not sound like a step forward.

• 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

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

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

Could carbon-intensive industries and businesses overlooking sustainability soon see their credit ratings fall as a result?   Perhaps. According to an article in yesterday’s Daily Environment Report, Standard & Poor’s (S&P) is working on ways to integrate the risks of greenhouse gases into its corporate credit ratings system. The move seems to be driven by factors such as tightening of the EU emissions trading scheme in its third phase, beginning in 2012, but might apply to US companies as well.  The article reports that S&P could include carbon in their credit rating analysis on a global scale, as early as the first half of 2011. 

As the article highlights, developing a methodology to consider emissions directly generated by a company, those indirectly associated with its activities (such as use of electricity, supply chain and employee travel), and the potential for carbon costs to passed through to consumers would be “fiendishly complex,” and the methodology that S&P adopts will have to go through a rigorous review before being put in place. 

One possible option to build from is the Carbon Disclosure Project’s (CDP) questionnaire, which is the only global greenhouse gas reporting system. In September, CDP released its 2010 report on the S&P 500 (as well as reports on many other groupings of the 4,700 companies they ask to complete their questionnaire). That report shows that in 2010, some 70% of the S&P 500 companies responded to the CDP questionnaire, detailing risks and rewards, such as how they plan to capitalize on commercial opportunities related to climate change, and 59% also disclosed their carbon emissions, at least in part.  The CDP reports also show, however, that these US companies are still behind their global peers.

• 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

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

When we blogged about the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program regulations last fall, we noted that the EPA had excluded from the final regulations emission source categories such as wastewater treatment plants and underground coal mines that were initially included in the draft rules.  No longer. Yesterday, EPA finalized regulations requiring an estimated 680 facilities in the four sectors of underground coal mines, industrial wastewater treatment systems, industrial waste landfills and magnesium production facilities to begin collecting emissions data on January 1, 2011, and submit their first annual report in March 2012. Despite being few in number, these facilities, which primarily emit methane, are responsible for about 1% of national greenhouse gas emissions.  As in the existing reporting rules, 40 CFR Part 98, these businesses are required to report their emissions to EPA if they emit 25,000 metric tons CO₂ equivalents or more per year.  

The final rule also clarifies EPA’s decisions on the remaining categories: EPA will exclude ethanol production and food processing from distinct subparts requiring reporting, as well as suppliers of coal (at least for now).  However, these types of facilities are still required to report emissions under other subparts of the rule, if they meet the reporting threshold of 25,000 metric tons CO_2e per year. In addition, now that EPA has made final decisions on "all outstanding source categories and subparts" from last year's draft rule, additional sectors can only be added through new rulemaking.

EPA also released proposed rules reflecting what data submitted by facilities under the greenhouse gas reporting program will be released to the public and what will be withheld as confidential business information. EPA hopes to have these rules in place before the 10,000 facilities that produce about 85% of the nation’s emissions submit their first reports in March 2011. 

As you may recall, the greenhouse gas reporting rules require both direct emitters and suppliers of fuels and industrial gases to report.   For the “direct emitters,” EPA proposes to release information such as the facility name and physical address, emissions, methodology and data used to calculate the emissions, and test and calibration methods, but withhold as confidential business information data on production, throughput, or raw materials that are not inputs to the emissions equations. As the emissions reported by the suppliers of fuels and industrial gases are not emissions from their own facilities, but potential emissions from the eventual use of their products, the individual companies' reports are less important than the overall figures.  As such, EPA proposes a balancing approach – making sector-by-sector determinations and releasing data about emissions only when it would not cause substantial harm to the businesses’ competitive position. (Specifics on how data will be treated are available here.)   Comments are due 60 days after the proposed rules are published in the federal register.

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

Two seemingly unrelated reports last week serve as a reminder that coal remains very much under siege. First, Earthjustice, on behalf of a number of environmental organizations, filed a petition with EPA under § 111 of the Clean Air Act requesting that EPA identify coal mines as an emissions source and, consequently, establish new source performance standards for coal mine emissions of methane and several other categories of pollutants. 

Second, as Daily Environment reported, the Army Corps of Engineers suspended use of Nationwide Permit 21 for the six states in the Appalachian region, covering Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. The decision means that, at least for now, mountaintop removal mining operations in these states will have to apply for and obtain individual Clean Water Act permits, rather than relying on the Nationwide permit.

Other significant regulatory actions affecting the long-term economics of coal include EPA’s decision to tighten regulation of coal combustion residuals, whether through identification of CCR as a hazardous waste or through regulation under RCRA subtitle D – with the current betting being on listing of CCR as a hazardous waste, and EPA’s Tailoring Rule, which will focus initial regulation of GHG emissions on large stationary sources, the most obvious of which are large coal-fired power plants.

All of these actions are nominally independent, but if anyone thinks that at least the NGOs such as the Center for Biological Diversity and Earthjustice don’t see these as related actions the cumulative goal of which is to end use of coal, they’re just not paying attention. Does Lisa Jackson feel the same way? I doubt she’ll ever tell us, but I think I know the answer.

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

Last Friday, the Court of Appeals for the 5^th Circuit issued an order – boggling the minds of lawyers and non-lawyers alike – dismissing the plaintiffs' appeal in Comer v. Murphy Oil, one of the climate change nuisance cases. As the order and dissents make clear, it’s quite a set of circumstances. The District Court dismissed the case. A panel of the 5^th Circuit reversed. A request to rehear the case en banc was made. Seven out of 16 judges recused themselves. Of the nine remaining judges, six voted to rehear the case en banc. 

Three months later, one of the nine judges who voted on the en banc petition recused herself, leaving only eight – or half – of the judges. After requesting and receiving letter briefs from the parties, five of the remaining eight judges concluded that the last recusal deprived the Court of Appeals of a quorum, which means that the Court cannot hear or decide the appeal. Since the Court had already determined that, pursuant to its rules, the original panel decision was vacated when the decision to hear the case en banc was made, there is now no Court of Appeals decision; nor will there ever be one. The District Court decision dismissing the case, which had been reversed by the panel, is now in effect again, and the plaintiffs’ only remedy is a Supreme Court appeal.

As readers of this blog know, I’m not a believer in climate change nuisance litigation. As a formal matter, I think plaintiffs probably lack standing in these cases. As a practical matter, nuisance litigation is not the right way to regulate GHG emissions. However, I have to admit that I find the order breathtaking. The plaintiffs have a formal statutory right of appeal. As Judge Dennis pointed out in a scathing dissent,

federal courts lack the authority to abstain from the exercise of jurisdiction that has been conferred…. Just as courts have an “absolute duty … to hear and decide cases within their jurisdiction, [] litigants have a corresponding due process right to have their cases decided when they are properly before the federal courts.”

I’ll spare you the details, but Judge Dennis provided several different practical solutions that the Court could have utilized to hear the case.

My initial reaction is that this will slow Supreme Court review of this issue. The 5^th Circuit was likely to affirm the District Court decision, which would have created a split with the Second Circuit. The order issued last week means that there is no circuit split at this point. While the plaintiffs can appeal the order to the Supreme Court. even if the Supreme Court were to reverse the order, it would only be to order the 5^th Circuit to hear the appeal on the merits. If the 5^th Circuit is to hear the case, it’s years away at this point. 

Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, anyone?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last April, I noted that the one certainty associated with EPA regulation of greenhouse gases under existing Clean Air Act authority was that there would be unintended consequences. If anyone doubted that this would be so, they might want to read some of the comments submitted to EPA in connection with EPA’s proposed Tailoring Rule, which would exempt facilities emitting less than 25,000 tons per year of CO_2e from the PSD provisions of the Clean Air Act after CO_2e becomes a regulated pollutant under the CAA.

Greenwire has a helpful collection of some of the more notable comments. What I found most interesting is that the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, or NACAA, has told EPA that the transition to the new rule will not be as simple as EPA had thought – tough to disagree with that one – and that states will need more time to adapt their own regulations to the new regime. NACAA is thus proposing that EPA determine that CO_2e is a “regulated pollutant,” not when the mobile source rule is promulgated (expected in March 2010), but rather when those regulations take effect in 2011 or as late as January 2012. However, David Bookbinder of the Sierra Club, which has been generally supportive of EPA’s approach to the Tailoring Rule, took the position to Greenwire that EPA does not have the discretion to allow states more time.

Meanwhile, the Center For Biological Diversity, which has pretty much staked out the extreme left in this debate, is still saying that EPA is proposing to take too much time to regulate smaller CO_2e emitters. If anyone thought that EPA could propose a Tailoring Rule that would not be subject to litigation, the likelihood seems to be growing smaller daily.

I still think that, if a climate bill doesn’t pass and EPA regulates GHG under existing CAA authority, it will not be long after the program goes into effect that there will be an audible sound as every stakeholder in the nation slaps its actual or metaphorical forehead and says “Did we really do that?!”

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

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