On February 28 and 29, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral argument in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, No. 09-1322 et. al., consolidated challenges to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ’s greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations.  These regulations are being challenged by a coalition of industry groups and some states (the Coalition).  The Coalition argues that the EPA does not have the authority to regulate GHGs from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA)’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program without Congress amending the law.

The Coalition is asking the Court to vacate EPA’s rules regulating greenhouse gases, including the so-called Tailpipe and Tailoring Rules, on the grounds that  they are contrary to the Clean Air Act and deviate from the explicit emission permitting thresholds in the CAA.  As Peter Keisler, a lawyer for the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) argued, “the agency crossed the line from stationary interpretation to statutory revision” and violated the law by raising the emissions thresholds far above those provided for by Congress in the CAA in order to avoid issuance of an unmanageable number of PSD permits in the short term . 

The PSD program applies to new major sources or major modifications at existing sources for pollutants where the area the source is located is in attainment or unclassifiable with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).  As Keisler explained to the court, 83% of the GHG emissions from stationary sources would be regulated if EPA addressed greenhouse gas emissions solely in permits for the larger sources already subject to PSD requirements based on their emissions of criteria pollutants. 

As Keisler then explained, under EPA’s Tailoring Rule which requires permits based solely on greenhouse gas emissions, 86% of the GHG emissions from stationary sources would be regulated – “a very tiny increment of difference, but a huge difference” in the number of sources that would now be regulated.  And this increment of difference between 83% to 86% would translate into stationary sources never before regulated and now required to meet all PSD requirements, including implementation of costly best available control technology (BACT).

A decision by the Court is expected this summer. 

Having participated in oral argument preparation and having observed both days of the oral arguments, it is my impression that the NAM arguments against EPA's Tailoring Rule provide the Coalition with the best chance for victory.  NAM’s sound interpretation of the CAA and Congressional intent, coupled with the "avoidance of absurd results" doctrine, would blunt EPA's quantum leap through the CAA to create non-statutory GHG emission thresholds capturing only an additional 3% of stationary sources that were previously unregulated and would now have to bear crippling air pollution control costs for no real environmental benefit.  This is the real absurdity of EPA's Tailoring Rule that I hope the court's decision will remedy.

By Daniel Riesel and Vicki Shiah, Sive Paget & Riesel, PC

If you live in Texas or have driven through the state, you know that our popular anti-litter campaign slogan is “Don’t Mess With Texas.”  This slogan may have also been appropriate for the 5th Circuit’s recent decision in Luminant Generation Company, et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 10-60891, slip op. (5th Cir. Mar. 26, 2012), where the court came down hard on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) for its very late disapproval of revisions to Texas’s State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) pertaining to standard permits for  pollution control projects (“PCPs”).   

In Luminant, the 5th Circuit noted that the federal Clean Air Act (“CAA”) “prescribes only the barest of requirements” for New Source Review (“NSR”) of minor new sources of air pollutant emissions.  It found that EPA had not identified a single violation of the CAA or EPA’s regulations and thus had no legal basis for its disapproval of the PCP Standard Permit provisions, striking down as arbitrary and capricious the “three extra-statutory standards that the EPA created out of whole cloth.”  Id. at 21.  Two of those standards referenced Texas law and a third was based on too much agency discretion in permit issuance.

Noting that EPA failed to act until three years after the 18 month statutory deadline for EPA action had passed, the court ordered EPA to expeditiously reconsider the SIP revision submission made by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”), and compared the “sweeping discretion” given to the states in developing their SIPS to EPA’s “narrow task” of “ensuring” that the Texas regulations “meet the minimal CAA requirements that govern SIP revisions to minor NSR, as set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 7410 (a)(2)(C) and § 7310(l).”  Id.  The court then stated that this limited review “is the full extent of EPA’s authority in the SIP-approval process because that is all the authority that the CAA confers.”  Id. at 21-22.

For the past several years, the TCEQ and EPA have butted heads over various aspects of Texas’s SIP.  This was the third of three cases heard by the 5th Circuit on SIP reviews, albeit the first in which a decision has been rendered.  Oral arguments were held in the other two pending cases last fall – the first relating to Texas’ Qualified Facilities program, Texas Oil & Gas Association, et al. v. U.S. EPA, No. 10-60459 (5th Cir. filed Jun. 11, 2010), and the second relating to Texas’s Flexible Permit Program, Texas v. U.S. EPA, No. 10-10614 (5th Cir. filed Jul. 26, 2010). 

Of these three cases, the EPA’s disapproval of Texas’s Flexible Permit Program has caused the most tension between the agencies.  That program provides facilities with flexibility to reduce emissions by the most cost-effective means through allocation of emissions on a facility-wide basis rather than by source point, and has been a basic tenet of permitting in Texas since 1994.  The end result of the Flexible Permit Program—which Texas considers akin to the federal Plantwide Applicability Limit (“PAL”) under the New Source Review program—not only gave facilities greater flexibility and control, but actually reduced emissions and provided for compliance with all state health standards, as well as all applicable federal Clean Air Act requirements. 

Given that EPA’s delay in disapproving these last two aspects of the Texas SIP was even more egregious (effectively up to sixteen years), it is likely that the 5th Circuit will view the EPA’s actions in those cases with a similarly critical eye.  We in Texas hope that the court continues to call EPA to task for its past unpopular and unwarranted decisions with respect to Texas’s SIP.

I attended on February 28th and 29th the oral arguments in the D.C. Circuit for what are euphemistically referred to as the “Greenhouse Gas Cases” now pending before that court. Two days of arguments, with 17 different attorneys presenting oral argument.  Perhaps not surprisingly, the judges weren’t the only ones who lost track of which issues were being addressed by different advocates.  The advocates themselves seemed to forget at times and repeatedly walked over each other’s lines.  It reminded me why the Supreme Court is so reluctant to allow for divided argument even in circumstances when the case for divided argument is otherwise quite compelling.

I will leave it to others to dwell on what the D.C. Circuit is likely to do, and instead will don my academic garb for an ironic aside on the history of the CAA’s PSD program. In watching the oral arguments, I was reminded about the extraordinary role that Hunton & Williams has played since the emergence of modern environmental law serving as environmental counsel for the powerplant industry including in this latest round.  One would be hard-pressed to identify any other law firm that has been such a constant and consistent voice on behalf of industry during the past four-plus decades of environmental litigation, especially on air pollution matters.

With the benefit of hindsight, however, those industrial clients might have fared a bit better had Hunton & Williams made one discrete exception to the consistency of its record.  The PSD program today finds its origins in the Supreme Court’s 1973 affirmance by an equally divided Court in Fri v. Sierra Club of a district court ruling that embraced the Sierra Club’s claim that the Clean Air Act, as drafted in 1970, required EPA to prevent “significant deterioration” of areas of the nation that were at the time cleaner than national ambient air quality standards.   The papers of Justice Harry Blackmun, which can be found in the Library of Congress, reveal, however, that Sierra Club achieved that affirmance after Hunton & Williams filed an amicus brief in the case in support of Edison Electric’s contention that the Clean Air Act did not require such a program. That filing apparently prompted Justice Lewis Powell – a former Hunton & Williams partner – to recuse himself from the case (after sitting at oral argument), resulting in the 4/4 split.  There is little doubt, based on his other pro-business votes in environmental pollution cases how Justice Powell would have voted had he not recused himself. The most certain upshot would have been an EPA victory and therefore the Agency never would have had to promulgate PSD regulations in compliance with the High Court’s ruling. And the absence of those initial PSD regulations would have dramatically shifted the political dynamic when Congress was amending the statute in 1977.

What I have always found especially odd about the firm’s amicus filing in the PSD case is that this was not the first time Justice Powell had recused himself in light of Hunton & William’s participation in a case before the Court, including on behalf of the powerplant industry as amicus curiae.  The Justice had done so consistently since joining the Court, which makes one wonder what the firm was thinking when it filed the amicus brief in Fri v. Sierra Club.  Interestingly, Justice Powell ended that recusal practice soon afterwards.  Perhaps the Justice received a very unhappy communication from either Henry Nickel or his close friend at the firm, George Freeman, regarding the necessity of a recusal in those circumstances?  Of course, I have no knowledge whether such a communication ever in fact occurred, but it does not take a lot of imagination to speculate that some folks at Hunton were likely exceedingly unhappy about the Justice’s recusal in light of the Court’s 4/4 affirmance. 

In all events, and regardless of the outcome of the recent greenhouse gas cases before the D.C. Circuit, the Sierra Club’s thank-you note to Hunton & Williams would seem long overdue. 

On December 12, 2011, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) issued a policy statement on including Permit "Shield" Statements in Title V air operating permits for sources located in Wisconsin.  A copy of the new policy can be found here.  WDNR's previous policy was to include a statement in Title V permits, indicating that the permittee's compliance with all emission limitations and conditions in the permit constituted compliance with all applicable requirements for the source under the federal Clean Air Act and Wisconsin Law.

In the December 12 policy statement, WDNR decided that in the future, the agency would not include permit shield protection in new Title V air permits, unless (among other things), the permit applicant conducts (and submits to WDNR) a comprehensive written explanation of "every change over the entire life" of each emissions unit at the facility to ensure that none of the changes made to the unit or maintenance activities on the unit constituted a "modification" within the meaning of federal and Wisconsin New Source Review rules.  See Items 5 and 6 on page one of the Executive Summary in WDNR's policy document.

Of course, this means that few, if any, companies with facilities in Wisconsin will be requesting permit shield language in the future for their Title V air operating permit renewals.  The new WDNR policy will effectively mean that the permittee would have to put itself through what would amount to a "voluntary" Section 114 Information Inquiry on all physical changes and changes in operation for every emissions unit in the permitted facility -- going back to the original installation/construction of the equipment.  I don't know of many companies in this current economy that would have the time or resources (or the inclination) to do this.

And for what benefit?  Such a due diligence report, if it was ever actually filed with WDNR, would only invite second-guessing and additional questions on certain projects -- further delaying what has already become an interminably long process.  The environmental groups in Wisconsin would scrutinize such reports if they were ever filed with WDNR.  And in the end, you have to ask yourself, "How many Title V permit shields have ever stopped a federal NSR enforcement case from being filed and prosecuted in the first place?"

There is likely to be some "push back" on this new policy by various industry groups here in Wisconsin.  The hope is that officials in the Governor's Office and higher level WDNR officials will exercise some judgment and restraint in this matter.  We'll see how that plays out in the next several months.

Businesses that use volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in their industrial processes have long been regulated under the Clean Air Act and State Implementation Plans (SIPs) approved under the Act.  The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Air Pollution Control Regulations, for example, contain very specific VOC control requirements at 310 CMR 7.18 for dozens of types of businesses and industries.  They regulate manufacturing processes (vinyl, polystyrene resin); surface coating (metal furniture, metal can, large appliance, magnetic wire, automobile, metal coil, miscellaneous metal, fabric, vinyl, plastic parts, leather, wood products, flat wood paneling); finishing (textiles, automotive refinishing); and degreasing.  The regulations prohibit use of cutback asphalt, and they limit the volatile portion of the inks used in various printing lines.  And, famously, they regulate the emissions, and hence the nostalgia-inducing aroma, of bakeries.

All of this is necessary because VOCs are a precursor to ozone, one of the original six “criteria pollutants” that Congress required EPA (and the states, through their EPA-approved SIPs) to control, in order to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards that EPA set for those pollutants.  Notwithstanding a long history of VOC regulatory enforcement, the air quality in all of Massachusetts – indeed all of southern New England – remains in “non-attainment” with the NAAQS for ozone.

EPA Region 1, which is based in Boston, has recently focused on a particular aspect of the problem:  the release of VOCs in connection with operation of “industrial laundries”.  These facilities serve the laundering needs of many different kinds of businesses and institutions – those, like hospitals, that require a steady supply of clean uniforms, and those, like print shops, that use towels to clean their equipment and therefore need a steady supply of fresh ones.  Some of those uniforms and towels contain volatile organic compounds.  And the VOCs can be released at various stages of an industrial laundry’s process of handling them for its customers, including collection, storage, transport, and washing of laundry.

EPA’s initiative has included information requests sent pursuant to Section 114 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7414, and seeking detailed information about the laundries’ collection practices, their storage equipment, their operations and materials usage and – notably – their customers.  Based on the responses, EPA has required emissions testing at certain facilities, and it has issued Notices of Violation.  In one case during the summer of 2011, the Department of Justice, on behalf of EPA, sued an industrial laundry in New Hampshire (southern New Hampshire does not attain the ozone standard), alleging that the facility’s construction and operation, without prior approval, constituted violations of, among other things, the New Source Review provisions of the Clean Air Act.  The Consent Decree which settled the case requires payment of a civil penalty, modification of operating practices, installation of pollution control equipment, purchase and retirement of Emission Reduction Credits and implementation of a Supplemental Environmental Project. 

EPA continues its enforcement efforts with respect to other facilities in New England.  Whether those efforts will ultimately be successful in bringing southern New England, or parts of it, into compliance with the NAAQS for ozone is open to question, given the persistence of the problem and the wide variety of sources for precursor pollutants.  It is clear, though, that enforcement activity with respect to industrial laundries forms a part of EPA Region 1’s ozone-control strategy.  Other regions with similar non-attainment problems may be close behind.

On August 8, 2011, EPA published its very lengthy Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR).  An indication of CSAPR’s complexity -- and its unpopularity with those affected by it -- is that its promulgation prompted states, cities, labor unions, industry trade associations, and individual industry sources to submit to EPA 62 requests for administrative reconsideration and to file 45 petitions for judicial review of the rule.  Because CSAPR is a Clean Air Act rule of “nationwide scope and effect,” under § 307(b), the 45 petitions challenging that rule had to be filed in the D.C. Circuit. 

The focus of my article today is not the content of CSAPR (though there is much in the final rule that is a cause for concern), but rather on some of the procedural difficulties faced by large groups of appellants challenging a complex EPA rule in the D.C. Circuit.  In particular, my focus is on the restrictions placed by the court on the number and length of briefs that can be filed in a case that involves 45 aligned petitioners who say they have over 55 substantive issues that they want to raise in their principal briefs. 

Under Rule 28.1(e) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP), an “appellant’s principal brief . . . is acceptable if . . . it contains no more than 14,000 words . . ..”  In a case involving only one appellant challenging a simple agency rule, the D.C. Circuit has appropriately interpreted FRAP 28.1(e) as allowing that one appellant to file a principal brief not to exceed 14,000 words.  But what happens when dozens of aligned petitioners challenge an extremely lengthy and complex agency rule?  And what happens when -- fearing the “speak now or forever hold your peace” aspects of Clean Air Act § 307(b) -- those numerous aligned appellants must address scores of different aspects of the final rule? 

In Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, the first complex Clean Air Act case brought in the D.C. Circuit, the court came up with an innovative -- and effective -- way of allowing the aligned petitioners to present their concerns.  In that case, the court’s Chief Staff Counsel oversaw a process that allowed the aligned petitioners to file a joint statement of the case and a reasonable number of separate, reasonable-length issue briefs.  (In an interview with Business Week during the litigation, the three judges hearing that case commented favorably upon the approach that their Chief Staff Counsel had developed.) 
   
In the decades following the Alabama Power litigation, however -- as the number and complexity of EPA rules has grown, spawning more lawsuits by increasingly larger numbers of appellants -- the D.C. Circuit has taken steps that have reduced substantially the number and length of briefs that parties can file.  Typically, motions panels on the court direct aligned petitioners, even very large numbers of aligned petitioners, to file just one -- or at most two -- 14,000-word briefs.  And perhaps they will allow a short additional brief to be filed by intervenors and amicus curiae in support of petitioners.  But rarely (if ever) will the D.C. Circuit take the hands-on approach that it did in Alabama Power, i.e., being actively involved in figuring out what the key issues are and ensuring that enough space is devoted to the briefing of each such issue.  Thus, it was not a surprise when, on January 18, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a briefing order in the CSAPR litigation, authorizing the 45 aligned petitioners to file “no more than two briefs, not to exceed a combined total of 28,000 words” and allowed intervenors and amicus curiae in support of petitioners to file just one joint “not to exceed 7,000 words[.]” 

Most appellants in these kinds of cases understand (and may even empathize with) the desire of the reviewing judges not to have to read dozens of lengthy briefs addressing the inner workings of labyrinthine Clean Air Act programs.  However, as EPA develops ever-more-complex regulatory programs -- programs that, under the terms of Clean Air Act § 307(b),  must be challenged upon promulgation -- petitioners are in a bind.  Aware that there will be a limit on the amount of space they will have in which to explain a challenged EPA program and to articulate why parts of that program are unlawful, petitioners must often choose to brief only a few issues, thus perhaps waiving their rights to challenge other program elements that are of concern. 

Conspiracy theorists among us might be questioning whether court limits on briefing serve as motivation to EPA to make new regulatory programs even more complex.  In particular, such individuals wonder whether EPA rule drafters are now producing more complicated rules because they know that the more complex new rules are, the less likely it is that rule challengers will -- under current court procedures -- be able to present their concerns fully to the reviewing court. 

This surely had to have been in the mind of one attorney who several years ago had to present oral argument in the D.C. Circuit on an issue which had to be briefed in very few words.  During argument, she was told by one of the judges that she might well have a good point, and it was just too bad that the point had not been developed more fully in her brief.  The advocate in that case is to be commended for not losing her cool and condemning a system under which words per petitioner seem to be allocated in inverse proportion to the complexity of the case(s) before the court.  But she was almost certainly thinking something along those lines.

And speaking of lines, I offer the following lines of verse to make this point: 

The rules produced by EPA
Have caused concerns for years.
But parties once thought courts would hear
Their views with open ears.
In complex cases of today,
Those ears are closed, I fear.
It seems the more you want to say,
The less the courts will hear.      

My father introduced me to the big band sound he grew up with in the ‘20s, ‘30s and ‘40s.  In addition to the musical skirmishes between the powerful brass and elegant woodwind sections that highlighted the genre, he was fond of the lyrics.  One of his favorite ditties was a playful calypso tune written by Sy Oliver and Trummie Young, first recorded by Jimmie Lunceford in 1939.  The enlightened refrain gives the recipe for being highly effective -- “Tain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it – that’s what gets results.”  At about the same time Lunceford was leading his show band, sociologist Robert J. Merton was focusing on avoiding the wrong results.  He popularized the concept of “unintended consequences,” the gist of which is humans cannot fully control the outcome of their actions so be careful what you do and for what you ask.  Seventy-five years later, EPA’s recent proliferation of regulations with short time fuses and no existing or foreseeable means of compliance demonstrates no such careful thought.

Merton’s analysis provided five causes for unintended consequences:  ignorance, error, immediate interest, basic values and self-defeating prophecy.  While these five causes could form the outline for comments on almost any rule, the one that might be most applicable to EPA’s recent flurry of regulatory activity is what Merton called “the imperious immediacy of interest” which refers to instances where the actor’s paramount concern with the immediate action excludes the consideration of further or other unforeseen consequences of the same act.  The speed in which the recent rules have been promulgated, the leap in technology that they require, and the brevity of the time period by which compliance is required are unprecedented and seem destined to result in unintended consequences.

Examples of these rules include the corporate average fuel economy (“CAFE”) standards which EPA established in 2009.  Under the CAFE standards, Model Year 2011 vehicles must achieve 27.3 mpg.  The requirement is ratcheted up to 35 mpg by 2016, and a whopping 54.5 mpg by 2025.  Those developing the standards were warned that the standards would result in the production of smaller, lighter and deadlier cars.  The developers not only required increased mileage, they limited greenhouse gases (GHGs), including CO2 emissions, from motor vehicles – the first time that GHGs were regulated as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.  Standard developers also recognized that regulating GHGs as pollutants for mobile sources would also trigger regulation of GHGs from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act’s prevention of significant deterioration of air quality program.  The latter was not an unintended consequence, but where such regulation might lead our economy and society is anyone’s guess.  We need only look at the recent reports of spontaneous combustion of electric vehicles to get some idea.

Another example is EPA’s issuance of the cross-state air pollution rule which afforded electric generating facilities only four months between its promulgation and the date of compliance on January 1, 2012.  EPA promulgated the rule amid warnings by states and others that the electric system reliability was jeopardized.  Fortunately, the D.C. Circuit stayed the rule on December 30.  Similarly, EPA pushed out the EGU MACT standard after allowing itself only a few months to consider tens -of -thousands of comments on the proposed rule.  Such speed of promulgation without regard for unintended consequences has EPA staffers concerned about the quality of their work product.  Perhaps it’s time to revisit the requirements for regulatory impact analysis to consider new rules in light of Merton’s five causes of unintended consequences and Lunceford’s catchy tune.  The alternative may be to sing another tune Lunceford popularized -- Blue in the Night.

By: Karen Aldridge Crawford and Stacy Kirk Taylor
      Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough

On December 2, 2011, EPA proposed its fourth round of regulations governing industrial boilers and process heaters (i.e. the boiler MACT standards).  [EPA Notice]  Although additional changes are unlikely (given that this is EPA's fourth set of revisions), EPA is providing a 60-day comment period and does not expect to finalize the regulations until spring (likely April) of 2012.

EPA maintains that the reworked regulations provide greater flexibility, reduce the number of boilers to which the regulations would actually apply, and will ultimately cut the cost of implementation by nearly 50% from the original 2010 proposed rules.  Groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers, however, remain opposed and continue to press for a legislative fix if EPA fails to sufficiently consider the added expense that even the newly proposed regulations will impose on goods manufactured in the United States.  In response to EPA's issuance of the proposed rules, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works stated that, although he appreciated EPA's acknowledgment of the potential economic impacts and efforts to revise the rules, the revised rules would still have too great an economic impact on the United States.  Sen. Inhofe then pressed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to allow a vote on the House-passed EPA Regulatory Relief Act. 

[Inhofe's Comment]   

According to EPA, the major source proposal, which is the part of the proposed regulations that impose actual control technology, would now cover less than 1% of the boilers in the United States (approximately 14,000 boilers).  For boilers located at smaller facilities, such as universities, hospitals, and commercial buildings, only a very small number would actually have to take any additional steps to comply with the proposed rule; the vast majority would simply be required to perform maintenance and routine tune-ups.  Highlighting some of the specific changes, the proposed regulations:

•    Set new emission limits for mercury, hydrogen chloride, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide (the last two of which serve as surrogates for metallic and organic pollutants), many of which, however, are as stringent or actually more stringent than the limits provided in the previous version of the regulations.

•    Increase the number of boiler subcategories (for which subcategory-specific emissions limits are proposed) to fourteen.

•    Eliminate the numeric emission limit for dioxins/furans, noting in the preamble that the level     previously proposed could not be accurately measured with existing technology, and instead tackle dioxin/furan emissions by imposing work practice standards that include periodic tune-ups to ensure good combustion. 

•    Provide greater flexibility than was previously allowed by providing for the use of a variety of     alternative emissions limits and compliance demonstration methods (for example, a facility with more than one boiler can now choose to average emissions as long as the source as a whole is less than 90% of the applicable standard). 

•    Eliminate requirement for continuous monitors for particulate matter. 

•    Revise the compliance deadlines, providing three years from publication of the final rule to comply (the June 4, 2010 date of the initial proposed regulations, however, will remain the date for determining whether a unit is considered a "new" or "existing" unit).  

In conjunction with reworking the boiler MACT standards, EPA revisited the Commercial/Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators (CISWI) rules and the Non-Hazardous Secondary Material (NHSM) rules to provide greater clarity and flexibility as to what types of secondary materials constitute a non-waste fuel.  The changes to the regulations also expressly classify a number of secondary materials as non-wastes when used as fuel and provide a mechanism for requesting such a determination from EPA for other materials.

EPA’s Draft Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS SIP Submissions has been out for public comment since this fall and, after an extension published on October 28, 2011 at 76 FR 66925, the comment period will close December 2, 2011.  Many parts of this draft guidance may trigger comments, but one particularly troubling aspect from a programmatic perspective is EPA’s discussion in Appendix B of infrastructure SIP requirements under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2).

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act requires states to prepare plans for implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and to submit those plans to EPA for approval.  The statute specifies in general terms the required content of these State Implementation Plans (SIPs).  EPA has issued regulations at 40 CFR Part 51 that address the requirements for SIP submittals.  When changes to the NAAQS occur such that the state will need to update its SIP to show how it will attain and maintain the new or revised NAAQS, EPA’s regulations allow states to certify that their existing approved infrastructure SIPs are adequate to address the elements of Section 110 and then focus on specific changes to address the new or revised standard.

The particularly disturbing portion of EPA’s draft guidance is the discussion of how to  address existing approved SIP provisions that treat excess emissions from startup, shutdown and malfunction events in a manner that EPA views to be inconsistent with agency guidance, or how to address variance and director’s discretion provisions that EPA says “do not comport with EPA policy.”  Guidance, at B-3.  EPA says it is “discussing options for resolving these issues” and notes that it has negotiated a settlement agreement to specify a deadline of August 31, 2012 to respond to a Sierra Club petition over SSM provisions in 39 states.  EPA then goes further:  “Therefore, as general guidance, EPA can advise that states not make infrastructure SIP submissions that rely on previously approved but potentially flawed provisions.”  Id., at B-4.  

There are mechanisms under the Clean Air Act to address deficiencies in SIPs – guidance from EPA to ignore approved SIP provisions is not one of the options.  As the Supreme Court recognized in General Motors Corp. v. United States, 496 U.S. 530, 540 (1990), the existing SIP that has been approved under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act is the legally enforceable SIP.  In that enforcement action, the issue was the ability to enforce an existing SIP provision where a revision had been adopted by the state and EPA had not acted on the request to approve the revision in a timely manner.  The suggestion in the draft guidance that existing approved SIP provisions be ignored based on EPA policy does not comport with the Clean Air Act or case law. 

After several years of rapidly escalating offset prices, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has launched a major effort to consider near- and long-term reforms to the offset component of its nonattainment new source review (NSR) program (under 11/15/11 “New Source Review Roundtable Discussion on Emission Offsets” heading).

Congress added the offset requirement as part of the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA).  The idea was to ensure that new economic activity would not thwart progress made by states as they executed their state implementation plans (SIPs).  Under the CAA offset requirement, major new and modified stationary sources are required to offset their projected net emission increases by reducing surplus emissions from other sources.  As predicted during the most recent Congressional overhaul of the Clean Air Act in 1990, however, increased stationary source regulation, tighter major source definitions (e.g., 10 tons per year in the South Coast), and higher (greater than 1:1) offset ratios have finally squeezed some regional offset markets to the point where the offset program now impedes even the cleanest economic growth.

In the South Coast, for example, stationary source emissions have become an ever-diminishing part the overall emissions inventory (e.g., <10% of VOC emissions).  And there are virtually no remaining surplus control opportunities for stationary sources; so the only source of traditional offsets has been the shutdown of existing facilities.  Under the South Coast rules, however, even those reductions are not made fully available as offsets until they are first discounted to current control (i.e., lowest achievable emission rate, or LAER) levels.  The drastically shrinking pool of available offsets has caused the price of offsets to rise to unprecedented levels.  PM10 offsets, for example, hit a peak price in 2009 of $350,000 per daily pound of emissions.  Recent VOC offsets have cost more than $2,400 per pound, NOx more than $50,000 per pound, SOx more than $12,500 per pound and CO more than $5,000 per pound.  All of these numbers far exceed the $10,000 per ton upper bound contemplated as control costs to comply with the EPA’s 1997 standards for ozone and fine PM.  See Presidential Memorandum, “Implementation of Revised Air Quality Standards for Ozone and Particulate Matter (“There is a strong desire to drive the development of new technologies with the potential of greater emission reduction at less cost.  It was agreed that $10,000 per ton of emission reduction is the high end of the range of reasonable cost to impose on sources.  Consistent with the State’s ultimate responsibility to attain the standards, the EPA will encourage the States to design strategies for attaining the PM and ozone standards that focus on getting low cost reductions and limiting the cost of control to under $10,000 per ton for all sources.”).  62 Fed. Reg. 38421, 38429 (July 16, 1997).

The net effect of the scarce offset supply and astronomically high prices has been to slow regional economic development to a crawl.  For example, offsets to support new natural-gas fired power plants, necessary to back up the state’s renewable power program, have been almost impossible to find and have cost from $50 to $200 million per plant.  Other facilities have faced daunting offset costs as well.  The District’s cost estimates include several shocking numbers, including $12-77,000 for emergency backup generation for a police station, $106-234,000 for a gasoline service station, up to $358,000 for a printing facility, $178-435,000 for an auto body shop, in excess of $1 million for a food processing facility (e.g., a tortilla fryer and oven), from $1-2 million for a sewage treatment plant expansion, well over $1 million for a hospital boiler and $78-115 million for landfill gas recovery.  Although California has led the national clean energy investment effort, without material reform the SCAQMD will almost certainly be unable to offset emissions from the desired low-carbon biofuel or biomass-based renewable electricity projects in the region.  The offset requirement thus threatens to prevent much of the cleanest form of economic growth in the region.

The SCAQMD has identified a handful of near-term adjustments to its NSR program that could reduce the demand for offsets.  These include, for example, the use of an annual rather than peak monthly averaging period to calculate the offset need.  Increasing offset supply will be much more difficult, however.  That is because almost all as-yet-untapped strategies (e.g., identifiable mobile and area source reductions) have been identified and targeted as part of the region’s long-term SIP and thus may to some extent be ineligible as a supply of offsets.

The time has long since come for the District to replace the current offset program with an alternative (such as a clean technology fund) that can continue to improve air quality by accelerating, rather then impeding, clean technology development in the South Coast.  In addition to satisfying air quality improvement needs, rapid clean technology development also is needed to employ an ever-growing regional population and to meet the state’s ambitious clean energy and carbon reduction goals.  There is a win-win strategy to be found.  But it will require frank acknowledgement that the Clean Air Act offset program has served its purpose and now impedes, rather than aids, progress.  Most stakeholders are ready to work together to find a better mousetrap to promote rapid investment where and when we most need it.  We need it immediately in Southern California and the South Coast deserves enormous credit for launching this critical and timely reform effort.

On August 23, 2011, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a package of four proposed rules governing air emissions from the oil and gas natural gas industry.   For the first time, EPA is targeting emissions from gas wells drilled by hydraulic fracturing.  76 Fed. Reg. 52738 (August 23, 2011).  The proposals include source performance standard (NSPS) for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), an NSPS for sulfur dioxide, and air toxics standards for both oil and natural gas production and natural gas transmission and storage.  EPA estimates these proposed rules would apply to more than 25,000 oil and gas wells drilled each year in the United States.

The proposed rule would require industry to use “green completions” (also known as reduced emissions completions) to capture emissions at wells being prepared for production  In addition, the proposed rule establishes emission limits at pneumatic controllers and condensate storage tanks.  Natural gas processing plants would be subject to more rigorous leak detection and repair requirements, and operators would be required to comply with specific maintenance and equipment standards for compressors.  EPA also has proposed to eliminate the one ton per year benzene compliance option for glycol dehydrators at major sources.

The proposed regulations were issued pursuant to a Consent Decree with WildEarth Guardians and San Juan Citizens Alliance.  That Consent Decree resolved a complaint that alleged that EPA failed to review the NSPS and air toxic standards for the oil and gas industry pursuant to the Clean Air Act.  EPA will accept comments until November 30, 2011, and expects to issue a final rule by April 3, 2012.

On August 23, 2011, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a package of four proposed rules governing air emissions from the oil and gas natural gas industry.   For the first time, EPA is targeting emissions from gas wells drilled by hydraulic fracturing.  76 Fed. Reg. 52738 (August 23, 2011).  The proposals include source performance standard (NSPS) for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), an NSPS for sulfur dioxide, and air toxics standards for both oil and natural gas production and natural gas transmission and storage.  EPA estimates these proposed rules would apply to more than 25,000 oil and gas wells drilled each year in the United States.

The proposed rule would require industry to use “green completions” (also known as reduced emissions completions) to capture emissions at wells being prepared for production  In addition, the proposed rule establishes emission limits at pneumatic controllers and condensate storage tanks.  Natural gas processing plants would be subject to more rigorous leak detection and repair requirements, and operators would be required to comply with specific maintenance and equipment standards for compressors.  EPA also has proposed to eliminate the one ton per year benzene compliance option for glycol dehydrators at major sources.

The proposed regulations were issued pursuant to a Consent Decree with WildEarth Guardians and San Juan Citizens Alliance.  That Consent Decree resolved a complaint that alleged that EPA failed to review the NSPS and air toxic standards for the oil and gas industry pursuant to the Clean Air Act.  EPA will accept comments until November 30, 2011, and expects to issue a final rule by April 3, 2012.

On August 23, 2011, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed new air standards for the oil and natural gas industry (the Proposed Rule).  The Proposed Rule includes EPA’s first federal air standards for wells that are hydraulically fractured, along with requirements for several other sources of pollution in the oil and natural gas industry that currently are not regulated at the federal level. There are four major air components of the Proposed Rule: (1) a New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for volatile organic compounds (VOC); (2) an NSPS for sulfur dioxide (SO2); (3) an air toxics (NESHAP) standard for oil and natural gas production; and (4) an air toxics (NESHAP) standard for natural gas transmission and storage.

Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to set NSPS for industrial categories that cause, or significantly contribute to, air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare. These performance standards must reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the “best system of emission reduction” (BSER), which EPA determines has been adequately demonstrated within the industry. 

EPA’s existing NSPS for VOCs were issued in 1985. The existing standards address only VOC leak detection and repair (LDAR) at new and modified natural gas processing plants.  Other potential sources of VOC emissions in the oil and natural gas industry currently are not subject to nationwide regulation.  EPA is proposing new standards for several processes or pieces of equipment used in oil and gas production that have not previously been subject to federal regulation, including: well completions at new hydraulically fractured natural gas wells and at existing wells that are fractured or “re-fractured,” which would require the use of “green completions”; centrifugal and reciprocating compressors; pneumatic controllers; and condensate and crude oil storage tanks.

The NSPS for SO2 were also issued in 1985 and apply only to natural gas processing plants. EPA is proposing to strengthen the performance standards for plants processing gas with the highest hydrogen sulfide content in order to further reduce sulfur dioxide emissions from these facilities.

Section 112 of the CAA requires EPA to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources.  Section 112(d) requires EPA to promulgate NESHAPs applicable to major sources of HAPs.  For major sources, technology-based maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions achievable, considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality benefits and environmental impacts.  Unlike Section 111 NSPS standards that apply only to new or modified sources, Section 112 standards are applicable to both new and existing stationary sources.  EPA is proposing changes to the NESHAP standards for major sources in both the natural gas production and storage and transportation subcategories.

The public comment period on the Proposed Rule currently runs through October 24, 2011.  It will be interesting to track the response from the oil and natural gas industry to EPA’s proposal. 

On September 2, 2011, President Obama directed EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, to withdraw the agency’s proposal to lower the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”) for ozone, a component of smog.  The Administration’s justification for abandoning the proposal to tighten this air standard was the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainty for business at a time of uncertainty about an unsteady economy.  As a result, the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will remain at the current level of 0.075 parts per million (“ppm”), instead of being reduced to between 0.070 ppm and 0.060 ppm, as EPA had proposed.  Unless pending litigation results in the court speeding up the process, it is not expected that EPA will review this NAAQS final rule again until 2013.

Although the ozone NAAQS is not being reduced, the existing 0.075-ppm standard will result in significant areas of the country being designated nonattainment.  As a result, proposed industrial projects will be required to undergo more rigorous Nonattainment New Source Review permitting, and will need to offset nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compound emissions.  States with nonattainment areas may need to impose new emissions restrictions on existing sources as part of their State Implementation Plans in order to achieve compliance.  These consequences are not without costs.

Nonetheless, the Obama Administration’s action temporarily subdues the significant controversy that the March 2008 proposal and September 2009 revision had generated.  In the Bush-era’s March 2008 proposal, by attempting to establish the primary and secondary ozone NAAQS at 0.075 ppm, the primary standard was higher than the 0.060 to 0.070 ppm range recommended by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.  This resulted in allegations from environmental groups that the EPA was ignoring science in favor of business groups, while business and industry generally thought the standard was still too stringent.  Subsequently, EPA’s formal announcement in September 2009 regarding reconsideration of the rule to include lower standards led to heavy criticism that its estimate of cost impacts were too low, that the rule would strongly and negatively impact jobs and the economy, and that the agency was ignoring the science in order to push the philosophical agenda of environmental activist groups.

Perhaps the maxim that a good negotiation ends with no side being completely satisfied is applicable here—the Bush-era standard of 0.075 ppm upsets environmentalists and industry alike.  Unless the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals turns up the timetable, both sides will have to be content (to be upset) until 2013.  In the meantime, perhaps the more interesting aspect of the Administration’s action was the political move that prevents further wrangling by Congressional members—a stream of senators and representatives have been taking jabs at environmental regulatory aims that they argue will harm the economy and job creation.  Throughout the NAAQS revision process, politics have certainly played a role, now to the point that perhaps electoral concerns may be directly influencing EPA’s regulatory agenda.  As other regulatory measures are still in the cross-hairs, including the air toxics standards for industrial boilers (Boiler MACT) and mercury and toxics standards for utilities (Utility MACT), we will undoubtedly continue to see politics play an important role in the implementation of new air standards and regulations.

For further information or questions about this article, please contact the author, Eva Fromm O'Brien.

On July 7, 2011, one year after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued its proposed Clean Air Pollution Transport Rule, EPA released the final transport rule, now entitled the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR).  The CSAPR will become effective on October 7, 2011, 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register.  That is also the deadline for filing judicial challenges to the new rule.  One Petition for Judicial Review has already been filed in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and others are expected to be filed prior to October 7.

CSAPR will replace the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which EPA promulgated in 2005.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded CAIR in July 2008.  However, in December 2008, the Court allowed CAIR to remain in place while EPA completed its remand rulemaking. 

CSAPR primarily addresses emissions from electric power plants in twenty-seven states located in the Eastern and Midwestern portions of the U.S.  The new rule generally requires covered, upwind states to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in order to enable downwind states to achieve or maintain compliance with the NAAQS for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5).  CSAPR requires reductions of SO2 emissions, annual NOx emissions, and ozone-season NOx emissions.  A state may be subject to the reduction requirement for one or more of these types of emissions.  CSAPR establishes an emission budget and a variability limit for each state that is subject to an emission reduction requirement.  The budgets are established for two phases.  Phase I begins in 2012, and Phase II, under which more stringent state budgets apply, begins in 2014. 

Within the confines of the state budget, emission allowances will be allocated to covered sources.  Covered sources must comply with CSAPR by surrendering an allowance for each ton of SO2 or NOx emitted.  The sources are authorized to trade, bank, and utilize allowances issued under the relevant program.  However, as required by the D.C. Circuit decision, trading is only allowed within states; no interstate trading is permitted.

The states themselves will most likely play only a secondary role in the implementation of CSAPR.  EPA framed CSAPR as a federal implementation plan (FIP) program and set deadlines that generally do not allow enough time for each state to develop its own program to address interstate transport.  By taking these steps, EPA effectively preempted state discretion in determining how to meet at least the first phase of emission reduction obligations.  EPA decided to bypass the states because, in the Agency’s view, the states have arguably not met their Clean Air Act obligations with respect to implementing measures for achieving compliance with the 1997 ozone standard and the PM2.5 standards.  Concurrent with the issuance of CSAPR, EPA published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking which, if adopted, would include six additional states in the NOx ozone-season program.

While CSAPR’s structure and approach is generally consistent with the EPA’s preferred option under the 2010 CATR proposal, for many states, the final CSAPR rule is more stringent than the proposed CATR.  For example, the assurance provisions are effective starting in 2012 instead of 2014 as proposed in CATR.  In addition, the allowance surrender requirements under the assurance provisions have increased from one additional allowance per ton of emissions to two additional allowances.  NOx budgets for some states were reduced.

Electric power plants regulated under CAIR will be required to comply with the CAIR 2011 compliance requirements already in effect.  CSAPR will replace CAIR beginning in 2012.  EPA is currently developing federal implementation plans for each state covered by CSAPR to achieve the Phase I requirements in 2012.

Most power plants are expected to achieve the required emission reductions by operating existing air emission control equipment, utilizing low sulfur coal, or increasing electrical generation from cleaner generating units.  Some plants will be required to install new air quality control systems, such as low NOx burners or selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems, scrubbers or dry sorbent injection capability.  CSAPR could lead to the retirement of some older, less efficient coal-fired units which have not already been upgraded with modern air quality control systems.

For further comments or questions, please contact Michael McCauley.

There is ongoing litigation in an Ohio air pollution control enforcement case, which highlights the real world difficulties that arise from the regulatory requirement to test stack emissions under unrealistic, maximum, worst case conditions that do not correspond to day to day operations.  State ex rel. Ohio Attorney General v. The Shelly Holding Co., et. al., 191 Ohio App. 3d 421, 2010 – Ohio – 6526, 946 N.E. 2d 295.

Shelly owned a number of hot mix asphalt plants.  During stack tests to determine compliance with air pollution permit emission limitations,  several plants failed their tests.  Despite the failed tests, Shelly continued to operate those hot mix asphalt plants. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency then brought an enforcement action, claiming that the continued operation of the plants after the failed tests constituted continuing violations even though the State had no monitoring data to prove that point.

The Trial Court rejected the State’s contention, stating that it was unwilling to infer a continued violation until Shelly successfully completed a subsequent stack test. “Simply put the Court does not find the requested inference to be reasonable given the fact that the State has the burden .  Further, the Court finds Shelly’s argument that a “stack test” does not represent normal operating conditions to be compelling.  Based on the foregoing, the Court will only consider the day of the “stack test” demonstrating excess emission to be evidence of a violation.” State ex rel. Ohio Attorney General v. The Shelly Holding Co., et. al. (Sept. 2, 2009), Franklin Cty. C. P. No. 07CVH07-9702.

The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth Appellate District (which sits in Columbus, Ohio), reversed the Trial Court, stating that “…in determining the number of days each violation existed, the trial court should have concluded that the violation continued until the subsequent stack test determined that the plant no longer was violating the permit limitations.”  The Ohio Supreme Court has agreed to consider Shelly’s appeal of this ruling.  Shelly also has the amicus curiae support of  a number of trade organizations, including the Ohio Chamber of Commerce.

Arguing that the State has the burden of proof to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence each and every day of violation, Shelly seeks a ruling from the Ohio Supreme Court that would prohibit the State from showing, by mere inference, that there are ongoing violations of permits and regulations after a failed stack test.  Citing the record evidence that stack testing conditions are “snapshots” of operating conditions at the time of the test, typically “maximum, worst-case testing conditions,” Shelly claims there was undisputed evidence that those tests do not represent day-to-day operations. The State offered no evidence to show that stack test conditions are indicative of day-to-day operations.   Thus, Shelly argues, the proof of violation during a stack test does not necessarily show that the hot mix asphalt plant exceeded its permit limits during subsequent, more normal operations. Shelly also argued that the Tenth District incorrectly assumed that another stack test is the only way to show the reestablishment of compliance. Changes in operating conditions, restrictions on output or hours, and repairs may prove to be  easier corrections than awaiting another stack test that requires coordination with State schedules.  If a successful stack test is the only way to show compliance, the facility faces the Hobson’s Choice of shut down or, if it continues to operate, the possible inference of continuing violations (and fines).

In short, this case will be interesting to follow because it highlights the real world difficulties that arise from the regulatory requirement to test under unrealistic, maximum, worst case conditions that do not correspond to day to day operations.  While Shelly may be correct that it is improper to assume non-compliance during continuing, business normal operations after a failed stack test that proceeded under artificial conditions, there remains another difficult question for Shelly:  how to re-establish compliance in a mutually satisfactory way.  There is no doubt that the State regulatory authorities would balk at any ruling that would allow a regulated source unilaterally to change or curtail operations to attain compliance.

For questions and comments on this article, please contact Michael Hardy.

As the deadline passed last week for submitting comments on EPA's Utility MACT rule, it's worth taking a big picture look at how the commenters line up. Big utility groups, such as the Edison Electric Institute and the American Public Power Association are looking for EPA to delay the rules. The basic argument is that it is going to take a long time to comply. EEI states that so many facilities will require extensions that the number of requests will create a backlog that will itself essentially create compliance problems.

However, it is not just environmental and public health groups that filed comments in support of the MACT rule. Exelon, which has a large nuclear fleet, submitted comments in support of the rule. In fact, Exelon referred to the "overblown critique" of the Utility MACT proposal, stating that the "lack of a national standard for toxic emissions continues to be a barrier to investment in new, cleaner generation capacity." Industry supporters are not limited to Exelon. The Clean Energy Group, which includes PG&E, Calpine, and other generators with large gas fleets, also focused on the "business certainty the electric sector needs to move forward with capital investment decisions."

In looking at these comments, it is worth keeping in mind that the Utility MACT rule is only one of nine rules under development by EPA that would impose costs on coal-fired power plants. This confluence of rules has been referred to as the "train wreck" for coal-fired power plants. While the Utility MACT rule may impose the greatest costs - and achieve the greatest benefits, according to EPA - many are concerned about the cumulative impact on coal-fired capacity. Earlier this week, the Congressional Research Service attempted to debunk the train wreck perspective:

The primary impacts of many of the rules will largely be on coal-fired plants more than 40 years old that have not, until now, installed state-of-the-art pollution controls. Many of these plants are inefficient and are being replaced by more efficient combined cycle natural gas plants, a development likely to be encouraged if the price of competing fuel - natural gas - continues to be low, almost regardless of EPA rules.

In any case, what's the argument against promulgation of these rules on the same time frame? Isn't that a good thing? There may be coal-fired plants which could sustain the capital investment required to comply with Utility MACT, but not the added cost of cooling water intake improvements to comply with new Clean Water Act requirements or the added cost of new disposal requirements if coal ash is regulated as a hazardous waste. Isn't it better to know about all of these rules up front, so that facilities can plan for the total cost of all the rules? Wouldn't a facility have legitimate cause to complain if the rules were instead issued seriatim, so that the facilities did not know about the full range of regulatory compliance costs when they make the decision whether to invest to comply with the first rule or instead to shut down?

In a very interesting air pollution control enforcement case, the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth Appellate District (which sits in Columbus, Ohio) issued an opinion that concerns many experienced practitioners:  State ex rel. Ohio Attorney General v. The Shelly Holding Co., et. al., 191 Ohio App. 3d 421, 2010 – Ohio – 6526, 946 N.E. 2d 295.

Shelly owned a number of hot mix asphalt plants.  During stack tests to determine compliance with air pollution permit emission limitations,  several plants failed their tests.  But Shelly continued to operate those hot mix asphalt plants. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency claimed that the continued operation of the plants after the failed tests constituted  continuing violations even though the state had no monitoring data to prove that point. The Trial Court rejected the state’s contention, stating that it was unwilling to infer a continued violation until Shelly successfully completed a subsequent stack test. “Simply put the Court does not find the requested inference to be reasonable given the fact that the State has the burden .  Further, the Court finds Shelly’s argument that a ‘stack test’ does not represent normal operating conditions to be compelling.  Based on the foregoing, the Court will only consider the day of the ‘stack test’ demonstrating excess emission to be evidence of a violation.” State ex rel. Ohio Attorney General v. The Shelly Holding Co., et. al. (Sept. 2, 2009), Franklin Cty. C. P. No. 07CVH07-9702.

The Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court, stating that “…in determining the number of days each violation existed, the trial court should have concluded that the violation continued until the subsequent stack test determined that the plant no longer was violating the permit limitations.”  The Ohio Supreme Court has agreed to consider Shelly’s appeal of this ruling.  Shelly also has the amicus curiae support of  a number of trade organizations, including the Ohio Chamber of Commerce.

Arguing that the state has the burden of proof to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence each and every day of violation,  Shelly seeks a ruling from the Supreme Court  that would prohibit the state from showing, by mere inference, that there are ongoing violations of permits and regulations after a failed stack test.  Citing the record evidence that stack testing conditions are “snapshots” of operating conditions at the time of the test, typically “maximum, worst-case testing conditions,” Shelly claims there was undisputed evidence that those tests do not represent day-to-day operations. The state offered no evidence to show that stack test conditions are indicative of day-to-day operations.   Thus, Shelly argues, the proof of violation during a stack test does not necessarily show that the hot mix asphalt plant exceeded its permit limits during subsequent, more normal operations. Shelly also argued that the Tenth District incorrectly assumed that another stack test is the only way to show the reestablishment of compliance. Changes in operating conditions, restrictions on output or hours, and repairs may prove to be  easier corrections than awaiting another stack test that requires coordination with state schedules.  If a successful stack test is the only way to show compliance, the facility faces the Hobson’s Choice of shut down or, if it continues to operate, the possible inference of continuing violations (and fines).

In short, this case will be interesting to follow because it highlights the real world difficulties that arise from the regulatory requirement to test under unrealistic, maximum, worst case conditions that do not correspond to day to day operations.   While Shelly may be correct that it is improper to assume non-compliance during continuing, business normal operations after a failed stack test that proceeded under artificial conditions, there remains another difficult question for Shelly:  how to re-establish compliance in a mutually satisfactory way.  There is no doubt that the state regulatory authorities would balk at any ruling that would allow a regulated source unilaterally to change or curtail operations to attain compliance.

By: Bob Wyman and Aron Potash, Latham & Watkins LLP

A San Francisco Superior Court ruling on May 20, 2011, enjoins California from undertaking any further work to implement a greenhouse gas (GHG) cap and trade program until the California Air Resources Board (CARB) comes into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by more fully analyzing alternatives to cap and trade. While a setback to CARB, which had been planning to conduct spring workshops and summer rulemaking to finalize important unresolved aspects of its planned cap and trade program, the ruling in Association of Irritated Residents v. California Air Resources Board is less damaging than it could have been to CARB’s efforts to achieve the GHG emission reductions required by the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). The court’s earlier March 18 statement of decision threatened to put the brakes on not just the cap and trade program but also CARB’s entire suite of GHG reduction measures, including the low carbon fuel standard, the renewable electricity standard and other initiatives. So the court’s final order is significantly narrower in scope. Nonetheless, the cap and trade scheme is the centerpiece of the first economy-wide program in the United States to limit GHG emissions, and it is unclear whether that part of CARB’s program can commence as originally planned on January 1, 2012. While it works to complete a new CEQA alternatives analysis, CARB will almost certainly also appeal the judgment and seek a stay to keep cap and trade implementation on track.

This roadblock to California’s cap and trade plan was brought about when the Association of Irritated Residents (AIR) and others filed a petition for a writ of mandate alleging that CARB substantively and procedurally failed to comply with CEQA in approving the Scoping Plan, CARB’s detailed roadmap for reducing GHG emissions under AB 32. AB 32 was enacted in 2006 and requires the state to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. CARB was charged with implementing AB 32 and approved the Scoping Plan in December 2008. Since that time, CARB approved a number of regulations contemplated by the Scoping Plan, including the GHG cap and trade program in December 2010. Many significant aspects of the cap and trade program remain unresolved, however, and CARB workshops and rulemakings were planned for this spring and summer with the intention of finalizing such critical program components matters as the allocation of free GHG allowances, the use of auction revenue, the generation and use of offsets, and the designation of GHG intensity benchmarks for regulated sectors.

In its March 18 statement of decision, the court found that CARB violated CEQA by failing fully to evaluate possible alternatives to the measures described in the Scoping Plan. Focusing on the cap and trade program, the court wrote: “ARB’s extensive evaluation of the proposed cap and trade program…provides the public with information about cap and trade only. CEQA requires that ARB undertake a similar analysis of the impacts of each alternative so that the public may know not only why cap and trade was chosen, but also why the alternatives were not.” The March 18 decision specifically criticized the Scoping Plan CEQA analysis for failing to discuss in detail a carbon fee alternative to cap and trade. Cap and trade is not a “fait accompli,” the court wrote.

The court set forth its remedy in the new May 20 ruling, ordering that its writ “shall specifically enjoin ARB from engaging in any cap and trade-related Project activity that could result in an adverse change to the physical environment until ARB has comes [sic] into complete compliance with ARB’s obligations under its certified regulatory program and CEQA, consistent with the Court’s Order. This includes any further rulemaking and implementation of cap and trade…” The Court also ordered CARB both to take no action in reliance upon the Scoping Plan as it relates to cap and trade and to set aside the executive order approving and certifying the CEQA analysis of the Scoping Plan. Although the intent of the ruling appears to be to halt work only on the cap and trade component of the AB32 program, this second portion of the court’s order potentially opens the court’s decision and the validity of the other Scoping Plan measures to attack on the ground that a court may only have the authority either to invalidate a CEQA approval in its entirety or not to invalidate any portion at all. The court’s path of partially invalidating a CEQA action remains an uncertain area of California law.

CARB will almost certainly appeal the decision and seek a stay of the judgment during the course of the appeal. The next battle in this case will likely involve CARB arguing that its appeal of the court’s writ automatically stays the judgment—allowing cap and trade rulemaking to continue apace—and AIR arguing that CARB will have to obtain a writ of supersedeas in order to stay the judgment. This battle will hinge in part on how the reviewing court characterizes the lower court’s writ (e.g., whether it is prohibitory or mandatory in nature) and on the whether the reviewing court sees the lower court order as overbroad in its limitations on CARB’s rulemaking activities.

By:  Karen Aldridge Crawford and Stacy Kirk Taylor

Facing opposition from a number of business groups and trade organizations and resistance from Capitol Hill, EPA announced on Monday, May 16, 2011 that it was staying indefinitely the effective dates for the new emission standards for boilers (i.e. the boiler MACT standards) that the EPA issued in February of this year.

Acting under a court mandated deadline, EPA finalized the new regulations in February even though the regulations as enacted varied significantly from the initial draft rules issued for comment. Given the significant difference, EPA tried to provide an opportunity for further comment and input, but the Court denied EPA's request for a 15 month extension for issuing a final rule. As a result, EPA went ahead and issued the final rule but immediately issued a reconsideration notice and agreed to continue to receive public comments. This left the regulated community in the untenable position of investing a significant amount of money into technology to comply with the final regulation, when EPA was still reviewing the final regulations and therefore the requirements could change (in which case one may have invested significant money into an unnecessary or misdirected technology).

With an effective date for the new regulations of May 20, 2011, several industry groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Chemistry Council, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, petitioned the EPA for a stay of the effective date. A stay would extend the effective date of any new regulations beyond the deadline provided under the Clean Air Act. EPA, however, acting under authority provided agencies in the Administrative Procedures Act to delay new rules "when justice so requires," agreed to a stay the new regulations to provide EPA an opportunity to seek and adequately consider additional comments on the new regulations before requiring facilities to make significant investment in technology. EPA also announced that it will continue to collect data and comments from stakeholders until July 15 of this year, at which point it will start reworking the new rules. 

At this time of year, most companies with facilities which have Title V air operating permits have either filed, or are preparing to file, annual compliance certifications and semi-annual compliance monitoring reports with their state air agencies. It is good to remember how important these documents are and why special attention must be paid to insure they are completed accurately and wisely.

Here are some thoughts on why Title V compliance certifications and semi-annual monitoring reports are so important:

1. Each permitted facility should take great care in developing its annual compliance certification – especially if the plant is reporting "deviations" or "exceptions" from the permit requirements or violations of the permit limits. Such a certification must be viewed as a self-reported "Notice of Violation" and as an important, first-step enforcement document. The permitted facility should not just report problems and non-compliance items without also describing and explaining the corrective actions which have been taken to resolve the problems.
2. Once a Title V certification is filed with a state agency and/or federal EPA, the facility can be fairly certain state and federal enforcement staff will be looking at it with a view toward possibly commencing formal enforcement proceedings to resolve any problems which are identified. Even if the state and federal agencies exercise their enforcement discretion and choose not to act, environmental groups can and sometimes do file citizen enforcement lawsuits to directly enforce the terms of the permit in federal court. Because the violations are "self-reported," a federal court will almost certainly impose some level of civil penalty in a Citizen Suit. If that happens, the defendant company must not only pay the civil penalty -- but also the attorneys fees and costs of the plaintiff environmental group which commenced and pursued the action.
3. For the above reasons, it is important that all Title V compliance certifications be reviewed and approved by company counsel -- either in-house attorneys or outside counsel -- in advance of filing. This process is especially true if exceptions or deviations are being reported. Counsel should also be involved to insure the "reasonable inquiry" requirements have been met before the "Responsible Official" of the company signs the certification. If the certification is not true, accurate and complete, both the responsible official and the company can be subject to prosecution.
4. These suggestions apply to companies of all sizes which are subject to the Title V air permit program. If a company does not have an in-house lawyer on staff, it should consider seeking the advice of outside counsel. It is important to have the right kind of legal advice available in this area. Simple mistakes and oversights made in the Title V certification process can later prove to be very expensive.
5. Like anything else, this process can be managed effectively so that a company can avoid unnecessary risks of legal liability. However, it takes foresight, planning and knowledge of the process in order to navigate safely through the Title V compliance certification process.
6. And remember the old adage: "An ounce of prevention can be worth a pound of cure!"

In its first acts since GHG limits took effect under Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations, EPA has tried to walk a fine line between imposing stringent controls and not overplaying its hand in the face of Congressional reluctance.

In response to the first state-issued PSD permit with GHG controls since GHG limits went into effect January 2, EPA Region VI officials are seeking stronger GHG limits than Louisiana is requiring. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) recently finalized a PSD permit for a new iron and steel facility by Nucor Corp. on January 27, but declined to make any changes to GHG limits in the draft permit, including those suggested by EPA. It is unclear whether EPA will object to the permit’s issuance, but EPA was clearly dissatisfied with the permit for failing to establish a mass or CO2-equivalent limit, instead proposing a limit of “good combustion practices” based on an efficiency limit. “When determining a PSD permit limit, a permitting authority must establish a numeric emissions limitation that reflects the maximum degree of reduction achievable for each pollutant subject to BACT,” EPA stated in its January 7 letter to LDEQ. EPA also faulted the permit for failing to: include adequate monitoring for CO2 control; evaluate carbon capture and sequestration as an available technology; include a BACT analysis explaining how the control technology was selected; and provide baseline GHG emissions rates from the plant. Essentially EPA’s comments largely follow the agency’s position that GHG permitting should not differ from other air pollutants. 

While EPA sought to send a strong message to Louisiana, it has taken a lighter approach on stalled permits, exempting several of them from the new GHG limits.  In response to several PSD permit applications that have languished with EPA, the agency noticed its intent to exempt several permits that have yet to be issued from complying with emissions limits that took effect after the permit application date. The proposed new policy arose, as stated in EPA’s January 31 declaration in Avenal Power LLC v. EPA, exempting Avenal’s proposed 600 MW natural gas combined cycle power plant from GHG limits, the new SO2 hourly NAAQs (effective Aug. 23, 2010), and new hourly NO2 limits. The decision was made after Avenal applied for a permit in 2007 and sued EPA for failing to comply with PSD regulations requiring the agency to act on the permit within one-year of the application. EPA will issue a public notice requesting comment on the proposed policy. If the final policy is consistent with EPA’s declaration, several similarly situated entities whose permits have been delayed by EPA inaction could find themselves free from GHG limits in their newly issued permits.   

Seasoned Clean Air Act lawyers have grappled with the application of the concept of "potential to emit" in permit applications and in other regulatory settings. In virtually every decade since the 1970's, there has been a significant judicial ruling, codified regulation or guidance document that attempts to elucidate the principles of "potential to emit" for purposes of permitting and enforcement.

A recent decision of the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth Appellate District (which sits in Columbus, Ohio) undertook a review of the significant case and regulatory developments on the topic. State of Ohio ex rel Ohio Atty. Gen. v. The Shelly Holding Co, et. al., resulted from an appeal of a lengthy enforcement case over the alleged failure to secure the proper permits for asphalt plants. The concept of "potential to emit" played a significant role in the enforcement case at the trial court.

Ohio alleged that Shelly violated the air pollution laws at a number of its asphalt plants and portable generators by failing to obtain appropriate Title V "major source" permits before commencement of operations, among other things. Shelly, on the other hand, maintained that these plants were minor sources by reason of the restrictions Shelly voluntarily imposed on operations to keep emission levels below the regulatory triggers. After a lengthy bench trial leading to a record of over 2000 pages, the court found in favor of the State on 13 of 20 counts and assessed a civil penalty of $350,123.52 against Shelly. Nevertheless, Ohio appealed on several grounds, including the trial court's application of the "potential to emit" to the defendants' facilities.

According to Ohio, "potential to emit" requires a stationary source's potential emissions to be calculated on the basis of the source's maximum capacity to generate emissions – that is, worst case conditions 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, or 8,760 hours per year, unless there was a federally enforceable permit that imposed temporal or capacity limits on the operations. The trial court accepted Shelly's self-imposed limits, which it had placed in its permit applications, as effective limits for determining the "potential to emit" and rejected Ohio's insistence that federally enforceable limitations represent the only exception to the maximum design capacity as the basis for "potential to emit." Under Ohio's argument, "federally enforceable" limits as the only exception would arise through a permits issued through Title V notice and comment procedures.

The Court of Appeals reversed on the grounds that a source owner's voluntary restrictions are insufficient. While the restrictions need not be federally enforceable, they must be legally or practically enforceable by the state. Thus, they could arise from a duly granted permit to install or permit to operate under state law. The problem in this case is that Ohio's permit backlog meant there were periods of operation without formal permits to operate. But the Court of Appeals decided that "…an owner cannot be penalized for the Ohio EPA's failure" and delays. The appellate court remanded the case to the trial court to reconsider the scope of the penalties in light of its instructions. The state agency's delay in properly processing the state issued permits could affect the amount of penalties.

Another interesting issue arose from Shelly's failure to pass a stack test. The trial court accepted Shelly's argument that a stack test does not represent normal operating conditions, but rather is "snap test and does not relate to day-to-day operations, so that only the day of the (failed) stack test should constitute a violation and warrant a fine." Failing at high load conditions does not mean that it would fail at lower load levels. Rejecting the trial court's conclusion, however, the appellate court directed the trial court, in determining the number of days of violation, to presume that the violation continued until a subsequent stack test passed. Thus, the appellate court seems to disregard other ways, like engineering calculations, to show compliance during normal day-to-day operations.

Shelly has not sought to appeal this decision to the Ohio Supreme Court, but is currently preparing to do so.

* My thanks to Gary E. Marchant, J.D., Ph.D., Lincoln Professor of Emerging Technologies, Law & Ethics, Center for Law, Science & Innovation at Arizona State University. He is the brains behind this blog entry.

One of the founding principles of the Clean Air Act is the National Ambient Air Quality Standards or NAAQS. Attainment and preservation of the NAAQS is the goal of State Implementation Plans, the permit system is intended to protect the NAAQS and most of the technology-based emission limitations are for the control of NAAQS-based pollutants. However, several of the premises for setting the NAAQS are no longer either scientifically or legally supportable.

After almost forty years, the criteria for establishing the NAAQS are settled.

• The level of the NAAQS must protect public health with "an adequate margin of safety."
• In setting NAAQS, EPA cannot consider the cost or feasibility of achieving it.
• The NAAQS must not only protect the general public, but also there must be an absence of adverse effects on "susceptible" or "sensitive" subgroups and individuals.
• According to EPA, "susceptible" subgroups and individuals can be defined by:
  • Life stages, e.g., children, the elderly or pregnant women
  • Prior immune reactions
  • Disease state, e.g., asthmatics
  • Prior damage to cells or all systems
  • What is called "genetic polymorphism," the small, but significant percentage of the population who have genetic susceptibilities to certain toxins

The problem is that if EPA declares that the NAAQS must prevent adverse health impacts on this range of susceptible subgroups and individuals, the only level that can prevent adverse effects across the range is zero.

For the last three decades the achievement of no adverse clinical effects with an adequate margin of safety has caused the NAAQS to be set at lower and lower concentrations. Indeed, the controversy over a more and more stringent ozone NAAQS was heightened by a recent EPA study that showed decreased lung functions among even healthy individuals at 0.060 µ/m3. These, however, are only clinical adverse effects. If all toxcogenomic or gene expression changes that are indicative of a toxic response are considered, it is hard to justify any concentration but zero for the NAAQS. As EPA has acknowledged in criteria documents for the PM-10, lead, ozone and NOx NAAQS, genomic susceptibility plays an adverse role in responses to inhalation of these pollutants, particularly with respect to specific individuals or certain groups. For these individuals or groups there is no concentration of NAAQS pollutants that will guarantee an adequate margin of safety. For example, 100,000 Americans have a condition called an alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency. People with this condition are predisposed to emphysema and other serious lung diseases from exposure to any level of smoke or dust. Similar genetic susceptibility to any level of certain pollutants above zero can be shown for a wide range of pollutants, individuals and genetically sensitive groups.

The point in all of this is that if we continue to require a no adverse effects with an adequate margin of safety as a minimum criterion for the NAAQS with no consideration of cost or practicable achievability, the inevitable result will eventually be a scientific train wreck.
 

EPA proposed its Clean Air Transport Rule (CATR) on August 2, 2010. The CATR would require extensive additional emissions controls on Electric Generating Units, or EGUs, in a 31 state area, purportedly for the purpose of attaining ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and eliminating “significant contribution” to nonattainment (transport) from upwind states to downwind states.

The electric power industry submitted extensive comments on the CATR which provided EPA with new studies that demonstrate EPA’s failure to account for dramatic improvements in air quality in recent years and its failure to recognize future air quality improvement due to existing regulatory requirements. In particular, this data show that the proposed CATR ozone objectives can be achieved with no new controls beyond the existing regulatory requirements. The same study also concluded that PM2.5 objectives of the proposed CATR can be achieved with no new controls beyond the existing regulatory requirements, with the possible exception of additional local controls at the Allegheny County, PA and Brooke County, WV locations.

On January 7, 2011, EPA published its third Notice of Data Availability (NODA) with respect to CATR. The latest NODA provides data on potential allocation mechanisms and seeks comments on alternative approaches. EPA received numerous comments on allocation issues as a result of proposing the CATR. Following up on the comments, EPA analyzed allocation mechanisms for existing EGUs and is now providing data that it believes might support two alternative allocation mechanisms.
 

The two options include:

Option 1, which would allocate a state’s existing unit budget based on each unit’s proportionate share of the state’s total historic heat input. For each covered unit, annual heat input values for the baseline period of 2005 through 2009 would be identified using data reported to EPA or, where EPA data are unavailable, using data reported to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). For each unit, the three highest, non-zero annual heat input values within the 5-year baseline would be selected and averaged. 

Option 2, which would yield the same initial allocation pattern as Option 1 (based on historic heat input) but would then add a constraint (i.e., a limit on allocations) based on a unit’s reasonably foreseeable maximum emissions under the proposed Transport Rule trading programs. For those units with heat input-based allocations that would exceed historic emissions, this option would limit allocations so that the units would not be given allowances in excess of their reasonably foreseeable maximum emissions.

EPA is requesting comments through February 4, 2011 on the two allocation options and four other issues, including (1) the implications of the alternative allocation methodologies for the proposed assurance provisions; (2) an alternative approach to calculate allowance surrender requirements at the designated representative level for the assurance provisions; (3) a methodology for distributing allowances to new units that locate in Indian country within the Transport Rule region; and (4) possible options for states wishing to submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) providing for state allocation of allowances in the Transport Rule trading programs. The NODA included references to state auctions of allowances in the description of acceptable options.

In other developments related to the transport rule, U.S. EPA announced in December 2010 that it needs until July 29, 2011, to complete the ozone NAAQS. With its second transport rule intended to implement this revise ozone standard, it is now uncertain as to when that proposal can be expected.

It is an environmental truism that increasingly stringent air quality standards can cause collateral damage – typically economic in nature. It is less common for such standards to directly impact preservation of a significant North American ecosystem.

Comprising a vast area in eastern Kansas and northeast Oklahoma, the Flint Hills ecosystem remains today the last unfragmented expanse of tallgrass prairie on the continent. Roughly two-thirds of all tallgrass prairie in North America is contained in the Flint Hills. The Flint Hills provide a unique ecosystem for numerous mammals, birds, reptiles and cattle (the surrogate for the bison that once roamed this area and that served as a keystone species in maintaining biodiversity). The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and The Nature Conservancy have both identified the Flint Hills as a priority conservation action site.

Fire is a critical ecological driver in the tallgrass prairie. Lightning is nature’s tool for this process of ecological renewal. The burning of large sections of the Flint Hills was practiced for centuries by Native Americans. In more modern times, controlled burning has been utilized by conservation agencies and organizations, as well as by ranchers, as an ecological and agricultural management tool. Tallgrass prairie preservation requires frequent burning to prevent the encroachment of woody species and maintain the integrity of the plant communities and wildlife habitat. From an agricultural perspective, the burning and renewal of the tallgrass has been shown to significantly increase the productivity of the rangeland for cattle ranching purposes.
 

Such frequent and widespread burning, however, creates health concerns. Air modeling has shown transport of PM and ozone precursors as far east as Tennessee during the burning season. Air pollutants from Flint Hills burning have also adversely impacted or threatened the NAAQS attainment status of areas in Kansas and Missouri. With more stringent ozone regulations imminent, this conflict between ecological preservation and compliance with air quality standards will be exacerbated.

A recent ACOEL posting suggested, in the climate change context, that the severe economic consequences of the traditional legislative/regulatory process can and should be mitigated through creative voluntary community effort. With the ecologically and agriculturally beneficial practice of tallgrass burning on a collision course with NAAQS attainment, such an approach was recently embraced by the U.S. EPA, Kansas Department of Health and Environment, conservation and agricultural organizations and academia. The December 2010 approval of the Flint Hills Smoke Management Plan was the result of over a year of collaborative effort by these stakeholders. The key elements of the Plan include:

• A new website with a predictive plume modeling tool for public and private decision-making.
• Development of fire management practices to mitigate adverse health consequences and NAAQS violations associated with controlled burning.
• A comprehensive data collection effort to better characterize prairie burning and its consequences.
• Proposed limited legal restrictions on open burning during critical time periods.
• Extensive outreach and education efforts, including prescribed fire training programs, public-private information sharing, and media exposure.
• A pilot project in the spring of 2011 in two Kansas counties to implement the predictive computer modeling and fire management practices.

The Plan has been attacked by certain environmental organizations as a “smoke screen” whose objective is to facilitate EPA exemption of burning from enforcement in order to maximize beef production. These critics discount the ecological motivation for the Plan and allege that it is unlikely to adequately protect public health. I would suggest that the Plan should not be viewed as the final answer. Rather, it should be considered a working document that will evolve as the results of modeling and data collection and level of voluntary implementation are evaluated. Time will tell the extent to which the Plan can be cited as further evidence of the power of voluntary, collaborative

As goes California, so goes the rest of the nation? That could be the case with respect to climate change and the regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Climate change and the implications of California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (also known as AB 32) continue to remain a topic of great debate and speculation nationwide, as well as in California. AB 32 recently survived an initiative challenge during California’s November 2010 election cycle, and deadlines established in AB 32 to meet greenhouse gas reduction goals continue to loom. Recently, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who just left office a few days ago, gave remarks at a California Air Resources Board meeting and acknowledged the “great, great benefits” from the creation of green jobs and venture capital being provided to GHG reduction projects. However, the Governor’s excitement for the benefits of AB 32 and climate change initiatives were tempered by California’s economic reality. According to the Governor:

We have to be sensitive because it is an economic downturn and this Air Resources Board knows that they have to be sensitive. But we have to reach our goal by 2020, our reductions of 25 percent and we’ve got to go and have our 33 percent of renewables by 2020. There are no two ways about that.

So what does this mean as we look forward to 2011 with a new Governor and lingering fiscal issues?
 

One area of law where climate change is bound to remain an active topic of discussion, and likely litigation and regulatory development, is with respect to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). At the time AB 32 was adopted, there was uncertainty about the type of greenhouse gas emissions analysis that would be required under CEQA, and opponents of development projects filed several lawsuits to challenge projects on that basis. The early California State superior court decisions after passage of AB 32 ran the gamut from not requiring climate change analysis or a discussion of AB 32 , to finding an environmental impact report inadequate for failing to make a meaningful attempt to determine the project’s effect on global warming simply because it was “speculative”. In 2007, California adopted SB 97, which directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop recommended amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for addressing greenhouse gas emissions , with the goal of creating a coordinated policy – instead of a “piecemeal approach dictated by litigation .” The amendments became effective in March 2010.

Despite the adoption of the CEQA guidelines amendments, how state and local agencies should analyze and, when necessary, mitigate greenhouse gas emissions still remain somewhat of a mystery, because the amended guidelines and most local governing bodies have fallen short of providing a clear threshold as to what constitutes a significant impact under CEQA, and what should be done to mitigate the impact. However, what we can anticipate for 2011 is that project applicants must “do something” – business as usual (i.e. developing projects without evaluating and, as necessary, reducing GHG emissions) will likely not suffice. The amended guidelines have been adopted, models for quantifying GHG emissions are available, and state and local agencies such as the Attorney General’s Office ) and various air quality management districts have provided recommended mitigation measures and performance-based and numeric thresholds related to climate change. The California Court of Appeal also weighed in on the “do something” mantra in April 2010 in concluding that an environmental impact report was inadequate because it improperly deferred an evaluation of GHG mitigation measures. It held that, “[d]ifficulties caused by evolving technologies and scientific protocols do not justify a lead agency’s failure to meet its responsibilities under CEQA by not even attempting to formulate a legally adequate mitigation plan.”

All in all, with AB 32 left intact, the adoption of the new CEQA Guidelines, and the CARB regulatory package for implementation of AB 32 likely to be put in place, 2011 promises to be an active year in California’s legal and regulatory environment – one that the nation will continue to closely monitor as California takes the lead.

On December 30, 2010, just days before the first Greenhouse Gas (GHG) regulations are to become effective, EPA issued another final rule to clarify and narrow the applicability of those regulations. 75 FR 82254 (12/30/10).

After reviewing the “60-day letters” received by EPA from most of the states, the agency realized its initial strategy for regulating GHG emissions was flawed in those states that had approved Title V permitting programs Those state programs were based on Clean Air Act and federal regulatory provisions in 40 CFR Parts 52 and/or 70 that established the threshold for major source determinations as 100 tons per year (tpy) for certain air pollutants subject to regulation, rather than the 100,000 tpy threshold on a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) which EPA determined should apply to GHG emissions (the Tailoring Rule).

While some state laws and regulations were worded broadly enough to be consistent with the initial Tailoring Rule, many states would be required to modify their program to only regulate GHG emissions at the higher Tailoring Rule threshold upon the January 2. 2011 effective date of the new rule. Otherwise, those states’ programs would require regulation of GHG emissions at the original threshold of 100 tpy, which would inundate the states with many more permit applications than EPA’s regulations actually intended.

The provisions in both Part 52 and Part 70 applicable to the affected state programs are revised to read, “… EPA approves such provisions only to the extent they require permits for such sources where the source emits or has the potential to emit at least 100,000 tpy CO2e, as well as 100 tpy on a mass basis, as of July 1, 2011.” EPA has stated this language means that GHGs are regulated at 100,000 tpy and all other pollutants subject to regulation are regulated at the 100 tpy mass-based threshold.

It will be interesting to watch whether the courts’ interpret this additional “clarifying” language to be clear and legal.

By James R. Farrell

Butler, Snow, O’Mara, Stevens & Cannada, PLLC (www.butlersnow.com)

Regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has become a reality. Although the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA deserves much of the credit for EPA’s aggressive response to global warming, congressional inaction on comprehensive climate change legislation ultimately set in motion the agency-driven agenda that has led our country to an historic yet extremely controversial crossroads in environmental regulation. The Supreme Court’s conclusion that GHGs constitute air pollutants as defined by the Clean Air Act required EPA to determine whether GHG emissions from motor vehicles cause or contribute to climate change that is reasonably anticipated to endanger the public health or welfare; however, the Court’s requirement for regulatory action did not preclude the possibility of a legislative response.

Despite the dim prospects for comprehensive climate change legislation today in the wake of the turbulent 2010 mid-year elections, the political landscape appeared far more favorable little more than eighteen months ago. On June 26, 2009, the House had narrowly passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (the “Waxman-Markey Bill”) by a vote of 219-212. The Waxman-Markey Bill featured a cap and trade component to regulate GHG emissions, and the bill would have required a seventeen percent reduction in GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and an eighty percent reduction by 2050. 

In the Senate, Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) had been hard at work on a comparable climate change bill dubbed the American Power Act. In early 2010, the bill appeared to have bipartisan support due in large part to its provision for expanded offshore drilling, an early and significant concession by the bill’s sponsors. But when the Deepwater Horizon exploded on April 20^th, everything changed. As public outrage at the offshore drilling industry grew daily in response to the unprecedented magnitude of the oil spill, it triggered a proportional decrease in political will for comprehensive climate change legislation. By the time the American Power Act was introduced on May 12^th, Senator Graham had already withdrawn his support insisting that the ongoing and more immediate threat posed by the Gulf oil spill had “made it extremely difficult for transformational legislation in the area of energy and climate to garner bipartisan support . . . .”

In the end, the legislative response to climate change that had once appeared likely – if not imminent – never materialized. In contrast, EPA has wasted no time since Massachusetts v. EPA engaging in regulation-making intended to address climate change. The culmination and cornerstone of this fervent EPA activity is EPA’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule (the “Tailoring Rule”), which will usher in a new and hotly contested era of GHG regulation on January 2, 2011. The Tailoring Rule’s phased-in approach to regulation means that the regulatory net it casts will gradually widen with time, initially targeting those stationary sources known to be the largest emitters of GHG emissions but eventually encompassing some smaller sources as well. 

Whether or not you’ll be ringing in the new year this year likely depends on your political persuasion. For many environmental groups who have lobbied tirelessly for greenhouse gas regulation, 2011 is a long-awaited (and soon to be much-celebrated) new year. For many in industry, however, 2011 is likely to be a year of nostalgia filled with no less than 365 opportunities to remember fondly the less regulated days of yesteryear. Happy New Year!

Butler, Snow, O’Mara, Stevens & Cannada, PLLC (www.butlersnow.com)

·        John A. Crawford

·        Michael D. Caples

·        James I. Palmer, Jr.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced yesterday morning that it has granted certiorari in Connecticut v. American Electric Power, the case seeking an order compelling several electric utility companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, based on common law nuisance theories. Justice Sotomayor recused herself; she had been on the Second Circuit panel that heard the argument below, though she had been promoted to the Supreme Court before the Second Circuit issued its ruling allowing the case to proceed.

Earlier this month, the State of New Mexico adopted a rule designed to cap greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions in New Mexico and implement the State’s participation in a cap and trade market based on the design guidelines of the Western Climate Initiative (“WCI”). But it is too soon to tell how the New Mexico GHG rule will shake out. The future of cap and trade in New Mexico depends on many developments that range from the election of a new governor who will take office in January 2011, the fate of California’s cap and trade program, and the potential that the New Mexico GHG rulemaking will be appealed. An additional New Mexico only greenhouse gas cap and reduction proposal will also be considered by the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (“EIB”) in early December. 

            On November 2, 2010, after lengthy and contentious debate, EIB narrowly adopted the GHG rule that was proposed by the New Mexico Environment Department (“NMED”) last spring. The rule provides for a cap and trade program for certain GHG emissions in New Mexico that could start as early as 2012. The program would not be initiated without participation of other states with GHG emissions sufficient to provide a base of at least 100 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent emissions.  This requirement is designed to avoid the State’s implementing a trading program alone. For all practical purposes, because the trigger for implementation is a base of at least 100 million tons, the New Mexico cap and trade program will not be able to move forward without implementation of the California program. Of the 7 initial participating WCI states, only New Mexico and California are moving forward at this time to implement a cap and trade program.        

The New Mexico GHG rule would apply to about 63 large industrial facilities that emit GHGs in the State. The affected facilities include primarily power plants and large oil and gas operations. After the rule becomes effective, the affected facilities would be required to reduce emissions by 2% annually until 2020 or be required to acquire offset credits for emissions from other jurisdictions or external trading programs. The State would initially provide allocations for baseline emissions for those currently existing regulated facilities without charge.  

            Also in November, the EIB adopted mandatory reporting and verification rules. The rules require sources emitting more than 10,000 metric tons of CO2e emissions to report emissions. Those sources with greater than 25,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent emissions are required to obtain third-party verification of emissions.   This rule is scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2011, regardless of whether the cap and trade rule goes into effect. NMED estimates that 130 to 150 sources will be affected by the reporting rule. 

            Challenges to New Mexico’s GHG rule are likely. The margin of the EIB vote on the rule was narrow, four to three in favor. Moreover, on the day EIB adopted the rule, the New Mexico voters elected a new governor, Susanna Martinez. The Republican governor-elect’s campaign positions included opposition to WCI and the GHC initiatives of the current Democratic governor, Bill Richardson. It seems likely that the new GHC rule will not meet with favor in a Martinez administration. The change of administration is particularly important because to date, Governor Richardson’s support for New Mexico GHG initiatives has been critical to their adoption. New Mexico’s participation in WCI was initiated by Executive Order, and NMED’s efforts to implement the WCI cap and trade program in the state legislature have been unsuccessful. 

            In addition to the recently adopted GHC cap and trade and reporting and verification rules that were proposed by NMED, an additional petition by The New Energy Economy that would put a cap on GHG emissions in New Mexico is scheduled for decision by the EIB in early December. The New Energy Economy petition asks EIB to mandate that large facilities emitting greenhouse gases must reduce their emissions by 3% every year from 2010 levels, regardless of the development of a cap and trade market in the region.   If adopted, the program would sunset in 2020, and also be suspended in any year that a source begins reducing GHG emissions pursuant to a multi-jurisdictional or national GHG reduction program.

            The future will tell us which of the two votes taken on November 2 will prove most important. Some key opponents to the New Mexico GHC rule have expressed support for a federal cap and trade effort, but other very significant concerns remain, particularly regarding GHG proposals that are merely state or regional. In New Mexico, as in the rest of the country, the GHG trading market is far from open.

One of the most striking campaign ads to hit the air waves during the run-up to the recent mid-term elections was the "Dead Aim" ad aired by Joe Manchin, the Senator-elect from West Virginia. The ad featured Manchin walking through an open field with a rifle cradled in his arms. He stops, deliberately loads a single cartridge into the firing chamber of the rifle, takes aim at a distant target and fires. The camera then zooms in on the target of Manchin's single, clean shot: a fictitious Senate bill titled, "Cap and Trade." The ad ends with Manchin staring directly into the camera and promising that, "I will take dead aim at the Cap and Trade bill because it is bad for West Virginia." 

In California voters were far more hospitable to climate change regulation in general and a cap-and-trade program in particular. Just days before California voters went to the polls to defeat a ballot initiative aimed at delaying implementation of California's landmark global warming law (AB 32), the California Air Resources Board (ARB) released for public comment proposed regulations to implement a state-wide cap-and-trade program. The cap-and-trade program would place an overall cap on the amount of GHG that can be emitted by all sources covered by the program. The ARB would then issue allowances equal to the cap to regulated sources. The cap would be gradually reduced between 2013 and 2020 to achieve the GHG gas emissions reduction target established by AB 32. Sources subject to the cap-and-trade program would have to reduce their GHG emissions to achieve their allocated emissions limits or use offset credits to satisfy a portion of their compliance obligations. 

What was used for target practice in a Senate campaign in West Virginia is used in California as the key part of the strategy to reduce GHG emissions. Only time will tell whether it will be open season on cap-and-trade programs or whether such programs are the wave of the future.

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), how long must an operator worry whether a citizen suit will be filed claiming its facility construction modification triggered Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit requirements? The answer may depend on when and where the modification occurred. If a company violates its duty to obtain a preconstruction permit under the CAA’s PSD permitting requirement, it may be subject to a later citizen suit for failing to operate with a proper permit or failing to incorporate best available control technology (BACT). The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit joins the Eleventh Circuit by concluding the CAA’s PSD provisions are reviewed when construction or modification is initiated and are not ongoing, operating requirements. While there is no statute of limitations for CAA citizen suit actions, the general federal five year limit applies from claim accrual. Thus, in the reviewed case because the last challenged modification was constructed more than five years before the filed citizen suit, the court found the citizen suit untimely. PSD permits are for construction and do not set operating requirements. BACT and PSD go “hand in hand”, so because PSD permitting could not be timely claimed, neither could the claim as to control technology be sustained. Operators in the Sixth Circuit however may not be so safe—that circuit has held State Implementation Plan (SIP) regulations contain operating requirements, but hold the claim in Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio--the Sixth Circuit contrary case may be limited to Tennessee or any other state with an SIP allowing for permit issuance post-construction. Sierra Club v. Otter Tail Power Co., No. 09-2862 (8th Cir. August 11, 2010).

With Congress failing to act on climate change, attention turns to EPA’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) pursuant to its authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA). On December 7, 2009, the EPA issued its Endangerment Finding for GHGs, concluding under the CAA’s mobile source section that GHGs endanger public health and welfare, and that GHG emissions from motor vehicles contribute to climate change. See 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496 (Dec. 15, 2009). The determination was a direct response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), holding that because GHGs are considered “air pollutants” under § 202(a) of the CAA, EPA has authority to regulate them if it determines that they endanger public health or welfare.

Although the Endangerment Finding does not itself impose any requirements on regulated entities, it sets in motion a chain of events culminating in the regulation of GHGs emissions from stationary sources under the CAA. First, it is the predicate for EPA’s rule, signed jointly with the Department of Transportation (DOT) on April 1, 2010, to create GHG emission standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for light duty vehicles (e.g., cars, light-trucks). See 74 Fed. Reg. 49,454 (proposed on Sept. 15, 2009); 75 Fed. Reg. 25324 (finalized on May 7, 2010). This will dramatically improve fuel economy, requiring automobile companies to meet a combined average fleet of 250 grams of CO2 per mile, or 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. Additionally, on May 21, 2010, President Obama directed the EPA and DOT to create GHG and CAFE standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks for Model Years 2014-2018, which currently average only 6.1 miles per gallon. He also directed the agencies to extend the national program for cars and light-duty trucks to Model Years 2017-2025.
 

The implications of the initial mobile source rule cannot be overstated. According to EPA, as soon as the rule “takes effect” on January 2, 2011, GHGs will become “subject to regulation” under the CAA and therefore must be regulated from stationary sources as well. Stationary sources producing relatively low threshold quantities of GHGs would become subject to the Title V and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting programs, and potentially stringent pollution controls associated with the latter. In a related rulemaking, EPA announced that the rule would “take effect” no earlier than January 2, 2011, so that PSD for GHGs would not be triggered until that date. 75 Fed. Reg. 17004 (Apr. 2, 2010).

In anticipation of the automobile GHG standard triggering PSD for stationary sources, EPA recently finalized a “Tailoring Rule” to raise the statutory threshold for regulation under the PSD and Title V programs to insulate smaller GHG sources from being subject to such requirements. See 74 Fed. Reg. 55,292 (Oct. 27, 2009) (proposed rule); 75 Fed. Reg. 31,514 (June 3, 2010) (final rule). Under the CAA, sources emitting 100 or 250 tons per year (tpy) of a “regulated pollutant” are subject to the PSD program, while Title V permitting requirements apply to sources emitting 100 tpy or more. By increasing these thresholds to 75,000 or 100,000 tpy of GHGs under the final rulemaking, EPA hopes to protect smaller entities, such as small farms and businesses, from the prospect of onerous GHG controls. While significantly paring down the number of potentially regulated entities, the final Tailoring Rule would still cover 67% of GHG emissions from stationary sources in the United States.

Under the final rule, EPA will phase in the PSD and Title V permitting requirements in two initial stages. First, between January 2, 2011 and June 30, 2011, only sources currently subject to the PSD permitting program for pollutants other than GHGs would be subject to additional permitting requirements for their GHG emissions under PSD. Thus, where a new or modified source exceeds significant emissions thresholds for a traditional PSD pollutant and also increases GHGs by 75,000 tpy CO2e, it will be required to install Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to reduce GHG emissions. These controls are determined on a case-by-case basis during the PSD permitting process, taking into account, among other things, the cost and effectiveness of the control technology. While BACT has yet to be determined, it is very likely to carry significant teeth for new and modified facilities, and will undoubtedly be less flexible than purchasing carbon credits to offset a facility’s emissions. Similarly, only sources currently subject to the Title V operating permit program would be required to meet applicable GHG requirements. No sources would be subject to CAA permitting requirements based solely on their GHG emissions at this time.

Under Step 2 (July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2013), new construction projects emitting at least 100,000 tpy CO2e of GHGs and modifications of existing facilities increasing GHG emissions by 75,000 tpy CO2e will be subject to PSD permitting requirements, regardless of whether they significantly increase emissions of any other pollutant. Title V operating permit requirements will apply to sources emitting at least 100,000 tpy of GHGs. The rules will require certain sources, such as solid waste landfills and industrial manufacturers, to acquire permits for the first time.

Finally, EPA plans on exploring a third step, which may expand permitting requirements for sources emitting at least 50,000 tpy of GHGs, but will not require permitting for facilities emitting below that threshold. Sources exceeding the 50,000 tpy threshold would not be subject to permitting requirements until at least April 2016.

As part of this flurry of new climate change regulatory activity, EPA also approved a Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, requiring fossil fuel or industrial GHG suppliers, vehicle and engine manufacturers, and facilities emitting greater than 25,000 tpy GHGs to submit annual reports to EPA reporting their emissions. 74 Fed. Reg. 56,260 (Oct. 30, 2009). The information gathered will be used to create a national GHG registry covering 85-90% of national emissions, while also informing future policy decisions. Facilities must commence monitoring on January 1, 2010 and submit to EPA their first annual reports containing 2010 data by March 31, 2011.

Although most of EPA’s measures are sure to be challenged in court, they represent an extremely critical foundation for greenhouse gas controls in the U.S. EPA action under the Obama Administration has all but ensured that U.S. businesses will operate in a carbon-constrained environment.

Climate change legislation is dead for now. I won’t pretend it’s not depressing, even though I avoid the political channels and ignore the rhetoric. For those of us who haven’t refudiated climate change science, it’s a victory for the pessimists and evidence that Congress has a hard time addressing long-range problems, even if consequential.

With respect to regulation of GHG, it’s the worst of both worlds and no one should be happy (which is why I held out hope until the end that cooler heads would prevail). We’re still going to have regulation of GHG, the mechanism being EPA’s recently promulgated Tailoring Rule for GHG. One word. Ugh. Does this really make climate skeptics happy? Do they really think that they will somehow succeed in rolling back the Tailoring Rule? I don’t think so. On the other hand, we don’t have an economy-wide cap-and-trade or carbon tax regime. Are environmentalists happy? I still don’t think so. 

I’m left feeling a little like Rodney King. Certainly, the issue isn’t going to go away before the next Congress is sworn in.

As I have noted before, however, problems with climate change legislation don’t mean that Congress can’t enact legislation further regulating traditional pollutants. The three-pollutant bill now before the Senate already has a Republic co-sponsor, Lamar Alexander. Now, according to a report in E&E Daily, even Senator Inhofe is stating that he’s interested in working with Democrats to move three-pollutant legislation. Given the failure to move GHG legislation, hell is likely to get hotter before freezing over, but if Inhofe can really be brought on board, there’s no reason why legislation couldn’t pass.

Three-pollutant legislation shares one significant feature with the GHG issue. Like GHG regulation, efficient regulation is hampered by limitations in existing law, as we saw with the D.C. Circuit’s rejection of the trading regime in the CAIR regulations, and EPA’s much more limited trading program in the Transport Rule. Senator Voinovich, another Republican that three-pollutant legislation supporters would like to have with them, noted as much, saying that the transport rule would be a "stringent and inflexible regime." New legislation could provide for a more robust trading regime. We’ll see if that’s enough to bring Republicans on board.

I sure hope so. Right now, all we’ve got is a GHG regulatory program that won’t do much for climate change, but will cause my clients endless headaches, and a Transport Rule that’s probably the best EPA can do on traditional interstate pollution, but not nearly as cost-effective as it might be with new legislative authority. I remain an optimist, but sometimes it’s difficult.

Concern is growing in western states about EPA's recent refusal to adequately  consider elevated PM-10 levels resulting from natural events as a factor in determining nonattainment.In 2005, Congress amended Clean Air Act Section 319 to require EPA to adopt rules for states to petition to exclude certain measured or modeled ambient air quality data from the determination whether a state was attaining National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”), because the data was affected by “exceptional events.” In general, exceptional events are those caused by natural, rather than anthropogenic sources. On March 22, 2007, EPA adopted a rule establishing the procedures and criteria to “exclude, discount, weigh, or make adjustments” to data based on the exceptional event finding. 72 Fed. Reg. 13561, 13562. 

From its adoption, the rule was criticized either for going too far to find exceptional events or not far enough. Particularly unhappy with the rule was the Western States Air Resources Council or WESTAR, an association of air quality managers from the western states. Criticisms include the charge that the rule did not contain clear criteria for making an exceptional event demonstration and generally ignored the real world natural conditions in the western deserts. In addition, WESTAR and others maintained that EPA acted much too slowly and inconsistently on state petitions for exceptional event determinations. In response, EPA has promised to issue guidance that would address these concerns.

On May 25, 2010, EPA rejected a petition for exceptional event status covering four high wind-related PM-10 NAAQS exceedances at a single monitor in Phoenix, Arizona. As a result, EPA will be compelled to disapprove the CAA Section 189(d) PM-10 nonattainment area plan for the Phoenix area. State officials expressed shock at the rejection because they believed that they had worked closely with EPA technical staff to develop a data package that would satisfy the rule criteria. They complained that their data had either been ignored or summarily dismissed. 

Officials from other western states attacked the EPA decision immediately and demanded new rules rather than the less legally-binding guidance promised by EPA. Although the controversy over EPA’s exceptional events rule and its implementation has been generally confined to PM-10 issues in the arid west, the adoption of a significantly more stringent 8-hour ozone NAAQS in August, and the huge increase in the size and number of nonattainment areas that will result from the new standard is likely to make the dysfunctional rule a national concern.

EPA is stuck between a rock and a hard place in using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Having made an endangerment finding and issued final motor vehicle regulations, EPA soon (commencing January 2, 2011) must implement its Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) preconstruction review program for stationary sources as one or more greenhouse gases become “regulated pollutants” under the statute. But the PSD program is hardly an ideal tool for the job, and may indeed be one of the worst.

Recognizing the difficulty of its task, in late 2009 EPA commissioned a Climate Change Work Group to advise it regarding how best to implement the PSD permit program and how to define Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for sources of greenhouse gas emissions. This January the Work Group issued a Phase One report that contained some important but relatively basic recommendations.
 

Now the Agency has launched Phase Two of the Work Group effort. In an April 9 letter to Work Group Co-Chairs, EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy asked the Work Group to focus on two of the most important strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions – energy efficiency and innovation.

Most seasoned observers recognize that the PSD process currently discourages energy efficiency investments. That is because PSD rules assume that more efficient units will be used more and that such projects could cause net emission increases that trigger PSD review and require the installation of BACT. The PSD process thus significantly delays and adds cost to many energy efficiency projects. As a result, many efficiency upgrades are foregone for fear that they will trigger the PSD process. This is tragic because efficiency upgrades offer the greatest potential for near-term and cost-effective greenhouse gas reductions. See, e.g., Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy (July 2009).

The Work Group’s task of encouragingenergy efficiency by using the instrument most responsible for chilling such investments is the policy equivalent of placing a square peg into a round hole. If the Work Group recommends expediting or exempting from PSD review appropriate efficiency projects, then there is some hope that EPA can use the program to capture as-yet-untapped efficiency and innovation opportunities that currently exist. If, on the other hand, the Work Group, and ultimately EPA, remain unwilling to clear the regulatory costs and hurdles that PSD customarily imposes, then the opportunity will be lost.

EPA has asked the Work Group to provide its recommendations by no later than mid July. So stay tuned.

In his 1971 book, The Closing Circle, ecologist Barry Commoner outlined an informal set of "laws of ecology” governing life on Earth. I have found the “First Law” especially helpful in governing the California Air Resources Board. It says, “Everything is connected to everything else.”

Commoner wrote this brilliantly simple principle in the context of ecosystems. But I find this law of nature reliably guides my thinking on how best to develop policies and regulations to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

 The brain trusts that the Air Resources Board has assembled for these climate change solutions are a kaleidoscope of experts in energy, public health, urban planning, economics, venture capital, automotive and building design, forestry and dairy management – to name just some of the disciplines.

This holistic approach to problem solving is a relatively recent development at the ARB. In my first stint as board chairman, 1978 – 1983, engineers pretty much ran the air pollution control shop. Chemical engineers reformulated gasoline to be lead-free. Mechanical engineers redesigned exhaust systems to remove ozone-forming emissions. A big part of my job then was to phase out leaded gasoline and phase in catalytic converters.

The ARB, where I’m once again chairman, continues to rely on engineers for ever-cleaner fuels and engines. But our expanded mission of fighting global warming (Assembly Bill 32) has vastly diversified the expertise we require, the audiences we reach and the interests we regulate.

We recently expanded our venue from vehicles to entire transportation systems. We’re now at the forefront on streamlining freight operations across the board, from ships to ports to freeways and rail yards.

We entered the field of energy regulation last fall when Governor Schwarzenegger directed the ARB to implement an accelerated Renewable Portfolio Standard – by 2020 utilities must generate at least 33 percent of their electricity from sources such as solar and wind power that do not rely on fossil fuels.

At the same time, we’ve proposed the nation’s first plan for a broad-based cap-and-trade system to use market forces to reduce global warming emissions.

And, in what is perhaps our most eye-opening move afield, the ARB is venturing in land use – as yet another way to reduce climate-altering vehicle emissions. Under a new state “sustainable communities” law (Senate Bill 375), the board this year will be setting emission reduction targets for passenger cars and trucks in 18 urban areas in the state. But – significantly – we’re leaving it to local government to decide how best to achieve those goals. Regional transportation planning authorities will be working with counties and cities to develop planning measures such as compact and mixed-use housing that will lower the average household’s vehicle miles traveled.

The growing diversity and collaboration reflects a broader shift toward more integrated environmental problem solving, not just at the ARB or in California, but across continents. It’s a more holistic approach driven by the urgency of global warming and the lure of profit in the transition to a low-carbon economy. It reflects the interconnectivity of climate change itself.

In his 1971 book, The Closing Circle, ecologist Barry Commoner outlined an informal set of "laws of ecology” governing life on Earth. I have found the “First Law” especially helpful in governing the California Air Resources Board. It says, “Everything is connected to everything else.”

Commoner wrote this brilliantly simple principle in the context of ecosystems. But I find this law of nature reliably guides my thinking on how best to develop policies and regulations to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

 The brain trusts that the Air Resources Board has assembled for these climate change solutions are a kaleidoscope of experts in energy, public health, urban planning, economics, venture capital, automotive and building design, forestry and dairy management – to name just some of the disciplines.

This holistic approach to problem solving is a relatively recent development at the ARB. In my first stint as board chairman, 1978 – 1983, engineers pretty much ran the air pollution control shop. Chemical engineers reformulated gasoline to be lead-free. Mechanical engineers redesigned exhaust systems to remove ozone-forming emissions. A big part of my job then was to phase out leaded gasoline and phase in catalytic converters.

The ARB, where I’m once again chairman, continues to rely on engineers for ever-cleaner fuels and engines. But our expanded mission of fighting global warming (Assembly Bill 32) has vastly diversified the expertise we require, the audiences we reach and the interests we regulate.

We recently expanded our venue from vehicles to entire transportation systems. We’re now at the forefront on streamlining freight operations across the board, from ships to ports to freeways and rail yards.

We entered the field of energy regulation last fall when Governor Schwarzenegger directed the ARB to implement an accelerated Renewable Portfolio Standard – by 2020 utilities must generate at least 33 percent of their electricity from sources such as solar and wind power that do not rely on fossil fuels.

At the same time, we’ve proposed the nation’s first plan for a broad-based cap-and-trade system to use market forces to reduce global warming emissions.

And, in what is perhaps our most eye-opening move afield, the ARB is venturing in land use – as yet another way to reduce climate-altering vehicle emissions. Under a new state “sustainable communities” law (Senate Bill 375), the board this year will be setting emission reduction targets for passenger cars and trucks in 18 urban areas in the state. But – significantly – we’re leaving it to local government to decide how best to achieve those goals. Regional transportation planning authorities will be working with counties and cities to develop planning measures such as compact and mixed-use housing that will lower the average household’s vehicle miles traveled.

The growing diversity and collaboration reflects a broader shift toward more integrated environmental problem solving, not just at the ARB or in California, but across continents. It’s a more holistic approach driven by the urgency of global warming and the lure of profit in the transition to a low-carbon economy. It reflects the interconnectivity of climate change itself.

In his 1971 book, The Closing Circle, ecologist Barry Commoner outlined an informal set of "laws of ecology” governing life on Earth. I have found the “First Law” especially helpful in governing the California Air Resources Board. It says, “Everything is connected to everything else.”

Commoner wrote this brilliantly simple principle in the context of ecosystems. But I find this law of nature reliably guides my thinking on how best to develop policies and regulations to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

 The brain trusts that the Air Resources Board has assembled for these climate change solutions are a kaleidoscope of experts in energy, public health, urban planning, economics, venture capital, automotive and building design, forestry and dairy management – to name just some of the disciplines.

This holistic approach to problem solving is a relatively recent development at the ARB. In my first stint as board chairman, 1978 – 1983, engineers pretty much ran the air pollution control shop. Chemical engineers reformulated gasoline to be lead-free. Mechanical engineers redesigned exhaust systems to remove ozone-forming emissions. A big part of my job then was to phase out leaded gasoline and phase in catalytic converters.

The ARB, where I’m once again chairman, continues to rely on engineers for ever-cleaner fuels and engines. But our expanded mission of fighting global warming (Assembly Bill 32) has vastly diversified the expertise we require, the audiences we reach and the interests we regulate.

We recently expanded our venue from vehicles to entire transportation systems. We’re now at the forefront on streamlining freight operations across the board, from ships to ports to freeways and rail yards.

We entered the field of energy regulation last fall when Governor Schwarzenegger directed the ARB to implement an accelerated Renewable Portfolio Standard – by 2020 utilities must generate at least 33 percent of their electricity from sources such as solar and wind power that do not rely on fossil fuels.

At the same time, we’ve proposed the nation’s first plan for a broad-based cap-and-trade system to use market forces to reduce global warming emissions.

And, in what is perhaps our most eye-opening move afield, the ARB is venturing in land use – as yet another way to reduce climate-altering vehicle emissions. Under a new state “sustainable communities” law (Senate Bill 375), the board this year will be setting emission reduction targets for passenger cars and trucks in 18 urban areas in the state. But – significantly – we’re leaving it to local government to decide how best to achieve those goals. Regional transportation planning authorities will be working with counties and cities to develop planning measures such as compact and mixed-use housing that will lower the average household’s vehicle miles traveled.

The growing diversity and collaboration reflects a broader shift toward more integrated environmental problem solving, not just at the ARB or in California, but across continents. It’s a more holistic approach driven by the urgency of global warming and the lure of profit in the transition to a low-carbon economy. It reflects the interconnectivity of climate change itself.

By Deborah Jennings and Andrew Schatz, DLA Piper US LLP[1]

As comprehensive climate legislation stalls in Congress, increased attention is being paid to alternative climate regimes, particularly the prospect of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation and regional and voluntary climate initiatives. Regional initiatives have faced their share of challenges during their infancy and, to varying degrees, may incur more with the development of a federal cap-and-trade program or EPA regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) are the most advanced climate initiatives in the U.S. California’s AB 32 requires measures to reduce California’s GHG emissions by 174 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent, or 29%, by 2020. California recently issued a draft cap and trade regulation covering 600 of the state’s largest industrial and electric generating stationary sources. The RGGI program is more mature with a cap-and-trade program that commenced in 2009. It “stabilizes” CO2 levels during 2009-2014 and reduces emissions 10% by 2019.

In its first year, RGGI has generated several concerns. Unlike other cap-and-trade programs, such as the NOx Budget Trading Program, which distributed allowances to regulated entities, but incentivized them to invest in emission controls, RGGI states decided to sell emissions allowances. Under RGGI, a utility must both purchase allowances and pay for emission controls. The sale of allowances makes RGGI look more like a tax on energy and inevitably will lead to higher energy costs. 

RGGI’s offset program is also restrictive, thereby narrowing compliance options. Although the model rule provides for use of offsets for reduction of emissions in certain categories such as landfill methane capture and afforestation, this opportunity is undercut by the requirement to demonstrate economic “additionality.” To be useable, these offsets must have been generated by projects that are not “economically attractive absent the revenue stream provided by an emissions offset.” This subjective test does not recognize the reality that many of these projects are economically marginal and need more than one source of revenue. This economic additionality requirement undercuts the creation of offsets. 

Noticeably absent from RGGI is Pennsylvania, one of the largest coal-fueled utility states in the Northeast.  Because    Pennsylvania and other big coal states are included in larger electricity dispatch regions, CO2 regulation and increased cost on RGGI utilities will result in increased demand for electricity from the unregulated utilities in the same power region. A clear example of this is PJM, which oversees electric supply in the coal states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, as well as the RGGI states of Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey. Untaxed electricity with   high carbon-content from non-RGGI generators will be preferred and sold in larger quantities than more expensive power, thereby undercutting the objective of reducing emissions. This is the “leakage” phenomenon.

RGGI and other state and regional regulatory climate programs may be eliminated under proposed federal climate legislation. The House bill specifically pre-empts state and regional cap-and-trade programs between 2012 and 2017. Pre-emption concerns may already be impacting the RGGI market, where prices for 2012 allowances are barely above the Reserve Price. 

In the meantime, EPA is forging ahead with its own GHG regulations. Last Fall, it made a GHG  “endangerment” finding and required quantification and reporting of GHG emissions. EPA will soon finalize the regulation of GHGs from light-duty vehicles, setting in motion a statutorily required process to regulate GHGs from major stationary sources that are modified or constructed. Among the class of stationary sources that will be affected are municipal solid waste landfills, which are the source of approximately one fourth of methane emissions in the US. Once regulated by EPA, construction or modification of these sources would require GHG control and would no longer generate “offset” allowances because controls would be now required by law.

Notwithstanding potential federal climate policy, the voluntary carbon markets should continue to flourish based on experience to date. Global voluntary carbon markets nearly doubled in 2008 and are expected to increase. Europeans purchased half of these offsets for noncompliance purposes.  This continued interest in voluntary markets is partly motivated by individuals and corporations choosing to reduce their carbon footprint. Our law firm, for example, has purchased carbon credits since 2008 to offset air travel emissions as part of a Sustainability Initiative. As national awareness of climate issues continues to grow, voluntary carbon markets are likely to expand and thrive.

EPA has proposed lowering the NAAQS to a range of from 0.060 ppm – 0.070 ppm. Earlier this week, EPA’s Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, or CASAC, met and endorsed EPA’s proposed range. Some CASAC members did express concern about EPA’s proposed secondary seasonal standard, intended to protect crops and forests. However, overall, the CASAC seal of approval is pretty much the end of this argument.

It is important to recall how we got here. CASAC already endorsed the 0.060 ppm – 0.070 range several years ago, before EPA’s last ozone standard was issued. It was EPA’s refusal to follow the CASAC recommendations, and instead propose a 0.075 ppm standard, which led to litigation challenging the standard and the current controversy. 

It is difficult to overstate the weight given the CASAC’s views. Indeed, EPA’s fine particulate standard was vacated in significant part because EPA failed to follow CASAC’s recommendations.

Thus, a standard that does not comport with CASAC’s recommendations would likely be rejected by the courts as arbitrary and capricious. However, I suspect that CASAC’s influence also runs the other way. Assuming that EPA does indeed promulgate a revised NAAQS in the 0.060 ppm – 0.070 ppm range, and assuming that industrial interests challenge the new standard, it will be very difficult to establish that the new standard is arbitrary and capricious if it has been endorsed by CASAC. 

As I noted in connection with the fine particulate standard, it’s not obvious to me that this is a good thing. Depending on whose ox is being gored, anyone can get up on a soapbox and say that they want science to be free of politics. However, these are really policy decisions. It’s one thing to acknowledge that these are complicated issues and we thus have to allow Congress to delegate its authority to the EPA administrator. It’s another effectively to delegate the decision further to the CASAC, which is about as obscure an acronym body as we have. Do we really want standards which will result in compliance costs in at least the tens of billions of dollars being made by groups which truly are not accountable in any meaningful way?

Accompanied by a considerable public relations effort, the United States Environmental Protection Agency proposed new national ambient air quality standards for ozone on January 7, 2010. The agency wants to reduce the primary 8-hour ozone standard from its current value of 0.075 parts per million, promulgated by the last administration in March 2008, to a level in the range from 0.060 to 0.070 parts per million. Using its reconsideration of the 2008 standard as a platform, EPA emphasized that more careful attention should be paid to the recommendations of its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. That, it says, is just good science.

The country will face considerable difficulty and expense meeting the proposed primary standard nationwide, especially at its lower range. Based on monitoring data from 2006 to 2008, EPA predicts that a proposed primary standard set at 0.060 parts per million would be violated in all but 24 of the counties monitored counties nationwide for the pollutant.

In the part of the country where I live ― my office is in Colorado ― a new standard is going to be extremely difficult to meet, especially at the lower range of the proposal. In our area of the West, monitoring shows that we are, for the most part, quite close to either side of the current 2008 standard. The populous Northern Front Range region of the state reports ozone values of 0.071 parts per million to 0.086 parts per million. Colorado’s state health department, like many others in the West, is struggling mightily to form compliance strategies that will substantially improve ozone air quality in areas that today do not meet the existing standard.

Ozone pollution generally is formed in the atmosphere near the ground in very complex reactions that exploit energy from sunlight to transform a mix of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and methane. Control of ozone focuses on industrial facilities, the generation of electricity, motor vehicle exhaust gases, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents. These are the major sources of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides generated from human activities.

Ozone is particularly difficult to control because of pollutant transport. Precursor pollutants and ozone often arrive near a monitor in a complicated mix of local emissions and emissions carried by the wind from hundreds of miles away. A knowledgeable local air quality expert, quoted in an editorial printed on January 11, 2010, told The Denver Post that the lower range of EPA’s proposed standard is “close to background” levels for the Front Range of Colorado.

As in any primary national ambient air quality standard proceeding ― where the goal under the Clean Air Act is to protect the public’s health with a margin of safety ― fundamental, difficult and interesting questions must be addressed and answered. Who is EPA trying to protect through its proposed standard? It is focusing upon people with lung disease, especially children with asthma, elderly people, and people who are active outdoors, but it emphasizes protection of children. In her speech when the proposed standard was released, Lisa Jackson, the Administrator of EPA, told her audience of her 13-year old son’s difficulty with asthma on days with high ozone levels. What is EPA protecting these people from? It is protecting against reduced lung function and irritation in their airways, aggravation of asthma and susceptibility to respiratory infection, and aggravation of chronic lung diseases. What does science have to say about the level of air pollution that supplies that protection? Usually even more important, what does the science not have to say ― what are the unknowns and assumptions we must make, given the limits to our knowledge? And ― dare I write it? ― is control possible at the levels suggested by the science available to us? At what cost and with what set of benefits?

In any event, I was particularly struck by a comment reported in our local newspaper when the standard was announced. My reaction may be an over-reaction, but what I read seemed eerily familiar to me and a bit worrisome. The Denver Post reprinted remarks by the  Director of EPA’s Air Programs in Region 8. She reportedly said that residents can begin to make a difference to lower ozone levels by riding the bus and bicycling more instead of driving, weed-whacking and lawn mowing after sunset, and maybe ditching leaf-blowers and switching to push mowers. EPA Increases Burden on Denver to Reduce Smog,The Denver Post, January 8, 2010, p. B-1.

I was a young engineer working for EPA during its foray into federal indirect source controls in the late 1970’s. The remarks I read in the newspaper brought back memories of those days. I hope the group of people currently in charge at EPA remember, too.

An indirect source, as defined in Section 110 (a)(5)(C) of the Clean Air Act, is “a facility, building, structure, installation, real property, road, or highway which attracts, or may attract, mobile sources of pollution.” More plainly, in the early 1970s federal indirect source controls were designed to force people not to drive their cars to particular areas, if air quality might be imperiled, by forbidding or regulating the businesses that drew those people. In early 1973, responding to a court order, EPA proposed approaches like limiting the number of parking spots at airports, malls, sports venues and amusement parks, forcing parking garages to be smaller, and limiting or rejecting the development of real estate projects that would draw people in their cars. 38 Fed. Reg. 9599 (April 18, 1973). Later that year, the EPA instructed the states to consider these strategies in preconstruction indirect source review. 38 Fed. Reg. 15834 (June 18, 1973) (promulgation of state implementation plan requirements for “mobile source activity associated with . . . buildings, facilities, and installations.”). 

Even a very young engineer could tell that EPA’s approach was a disaster. Ordinary people (as distinct from the business people operating electric generating stations, paint booths, or oil and gas pipelines) were extremely unhappy when the federal government wanted to make their ordinary activities ― driving their cars to a shopping center or to watch a sporting event ― difficult or forbidden. And, of course, the states resented federal intrusion into traditional areas of state and local land use controls. It is also quite easy today to imagine how unhappy the powerful real estate developers were, too.

The reaction was predictable (at least in hindsight) and rapid. Congress forbade EPA from pursuing indirect source regulation in the interest of meeting air quality standards. In a 1974 supplemental appropriations act, Pub. L. No. 93-245, 87 Stat. 1071 (1974), Congress denied EPA budget funds and administrative authority “to administer any program to tax, limit, or otherwise regulate parking facilities.”  Permanent changes to the Clean Air Act came with the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act, when restrictive language was added that is still codified in Section 110(a)(5) of the Clean Air Act. You can read more in a federal Court of Appeals opinion about the controversy and its aftermath, Manchester Environmental Coalition v. EPA, 612 F.2d 56 (2^nd Cir. 1979) (successful challenge to EPA’s approval of Connecticut’s revocation of its implementation plan’s indirect source review program). You can get the flavor of this controversy by reading the discussion in the House Report that accompanied H.R. 6161, the House bill underlying the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95^th Cong., 1^st Sess., 220-221 (May 12, 1977).

Today some states and political subdivisions choose to use indirect controls on air pollution in their programs. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District in California and the State of Wisconsin have programs that are easily found on the Internet, for example.

But EPA is still forbidden to impose indirect source controls upon the states. And the remarks of the regional air quality official about the ozone proposal strike me as suggesting federal regulation that will be perceived in a quite similar and unhappy way by ordinary citizens. Is EPA going to force people to use push lawnmowers? To throw away their leaf blowers and weed whackers?

Will we follow this path again? I hope not. Controlling the precursors to the formation of ground level ozone at the levels now proposed by EPA is going to be terribly difficult and expensive, at best. But those controls must first have the support of citizens and their elected representatives if they are to have any chance to succeed. Whatever ambient air quality levels are eventually chosen by EPA in the ozone rulemaking, the control strategies eventually imposed by our federal government should not make people so angry that they forget why they are being protected.

Shortly before the holidays, EPA Administrator Jackson issued an Order in response to a challenge to a combined Title V / PSD permit issued by the Kentucky Division for Air Quality to an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or IGCC, plant. The Order upheld the challenge, in part, on the ground that neither the permittee nor KDAQ had adequately justified why the BACT analysis for the facility did not include consideration of full-time use of natural gas notwithstanding that the plant is an IGCC facility. 

The Order may not be shocking in today’s environment – all meanings of that word intended – but the lengths to which the Order goes to avoid its own logical consequences shows just what a departure this decision is from established practice concerning BACT. BACT analyses have traditionally involved the proverbial “top-down” look at technologies that can be used to control emissions from a proposed facility. In other words, EPA takes the proposal as a given, and then asks what the best available control technology is for that facility. 

In EPA’s own words – from its New Source Review Workshop Manual (long the Bible for BACT analysis):

Historically, EPA has not considered the BACT requirement as a means to redefine the design of the source when considering available control alternatives. For example, applicants proposing to construct a coal-fired electric generator, have not been required by EPA as part of a BACT analysis to consider building a natural gas-fired electric turbine although the turbine may be inherently less polluting per unit product (in this case electricity).

Apt example, don’t you think? (In case you are wondering, EPA’s decision does not discuss or refer to this text from the NSR Manual.)

What was the basis for EPA’s decision here? Largely, it is that the IGCC facility will be designed to burn natural gas as well as syngas and the permittee specifically stated that it planned to combust natural gas during a 6-12 month startup period. On these facts, EPA concluded that the permittee and KDAQ had to do a better job explaining why full-time use of natural gas should be considered “to redefine the design of the source.”

As noted above, EPA went to great lengths to minimize the scope of the decision. It states that the Order:

should in no way be interpreted as EPA expressing a policy preference for construction of natural-gas fired facilities over IGCC facilities.

should not be interpreted to establish or imply an EPA position that PSD permitting authorities should conclude … that BACT for a proposed electricity generating unit is … natural gas.

does not conclude that it is not possible or permissible for the permit applicant … to develop a rationale which shows that firing exclusively with natural gas would “redefine the source.”

EPA does not intend to discourage applicants that propose to construct an IGCC facility from seeking to hedge the risk of investing in … IGCC technology by proposing … utilizing natural gas for some period….

Methinks EPA doth protest too much. If I may say so, this is a freakin’ IGCC facility. Isn’t it obvious that one doesn’t plan or build an IGCC facility if one plans to burn natural gas? Don’t you think that EPA could have taken administrative notice of what IGCC technology is?

All of EPA’s protestations about the Order’s limits may be designed to mollify IGCC supporters, but what does its rationale mean for all of the existing facilities – coal and oil – that are already capable of firing on natural gas? Next time they are subject to NSR/PSD review, must they evaluate the possibility of switching completely to natural gas? As I’ve said here before, yikes!

As has been reported, EPA granted in part petitions to object to the merged PSD construction/Title V operating permit issued by the Kentucky Division for Air Quality for the addition of a 750 MW pulverized coal-fired boiler at the Trimble County facility owned by Louisville Gas & Electric Company (LG&E). EPA’s action occurred more than three years after the proposed permit and final PSD determination authorizing construction to commence. One ground for the grant of the petition was that the state permitting record did not contain adequate justification of use of the PM₁₀ program as a surrogate for PM_2.5 for PSD analysis.

Following submittal of additional information by LG&E, Kentucky issued its preliminary determination that many have argued was an attempt to regulate by Title V objection rather than by rulemaking.   Regardless, the Division for Air Quality determined that use of the PM₁₀ Surrogate Policy has been shown to be reasonable for the Trimble County project. In short, DAQ concurred with LG&E that there was a lack of test data regarding the particle size distribution of the particulate matter for the combination of controls on the unit and noted that the control train was state of the art. DAQ also noted that PM_2.5 is always a subset of PM₁₀ and that PM₁₀ BACT analyses implicitly include consideration of reductions of PM_2.5 emissions. After considering the elements of the control train, DAQ concluded that there were “no known base technologies available” for a PC Boiler that would provide additional reduction of PM_2.5. 

LG&E also addressed fugitive emission sources, the emergency generator and cooling tower in its submittal to demonstrate that use of PM₁₀ as a surrogate was reasonable. Although a Class II Cumulative PM_2.5 NAAQS analysis was not conducted, LG&E provided information from modeling exercises to further support its position that it was reasonable to rely on the PM₁₀ surrogate policy. DAQ noted that in the absence of a final rule on significant impact levels for PM_2.5, a PM_2.5 emissions inventory and regulatory dispersion modeling system, it was not possible to conduct a cumulative PM_2.5 NAAQS analysis. 

As has been reported, EPA granted in part petitions to object to the merged PSD construction/Title V operating permit issued by the Kentucky Division for Air Quality for the addition of a 750 MW pulverized coal-fired boiler at the Trimble County facility owned by Louisville Gas & Electric Company (LG&E). EPA’s action occurred more than three years after the proposed permit and final PSD determination authorizing construction to commence. One ground for the grant of the petition was that the state permitting record did not contain adequate justification of use of the PM₁₀ program as a surrogate for PM_2.5 for PSD analysis.

Following submittal of additional information by LG&E, Kentucky issued its preliminary determination that many have argued was an attempt to regulate by Title V objection rather than by rulemaking.   Regardless, the Division for Air Quality determined that use of the PM₁₀ Surrogate Policy has been shown to be reasonable for the Trimble County project. In short, DAQ concurred with LG&E that there was a lack of test data regarding the particle size distribution of the particulate matter for the combination of controls on the unit and noted that the control train was state of the art. DAQ also noted that PM_2.5 is always a subset of PM₁₀ and that PM₁₀ BACT analyses implicitly include consideration of reductions of PM_2.5 emissions. After considering the elements of the control train, DAQ concluded that there were “no known base technologies available” for a PC Boiler that would provide additional reduction of PM_2.5. 

LG&E also addressed fugitive emission sources, the emergency generator and cooling tower in its submittal to demonstrate that use of PM₁₀ as a surrogate was reasonable. Although a Class II Cumulative PM_2.5 NAAQS analysis was not conducted, LG&E provided information from modeling exercises to further support its position that it was reasonable to rely on the PM₁₀ surrogate policy. DAQ noted that in the absence of a final rule on significant impact levels for PM_2.5, a PM_2.5 emissions inventory and regulatory dispersion modeling system, it was not possible to conduct a cumulative PM_2.5 NAAQS analysis. 

Last week, the City of Portland, Oregon (together with Multnomah County) released an updated Climate Action Plan. The Plan presents a number of aggressive goals and targets, with ultimate goals of GHG reductions of 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050.

The details of the Plan are obviously only relevant to those in the Portland area, but for those anticipating what regulation might look like in California, Massachusetts, and other states that have enacted or will soon enacted some version of a Global Warming Solutions Act, the Plan provides a helpful catalogue of the types of changes that might be sought. Therefore, a quick summary of some of the 2030 goals seems warranted

Reduce energy use from existing buildings by 20%-25%

All new buildings – and homes -- should have zero net GHG emissions. 

Reduce VMT by 30% from 2008 levels

Recover 90% of all waste generated

Reduce consumption of carbon-intensive foods

Expand “urban forest canopy” to cover one-third of Portland

Reduce emissions from City and County operations by 50% from 1990 levels

What’s my take? I have two immediate reactions. First, if any further evidence were needed that attaining significant GHG emission reductions is going to involve major social and economic changes, this is certainly it. 

Second, and perhaps more importantly, this Plan, and others like it, have to constitute a heavy thumb on the side of the scale arguing for comprehensive federal legislation. In the past, I’ve argued that federal legislation would be preferable to a patchwork made up of EPA regulation under existing Clean Air Act authority, public nuisance litigation, and state and regional initiatives. To that list, we can now add comprehensive local regulation. I don’t mean to be too sanguine about the ability of federal legislation to harmonize this entire process; the existing bills would not preempt most state, regional, and local regulations (other than cap-and-trade programs). Nonetheless, delays in federal enactment can only contribute to the proliferation of state, regional, and local programs, some of which may be beneficial, but many of which will be inefficient, contradictory, or both.

Last week, the City of Portland, Oregon (together with Multnomah County) released an updated Climate Action Plan. The Plan presents a number of aggressive goals and targets, with ultimate goals of GHG reductions of 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050.

The details of the Plan are obviously only relevant to those in the Portland area, but for those anticipating what regulation might look like in California, Massachusetts, and other states that have enacted or will soon enacted some version of a Global Warming Solutions Act, the Plan provides a helpful catalogue of the types of changes that might be sought. Therefore, a quick summary of some of the 2030 goals seems warranted

Reduce energy use from existing buildings by 20%-25%

All new buildings – and homes -- should have zero net GHG emissions. 

Reduce VMT by 30% from 2008 levels

Recover 90% of all waste generated

Reduce consumption of carbon-intensive foods

Expand “urban forest canopy” to cover one-third of Portland

Reduce emissions from City and County operations by 50% from 1990 levels

What’s my take? I have two immediate reactions. First, if any further evidence were needed that attaining significant GHG emission reductions is going to involve major social and economic changes, this is certainly it. 

Second, and perhaps more importantly, this Plan, and others like it, have to constitute a heavy thumb on the side of the scale arguing for comprehensive federal legislation. In the past, I’ve argued that federal legislation would be preferable to a patchwork made up of EPA regulation under existing Clean Air Act authority, public nuisance litigation, and state and regional initiatives. To that list, we can now add comprehensive local regulation. I don’t mean to be too sanguine about the ability of federal legislation to harmonize this entire process; the existing bills would not preempt most state, regional, and local regulations (other than cap-and-trade programs). Nonetheless, delays in federal enactment can only contribute to the proliferation of state, regional, and local programs, some of which may be beneficial, but many of which will be inefficient, contradictory, or both.