Clean Water Advocates and Industrial Sector Battle Over Connecticut's Industrial Stormwater Permit

Posted on March 23, 2009 by Gregory Sharp

By Gregory A. Sharp

Murtha Cullina LLP

March 23, 2009

 

The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) has proposed to revise and renew its General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater Associated with Industrial Activity. The renewal has prompted environmental groups to seek enhanced notice and public participation requirements and has provoked the regulated community to seek an overhaul of the structure of the General Permit.

 

The previous General Permit was adopted in 2002, modified in 2003, and expired on September 30, 2007. It was unilaterally extended on October 1, 2007 and October 1, 2008 through March 31, 2008 without change by DEP to provide ongoing coverage to approximately 1,500 registrants. Companies in Connecticut with industrial SIC codes are required to register if they have a discharge of stormwater through a conveyance to waters of the United States, and are not otherwise exempt.

 

Connecticut’s Industrial Stormwater scheme historically was a one-size-fits-all general permit. It allowed eligible companies to authorize their stormwater discharges by filing a registration form, similar to the Notice of Intent in the federal program. The filing of the registration, along with a fee, conferred coverage under the permit, subject to its terms, unless the Commissioner requested an individual permit application.

 

The 2002 permit required the preparation and certification by a P.E. or C.H.H.M. of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (“SWPPP”), adherence to generic best management practices (“BMPs”), annual monitoring of stormwater discharges from qualifying storm events for an expansive list of chemical and physical parameters, including whole effluent toxicity, and a set of Target Values for the parameters based on the 80th percentile of the monitoring data collected in previous years.

 

Historically, the permit had not been particularly controversial, had been relatively easy for DEP to administer, and enabled the agency to develop a significant stormwater data base which it could sort by SIC Code and use to prioritize enforcement. Significant enforcement cases over the past 10 years focused on non-stormwater discharges, such as those from vehicle washing, which commingled with stormwater, or in some cases, discharged directly through stormwater systems.

 

During the summer of 2008, DEP announced that it would be revising the permit. It sought to update its 80th percentile Target Values to reflect the monitoring data acquired since the prior permit was adopted in 2002, and it proposed Action Levels at the 95th percentile of prior monitoring results which would require follow-up action by registrants to investigate the source of the exceedances and modify their BMPs and SWPPPs.

 

Two events conspired to radically change DEP’s approach to the General Permit renewal. On September 27, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) adopted its Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Associated with Industrial Activity (73 FR 56372), and on October 8, 2008, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment and the Connecticut Soundkeeper, Inc. intervened in the DEP proceedings convened to renew the permit, and several industrial stakeholder organizations quickly joined the fray.

 

The environmental groups sought significant changes to the permit scheme arising from federal appellate decisions interpreting the Clean Water Act to require the opportunity for public notice and comment not only on the General Permit and its terms, but also on the individual discharger’s Notice of Intent and its proposed pollution control measures.

 

The leading case relied upon by the environmental intervenors is Environmental Defense Center, Inc. et al. vs. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency et al., 344 F. 3d 832 (9th Cir., 2003). In that case, environmental groups challenged the EPA’s Phase II regulations for municipal storm and sanitary sewers (“MS4s). The regulations authorized the use of general permits and required the use of BMPs identified in an NOI filed by the MS4 in seeking authorization under the general permit. Consistent with its prior practice, EPA did not require NOIs to be subject to public notice or public hearings.

 

The environmental petitioners challenged the rule, because it did not require EPA to review the content of the MS4 dischargers’ Notices of Intent and the substance of the stormwater controls adopted by the dischargers, and it did not contain requirements for public participation in the NPDES permitting process.

 

The Ninth Circuit remanded the rule on both counts. As to the review of the discharger’s individually proposed pollution control measures, the court, relying on Section 402 (p) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p), held “stormwater management programs that are designed by regulated parties must, in every instance, be subject to meaningful review by an appropriate regulating entity to ensure that each such program reduces the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.” Id. at 856.

 

As to the public participation aspects, the court held that, because it was the NOIs and accompanying documents, not the general permit itself, that contain the substantive information on pollution control measures to reduce discharges to the maximum extent practicable, if the Rule does not make NOIs available to the public or provide for public hearings on NOIs, the Rule violates the intent of the Act, as embodied in 33 U.S.C. § 1342 (a)(1) and (j).

 

Using this precedent the environmental groups in Connecticut challenged the DEP’s past practice of not publishing notice of registrations for the Industrial Stormwater Permit and not providing for public review of the site-specific SWPPPs mandated by the General Permit. In the most recent draft of the General Permit, the agency has agreed to publish notice on its website of registrations received each month, and provide a means by which the public can review the SWPPPs.

 

On the industry side, trade associations advocated for a Connecticut General Permit that would emulate the federal Multi-Sector permit. The advantage of the federal approach to industry was that EPA designated 29 industrial sectors and tailored its generic control measures and monitoring requirements to each sector. Although the EPA permit requires quarterly monitoring for sector specific “Benchmark” pollutants, the number of parameters measured is far less than Connecticut’s prior permit and does not include toxicity. The Benchmark concept incorporated in the permit requires those dischargers for which the average of four quarters of monitoring data exceed the Benchmark concentration to investigate the reasons for the exceedance and modify their control measures and SWPPP. For certain sectors, EPA also adopted enforceable effluent limitations.

 

On February 4, 2009, DEP issued a new proposed draft which adopts ten sectors modeled on the federal permit with semi-annual monitoring. The previously proposed “Action Levels” have become “Benchmarks” to track the federal language. DEP’s proposal retains the broad spectrum of parameters to be included in the monitoring program, including toxicity, but makes some sector specific adjustments. The toxicity monitoring requirement carries with it no Benchmark. The draft also adds annual monitoring for parameters for which receiving waters have been designated impaired or subject to Total Maximum Daily Load restrictions.

 

The Benchmark values for Copper, Lead and Zinc are based on Connecticut’s Water Quality Standards. The Benchmarks for remaining parameters (pH, O&G, COD, TSS, TPh, TKN, and NO3), are based on the 50th percentile of the previously acquired monitoring data. Industry has objected to the Benchmarks set at the 50th percentile as arbitrary (not water-quality based), overly stringent, and impossible for many sites to achieve.

 

The DEP is still taking comments, and expects to go to notice on a new proposal in April. In the meantime, the DEP has published notice that it intends to extend the 2002 General Permit once again until September 30, 2010, but it will require re-registration and a pro-rated fee of $300 for the October 1, 2007 to September 10, 2010 time period.

Clean Water Advocates and Industrial Sector Battle Over Connecticut's Industrial Stormwater Permit

Posted on March 23, 2009 by Gregory Sharp

By Gregory A. Sharp

Murtha Cullina LLP

March 23, 2009

 

The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) has proposed to revise and renew its General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater Associated with Industrial Activity. The renewal has prompted environmental groups to seek enhanced notice and public participation requirements and has provoked the regulated community to seek an overhaul of the structure of the General Permit.

 

The previous General Permit was adopted in 2002, modified in 2003, and expired on September 30, 2007. It was unilaterally extended on October 1, 2007 and October 1, 2008 through March 31, 2008 without change by DEP to provide ongoing coverage to approximately 1,500 registrants. Companies in Connecticut with industrial SIC codes are required to register if they have a discharge of stormwater through a conveyance to waters of the United States, and are not otherwise exempt.

 

Connecticut’s Industrial Stormwater scheme historically was a one-size-fits-all general permit. It allowed eligible companies to authorize their stormwater discharges by filing a registration form, similar to the Notice of Intent in the federal program. The filing of the registration, along with a fee, conferred coverage under the permit, subject to its terms, unless the Commissioner requested an individual permit application.

 

The 2002 permit required the preparation and certification by a P.E. or C.H.H.M. of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (“SWPPP”), adherence to generic best management practices (“BMPs”), annual monitoring of stormwater discharges from qualifying storm events for an expansive list of chemical and physical parameters, including whole effluent toxicity, and a set of Target Values for the parameters based on the 80th percentile of the monitoring data collected in previous years.

 

Historically, the permit had not been particularly controversial, had been relatively easy for DEP to administer, and enabled the agency to develop a significant stormwater data base which it could sort by SIC Code and use to prioritize enforcement. Significant enforcement cases over the past 10 years focused on non-stormwater discharges, such as those from vehicle washing, which commingled with stormwater, or in some cases, discharged directly through stormwater systems.

 

During the summer of 2008, DEP announced that it would be revising the permit. It sought to update its 80th percentile Target Values to reflect the monitoring data acquired since the prior permit was adopted in 2002, and it proposed Action Levels at the 95th percentile of prior monitoring results which would require follow-up action by registrants to investigate the source of the exceedances and modify their BMPs and SWPPPs.

 

Two events conspired to radically change DEP’s approach to the General Permit renewal. On September 27, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) adopted its Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Associated with Industrial Activity (73 FR 56372), and on October 8, 2008, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment and the Connecticut Soundkeeper, Inc. intervened in the DEP proceedings convened to renew the permit, and several industrial stakeholder organizations quickly joined the fray.

 

The environmental groups sought significant changes to the permit scheme arising from federal appellate decisions interpreting the Clean Water Act to require the opportunity for public notice and comment not only on the General Permit and its terms, but also on the individual discharger’s Notice of Intent and its proposed pollution control measures.

 

The leading case relied upon by the environmental intervenors is Environmental Defense Center, Inc. et al. vs. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency et al., 344 F. 3d 832 (9th Cir., 2003). In that case, environmental groups challenged the EPA’s Phase II regulations for municipal storm and sanitary sewers (“MS4s). The regulations authorized the use of general permits and required the use of BMPs identified in an NOI filed by the MS4 in seeking authorization under the general permit. Consistent with its prior practice, EPA did not require NOIs to be subject to public notice or public hearings.

 

The environmental petitioners challenged the rule, because it did not require EPA to review the content of the MS4 dischargers’ Notices of Intent and the substance of the stormwater controls adopted by the dischargers, and it did not contain requirements for public participation in the NPDES permitting process.

 

The Ninth Circuit remanded the rule on both counts. As to the review of the discharger’s individually proposed pollution control measures, the court, relying on Section 402 (p) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p), held “stormwater management programs that are designed by regulated parties must, in every instance, be subject to meaningful review by an appropriate regulating entity to ensure that each such program reduces the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.” Id. at 856.

 

As to the public participation aspects, the court held that, because it was the NOIs and accompanying documents, not the general permit itself, that contain the substantive information on pollution control measures to reduce discharges to the maximum extent practicable, if the Rule does not make NOIs available to the public or provide for public hearings on NOIs, the Rule violates the intent of the Act, as embodied in 33 U.S.C. § 1342 (a)(1) and (j).

 

Using this precedent the environmental groups in Connecticut challenged the DEP’s past practice of not publishing notice of registrations for the Industrial Stormwater Permit and not providing for public review of the site-specific SWPPPs mandated by the General Permit. In the most recent draft of the General Permit, the agency has agreed to publish notice on its website of registrations received each month, and provide a means by which the public can review the SWPPPs.

 

On the industry side, trade associations advocated for a Connecticut General Permit that would emulate the federal Multi-Sector permit. The advantage of the federal approach to industry was that EPA designated 29 industrial sectors and tailored its generic control measures and monitoring requirements to each sector. Although the EPA permit requires quarterly monitoring for sector specific “Benchmark” pollutants, the number of parameters measured is far less than Connecticut’s prior permit and does not include toxicity. The Benchmark concept incorporated in the permit requires those dischargers for which the average of four quarters of monitoring data exceed the Benchmark concentration to investigate the reasons for the exceedance and modify their control measures and SWPPP. For certain sectors, EPA also adopted enforceable effluent limitations.

 

On February 4, 2009, DEP issued a new proposed draft which adopts ten sectors modeled on the federal permit with semi-annual monitoring. The previously proposed “Action Levels” have become “Benchmarks” to track the federal language. DEP’s proposal retains the broad spectrum of parameters to be included in the monitoring program, including toxicity, but makes some sector specific adjustments. The toxicity monitoring requirement carries with it no Benchmark. The draft also adds annual monitoring for parameters for which receiving waters have been designated impaired or subject to Total Maximum Daily Load restrictions.

 

The Benchmark values for Copper, Lead and Zinc are based on Connecticut’s Water Quality Standards. The Benchmarks for remaining parameters (pH, O&G, COD, TSS, TPh, TKN, and NO3), are based on the 50th percentile of the previously acquired monitoring data. Industry has objected to the Benchmarks set at the 50th percentile as arbitrary (not water-quality based), overly stringent, and impossible for many sites to achieve.

 

The DEP is still taking comments, and expects to go to notice on a new proposal in April. In the meantime, the DEP has published notice that it intends to extend the 2002 General Permit once again until September 30, 2010, but it will require re-registration and a pro-rated fee of $300 for the October 1, 2007 to September 10, 2010 time period.

New Requirements for Siting and Permitting in Connecticut

Posted on March 13, 2009 by Earl Phillips

As of January 1, 2009, a party seeking to develop or expand certain facilities in Connecticut that require approval by the state Siting Council or the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) must comply with significantly expanded public participation requirements before applying for or receiving approval from the Siting Council or DEP.

The new requirements arise from Public Act 08-94, An Act Concerning Environmental Justice Communities and the Storage of Asbestos-Containing Material (the "Act"), enacted in May 2008.  The Act applies to certain proposed new or expanded facilities — including but not limited to a "major source" of air pollution under the federal Clean Air Act, certain electric generating facilities with a capacity of more than 10 megawatts, a sewage treatment plant with a capacity of more than 50 million gallons/day, and certain types of waste management facilities — that are located in an "environmental justice community."  An "environmental justice community" is defined as either a U.S. census block group for which 30 percent or more of the population consists of low-income persons (income below 200 percent of the federal poverty level), or a Connecticut "distressed municipality," as defined by other state statutes relating to economic development.

 

In general, the Act requires a subject party to take three main steps:

  1. Before filing an application for a "new or expanded" permit with DEP or an application for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need with the Siting Council, the party must now file and receive approval of a "meaningful public participation plan" from DEP or the Siting Council.  "Meaningful public participation" means that community residents and other potentially affected persons are sought out and provided an opportunity to participate in and influence the regulatory agency's decision.  The "meaningful public participation plan" must include an informal public meeting to be held for community residents. The plan must also contain measures to facilitate public participation.  The Act specifies in great detail measures that may or must be taken, including sign posting, newspaper ads, Web page notices, and written notification to neighborhood and environmental groups and to local and state elected officials.
  2. The party must hold an informal public meeting and offer "clear, accurate and complete" information about the proposed facility or facility expansion and its potential environmental and health impacts.  The DEP or the Siting Council may not take any action on the party's permit, certificate, or approval earlier than 60 days after the informal public meeting.
  3. The party must also consult with the chief elected official(s) of the town(s) in which the facility is to be located to evaluate the need for a "community environmental benefits agreement," which is defined as a written agreement by which the property owner or developer commits to the municipality to provide "financial resources" to mitigate, in whole or in part, "impacts reasonably related to the facility, including, but not limited to, impacts on the environment, traffic, parking and noise."  The municipality must provide community residents an opportunity to be heard concerning the need for and terms of such an agreement.

Where a facility must comply with the Act for both Siting Council and DEP approvals, the Act allows DEP to waive the requirement for an additional informal public meeting if one has already been held for purposes of the Siting Council approval.

DEP estimates that some or all of about 69 municipalities in the state qualify as an "environmental justice community."  DEP is now working with the Department of Economics and Community Development (DECD) to identify these areas more specifically.  DEP has also drafted template and guidance documents and will discuss these at a public workshop on Tuesday, January 13, 2009, 10:00 to 12:00 noon at DEP offices in Hartford.

In summary, the Act has the potential to alter significantly the timing, cost, and outcome of DEP and Siting Council applications for affected facilities.

Robinson & Cole is currently advising a number of clients regarding the Act and its potential impacts on facility development in Connecticut.  We stand ready to apply our experience and insights to your operations and strategic planning.  If you would like to discuss these issues and how they may impact your business, or if you would like a copy of the draft DEP implementation documents, please contact any of the following attorneys in our Environmental and Utilities Practice Group:

Earl Phillips, (860) 275-8220, ephillips@rc.com  
Ken Baldwin, (860) 275-8345, kbaldwin@rc.com
Brian Freeman, (860) 275-8310, bfreeman@rc.com
Pamela Elkow, (203) 462-7548, pelkow@rc.com

Another RICE Crop: EPA Proposes Additional Rules for Stationary Reciprocating

Posted on March 13, 2009 by Earl Phillips

On February 25, 2009, EPA proposed a new set of rules and rule revisions applicable to a broad universe of existing stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE). These engines are typically used for a variety of purposes at commercial and industrial facilities, such as providing back-up electricity and powering fire pumps. The proposed rule for existing engines would supplement (and in certain instances, modify) the 2004 and 2008 rules for new engines. Collectively, these rules address "hazardous air pollutants" (HAPs) and are formally known as the RICE National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).

 

Like the 2004 and 2008 rules, the proposed rules are dense and complex. They would apply to engines in three basic categories of stationary RICE: 

  • Existing smaller (<500 horsepower) engines at "major sources" of HAPs (i.e., facilities with potential emissions of at least 10 tons/year of an individual HAP or 25 tons/year of any combination of HAPs)
  • Certain new or reconstructed engines at "major sources"
  • Existing engines at "area sources" (i.e., non-major sources)

The definition of "existing" and "new or reconstructed" varies depending on such factors as the design type, power rating, fuel type, and usage of a particular engine. Similarly, such factors also would determine whether and how the engine would be subject to various proposed numeric emission limits or other requirements regarding fuels, emission controls, periodic emission testing, operating and maintenance practices, and associated recordkeeping and reporting.

Notably, EPA is proposing that RICE sources would not have the benefit of the "startup, shutdown, and malfunction" exemption that traditionally has been part of numerous NESHAP regulations, including the existing RICE NESHAP. (The legal status of this exemption is currently uncertain, following a December 2008 court ruling that struck it down.) However, EPA is also "co-proposing" an alternative limited exemption for certain engines that use catalytic controls: such engines would be subject to more relaxed emission limits during startup and malfunction, but not shutdown.

Public comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before the later of May 4, 2009, or 30 days after EPA holds a public hearing on the proposal.

The scope and complexity of the proposed rules present significant challenges in determining if and how the rules would apply to any individual engine. From our experience in counseling clients regarding the 2004 and 2008 rules, we stand ready to assist with the regulatory analysis, or with preparing public comments to EPA about the proposed rules and revisions. If you would like to discuss the proposed rules, please contact any of these attorneys in our Environmental and Utilities Practice Group:

Earl W. Phillips, Jr.
ephillips@rc.com
(860) 275-8220 

Christopher Foster
cfoster@rc.com
(617) 557-5908

Brian C. Freeman
bfreeman@rc.com
(860) 275-8310

Kirstin M. Etela
ketela@rc.com
(203) 462-7534

EPA CAFO RULE - RIGHTING ITS COURSE??

Posted on March 12, 2009 by Brian Rosenthal

Has the EPA gone far enough to overcome the successful Waterkeeper Alliance challenge to its CAFO Rule? 

 

In 2005, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held EPA’s 2003 CAFO Rule exceeded its authority. The challenged rule required certain concentrated animal feeding operators to apply for an NPDES water permit or prove none was needed. The court held that having only a potential to discharge was not enough to require a permit. In 2008, the EPA revised its CAFO Rule, announced on November 20, 2008 at 73 Fed. Reg. 70,418 as “Revised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in Response to the Waterkeeper Decision”-did it do enough to survive a challenge?

 

Now, only parties that discharge or propose to discharge must apply for an NPDES permit. In addition, a voluntary option is included for unpermitted CAFO’s to self certify that they do not meet the permitting standard. Agricultural stormwater continues to be exempt if litter is applied in compliance with a nutrient management plan. The states are just beginning to address how to implement the CAFO Rule.   

 

One head’s up is, a CAFO that proposes to discharge must apply for a permit as soon as it proposes to discharge. If it does not, it could have an unpermitted discharge and also be in violation of another requirement to seek permit coverage at the proposal date.  In other words, an unpermitted discharge could result in two violations. 

 

A proposal to discharge is based on either design, construction, operation or maintenance such that a discharge will occur. The certification procedure is now self-implementing with a certification statement being submitted by the farmer or operator. It is not subject to public comment or agency review. Obtaining a no discharge certification shifts the burden of proof to the agency on whether a proposal to discharge that should have been permitted occurred. In other words, if a party does not properly certify and has a discharge, it has the burden of proving that it did not propose to discharge in any enforcement action, which could lead to a double violation along with the unpermitted discharge. 

 

The EPA as part of the CAFO Rule has committed to work with the states and various states have begun sessions regarding the CAFO Rule and their state programs. Farmers and operators, however, fear unintended recordkeeping violations and EPA inspections upon registration.  Of course, to the extent they fall within the Rule, farmers or operators must apply.

Stay tuned for additional implementation issues and enforceability questions as the CAFO Rule becomes subjected to further scrutiny, in the consolidated challenge to it pending in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Native American Water Rights in Oklahoma

Posted on March 9, 2009 by Linda C. Martin

The ownership of the Illinois River and its watershed in Oklahoma is currently at issue in Federal Court in the Northern District of Oklahoma in a case brought against the poultry industry. State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-329-GFK (PJC). 

In this case, the Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma sued several poultry companies for polluting the Illinois River and its watershed in Eastern Oklahoma as a result of the disposal of  poultry litter in the watershed. The suit alleges claims under CERCLA, RCRA and nuisance, among other things. The poultry companies assert that the State has no standing to sue because, in this geographic area, under applicable treaties the natural resources (including the water in the Illinois River) are owned exclusively by the Cherokee Nation and not the State of Oklahoma. The defendants’ argument relies heavily on Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 397 U.S. 620 (1970), which held that under various treaties, the Cherokee, Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations own fee title to the land, minerals, sand and gravel in and under the bed of the Arkansas River in Eastern Oklahoma. 

 

The Attorney General asserts that the State of Oklahoma is the exclusive owner of the stream water, not the Cherokee Nation, and relies on the laws and authorities which prescribe the rights and privileges of a new state. The State also claims under other cited authorities that even if it does not hold exclusive ownership of the water in the Illinois River, neither does the Cherokee Nation. The Cherokee Nation is not a party and has not filed a motion to intervene in the case.

 

Because of treaty similarities, a decision on this issue by the Tulsa Federal Court could well determine the ownership rights of all the Five Civilized Tribes, not just the Cherokees, as to water in any stream or river within or abutting the boundaries of the lands included within their original treaty grants. Thus, it could affect the ownership of stream water in approximately half of the State of Oklahoma. It could further have a significant impact on both development of the Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan now in progress, and the issue of who has the right to sell water to both in‑state and out‑of‑state purchasers (i.e., Texas).

Priscilla Summers v. Earth Island Institute Supreme Court Decision

Posted on March 4, 2009 by Theodore Garrett

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that environmentalists' lacked standing to challenge a Forest Service regulation limiting public involvement in timber sales decisions. Priscilla Summers v. Earth Island Institute, et al.,__U.S.__(No. 07-463, March 3, 2009). The decision found that respondents’ argument that they have standing because they suffered procedural injuryi.e., they have been denied the ability to file comments on some Forest Service actionsfails because such a deprivation without some concrete interest affected thereby is insufficient to create Article III standing. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, stated "Accepting an intention to visit the National Forests as adequate to confer standing to challenge any Government action affecting any portion of those forests would be tantamount to eliminating the requirement of concrete, particularized injury in fact."  The following is a link to the Court's opinion: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-463.pdf

PENNSYLVANIA CLEAN WATER AND BROWNFIELDS INVESTMENT OF STIMULUS FUNDS

Posted on February 27, 2009 by Joseph Manko

Among the priorities under the $787.5 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is repairing, rebuilding, and constructing the nation’s water infrastructure. Approximately $6 billion will augment the EPA’s clean water and drinking water state revolving funds, of which approximately $221 million will be disbursed to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Infrastructure Investment Authority (PennVest). The governing board of PennVest is appointed by Governor Rendell, and I have been serving as its chair for the past six years.

 

PennVest administers the approximately $300 million annual allotment of Clean Water and Drinking Water funds previously supplied by EPA on a matching basis with Pennsylvania. These funds will now be augmented by the $212 million in stimulus funds. The Clean Water Fund addresses waste water infrastructure. The fund also addresses brownfields (with its protection of water quality) and storm water, whereas the Drinking Water Fund is strictly for water supply and distribution. At least 50 percent of the funding must be in the form of grants.

 

With the current emphasis on sustainability, alternative energy, greenhouse gas emission reduction and the need for more stringent control over stormwater run-off, the allocation of stimulus funds by PennVest will focus on innovative green technology, including particularly, controlling stormwater and remediating brownfields (at least 20 percent of the stimulus funding must be used for “green infrastructure”.)

 

Although the final disbursement of the economic stimulus funding will be affected by various regulations, the awarding of grants and loans will likely be on the same timetable as in the past with an emphasis on “shovel ready” projects. Funding agreements must be entered into and contracts for the full amount signed within a year.  The ultimate goal is to immediately increase the amount of jobs needed to construct the infrastructural repair, rebuilding and construction. 

PENNSYLVANIA CLEAN WATER AND BROWNFIELDS INVESTMENT OF STIMULUS FUNDS

Posted on February 27, 2009 by Joseph Manko

Among the priorities under the $787.5 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is repairing, rebuilding, and constructing the nation’s water infrastructure. Approximately $6 billion will augment the EPA’s clean water and drinking water state revolving funds, of which approximately $221 million will be disbursed to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Infrastructure Investment Authority (PennVest). The governing board of PennVest is appointed by Governor Rendell, and I have been serving as its chair for the past six years.

 

PennVest administers the approximately $300 million annual allotment of Clean Water and Drinking Water funds previously supplied by EPA on a matching basis with Pennsylvania. These funds will now be augmented by the $212 million in stimulus funds. The Clean Water Fund addresses waste water infrastructure. The fund also addresses brownfields (with its protection of water quality) and storm water, whereas the Drinking Water Fund is strictly for water supply and distribution. At least 50 percent of the funding must be in the form of grants.

 

With the current emphasis on sustainability, alternative energy, greenhouse gas emission reduction and the need for more stringent control over stormwater run-off, the allocation of stimulus funds by PennVest will focus on innovative green technology, including particularly, controlling stormwater and remediating brownfields (at least 20 percent of the stimulus funding must be used for “green infrastructure”.)

 

Although the final disbursement of the economic stimulus funding will be affected by various regulations, the awarding of grants and loans will likely be on the same timetable as in the past with an emphasis on “shovel ready” projects. Funding agreements must be entered into and contracts for the full amount signed within a year.  The ultimate goal is to immediately increase the amount of jobs needed to construct the infrastructural repair, rebuilding and construction. 

Another Loss For the Bush EPA; The D.C. Court of Appeals Remands the Fine Particulate Standard

Posted on February 27, 2009 by Seth Jaffe

The batting average of the Bush administration EPA in appeals of its regulatory proposals may now have dropped below the proverbial Mendoza line. This week, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia remanded a substantial part of EPA’s particulate rule. That the Bush administration could achieve results where the Mendoza line is even a close metaphor is a testament to just how low its stock has fallen in the courts.

 

The case itself is important for a number of reasons, but is too lengthy for detailed analysis here. Highlights include:

·                     First, the basic holding: the court remanded EPA’s primary annual standard for PM2.5, because EPA did not justify that the 15 ug/m3 standard was sufficient to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. Second, the court also remanded EPA’s determination of the secondary, public welfare, standard for PM2.5.

·                     The court gave great weight to the role of the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC) and staff recommendations in the regulatory process. After this decision, EPA is going to think twice about choosing a regulatory course difference than that recommended by CASAC and staff. On balance, I think that this is a bad thing and more evidence of the collateral damage from the extreme positions taken by the Bush administration. After all, while the Clean Air Act sets some boundaries, these are ultimately policy decisions that should be made by the President and his or her chosen staff, not by a committee no one’s heard of or low-level staff.

·                     Unlike the chaos created when the court vacated the CAIR regulations, the court appears to have learned its lesson. This time around, the court remanded the rule, but left the standard in place for now.

·                     The court’s decision to remand the public welfare standard will have implications for current efforts to implement the its Regional Haze Rule. The extent to which this decision throws Haze Rule implementation back to the drawing board may not be known for some time.

How many more cases can the Bush administration lose after it’s already out of office? At least one. Greenwire reports today about speculation that this decision means that the EPA rules regarding the nitrogen oxide NAAQS may also be in trouble.

The interesting question in all this is the extent to which the abysmal record of the Bush EPA in defending its decisions in the courts will damage EPA’s credibility and thus result in a long-term weakening of the deference given EPA by the courts. At this point, my assumption is that, in the long run, these cases will be seen as an aberration and courts will resume their prior practice of granting EPA substantial deference. Of course, whether that is a good thing or not is a separate question.

Another Loss For the Bush EPA; The D.C. Court of Appeals Remands the Fine Particulate Standard

Posted on February 27, 2009 by Seth Jaffe

The batting average of the Bush administration EPA in appeals of its regulatory proposals may now have dropped below the proverbial Mendoza line. This week, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia remanded a substantial part of EPA’s particulate rule. That the Bush administration could achieve results where the Mendoza line is even a close metaphor is a testament to just how low its stock has fallen in the courts.

 

The case itself is important for a number of reasons, but is too lengthy for detailed analysis here. Highlights include:

·                     First, the basic holding: the court remanded EPA’s primary annual standard for PM2.5, because EPA did not justify that the 15 ug/m3 standard was sufficient to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. Second, the court also remanded EPA’s determination of the secondary, public welfare, standard for PM2.5.

·                     The court gave great weight to the role of the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC) and staff recommendations in the regulatory process. After this decision, EPA is going to think twice about choosing a regulatory course difference than that recommended by CASAC and staff. On balance, I think that this is a bad thing and more evidence of the collateral damage from the extreme positions taken by the Bush administration. After all, while the Clean Air Act sets some boundaries, these are ultimately policy decisions that should be made by the President and his or her chosen staff, not by a committee no one’s heard of or low-level staff.

·                     Unlike the chaos created when the court vacated the CAIR regulations, the court appears to have learned its lesson. This time around, the court remanded the rule, but left the standard in place for now.

·                     The court’s decision to remand the public welfare standard will have implications for current efforts to implement the its Regional Haze Rule. The extent to which this decision throws Haze Rule implementation back to the drawing board may not be known for some time.

How many more cases can the Bush administration lose after it’s already out of office? At least one. Greenwire reports today about speculation that this decision means that the EPA rules regarding the nitrogen oxide NAAQS may also be in trouble.

The interesting question in all this is the extent to which the abysmal record of the Bush EPA in defending its decisions in the courts will damage EPA’s credibility and thus result in a long-term weakening of the deference given EPA by the courts. At this point, my assumption is that, in the long run, these cases will be seen as an aberration and courts will resume their prior practice of granting EPA substantial deference. Of course, whether that is a good thing or not is a separate question.

Section 115 of the Clean Air Act - A Useful Tool for Climate Change?

Posted on February 25, 2009 by Angus Macbeth

We are not going to have Congressional action on a regime for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by the time EPA will feel compelled to respond to the Supreme Court's direction in the Massachusetts case and announce whether CO2 emissions endanger public health or welfare. If endangerment is found under Section 109 or 202 of the Act, it appears to lead to ambient air quality standards for CO2 which are then to be met through state implementation plans. By controlling the sources of CO2 within its borders, no state is likely to be able to reduce CO2 to whatever ambient level is established. This is the practical result of the fact that greenhouse gases are a global problem not a local or regional problem. Moreover, the regulation of CO2 under other portions of the Act will likely follow. Perhaps the chaos likely to ensue from following this course will push Congress to pass legislation addressing greenhouse gases. But relying on Congress to do the sensible thing may well be an imprudent course.

 

Why not try an endangerment finding under Section 115 of the Act instead? It addresses international air pollution which is what GHG emissions are. It calls for a determination of endangerment in a foreign country from sources in the United States. The determination is deemed a finding under Sec.110(a)(2)(H)(ii) of the Act; that finding may be that the relevant SIP is substantially inadequate to comply with the requirements of the Act but need not be that it is inadequate to attain the NAAQS. The affected foreign country must be invited to appear at public hearings on appropriate revision of the SIP and the United States must be given reciprocal rights by the foreign country. Making the determination and establishing reciprocity would take EPA into comparatively unfamiliar territory; starting GHG reduction through state action would follow the path that the US has already started down.

The advantages of this approach that I see are, first, that it deals with the GHG issue as a global, or at least an international, problem rather than as a local or regional one. Second, it gives the states the opportunity to proceed with cap-and-trade regimes which I think will, in some form, be the Congressional solution. Third, it may be able to avoid introducing GHG regulation into other CAA programs such as New Source Review which may be hard to untangle if and when a cap-and-trade regime is established.

The disadvantages are that it is certainly not a perfect fit with a national cap-and-trade or GHG emission tax scheme which I view as the most rational approaches that Congress might enact (though the rationality of a tax scheme is much greater than the likelihood that Congress would embrace it). If you favor command and control regulation and the complexity of New Source Review, this is not the solution for you. There are also risks in what the courts may do in interpreting Section 115 which has rarely been subjected to judicial scrutiny.

In sum, I suggest Section 115 as the best of the ill-fitting options which the Clean Air Act offers for a rational approach to reducing GHG emissions.  

Section 115 of the Clean Air Act - A Useful Tool for Climate Change?

Posted on February 25, 2009 by Angus Macbeth

We are not going to have Congressional action on a regime for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by the time EPA will feel compelled to respond to the Supreme Court's direction in the Massachusetts case and announce whether CO2 emissions endanger public health or welfare. If endangerment is found under Section 109 or 202 of the Act, it appears to lead to ambient air quality standards for CO2 which are then to be met through state implementation plans. By controlling the sources of CO2 within its borders, no state is likely to be able to reduce CO2 to whatever ambient level is established. This is the practical result of the fact that greenhouse gases are a global problem not a local or regional problem. Moreover, the regulation of CO2 under other portions of the Act will likely follow. Perhaps the chaos likely to ensue from following this course will push Congress to pass legislation addressing greenhouse gases. But relying on Congress to do the sensible thing may well be an imprudent course.

 

Why not try an endangerment finding under Section 115 of the Act instead? It addresses international air pollution which is what GHG emissions are. It calls for a determination of endangerment in a foreign country from sources in the United States. The determination is deemed a finding under Sec.110(a)(2)(H)(ii) of the Act; that finding may be that the relevant SIP is substantially inadequate to comply with the requirements of the Act but need not be that it is inadequate to attain the NAAQS. The affected foreign country must be invited to appear at public hearings on appropriate revision of the SIP and the United States must be given reciprocal rights by the foreign country. Making the determination and establishing reciprocity would take EPA into comparatively unfamiliar territory; starting GHG reduction through state action would follow the path that the US has already started down.

The advantages of this approach that I see are, first, that it deals with the GHG issue as a global, or at least an international, problem rather than as a local or regional one. Second, it gives the states the opportunity to proceed with cap-and-trade regimes which I think will, in some form, be the Congressional solution. Third, it may be able to avoid introducing GHG regulation into other CAA programs such as New Source Review which may be hard to untangle if and when a cap-and-trade regime is established.

The disadvantages are that it is certainly not a perfect fit with a national cap-and-trade or GHG emission tax scheme which I view as the most rational approaches that Congress might enact (though the rationality of a tax scheme is much greater than the likelihood that Congress would embrace it). If you favor command and control regulation and the complexity of New Source Review, this is not the solution for you. There are also risks in what the courts may do in interpreting Section 115 which has rarely been subjected to judicial scrutiny.

In sum, I suggest Section 115 as the best of the ill-fitting options which the Clean Air Act offers for a rational approach to reducing GHG emissions.  

Section 115 of the Clean Air Act - A Useful Tool for Climate Change?

Posted on February 25, 2009 by Angus Macbeth

We are not going to have Congressional action on a regime for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by the time EPA will feel compelled to respond to the Supreme Court's direction in the Massachusetts case and announce whether CO2 emissions endanger public health or welfare. If endangerment is found under Section 109 or 202 of the Act, it appears to lead to ambient air quality standards for CO2 which are then to be met through state implementation plans. By controlling the sources of CO2 within its borders, no state is likely to be able to reduce CO2 to whatever ambient level is established. This is the practical result of the fact that greenhouse gases are a global problem not a local or regional problem. Moreover, the regulation of CO2 under other portions of the Act will likely follow. Perhaps the chaos likely to ensue from following this course will push Congress to pass legislation addressing greenhouse gases. But relying on Congress to do the sensible thing may well be an imprudent course.

 

Why not try an endangerment finding under Section 115 of the Act instead? It addresses international air pollution which is what GHG emissions are. It calls for a determination of endangerment in a foreign country from sources in the United States. The determination is deemed a finding under Sec.110(a)(2)(H)(ii) of the Act; that finding may be that the relevant SIP is substantially inadequate to comply with the requirements of the Act but need not be that it is inadequate to attain the NAAQS. The affected foreign country must be invited to appear at public hearings on appropriate revision of the SIP and the United States must be given reciprocal rights by the foreign country. Making the determination and establishing reciprocity would take EPA into comparatively unfamiliar territory; starting GHG reduction through state action would follow the path that the US has already started down.

The advantages of this approach that I see are, first, that it deals with the GHG issue as a global, or at least an international, problem rather than as a local or regional one. Second, it gives the states the opportunity to proceed with cap-and-trade regimes which I think will, in some form, be the Congressional solution. Third, it may be able to avoid introducing GHG regulation into other CAA programs such as New Source Review which may be hard to untangle if and when a cap-and-trade regime is established.

The disadvantages are that it is certainly not a perfect fit with a national cap-and-trade or GHG emission tax scheme which I view as the most rational approaches that Congress might enact (though the rationality of a tax scheme is much greater than the likelihood that Congress would embrace it). If you favor command and control regulation and the complexity of New Source Review, this is not the solution for you. There are also risks in what the courts may do in interpreting Section 115 which has rarely been subjected to judicial scrutiny.

In sum, I suggest Section 115 as the best of the ill-fitting options which the Clean Air Act offers for a rational approach to reducing GHG emissions.  

Section 115 of the Clean Air Act - A Useful Tool for Climate Change?

Posted on February 25, 2009 by Angus Macbeth

We are not going to have Congressional action on a regime for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by the time EPA will feel compelled to respond to the Supreme Court's direction in the Massachusetts case and announce whether CO2 emissions endanger public health or welfare. If endangerment is found under Section 109 or 202 of the Act, it appears to lead to ambient air quality standards for CO2 which are then to be met through state implementation plans. By controlling the sources of CO2 within its borders, no state is likely to be able to reduce CO2 to whatever ambient level is established. This is the practical result of the fact that greenhouse gases are a global problem not a local or regional problem. Moreover, the regulation of CO2 under other portions of the Act will likely follow. Perhaps the chaos likely to ensue from following this course will push Congress to pass legislation addressing greenhouse gases. But relying on Congress to do the sensible thing may well be an imprudent course.

 

Why not try an endangerment finding under Section 115 of the Act instead? It addresses international air pollution which is what GHG emissions are. It calls for a determination of endangerment in a foreign country from sources in the United States. The determination is deemed a finding under Sec.110(a)(2)(H)(ii) of the Act; that finding may be that the relevant SIP is substantially inadequate to comply with the requirements of the Act but need not be that it is inadequate to attain the NAAQS. The affected foreign country must be invited to appear at public hearings on appropriate revision of the SIP and the United States must be given reciprocal rights by the foreign country. Making the determination and establishing reciprocity would take EPA into comparatively unfamiliar territory; starting GHG reduction through state action would follow the path that the US has already started down.

The advantages of this approach that I see are, first, that it deals with the GHG issue as a global, or at least an international, problem rather than as a local or regional one. Second, it gives the states the opportunity to proceed with cap-and-trade regimes which I think will, in some form, be the Congressional solution. Third, it may be able to avoid introducing GHG regulation into other CAA programs such as New Source Review which may be hard to untangle if and when a cap-and-trade regime is established.

The disadvantages are that it is certainly not a perfect fit with a national cap-and-trade or GHG emission tax scheme which I view as the most rational approaches that Congress might enact (though the rationality of a tax scheme is much greater than the likelihood that Congress would embrace it). If you favor command and control regulation and the complexity of New Source Review, this is not the solution for you. There are also risks in what the courts may do in interpreting Section 115 which has rarely been subjected to judicial scrutiny.

In sum, I suggest Section 115 as the best of the ill-fitting options which the Clean Air Act offers for a rational approach to reducing GHG emissions.  

Section 115 of the Clean Air Act - A Useful Tool for Climate Change?

Posted on February 25, 2009 by Angus Macbeth

We are not going to have Congressional action on a regime for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by the time EPA will feel compelled to respond to the Supreme Court's direction in the Massachusetts case and announce whether CO2 emissions endanger public health or welfare. If endangerment is found under Section 109 or 202 of the Act, it appears to lead to ambient air quality standards for CO2 which are then to be met through state implementation plans. By controlling the sources of CO2 within its borders, no state is likely to be able to reduce CO2 to whatever ambient level is established. This is the practical result of the fact that greenhouse gases are a global problem not a local or regional problem. Moreover, the regulation of CO2 under other portions of the Act will likely follow. Perhaps the chaos likely to ensue from following this course will push Congress to pass legislation addressing greenhouse gases. But relying on Congress to do the sensible thing may well be an imprudent course.

 

Why not try an endangerment finding under Section 115 of the Act instead? It addresses international air pollution which is what GHG emissions are. It calls for a determination of endangerment in a foreign country from sources in the United States. The determination is deemed a finding under Sec.110(a)(2)(H)(ii) of the Act; that finding may be that the relevant SIP is substantially inadequate to comply with the requirements of the Act but need not be that it is inadequate to attain the NAAQS. The affected foreign country must be invited to appear at public hearings on appropriate revision of the SIP and the United States must be given reciprocal rights by the foreign country. Making the determination and establishing reciprocity would take EPA into comparatively unfamiliar territory; starting GHG reduction through state action would follow the path that the US has already started down.

The advantages of this approach that I see are, first, that it deals with the GHG issue as a global, or at least an international, problem rather than as a local or regional one. Second, it gives the states the opportunity to proceed with cap-and-trade regimes which I think will, in some form, be the Congressional solution. Third, it may be able to avoid introducing GHG regulation into other CAA programs such as New Source Review which may be hard to untangle if and when a cap-and-trade regime is established.

The disadvantages are that it is certainly not a perfect fit with a national cap-and-trade or GHG emission tax scheme which I view as the most rational approaches that Congress might enact (though the rationality of a tax scheme is much greater than the likelihood that Congress would embrace it). If you favor command and control regulation and the complexity of New Source Review, this is not the solution for you. There are also risks in what the courts may do in interpreting Section 115 which has rarely been subjected to judicial scrutiny.

In sum, I suggest Section 115 as the best of the ill-fitting options which the Clean Air Act offers for a rational approach to reducing GHG emissions.  

Section 115 of the Clean Air Act - A Useful Tool for Climate Change?

Posted on February 25, 2009 by Angus Macbeth

We are not going to have Congressional action on a regime for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by the time EPA will feel compelled to respond to the Supreme Court's direction in the Massachusetts case and announce whether CO2 emissions endanger public health or welfare. If endangerment is found under Section 109 or 202 of the Act, it appears to lead to ambient air quality standards for CO2 which are then to be met through state implementation plans. By controlling the sources of CO2 within its borders, no state is likely to be able to reduce CO2 to whatever ambient level is established. This is the practical result of the fact that greenhouse gases are a global problem not a local or regional problem. Moreover, the regulation of CO2 under other portions of the Act will likely follow. Perhaps the chaos likely to ensue from following this course will push Congress to pass legislation addressing greenhouse gases. But relying on Congress to do the sensible thing may well be an imprudent course.

 

Why not try an endangerment finding under Section 115 of the Act instead? It addresses international air pollution which is what GHG emissions are. It calls for a determination of endangerment in a foreign country from sources in the United States. The determination is deemed a finding under Sec.110(a)(2)(H)(ii) of the Act; that finding may be that the relevant SIP is substantially inadequate to comply with the requirements of the Act but need not be that it is inadequate to attain the NAAQS. The affected foreign country must be invited to appear at public hearings on appropriate revision of the SIP and the United States must be given reciprocal rights by the foreign country. Making the determination and establishing reciprocity would take EPA into comparatively unfamiliar territory; starting GHG reduction through state action would follow the path that the US has already started down.

The advantages of this approach that I see are, first, that it deals with the GHG issue as a global, or at least an international, problem rather than as a local or regional one. Second, it gives the states the opportunity to proceed with cap-and-trade regimes which I think will, in some form, be the Congressional solution. Third, it may be able to avoid introducing GHG regulation into other CAA programs such as New Source Review which may be hard to untangle if and when a cap-and-trade regime is established.

The disadvantages are that it is certainly not a perfect fit with a national cap-and-trade or GHG emission tax scheme which I view as the most rational approaches that Congress might enact (though the rationality of a tax scheme is much greater than the likelihood that Congress would embrace it). If you favor command and control regulation and the complexity of New Source Review, this is not the solution for you. There are also risks in what the courts may do in interpreting Section 115 which has rarely been subjected to judicial scrutiny.

In sum, I suggest Section 115 as the best of the ill-fitting options which the Clean Air Act offers for a rational approach to reducing GHG emissions.  

OBAMA AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Posted on February 24, 2009 by Elliot Laws

As Lisa Jackson completes her first month as President Obama’s environmental chief, she is just scratching the surface on some of the myriad issues that will likely have impacts far beyond typical environmental concerns, for decades to come. There has to be some mixture of excitement and fear facing this new administration, as the challenges before it dwarf all of those in memory. That mixture will be especially prevalent at EPA. Usually in times like these — war, recession, high unemployment –— environmental issues can be expected to fade from the front pages. An EPA administrator would receive the old admonition to be seen and not heard. However, unlike past crises environmental issues are in the forefront — primarily in the form of climate change and energy. It is notable that when the government is lending billions of dollars to Citibank and debating the very existence of the big three automakers, one of the first actions of the incoming Obama administration has been to review EPA’s previous decision to deny California’s petition for a Clean Air Act waiver to allow it to regulate greenhouse gases from mobile sources.

 

 

The expectations for success that many Obama supporters have are high. Those expectations are high in the environmental community — perhaps too high. The ongoing financial collapse in the United States and abroad has changed the landscape in ways that could not have been imagined as recently as August, when Obama accepted the Democratic nomination for president. With the federal government having committed nearly $1 trillion in an attempt to save financial institutions across the country; with Congress passing an economic stimulus package costing an additional $750 billion; with the United States still conducting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, outside of the infusion of stimulus cash for “shovel-ready projects” the expectation that EPA’s budget will experience significant increases over the Bush years is hardly a reasoned view. It’s not just the mind boggling challenge facing us on the economy, it’s also the difficult decisions that must be made to address climate change; it’s the need to seriously address the nation’s nearly suicidal dependence on foreign oil; and it’s myriad other issues that will all require hard choices and sacrifice.

 

Those expectations are probably low in the business community — as they normally are when the country shifts from a Republican to a Democratic administration. And similarly, those expectations are perhaps too low. I believe if this president will be true to one of his campaign promises, it is to govern in a way that puts partisanship on the sidelines. He has already proved that commitment by sending a strong signal to Senate Democrats that he does not wish to see retaliation against Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) for his support not only of John McCain, but also Republican senatorial candidates in Minnesota, Maine, and Oregon. What Obama signaled with that position is that he is not going to put partisanship ahead of his plans to help America, even if partisans refuse his offers to join him.. He is looking at new alliances and will work with people who were not shy in their opposition to his election as he works as president. The mantra of “no permanent friends; no permanent enemies” is likely to be the Obama approach to working in Washington, DC.

 

We as a nation are facing an uncertain future. The environment is likely going to play a larger role in the lives of average Americans than it has since its heyday in the 1970s. Lisa Jackson has the monumental task of rallying an agency suffering from low morale, with precious few additional resources, to make decisions in perhaps the most hotly debated and controversial area of environmental law and policy ever. She will make recommendations and decisions that will have implications not only on the very future of the United States, but likely for the world as well. To the NGO community, the challenge is not to be disappointed as this president makes decisions that balance multiple important considerations and who will often decide that another consideration must trump the environmental choice. To the business community, the challenge is to be more optimistic and to show the initiative and courage necessary to work with this new administration and its traditional allies to solve the monumental problems facing the world.

Oregon as Center of Green Energy?

Posted on February 23, 2009 by Richard Glick

 By: Rick Glick and David Blasher of Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP

Many postings on this site have featured local and regional climate change policy initiatives. Oregon is no exception, but at the center of Governor Ted Kulongoski’s climate change strategy is making the state a hub of green technology development. Thus, the Governor seeks to combine greenhouse gas reductions with economic recovery. To that end, the state has used tax and other incentives to lure foreign clean technology investment to the state. Early signs are positive. The German solar cell company Solar World has recently taken over a stilled chip fabrication plant in the Portland suburbs and Sanyo is opening a solar cell facility in Salem. Vestas American Wind Technology, the largest manufacturer of wind turbines in the world, has announced plans to construct a 400,000 to 600,000 headquarters building near downtown Portland. As Governor Kulongoski declared in his 2009 State of the State address, “There is a green revolution stirring in America, and Oregon is the beating heart of that revolution.” 

 

To this end, the Governor is jockeying Oregon into a favorable position with President Obama's agenda of creating jobs that foster and incorporate sustainable energy projects. In order to maximize funds that Oregon will receive from the federal stimulus package, the Governor has established a state council called the Oregon Way Advisory Group. The Group is comprised of private business leaders and public officials who have an interest in developing sustainable energy proposals that will highlight Oregon’s green expertise. The Governor believes that by developing innovative projects to encourage job creation in green technologies, Oregon will have a leg up in the race for stimulus cash. “This approach will ensure that Oregon remains a leader in the green revolution,” the Governor said.

 

The Governor has proposed a legislative package for the current session that will address green energy and climate issues. Central among the Governor’s endeavors is an expansion of the Business Energy Tax Credit in order to attract new green industries to Oregon. The new green bills in the legislature include the following:

 

·        SB 80 will establish a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse emissions by encouraging innovation and efficiency among Oregon’s industries. 

 

·        SB 79 is designed to increase energy efficiency in buildings by giving performance certificates to business to enable them to monitor efficiency in new and remodeled buildings. The ambitious goal is to reach zero net emissions by 2030, and in so doing, set Oregon as a leader in creating green building techniques.

 

·        SB 168 encourages energy independence of the state government by allowing energy efficiency projects on state lands and buildings, thus helping the state government to operate entirely on renewable power.

 

·        SB 201 is designed to provide an additional $4 million to weatherize and retrofit the homes of 400 low-income families each year, cutting energy costs for families by an average of $314 a year.   

 

·        SB 603 would stop Oregon from building any new dirty coal power plants and would require new power sources to be at least as clean as natural gas plants. 

 

·        HB 2120 will reflect the priority of providing more transportation choices for Oregonians in order to reduce emissions and traffic, to improve health, and to cut gas costs. 

 

·        HB 2121 will encourage the development of solar energy by directing the PUC to integrate up to 17 megawatts of solar energy into Oregon's electricity mix. Oregon launched the nation’s first solar highway at the I-5/I-205 interchange last year. Using Oregon manufacturers for the solar panels and emerging small Oregon businesses to install the solar system will supply jobs and renewable energy today and into the future.

 

·        HB 2180 would create an Oregon Renewable Energy Fund to provide grants to smaller community renewable energy projects. This bill also seeks to expand the Business Energy Tax Credit to provide a fifty percent tax credit for large-scale energy efficiency investments by businesses. The bill will also encourage sustainable bioenergy such as biofuels that do not compete with good supplies. Finally, HB 2180 will give the Oregon Department of Energy the flexibility to adjust tax credit incentives to encourage the development of the next generation of low and zero emission vehicles.

 

·        HB 2181 will give local governments bonding authority to provide loans to residential and business energy efficiency projects.

 

·        HB 2186 authorizes the citizen-comprised Environmental Quality Commission to develop reduction strategies including a low carbon fuel standard and restrictions on the unnecessary idling of trucks and commercial vehicles.

 

Governor Kulongoski views the current economic crisis as an opportunity to embrace sustainable energy projects that will make Oregon a leader in the future of green industries. As the Governor put it, “My message should be unmistakable – and it is the same message I conveyed to business and government leaders in Japan and China: Oregon is open for business. Especially green business.”

EPA's Roll-Back of Bush-Era Rules Appears to Begin in Earnest

Posted on February 13, 2009 by Seth Jaffe

While a lot of attention has been paid to whether EPA would reverse the Bush EPA decision denying California’s petition to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources,  it is now clear even outside the climate change arena that life at EPA is going to be substantially different under the current administration.  As if evidence were really needed for that proposition, EPA announced this week that it was putting on hold the NSR aggregation rule that EPA had promulgated on January 15, 2009.

The rule, which had been long sought by industry, would have provided that nominally separate projects would only have to be combined – aggregated for NSR/PSD purposes – if  they are “substantially related.” It also would have created a rebuttable presumption that projects more than three years apart are not substantially related. Responding to a request from NRDC and the OMB memo asking agencies to look closely at rules promulgated before the transition but not yet effective, EPA concluded that the rule raises “substantial questions of law and policy.” Therefore, EPA postponed the effective date of the rule until May 18, 2009 and also announced that it was formally reconsidering the rule in response to the NRDC petition.

To those in industry, the aggregation rule was not a radical anti-environmental roll-back of environmental protection standards.  Rather, it was more of a common-sense approach towards making the NSR program simpler and clearer.  It is one of my pet peeves with the prior administration, however, that it gave regulatory reform a bad name.  

In any case, I feel as though I should open a pool regarding what will be the next Bush-era rule to be tossed overboard.  We surely won’t have to wait long for it to happen.

UNITED STATES NEEDS TO GET ON BOARD IN 2009 WITH THE ONE-WATT INITIATIVE

Posted on February 9, 2009 by Stephen E. Herrmann

TAKE ACTION ON PHANTOM LOADS:

 

The One-Watt Initiative is a fairly simple regulatory program proposed for eliminating unnecessary electricity losses from electronic equipment in standby mode, known as phantom loads. The European Union, Canada, Korea, Japan and China have all taken action. The United States needs to step up to action through the federal government or the states. President Obama's administration should be urged by all of us to adopt a policy in 2009. Because of the diverse pressures on the Federal government, simultaneous pressure should be exerted on all states to adopt the One-Watt policy.

 

WHAT IS THE STANDBY POWER PROBLEM:

Chances are that even environmental lawyers ignore the high energy costs of “phantom load.” But, now is the time to get regulation started.

Phantom load is the electricity consumed by a device when it is turned OFF.[1] Devices that have a phantom load are sometimes referred to as “vampires.”   For example, a television consumes electricity as it waits for the “on” button on the remote to be hit. Heavy phantom load users include the “power brick” adaptors that charge or operate cell phones, laptop computers, cordless drills, answering machines, radios, incheck printers and many other residential devices. These adapters are actually small transfers, turning AC electricity from the wall outlet into the DC electricity for use by the device. While one of these devices may only consume a small amount of power (e.g., 3-20 watts), a dozen or so of them running simultaneously and continuously, consume a significant amount of energy. What is worse is that even when not charging the cell phone or the battery for the cordless drill, that AC adapter may continue to consume power just because it is plugged into the wall.

 

HOW LARGE IS THE PHANTOM LOAD:

In the United States, the phantom load make up about six percent of the total, and around ten percent of residential consumption. 

As the United States Department of Energy stated: 

“Many appliances continue to draw a small of power when they are switched off. These “phantom” loads occur in most appliances that use electricity, such as VCRs, televisions, stereos, computers and kitchen appliances. In the average home, 75% of electricity used to power home electronics is consumed while the products are turned off. This can be avoided by unplugging the appliance or using the power strip and using the switch on the power strip to cut all power to the appliance.”

The British Government’s 2006 Energy Review found that standby modes on electric devices accounted for 8% of all British domestic power consumption. A similar study in France in 2000 found that standby power accounted for 7% of total residential consumption. Further studies have come to similar conclusions in other developed countries, including the Netherlands, Australia and Japan. Some countries estimates the proportion of consumption due to standby power as high as 13% in some countries. 

 

one-watt initiative:

The One-Watt Initiative is an energy saving proposal by the International Energy Agency to reduce standby power in all appliances to just one watt. The One-Watt Initiative was launched by the IEA in 1999 to promote, through international cooperation, that by 2010, all new appliances sold in the world would only use one watt in standby mode. On July, 2005, at the Gleneagles Summit in Scotland, the G8 countries signed an endorsement to, among other things, "promote the application of the IEA's 1 Watt Initiative". It is estimated that, if implemented, leaking electricity would be cut by as much as 75% when the existing stock of appliances is replaced. Further savings would occur as the number of vampire appliances increase.

 

INTERNATIONAL PROGRESS ON THE ONE-WATT PLAN:

An international group of experts was assembled to define standby power and establish a common test procedure. An internationally sanctioned definition and test procedure was adopted by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC 62301).

On January 9, 2009, the European Commission adopted a regulation laying down energy efficiency requirements, which is intended to cut the standby electricity consumption by almost 75% by 2020. As of 2010, the standby power consumption of new products has to be less than one watt or two watts. These values will be lowered in 2013 to 0.5 watt and one watt, which is close to the levels achievable with the best available technology.

NR Canada by Regulation is proposing that the Tier 1 energy efficiency performance standards for certain standby power will apply to products manufactured after June 1, 2009. The effective date for the Tier 2 standards will be applied to products manufactured after June 1, 2011.

Both South Korea and Australia have introduced the one watt benchmark in all new electrical devices, and according to the IEA, other countries, notably Japan and China, have undertaken “strong measures” to reduce standby power use. 

 

one-watt initiative in the united states:

So far the United States government's only action has been Executive Order 13221 signed by President George W. Bush in 2001. The Executive Committee states that every governmental agency “when it purchases commercially-available, off-the-shelf products that use external standby power devices, or that contain an internal standby power function, shall purchase products that use no more than one watt in a standby power-consuming mode.”

The State of California currently has an Appliance Efficiency Regulation which includes standby power limits for three consumer audio and video equipment categories (compact audio products, televisions and DVD players and recorders). A few other states have announced intentions to follow the California regulations for standby power limits but have not done so.

 

CONCLUSION:

This is an excellent issue to be pushed by any environmental group or generally concerned citizens. With the backing it has internationally, lobbying should garner little resistance. The United States or individual states should take action in 2009.



[1] There are issues about a definition for standby power. However, for purposes of general regulations, standby power is the lowest level of electricity consumed by appliances, which cannot be switched off (influenced) by the user, and may persist for an indefinite time when an appliance is connected to its main electricity supply.

UNITED STATES NEEDS TO GET ON BOARD IN 2009 WITH THE ONE-WATT INITIATIVE

Posted on February 9, 2009 by Stephen E. Herrmann

TAKE ACTION ON PHANTOM LOADS:

 

The One-Watt Initiative is a fairly simple regulatory program proposed for eliminating unnecessary electricity losses from electronic equipment in standby mode, known as phantom loads. The European Union, Canada, Korea, Japan and China have all taken action. The United States needs to step up to action through the federal government or the states. President Obama's administration should be urged by all of us to adopt a policy in 2009. Because of the diverse pressures on the Federal government, simultaneous pressure should be exerted on all states to adopt the One-Watt policy.

 

WHAT IS THE STANDBY POWER PROBLEM:

Chances are that even environmental lawyers ignore the high energy costs of “phantom load.” But, now is the time to get regulation started.

Phantom load is the electricity consumed by a device when it is turned OFF.[1] Devices that have a phantom load are sometimes referred to as “vampires.”   For example, a television consumes electricity as it waits for the “on” button on the remote to be hit. Heavy phantom load users include the “power brick” adaptors that charge or operate cell phones, laptop computers, cordless drills, answering machines, radios, incheck printers and many other residential devices. These adapters are actually small transfers, turning AC electricity from the wall outlet into the DC electricity for use by the device. While one of these devices may only consume a small amount of power (e.g., 3-20 watts), a dozen or so of them running simultaneously and continuously, consume a significant amount of energy. What is worse is that even when not charging the cell phone or the battery for the cordless drill, that AC adapter may continue to consume power just because it is plugged into the wall.

 

HOW LARGE IS THE PHANTOM LOAD:

In the United States, the phantom load make up about six percent of the total, and around ten percent of residential consumption. 

As the United States Department of Energy stated: 

“Many appliances continue to draw a small of power when they are switched off. These “phantom” loads occur in most appliances that use electricity, such as VCRs, televisions, stereos, computers and kitchen appliances. In the average home, 75% of electricity used to power home electronics is consumed while the products are turned off. This can be avoided by unplugging the appliance or using the power strip and using the switch on the power strip to cut all power to the appliance.”

The British Government’s 2006 Energy Review found that standby modes on electric devices accounted for 8% of all British domestic power consumption. A similar study in France in 2000 found that standby power accounted for 7% of total residential consumption. Further studies have come to similar conclusions in other developed countries, including the Netherlands, Australia and Japan. Some countries estimates the proportion of consumption due to standby power as high as 13% in some countries. 

 

one-watt initiative:

The One-Watt Initiative is an energy saving proposal by the International Energy Agency to reduce standby power in all appliances to just one watt. The One-Watt Initiative was launched by the IEA in 1999 to promote, through international cooperation, that by 2010, all new appliances sold in the world would only use one watt in standby mode. On July, 2005, at the Gleneagles Summit in Scotland, the G8 countries signed an endorsement to, among other things, "promote the application of the IEA's 1 Watt Initiative". It is estimated that, if implemented, leaking electricity would be cut by as much as 75% when the existing stock of appliances is replaced. Further savings would occur as the number of vampire appliances increase.

 

INTERNATIONAL PROGRESS ON THE ONE-WATT PLAN:

An international group of experts was assembled to define standby power and establish a common test procedure. An internationally sanctioned definition and test procedure was adopted by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC 62301).

On January 9, 2009, the European Commission adopted a regulation laying down energy efficiency requirements, which is intended to cut the standby electricity consumption by almost 75% by 2020. As of 2010, the standby power consumption of new products has to be less than one watt or two watts. These values will be lowered in 2013 to 0.5 watt and one watt, which is close to the levels achievable with the best available technology.

NR Canada by Regulation is proposing that the Tier 1 energy efficiency performance standards for certain standby power will apply to products manufactured after June 1, 2009. The effective date for the Tier 2 standards will be applied to products manufactured after June 1, 2011.

Both South Korea and Australia have introduced the one watt benchmark in all new electrical devices, and according to the IEA, other countries, notably Japan and China, have undertaken “strong measures” to reduce standby power use. 

 

one-watt initiative in the united states:

So far the United States government's only action has been Executive Order 13221 signed by President George W. Bush in 2001. The Executive Committee states that every governmental agency “when it purchases commercially-available, off-the-shelf products that use external standby power devices, or that contain an internal standby power function, shall purchase products that use no more than one watt in a standby power-consuming mode.”

The State of California currently has an Appliance Efficiency Regulation which includes standby power limits for three consumer audio and video equipment categories (compact audio products, televisions and DVD players and recorders). A few other states have announced intentions to follow the California regulations for standby power limits but have not done so.

 

CONCLUSION:

This is an excellent issue to be pushed by any environmental group or generally concerned citizens. With the backing it has internationally, lobbying should garner little resistance. The United States or individual states should take action in 2009.



[1] There are issues about a definition for standby power. However, for purposes of general regulations, standby power is the lowest level of electricity consumed by appliances, which cannot be switched off (influenced) by the user, and may persist for an indefinite time when an appliance is connected to its main electricity supply.

Certification Board Adopts Standards for Environmental Auditing and Program Design

Posted on February 6, 2009 by Ridgway Hall

In December, 2008, the Board of Environmental, Health and Safety Auditor Certifications (BEAC) issued its Performance and Program Standards for the Professional Practice of Environmental, Health and Safety Auditing. BEAC is the largest organization which certifies the competence of EHS auditors based on a written test and experience. These standards codify existing “best practices” in the EH&S auditing profession and the design and implementation of auditing programs. They should be particularly helpful to those of us who work with companies to develop compliance assurance programs.

 

Background

            Ever since Congress passed Sarbanes-Oxley in 2002, business entities requesting environmental, health and safety (EHS) compliance audits have had a stronger need for confidence that the audit reports are complete, accurate and reliable. Recall that SOXA Section 302(a) requires that the “Principal executive officer or officers and the principal financial officer or officers . . . certify in each annual or quarterly report” that, based on the officers’ knowledge, the report does not contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit any material facts and that the officers have designed and maintained internal controls to ensure that material information relating to the company is provided to them.

            The field of environmental auditing—more broadly EHS auditing—began informally in the late 1970s in response to the wave of complex environmental legislation and regulations which carried up to $25,000 per day for violations. Environmental engineering firms and some law firms offered to assist companies in carrying out compliance audits. Once familiarity with the relevant regulations was demonstrated by the auditors, companies did not bother to require any third-party verification of their qualifications, or ask if there were any “standards” they followed. This has also been true for the related field of environmental site assessments performed as part of the due diligence in a commercial acquisition. However, perhaps as a sign of the times, when EPA codified its “All Appropriate Inquiry” rule providing protection against  Superfund liability for innocent landowners, bona fide purchasers and contiguous landowners in 2005 (40 C.F.R. Part 312), it included minimum qualifications requirements for an “environmental professional” in terms of education and experience.

            Three years ago the Board of Environmental, Health & Safety Auditor Certifications (BEAC) asked its four-person Standards Board, on which I serve, to review its very slender 1999 standards for auditors and audit programs and design a new set of standards consistent with the current needs and state of the art. The rewrite was completed in December following more than a year of public and peer review and comments on drafts. The new standards are currently being printed and information on them will soon be available at the BEAC web site: www.beac.org.

            The New BEAC Standards

            The purpose of the BEAC auditing standards is to provide auditors and audit program designers with minimum and broadly worded “standards”. These can be relied on by any auditor or business entity who wants to represent that their audit was conducted, or program designed, consistent with BEAC standards. Our purpose was to codify “best practices” which have been widely in use for a number of years, not to try to push the envelope. Furthermore, the standards are flexible and broadly worded, recognizing that audit assignments come in many sizes and shapes. Similarly, entities designing an internal auditing program come in different sizes and shapes and vary widely in their needs.

            The standards are organized into four main sections addressing (1) independence, (2) due professional care (qualifications), (3) performance of audit work, and (4) audit program design. Following the text of the standards themselves in each section there is “guidance” designed to provide practical tips on how to get the job done. The following paragraphs summarize briefly the key elements of each section.

            Section 1 requires that auditors must be objective and independent of the activities they audit, free of any conflict of interest. Similarly, an audit program should be designed to ensure that the auditors are independent, that they are not pressured or influenced by entities which they audit, and that they report their results directly to senior management.

            Section 2 requires that auditors must have adequate qualifications, skills and experience appropriate to the nature of the task they will be performing.  The standards spell out the specifics. An anticipated benefit to an auditor is that if he or she carries out an audit in compliance with the standards, that should be a presumptive defense to a malpractice claim in the event that an apparent violation was allegedly missed during the audit. The auditing program requirements include responsibility to ensure auditor competence and proper supervision.

            With respect to Performance of Audit Work, the standards address the planning and scoping phase, preparation, field work and reporting. This includes general requirements for document review, personnel interviews, site inspections and “any other appropriate procedure for the gathering, evaluation and recording of information relevant to the scope and objective of the audit.” An audit report is then normally prepared which sets forth each finding of noncompliance. Reporting procedures should ensure that the reports are accurate and complete. Experienced environmental auditors should find all of this familiar and reassuring.

            With respect to the Audit Program design, the standards require that program goals, objectives and scope be defined in a written charter adopted and published by senior management. Subjects such as the scope of the audit program, frequency of audits and procedures to ensure auditor competency are included. Periodic management review is required to be sure that the audit program is carrying out the company’s objectives and has adequate resources in terms of personnel and funding.

            The content of the program standards draws on EPA’s “Elements of Effective Environmental Auditing Programs” (published initially in 1986 and reaffirmed in 1994), Justice Department policies describing effective environmental compliance programs, and elements of the ISO-14001 standards, among other sources.

Conclusion

            This has necessarily been the briefest of overviews—hardly a comprehensive discussion. No one is required to adopt or follow these new standards. However, hopefully they will provide guidance and reassurance both to EHS auditors and those who design and operate compliance assurance programs and want to “get it right.”

 

© Ridgway M. Hall, Jr. 2009

A Quick Economic Stimulus Meets a Slow Environmental Process - Are NEPA Waivers Needed to Reach Energy Independence?

Posted on January 30, 2009 by Bradley Marten

President Obama has pressed Congress this week to enact an economic stimulus package that would “double our capacity to generate alternative sources of energy like wind, solar, and biofuels . . . and build a new electricity grid that lay down more than 3,000 miles of transmission lines to convey this new energy from coast to coast.”[i] On Wednesday, January 28, 2009, the House passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1), which contains nearly $15 billion in capital investments and loan guarantees for renewable energy projects and new electric transmission lines, and $18.5 billion for energy efficiency programs.  The Administration’s stated goal is to spend this money in the next 18 months. This may be possible for the energy efficiency projects such as weatherizing homes and government buildings.  But for dozens of new wind farms and thousands of miles of transmission lines, it is not, and a good part of the reason is that those projects have yet to undergo environmental review or receive necessary permits.



[i] These remarks came in the President’s first weekly address, which was delivered on Saturday, January 24, 2009. The address can be viewed at this link.

 

Typically, siting a transmission line, wind farm, or other major energy facility involves obtaining a long list of environmental permits, each of which has a review process that can be used by opponents of the project to delay and sometimes defeat it. Moving infrastructure projects forward quickly will only be possible if Congress and the Administration speed up the environmental review and permitting process.  

In a January 26, 2009, report, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will take up to seven years to spend the money that H.R. 1 dedicated to expanding alternative energy. Experience teaches that this estimate may be overly conservative. For example, the Arrowhead-Weston Transmission Project, a 220 mile transmission line from Wisconsin to Minnesota, took nine years to permit and construct, even though all but 50 miles of it were in existing transmission line corridors. Southern California Edison’s Tehachapi Transmission Project, a 250 mile transmission project to deliver electricity generated from wind farms in Southern California, took over 10 years to design, permit, and begin construction. Indeed, portions of the project are still undergoing environmental review by the U.S. Forest Service and others.

Recently, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger requested up to $44 billion for transportation, energy and water projects in California, claiming that these projects will create as many as 800,000 new jobs.  Knowing that traditional environmental review would slow short-term job creation, Governor Schwarzenegger asked the Obama Administration to “waive or greatly streamline National Environmental Protection Act requirements consistent with our statutory proposals to modify the California Environment Quality Act for transportation projects.”

The proposal drew immediately fire from environmental groups. In a January 13, 2009, letter to House and Senate Democratic leaders, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the League of Conservation Voters and Environment California called Governor Schwarzenegger’s proposal “unproductive and harmful” to the federal debate over reviving the economy.  “Inevitably, in the course of congressional consideration, special interests will assert that we cannot afford the NEPA process in a time of national urgency,” they said.  “The truth is that we cannot afford that kind of leap-before-you-look rashness.” 

The new Administration must navigate this tension – quickly addressing the economic crisis while maintaining the integrity of the environmental review process. Doing so will require identifying ways that environmental review and permitting can be streamlined and modernized, alongside the infrastructure system.  We ought to be able to get wind farms and bridges and light rail built in a time frame that provides the short-term stimulus our economy needs, and also allow for sufficient environmental review to make sure our resources are protected.   This article lays out some of the options the new Administration may wish to consider as it seeks to balance job creation with environmental stewardship.

Approaches for Streamlining the Environmental Review Process

Use Existing Provisions Allowing Temporary Waivers

 

Many environmental regulatory statutes contain waivers of applicable requirements in response to natural disasters or other emergency conditions.  For example, the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act authorizes NEPA waivers to facilitate prompt responses to natural disasters.[1]  Similarly, the White House Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) is authorized to approve “alternative arrangements” allowing federal agencies to modify or limit NEPA review in response to natural disasters.[2]  Other federal environmental laws with emergency response provisions include the Clean Water Act[3] and CERCLA.[4]

In response to Hurricane Katrina, CEQ approved expedited NEPA review procedures for certain U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood control projects.  EPA temporarily waived certain Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and other environmental regulations in Katrina’s wake.  Both Louisiana and Mississippi issued similar emergency administrative orders, temporarily suspending certain environmental regulations to facilitate clearing hurricane debris and other emergency response actions.

Waivers Based on Grounds of National Security

In 2002, after the Natural Resources Defense Council obtained a preliminary injunction halting the U.S. Navy’s use of a low-frequency, active, surveillance towed array sonar system,[5] President Bush issued a “Presidential Exemption from the Coastal Zone Management Act,”[6] in order to “ensure effective and timely training of the United States naval forces in anti-submarine warfare using mid-frequency active sonar.”  The Presidential exemption allowed the Navy to train and certify strike groups capable of deployment “in support of world-wide operational and combat activities, which are essential to national security.”

The United States Supreme Court upheld the President’s action, finding that the public interest in adequately training the Navy’s antisubmarine forces “plainly outweighs” conservationists’ interests in studying marine mammals that may be injured by sonar exercises.[7]

Legislative Exemptions for Specific Projects

 

Congress has also periodically either limited or exempted review under NEPA and other environmental statutes for specific projects or categories of projects.  For example, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 modified the environmental compliance requirements for a broad range of energy-related projects.  The modified environmental compliance measures included:

  • Establishing a rebuttable presumption that certain oil and gas projects conducted on federal land are categorically exempted from NEPA review (§ 390);
  • Exempting hydraulic fracturing in aid of oil, gas, and geothermal energy extraction from certain requirements in the Safe Drinking Water Act (§ 322);
  • Exempting oil and gas exploration, production, and transportation construction projects from the Clean Water Act’s construction stormwater regulations (§ 323);
  • Requiring EPA and federal land management agencies in Western states to develop a pilot project to expedite environmental review and permitting under NEPA, the ESA, the Clean Water Act, and other federal statutes (§ 365);
  • Expediting the permitting process for natural gas facilities located on federal lands (§ 366); and
  • Shortening the time frame for appealing permitting decisions under the Coastal Zone Management Act (§ 381).

Congress has also exempted or provided limited NEPA review for other projects, for example:

·        The TransAlaska Pipeline was exempted from NEPA review after completion of the initial EIS (43 U.S.C. § 1625(d));

·        Certain actions taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act are exempted from NEPA review (15 U.S.C. § 793(c)(1));

·        Department of Energy decisions to grant or deny exemptions from regulations governing fuel use at coal-fired power plants are exempted from NEPA review (42 U.S.C. § 8473);

·        For certain retrievable radioactive waste storage projects, an Environmental Assessment (as opposed to an EIS) constitutes sufficient compliance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. § 10155(c)(2)(A));

·        Alternate environmental review procedures have been established for determining surface transportation rights-of-way in the Arctic National Preserve (42 U.S.C. § 410hh(4)(d); and

·        Certain Department of Housing and Urban Development funding decisions are exempt from NEPA review, based on certification of compliance with state and local laws (42 U.S.C. § 3547(2)).

Using Streamlined Environmental Review to Address Economic Conditions

 

While legislative, regulatory, and executive precedent exists for either waiving or limiting environmental review, those precedents have rarely been used to justify waiving environmental review on the grounds of an economic crisis.[8]  But precedent exists for using “alternative arrangements” for environmental review in response to economic concerns.  In 1980, after General Motors threatened to build a new manufacturing facility outside the city limits unless the city cleared and delivered an appropriate site for the facility, the City of Detroit declared a state of emergency based on an economic crisis.  In September 1980, CEQ approved an “alternative arrangement” under NEPA allowing the Department of Housing and Urban Development to release loan guarantee funds prior to the completion of NEPA review.[9]

The challenge for the new Administration and Congress is to strike a balance between expediting environmental review while maintaining sufficient oversight to prevent bad decision making.  Options to achieve that goal include: (1) expediting funding for “shovel ready” projects which already have undergone federal and state environmental review and obtained necessary permits; (2) using programmatic environmental review of project categories that would obviate the need for project-specific (and often redundant) environmental reviews; (3) providing limited exemptions or streamlined environmental review for specific categories of projects; and (4) limiting judicial review of final agency approvals for projects funded by the stimulus bill, while providing for oversight, review, and approval by CEQ.

For more information, please contact Bradley Marten



[1] See 42 U.S.C. § 5159.

[2] 40 CFR § 1506.11.

[3] Under 40 CFR § 122.3, the President or an agency acting with delegated Presidential authority may grant a waiver of the NPDES requirement if necessary to address substantial threats to public health or welfare. EPA invoked this exception in response to Hurricane Katrina. Another exception is 40 CFR § 122.41(n), which allows a wavier in the event of an “upset,” which is the temporary failure to comply with NPDES permit conditions based on factors that are beyond the reasonable control of an operator, for example, a power failure or a large spill of contaminants into a collection and treatment system.

[4] CERCLA provides the President and EPA with broad authority and flexibility to undertake response actions whenever there is a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance which presents an imminent and substantial danger. See 40 CFR § 300.400(e)(1).

[5] See NRDC v. Evans, 232 F. Supp.2d 1003 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (for more information on this decision, see Colleen C. Karpinsky, A Whale of a Tale: The Sea of Controversy Surrounding the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the U.S. Navy’s Proposed Use of the SURTASS-LFA Sonar System, 12 Penn St. Envtl. L. Rev. 389 (2004)).

[6] Per its terms, the Presidential Exemption was based on the “Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 1456(c)(1)(B) of title 16, United States Code.”

[7] Winters v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 365 (2008).

[8] While NEPA allows agencies to allow “alternative arrangements” suspending or modifying environmental review, CEQ regulations limit their applicability to “actions necessary to control the immediate impact of the emergency.” 40 CFR § 1506.11 (emphasis supplied).

[9] Although the full NEPA review was eventually completed, the “alternative arrangement” allowed HUD and the city to expedite project activities in response to an economic crisis. The facts of the Detroit “alternative arrangement” are summarized at Crosby v. Little, 512 F. Supp. 1363 (E.D. Mich. 1981).

More Clean Water Act Citizen Suits on the Way?

Posted on January 20, 2009 by Fournier J. Gale, III

At least in the Southeast, the popularity of Clean Water Act citizen suits has waxed and waned over the course of the Act’s 37 year history. However, our firm’s environmental practice group began to see a renewed interest in citizen suits a couple of years ago, and a recent decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals may lead to an even greater resurgence.

 

In Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Cherokee Mining, LLC, the Eleventh Circuit held that a citizen suit may proceed against a defendant for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act despite the state environmental agency’s commencing an administrative enforcement action before the citizen suit was filed. 548 F.3d 986 (11th Cir. 2008). Riverkeeper, an environmental organization supporting the preservation of the Black Warrior River watershed in Alabama, filed suit in 2007 against Cherokee Mining, an owner and operator of two coal mines in northern Alabama, for alleged illegal discharges to navigable waters in violation of the company’s permit. Pursuant to the Act, Riverkeeper first sent Cherokee Mining a “60-day notice letter,” notifying the company of its intent to file suit in federal court. The state environmental agency then commenced enforcement by issuing an administrative consent order, and Riverkeeper filed its suit in the Northern District of Alabama shortly thereafter.

 

            Cherokee Mining filed a Motion to Dismiss Riverkeeper’s suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Section 309 of the Act which precludes citizen suites when a state agency has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an administrative enforcement action against a defendant. Riverkeeper responded by pointing to what until now has been a largely overlooked provision in Section 309 stating that the citizen suit bar does not apply to actions filed after a citizen gives its notice of intent to sue prior to commencement of an administrative enforcement action and the citizen actually files suit “before the 120th day after the date on which such notice is given.” 33 U.S.C. § 1319(6)(B)(ii). Based on language found elsewhere in Section 309, Cherokee Mining argued that this 120-day exception only applies to federal, not state, administrative enforcement actions. The district court rejected this argument and held that Riverkeeper’s suit could go forward because it met the Act’s notice of intent to sue requirements. Holding that Cherokee Mining’s interpretation of the statute “was an extremely cramped and narrow reading of the ordinary and plain meaning of the relevant language” in the Act, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Cherokee Mining petitioned the Court for panel or en banc rehearing, and the petition was denied on January 8, 2009. There has been no word yet as to whether Cherokee Mining plans to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

            Until now, no Circuit Court has ever addressed the 120-day rule on which Riverkeeper successfully relied as an exception to the bar on citizen suits filed after the commencement of state administrative enforcement actions. Prior to the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, state agencies routinely initiated successful administrative enforcement actions once notified of a citizen suit, and the citizen either did not file suit or had their case dismissed pursuant to Section 309 of the Act.  Certainly for companies operating in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, the rules have now changed. Entities faced with both a citizen suit and state administrative enforcement action have a much lower incentive for resolving the matter by coming into compliance and paying state penalties when they may be required to later pay citizens’ attorneys fees and Clean Water Act statutory penalties (up to $32,500 per day per violation) or even be required to comply with court-ordered injunctive relief that may be at odds with whatever the state would have required. Because state environmental agencies recognize the dilemma regulated entities face as a result of this decision, states are also going to have to alter their strategies in dealing with potential noncompliance of clean water regulations by industry. Because administrative consent decrees will be less palatable to regulated entities, the state will have to weigh whether or not to go to the added expense (in terms of dollars and resources) of filing a lawsuit in state court.

 

            This state of affairs is not likely to go unnoticed by citizen groups throughout the country. As counsel for Riverkeeper stated after the Court issued its opinion—“this changes everything.” With the increase in “60-day notice” letters we’ve seen being sent to entities just in Alabama in the last few months, it’s hard to disagree.

 

For more information, a copy of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision can be found at http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200810810.pdf