Environmental Law ReSource : Environmental Lawyer & Attorney : Reed Smith Law Firm : Climate Change, Sustainability

This post was written by Siobhan Hayes, Indeg Kerr, and Tim Foster.

In earlier postings we’ve introduced the UK’s carbon reduction commitment (CRC). During May UK businesses with half hourly meters should have received letters from the Environment Agency (EA) introducing them to the CRC and the obligations the businesses will face. However, please note that letters went to the billing addresses for each relevant meter. The EA states that it does not know which parent company will be responsible for compliance with the CRC and that applies across the whole of the business of the UK group (covered in a previous posting). It is possible that your organisation has received a letter but there may be complications: it could have gone to a person who no longer works at the company; may be overlooked; or may not reach the right level of management. Even without the initial EA letter getting to the right people, businesses in the UK need to be prepared.

This posting covers the information to be gathered for the qualification year of 2008 and some practical steps to prepare for CRC compliance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This post was written by Tim Foster and Siobhan Hayes.

In 2010 the Carbon Reduction Commitment Order will require many UK businesses to measure and report on their energy consumption, to buy allowances to cover their carbon emissions and to pay significant penalties if they do not comply. The CRC was summarised in a recent Reed Smith posting.

Unlike previous legislation affecting EU carbon emissions (the Emissions Trading Scheme) the CRC does not apply to specific installations or individual companies in relation to their own emissions. It applies to the whole of the organisation in the UK. For companies doing business in the UK that means that the CRC applies to the relevant UK group as a whole. If the UK group is owned by a parent incorporated overseas the parent will have compliance duties in respect of its UK subsidiaries.

The rules are not straightforward and involve a raft of potentially confusing definitions and terms to describe participating and responsible entities.   This posting covers the key points on who has to comply:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This post was written by Dave Wagner.

On June 1, 2009, the European Chemicals Agency proposed that seven chemical substances should be phased out or restricted under the EU’s REACH law. The European Commission will finalize the proposal through a regulatory process and, if adopted, the seven substances would be included in REACH’s Annex XIV list of substances subject to authorization. As a result, the substances could not be placed on the EU market unless granted exemptions for specific uses.

The seven were selected from the Agency’s October 2008 list of 15 candidate substances and the determination was based on their hazardous properties, the volumes used and the likelihood of exposure to humans or the environment. The seven substances are musk xylene; solvent hardener 4,4'-diaminodiphenylmethane (MDA); flame retardant short chained chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs); flame retardant hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD); and plasticizers bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), and dibutyl phthalate (DBP). These chemicals are the first substances that would be subject to restrictions under REACH.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This post was written by Indeg Kerr, Siobhan Hayes and Tim Foster.

UK businesses need to know their carbon footprint because in 2010 the Carbon Reduction Commitment Order will apply. Since our CRC posting in December 2008, draft regulations have been published and are now subject to public consultation. This remains a scheme where businesses using a substantial amount of energy will have to report on their energy consumption, buy carbon allowances based on projected carbon emissions for each scheme year then surrender them at the end of each year when energy use is known. A league table will be published by the Environment Agency (EA) who will administer the scheme showing the relative energy efficiency of all those in the program. The best performing businesses will receive a refund of some of the costs of the allowances plus a bonus but the worst performing businesses will pay a penalty.

Some industries are high intensity energy users and already have to comply with the EU’s Emissions Trading System. The CRC scheme will capture lower intensity energy users who used a significant amount of electricity in 2008 and may include large offices, chains of retail outlets, hotels, banks, chains of restaurants as well as industry.
This posting outlines the types of business that may need to comply with the CRC scheme, the basic requirements of the program, some cost issues, and next steps to consider.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This post was written by Dave Wagner.

On May 9, 2009, parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (Stockholm POPs) agreed to add 9 new substances to the treaty’s annexes of banned or restricted substances. The Stockholm POPs treaty is an international agreement that initially targeted 12 substances to be eliminated from global commerce, and this month’s decision is the first addition of chemicals to the treaty since the original listing was adopted in 2001.

The decision to add substances was made at the 4^th conference of the treaty’s parties. The additions include PFOS, a chemical used in many electronic applications, such as semiconductor chips, photo imaging, textiles, and fire fighting foam; lindane, a pesticide that has been used to combat head lice; chlordecone, an agricultural pesticide; and hexabromobiphenyl, an industrial chemical that has been used as a flame retardant.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This post was written by Steve Nolan and Lou Naugle.

On May 4, 2009, in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed two issues under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq. (CERCLA), which it had never reached before. The first issue was the reach of the useful product defense, which has been generally recognized in principle by the lower courts. The second was the question of what showing is required of defendants to avoid joint and several liability that, for more than 25 years, the lower federal courts have imposed almost as a matter of course.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This post was written by Indeg Kerr and Siobhan Hayes.

In the UK, the High Court issued judgment at the end of March in the civil litigation to decide on liability following the 2005 explosion at the Buncefield oil storage depot. The judgment raises a number of practical management issues to be considered by anyone operating a facility covered by the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (COMAH) or simply managing hazardous substances in significant quantities. This article provides an overview of the judgment and outlines significant issues to consider.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This post was written by Nicolle Snyder Bagnell and Stephanie Hadgkiss.

Facing a projected budget deficit of $2.3 billion, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell has proposed a "severance" tax on gas extracted from the Marcellus shale formation, the proceeds of which would go to the General Fund in order to offset revenue shortfalls in the state's budget. This proposal was reported in the Feb. 20, 2009 edition of the Oil and Gas Journal.

According to the article, Governor Rendell proposes to tax producers in the state 5% at the wellhead, plus 4.7 cents per thousand cubic feet of production --an approach identical to that of West Virginia. The tax would be paid monthly to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue beginning Oct. 1, 2009 and has been projected to raise an estimated $1.82 billion over five years.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This post was written by Dave Wagner.

The UK's Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) published a consultation on April 7 soliciting public comment on European Commission proposals to revise the WEEE and RoHS Directives. The consultation paper highlights the significant changes and poses questions for industry and others to address. Among other revisions, the proposal would establish under WEEE new collection targets for Member States and new targets for recovery and reuse/recycling. The proposal would also likely increase WEEE financing costs for producers. The proposed revisions to RoHS would include the possible review and restriction of four substances, specifically: hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD); bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP); butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP); and dibutylphthalate (DBP). Consultation responses (i.e., public comments) are due May 13, 2009.

The WEEE Directive (or Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) aims to minimize the environmental impact of electrical and electronic equipment by encouraging its reuse, recycling and recovery when it is discarded at end of life. The RoHS Directive (or the Restriction on the use of certain Hazardous Substances Directive) ensures that all Member States observe similar restrictions on the levels of six hazardous substances in the same categories of electrical and electronic equipment.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks