Good Sam: A Base Hit Not a Grand Slam

Posted on September 30, 2019 by Kevin Murray

Depending on your source, abandoned mine lands across the United States number over 100,000 sites. Some, but not all, pose a threat to human health and the environment. The magnitude of the issue engulfs the resources of federal and state agencies. Moreover, responsible parties are most often dead and buried companies, leaving the need for options outside of routine scenarios and traditional regulatory programs relying on viable responsible parties.

The need for otherwise non-liable parties to voluntarily agree to study and remediate troubled sites seems the most likely path to success. Industry and public interest groups alike are needed if the issue of abandoned mine lands is to be addressed. The Good Samaritan program was intended to encourage private voluntary action. While there are some successes to date, the program has not received a robust welcome but has struck-out for several reasons—most significantly the lack of statutory authority to legalize the program and the inability of current agreements to protect well-meaning Good Samaritans from increased environmental liability.

Recently legislation was proposed that attempts to address deficiencies in the program, starting from shoring up statutory authority under CERCLA and the CWA and continuing with the proposal of some new structural elements. In short, the new Act would create a Good Samaritan permitting structure. Good intentioned citizens, groups, and companies would apply for and obtain a Good Samaritan permit. The permit would outline the activities to take place with certain protections written into the permit. While the effort is not a home run, the Act goes a long way toward improving the program; however, many are fearful that several issues may still impede successful implementation of a robust program. To encourage Good Samaritans to step up and address abandoned mines without fear of uncertain liability, the Act would benefit from the following revisions:

  • To address liability concerns, a Good Samaritan willing to undertake remedial activities under a permit is pronounced via the permit to be in compliance with all requirements under CERCLA and the CWA. This is probably not enough. The Act will need to state that a party will not be considered a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) under CERCLA nor will the party be subject to long term obligations under the CWA.
  • The mechanism for discontinuing operations in the event circumstances or facts are discovered that reduces the feasibility of the project or significantly increases costs is a positive development; however, it is unclear whether the permit will contain language similar to the current EPA Good Samaritan model Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) that empowers the EPA to expand or modify the scope of work. The historic AOC provision has been a significant impediment for industry participation. Simply put, many will remain unwilling to accept a permit that allows EPA to expand the permit scope of work. Certainty with regard to the nature of the work and a defined end point are critical.
  • The Act contemplates judicial challenge prior to permit approval. While this sounds like a good idea, it will serve to chill many from engaging in the process. The prospect by a Good Sam of investing significant administrative expenses that may then be met (or have the potential to be met) with significant legal and administrative costs and delays will discourage parties from engaging in the first instance.
  • The Act still contemplates long-term involvement through operation, maintenance and sampling.  While this might work on select parties, for most the perpetual involvement will signal the inning is over.

The success of the effort will depend on the language of the permit. If the permit borrows from or is based on the current Good Samaritan model AOC, the program will languish. The permit must offer clear and unambiguous liability protection, a thoroughly and accurately defined scope of work, and an exit point for a robust program. The private sector requires certainty of entry and exit, and the assurance that by engaging in a Good Samaritan activity, they will not be drug into decades of CERCLA actions.

Reflections on Becoming an Environmental Lawyer

Posted on September 27, 2019 by Robert Falk

Thirty years ago, I began practicing law and landed in the environmental field mostly by happenstance.  I had previously served as a manager with the federal government in the area of commerce and economic development.  I knew that my ability to tolerate a potential life in the law depended on finding a niche with a lot of interaction between government and businesses. 

Many environmental lawyers chose the profession because they were called to “the cause.”  I have found this to be true even if they ultimately practiced on the business/defense side.  Not so with me.  My field of choice within the law originally had nothing to do with the substance; it was all about the process and, more specifically, the intersections between law and policy, politics and economics, and legislation and adjudication. 

After finding my summer associate experience in traditional litigation and transactional work boring, I searched for a position in a “land use” practice.  I found a firm that had recently put its small land use practice together with a federal and state environmental law practice that it acquired from a local competitor.  I got an interview, tried to impress the attorneys with whom I met, got lucky, and received a job offer.

As I knew literally nothing about environmental law and, out of fear of starting my position with no relevant background, I enrolled in the only potentially relevant course offered in my then final semester at law school.  It was a seminar focused exclusively on the federal Clean Water Act.  It was there, largely at the hand of the late Joe Sax, with whom I argued incessantly about policy and politics while being taught how to read and understand the totality of an environmental statute, that I was first bitten. 

My appetite for this field only increased when I started working with two of the firm’s environmental law partners, Michele Corash and Barry Sandals.  I quickly came to appreciate their skill sets, reputations and prior experience at U.S. EPA and the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice. 

Michele and Barry took this unshaped lawyer mound of clay and began to mold me and fill the vessel.  While Sandals schooled me in the worlds of CERCLA and the litigation process, Corash took charge of the more general environmental education mission and opened multiple doors of opportunity.  (Brad Marten came into the mix a few years later as an officially-assigned mentor and proceeded to ply me with food and drink while indoctrinating me in his unique take on the world.)

One of the opportunities Michele gave me in 1991 was to assist her in organizing a conference focused on Asia for the ABA Standing Committee on Environmental Law.  Citing my pre-law experience in putting together such events for the federal government, Michele anointed me the “general manager” of the effort working with the ABA staff.  Environmental law thought leaders from a dozen Asian countries and a healthy gaggle of U.S. environmental lawyers came together for a few delightful days in then British-held Hong Kong where they started a dialogue about the importance of environmental law and enforcement in those emerging economies. 

At this conference, the parties recognized as a matter of stipulation that the United States was the primary inventor of the field of environmental law and its unparalleled leader and innovator.  The American environmental lawyers in attendance acknowledged their collective responsibility to continue to lead in the field.  And so we did, or attempted to do, if not for the love of our profession or country, for the love of our neighbors, our children and our planet.

I eventually became a “real” environmental lawyer thanks to the encouragement of leaders in the profession who taught me that through our work we could improve the planet.  Given how my journey started, I am saddened to see the United States retreat from its leadership position in the field.  But this trend can be reversed.  I look to the next generation of environmental lawyers to lead the way, and I ask my ACOEL fellows to join me in inspiring and mentoring these young lawyers.

A Green New York State of Mind

Posted on September 26, 2019 by Gail Port

In what has been heralded as a banner year in New York State for environmental legislation, the icing on the cake was the recent passage of the most groundbreaking climate action plan in the nation to date.  On July 22, 2019, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) into law.  The CLCPA sets an admirable, albeit aggressive, statewide framework to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050. Notably, while setting ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all anthropogenic sources, the Act also recognized that improvements to the State’s resiliency—that is, adaptation, to address those impacts and risks of climate change that cannot be avoided ( e.g., infrastructure hardening to withstand climate induced disasters) was also necessary.

In enacting the CLCPA, the State legislature touted New York as a leader, and the CLCPA as a legislative model, in the climate change arena:  “Actions undertaken by New York to reduce greenhouse emissions will have an impact on global greenhouse gas emissions and the rate of climate change.  In addition, such action will encourage other jurisdictions to implement complementary greenhouse gas reduction strategies and provide an example of how such strategies can be implemented.”  The CLCPA’s legislative findings proclaim that “[b]y exercising a global leadership role on greenhouse gas mitigation and adaptation, New York will position its economy, technology centers, financial institutions and businesses to benefit from national and international efforts to address climate change.”  Clearly, the CLCPA is viewed as a potential economic development engine that can “advance the development of green technologies and sustainable practices within the private sector, which can have far-reaching impacts such as a reduction in the cost of renewable energy components, and the creation of jobs and tax revenues in New York.”      

Recognizing that climate change “especially heightens the vulnerability of disadvantaged communities”, the legislature made environmental justice a cornerstone of the CLCPA by providing that State actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions “should prioritize the safety and health of disadvantaged communities, control potential regressive impacts of future climate change mitigation and adaptation policies on these communities and prioritize the allocation of public investments” in those areas.  The CLCPA calls for the formation of a twenty-two member state panel, the New York State Climate Action Council, to guide the State in meeting its progressive goals.  The Commissioner of the New York State Department of Conservation and the President of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) are to be the Co-Chairs of the Council, and the remaining members will be the heads of certain state agencies and appointees from the Governor (two “non-agency” expert members), and the leaders of the State legislature (a total of 8 members).

In essence, the details for putting in place the plan and to propose regulations and other actions required to implement the new law will be left to the Council. Once the Council is formed, it will have three years to come up with a final scoping plan--a specific proposal to recommend mandates, regulations, incentives, and other measures to ensure New York meets the lofty carbon neutral goals outlined in the CLCPA. To fulfill its legislative mandates, the Council will receive input from to be-created subject-specific Advisory Panels, comprised of experts on transportation, energy intensive and trade-exposed industries, local government, energy efficiency and housing, power generation, and agriculture and forestry, a Climate Justice Working Group, with representatives from communities bearing disproportionate pollution and climate change burdens and a Just Transition Working Group (chaired by the State Labor Commissioner and the President of NYSERDA) giving business leaders a seat at the table to advise on workforce development and training issues and business impacts arising from New York’s “new energy economy.” Time will tell whether this structure will result in “too many cooks in the kitchen” or will function as a “well-oiled machine”.

Here are some of the highlights of the CLCPA benchmarks:

·      By 2030, 70% of New York’s electric generation has to come from renewable sources such as wind, solar or hydropower and must reach 100% by 2040. (According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 23% of New York’s electric power currently comes from renewable sources—chiefly hydroelectric).  The CLCPA incorporates Governor Cuomo’s renewable energy goals for offshore wind, distributed solar, storage and energy efficiency.

·       New York will have to cut its total green-house gas emissions—from 1990 levels—by 40% by 2030 and 85% by 2050. The remaining 15% will have to be offset by reforestation, restoring wetlands, carbon capture or certain other green projects which will make the state carbon neutral by 2050.

·       The State’s load serving entities will have to procure at least 6 gigawatts of photovoltaic solar energy by 2025 and 9 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2035, and to support 3 gigawatts of statewide energy storage capacity by 2030.

·     To the extent practicable, disadvantaged communities are to receive 40% of the overall benefits of State spending on clean energy and energy efficiency programs, projects and investments in the areas of housing, workforce development, pollution reduction, low income energy assistance, transportation and economic development, with a floor of receiving at least 35% of those benefits. (The CLCPA defines disadvantaged communities as “communities that bear burdens of negative public health effects, environmental pollution, impacts of climate change, and possess certain socioeconomic criteria, or comprise high-concentrations of low- and moderate- income households.”)

In recognition of the fact that climate change presents an existential crisis that must be addressed without delay, the CLCPA sets an implementation timeline that also is very aggressive.

The most significant challenge to achieving the CLCPA’s bold directives is figuring out how it will be accomplished in practice. By establishing the Council, the State, prudently, will be engaging a wide-pool of talent tasked to come up with novel and practical approaches. Nonetheless, there are significant questions that, at least as of now, are unanswered. Investments in renewables, energy storage and power generation will be necessary and costly, especially considering the projected retirements of the New York nuclear fleet.  Where will those funds come from?  Powerful incentives will be required to push the private sector towards electrifying the transportation, residential, and commercial sectors—what will those incentives look like? Is the establishment of a State-wide carbon marketplace necessary and, if so, how will it affect the pocket book of New Yorkers?  And how will New York ensure that greening its economy will be good for its business community and not scare them off? Does the statute inadvertently inject too much uncertainty into the State’s economy?

With the Trump administration on a mad dash to roll back a number of regulations designed to address and mitigate climate change, New York has embarked on a praiseworthy plan to achieve aggressive goals to address the existential crisis of climate change. Sure, there are innumerable obstacles that need to be overcome and, yes, the specific action plans have not yet been conceived, but setting these goals—and ultimately making them enforceable—is certainly a giant leap in the right direction.  Kermit the Frog once said, “it’s not easy being green” —but sometimes doing what is hard is what is necessary.

NSR Regulatory Reform—the saga continues

Posted on September 18, 2019 by William Brownell

In 2002, EPA promulgated a Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) “reform rule” to clarify the confusion created by inconsistent guidance and judicial decisions on NSR applicability.  That clarification effort had only limited success, as inconsistent interpretations of the NSR applicability rules continued to emerge as those rules were applied by state regulators and courts.  In perhaps the most extreme example of regulatory confusion, a three judge panel of the Sixth Circuit issued five opinions with three different interpretation of the same regulatory language.  DTE I, http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0080p-06.pdf.  DTE II, http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/17a0006p-06.pdf.

The Trump Administration has embarked on a new clarification effort.  In what EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation dubbed a “singles and doubles” approach, EPA issued guidance and undertook rulemaking on key applicability issues, including emissions projections, emissions accounting, and project aggregation.  In conjunction with the Affordable Clean Energy rule, EPA then proposed a more fundamental change to the NSR applicability rules under which a project would trigger NSR only if it resulted in both an hourly and annual emissions increase.

That EPA is still struggling with clarification of its NSR rules two decades after it began a series of significant NSR enforcement initiatives illustrates how controversial this program has been and continues to be.  From an environmental standpoint, however, the NSR program has become less significant. Industrial sources are largely well-controlled for a variety of reasons other than NSR.  And in the electric utility sector, the steep drop in the price of natural gas has resulted in current or planned retirement of many coal-fired generating units.  As a result, there is little to be gained from injunctive relief even in a successful NSR enforcement action.

All of this says that there should be wide-spread support for EPA completing its NSR clarification efforts.  Regulated entities have every incentive to comply with NSR.  From the regulators standpoint, the limitations the Supreme Court put on regulatory re-interpretation in Kisor v. Wilkie, should create its own incentives for regulatory clarity.

Environmental Protection Is an Afterthought at the Environmental Protection Agency

Posted on September 17, 2019 by Seth Jaffe

Last week, EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers promulgated the final rule repealing the 2015 rule defining the Waters of the United States. The repeal rule is 172 pages in its pre-publication version.  The word “science” is used 18 times in those 172 pages.  Almost all of them are used in quotes from the 2015 rule or characterizations of the intent of the 2015 rule.

I did not find a single sentence in the repeal rule stating that the science does not support the 2015 rule.  As I noted when the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was issued, the mission of EPA and the Corps is to protect the Waters of the United States.  If they’ve concluded that the text of the Clean Water Act doesn’t give them the authority needed to do so, the Administration could certainly propose amendments to the CWA to give them that authority.

That’s what used to be called “governing.”

Vaped and Confused

Posted on September 16, 2019 by Tracy Hester

E-cigarettes have vaulted to the front pages lately, and for tragic reasons.  To date, at least six users have died from severe lung disease tied to vaping, and nearly 400 others have reported serious medical symptoms in 36 states and the Virgin Islands.  The reasons for the outbreak remain murky:  some investigators link the victims’ illnesses to bootleg or counterfeit nicotine cartridges, while others have focused on the addition of “thickeners” or THC and marijuana components.  Heavy abusive use of the devices has also come under suspicion.  But regardless of the explanation, e-cigarettes will likely remain in the spotlight until researchers either identify the cause or the pace of the illness starts to slow.

The furor, however, has distracted attention from another growing regulatory issue with e-cigarettes.  As vaping continues to expand into the workforce, employers have discovered that they now have to manage growing volumes of discarded vaping cartridges.  These cartridges contain residual amounts of nicotine – a deadly substance that figured prominently as a poison in Agatha Christie’s murder mystery Three Act Tragedy.  Nicotine is so hazardous, in fact, that EPA accorded it the dubious distinction of an acute hazardous waste (P075) listing under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act.  EPA listed nicotine originally in 1980, and EPA confirmed on Feb. 22, 2019 that unspent nicotine in discarded e-cigarette cartridges can constitute hazardous waste under its pharmaceutical waste rules.  While EPA exempted used nicotine patches and gums from the listing, e-cigarette cartridges containing unused nicotine failed to earn the same exemption.  And cigarette butts don’t pose the same challenges because their nicotine isn’t the sole active ingredient and isn’t pharmaceutical grade.

Home users, of course, needn’t worry because their discarded vaping cartridges are household hazardous wastes exempt from hazardous waste regulation.  But commercial facilities and industrial operators don’t enjoy that exemption, and as a result accumulated spent cartridges from their employees’ vaping can create big problems.  Because nicotine is a P-listed acute hazardous waste, facilities can quickly become large quantity generators if they accumulate more than 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of spent cartridges in a month (although they may argue that only the residual liquid nicotine itself counts towards the waste tally).  Rinsing the cartridges may simply magnify the problem because the rinsate itself counts as a listed hazardous waste under the derived-from rule.  And other possible strategies, such as reverse distribution or reclamation, may not cleanly apply.

Many facility operators are only now realizing the scale of the problem.  Possible compliance strategies may not require any RCRA wizardry at all – for example, some facilities can simply ban on-site employee vaping, while others can require that employees take their spent cartridges home for disposal.  With the Trump Administration’s call to ban flavored e-cigarette cartridges and similar initiatives by Michigan and New York, the problem also may retreat if more states and agencies demand withdrawal of e-cigarettes from the market.  But facilities that can’t rely on these fixes may find themselves struggling for answers in a hazy and confused regulatory environment.

Calling Off the NEPA Hounds – The CEQ’s 2019 Draft Guidance on GHG Emissions

Posted on September 12, 2019 by JB Ruhl

On June 26, 2019, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published a Draft National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (84 Fed. Reg. 30097). This new guidance would replace the guidance on that theme CEQ published in August 2016 (2016 Guidance) and which President Trump extinguished by executive order, and CEQ immediately withdrew, early in April 2017 (E.O. 13783 and 82 Fed. Reg. 16576). The much shorter 2019 Draft Guidance bears some similarities to the 2016 Guidance:

  • Both advise agencies to use GHG emissions as a proxy for climate effects.    
  • Both emphasize that agencies should follow the NEPA “rule of reason” for identifying direct and indirect effects and for keeping the depth of analysis proportionate to the scale of the effects.
  • Both allow agencies to use available emission quantification tools, but also to refrain from quantification if the available information is of poor quality or if the analysis would be too complicated, provided they explain why.
  • Both advise agencies not to engage in overly speculative analysis.
  • Both emphasize that NEPA does not require cost-benefit monetization analysis.

From there, however, the two guidances look nothing alike. To begin with, the 2016 Guidance declared that “climate change is a fundamental environmental issue, and its effects fall squarely within NEPA’s purview,” and that “it is now well established that rising global atmospheric GHG emission concentrations are significantly affecting the Earth’s environment.” In short, climate change was the core focus throughout the 2016 Guidance. By contrast, the 2019 Draft Guidance refers only to “potential climate effects” of GHG emissions, and does so only twice in the document. It is perhaps remarkable that any Trump administration guidance actually recognizes that GHG emissions could have “potential climate effects,” but the CEQ skirts the issue so much that one might easily miss the point of why agencies are being asked to conduct GHG emissions analyses in the first place.

More substantively, the 2019 Draft Guidance omits three key features (among others) of the 2016 Guidance. First, there is no mention of mitigation in the 2019 Draft Guidance, whereas that was a focus of the 2016 Guidance. Under the 2019 Draft Guidance, in other words, agencies would estimate GHG emissions of the proposed action but not need to consider action alternatives that generate lower emissions or higher sequestration.

Second, the 2016 Guidance included a section on scope of the action that advised agencies to consider predicate and consequential effects of the action. For example, proposed resource extraction actions should consider GHG emissions from reasonably foreseeable predicates such as clearing land and building access roads, and from reasonably foreseeable consequences such as transportation, refining, and use of the resource. The 2019 Draft Guidance makes no mention of such analyses.

Most glaringly of all, the 2019 Draft Guidance completely ignores the need to assess the impacts of climate change on the proposed action. Recognizing that “GHGs already in the atmosphere will continue altering the climate system into the future” and that “NEPA review should consider an action in the context of the future state of the environment,” the 2016 Guidance included an extensive section advising agencies on how to evaluate the effects of climate change on a proposed action and to consider how adaptation and resilience measures might be integrated into the action. No doubt because it would require acknowledging that climate change is occurring, the 2019 Draft Guidance contains no such guidance.

The bottom line is that, if the 2019 Draft Guidance were adopted as is, agencies will conduct GHG emissions analyses but not need to consider reasonably foreseeable upstream and downstream emissions or how the action could incorporate climate change mitigation, adaptation, and resilience. Of course, that would just be CEQ guidance. The courts may have a different idea for how NEPA engages climate change.

Three Steps Back – DOJ Restrictions on Use of SEPs Are Misguided and Counter-Productive

Posted on September 10, 2019 by Zach C. Miller

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has taken three steps since June 2017 through August 2019 that severely limit the use of Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) in civil environmental settlements.  Those actions are legally unsound, are generally not sought or supported by the business community or state or local governments, and are counter-productive to the effective enforcement of federal environmental law.  Such actions, and the recent DOJ threat to completely ban use of SEPs in the future, should be revisited and reversed.

A SEP is a consensual, environmentally beneficial project related to an underlying environmental law violation, but not necessary to achieve compliance, that generally results in a reduction in the party’s monetary civil penalty.  SEPs have been widely used in settlements with both businesses and state and local governments since the 1980s and have historically been supported by both parties.  Their use has been governed by a series of EPA policies, most recently updated in 2015.  For example, the 2015 SEP Policy requires that a qualified SEP cannot be a cash payment to a third party, must voluntarily go beyond what is required to comply with law, and must meet one or more specified categories of public environmental benefits.  EPA estimates that, from 1998 through 2012, it negotiated SEPs worth over a billion dollars.

Since 2017, DOJ has unwisely taken several steps that curtail the use of SEPs.  On June 5, 2017, then-Attorney General Sessions issued a one-page Memorandum to DOJ attorneys that broadly prohibited any settlement “that directs or provides for a payment or loan to any non-governmental entity that is not a party to the dispute.”

Questions about whether this new policy prohibited SEPs generally or allowed their continued use with governmental entities were answered by DOJ’s next two steps.  On November 7, 2018, DOJ issued a policy directive that prohibited DOJ from agreeing to any settlements with a state or local government that “extract greater or different relief from the defendant than could be obtained through agency enforcement authority or by litigating the matter to judgment.”

Then, in a memo dated August 21, 2019, political appointee Assistant AG Jeff Clark made clear that the 2017 and 2018 policies are considered by DOJ to prohibit the use of SEPs in all settlements with state and local governments.  However, in recognition of the strong support for SEPs by many governmental entities, the memo temporarily allows the extremely limited use of SEPs with such entities (“only as a matter of last resort” … and only as “a small component of the overall settlement”) during an unspecified “interim period … pending my [AAG Clark’s] broader review of the SEP policy.”  In other words, the referenced impending “broader review” could and, under the reasoning of the August 2019 memo, likely will conclude that any and all use of SEPs is unlawful and prohibited.

But that reasoning is circular and unsound.  The August 2019 Memo acknowledges that the AG’s June 2017 policy “largely tracks” and in effect implements the 2017 “Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act,” which prohibited settlements allowing payments to parties other than the U.S., and was passed on a partisan vote in the House but was rejected by the Senate.  H.R. 732, 115th Cong., 1st Sess. (2017).  Among other problems, that rejected bill failed to recognize that the 2015 SEP Policy already expressly prohibits cash payments to third parties, and some environmental statutes (not consensual settlements) provide for assessment of attorneys’ fees to prevailing parties, so the perceived “settlement slush fund” problem was illusory.  The November 2018 DOJ Memo then purported to implement that initial 2017 policy, and the August 2019 Memo thereafter concludes that the preceding 2017 and 2018 DOJ policies together mandate that SEPs must be banned.  The 2019 Memo also analyzes at length the narrow 2018 infrastructure-related amendments to the Clean Water Act and concludes they do not expressly authorize the use of SEPs.  But it does not analyze the long-standing, bi-partisan legal conclusions that nothing in federal law prohibits the use of SEPs and that doing so is within DOJ’s and EPA’s broad enforcement discretion.  Rather, DOJ’s conclusions, in a house-of-cards fashion, are based solely on “enforcement” of its own novel policies based in turn on a piece of rejected partisan legislation.  Space does not permit a detailed response here to the August 2019 Memo’s other high-minded but tenuous allegations about SEPs infringing on Congress’ “power of the purse” and on “local democratic processes,” except to say, please see the Administration’s own contrary positions on those points for White House Border Wall funding and restricting State vehicle emission limits.

Sometimes, it’s been said, it’s necessary to take a step back to take two steps forward.  DOJ’s actions restricting SEPs, however, are three huge steps backwards, with a threat of a fourth misstep and disastrous total ban.  Such a ban would preclude consensual, beneficial projects long favored by business and local governments and would unduly hinder and delay resolution of federal environmental enforcement actions.  Those serious missteps should be revisited and reversed.