More on a New Ozone NAAQS: EPA's Clean Air Science Advisory Committee Endorses EPA's Proposed Range
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?
When Do EPA BACT Requirements "Redesign the Source"? Not When EPA Says They Don't
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!
Be Careful What You Wish For
On December 7, 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson stated that greenhouse gases (GHGs) “threaten the public health and welfare of the American people”. This CAA endangerment finding was what everyone had expected due to the strong proposed finding and the inevitable result of legislation that the Obama administration has been supporting.
Now that the U.S. has a position to take to Copenhagen - either EPA or Congress will tackle and reduce GHGs - so count on the U.S. to do its part. Despite all the discussions about the costs of the U.S. policy on the U.S. economy, which are not close to being resolved, where will the money come from to help the 3rd World countries? Amounts of $10B a year and upwards of hundreds of billions of dollars are used like the money is easily available in today’s economy.
If GHGs are a serious threat, reductions are necessary and need to start soon. However, let’s be very careful to not to solve the problem by pushing the cost of energy so high that most of the world will eventually enjoy clearer skies and air, while sitting in the dark or shivering during the winter months.
In shifting to cleaner fuel sources like natural gas (or solar or wind) as preferred sources of energy we need to be certain that the supply system can be created in a cost-effective manner and in time to meet the GHG emissions reduction goals. We also need to be sure that siting such generation facilities meets with the expectations of the host communities.
EPA Tries to Silence Employees Who (Weakly) Criticize Cap-And-Trade
Obama’s EPA finds itself embroiled in a controversy that recalls the Bush Administration: trying to control what the agency’s employees can say about climate change. Today’s controversy is more limited, and more nuanced, than earlier ones. EPA is no longer asking its employees to deny that climate change exists. Instead, EPA has asked two of its attorneys to stop identifying themselves as EPA experts when they publicly criticize a cap-and-trade system for regulating greenhouse gases. Still, I wonder why EPA cares.
EPA previously allowed the attorneys to criticize cap-and-trade as private citizens. The two wrote letters and opinion pieces claiming cap-and-trade doesn’t work, primarily because companies can buy “offsets” that allow them to continue operations without reducing their emissions. They claim a carbon tax would work better than cap-and-trade.
Their writings have not had much effect on the debate in Congress and elsewhere. So the two recently switched from the written word to YouTube, posting a carefully produced video in which they more assertively cite their EPA credentials and experience to justify their critique of cap-and-trade. And as Grist recently noted, EPA took the bait.
EPA should stop worrying about the two attorneys. The two fail to recognize that cap-and-trade works fine when it’s done right. In fact, EPA itself runs one of the most successful cap-and-trade programs in the world. Several years ago, EPA needed to reduce smog in the eastern US. Instead of using typical command-and-control regulations, EPA created the NOx Budget Trading Program. Just last month, EPA released a report on the results achieved by that program. According to EPA, “summertime NOx emissions from power plants and large industrial sources were down by 62 percent compared to year 2000 levels and 75 percent lower than in 1990.”
And the emitters were able to achieve these reductions at a lower cost by trading with other emitters who had cheaper options for compliance. Smithsonian magazine reported a recent estimate that businesses paid only $3 billion to achieve emission reductions that would have cost them $25 billion under traditional command-and-control regulation.
The two attorneys don’t even need to worry about companies finding ways to avoid compliance with the system. Last year, only two emitters failed to comply out of 2,568, even then by only a modest amount. This is not a system full of loopholes.
Finally, the two attorneys ignore the fact that their own agency, under the Obama administration, will get to write the rules for how companies comply with a carbon cap-and-trade system. Both the Waxman-Markey and Boxer-Kerry bills require EPA to write rules regulating how companies can use “offsets” to comply with the system. Surely the agency can write rules that make this cap-and-trade system work as well as the NOx system the agency already runs.
And one more thing: As Grist reports, many experts think that the alternative — a carbon tax — may not achieve the emission reductions we need. We can only guess what carbon price might lead to the right amount of emission reductions. We’ll get the tax revenues we predict, but not necessarily the carbon reductions.
So the two attorneys should lighten up on their criticisms. But even if they don’t, EPA should stop worrying about them so much.
EPA Issues a New Policy on Superfund Negotiations: Time For Another Rant?
Late last week, Elliott Gilberg, Acting Director of EPA’s Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) issued an Interim Policy on Managing the Duration of Remedial Design/Remedial Action Negotiations. Members of the regulated community may not be surprised by the contents of the memo, but they certainly will not be pleased. In brief, the memorandum fundamentally makes two points:
EPA wants to shorten the duration of RD/RA negotiation
EPA is going to use the heavy hammer of unilateral administrative orders, or UAOs, to keep PRPs’ feet to the fire and ensure that negotiations move quickly.
PRPs will likely agree that shortening the duration of negotiations would be a good outcome in the abstract – but achieving it by greater use of UAOs? I don’t think so.
I can only wonder if EPA has even considered the impact of the Burlington Northern decision here. Is this a perverse reaction from EPA? A metaphorical throwing down the gauntlet to PRPs? It certainly feels that way.
I have a different suggestion, if EPA truly wants to shorten negotiations. First, acknowledge Burlington Northern and compromise on the merits in those great majority of cases where there are legitimate divisibility arguments. Second, stop acting like the last bastion of command and control regulation. Set cleanup standards and then, to the maximum extent permitted by existing law, let PRPs clean up to those standards, without micromanaging every detail of the cleanup process.
GHG Regulation under the Existing CAA: Coming Soon to a [Large] Stationary Source Near You
On Thursday, EPA issued its long-awaited proposed rule describing how thresholds would be set for regulation of GHG sources under the existing Clean Air Act PSD authority. Having waded through the 416-page proposal, I’m torn between the appropriate Shakespeare quotes to describe it: “Much ado about nothing” or “Methinks thou dost protest too much.”
First, notwithstanding its length, the proposal is quite limited in scope. In essence, it has three parts:
Establishment of an applicability threshold for PSD and Title V purposes of 25,000 tons per year of CO2e.
Establishment of a PSD significance level of from 10,000 tpy CO2e and 25,000 CO2e.
Development over the next five years of means to streamline GHG regulation of sources greater than the current statutory levels of 100-250 tpy.
Basically, EPA’s position is that, once it begins to regulate GHGs as a pollutant by promulgating its mobile source rule – expected next spring – stationary source regulation under the PSD and Title V programs follow automatically. Thus, the issue for EPA at this point is not whether to regulate stationary sources, but how to do so without the entire program grinding to a halt.
Here’s where the protestation comes in. Most of the proposal is devoted to explaining EPA’s reliance of the doctrines of “absurd results” and “administrative necessity” to justify exclusion of sources that would seem to be categorically included by the explicit language of the statute. Members of the regulated community will understand the irony in EPA’s extensive discussion regarding how the purpose of the PSD program is to achieve environmental protection and economic development – and that this latter purpose would be jeopardized by regulation of sources at the 100/250 tpy threshold. I don’t think we will ever again see EPA devote this many pages to a description of its concern about economic growth.
I’m not going to predict here whether EPA will win any challenge to the higher thresholds. Certainly, the absurd results doctrine argument is the stronger of the two. It is noteworthy that the four leading environmental cases EPA cites in support of its administrative necessity argument, while acknowledging the existence of the doctrine, all went against EPA.
More relevant still is the question of who would in fact challenge this regulation and what would be the result even if the challenge succeeded. Following the debacle that resulted from vacation of the CAIR rule, what is the likelihood that a successful challenge would result in vacation of the rule in its entirety? Isn’t it more likely that the rule would stay in effect as to the large sources, with the remanding the case to EPA to promulgate rules governing smaller sources? In fact, that’s what EPA is already doing, which is probably EPA’s strongest practical argument in support of the rule.
Public comments will be due 60 days from Federal Register promulgation and there are some issues that the regulated community should consider. These include the significance threshold, and suggestions regarding how to streamline the program for smaller sources. EPA has proposed some interesting ideas, including presumptive BACT determinations and general permits.
Bottom line? Large sources better get ready to comply. Smaller sources, take a deep breath and count your blessings – for now.
It's Here: EPA's Final Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule
On April 14, 2009, I alerted you to EPA’s proposed Mandatory GHG Reporting rule on April 10, 2009. And while we are still waiting for EPA’s Endangerment Finding, and new energy legislation may not see the Senate floor in 2009, we do have a final GHG rule. On September 22, 2009, EPA Administrator Jackson signed the final Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. This rule should be published in the Federal Register soon, so that it becomes effective before January 1, 2010. The rule imposes monitoring requirements beginning January 1, 2010, and reporting by impacted facilities and other entities by March 31, 2011.
With this rule, EPA is requiring reporting of Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”) emissions by specified GHG emission source categories that exceed 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide (“MTCO2”), or varying amounts of several other GHG representing equivalent amounts of emissions based upon their “global warming potential,” referred to as “CO2e.” The rule also requires emissions reporting from suppliers of fuels and industrial gases, as well as mobile source (vehicle) manufacturers. EPA finds its authority for this rule in the Clean Air Act, Sections 114 and 208. The GHGs tracked by the rule include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and other fluorinated compounds. Those familiar with the annual Inventory of United States GHG Emissions and Sinks will recognize the sources and GHGs tracked by this rule.
Generally, the final rule is not significantly changed from the proposed rule. However, several source categories were reserved. Thus, this final rule does not currently require reporting of the following source categories: electronics manufacturing, ethanol production, fluorinated GHG production, food processing, industrial landfills, magnesium production, oil and natural gas systems, SF6 from electrical equipment, underground coal mines, wastewater treatment, suppliers of coal.
Additionally, there are several important revisions. In response to significant objections to the “once in, always in” approach for reporting requirements, EPA also included provisions allowing exit from the program upon reduction of GHG emissions below certain thresholds. Specifically, if a facility decreases its emissions below 25,000 metric tons of CO2e per year for five years in a row, or decreases its emissions below 15,000 metric tons of CO2e per year for three years in a row, the facility can apply to exit the program. Facilities can also cease reporting if they shut down GHG-emitting processes or operations.
In response to concern about lack of adequate preparation time, EPA added a provision allowing the use of best available monitoring methods for the initial quarter of 2010, rather than the required monitoring methods. Impacted facilities needing a longer period of time to install necessary monitoring equipment can request an extension beyond March 2010, but not beyond 2010. EPA has also modified monitoring options, changed monitoring locations and allowed use of calculations rather than monitoring to lessen the monitoring burden.
All environmental practitioners will need to become familiar with the requirements of this rule due to its broad applicability. EPA has committed to posting guidance for each subpart and conducting training. EPA has even posted an “applicability tool” computer software program to assist in applicability determinations. This guidance cannot be available soon enough. Clients need to determine applicability and prepare for implementation immediately.
Stormwater Discharges From Construction Activity: What Next From EPA?
Construction and development companies praying for an economic recovery next year have something else to worry about: pending new EPA regulations regarding stormwater discharges from construction activities – and claims from environmental groups that EPA’s proposal isn’t stringent enough.
EPA issued a proposal on November 28, 2008. That proposal is complex, but the aspect of it that has received the most attention is the requirement that certain construction sites greater than 30 acres meet numerical turbidity limits (specifically, 13 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs), which I had to include in this post just because it sounds so cool). Developers have opposed the numeric limits; the National Association of Home Builders estimates that the cost to comply would be $15,000 to $45,000 per acre.
On the other hand, the NRDC and Waterkeeper Alliance have threatened to sue EPA if EPA does not revise the propose rule to include post-construction controls as part of the rule. EPA has stated that it is not planning to do so. It’s not obvious that NRDC and Waterkeeper Alliance have the better of this specific debate, but the argument regarding post-construction controls is similar to the ongoing discussion in Massachusetts and elsewhere regarding the need for ongoing stormwater controls at properties other than industrial facilities that are already regulated.
The issue is not going to go away. EPA is under a deadline to issue the rule by December 1, 2009.
A Rant Against Superfund
As some of my clients know all too well, I’ve been spending a lot of time on some Superfund matters recently. Although I can’t remember a period when I didn’t have at least one moderately active Superfund case, significant immersion in complex remedial decision-making and negotiations provides an unwelcome reminder just how flawed CERCLA is. Almost 20 years after the acid rain provisions of the Clean Air Act ushered in wide-spread acceptance of the use of market mechanisms to achieve environmental protection goals and the state of Massachusetts successfully privatized its state Superfund program, the federal Superfund program, like some obscure former Russian republic which remains devoted to Stalinism, is one of the last bastions of pure command and control regulation.
Can anyone tell me why the remedy selection process takes years and costs millions of dollars – before any cleanup has occurred or risk reduction been achieved? Can anyone tell me why, after the remedy has been selected, EPA has to spend millions of dollars – charged back to the PRPs, of course – to oversee the cleanup? Oversight costs can easily exceed 10% of cleanup costs, while oversight during the remedial design and feasibility study process sometimes seem to be barely less than the cost of actually performing the RI/FS.
While there are certainly a multiplicity of causes, there are two factors which greatly contribute to the problem. One was, coincidentally, highlighted in a post today by my friend Rob Stavins. As Rob noted, unlike the acid rain program, which was new at the time, the Superfund bureaucracy is well entrenched and there are a number of actors with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
The second issue relates to the genesis of the Superfund program, as well as its continuing raison d’être. Whenever EPA has ranked relative risks from different environmental hazards, Superfund sites come in at the bottom. However, if you think back to Superfund’s origins, what comes to mind? Love Canal and the Valley of the Drums – and some concerned near-by residents who rallied around a cause to ensure that the problem would be addressed. As renowned risk communications expert Dr. Peter Sandman has noted, there is not necessarily a significant correlation between actual risk levels and public outrage, and it’s not possible to decrease outrage simply by providing accurate information about risks.
In short, the public is outraged by hazardous waste sites and does not trust PRPs to clean them properly. All of those EPA oversight costs are, in large part, intended not to decrease risk, but to lower outrage. Outrage is understandable in some circumstances, and efforts to reduce it are laudable, but is it really an appropriate use of scarce environmental protection resources to spend the money that gets poured into Superfund sites?
There has to be a better way. Indeed, there is a better way. It’s called a privatized system in which PRPs have to meet well-defined cleanup standards, but are allowed to do so on their own, in whatever manner is most cost-effective, subject to audits by regulators. Privatized programs such as the one in Massachusetts are not perfect. However, their flaws – which largely stem from a failure to fully support privatization -- pale in comparison to the waste that is the federal program under CERCLA.
In other contexts, I’ve called on the Obama administration to embrace regulatory reform. Why not start with Superfund? Notwithstanding Rob Stavins’ point about the difficulty of overturning an entrenched status quo, if the states could do it, why not the federal government?
Besides, I have an entrenched personal reason for seeking Superfund reform. This stuff drives me nuts.
Another Loss For the Bush EPA; The D.C. Court of Appeals Remands the Fine Particulate Standard
The batting average of the Bush administration EPA in appeals of its regulatory proposals may now have dropped below the proverbial Mendoza line. This week, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia remanded a substantial part of EPA’s particulate rule. That the Bush administration could achieve results where the Mendoza line is even a close metaphor is a testament to just how low its stock has fallen in the courts.
The case itself is important for a number of reasons, but is too lengthy for detailed analysis here. Highlights include:
· First, the basic holding: the court remanded EPA’s primary annual standard for PM2.5, because EPA did not justify that the 15 ug/m3 standard was sufficient to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. Second, the court also remanded EPA’s determination of the secondary, public welfare, standard for PM2.5.
· The court gave great weight to the role of the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC) and staff recommendations in the regulatory process. After this decision, EPA is going to think twice about choosing a regulatory course difference than that recommended by CASAC and staff. On balance, I think that this is a bad thing and more evidence of the collateral damage from the extreme positions taken by the Bush administration. After all, while the Clean Air Act sets some boundaries, these are ultimately policy decisions that should be made by the President and his or her chosen staff, not by a committee no one’s heard of or low-level staff.
· Unlike the chaos created when the court vacated the CAIR regulations, the court appears to have learned its lesson. This time around, the court remanded the rule, but left the standard in place for now.
· The court’s decision to remand the public welfare standard will have implications for current efforts to implement the its Regional Haze Rule. The extent to which this decision throws Haze Rule implementation back to the drawing board may not be known for some time.
How many more cases can the Bush administration lose after it’s already out of office? At least one. Greenwire reports today about speculation that this decision means that the EPA rules regarding the nitrogen oxide NAAQS may also be in trouble.
The interesting question in all this is the extent to which the abysmal record of the Bush EPA in defending its decisions in the courts will damage EPA’s credibility and thus result in a long-term weakening of the deference given EPA by the courts. At this point, my assumption is that, in the long run, these cases will be seen as an aberration and courts will resume their prior practice of granting EPA substantial deference. Of course, whether that is a good thing or not is a separate question.
PENNSYLVANIA CLEAN WATER AND BROWNFIELDS INVESTMENT OF STIMULUS FUNDS
Among the priorities under the $787.5 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is repairing, rebuilding, and constructing the nation’s water infrastructure. Approximately $6 billion will augment the EPA’s clean water and drinking water state revolving funds, of which approximately $221 million will be disbursed to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Infrastructure Investment Authority (PennVest). The governing board of PennVest is appointed by Governor Rendell, and I have been serving as its chair for the past six years.
PennVest administers the approximately $300 million annual allotment of Clean Water and Drinking Water funds previously supplied by EPA on a matching basis with Pennsylvania. These funds will now be augmented by the $212 million in stimulus funds. The Clean Water Fund addresses waste water infrastructure. The fund also addresses brownfields (with its protection of water quality) and storm water, whereas the Drinking Water Fund is strictly for water supply and distribution. At least 50 percent of the funding must be in the form of grants.
With the current emphasis on sustainability, alternative energy, greenhouse gas emission reduction and the need for more stringent control over stormwater run-off, the allocation of stimulus funds by PennVest will focus on innovative green technology, including particularly, controlling stormwater and remediating brownfields (at least 20 percent of the stimulus funding must be used for “green infrastructure”.)
Although the final disbursement of the economic stimulus funding will be affected by various regulations, the awarding of grants and loans will likely be on the same timetable as in the past with an emphasis on “shovel ready” projects. Funding agreements must be entered into and contracts for the full amount signed within a year. The ultimate goal is to immediately increase the amount of jobs needed to construct the infrastructural repair, rebuilding and construction.
OBAMA AND THE ENVIRONMENT
As Lisa Jackson completes her first month as President Obama’s environmental chief, she is just scratching the surface on some of the myriad issues that will likely have impacts far beyond typical environmental concerns, for decades to come. There has to be some mixture of excitement and fear facing this new administration, as the challenges before it dwarf all of those in memory. That mixture will be especially prevalent at EPA. Usually in times like these — war, recession, high unemployment –— environmental issues can be expected to fade from the front pages. An EPA administrator would receive the old admonition to be seen and not heard. However, unlike past crises environmental issues are in the forefront — primarily in the form of climate change and energy. It is notable that when the government is lending billions of dollars to Citibank and debating the very existence of the big three automakers, one of the first actions of the incoming Obama administration has been to review EPA’s previous decision to deny California’s petition for a Clean Air Act waiver to allow it to regulate greenhouse gases from mobile sources.
The expectations for success that many Obama supporters have are high. Those expectations are high in the environmental community — perhaps too high. The ongoing financial collapse in the United States and abroad has changed the landscape in ways that could not have been imagined as recently as August, when Obama accepted the Democratic nomination for president. With the federal government having committed nearly $1 trillion in an attempt to save financial institutions across the country; with Congress passing an economic stimulus package costing an additional $750 billion; with the United States still conducting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, outside of the infusion of stimulus cash for “shovel-ready projects” the expectation that EPA’s budget will experience significant increases over the Bush years is hardly a reasoned view. It’s not just the mind boggling challenge facing us on the economy, it’s also the difficult decisions that must be made to address climate change; it’s the need to seriously address the nation’s nearly suicidal dependence on foreign oil; and it’s myriad other issues that will all require hard choices and sacrifice.
Those expectations are probably low in the business community — as they normally are when the country shifts from a Republican to a Democratic administration. And similarly, those expectations are perhaps too low. I believe if this president will be true to one of his campaign promises, it is to govern in a way that puts partisanship on the sidelines. He has already proved that commitment by sending a strong signal to Senate Democrats that he does not wish to see retaliation against Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) for his support not only of John McCain, but also Republican senatorial candidates in Minnesota, Maine, and Oregon. What Obama signaled with that position is that he is not going to put partisanship ahead of his plans to help America, even if partisans refuse his offers to join him.. He is looking at new alliances and will work with people who were not shy in their opposition to his election as he works as president. The mantra of “no permanent friends; no permanent enemies” is likely to be the Obama approach to working in Washington, DC.
We as a nation are facing an uncertain future. The environment is likely going to play a larger role in the lives of average Americans than it has since its heyday in the 1970s. Lisa Jackson has the monumental task of rallying an agency suffering from low morale, with precious few additional resources, to make decisions in perhaps the most hotly debated and controversial area of environmental law and policy ever. She will make recommendations and decisions that will have implications not only on the very future of the United States, but likely for the world as well. To the NGO community, the challenge is not to be disappointed as this president makes decisions that balance multiple important considerations and who will often decide that another consideration must trump the environmental choice. To the business community, the challenge is to be more optimistic and to show the initiative and courage necessary to work with this new administration and its traditional allies to solve the monumental problems facing the world.
EPA's Roll-Back of Bush-Era Rules Appears to Begin in Earnest
While a lot of attention has been paid to whether EPA would reverse the Bush EPA decision denying California’s petition to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources, it is now clear even outside the climate change arena that life at EPA is going to be substantially different under the current administration. As if evidence were really needed for that proposition, EPA announced this week that it was putting on hold the NSR aggregation rule that EPA had promulgated on January 15, 2009.
The rule, which had been long sought by industry, would have provided that nominally separate projects would only have to be combined – aggregated for NSR/PSD purposes – if they are “substantially related.” It also would have created a rebuttable presumption that projects more than three years apart are not substantially related. Responding to a request from NRDC and the OMB memo asking agencies to look closely at rules promulgated before the transition but not yet effective, EPA concluded that the rule raises “substantial questions of law and policy.” Therefore, EPA postponed the effective date of the rule until May 18, 2009 and also announced that it was formally reconsidering the rule in response to the NRDC petition.
To those in industry, the aggregation rule was not a radical anti-environmental roll-back of environmental protection standards. Rather, it was more of a common-sense approach towards making the NSR program simpler and clearer. It is one of my pet peeves with the prior administration, however, that it gave regulatory reform a bad name.
In any case, I feel as though I should open a pool regarding what will be the next Bush-era rule to be tossed overboard. We surely won’t have to wait long for it to happen.
A Quick Economic Stimulus Meets a Slow Environmental Process - Are NEPA Waivers Needed to Reach Energy Independence?
President Obama has pressed Congress this week to enact an economic stimulus package that would “double our capacity to generate alternative sources of energy like wind, solar, and biofuels . . . and build a new electricity grid that lay down more than 3,000 miles of transmission lines to convey this new energy from coast to coast.”[i] On Wednesday, January 28, 2009, the House passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1), which contains nearly $15 billion in capital investments and loan guarantees for renewable energy projects and new electric transmission lines, and $18.5 billion for energy efficiency programs. The Administration’s stated goal is to spend this money in the next 18 months. This may be possible for the energy efficiency projects such as weatherizing homes and government buildings. But for dozens of new wind farms and thousands of miles of transmission lines, it is not, and a good part of the reason is that those projects have yet to undergo environmental review or receive necessary permits.
[i] These remarks came in the President’s first weekly address, which was delivered on Saturday, January 24, 2009. The address can be viewed at this link.
Typically, siting a transmission line, wind farm, or other major energy facility involves obtaining a long list of environmental permits, each of which has a review process that can be used by opponents of the project to delay and sometimes defeat it. Moving infrastructure projects forward quickly will only be possible if Congress and the Administration speed up the environmental review and permitting process.
In a January 26, 2009, report, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will take up to seven years to spend the money that H.R. 1 dedicated to expanding alternative energy. Experience teaches that this estimate may be overly conservative. For example, the Arrowhead-Weston Transmission Project, a 220 mile transmission line from Wisconsin to Minnesota, took nine years to permit and construct, even though all but 50 miles of it were in existing transmission line corridors. Southern California Edison’s Tehachapi Transmission Project, a 250 mile transmission project to deliver electricity generated from wind farms in Southern California, took over 10 years to design, permit, and begin construction. Indeed, portions of the project are still undergoing environmental review by the U.S. Forest Service and others.
Recently, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger requested up to $44 billion for transportation, energy and water projects in California, claiming that these projects will create as many as 800,000 new jobs. Knowing that traditional environmental review would slow short-term job creation, Governor Schwarzenegger asked the Obama Administration to “waive or greatly streamline National Environmental Protection Act requirements consistent with our statutory proposals to modify the California Environment Quality Act for transportation projects.”
The proposal drew immediately fire from environmental groups. In a January 13, 2009, letter to House and Senate Democratic leaders, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the League of Conservation Voters and Environment California called Governor Schwarzenegger’s proposal “unproductive and harmful” to the federal debate over reviving the economy. “Inevitably, in the course of congressional consideration, special interests will assert that we cannot afford the NEPA process in a time of national urgency,” they said. “The truth is that we cannot afford that kind of leap-before-you-look rashness.”
The new Administration must navigate this tension – quickly addressing the economic crisis while maintaining the integrity of the environmental review process. Doing so will require identifying ways that environmental review and permitting can be streamlined and modernized, alongside the infrastructure system. We ought to be able to get wind farms and bridges and light rail built in a time frame that provides the short-term stimulus our economy needs, and also allow for sufficient environmental review to make sure our resources are protected. This article lays out some of the options the new Administration may wish to consider as it seeks to balance job creation with environmental stewardship.
Approaches for Streamlining the Environmental Review Process
Use Existing Provisions Allowing Temporary Waivers
Many environmental regulatory statutes contain waivers of applicable requirements in response to natural disasters or other emergency conditions. For example, the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act authorizes NEPA waivers to facilitate prompt responses to natural disasters.[1] Similarly, the White House Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) is authorized to approve “alternative arrangements” allowing federal agencies to modify or limit NEPA review in response to natural disasters.[2] Other federal environmental laws with emergency response provisions include the Clean Water Act[3] and CERCLA.[4]
In response to Hurricane Katrina, CEQ approved expedited NEPA review procedures for certain U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood control projects. EPA temporarily waived certain Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and other environmental regulations in Katrina’s wake. Both Louisiana and Mississippi issued similar emergency administrative orders, temporarily suspending certain environmental regulations to facilitate clearing hurricane debris and other emergency response actions.
Waivers Based on Grounds of National Security
In 2002, after the Natural Resources Defense Council obtained a preliminary injunction halting the U.S. Navy’s use of a low-frequency, active, surveillance towed array sonar system,[5] President Bush issued a “Presidential Exemption from the Coastal Zone Management Act,”[6] in order to “ensure effective and timely training of the United States naval forces in anti-submarine warfare using mid-frequency active sonar.” The Presidential exemption allowed the Navy to train and certify strike groups capable of deployment “in support of world-wide operational and combat activities, which are essential to national security.”
The United States Supreme Court upheld the President’s action, finding that the public interest in adequately training the Navy’s antisubmarine forces “plainly outweighs” conservationists’ interests in studying marine mammals that may be injured by sonar exercises.[7]
Legislative Exemptions for Specific Projects
Congress has also periodically either limited or exempted review under NEPA and other environmental statutes for specific projects or categories of projects. For example, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 modified the environmental compliance requirements for a broad range of energy-related projects. The modified environmental compliance measures included:
- Establishing a rebuttable presumption that certain oil and gas projects conducted on federal land are categorically exempted from NEPA review (§ 390);
- Exempting hydraulic fracturing in aid of oil, gas, and geothermal energy extraction from certain requirements in the Safe Drinking Water Act (§ 322);
- Exempting oil and gas exploration, production, and transportation construction projects from the Clean Water Act’s construction stormwater regulations (§ 323);
- Requiring EPA and federal land management agencies in Western states to develop a pilot project to expedite environmental review and permitting under NEPA, the ESA, the Clean Water Act, and other federal statutes (§ 365);
- Expediting the permitting process for natural gas facilities located on federal lands (§ 366); and
- Shortening the time frame for appealing permitting decisions under the Coastal Zone Management Act (§ 381).
Congress has also exempted or provided limited NEPA review for other projects, for example:
· The TransAlaska Pipeline was exempted from NEPA review after completion of the initial EIS (43 U.S.C. § 1625(d));
· Certain actions taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act are exempted from NEPA review (15 U.S.C. § 793(c)(1));
· Department of Energy decisions to grant or deny exemptions from regulations governing fuel use at coal-fired power plants are exempted from NEPA review (42 U.S.C. § 8473);
· For certain retrievable radioactive waste storage projects, an Environmental Assessment (as opposed to an EIS) constitutes sufficient compliance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. § 10155(c)(2)(A));
· Alternate environmental review procedures have been established for determining surface transportation rights-of-way in the Arctic National Preserve (42 U.S.C. § 410hh(4)(d); and
· Certain Department of Housing and Urban Development funding decisions are exempt from NEPA review, based on certification of compliance with state and local laws (42 U.S.C. § 3547(2)).
Using Streamlined Environmental Review to Address Economic Conditions
While legislative, regulatory, and executive precedent exists for either waiving or limiting environmental review, those precedents have rarely been used to justify waiving environmental review on the grounds of an economic crisis.[8] But precedent exists for using “alternative arrangements” for environmental review in response to economic concerns. In 1980, after General Motors threatened to build a new manufacturing facility outside the city limits unless the city cleared and delivered an appropriate site for the facility, the City of Detroit declared a state of emergency based on an economic crisis. In September 1980, CEQ approved an “alternative arrangement” under NEPA allowing the Department of Housing and Urban Development to release loan guarantee funds prior to the completion of NEPA review.[9]
The challenge for the new Administration and Congress is to strike a balance between expediting environmental review while maintaining sufficient oversight to prevent bad decision making. Options to achieve that goal include: (1) expediting funding for “shovel ready” projects which already have undergone federal and state environmental review and obtained necessary permits; (2) using programmatic environmental review of project categories that would obviate the need for project-specific (and often redundant) environmental reviews; (3) providing limited exemptions or streamlined environmental review for specific categories of projects; and (4) limiting judicial review of final agency approvals for projects funded by the stimulus bill, while providing for oversight, review, and approval by CEQ.
For more information, please contact Bradley Marten
[1] See 42 U.S.C. § 5159.
[2] 40 CFR § 1506.11.
[3] Under 40 CFR § 122.3, the President or an agency acting with delegated Presidential authority may grant a waiver of the NPDES requirement if necessary to address substantial threats to public health or welfare. EPA invoked this exception in response to Hurricane Katrina. Another exception is 40 CFR § 122.41(n), which allows a wavier in the event of an “upset,” which is the temporary failure to comply with NPDES permit conditions based on factors that are beyond the reasonable control of an operator, for example, a power failure or a large spill of contaminants into a collection and treatment system.
[4] CERCLA provides the President and EPA with broad authority and flexibility to undertake response actions whenever there is a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance which presents an imminent and substantial danger. See 40 CFR § 300.400(e)(1).
[5] See NRDC v. Evans, 232 F. Supp.2d 1003 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (for more information on this decision, see Colleen C. Karpinsky, A Whale of a Tale: The Sea of Controversy Surrounding the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the U.S. Navy’s Proposed Use of the SURTASS-LFA Sonar System, 12 Penn St. Envtl. L. Rev. 389 (2004)).
[6] Per its terms, the Presidential Exemption was based on the “Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 1456(c)(1)(B) of title 16, United States Code.”
[7] Winters v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 365 (2008).
[8] While NEPA allows agencies to allow “alternative arrangements” suspending or modifying environmental review, CEQ regulations limit their applicability to “actions necessary to control the immediate impact of the emergency.” 40 CFR § 1506.11 (emphasis supplied).
[9] Although the full NEPA review was eventually completed, the “alternative arrangement” allowed HUD and the city to expedite project activities in response to an economic crisis. The facts of the Detroit “alternative arrangement” are summarized at Crosby v. Little, 512 F. Supp. 1363 (E.D. Mich. 1981).
EPA IN THE DC CIRCUIT - WHERE HAS ALL THE DEFERENCE GONE?
- June 2007: DC Circuit Hands EPA and Industry Two Defeats: Court Rejects EPA MACT Air Rules for Commercial and Industrial Boilers and Plywood and Composite Wood Products
- February and July 2008: DC Circuit to EPA: Multi-Pollutant Strategy for Interstate Clean Air Fails to Meet Clean Air Act Requirements
Several recent cases have raised the following question in my mind: can EPA win an air case in the DC Circuit?
They teach us in law school that governmental agencies can expect a reasonable degree of deference from a reviewing court when exercising statutory authority to develop regulations to implement Congressional directives. States and entities subject to EPA’s regulations need something to rely on, and expect EPA and the Courts to provide some degree of predictability and certainty in the application of the regulations. Yet deference is nowhere to be found in the DC Circuit’s recent reviews of several EPA regulations implementing the Clean Air Act (CAA). And in each of the cases discussed below, the Court opted for the most dramatic remedy – vacatur of the offending rule.
These decisions can be sliced and diced from a variety of perspectives. At the least I think they raise vexing concerns about deference and choice of remedy. What do you think – are these the trend or the anomalies? Is this a real concern or much ado about nothing?
Here are my examples:
1. June 2007: Commercial and Industrial Boiler MACT Rules
On June 8, 2007, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 04-1385 (D.C. Cir. June 8, 2007) (NRDC I) the DC Circuit struck down two EPA rules setting air toxics limitations for commercial and industrial boilers and solid waste incinerators: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (Boilers Rule) and Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units (CISWI Definitions Rule).
At issue were the emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted from commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators and industrial boilers and the appropriate setting of the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard.
The challenge was brought by environmental petitioners Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and the Environmental Integrity Project. The Court agreed with them that EPA had impermissibly narrowed the definition of “commercial or industrial waste” in the CISWI Definitions Rule in violation of the plain language of section 129 of the Clean Air Act. Because the Boilers Rule was dependent on that same definition, both rules were rejected by the Court. EPA and industry representatives, including the Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration, Utility Air Regulatory Group, and Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, contended that EPA’s definition was within the agency’s discretion, but the Court was not persuaded.
2. June 2007: Plywood and Composite Wood Products MACT Rules
On June 19, 2007, the DC Circuit dealt a second blow in a challenge to EPA’s rules to regulate HAPs from processing plywood and composite wood products (PCWP). Also named Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 04-1323 (D.C. Cir. June 19, 2007) (NRDC II), this case was also brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and the Environmental Integrity Project against EPA. EPA was supported by industry groups, including the American Forest and Paper Association.
The two rules involved in this case were the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products (2004 Rule) and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products; List of Hazardous Air Pollutants, Lesser Quantity Designations, Source Category List (2006 Rule), with the primary challenge to the 2006 Rule. Example of operations regulated by these rules include sawmills with lumber kilns, hardwood and softwood plywood and veneer plants, particleboard/fibreboard and other reconstituted wood product plants, and engineered wood product plants.
Once again, the issue was the appropriate MACT standard. In this case the pivotal elements were EPA’s decisions in the 2004 Rule to create a “low-risk subcategory” and in the 2006 Rule to extend the compliance deadline from October 2007 to October 2008.
3. February 2008: Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR)
On February 8, 2008, the DC Circuit struck down CAMR in New Jersey v. EPA, No. 05-1097 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 8, 2008). CAMR was the result of EPA’s decision to remove oil and coal-fired electric utility steam generating units (EGUs) from the list of sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and instead regulate mercury emissions from these EGUs through a cap-and-trade program similar to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).
In response, New Jersey, and several other states, municipal governments and environmental groups, challenged CAMR claiming that EPA had no authority to delist the EGUs without providing a “specific finding” under section 112(c)(9) of the CAA. Because EPA did not make this specific finding, the Petitioners claimed that not only was the delisting invalid, but CAMR was also flawed because it was based upon this delisting decision. The DC Circuit agreed with the Petitioners, vacating both the delisting rule and CAMR.
4. July 2008: Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
On July 11, 2008, the D.C. Circuit vacated CAIR in North Carolina v. EPA, No. 05-1244 (D.C. Cir. July 11, 2008).
The multi-party challenge to CAIR was brought by the state of North Carolina, several electric utilities (SO2 Petitioners), specific electric utilities in Texas, Florida and Minnesota, one municipality, and the Florida Association of Electric Utilities (FAEU). The electric utilities in Texas, Florida and Minnesota challenged CAIR’s applicability to them because of their location and emissions amounts. North Carolina, the SO2 Petitioners, and FAEU brought substantive challenges to the regulation, claiming that EPA did not have the discretion to act as it did, or it did so unreasonably.
The Court agreed with North Carolina and the SO2 Petitioners, holding that CAIR failed to meet the requirements of the CAA and finding “EPA’s approach – regionwide caps with no state-specific quantitative contribution determinations or emissions requirements – is fundamentally flawed.”
Is vacatur the best remedy?
In all four of these cases, the Court chose to vacate rather than remand the rules. The dissent in the CISWI/Boilers Rules case unsuccessfully argued that remand without vacating the rules was preferable“[b]ecause the rules would ensure greater protection to public health and the environment during the time EPA will need to develop and promulgate new rules.” The majority was unpersuaded and preferred no rules at all. Is that really the best option for the environment?
And the language the Court uses implies more than a lack of deference. In vacating CAIR, a decision described as “unexpected” by both proponents and opponents, the Court described the rule as “fundamentally flawed” and directed EPA to “redo its analysis from the ground up.” In vacating CAMR, the Court characterized EPA as “deploy[ing] the logic of the Queen of Hearts.” What’s going on here?
