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

This post is written by Jennifer Smokelin.

EPA is proposing a rule to require mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States (the "Proposed GHG Rule"). EPA is developing this rule in accordance with the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which was signed into law in December 2007. The Proposed GHG Rule would require reporting of anthropogenic GHG emissions covered under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Almost all the literature set forth by EPA and commentators under this proposed regulation carefully considers the question, "Who would report?" But an equally important question—about which there is far less discussion—is, "How do you establish that you don't have to report?"

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post was written by Mark Mustian. 

Mountain-top mining has probably generated more controversy in the United States than any other current resource extraction process, and recent USEPA activities have significantly increased attention to the process. Before discussing the regulatory developments, some background information may be helpful. Mountain-top mining is utilized to remove low-sulfur coal from the tops of mountains in the Appalachian region. The mining company timbers the mountain-top and removes the topsoil. The company then uses explosives to remove the overburden rock to expose the coal seams. The overburden is typically pushed into a nearby valley, creating a valley fill. The coal is excavated and washed (creating a significant amount of coal slurry waste), and the top of the mountain is reclaimed and revegetated. The process results in permanent changes to the topography and permanent impacts to the regions streams and water quality.

Mountain-top mining is allowed under section 515(c)(1) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). However, in order to deposit the overburden into the valley, and the valley watershed, the mining company must obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). A permit is required under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in order to discharge dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States. The permit is issued by the USACE using the guidelines developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Under Section 404(c) of the CWA, the EPA has the authority to deny a permit for the discharge of dredged or fill material if it determines that "that the discharge of such materials into such area will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (including spawning and breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post was written by Jennifer Smokelin.

Last Friday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that climate-warming greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, pose a danger to human health and welfare, according to the New York Times. EPA sent its finding to the Office of Management and Budget for review. Once the budget office clears the finding, it can be signed by Lisa P. Jackson, EPA’s Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson. There is also likely to be a public comment period on the proposed finding, but likely none that will prevent the endangerment finding from being finalized.

EPA has been charged for decades with regulating air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and, as the Supreme Court recognized in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), GHG emissions are air pollutants subject to Clean Air Act regulations. An endangerment determination would confirm the Agency’s power, but also its obligation, to regulate greenhouse gases now.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 This post was written by David Weiss and Megan Demeter.

On March 9, 2009, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in State of California v. Allstate Insurance Co., Case No. S149988. In this unanimous decision, the Court resolved several issues in favor of the policyholder regarding the application of pollution exclusion provisions in the State’s comprehensive general liability insurance policies. The case arises out of the State of California’s liability for environmental contamination at the “Stringfellow Acid Pits” a state designed and operated waste disposal facility in Riverside County, California.

First, the Court addressed the relevant “discharge” for determining whether the “sudden and accidental” exception to the pollution exclusion applied and, therefore, reinstated coverage that otherwise would have been excluded. The contamination at issue was caused by the escape into the environment of pollutants that had been placed into containment ponds on the site. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision that the relevant discharge for purposes of determining whether the discharge was “sudden and accidental” is the release of waste from the containment ponds rather than the initial disposal of waste into the ponds as the insurers argued. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post was written by Larry Demase and Steve Nolan.

On Feb. 24, 2009, in American Farm Bureau v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 06-1410, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the most recent version of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2006 were contrary to law and unsupported by reasoned decisionmaking. The court upheld the coarse particulate NAAQS that were promulgated as part of the same rulemaking. 

The 2006 NAAQS established a 24-hour primary standard for fine particulate matter based on short-term exposure studies, and an annual standard of 15 μg/m3 based exclusively on long-term exposure studies. However, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), an independent scientific advisory committee established under the Clean Air Act, and EPA’s own staff, had recommended a more stringent annual standard because of short-term health effects of fine particulate matter. By statute, EPA was required to explain its rejection of CASAC’s recommendation, and the court found that it had failed to do so adequately.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post was written by Jennifer Smokelin and Larry Demase.

On Mar. 10, EPA announced a proposed rule in response to the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2764; Public Law 110–161) that requires mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from large sources in the United States.  In general, EPA proposes that both upstream production facilities such as fuel suppliers and downstream emitting sourcess of GHG are to report. Emission sources include electric generators, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, food processors, lime production facilities and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions.  Annual reports to EPA are required.  The gases covered by the proposed rule are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and other fluorinated gases including nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) and hydrofluorinated ethers (HFE).  EPA is using its authority under the Clean Air Act to develop the rule and it states that the rule is relevant for determining  how to use Sections 111, 112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act  to establish standards for sources emitting GHGs.  EPA estimates that the expected cost to comply with the reporting requirements to the private sector would be $160 million for the first year.  In subsequent years, the annualized costs for the private sector would be $127 million. This rule will begin the process of shifting the focus of GHG regulation away from the states. 

The proposed rule will soon be published in the Federal Register under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508.  The proposed rule will be open for public comment for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. Two public hearings will be held during the comment period.  Click here for a pre-publication copy of the proposed rule and preamble.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post was written by Jennifer Smokelin.

 In President Obama's Feb. 24, 2009 address to Congress, he called on "Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution." His address, coupled with the President's FY 2010 budget proposal, outlined the Administration's plans to develop a comprehensive energy and climate change plan to invest in clean energy, end our addiction to oil, address the global climate crisis, and create new American jobs that cannot be outsourced. After enactment of the budget, the Administration indicated it will work expeditiously with key stakeholders and the Congress to develop an economy-wide emissions reduction program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions approximately 14 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and approximately 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. The Obama Administration anticipates that this program will be implemented through a cap-and-trade system, a policy approach that was used to regulate sulfur dioxide emissions and which significantly reduced acid rain at much lower costs than the traditional government regulations and mandates of the past. Through a 100 percent auction to ensure that the biggest polluters do not enjoy windfall profits, the government projects that this program would fund investments in a clean energy future totaling $150 billion over 10 years, starting in FY 2012. The balance of the auction revenues would be returned to public programs to assist families, communities, and businesses in the transition to a clean energy economy.

 Given this emphasis, we are likely looking at federal legislation this year in the form of a federal cap and trade program (although this may be delayed somewhat due to the economic crisis). Stay tuned to this blog for comments regarding what will it look like, what business opportunities to expect, and what you can do now to shape legislation.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post was written by David Wagner.

In the past few weeks, we've discussed mercury regulation on the state and federal levels.  Now it's time to report on a significant international development.  On Feb. 20, the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) announced a decision by more than 140 countries, including the United States, to begin negotiations of a legally binding agreement on mercury.  The United States had opposed a legally binding mercury treaty during the previous administration. 

The UNEP decision represents the first coordinated global effort to address mercury, and the final treaty could include a variety of binding and voluntary approaches to address and reduce mercury pollution.  Although the decision did not discuss details of the future agreement, it broadly stated that the treaty address atmospheric emissions of mercury, and the U.S. delegation indicated that the treaty bring "particular attention to sectors that have the greatest global impact, such as coal-fired power plants."  The decision also stated that the treaty include provisions addressing mercury in products and waste.  Preliminary meetings will be held this year with negotiations set to begin in 2010 and conclude by 2013.

Return to this blog for updates on the range of efforts to address mercury pollution.  We'll discuss UNEP's activities, including how certain industries will be affected.  We will also be following legal developments by EPA and state agencies. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This article was written by Jennifer Smokelin.

On Feb. 4, the U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of EPA, filed suit against Westar Energy, Inc. in St. Marys, Kansas for allegedly failing to install the best available control technology at one or more of its coal-fired power plants. The complaint, brought under the New Source Review ("NSR") provisions of the Clean Air Act, revives a line of NSR enforcement cases many thought was dead during the previous administration -- and revives an initiative targeting coal-fired power plants that the Clinton administration began in 1999.  While there remains little clear guidance as to what projects at existing facilities may trigger NSR, the complaint against Westar Energy, Inc. is a signal to utilities to prepare for renewed regulatory attention to NSR enforcement and potential litigation over past, and potentially future, modifications.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link