Ohio Environmental Law Blog : Ohio Environmental Lawyer & Attorney : Joseph Koncelik : Frantz Ward Law Firm : Environmental Regulation, Land Use, Compliance : Cleveland, Ohio

On August 20th, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) proposed administrative rules for the implementation of Ohio's Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard.  Approximately 26 states have enacted renewable portfolio standards (RPS) that mandate a certain percentage of electricity supplied in the state come from renewable sources.  Only one other State, Pennsylvania expanded the mandate to cover additional sources of energy beyond renewables. 

Ohio has now gone beyond Pennsylvania in promoting other "advanced energy sources."  Ohio is the first State in the Country to allow the following resources to be eligible toward meeting the advanced energy mandate:

• Clean Coal Technology
• Technology or improvements that reduce CO2 emissions
• Enhancement of Nuclear Power

Under Senate Bill 221, and as set forth in the proposed rules, 12.5% of power supplied in Ohio must come from these and other advanced energy sources (fuel cells, distributed generation, fuel cells, solid waste to energy and energy efficiency projects) by 2025. 

The proposed rules are pretty standard on the renewable side.  The include provisions used by other states who have already had an RPS.  The rules provide for annual benchmarks, alternative compliance payments, use of renewable energy credits (RECs) and costs caps on meeting the RPS. 

It is significant that Ohio has developed a more complex and interesting portfolio standard for advanced energy sources.  However, where the SB 221 was very prescriptive as to meeting the renewable standard requirements, the legislation was vague on the advanced energy side of the standard.  Unfortunately, the draft rules fail to provide much needed detail.

Here are some issues that should be addressed to better promote advanced energy sources:

1. Benchmarks-  SB 221 did not include them for meeting the advanced energy standard.  The rules should at least require meaningful evaluation as to progress toward meeting the mandate to supply 12.5% from advanced energy sources by 2025.
2. Establish a Currency-  On the renewable side, Ohio is following the well established method of buying and selling renewable energy certificates (RECs).  One megawatt of renewable power equals one REC.  There is no such currency established for the advanced energy portion of the standard.
3. Better define each advanced energy resource-  Most importantly, the definitions of what types of projects qualify are far too vague.

• Example 1: The rules say "a significant improvement to an existing nuclear" facility qualifies.  There is no definition of "significant."  What type of enhancements are we trying to promote?  If one change is made, does the whole plant qualify as an advanced energy resource?
• Example 2:  "Clean Coal Technology"- the rules don't provide anymore specification then SB221.  The bill just says qualifying technology is something that reduces pollutants like arsenic, chlorine, nitrous oxide, mercury, sulfur dioxide.  By how much?  Again, does a small reduction, like one particle of mercury, make the whole 500 megawatt plant an "advanced energy resource?"

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

As reported in Platts, the Court of Appeals has granted US EPA until September 24th to determine whether to pursue rehearing of the ruling that struck down the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).

The US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia announced
....it was giving EPA more time to file any petition for a rehearing,
which it can seek either before the same three judges or before the full
six-judge court.

Any such petition would originally have been due August 24.

The extra time would likely delay implementation of the court's ruling
for at least another two to three months until the court decides whether it
will approve or deny any EPA petition, according to John Walke, clean air
director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The court would seek comments from other parties on any government
petition, giving them up to 30 days, before making a decision, Walke added.

The full effect of the Court's decision takes place on issuance of its "mandate" which effectively throws out the program. The Court of Appeals typically issues its mandate 7 days after the time period for appeal expires. So earliest the full decision would likely take effect is October 1st.

EPA could file a motion to stay the effectiveness of the mandate while it seeks appeal. If no one opposes the motion the stay is effective for 90 days. If the motion to stay is granted, then it will continue while EPA seeks review in front of the Supreme Court.  So, EPA through legal maneuvering can try and delay the inevitable.

Rehearing still appears unlikely as does any Congressional action to provide legal support for CAIR.  Also, the decision to seek more time will keep EPA silent on many aspects how it proposes to deal with CAIR decision.  EPA traditionally provide great deference to the Court while determining whether to seek an appeal.  An information vacuum is not the best thing right now for those struggling to understand how to effectively address the many ramifications of the Court's decision.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On August 20th, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio proposed rules governing greenhouse gas reporting and carbon dioxide control planning.  Parties wishing to file comments have until September 6th to file comments.

The most interesting aspect of the rule is it proposes to mandate all electric generating facilities in Ohio become participating members in the Climate Registry.  It also mandates electric generating facilities to report report greenhouse gas emissions according to protocols approved by the Climate Registry.  While Senate Bill 221 provided discretion to the PUCO to establish the level of participation in the Climate Registry, the Commission has decided to mandate participation.

I'm sure the Commission will receive comments on their definition of "electric generating facility" covered by the mandatory reporting requirement.  The definition is as follows:

"Electric generating facility" means an electric generating plant and associated facilities capable of producing electricity.

There is no minimum size requirement specified in the proposed rule.  Therefore, it would appear an electric generating facility of virtually any size under PUCO's jurisdiction faces a mandatory reporting requirement.

I would also expect comments from the Utilities that the mandatory reporting requirements should wait until U.S. EPA proposes its mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule in September.  U.S. EPA's reporting rule will specify required reporting as well as include limitations on the size of the generating unit covered by the mandatory reporting requirement. 

U.S. EPA propose rule will also shine light on the interplay between the Climate Registry and mandatory federal reporting requirements. Perhaps the Commission left themselves some wiggle room by inserting "or as otherwise directed by the Commission" right after the mandate to participate in the Climate Registry.

The rule also requires each owner and operator of a electric generating facility to file an annual report specifying its control plan for both criteria pollutants (NOx, SO2) and for carbon dioxide.  However, the rule lacks any specificity as to what elements must be included in the plan.  The proposed rule requires the environmental control plan include:

"...all relevant technical information on current conditions, goals, and potential actions based upon the current scientific and engineering design capability of any facility...to control emissions of criteria pollutants and carbon dioxide within the parameters of economically feasible best technology."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This picture may be one of the last of the "big three" (Strickland, Husted, and Harris) holding hands over Clean Ohio. Governor Ted Strickland's administration is proposing to mandate prevailing wage for all construction that occurs on land for which the State has funded environmental remediation.  A key political debate is shaping up as to how this change will affect projects funded using brownfield grant funds through the Clean Ohio Program. 

To provide answers a few points must be addressed:

• Which type of Clean Ohio grant funded the project?
• Which costs are at issue?  Remediation costs or construction costs post-clean up?

Clean Ohio recently created a new "redevelopment-ready" grant track.  This is in addition to the "known end-user track."  Apparently, under the proposed policy how much work at a brownfield is covered by prevailing wage will depend upon which grant track your project was funded.  

Under the proposed prevailing wage policy, if your project receives Clean Ohio funding under the "known-end user track" the use of grant funds will "presumptively subject all construction on the entire project to prevailing wage."  However, if the state were to fund the cleanup at the brownfield under the "redevelopment ready track" (i.e. there is no identified end-user of the property), then only the remediation work is subject to prevailing wage. 

According to the Columbus Dispatch,  Speaker Jon Husted expressed concern that application of prevailing wage to brownfield development could drive people to using green space or farmland for development.  What type of cost increases would decrease the attractiveness of public-subsidized redevelopment of brownfield sites?

A Legislative Service Center (LSC) study of the exemption of school projects from prevailing wage concluded it reduced costs by around 10% and saved $487 million.   The conclusions of the LSC study were challenged, so it is difficult to really know whether similar cost increases could occur at brownfield sites.

Here is my take:

• Environmental remediation is an expensive business, application of prevailing wage may not impact the costs associated with this type of clean up work. However, it may be different when dealing with the redevelopment of the site post-clean up (i.e. pure construction work).  It is possible that construction costs at a brownfield could increase by a comparable amount (10%) as was found in the LSC study. 
• A 10% increase in costs is probably unlikely to make most projects that are premised upon receiving public subsidies no longer attractive.  However, why diminish the cost effectiveness of a grant program designed to spur redevelopment in neglected areas. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 Yesterday, U.S. EPA announced its proposed non-attainment designations for counties not meeting the new P.M. 2.5 (fine particle) pollution standard.  Ohio was second only to California in total counties designated non-attainment with 28 total counties. 

A county's designation as non-attainment makes economic development efforts more difficult and increases competitive pressure on existing businesses.  The designations mean regulatory restrictions on economic growth and increased pollution control compliance costs for existing businesses. 

How is economic growth impacted?  Before a company can build a new factory or expand, if that factory will result in a moderate pollution increase of fine particles it must offset that emission increase.  An offset is achieved through pollution reductions from existing businesses already located in that county.  The offset requirement, as part of U.S. EPA's New Source Review Program, acts as a strong disincentive to locate in non-attainment counties.  The offset requirement only goes away if the county is redesignated attainment.

How does County get out of its non-attainment designation?  Through reductions in fine particle pollution to levels that comply with the federal standards. Reductions are achieved through a combination of federal and state pollution programs.  The State must develop a pollution control plan (SIP) that shows its strategy for achieving the federal air quality standard by the applicable deadline (2012).

What are the largest sources contributing to fine particle pollution?  Transportation, in particular diesel engines and coal-fired power plants.  While, fine particle pollution is more localized than ozone, it still has a regional component.  Therefore, counties must see state and regional reductions in order to achieve the standard. (Note: the recent letter from State EPA heads to U.S. EPA)

How can Ohio and other states effectively achieve reductions from these sources?  While U.S. EPA has adopted tougher standards for diesel engines, the reductions won't come until there is turnover in the fleet.  Therefore, the full benefits may not be seen for 25 years.  That is why programs like DERG that accelerate diesel reductions are so important. (see yesterday's post on Ohio's diesel grant program). 

Furthermore, Ohio and the other state's efforts to meet the fine particle standard are further complicated by the court decision throwing out U.S. EPA's CAIR program.  CAIR, as described by U.S. EPA, was the "linchpin" program designed to help states achieve attainment with ozone and fine particle standards. (see post "CAIR Decision Will Have Many Aftershocks")

Implementation of the new standard: Below is U.S. EPA's implementation schedule for both the old (65 ug/m3)  and new (35 ug/m3) 24-hour fine particle standards.  While Ohio submitted its SIP in July for the old standard it relied heavily upon CAIR.  So, even for the old program Ohio's SIP will need significant revisions.  It is yet to be seen how states can achieve either standard without regional reductions from coal-fired power plants.  Unfortunately, it doesn't appear Congress is going to act quickly to provide relief to the States.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

You don't often hear Buckeye's saying they need to be more like Longhorns, but Ohio would do well to imitate the Texas approach to reducing diesel emissions in its state.  Back in 2001, Texas established the Texas Emission Reduction Plan (TERP) that has approximately $500 million in funding to help reduce diesel emissions.

Why has Texas made such a heavy investment in its diesel emission reduction program?  Because Texas identified the connection between air quality and business development.  

Here is a quick tutorial on the connection: Counties that do not meet federal ozone or fine particle standards are designated as "non-attainment."  A "non-attainment" classification constrains economic development and puts businesses in those counties at a competitive disadvantage. Reducing diesel emissions through grants and other incentives can be an effective way of reducing emissions to help attain federal air quality standards. 

Ohio's Diesel Emission Grant Program (DERG), with $19.8 million in financing set aside in the last budget, was an initial step toward a Texas like program.  On July 29, 2008 the Ohio Department of Development awarded 10 grants under the Ohio Diesel Emission Reduction Grant (DERG) program.  The grants pay for retrofits of emission controls, engine rebuilds, and a portion of the purchase price of new diesel vehicles.  Total amount requested by the 10 successful grants recipients is $8.5 million. 

Records obtained from ODOD show robust demand for diesel grants across the state.  A total of 42 applications were filed requesting a total of $42 million dollars in funding.  The requests were more then quadruple the total money available. 

There is no doubt there has been frustration with the implementation of the DERG program. Thirty-two (32) of the applications had to be rejected for failing to provide necessary information.  The most common errors that resulted in rejection were: inadequate or missing public-private partnership (PPP) agreements, missing emission calculations or no quote was provided for the diesel equipment to be replaced with grant funds.

On August 14th, I helped facilitate a meeting on behalf of the Ohio Diesel Coalition with the State agencies responsible for implementing the program (Ohio EPA, ODOD and ODOT).  The meeting was productive and many positive suggestions were made for improving the grant application process in the second round of funding.  Stay tuned for an update on the changes adopted by the State for the next grant round likely in September or October.

This will be the last chance to obtain a portion of the $19.8 million set aside in the State budget for the DERG program.  The business community and the Diesel Coalition should have a common goal of seeing applications submitted that far outpace the remaining funding available (between $9 to 13 million).  This will provide a solid platform to ask the Legislature to continue this important program or perhaps even be more like Texas and increase available funding.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Here is a sampling of sustainable practices that can directly improve  your company's bottom line. As you can see from the descriptions, these practices involve large Fortune 500 companies.  However, there is no reason they can't be implemented by smaller companies.  The examples in this post can help save fuel and reduce energy costs.  With ever increasing prices for both the incentives and advantages of thinking proactively continue to grow.

Plastic or Wood Pallets?  The Wall Street Journal reported that using plastic pallets instead of wood for trucks is not only more environmentally friendly, but also a money saver. The Journal reported:

They last longer, they weigh less, and they don’t need paint or chemical treatments. Since a plastic pallet can easily handle 100 trips—versus two trips for a single-use wooden pallet—the difference in greenhouse-gas emissions is stark: 45,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide for the plastic pallets, compared with 300,000 kilograms for the wooden pallets. Most importantly, says iGPS, you don’t have to chop down trees to get plastic pallets: A Virginia Tech study found that 40% of the U.S. hardwood harvest goes to wooden pallet production.

On the iGPS website (a manufacturer of plastic pallets) even has a calculator which lets shipping companies tally how much fuel they’d save by switching from wood to plastic.

Retailers Discovering Energy Efficiency-  Another Wall Street Journal article covered the increased usage by major big box retailers and supermarkets to energy efficient heating, cooling and lighting. Stores like Office Depot, Kroger and Walmart are saving energy and money by adopting advanced energy efficient designs in their stores.  In Ohio, a state that will be facing significant increases in energy prices, smaller retailers and commercial store owners are wise to take heed.  Here are some of the changes being implemented:

• Skylights that have reflective mirror that tracks the sun to provide natural lighting throughout the store thereby reducing energy costs
• Intelligent lighting systems that automatically adjusts the fluorescent lighting based on the availability of natural light in the store
• Parking lots use concrete not tar to reduce heat generated around the store
• LEDs (light-emitting diodes) rather than incandescent bulbs in freezer units

The article notes that construction costs increased by 10% to add these energy efficient technologies, but each store is projected to save 25% in energy costs.  This will allow recovery of their upfront costs within a matter a few years.  I am certain those calculations don't even take into account the likelihood of increased energy prices.

Smartway the "smartway" to reduce diesel costs-  U.S. EPA's Smartway program is an innovative brand that represents environmentally cleaner, more fuel efficient transportation options.  Smartway can help finance equipment that can significantly save fuel costs.  For example, Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) allow truckers to power their truck without idling.  Smartway also rates vehicles based upon their emissions.  Perhaps one of the most useful tools you can find on U.S. EPA's website is the Smartway calculator.

• The SmartWay calculator allows you to compare your costs with various technologies, by letting you enter different values for fuel use, fuel cost, and other critical factors.  By trying different combinations you can identify the combination of technologies that help you save the most money.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

MSNBC reported today that the Interior Department has proposed changes to the rules governing required reviews under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  From the news report is appears the two most significant proposed changes are:

• Removal of the requirement  to "consult" with Fish and Wildlife or other federal experts as part of the required review under Section 7 of the ESA.  The proposed rules would allow federal agencies on their own, without consultation with sister federal agencies, to determine if project  will have an impact on endangered species. To give you an idea of the breadth of projects being reviewed, the article states that Fish and Wildlife performed 300,000 consultations between 1998 and 2002.
   
• Prevent the ESA to be used as tool to regulate greenhouse gases.  This change was proposed after the Department of Interior proposed listing the polar bear as a "threatened" species. When the listing action was announced, Secretary Kempthorne clarified that the Department of the Interior (DOI) intends to act “to make certain the ESA isn’t abused to make global warming policies.”  Today's announcement appears to be the action referenced by Secretary Kempthorne.  It would bar federal agencies from assessing the emissions from projects that contribute to global warming and the corollary effect on species and habitats.

Section 7 of the ESA required federal agencies to consult with FWS (or other federal agencies) to ensure that any action they authorize through permitting or other means are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.  Some developers have complained that Section 7 results in long delays and unnecessary expenses associated with projects. 

The proposal to overhaul the Section 7 process is controversial and will be challenged if it moves forward. On its website, the Department of Interior characterizes the proposal as "narrow changes" to the ESA..  Whether you support ending the consultation process or not, it is simply not accurate to describe it this a narrow change.  More importantly, the proposal and surrounding controversy detracts from the legitimate concern over the use of the ESA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The real issue is taking steps necessary to prevent the use of a myriad of federal and state regulations to leverage reviews of an individual project's contribution to global warming. Global warming by its very nature is a global issue.  Unlike other pollutants, emission of greenhouse gases themselves do not have local impacts.  The impacts stem from the overall increase in temperature associated with the accumulation of gases in the atmosphere. 

The best way to address global warming is through comprehensive federal legislation establishing a cap and trade program that lowers emissions in a cost effective manner.  Use of the ESA or portions of the Clean Air Act to combat global warming is like fitting round holes with square pegs.  Unfortunately, the Department of Interior actions and announcement detracts from this important policy debate. 

(photo: from flickr, Frank Wouters)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Governor Perry of Texas had filed a request to waive 50% of the national volume requirements for the renewable fuel standard (RFS).  The Governor's Waiver Request cited to the following factors to support issuance of a waiver:

• Since ethanol mandates were instituted, more of the U.S. corn crop is being diverted to produce fuel
• 25% of the corn crop was diverted in 2007 and its projected to rise to 30 to 35% in 2008
• Corn prices have skyrocketed, going from $2.06/bushel to at least $4.00/bushel
• Globally, corn prices are up 138% over the past three years
• Global food prices have increase 83% over that same time period
• Translates to a $1.17 billion dollar negative impact on the current Texas economy

The RFS mandate came about through the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and was expanded in the Energy and Independence Security Act of 2007.  The total volume of renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, mandated by law to be blended into the fuel supply is 9 billion gallons in 2008 and 11.1 billion gallons in 2009.

EPA denied the request the RFS waiver request based upon its analysis of the evidence suggesting a waiver would have only a nominal impact on corn prices (on average $0.30 per bushel of corn).  The EPA concluded there was no evidence to support the claim the RFS mandate was causing "severe harm" to the economy of a State, region, or the United States.

I would guess this will not be the last waiver request submitted.  However, in denying the request, EPA also provided insight into its interpretation of the requirements for issuing a waiver.  The legal standard articulated with be very difficult to meet. Generally, EPA found it has only narrow waiver authority:

• EPA would have to determine that the implementation of the mandate itself would severely harm the economy; it is not enough to determine that implementation of RFS would contribute to such harm;
• EPA would also have to find that there is a generally high degree of confidence that the RFS is severely harming the economy; and
• This requirement calls for a high threshold for the nature and degree of harm that would support the issuance of a waiver based on "severe harm" to the economy of a State, region, or the United States.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

PTIO Program is Launched-  Effective June 30, 2008 Ohio EPA finalized this new permit program which combines the Permit to Install (PTI) and Permit to Operate (PTO) into a single permit for non-Title V facilities.  Facilities will no longer have to apply for a separate PTO.  This program is intended to deal with Ohio EPA's backlog of PTOs which is in the thousands.  Ohio EPA's new PTIO application is up and must be used for new permits.

Electronic Reporting through Air Services- Effective June 30, 2008 Ohio EPA transitioned from its STARship electronic air reporting software to Air Services.  Air Services is part of Ohio EPA's larger effort to transition to more web based business interaction with the regulated community.  Following the release of the Air Services software, both Title V and Synthetic Minor Title V facilities will be required to use the eBusiness Center: Air Services for all emissions reporting, Title V Annual Compliance Certifications, Title V and other permitting applications.

Electronic Reporting of Surface Water Reports-  If you are using paper reporting or SWIMware to submit monthly-operating-reports (MORs) for NPDES permit compliance you need to quickly transition to Ohio EPA's new electronic reporting system.  Ohio EPA indicates it expects to cease accepting MORs by "end of the  summer". SWIMware has been replaced by the new online system called e-DMR, Electronic Discharge Monitoring Reporting System. The term, MORs (Monthly Operating Reports) is now being referred as DMRs (Discharge Monitoring Reports). The new reporting system is entirely web-based and accessible via any internet connection.

Ohio Diesel Grant Awards Announced-  On July 29th the Ohio Department of Development announced the recipients of the grants for diesel retrofit and repower projects for vehicles and fleets.  The award recipients originally submitted applications back in February.  The implementation of the Diesel Emission Reduction Grant (DERG) program was plagued with a number of issues that resulted in the rejection of a large number of applications and delay in announcing awards.  The Ohio Diesel Coalition is working in conjunction with the various State agencies to improve the grant process in the second round.  The Department of Development is expected to release the second request for proposals (RFP) in August. 

Brownfield Redevelopment- Clean Ohio Assistance Fund (COAF)-  As of July 1, 2008 the Ohio Department of Development has begun accepting applications for COAF grants to pay for Phase II site assessments (up to $300,000) and clean ups (up to $750,000) of brownfield properties.  ODOD has approximately $11.4 million to award.  To qualify the property must be in a designated priority investment area (see map).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Municipalities and counties are utilizing riparian and wetland setbacks in their zoning and planning efforts on a more frequent basis.  Setbacks can be an effective tool to control growth, protect valuable natural resources as well as meet federal and state Phase II stormwater requirements. 

While setbacks are beneficial, officials must understand the level of impact on both large scale and small development within their communities before adopting them.  Are they prepared to require alteration of major new commercial or residential developments?  Are they prepared to face angry residents whose plans for a deck or storage shed are influenced by no build zones?  Do they understand the environmental benefits gained by adopting setbacks?

Some local officials that quickly enacted setbacks without fully comprehending the requirements or educating their residents have faced strong push back.  Some communities have responded by frequently issuing variances that dilute the effectiveness of setbacks. Other communities are delaying action on stormwater ordinances until ordered to by the State.

I have worked with local governments on stormwater ordinances, including setbacks.  In my experience, it is critical for local officials to gain a thorough understanding of the ordinances, how they will be applied, as well as the benefits and consequences of setbacks. 

QUICK PRIMER ON RIPARIAN SETBACKS:

Riparian and wetland setbacks are typically adopted through local ordinance.  The most common form prohibits any development, with narrow exceptions, within specified distances from either wetlands or streams. 

In Northeast Ohio, many communities have used the model ordinances developed by NOACA and the Chagrin River Watershed Partners.  The basic approach used in these ordinances is to establish  "no-build" areas equal to specific distances from all streams or wetland.  The distances in the model ordinances range from 300 ft to 25 ft based on the drainage area of the stream or quality of wetland.  A property owner can try and obtain a variance from the setback requirements by demonstrating hardship.

Some local governments have taken this basic approach much further.  They have invested significant resources to map all of the sensitive environmental resources within their communities.  Once mapped, areas are either designated for planned development or are to be avoided and protected.   

An excellent example of this approach is the Chippewa Creek Balanced Growth Plan developed by the Cuyahoga River Community Planning Organization through a Balanced Growth grant awarded by the Lake Erie Commission.

The map on the left show the entire watershed.  Each color designates a different environmental attribute (such as wetlands, streams or steep slopes) that should be protected.  The map on the right is a satellite image with the critical areas highlighted.  Dark green are "no build zones" (PCAs- Priority Conservation Areas) and light green are designated for future development (PDAs- Priority Development Areas).

Creative approaches can be used to compensate landowners whose land lies in area designated for protection. 

• Transfer of Development Rights- compensating a landowner for the development value of the land that is being preserved by allowing higher density development elsewhere in the community.  (A good primer on Transfer of Development Rights)
• Mitigation Banking- establish wetland or restoration areas that can be used to compensate if an impact occurs to a setback area.  This provides flexibility while ensuring the environmental benefits stay within the watershed.

WHAT TO CONSIDER BEFORE ENACTING SETBACK ORDINANCES

1. Flexibility-  Have you built in a level of flexibility within the ordinance that fits your community's needs?  For instance, will you allow development in a setback if mitigation is provided for the impacts.

2.  Takings-  Do the legal standards for granting a variance provide sufficient protection against taking claims?  Because takings case law is fact specific, requirements within the ordinances must have inherent legal flexibility to avoid providing a basis for a claim.  Application of a setback ordinance that results in a valid takings claims can result in significant compensation to the landowner thus draining local government finances.

3.  Distance of the Setback-  Currently in Ohio there is no minimum setback distance specified in state law.  In addition, there are many different distances utilized.  Some are based upon a formula like the one in the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Rainwater Manual.  Others use standard distances like the approach in the NOACA model ordinance.  The key consideration in choosing a distance is whether it will provide the protection your desire without unnecessarily burdening property owners.

4.  Alternatives to Setbacks-  In Ohio, Phase II stormwater communities must adopt both structural and non-structural "best management practices" as part of their stormwater management plans.  Right now, the State does not mandate adoption of setback ordinances unless the community committed to one in their stormwater management plan.  Would an alternative non-structural BMP requirement, such as mandating use of green infrastructure (green roofs, pervious pavement, rain gardens) be more palatable to residents?

5.  Education-  It is critical that communities use effective public education techniques so citizens understand the value of setbacks.  Good education can be the difference between local governments effective implementation of a setback ordinance or a community that issues frequent variances to avoid confrontation with residents. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Surprised? I was after hearing the old reports of China building a new coal plant once a week.  China has long been the favorite scapegoat for those arguing the United States shouldn't address climate change without their participation.  But it appears China may be changing direction. 

As reported in the Guardian, the Climate Group released a study that concludes China is the world's leading producer of energy from renewable sources. 

 Here are some of the fun (and surprising) facts reported in the Study:

1. China leads the world in installed renewable capacity at 152 gigawatts
2. Approximately 820 solar PV were produced in China in 2007, second only to Japan
3. It is the leading world exporter of wind turbines
4. China investments in renewable energy as a percentage of GDP are almost equal to Germany's, the world leader
5. China's energy efficiency standards for cars is 40% higher than in the United States
6. China is the third largest producer of ethanol

Clearly, the goal of the Climate Group was to produce a study to combat the arguments raised in the United States that support inaction on climate change without India or China.  However, one statistic highlighted in the Study deserves some additional discussion. 

In 2007, China emitted 5.1 tons of CO2 per capita compared to 19.4 tons for the United States.  While the United States per capita number justifies action, so does the potential for China to grow its emissions. 

China has 1.2 billion people compared to the United States 300 million.  China has already overtaken the US in total emissions with 1/3 of the emissions per capita because it has four times more people.  Without mandatory caps, what will China's emissions be once 1/2 their population drives cars, purchases more of latest electronics, and have more income to travel?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks