Nothing But Blue Skies?

Posted on March 31, 2020 by Robert Uram

As a result of the measures put in place to flatten the curve for the coronavirus pandemic, California is experiencing an unprecedented improvement in air quality. The combination of work from home, layoffs and reduced automobile travel by people sheltering in place has reduced vehicle miles traveled by as much as 70 percent.  Nearly everyone in California is now experiencing good air quality. Nearly everyone in California will wake up to bluer skies and cleaner air so long as the pandemic restrictions remain in place.

Californians have not seen this high level of air quality since before World War II. Even this brief improvement in air quality will help those who suffer from asthma, bronchitis, lung irritation and heart disease. As an added benefit, congestion has been reduced and there will likely be a significant decline in deaths and injuries from accidents. The reduced emissions are also a down payment on emission reductions desperately needed to address climate change.

In medicine, randomized studies are the gold standard for determining the efficacy of a new drug or device. In the air pollution arena, the California Air Resources Board can’t do randomized studies. It can’t order people not to drive so the Board can measure the effects of reduced vehicles miles traveled or substituting electric vehicles for fossil fuel vehicles. Instead, it does computer modeling to estimate these effects. But computer models are meaningless to most people. They can’t read a computer model and see how their lives will be better if they have bluer skies and healthier air. It’s too abstract. The crisis is not only giving the Board valuable information on the actual effects of less vehicle pollution, it is giving millions of people first hand experience of seeing and understanding how much better of their lives will be with less pollution clouding their sky.

What to do? How do we assure that Californians will see blue skies sooner rather than later once the crisis has abated? How do we assure that Californians will step up in the battle against climate change? And, how do we assure California will leap ahead and create jobs to ameliorate the devastating economic effects of the coronavirus pandemic.

California has roughly 24 million cars. California’s current goal is to have 1.5 million electric vehicles on the road by 2025. My hope is that the millions of Californians who are now experiencing better air quality will push the state to far exceed the current goal. California should place a moratorium on new fossil fuel powered vehicles as soon as possible and provide the regulatory climate and financial support conditions to build millions of electric vehicles here in California without delay. We all should enjoy blue skies and a better economy as soon as possible.

MACT Follies

Posted on March 20, 2020 by Adam Babich

Data is in from EPA’s “work practice” requirement that petroleum refineries monitor ambient air for benzene concentrations around their fence lines. The regulations set an “action level” of 9 µg/m3 benzene, using benzene as a “surrogate” for fugitive hazardous air pollutants. The purpose? To “protect the health of the populations surrounding the facility, including minority and low-income populations.” EPA set the action level at a concentration that no refinery would exceed as long as its fugitive emissions estimates were “consistent with the level of fugitive emissions actually emitted.” In other words, if operators reported their fugitive emissions accurately, the benzene action level would be entirely theoretical.

Surprise! Benzene concentrations in air around 10 oil refineries blew the limit. The offending refineries include operations by major players such as Chevron, Shell, Marathon, Valero and BPF Energy. Does this tell us something about using unverified industry estimates of emissions as a basis for protecting public health?

In theory, the regulatory structure that governs hazardous air pollutants—such as benzene from oil refineries—is brilliant. It includes elements to appeal to fans of both “technology-based” and “risk-based” regulation. Technology-based standards require that facilities reduce dangerous pollution as much as practical given the state of the art. These standards are relatively straightforward to set and enforce. There is no guarantee, however, that technology-based standards will protect people from all excessive risks. In contrast, risk-based standards are designed to eliminate unacceptable risks, ideally with a margin of safety. Confidence in risk-based regulation, however, requires a leap of faith that risk assessment techniques will generate accurate results. Risk assessments tend to rely on questionable estimates of the amounts of chemical pollutants that people breath, drink, or absorb, and on controversial assumptions about what a safe level of exposure would be. The fact that people are exposed to many chemicals leads to further uncertainty about cumulative and synergistic risks.

Originally, Congress designed the Clean Air Act’s hazardous air pollutant program to use risk-based standards. The Act required EPA to set emission standards that would protect public health with an ample margin of safety. For EPA, this mandate raised the prospect of banning some chemicals completely, at least when “the only level … which would appear to be absolutely protective of health is zero.” The agency essentially froze up. As of 1990, EPA had only promulgated eight hazardous air pollutant standards.

Congress responded in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. At least initially, that law shifted the hazardous-air-pollutant program to rest on technology-based standards. The Act required EPA to determine maximum achievable control technology (MACT) for a list of 191 chemicals. Congress, however, did not stop there. To ensure that a MACT standard is actually protecting the public, the Act mandates an EPA “residual risk” analysis within six years of the promulgation of technology-based limits. This sounds like the best of both the technology-based and risk-based approaches—right?

But look at EPA’s historical approach to residual risk: In Natural Resource Defense Council v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit reviewed EPA’s 2006 analysis of risk from facilities that use or produce synthetic organic chemicals. EPA relied on the results of an American Chemistry Council questionnaire with a 44% response rate. Why? The agency explained, inter alia, that reliance on “industry sources is a well-established practice” and it would have been “very costly and time-consuming” for the agency to require collection and submission of data. EPA’s approach survived the appeal.

With respect to the 2015 petroleum refineries rule: Hats off to EPA for its innovative work-practice/fenceline-monitoring approach. Because the monitoring results illustrate the fallacy of continued reliance on industry estimates of fugitive emissions, the agency should now expand the fenceline-monitoring approach to other sectors.

Think Globally, Act Locally?

Posted on March 10, 2020 by Mark W. Schneider

In Washington State, some legislators and regulators have been acting locally.  But are they thinking globally?

Our two-term governor sought for years, unsuccessfully, to persuade our legislature to authorize a statewide program to reduce carbon emissions.  After several unsuccessful attempts, his Department of Ecology passed the Clean Air Rule (Chapter 173-442 WAC), which attempted to accomplish by regulation what he couldn’t accomplish by legislation.  The Clean Air Rule imposed requirements on direct and indirect emitters, with the goal of reducing carbon emissions in the state.  Predictably, it was challenged.  The trial court invalidated the Clean Air Rule in its entirety, and the Washington Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, ruled in January that the Washington Clean Air Act (Chapter 70.94 RCW) authorized Ecology to regulate direct emitters, but not indirect emitters. Ass’n of Washington Business et al. v. Washington State Dep’t of Ecology, 455 P.3d 1126 (Wash. 2020).  Our legislature, with a different makeup of senators and representatives than in the past, is now considering several bills expressly authorizing Ecology to regulate indirect emitters.  And in next year’s legislative session, the Governor, who is likely to be elected for a third term, may ask the legislature to pass a comprehensive cap and invest bill to govern emissions from Washington State sources.

Is this thinking globally?  Does imposing carbon emission limits in Washington State lower or raise global emissions?  Many observers, including Energy Intensive Trade Exposed entities (“EITEs”), have demonstrated that the state-only limits on carbon will lead to “leakage” - a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases within the state that is exceeded by an increase in emissions of greenhouse gas emissions outside the state.  Some of the EITEs engage in operations with far less “carbon intensity” (tons of carbon emitted per unit of product produced) than their competitors in other states and countries.  With carbon emission limits, and resulting costs, imposed only on entities operating in Washington State, the EITEs may lose business to out-of-state competitors, many of which emit more carbon per unit of product.  More carbon pollution.  That’s local action that, along with other things, may contribute to global harm.            

Or will this local action lead to global benefits?  In the face of federal government inactivity on carbon, some states have already taken action on a statewide level.  Will Washington State legislative or regulatory action induce more states to follow suit, and will that result in lower emissions of carbon in the country?  And, if that happens, will other countries take action to lower global emissions? Or will it incentivize US companies to operate elsewhere in countries with less stringent emissions?

As this state/national/global tension continues to build, we need to think globally and act locally in a way that will result in reductions of global carbon emissions. In Washington State, one thoughtful step would be to regulate EITEs in a way that allows them to grow but doesn’t contribute to leakage.  That could include measuring compliance for them based on output of emissions per unit of production, rather than mass of emissions. It could also mean recognizing past beneficial conduct and crediting EITEs for prior efficiency improvements that reduced the carbon intensity of their operations.  And it could mean providing a variety of compliance pathways for EITEs, rather than simply requiring an inflexible linear reduction in emissions.

That’s one step.  We need many others.

When is risk reduction not a benefit?

Posted on January 7, 2020 by Adam Babich

EPA filed a status report on October 15 in the slow-moving mercury and air toxics (MATS) litigation, which is now Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, No. 16-1127 (D.C. Cir., filed April 26, 2016). The case is a challenge to EPA standards for coal-fired power plants that have been on the books since April 16, 2012, despite a U.S. Supreme Court remand in Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699 (2015), followed by a D.C. Circuit decision not to vacate, White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA, 2015 WL 11051103 (D.C. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2463 (2016), and the pending 2016 challenge to an EPA supplemental finding. EPA’s October 15 status report says that the agency has sent OMB a draft final rule regarding its proposal—published in February 2019—to withdraw its finding that a MATS rule is “appropriate and necessary” while leaving the applicable emission standards in place. 84 Fed. Reg. 2670 (Feb. 7, 2019). These proceedings retain a relevance apart from their utility in illustrating the occasionally bizarre nature of the world in which we live and litigate.

EPA’s proposal would, among other things, implement a new approach to analyzing the benefits of a regulation. Specifically—when calculating benefits for purposes of determining whether regulation of hazardous air pollutants is appropriate—EPA would eschew consideration of “co-benefits” flowing from accompanying reductions in emissions of other pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and fine particulate matter. Thus, “if the HAP [Hazardous Air Pollutant]-related benefits are not at least moderately commensurate with the cost of HAP controls, then no amount of co-benefits can offset this imbalance for purposes of a determination that it is appropriate to regulate under CAA section 112(n)(1)(A).” 84 Fed. Reg. at 2676. The idea is that non-HAP benefits should not receive “equal consideration” because criteria pollutants “are already addressed” by another regulatory program. Id. at 2677.

The analysis is reminiscent of EPA’s infamous Select Steel opinion, which dismissed an environmental-justice complaint. EPA File No. 5R-98-R5. In that 1998 opinion, the agency found that because the NAAQS for ozone “has been set at a level that is presumptively sufficient to protect public health and allows for an adequate margin of safety … there is no affected population which suffers ‘adverse’ impacts within the meaning of Title VI resulting from the incremental VOC emissions [that do not cause NAAQS violations].” There could be no disproportionate impact on a minority community that met NAAQS because there was no “adverse” impact at all!

The conclusion that achievement of NAAQS eliminates risk ignores a reality that Congress perceived when it amended the Clean Air Act in 1977. Congress recognized the need to protect people from harmful exposures “notwithstanding attainment and maintenance of all national ambient air quality standards.” 42 U.S.C. § 7470(1). The legislative history acknowledges, “The idea that the national primary standards are adequate to protect the health of the public has been belied.” H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 112 (May 12, 1977) (accompanying H.R. 6161). Senator Muskie—the father of the Clean Air Act—explained, “[T]here is no such thing as a threshold for health effects,” S. Deb. on S. 252, 123 Cong. Rec. 18,460 (June 10, 1977). “Even at the national primary standard level, which is the health standard, there are health effects that are not protected against.” Id.

“Appropriate” is an “all-encompassing term that naturally and traditionally includes consideration of all the relevant factors.” 135 S. Ct. at 2707 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Just as it was not “appropriate” for EPA to ignore costs when deciding to promulgate MATS, id., it would be inappropriate to ignore the benefit of lives saved because of ancillary reductions of criteria pollutants.

NSR Regulatory Reform—the saga continues

Posted on September 18, 2019 by William Brownell

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

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

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

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

Because I Didn’t Say So!

Posted on August 5, 2019 by Brian Rosenthal

Major sources of air pollution must obtain a Clean Air Act Title V permit under their state’s EPA- approved implementation plan.  Permits, of course, can be challenged.  By petition to the EPA Administrator, the Sierra Club challenged a Utah permit in part based on a challenge to the standard used when the permit was issued in 1997! 

The challenge was denied.  The D.C. Circuit has exclusive venue for nationally applicable regulations or orders or issues of nationwide scope.  So, Sierra Club appealed to the D.C. Circuit but also filed a protective appeal in the Tenth Circuit in case the D.C. Circuit’s exclusive venue was not controlling.  Good move.  Because the issue involved a single permit from a single state, and because the Administrator used a “novel” interpretation of Title V limited to the specific circumstances presented and did not make a determination of nationwide relevance, venue was found to properly lie in the Tenth Circuit. 

It may be creative to conclude that venue is lacking because “the circumstances presented” by the federal air permit challenge are local in nature, but isn’t that always true in a decision on an air permit source with impacts in a single state?  If the Administrator had used other language intimating general application of a standard without a specific finding of a matter of nationwide effect, one has to wonder whether that would produce the same result.  So a word to the careful practitioner.  File the protective appeal in the issuing state’s circuit! 

A Good Defense is an Affirmative Defense

Posted on May 14, 2019 by Paul Seals

Citing cooperative federalism, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 Regional Administrator has proposed to withdraw the agency’s 2015 determination that the affirmative defense provisions in Texas’ State Implementation Plan (SIP) applicable to excess emissions that occurred during upsets and unplanned events made the SIP substantially inadequate to meet Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements.  84 FR 17986 (April 29, 2019).  The proposal, if finalized, would reinstate Texas’ affirmative defense provisions that had been approved by the EPA in 2010 and upheld by the Fifth Circuit in 2013.  See Luminant Generation Co. v. EPA, 714 F.3d 841 (5th Cir, 2013, cert. denied) holding that the EPA’s interpretation of the CAA to allow certain affirmative defenses as to civil penalties in section 110 SIPs was a permissible interpretation warranting deference.

The proposal was in response to Texas’ petition for the EPA to reconsider the 2015 Texas SIP call and reinstate EPA’s prior interpretation regarding affirmative defenses for malfunctions. 

In 2015, the EPA had reversed its interpretation of the legality of affirmative defense provisions in CAA section 110 SIPs following the decision of the D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014), which addressed the legality of affirmative defense provisions in a certain national emission standard for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) established under CAA section 112.  In vacating the affirmative defense provisions, the D.C. Circuit held that the CAA gives district courts sole authority in federal enforcement proceedings to determine whether a penalty for a violation of a section 112 NESHAP is appropriate.  The EPA reconsidered the legal basis for affirmative defense provisions in CAA section 110 SIPs and concluded that the reasoning of the D.C. Circuit in NRDC should extend to state affirmative defense provisions in CAA section 110 SIPs.  Texas and 16 other states were subject to a SIP call to revise their SIPs consistent with the 2015 interpretation.

EPA Region 6 now believes the policy position on affirmative defense SIP provisions for malfunctions as upheld by the Fifth Circuit’s Luminant decision should be maintained and that it is not appropriate to extend the D.C. Circuit’s reasoning in NRDC to the affirmative defense provisions in the Texas SIP.

It is important to note that the EPA Region 6 sought and obtained concurrence from the requisite EPA Headquarters office to propose an action inconsistent with the EPA’s interpretation of affirmative defense provisions contained in the 2015 SIP call.

What should the other 16 states, subject to the SIP call based on EPA’s 2015 interpretation, make of this proposal?  Does it simply reflect the special circumstances surrounding Texas’ affirmative defense provisions – a prior approval by the EPA, which was upheld by the Fifth Circuit?  Or, is it the first step in a new policy with national applicability?

What Happens When the Green New Deal Meets the Old Green Laws?

Posted on March 27, 2019 by JB Ruhl

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey made headlines when introducing the Green New Deal resolution to Congress. Within milliseconds, contesting waves of support and opposition flooded the news wires, social media, and blogs. Critics focused on the proposal’s perhaps overly hopeful (some say, delusional) absence of any accounting for the funding, political feasibility, and technological capacity needed to get to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the Green New Deal’s target date of 2050 (some Green New Dealers advocate an even earlier date), especially under the other conditions they demand. After all, the Green New Deal movement is basically asking our nation to replace one national energy infrastructure with another, plus demanding that government also ensure social justice for present and future generations, provide millions of new jobs, install an awesomely sustainable economy, extend free health care, and the list goes on.

But let’s put all that aside. Let’s say we had a blueprint for the Green New Deal’s carbon goal and a whole lot of money to spend. The stark reality is that the Green New Deal is going to run smack dab into the wall of the Old Green Laws. I’m talking about the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Clean Air Act, the…do I really need to keep going, because the list is really long.

What the Green New Deal movement simply does not seem to appreciate is that the nation’s existing energy infrastructure is a vast physical, social, and economic entity that has been defined in its geographic, technological, and economic dimensions largely by decades upon decades of lawsuits brought under those Old Green Laws by many of the interest groups now behind the Green New Deal. The infrastructure the New Green Deal envisions—particularly if it rules out hydropower and nuclear power—can’t just land where the existing fossil fuel energy infrastructure is located, as if we are just changing car tires. Wind power has to follow wind, and solar power has to follow the sun, and neither of those geographic footprints has much overlap with where the fossil fuel infrastructure is currently located. So, making the Green New Deal happen means putting vast new renewable energy production facilities on the landscape. And then, because our existing transmission grid is based on where fossil fuel generation occurs, which is generally not where solar and wind generation will occur, we’ll need to put new transmission lines on the landscape. Just looking at NEPA alone, it would take 25 years just to get the Environmental Impact Statements done and through the courts before the first shovel of dirt is moved!

To put it bluntly, this is going to be ugly. Environmental protection special interest groups already are attacking wind and solar energy projects around the nation, claiming they will kill too many bats, birds, and desert creatures. Yet, if you were to map out what would be needed to implement the Green New Deal, we’ll need to locate new wind and solar power generation infrastructure, and their transmission line infrastructure, on the landscape at a pace and scale unprecedented in our nation’s history. Believing that everyone will be behind that is naïve. Wherever this Green New Deal landscape transformation machine goes, it will face opposition by narrow-interest environmental groups, not-in-my-backyard landowners, states, local governments, and companies threatened by the new regime, and so on. To think otherwise is delusional. And their first weapon of choice is going to be the Old Green Laws. After all, look around and ask, what has for decades impeded and often stopped new fossil fuel infrastructure such as pipelines, processing facilities, and port facilities. It’s the Old Green Laws.

Looking into the Law 2050 future, the “green” interests that are promoting the New Green Deal sooner or later will have to come up with a convincing soundbite explanation for how they propose to comply with the Old Green Laws in a way and time frame that meets their 2050 deadline. Doing so without in some substantial ways relaxing the current Old Green Laws seems implausible, but relaxing any current regulations seems a nonstarter for Green New Deal politicians. In other words, the Green New Deal is between a rock and a hard place, and they can blame their predecessor “green” generations who designed and implemented the Old Green Laws that must be satisfied regardless of the climate virtues of the Green New Deal.

One can easily imagine that many industry and landowner special interest groups long pitted against the environmental protection special interest groups have grins on their faces, as the latter will seem to have been hoisted by their own petard. It is not hard to envision how the Green New Deal will splinter the environmental interest group universe—indeed, more than 600 groups recently signed a letter to Congress supporting the Green New Deal agenda, but a good number of leading national groups such as the Sierra Club and Audubon Society did not sign on.

There is perhaps a third path, however. To make its agenda complete, the Green New Deal could propose a new environmental law regime as well, one that does not tinker with the Old Green Laws and thus face the claim of “deregulation” or “backsliding.” The Green New Deal must acknowledge the environmental disruptions its infrastructure proposal will cause and design an environmental planning, assessment, permitting, and regulatory regime (perhaps even with--gasp!--market mechanisms like trading and taxes) built from scratch around concepts of resilience, adaptive management, and collaborative adaptive governance. This will mean dispensing with the Old Green Laws’ morass of comprehensive pre-decision studies and rounds of lawsuits. In short, the New Green Deal needs New Green Laws.

WOTUS: Legal Issue or Scientific Issue?

Posted on August 1, 2018 by Seth Jaffe

Last month, EPA and the Army Corps issued a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in support of their efforts to get rid of the Obama WOTUS rule.  It’s a shrewd but cynical document.  It’s shrewd, because it fairly effectively shifts the focus from the scientific question to the legal question.  Instead of asking what waters must be regulated to ensure that waters of the United States are protected, it asks what are the jurisdictional limits in the Clean Water Act.

It’s cynical, because, by failing to take on the science behind the 2015 rule, which seemed fairly persuasive to me, EPA and the Corps avoid the hard regulations necessary to protect our waters while clothing themselves in feel-good words about the integrity of the statute and the important role given to states under the Clean Water Act.

Part of the beauty of the SNPR is the way it carefully navigates between whether the broader jurisdictional interpretation taken by the 2015 rule is prohibited under the Clean Water Act or simply not required under the Clean Water Act.

The agencies are also concerned that the 2015 Rule lacks sufficient statutory basis. The agencies are proposing to conclude in the alternative that, at a minimum, the interpretation of the statute adopted in the 2015 Rule is not compelled, and a different policy balance can be appropriate.

I’m not sure I agree with the administration’s interpretation of the scope of the CWA, but it’s not crazy.  If I had to bet, I’d assume that it would survive judicial review.

The problem is that this simplistic legal approach ignores the science and ignores the missions of both EPA and the Corps.  If the 2015 rule is more protective of the nation’s waters, and if there are questions about the scope of jurisdiction under the CWA, then shouldn’t the administration be asking Congress to clarify EPA’s and the Corps’ authority so that they can regulate in a manner consistent with what good science says is necessary to protect the waters of the United States?

I’m not holding my breath.

Big Tribal Victory in Culvert Case, Big Implications for Taxpayers

Posted on June 13, 2018 by Rick Glick

On June 11, the Supreme Court issued a one-sentence order affirming the Ninth Circuit’s 2016 judgment in United States v. State of Washington. In that case, the government sued Washington on behalf of several Indian tribes, asserting that culverts constructed by the state over decades blocked salmon runs for which the tribes held treaty fishing rights. The Court of Appeals ordered Washington to repair or replace the offending culverts. The Supreme Court split 4-4, with Justice Kennedy recusing himself, which allows the Ninth Circuit ruling to stand.

The ruling is a major victory for Indian treaty rights. The historical tradeoff for acceding to white settlement throughout the West was preservation of hunting and fishing rights dating from time immemorial. These rights were to ensure tribal sustenance and to preserve religious and cultural practices. The Court of Appeals held that inherent in fishing rights is a duty to maintain viable salmon habitat and migration corridors.

The justice for the tribes in the outcome cannot be denied. However, compliance with the ruling carries an enormous price tag, in the many billions of dollars. Further, culverts aren’t the only sources of degradation of salmon habitat. Settlement of the West entailed construction of hundreds of dams and other stream obstructions. More than a century of agriculture, mining and industrial activities have denuded riparian zones, straightened meandering streams, filled spawning gravels with sediments, and added nutrients and other pollutants to waterways. Most, if not all, streams listed by Western states as water quality impaired under Clean Water Act section 303(d), are on the list for temperature, suspended solids, dissolved oxygen and other pollutants related to development.

A great deal of litigation and regulatory activity is ongoing to address these concerns, but does the U.S. v. Washington case add the potential for accelerated court mandated corrections? How will state and local government budgets cope with aggressive timelines for compliance? Will the Administration and Congress step up to help?

The latter question raises justice issues of its own. Washington argued that the culverts it installed were in accordance with federal designs. In a statement, state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said, "It is unfortunate that Washington state taxpayers will be shouldering all the responsibility for the federal government's faulty culvert design."

Interestingly, other Washington State officials do not appear to share AG Ferguson’s sense of outrage. As reported in the New York Times, Gov. Jay Inslee and Public Lands Commissioner Hilary Franz did not support petitioning the Supreme Court for review: "For some time now I've hoped that instead of litigation we could focus together on our ongoing work to restore salmon habitat," Inslee said. Franz added, "It is time to stop fighting over who should do what." And indeed, the state has been actively working on the culverts.

The courts were not moved by Ferguson’s argument that the federal government is to blame for bad culvert design. Still, it does seem that the issue of salmon habitat restoration is not for Washington State to resolve by itself, but is a national problem resulting in significant part from national policies, and thus requires a national solution.

NOT VERY NEIGHBORLY

Posted on May 17, 2018 by Linda Benfield

Southeast Wisconsin’s continued relief from nonattainment rules is not assured yet. And did we mention we are about to build a large new factory just over the Illinois border?

Southeast Wisconsin labored under some form of ozone nonattainment status for 20 years – but in July 2012 the area was declared to be in compliance with the then-applicable 8 hour ozone standard. The region has enjoyed five years of relief from the enhanced permitting, emission offsets, and other restrictions on expansion that come with Nonattainment New Source Review.

That glorious period appeared to be coming to a close when, on December 20, 2017, EPA informed Governor Walker that the proposed nonattainment areas for the more restrictive 2015 ozone standard would include all of five southeastern Wisconsin counties, and parts of four other counties bordering Lake Michigan. The Walker administration and the business community were not pleased.  

In public comments filed with EPA, the State of Wisconsin and every major business group for the state and affected counties pushed back on EPA’s policy decision, with arguments based heavily on the scientific data collected during the past 20 years. Commenters emphasized that the air quality and meteorological data does not support including the entire geographic boundaries of all of the counties, there is a seasonal component to the nonattainment data, and as the state has emphasized for years in nearly every context involving air emissions, most of the ozone impacting southeast Wisconsin is transported from outside Wisconsin, including from our neighbor to the south – Illinois.

EPA listened, and on May 1, 2018, released a substantially pared down final list of counties designated as nonattainment for ozone –the list only includes the lakeshore areas of six counties. Notably, because of gaps in the certified data, Racine County, which will be home to a new $10 billion development by Foxconn Technology Group, will not be included in the nonattainment area. Foxconn and its affiliated vendors will manufacture liquid crystal display screens at the Racine location, which was chosen over other contenders, including sites in Illinois.

Stirring up trouble in our Midwest neighborhood, on Friday, May 4, 2018, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan announced that she will file suit in the D.C. Circuit challenging the ozone designations. Her announcement ties the designations to the Foxconn development and  complains that EPA’s action puts “a company’s profit ahead of our natural resources and the public’s health.”   

The new designations have not yet been published in the Federal Register, but this neighborhood dispute may be headed to court. Responding to Ms. Madigan’s press release, Governor Walker said “The State of Wisconsin will push back.” If Illinois wants to pick a fight, Wisconsin could consider a counter claim, or its own suit against Illinois under Section 126 of the Clean Air Act, which allows downwind states to pursue out of state upwind emission sources. Ozone monitors in southeastern Kenosha County have shown for years that emissions from Illinois are the primary source of nonattainment on the Wisconsin side of the border.

HOW I BECAME AN ENVIRONMENTAL LAWYER

Posted on April 25, 2018 by H. Thomas Wells Jr.

When someone asks what type of law I practice, and the answer is “environmental law”, the next question often is, “How did you become an environmental lawyer?”  My answer to that question is simple: I reported for duty on Tuesday.  The full story is a bit more complicated.

Having gone through undergraduate school at the University of Alabama on an Air Force ROTC scholarship, I had a commitment to serve as an Air Force officer.  Upon graduation from undergraduate school in 1972, I was commissioned as second lieutenant in the United States Air Force. (This was during the Vietnam War. Although my draft number was over 300, I still went through advanced ROTC because of the scholarship).  The Air Force then granted me an educational delay to attend law school.  With the Vietnam War still ongoing, obtaining the educational delay was not guaranteed, but once it was granted, I was off to law school.

If there were any courses at the University of Alabama School of Law in environmental law at that time, I didn’t take them.  The field of environmental law was not on my radar screen at all.  In fact, it was not on many radar screens back then.

The day after my law school graduation ceremony, I received a call from a Colonel who was the Executive Officer for the Air Force General Counsel’s office in the Pentagon.  He asked if I might be interested in coming up to the Pentagon for an interview.  The explained that the Air Force General Counsel’s office had a “Military Honors Program” under which they took two or three recent law school graduates who had an obligation to serve in the Air Force to work in the General Counsel’s office rather than becoming a JAG officer.  Of course, the interview had to be at my own expense.

So I flew to D.C., interviewed, and was selected as one of the three recent law graduates with an obligation to serve in the Air Force on active duty to work in the Air Force General Counsel’s office.  This office was on the civilian side of the Department of the Air Force.  That meant we reported to the civilian General Counsel, rather than to The Judge Advocate General (“TJAG”); The GC, in turn, reported to the Secretary of the Air Force rather than to the Chief of Staff.  As noted, none of us were JAG officers, but were nevertheless promoted to Captain by order of the Secretary of the Air Force.

Upon moving to the D.C. area, I still didn’t know what area of law to which I would be assigned within the General Counsel’s office.  There were three slots: one was Government Procurement law, one was International Law, and the third was Real Estate and Environmental Law.  Without my knowledge, the lawyers in the office had decided the assignments would be based on when we reported for duty.  Since I reported on the day after Columbus Day, a Tuesday in October 1975, I was assigned to be in the Real Estate and Environmental Law section of the office.

Environmental law in 1975 was really just beginning.  We had NEPA, the old Clean Water Act, as amended in 1972 and the old Clean Air Act of 1970, and that was just about it.  RCRA had yet to be enacted; TSCA wasn’t around, and Superfund was nonexistent.  So I became an environmental lawyer with on the job training and by learning the amendments to the relevant Acts as they were enacted.  All in all, things worked out pretty well, and I indeed became an environmental lawyer because I reported for duty on Tuesday.

And the Regulatory Reform Caravan Keeps Moving on Down the Road

Posted on February 26, 2018 by Donald Shandy

On January 25, 2018, The EPA published a guidance memorandum withdrawing the “once in always in” policy for the classification of major sources of hazardous air pollutants under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. This new EPA guidance allows stationary sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) that are classified as “major sources” to limit their HAP emissions to below major source thresholds and thereby be reclassified as “area” sources at any time. As Bill Wehrum, assistant administrator of EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, puts it, “It will reduce regulatory burden for industries and the states, while continuing to ensure stringent and effective controls on hazardous air pollutants.” I agree.

A major source is one that emits or has the potential to emit 10 tons per year of any single HAP or 25 tons per year of combination of HAPs. For the last 20 years, once a source became subject to a MACT it remained in that status even if it reduced emissions below the major source threshold(s).

The new policy follows a similar theme emerging from the Pruitt EPA: legally speaking, the once in always in policy was not supported by the language of the Clean Air Act. Under this new policy, a source can voluntarily accept limitations (even after previously triggering major source status) and avoid major source requirements. This would eliminate some of the resource intensive burdens of MACT such as recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

In 2007, the Bush EPA proposed a rule that would have replaced the historic policy. After taking comment on the proposal, the EPA never took a final action and it has never been withdrawn. Based upon the new guidance, EPA intends to revive the pending rulemaking consistent with the Wehrum guidance document. 

This new policy is a significant incentive for major sources to take efforts to reduce emissions on an actual or potential basis and fall below the triggering thresholds. As such, this new policy is good for business and the environment.

PASSING LESS GAS

Posted on December 5, 2017 by Keith Hopson

While some still debate climate change, on 11/22/17, eight of the oil and gas industry’s biggest players signed on to a set of Guiding Principles for reducing methane emissions across the natural gas value chain.  BP, Eni, Exxon Mobil, Repsol, Shell, Statoil, Total and Wintershall, in collaboration with international institutions, NGOs and academics, drafted the Guiding Principles.

The five guiding principles are: continually reduce methane emissions; advance strong performance across value chains; improve accuracy of methane emissions data; advance sound policy and regulations on methane emissions; and increase transparency.  Click here for the entire Guiding Principles document.

It will be interesting to see if these “voluntary principles” eventually become enforceable regulations.  Likewise, it will be interesting to see if these guidelines become “industry standards” and, accordingly, whether by acquiescence, private litigation, or lender requirements, become de facto regulations.

Time will tell.

It is significant to see so many major oil and gas industry actors responsibly, firmly and publicly commit to both reduce methane emissions and advance monitoring.  Perhaps now others in the industry will be more inclined to join the responsible eight and commit to pass less gas.

What’s Happening with the Other Clean Air Act (CAA) §111(d) Rule?

Posted on November 24, 2017 by Steve Kohl

Long ago and in what seems like a faraway place, the D.C. Circuit vacated the NESHAP for boilers and the NSPS for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWO) units. (See “EPA in the D.C. Circuit – Where Has All the Deference Gone”, ACOEL Blog, September 23, 2008). The demarcation between boilers and other process heaters and CISWI units is whether or not they burn waste. The D.C. Circuit held that EPA had improperly drawn that line. Since the source categories are mutually exclusive under the Clean Air Act, the improper line drawing resulted in the improper definition of each source category, resulting in the demise of the rules. Fast forwarding (sort of) to 2013, EPA finally promulgates a new and improved boiler NESHAP and new NSPS rules for new and existing CISWI units. These rulemakings were only made possible by the Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) rule which defines what is or is not a waste when burned. It takes the entirety of 40 C.F.R. Part 241 to provide this definition and the processes for determining if something is a waste or a fuel. 

Now comes the fun part. An existing boiler burning clean wood had to be in compliance with the NESHAP by early 2016, but the same existing boiler burning “dirty” wood categorized as a waste under the NHSM rule didn’t have to comply with the NESHAP since it is not a boiler but an incinerator. Well, it must have to comply with CISWI existing incinerator standards, right?  Well no. In fact, there really aren’t any applicable NESHAP requirements for existing boilers burning waste. 

The CISWI standards for existing units, 40 C.F.R Part 60, subpart DDDD, are §111(d) guidelines, which additionally must address the requirements enacted for incinerators in §129 of the CAA.  Those who have followed the Clean Power Plan (CPP) about which much has been written, including several ACOEL blogs (Is You Is Or Is You Ain’t Transformative?Unprecedented Program Leads To Unprecedented ResponsePulling the Plug on Greenhouse Gas Emissions), recognize that most states were in the process of developing state implementation plans (SIPs) to implement the CPP when the Supreme Court stayed the rule.  That’s because the CPP was also a §111(d) “guideline” for existing electric steam generation units. Actual application of the CPP was dependent upon SIPs approved by EPA which implement the guidelines or, if a state defaults, a federal implementation plan (FIP) implementing the CPP guidelines. Similarly, the CISWI standards for existing units must be implemented through approved SIPs or a FIP.  The SIPs or FIP required to implement the CISWI standards for existing units are required to be in place within five years, or February 7, 2018 and compliance is required by that same date.  However, no such SIP has been approved and no FIP finally promulgated.  Polite inquiries to EPA have provided no insight to the ultimate timing.

The delay in taking final agency action to implement CISWI standards for existing sources creates some interesting circumstances.  A state may recognize that through a renewal or a reopener of a facility’s Title V permit it should incorporate CISWI requirements, but it really can’t since there isn’t a federally enforceable requirement for CISWI. Subpart DDDD guidelines contain some provisions for determining whether certain sources qualify for an exemption from CISWI under §129. If they are exempt from CISWI, then they should be complying with the currently applicable boiler NESHAP, but there really isn’t any applicable rule for determining the validity of an asserted exemption. Subpart DDDD guidelines also provide that if a waste-burning source does not want to comply with CISWI and instead intends to comply with an applicable NESHAP, it must cease burning waste six months in advance of the date its chooses to switch from being a CISWI source to a NESHAP source. So if that dirty wood burning boiler doesn’t intend to comply with CISWI as of the ostensible compliance date of February 7, 2018, should it have switched to clean wood in July of 2017 even though there was no applicable rule requiring the six month period?

Final promulgation of the FIP or approval of the submitted SIPs would not appear to be a heavy lift since the proposed FIP and the submitted SIPs essentially mirror subpart DDDD.  So the delay to what is now four years and nine months out of the five years allowable under the CAA is somewhat incomprehensible. It begs the question, “What’s happening with this §111(d) rule?” 

Turn On, Plug In, Peel Out

Posted on September 18, 2017 by Samuel I. Gutter

(With apologies to the late Timothy Leary [“Turn on, tune in, drop out”], who was referring to Electric Kool-Aid, not Electric Vehicles.)

Today, September 18th, is the second anniversary of the first public disclosure of the VW “Defeat Device” scandal.  It also marks the beginning of the end of sales of diesel-powered VW cars in the U.S.  And while other companies (Chevy, BMW, Jaguar and Land Rover, among them) still offer diesel cars and SUVs, the pickings are a lot slimmer. 

One unintended consequence of diesel’s fall from grace is the boost it has provided to electric vehicles.  Auto manufacturers must find ways to meet increasingly stringent fuel-economy standards, and for some the efficient diesel was a way to hike their “CAFE” (corporate average fuel economy) numbers.  Now, signs are that Tesla, even with the introduction of its less-expensive Model 3, will soon be sharing the EV market with a growing number of competitors.  GM and Nissan are expanding their pure EV offerings, and Volvo, Mercedes and Mini are planning to release their own “zero emission vehicles” (ZEVs) over the coming years.  Meantime, plug-in electric/gasoline hybrids are becoming common-place, with offerings from Toyota, Cadillac, Volvo, Ford, BMW, and others.  

While diesels dominate the line-haul truck market, Cummins and Tesla are both planning to introduce short-haul electric heavy trucks in the near future.  And what could be more telling than the announcement by the quintessential American company, Harley-Davidson, that it will start selling its “Livewire” electric motorcycle in five years?  Will “Rolling Thunder” become an anachronism?

International pressure to reduce GHGs and urban air pollution is also at play.  China, India, England, France and Norway are all considering an outright ban on the sale of fossil-fueled vehicles.  And back to VW, as part of its Defeat Device settlement, the company agreed to spend $2 billion over the next 10 years on U.S. infrastructure to support electric vehicles.

Battery prices are coming down and charge stations are going up.  And sure, diesels have great torque, but as anyone who has experienced the head-banging g-force of mashing the pedal in an EV will tell you, diesels are best viewed in the rear-view mirror. 

Still, many institutional and social barriers remain – proprietary charging technologies, reliance on government subsidies, high costs of electricity with (in some areas) no reduction in nighttime rates, and consumers who are wary of the emerging technology and fear being stranded on the highway with a depleted battery.  But while ZEVs and plug-in hybrids are still a fraction of total vehicles sales, they are increasing in numbers and market share.  As prices drop and driving range increases, electric vehicles will become more affordable and practical.

Fasten your seatbelt, there might be an EV in your future!

WHICH WAY ARE THE WINDS BLOWING ON THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT OF AIR POLLUTANTS?

Posted on September 5, 2017 by David Flannery

At a time when the international transport of air pollutants is squarely before the DC Circuit in connection with the challenge to the Cross State Air Pollution Rule Update (State of Wisconsin, et al v. EPA, Case No. 16-1406) there is new information confirming that “but for” international transport, every air quality monitor in the nation would be achieving compliance with both the 2008 and 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) for ozone Assessment of International Transport and Improved Ozone Air Quality

In November 2016, EPA proposed a rule addressing implementation of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in which it requested comments on whether the international transport provisions of Section 179B of the federal Clean Air Act should be limited to nonattainment areas adjoining international borders. Section 179B allows a state which is not in attainment with the ozone NAAQS to seek relief from certain implementation requirements of the Clean Air Act if it can show that the NAAQS would be met “but for” international emissions. Among those responding to this request for comments, the State of North Carolina noted that “contribution from sources outside of the U.S. has become more prominent in the overall ozone profile for many areas” and that “transport of ozone is well documented and not restricted to impacting only areas adjacent to Canada or Mexico.” http://www.csg.org/aapca_site/news/documents/NorthCarolinaDEQ-2-13-2017.pdf

In his letter of June 6, 2017 EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt extended the deadline for promulgating designations related to the 2015 ozone NAAQS by 1 year and in doing so, identified international transport as one of the complex issues that EPA would review during the extension period (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-06/documents/az_ducey_6-6-17.pdf).  However, in its Federal Register notice published on August 10, 2017, EPA withdrew its announced 1-year extension of the deadline for promulgating initial area designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/08/10/2017-16901/withdrawal-of-extension-of-deadline-for-promulgating-designations-for-the-2015-ozone-national). The notice of withdrawal of the 1-year extension makes no specific mention of international transport, although the notice offers the following statement: 

The EPA has continued to discuss and work with states concerning designations, and now understands that the information gaps that formed the basis of the extension may not be as expansive as we previously believed. 

While, as noted above, it is becoming increasingly clear that “but for” international emissions every monitor in the nation would be complying with ozone NAAQS requirements, the implementation of that conclusion is for the moment, at least, blowing in the winds of regulatory change.  

Preempted, Preempted Not

Posted on July 27, 2017 by Karen Crawford

First Circuit Rules that Puerto Rico Municipal Ordinances on Coal Ash Preempted

In mid-May, the First Circuit addressed whether a municipality may prohibit the beneficial use and disposal of coal ash at landfills within their borders when the state agency has authorized such activities.  In AES Puerto Rico, L.P. v. Trujillo-Panisse, No. 16-2052 (1st Cir. May 15, 2017), a coal fired power plant owner, AES-PR, challenged two municipal ordinances attempting such a prohibition as preempted by federal and Commonwealth law and were in violation of the United States and Puerto Rico constitutions.  Utility Solid Waste Activities Group and American Coal Ash Association participated on brief as amici curiae brief.  The district court granted summary judgment for the municipalities on AES’s federal claims and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the Commonwealth claims.

The First Circuit determined the ordinances could not be enforced to the extent they directly conflicted with Commonwealth law as promulgated by the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board, but reversed summary judgment in favor of the municipalities and remanded for the district court to enter judgment for AES-PR based on its claim of Commonwealth preemption.  The court reviewed the RCRA program and its intent to precipitate cooperation between the federal, state, and local governments.  After a serious discussion of the delegation of authority to states and the fact that Puerto Rico’s Environmental Quality Board was given authority to manage solid waste (including coal ash) by the Commonwealth, unlike the district court, the court determined the EQB resolutions (and permits) carry the force of law and its permits allowing disposal in a sanitary landfill supersede a local ordinance prohibiting that disposal.  Succinctly, the court pointed out that the Commonwealth’s public policy to give municipalities as much autonomy as possible is limited by a higher power and that “a municipality cannot ‘promote and further its own public policy’ if that policy conflicts with Commonwealth law.” 

NJ Appeals Court Finds Consumer Fraud Cases Against VW Not Preempted by CAA

This week, however, a three-judge panel of Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division affirmed trial court rulings in two cases denying Volkswagen Group of America Inc.’s (VW) motions to dismiss the complaints, finding the CAA does not preempt such state court actions.  David. L. Felix, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. and Eduardo Deang v. Volkswagen Group of America In. et al., No. A-0585-16T3 and A-086-16T3, July17, 2017, Sup. Ct. NJ – App. Div.  The motions argued the complaints were expressly or impliedly preempted by provisions of the CAA, citing language in 42 U.S.C.A. 7543(a), “… No state or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this part.”  Both plaintiffs alleged misrepresentation and violations of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, among other claims.  The decision included interesting arguments on interpretation and attempted distinguishing of prior tobacco, product defect and airline deregulation cases.

With respect to express preemption, the court disagreed with VW’s argument that plaintiffs’ complaints are in reality attempts to enforce EPA’s emissions standards because plaintiffs would have to prove those standards were exceeded to prevail.  Instead, the court determined that the plaintiffs were not seeking to enforce an EPA emission standard or force the manufacturer to adopt a different emissions standard, but rather the claims were centered “on VW’s alleged deceitful, fraudulent practices and its alleged breach of a duty not to mislead consumers.” 

The court also determined that the CAA did not impliedly preempt plaintiffs’ claims because the savings clause explicitly contemplates continued state involvement in regulation of motor vehicles, and that because plaintiffs’ claims do not hinge on compliance with EPA standards, there is no direct conflict with the federal regulatory scheme.

Trumping Trump on Climate Change

Posted on July 25, 2017 by Dan Esty

President Donald Trump’s decision to back away from the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan and other policies to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in fulfillment of America’s commitment to the 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement might be seen as bad news for the global environment.  And it is.  But the news is not quite as bad as many fear.  Even if the President’s actions slow progress toward the U.S. “nationally determined contribution” to the emissions reduction goals of the Paris Agreement – a cut of 26-28 percent by 2030 – that will not stop the overall downward trend in GHG emissions for several important reasons. 

First, American Presidents have limited executive authority, meaning that a number of the climate change policies put in place by President Obama cannot be reversed with a stroke of President Trump’s pen.  Second, the shift away from coal as America’s electricity generation fuel of choice will continue – driven by prior regulatory requirements and the economics of the energy marketplace.  Third, many critical decisions that shape the carbon footprint of a society are made not by presidents and prime ministers but by mayors, governors (or other sub-national elected officials), and corporate leaders.

President Trump’s March 28 Executive Order directs his EPA Administrator to “review” the prior administration’s Clean Power Plan and “as soon as practicable, suspend, revise, or rescind” it.  But this is not a simple process.  The Clean Power Plan represents a regulatory strategy for implementing a Clean Air Act obligation to control emissions from any air pollutant found to “endanger public health and public welfare.”  The Supreme Court confirmed in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) that this obligation is not discretionary with regard to greenhouse gas emissions. 

Thus, the Trump EPA can change the strategy for responding to greenhouse gases but cannot walk away from its obligation to control them unless it reverses the “endangerment” finding issued by former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson in 2009.  To undo this prior conclusion, current EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt would need to establish a new scientific foundation that would justify a different policy conclusion.  Given the overwhelming scientific consensus that the build-up of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere threatens to produce various harmful effects – including sea level rise, increased frequency and intensity of hurricanes and other windstorms, changed rainfall patterns, as well as more frequent droughts, floods, and forest fires – such an effort would be quickly challenged in any number of courts and almost certainly overturned.  Indeed, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that the build-up of GHG emissions in the atmosphere is a problem, a “non-endangerment” conclusion would be an almost paradigmatic example of an “arbitrary and capricious” regulatory action.  EPA will, therefore, almost certainly choose to revise the Clean Power Plan rather than dump it altogether. 

In introducing his climate change executive order, President Trump promised that his actions would bring back American coal production and power generation.  No such thing will happen.  Hundreds of U.S. coal-fired power plants have been shut down in the past decade – most in response to the Obama Administration’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.  These plants will not be reopening.

Not only have coal-burning power plants been the target of numerous regulatory restrictions, they also now face stiff competition from cleaner-burning and cheaper natural gas power generation as well as rapidly expanding renewable power production.  Nothing President Trump has done will reverse these trends.  Indeed, given the momentum toward a clean energy future and the prospects that a future president will redirect the Trump climate change policies and restore the U.S. commitment to lower greenhouse gas emissions, no utility is going to invest in new coal-fired power plants, and many power generators will proceed with planned retirements of existing coal units.  Simply put, the President’s shifting of gears on climate change policy does not over-ride the broader economic logic for movement toward cleaner and cheaper energy options.

In the face of the President’s disinterest in the Paris Agreement in particular and his hostility toward environmental regulation more broadly, leadership and political support for climate change action in the United States has shifted out of Washington.  Of particular note, more than 200 mayors, 10 governors, and nearly 1700 business leaders have formed a coalition called America’s Pledge that aims to ensure that the U.S. emissions reduction commitment is fulfilled.  Led by California Governor Jerry Brown and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the participants in America’s Pledge are pushing forward with climate action plans at the city, state, and corporate scales. 

Some of these leaders, moreover, have expressed interest in formally “signing” the 2015 Paris Agreement if the United States ends up withdrawing.  While there are constitutional limits to what sub-national jurisdictions can do in the international realm, legal work is underway to find a mechanism that would allow these mayors, governors, and CEOs to make a commitment to the goals of the Paris Agreement “to the full extent of their authority.”

The breadth and depth of these non-federal-government climate change initiatives means that American greenhouse gas emissions will continue to decrease regardless of what energy policies the Trump Administration puts forward.  In fact, one of the critical features of the climate change strategy that the world community agreed upon in Paris in 2015 was a shift from a top-down approach that relied upon national government actions to a bottom-up game plan for emissions reductions that called upon a much wider array of actors to join the effort to promote energy efficiency and a shift toward renewable power.

As it turns out, presidents and prime ministers don’t have that much say over the day-to-day decisions that determine the carbon footprints of their societies.  Mayors, governors, and CEOs are really the ones who make the critical choices about transportation options, housing and development patterns, product and production strategies, technology and infrastructure investments, and other decisions that determine the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions.

Thus, while President Trump can take the United States out of a leadership role in the global effort to combat climate change, he will not be able to reverse the domestic momentum for action on climate change.  His policies may slow the pace of U.S. emissions reductions, but movement toward a decarbonized energy future will continue.

HOW DOES A DEMOCRACY DECIDE SCIENTIFIC FACTS? SCOTT PRUITT’S RED TEAM/BLUE TEAM CLIMATE REALITY SHOW

Posted on July 19, 2017 by Karl Coplan

Reuters reports that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, responding to a suggestion in a Wall Street Journal editorial, is planning to set up a “red team/blue team” war-game style debate to resolve the question in his mind about the validity of scientific predictions of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. According to Administrator Pruitt, this “debate” would be televised. Pruitt said that this debate was “not necessarily” meant to undermine EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding that triggers Clean Air Act regulation of greenhouse gases, and added that he would prefer that Congress weigh in on the matter.

The prospect of a reality television show style competition designed to resolve for the United States a matter of scientific consensus reached by just about every other nation in the world should concern anyone hoping that EPA’s initial moves to regulate greenhouse gases might survive the Trump administration. But this prospect also illustrates tensions between the administrative state that allows a coherent system of environmental regulation to exist, and the American polity’s identity as a self-governing democracy where political truth is determined by trial in the “marketplace of ideas” guaranteed by First Amendment freedom of expression.

This “marketplace of ideas” metaphor, of course, was first voiced by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in his eloquent dissent in Abrams v. United States :

But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.

In a later dissent, in Gitlow v. United States, Holmes expressed that his commitment to the results of this free competition in ideas was so strong that should the arguments in favor of a proletarian dictatorship gain majority approval, he must accept that result.

The foundations of the administrative state are in tension with this notion of popular resolution of scientific and economic truths. Administrative agencies are given authority to resolve scientific and technical issues while carrying out broad Congressional mandates, such as the Clean Air Act mandate to regulate air pollutants that “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The basic theory behind this delegation of authority is threefold – 1) that agencies will be staffed by experts better able to resolve technical and scientific issues than Congress; 2) that Congress lacks the resources and attention to engage in the details of regulatory decisionmaking; and 3) that some policy decisions must be at least partially insulated from the political process.

But this delegation of scientific and economic factfinding is always conditional – Congress always retains the power to withdraw the delegation or overrule agency determinations through affirmative legislation.

Is the urgency of climate change a political truth on the order of the choice between socialism and capitalism? Is our commitment to the verdict of the marketplace of ideas in a democracy stronger than our commitment to urgent action to address climate change?

On the other hand a television reality show format may not be what Justice Holmes had in mind when he posited his marketplace of ideas. Further thoughts on this topic appear in an article I wrote a few years back, “Climate Change, Political Truth, and the Marketplace of Ideas.”

The Annual Texas Environmental Superconference—Austin in August?

Posted on June 26, 2017 by Jeff Civins

The Texas Environmental Superconference is one of a kind. Held each year in Austin in sweltering early August, this conference consistently sells out, attracting over 500 participants from the public and private sectors.Indeed, now in its 29th year, it was the winner of the first American Bar Association Section of Environment, Energy & Resources (ABA SEER) award for Best State or Local Bar Environment, Energy and Resources Program of the Year.

The key to the conference’s popularity is its unabashed willingness to integrate humor into content--with annual themes, skits, quizzes, prizes, and, for the past several years, even a conference song.Past themes have included Yogi Berra quotes (“It’s like déjà vu all over again”); Clichés (“The best thing since sliced bread”); Shakespeare (“Much Ado About Pollution”); “Star Wars (“May the farce be with you”); and Willie Nelson songs (“On the Road Again”).Dwarfing all other past conferences, though, was the Disney movie-themed conference, which featured the song “SuperconferenceAustinTexasExpialidocious” and is the subject of 2 You Tube videos. (introductory remarks and conference song).

Speakers generally weave the conference themes into their presentations and, on occasion, even appear in costume.For example, an EPA chief of enforcement appeared as Harry Truman in the politically-themed conference, “Join the Party,” and as Darth Vader, in the Star Wars-themed program. And an EPA General Counsel appeared as a tiara-wearing Wonder Woman in the super hero-themed program.A former EPA Regional Administrator and TCEQ Chairman appeared variously as the Beatles, the Odd Couple, Game Show contestants, and Yoda and Luke Skywalker.

This year’s conference – to be held on Thursday-Friday, August 4-5, 2017 – has as its theme board games and is entitled “Let the Games Begin.”The Wednesday evening session on enforcement is entitled “Trouble.”Registration is at Environmental Superconference-2017.

Participants look forward to attending each year for the chance not only to experience a fun and informative program, but also to network and to informally discuss issues of concern with other environmental professionals representing diverse perspectives, e.g., private and public sectors; regulators, regulated community, and environmental organizations; legal and technical professionals; and local, state, and federal governments.

The conference is organized by the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Section of the State Bar of Texas, in conjunction with other environmental professional organizations, including ABA SEER, the Air & Waste Management Association—Southwest Section, the Water Environment Association of Texas, the Texas Association of Environmental Professionals, and the Environmental Health and Safety Audit Center.Proceeds from the conference are used to fund environmental internships, student writing awards, and section outreach programs.

Thanks to a generous contribution from Supporter, EARTHx (formerly Earth Day Texas), the Superconference this year is offering –and last year offered--scholarships for employees of non-profit organizations with environmental matters as a significant focus.

The Annual Texas Environmental Superconference is the answer to the question, why come to Austin in early August?

Trump’s “Tortured” Maneuvering Can Be Legal Maneuvering

Posted on April 11, 2017 by Dick Stoll

Bob Sussman is a former high-ranking Obama and Clinton EPA official with a stellar academic and professional background.  He recently published in Inside EPA a thought-provoking piece entitled “Trump’s Tortured Maneuvering on Climate Change.”

No matter what your views on climate, Bob’s piece is worth reading.  I find much to agree with in Bob’s observations, but would respectfully disagree with one. 

Focusing on the president’s March 28 Executive Order (EO), Bob raises the valid question of why Mr. Trump touted it on job-saving, energy independence grounds.  Bob makes a strong case (as if he really needed to) that coal mining jobs are dwindling due to market forces and that the U.S. energy outlook is just fine. 

Bob posits that Trump’s job-energy independence focus reveals a divide and major discomfort within the Administration on whether and how much to deny that humans are involved with climate change.  He notes that the March 28 Order side-steps any position on both the “Endangerment Finding” and the Paris Accords.   

So far so good.  My respectful disagreement relates to Bob’s argument that the Trump EPA would have a difficult time sustaining major cutbacks to the Obama Clean Power Plan (CPP) on judicial review.  He speculates that a new Trump CPP might simply retain “building block 1” (plant efficiency improvements) from the 3-block “beyond-the-fenceline” Obama CPP.  He argues that “the courts may well balk at this approach as a contrived effort to duck the challenge of climate change by taking refuge in narrow legal arguments.”

Here is why I disagree:

a.  Following the 2007 Supreme Court Massachusetts ruling and EPA’s subsequent Endangerment Finding, EPA is not required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) to issue GHG rules with any particular degree of stringency – EPA must just issue rules.

b.  The “beyond-the-fenceline” features of the Obama CPP are based upon truly adventurous interpretations of the words of the CAA.  There is certainly nothing in the CAA that requires those interpretations.  (Recall the U.S. Supreme Court has taken the unprecedented step of staying the Obama CPP throughout the entire judicial review process.)  Even if the D.C. Circuit were to uphold these interpretations, it would only be upholding the Obama EPA’s discretion to adopt them; the Court could not rule that such interpretations were mandated by the CAA.

c.  The Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit case law are clear on the following points:

i.  A new administration is free to reverse rules issued by a prior administration based entirely upon policy preferences, even where there are no new facts or information, so long as the new administration adequately explains the basis for the reversal;

ii.  There is no heightened standard of judicial review when an agency reverses course; and an agency need not convince the court that the reasons for the new policy are better than the reasons for the rejected one.

See my recent ACOEL blog for the citations to the cases.

d.  Because the statutory interpretations supporting beyond-the-fenceline requirements are so adventurous (and stayed by the Supreme Court), it should be easy for the Trump EPA to defend a new CPP as a matter of policy based on CAA interpretations that are far less adventurous.

e.  If and when the new CPP reaches the Supreme Court, it is difficult to see the Court departing from the precedents of the cases cited in my ACOEL blog, particularly with Justice Gorsuch filling Justice Scalia’s seat.

POTUS, SCOTUS & WOTUS: What Do They Have in Common With Michael Stipe and Jack Black?

Posted on March 15, 2017 by Jeff Thaler

Then-candidate Donald Trump’s unauthorized use of REM’s 1987 song, “It’s the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)”, during a 2015 campaign rally sparked a sharp objection by the band’s Michael Stipe. Flash forward to 2017 and now-President Trump has been flexing his executive powers in a number of legal fields; for many environmental, energy or immigration lawyers it’s the end of the regulatory world as we knew it for decades, and they are not feeling so fine.

Executive Orders (EOs) raise classic constitutional law issues of the separation of powers, in that they often are used for “executive legislating” even though there is no explicit constitutional authority for them. EOs also blur traditional regulating lines, because they are not issued with public notice or comment, and usually state that they do not “create any right or benefit enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States.”

An EO can have the force of law, however, if the EO is based on either the Constitution or a statute, per the Supreme Court’s 1954 Youngstown decision. That is why one must carefully read each EO to determine the grounds of its authority, and then whether it is possibly contrary to a) existing laws or b) constitutional provisions such as due process or equal protection.

Facing an uncooperative Congress, POTUS Obama came to rely on EOs in his last two years in office (see this prophetic 2015 School House Rock episode). POTUS Trump took to EOs right out of the gate. The two Trump EOs that have garnered the most publicity and outcry deal with immigration restrictions The first EO was challenged in numerous courts, and the 9th Circuit issued on February 9 the first appellate decision on a Trump EO. Interestingly, and instructive for future litigants and legal counsel, the first issue addressed by the 9th Circuit, and the one they discussed the most, was . . . standing. The court then moved on to reviewability, and only briefly due process and equal protection. The complaint’s count on violating the Administrative Procedure Act for not following proper rulemaking proceedings was not even discussed in the ruling.

Trump issued two EOs of more relevance to environmental and energy lawyers. First was the January 30, 2017 EO entitled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”, aka the add-one-subtract-two, no-increase-in-incremental-costs [undefined]- of-regulations EO. That was followed by the February 2, 2017 Interim Guidance of the OMB implementing (and implicitly amending) the EO by limiting it to “significant regulatory actions”—i.e. those of $100 million or more of annual effect on the economy. A week later the EO and IG were both challenged in federal court in D.C. as violating the APA, separation of powers, the Constitution’s “Take Care Clause”, and as being ultra vires. Plaintiffs referenced in part OSHA, TSCA, the ESA and CAA, and other energy/environmental laws as being inconsistent with the EO’s requirement that a new rule can only be promulgated if its cost is offset by the elimination of two existing rules. The EO ironically signals the possible demise of cost-benefit analysis —first mandated by then POTUS Ronald Reagan by an EO in 1981—by disallowing consideration of the economic benefits of a regulation when weighing its costs.

Many more EOs are promised in the coming weeks concerning a variety of environmental and energy laws and regulations. Early in the wave was the February 28, 2017 EO with the majestic name of “Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United States’ [aka WOTUS] Rule”. This EO directs the EPA to review the WOTUS Rule while keeping in mind the national interest of “promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty, and showing due regard for the roles of the Congress and the States under the Constitution.” Since WOTUS was a final rule published in the Federal Register, it can only be repealed and replaced by a new rule that goes through full notice-and-comment rulemaking, not simply by a non-legislative guidance or policy statement.

One who lives by the EO sword can slowly die from it too. POTUS Obama did not submit for approval to Congress the Paris Climate Change Agreement of 2016, calling it an “executive agreement”, thus POTUS Trump does not need Congressional approval to undo it. The Agreement terms do not allow withdrawal by a party before November 2019. However, the U.S. could withdraw from the overarching United Nations Framework on Climate Change with one year notice, if the Senate approves, and that in effect would undo our Paris “commitments”. And as a practical matter, the current Administration could also just choose not to implement the Paris obligations, because there is no binding duty to hit the emission reduction targets.

In sum, we live in interesting times.   Although Jack Black has said of this Administration that “It’s the end of the world”, for College members and their clients it’s the start of some fascinating new adventures in regulation and litigation. Stay tuned. 

Technology Forcing

Posted on March 6, 2017 by Steve McKinney

We environmental lawyers are well-acquainted with the technology-forcing requirements of many statutes.  I, however, do not love technology and I hate being forced. 

The idea behind “technology forcing” statutory provisions is that if Congress adopts requirements beyond the demonstrated capability of currently available technology, that will cause smart people to develop new technology that will meet the new requirements.  Simple.  Better technology is just waiting to be developed.  The cost or other impacts of new technology are seldom regarded as good reasons to hesitate.  There may even be an implication that trying to count that cost or consider those impacts is an unreasonable hindrance to the unlimited and irrepressible march of technology, which is always good, right?

Not so fast.  In my standard Dad-think, I bought our youngest daughter a brand-new, highly-acclaimed-for-safety-and-reliability Honda Accord to begin her new post-graduate life of go-everywhere-any-time-of-night independence.  The reliable-as-a-hammer reputation of Honda, however, has been seriously tarnished for me because this car won’t always start.  One Sunday morning in January as my daughter prepared to depart Birmingham for Washington, D.C., the dashboard of that Accord lit up light a fireworks display before going black and taking the entire electrical system of the auto with it.  Because delay was not an option, she took her mother’s less efficient but more reliable old Lexus to DC while Dad spent Monday morning at the dealership.  The problem?  In pursuit of technology-forcing CAFÉ standards, Honda had a bright idea (all puns intended).  Honda added a sensor to detect when the Accord’s battery had sufficient residual charge to switch the car’s alternator out of service until needed.  Periodic reduction of the marginal drag of the alternator on the engine’s main drive belt at least theoretically benefited the Accord’s highway mileage rating.  Unfortunately, when the new sensor fails, as it did that Sunday morning, the entire electrical system goes haywire and the engine will not run.

When I came to understand that this tiny piece of technology that had been added to my car to chase a microscopic mileage advantage had also become a critical failure pathway for my precious daughter’s car, I was angry.  I admit it.  I cussed.  When the failure occurred again 45 days later on the Sunday morning my daughter was planning to return to DC with her Honda after bringing her Mom’s car home, I really cussed.  The earlier fireworks had likely damaged the car’s battery that now became the critical failure barrier to normal operation.

Cooler heads will explain that thousands of Honda Accords have probably operated millions of miles with that microscopic mileage advantage adding up.  But the personal travails of one little environmental lawyer at least microscopically demonstrate that there are costs and impacts to technology-forcing requirements.  The rest of this story might be even more entertaining.  What do you think will happen when a different kind of lawyer figures out that there may be thousands of Accord owners driving around with new technology-forcing battery sensor switches that are prone to failure and might cost you a battery?

Rifle Shots – Unleashing the Power of the Tweak

Posted on February 24, 2017 by JB Ruhl

Here’s a thought exercise: I’ll give you a budget of 25 words (including conjunctions, articles, and all the other little ones). You use up a word by either deleting, adding, or replacing one in an existing federal environmental or natural resources statute. How much could you transform the field of practice with just those 25 word edits? The answer is, quite a lot.

When we think of statutory reform, we usually think big, right on up to “repeal and replace.” But after more than 25 years of very little legislative action on federal environmental and natural resources statutes—the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act, Sustainable Fishing Act, and the recent Toxic Substances Control Act reforms are a few exceptions since the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments—much rides on the accumulations of judicial and agency interpretations of the meaning of a word here and a phrase there. As we enter a period of potential legislative volatility in this field, therefore, the rifle shot may be just as much in play as the nuclear bomb.

Like any statutory reform, rifle shots can make regulatory statutes either more or less regulatory. For example, one could add “including carbon dioxide” or “excluding carbon dioxide” in just the right place in the Clean Air Act and with those three words put an end to a lot of debate and litigation. Given the current political climate, however, it’s reasonable to assume any rifle shot would be aimed at reducing regulatory impacts. But even with just 25 words in the clip, one could transform the impact of several regulatory programs before running out.

For example, delete the words “harm” and “harass” from the statutory definition of “take” in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)) [LINK 1] and you have a very different regulatory program. Much if not most of the land use regulation impact under the ESA stems from the inclusion of those two words; without them, the ESA’s prohibition of unpermitted take would restrict actions like hunting, killing, shooting, and wounding, but could not reach indirect “harming” from habitat modification.   Of course, the interagency consultation program under Section 7 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) [LINK 2] would still be in place, prohibiting federal agencies from taking actions that “jeopardize” the continued existence of species. But just add “substantially” before “jeopardize” and the practical effect of that prohibition is greatly reduced.

I’ve managed to transform the ESA, vastly reducing its regulatory impact, with just three word tweaks. Twenty-two to go. Here are some more examples.  I’ll let readers evaluate the impacts.

·         Speaking of evaluating impacts, the environmental impact review process of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) can really slow things down (42 U.S.C. 4332(B)). [LINK 3] To “streamline” the process, add the word “direct” before “environmental impact” in subpart (C)(1), which would eliminate the current practice of requiring analysis of indirect and cumulative impacts, and delete subpart (C)(iii), which requires agencies to evaluate “alternatives to the proposed action,” to remove a factor that bogs down much NEPA litigation. (Six more words down, sixteen to go.)

·         Heard all the commotion about which “waters” are subject to the Clean Water Act? Clear that up by changing the statutory definition of “navigable waters” (33 U.S.C. 1362(7)) [LINK 4] to read “waters of the United States subject to navigation.” That would be pretty extreme—it would remove most wetlands from jurisdiction—so one could control how far jurisdiction extends over wetlands by adding and their adjacent wetlands.” This would draw the line much closer to navigable water bodies than current interpretations reflected in Supreme Court opinions and agency regulations—Rapanos and the Water of the United States Rule become history. (Seven more words down, nine to go.)

·         And if you also want to put to rest the question whether the Clean Water Act applies to groundwater, edit the front end of the definition to read “surface waters.” (Another word down, eight to go.)

·         The Circuits are split over whether the Migratory Bird Treaty Act’s list of prohibited activities (16 U.S.C. 703(a)), [LINK 5] which includes to “take” or “kill,” sweeps within the statute’s reach any “incidental” taking or killing—injury or mortality that is not the direct purpose of the activity, such as strikes by wind turbines. Easy to solve! Add the word “purposeful” before the list of prohibited activities. (Another word down, seven to go.)

·         And, while we’re at it, let’s go ahead and add “excluding carbon dioxide” to the Clean Air Act definition of “air pollutant” (42 U.S.C. 7602(g)). [LINK 6] Adios, Clean Power Plan. (Three more words down, leaving just four to go.)

I’ll leave it to readers to think about how to use the last four words. The point here is that the system of environmental and natural resources law has become quite fragile. With Congress out of the picture for so long, courts and agencies have built up an interpretation infrastructure under which a single word or phrase often carries a tremendous burden of substantive and procedural program implementation. As a consequence, a mere tweak here and there can have dramatic effects on the program.

Granted, anyone who closely follows the statutes tweaked above will quickly appreciate the impact of any of the tweaks, and I’ve chosen some powerful examples unlikely to slip by any such experts. But subtler tweaks buried deep in a larger bill could more easily fly below the radar.

It remains to be seen whether Congress takes this rifle shot approach or goes bigger.  Rifle shots don’t eliminate or “gut” entire programs, which may be the current congressional appetite, but the above examples show the potency of this approach. I for one will be keeping my eyes out for rifle shots in bills every bit as much as I will be following the big bomb reform efforts. Do not underestimate the power of the tweak!