Monthly Archives: February 2013

A Victory For Regulation Over Guidance? Are EPA and the Corps Giving Up on Post-Rapanos Wetlands Guidance?

As readers of this blog know, EPA’s use of guidance is a pet peeve of mine.  The issue has arisen with particular force in connection with EPA’s efforts to define Clean Water Act jurisdiction following the Supreme Court decision in Rapanos.  When I last posted on this issue, I noted that any potential theoretical benefits to guidance were being outweighed by the practical reality that issuing guidance on such an important issue ends up taking on many of the trappings of regulation,… More

California GHG Auction: Some Anecdotal Evidence of the Cost of Regulatory Uncertainty?

The California Air Resources Board just released the results of its second auction of GHG allowances.  While the auction for vintage 2013 allowances was still healthy, with all allowances sold at $13.62/allowance, the future auction, for vintage 2016 allowances, did not fare so well.  Fewer than half the allowances sold, and the clearing price was CARB’s reserve price of $10.71/allowance.

Why the disparity?  It’s significantly above any reasonable discount rate. … More

Building Energy Reporting Comes To Boston (Almost)

Today, Mayor Menino forwarded to the Boston City Council proposed amendments to the City of Boston Code that would require owners of many city buildings to report their energy and water use annually.  That information would then be made available to the public – presumably so that the market can work its magic and informed consumers can put pressure on building owners to increase the efficiency of their buildings.… More

Sudden and Accidental Pollution in Massachusetts — Not Always Fatal To Coverage

In some jurisdictions, an environmental claim under a liability policy with a “sudden and accidental” pollution exclusion has the same prospect of success as a due process claim under the strict scrutiny standard — strict in theory, fatal in practice.  In Massachusetts, however, sudden and accidental pollution exclusions have sometimes been less fatal, as evidenced by the recent decision in Narragansett Electric Company v. American Home Assurance Company. … More

It Is a Unitary Government Afterall: Privilege For Intra-Governmental Communications

About a year ago, I blogged about a decision by the federal district court in the Lower Fox River case ruling that there was no attorney-client privilege protecting communications between government lawyers representing the EPA and those representing federal PRPs.  At the heart of that decision was the finding that the two sets of government lawyers were actually representing different and adversarial parties.  The Seventh Ciruict in Menasha Corporation v.… More

Is this the Future of Adaptation? Who Pays to Avoid the Cost of Coastal Flooding?

The New York Times reported today that Governor Cuomo is proposing to spend $400 million to buy out owners of property to avoid a recurrence of the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy.  I have to say that I have been persuaded over the past few years that we cannot put all our eggs in the mitigation basket, particularly since political gridlock in Washington has prevented much mitigation from occurring.… More

When Do Air Emissions Constitute a Discharge to Waters of the United States? Any Time the Emissions Reach Waters of the United States?

In a fascinating post today, my colleague from the American College of Environmental Lawyers, Patricia Finn Braddock, reported on a case at the intersection of the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act that could have significant implications for any source of air emissions that can credibly be alleged to affect waters of the United States.  The case is Rose Acre Farms v.… More