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

Governor Ted Strickland made his State of the State speech today.  While almost the entire speech was focused on education there were a few interesting nuggets relative to Ohio's progress in developing green jobs. 

"Over the last three years, Ohio has led the nation with 350 new or expanded facility projects in the renewable energy sector.

 Take solar energy, for example. The Toledo area has become an international center for solar research and production, with more than 6,000 people working in the solar industry. First Solar and Xunlight (Zun-light) both launched major expansions just this past year.

 All across the state we’ve seen advanced energy creating opportunities."

Later in the speech Strickland discussed Ohio's efforts to incorporate energy efficiency requirements into new government buildings:

Together we took the school building program that Governor Taft and the legislature created, and we expanded it to fund hundreds of new and renovated school buildings. And our new schools are being built to efficiency standards that will reduce our energy costs for the life of the building. In fact, Ohio has the largest energy efficient school building program in the nation.

The Governor should be commended for creation of a Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (Ohio calls it an "Advanced Energy Portfolio Standard").  His initial proposal was greatly improved upon in the Legislature.  However, the rules governing implementation of the RPS seem to be currently stuck at PUCO after the Commission was flooded with comments on how to improve them.  Without improvement we stand to lose the momentum gained through passage of the energy legislation.

The Governor also included Advanced Energy Grant Funding in the Job Stimulus package passed recently.  However, the size of the grants ($250,000 for non-coal projects) seem to be too small to attract major new development to the State.

Is Ohio losing the momentum on attracting green jobs and economic development? 

President Obama has made clear his priority is renewable energy, climate change and green jobs.  Given Ohio's importance in the election this seems like a perfect fit to start getting Ohio out of its economic crisis and create the jobs of the future. Unfortunately, the Governor included no new proposals or ideas for how to build on Ohio's recent momentum in his State of the State address. 

Many states recognize the huge changes that are coming as a result of climate change and energy.  Unfortunately, Ohio lags these other states in developing and attracting the talent to truly lead in these areas.  As purely anecdotal evidence, when I attend national conferences that discuss these issues I will sometimes be the sole representative from Ohio. Meanwhile the New England States and West Coast dominate these conferences. 

Granted I don't attend every conference in these areas, but Ohio has certainly not lead on renewable energy.  It was the 26th state to pass an RPS.  Ohio has not lead at all on climate change. Its efforts have been focussed on resisting rather than improving climate change proposals. 

When the major policy changes on climate change and renewable energy are put forward, where do you think the jobs will go? 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In remarks titled "from peril to progress", the President set forth bold action yesterday that will inevitably lead to full regulation of CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions.  The President ordered a "vigorous review" of California's request to regulate greenhouse gas emissions which had been previously denied by the Bush Administration. [President Obama's memo ordering a review of the California Waiver]   While much of the media focus has been on the effect of the other aspects of the President's actions, such as raising mileage standards, in reality the California waiver request has far more reaching repercussions. 

California has been seeking EPA’s approval to waive federal preemption of state vehicle emission standards for several years.  California wants to enforce a state law that would require automakers to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from new vehicles by 30 percent by 2016. Under the Clean Air Act, U.S. EPA must concur that California has demonstrated a need reduce greenhouse gases in order  “to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.” 42 U.S.C. § 7543(b)(1)(B). Former EPA Administrator Johnson denied California's "waiver" request last year.

The signs that President Obama would proceed in a radically different direction than the Bush Administration on controlling greenhouse gases have been building for some time. First, he mentioned climate change in his speech in Chicago the night he won the election.  Second, he appointed members to the cabinet and senior staff positions that are strong believers in aggressively tackling climate change.  Third, he made mention of climate change in his 20 minute inaugural speech clearly indicating it will be a major priority of his Administration. 

Yesterday, the President took bold action only a week into his Presidency with his issuance of an order to review the denial of the California waiver request.  After announcing his action, President Obama made a speech that contains a clear message- it the President's intention for the United States to lead on addressing climate change no matter how difficult the task may be.  His speech included some pretty bold statements.  Here is an excerpt from his speech: 

Third, the federal government must work with, not against, states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. California has shown bold and bipartisan leadership through its effort to forge 21st century standards, and over a dozen states have followed its lead. But instead of serving as a partner, Washington stood in their way. This refusal to lead risks the creation of a confusing and patchwork set of standards that hurts the environment and the auto industry.

The days of Washington dragging its heels are over. My administration will not deny facts, we will be guided by them. We cannot afford to pass the buck or push the burden onto the states. And that's why I'm directing the Environmental Protection Agency to immediately review the denial of the California waiver request and determine the best way forward. This will help us create incentives to develop new energy that will make us less dependent on oil that endangers our security, our economy, and our planet....

Finally, we will make it clear to the world that America is ready to lead. To protect our climate and our collective security, we must call together a truly global coalition. I've made it clear that we will act, but so too must the world. That's how we will deny leverage to dictators and dollars to terrorists. And that's how we will ensure that nations like China and India are doing their part, just as we are now willing to do ours.

It's time for America to lead, because this moment of peril must be turned into one of progress. If we take action, we can create new industries and revive old ones; we can open new factories and power new farms; we can lower costs and revive our economy. We can do that, and we must do that. There's much work to be done. There is much further for us to go.

But I want to be clear from the beginning of this administration that we have made our choice. America will not be held hostage to dwindling resources, hostile regimes, and a warming planet. We will not be put off from action because action is hard. Now is the time to make the tough choices. Now is the time to meet the challenge at this crossroad of history by choosing a future that is safer for our country, prosperous for our planet, and sustainable.
 

California's waiver will almost certainly be granted.  Such action will tip the regulatory dominoes leading to full blow regulation of greenhouse gases from more than just tailpipes in California. As discussed on this blog before, the Supreme Court has already determined CO2 is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.  Since the Court's decision the debate has centered on whether CO2 is a "regulated pollutant."  Once it is considered "regulated", then numerous provisions in the Act will be deemed to apply to control CO2 and other greenhouse gases.  

One way to make CO2 a regulated pollutant is for EPA to issue new regulations requiring control.  EPA started down that road slowly with the issuance of its Advanced Notice of Public Rulemaking for regulation of greenhouse gases this summer.  However, environmental groups argued new regulations were not needed.  They argued the act already "regulates" CO2.  Specifically, the Clean Act includes monitoring requirements for CO2 from coal plants.

In waning months of the Bush Administration, the Environmental Board of Review issued a major decision in Deseret Power, finding that EPA had discretion to decide whether monitoring was enough to constitute regulation.  In the final days of his tenure, former Administrator Johnson issued an interpretative memo responding to the Deseret Power decision declaring monitoring was not enough. 

Since issuance of the memo, environmental groups have legally challenged the Johnson memo and pressured the Obama Administration to retract it.  However, granting California's waiver request would likely render the memo meaningless.  A grant of the waiver would not by itself be considered regulation of CO2, thereby providing the trigger for regulation of CO2 under other provision of the Clean Air Act.   And with that the dominoes will begin to fall...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Today, EPA Administrator-designate Lisa P. Jackson distributed a memo to all employees of EPA.  The memo outlines her and President Obama's philosophy of environmental protection.  The memo is an interesting demarcation of the major changes that are coming in the realm of environmental protection. 

Some priorities Ms. Jackson is very upfront about, such as addressing Climate Change (which notably was identified as the number 1 priority in her memo).  Other policy perspectives are a little less straightforward, but inferences can be made.  Here are my take aways from the memo.

1. Climate Change is a major priority-  The President made reference to it in his inaugural speech.  It is no mistake that its the first bullet on EPA-designate Jackson's list of priorities.  Notably, she includes the following statement:  "As Congress does its work, we will move ahead to comply with the Supreme Court's decision recognizing Pea's obligation to address climate change under the Clean Air Act"  STAY TUNED ON THIS ONE>>>
2. Science will be at the forefront-  Many environmental groups felt that the Bush Administration put science secondary to their end regulatory goals.  The memo is a clear statement that this will change.  What could be the impact?  For one, look for even stronger federal air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and fine particles. 
3. Resurgence in Environmental Justice- A very thorny issue and one difficult to address through regulation.  However, the memo mentions making  "people disproportionately impacted by pollution" a priority.  Perhaps they will try to tackle this more aggressively.
4. CAIR-  I may be out on a limb on this one.  In the "improving air quality" priority, Jackson states "we will plug the gaps in our regulatory system as science and the law demand."  I think this is a vague reference to a much stronger CAIR program.
5. Brownfield Redevelopment-  U.S. EPA may put even more emphasis on brownfield programs as a means to accelerate clean up of contaminated sites.  Jackson was criticized in New Jersey for the slow clean ups.  I think the statement -"turning these blighted properties into productive parcels and reducing threats to human health and the environment means jobs and investment in our land" -can't be anything other than a reference to a strong brownfield program.
6. Money for the Great Lakes?-  In the memo, Jackson says the "Agency will make robust use of our authority to restore threatened treasures such as the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay."  I am intrigued at the term "robust use of our authority" in connection with the Great Lakes.  Is this a reference to enforcement rather than the Great Lakes Restoration Plan?
7. Don't underestimate the amount of change coming-  President Obama's buzz word was change.  I don't think there is any area that is about to see more change than environmental regulation in the next four years.  Fasten your seat belts...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On January 13, 2009, Judge Lacy Thornburg of the District Court for the Western District of North Carolina issued a major decision in case of North Carolina v. TVA.  When filed, this case was seen as another chapter in the on-going battle between downwind and upwind states over cross-border pollution. 

However, the decision and implications are somewhat surprising.  The Court declared that emissions from four of eleven TVA power plants in upwind states created a public nuisance in the State of North Carolina.  Even though these sources apparently comply with environmental permits and regulations, the Court ordered hundreds of millions of dollars in new pollution control equipment on those plants.

Downwind states suing upwind states over coal power plant pollution is nothing new.  The Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic States have sued Midwestern and Southern States over pollution under a number of theories. 

• They successfully participated in New Source Review enforcement cases with U.S. EPA. 
• They filed Section 126 petitions under the Clean Air Act. Those petitions were later resolved by U.S. EPA by creating the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)- a cap and trade pollution control program. 
• They have sought new federal legislation tightening emission standards on coal-fired power plants

What makes this suit so different is that the State of North Carolina went outside the typical Clean Air Act tool box in asserting its claims.  Instead the State relied upon common law theories.  The decision will certainly bring a waive of new rounds of litigation.  Especially with the remand of CAIR after the successful challenge by North Carolina. 

Here are some of the significant implications of this decision. 

1. The Court found that significant health effects occur as a result of exposure to pollution at levels even below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM 2.5 and Ozone. The Courts said:

"After reviewing the totality of evidence, the Court is convinced that exposure to PM 2.5-even at or below the NAAQS of 15 ug/m3- results in adverse cardiopulmonary effects, including increased or exacerbated asthma and chronic bronchitis...these negative but non-fatal health effects result in numerous social and economic harms to North Carolinians, including lost school and work days..."

2. The Court found that sources in upwind states can still have significant impacts on a downwind state’s air quality. However, in this case, the Court drew the line at distance of 100 miles. TVA plants within 100 miles (4 plants) were deemed a nuisance and plants outside 100 miles (7 plants) were not.

3. The Court created a new definition of “significant contribution.” TVA plants that were contributing 3% of the emission responsible for PM 2.5 pollution in North Carolina and roughly 5% of the ozone problem were deemed to significantly contributing. On that basis, these plants (ones roughly within 100 miles) were deemed a nuisance.  Sources that contributed less than 1% were deemed not a nuisance. 

4. The Court required installation of SCRs and scrubbers on a number of units because those units were contributing to the nuisance.

5.  Even though these plants were apparently in compliance with all federal and state environmental permits and regulations, they will be putting on additional controls.

6. The Court included emission rates for each plant in a spreadsheet in the opinion. However, the decision is somewhat vague as to whether these are simply expected emissions post controls or in fact legally enforceable limits.

7. From a legal perspective, I found it interesting that a federal judge in North Carolina found sources in other states to be causing a nuisance by applying the State nuisance law from Alabama, Kentucky and Tennessee where the sources are located.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With recent developments in climate change litigation, including the Deseret Power decision, it appears we are moving ever closer to requiring control of CO2 from coal fired power plants and other major sources of CO2.   Outgoing EPA Administrator Johnson may have delayed things temporarily by issuing his memo in response to Deseret Power. However, incoming EPA Administrator Jackson has pledged to quickly review the California waiver request that would allow the State to set CO2 emission standards for cars. If that happens, the dominoes will soon fall requiring controls for CO2 for all major sources under the Clean Air Act.

A positive "endangerment finding" in response to the California Waiver request will trigger a host of other regulations. Those would include requiring emission controls from new major sources of CO2 and other greenhouse gases under EPA's New Source Review permit program. 

If new or modified sources are required to control CO2, then as part of their permit they will be required to install Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to reduce CO2 emissions if located in an area that meets federal air quality standards.  More stringent limits (Lowest Achievable Emission Rate- LAER) apply in areas that don't meet air quality standards. 

The focus of all the recent litigation has been on whether to require CO2 controls as part of a BACT permit review.  But that begs a very interesting question....What would BACT be for CO2?

I was asked this very question during a recent interview I had with a reporter from Inside EPA.  That sent me to research the issue.   My review shows to things:  1) there is a wide divergence of opinion among experts as to what BACT would likely be;  and 2) EPA has a fair amount of discretion to determine the BACT standard for CO2.  Once it is decided that BACT must be required to control CO2 (and other greenhouse gases), Industry insiders expect EPA would take at a minimum 6 months to decide the issue.

Reading the tea leaves, I think we can begin to decipher an answer as to what BACT may constitute.  We certainly can eliminates some suggestion offered by pundits based upon how EPA has applied the BACT standard in the past.  Here is what we know....

1. There are no current EPA endorsed technologies for controlling CO2.  EPA's current RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse doesn't have anything on CO2.  The clearinghouse is used to identify various control technologies that would be deemed to meet the various standards on specific industries or technologies. 
2. BACT is a site-specific, case-by-case decision which means uncertainty.  In testimony  House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, attorneys Peter Glaser and John Cline stated the following: "Since BACT determinations for CO2 have no regulatory history at this time, and can vary by type of facility and from state-to-state, businesses wishing to construct new sources or modify existing ones would have no basis for planning what the regulatory requirements will be."
3. Case law and regulatory decisions of EPA establish parameters for the BACT analysis.  As detailed below, case law in the context of BACT for coal plants can be extrapolated to CO2.  The same general guidelines used to evaluate controls for other pollutants (SO2, CO, mercury, NOx) will be used for CO2. 

Now lets turn to a review of experts who have offered their opinion as to which technologies should be considered BACT for CO2.  Here is one guess from the blog Cleanergy.org:

BACT for CO2 is unlikely to mean carbon capture and storage (yet), since it's not readily available, but it will probably mean some combination of co-generation (making use of waste heat from electricity generation), efficiency improvements, and/or fuel switching/co-firing with biomass. Ultimately, President-elect Obama's EPA gets to decide how BACT is defined for CO2, a process which will take at least a year. 

Joseph Romm, author of the blog Climate Progress, offered his opinion of what BACT for CO2 may look like.

Certainly it is going to slow down the permitting of any new coal plant dramatically, until the EPA figures out the answer to the $64 billion question: What is BACT for CO2 for a coal plant? That will probably take the Obama EPA at least 12 months to decide in a rule-making process. But from my perspective it could/should/must include one or more of:

a) Co-firing with biomass — up to 25% cofiring has been demonstrated
b) Highest efficiency plants
c) Cogeneration (i.e. recycled energy)
d) (possibly even) Gasification with, yes, carbon capture and storage (CCS)

Here are some other opinions as to possible technologies that would qualify as BACT for coal-fired power plants:

1. Solar Thermal at a Coal Power Plant- mix the steam from solar thermal with steam from the boiler to reduce emissions. 
2. Highly Efficient Boilers-  Jeff Holmstead, former Chief Air Official for U.S. EPA, has said he  BACT would be for CO2 right now given costs and development of other control technology.

But let's look at the legal guidance associated with BACT.  In doing so, some of the technologies suggested seem "not ready for prime time" or would not be considered a control technology but rather a different type of generation. 

BACT is determined through a case-by-case evaluation of control technology alternatives and involves a complicated weighing of economic, environmental, energy and other factors. BACT can even be no control measure if that weighing process fails to identify a technically and economically feasible technology for controlling the pollutant in question.

A detailed discussion of the permitting process and legal aspects of a BACT analysis is provided below.  The single biggest consideration is that BACT takes the project as proposed and establishes the lowest achievable emission rate for the various pollutants.

This means BACT cannot fundamentally change the design of the proposed project.  This is why EPA has rejected establishing IGCC as BACT.  If the permit applicant is proposing a traditional pulverized coal boiler, then limits must be established based upon what is achievable for that type of boiler.

This eliminates many of the control technologies suggested by pundits:

1. IGCC- would force a redesign and would be rejected
2. Solar Thermal Combined with a Coal Boiler- would be rejected as forcing a redesign
3. Carbon Capture and Storage- This one is interesting.  Under BACT you must take the geographical location of the project into consideration.  If the geologic considerations would make CCS infeasible for the project it could not be required.  In addition, CCS is certainly not ready for prime time and could not be required as part of BACT for any site right now.

Some other technologies are more likely to be considered BACT:

1. High Efficiency Boilers- this would likely be required to reduce emissions
2. Co-firing with biomass-  depending on the project, this could be required.  Co-firing reduces CO2 emissions.  BACT does involve consideration of "clean fuels", however co-firing biomass would likely be rejected if it caused a major redesign of the facility.
3. Coal Drying- By removing moisture from the coal you can reduce CO2 emissions.  Similar to co-firing biomass this could be required if it doesn't force a major redesign of the project.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On January 15, 2009 the Sierra Club filed a petition in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging EPA Administrator Johnson's memo in response to Deseret Power.  The petition seeks the Court to throw out the Johnson memo.  The memo would allow current permits to proceed without considering controls for CO2 or other greenhouse gases.

If the memo is revoked or thrown out it would clear the way for the soon-to-be Administrator Jackson to issue her own interpretation.  But would she likely take such an action?  I doubt it.

The petition filed in the Court is procedural in nature and does not contain any insight into the Sierra Club's arguments.  However, you can review the petition the Sierra Club filed with EPA Administrator Johnson first which contains twenty pages of argument as to why the memo is illegal.  The group summarizes their attack on the memo in the following fashion:

As discussed below, this final agency action was impermissible as a matter of
law, because it was issued in violation of the procedural requirements of the
Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., and the Clean Air Act
(“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 7607, it directly conflicts with prior agency actions and
interpretations, and it purports to establish an interpretation of the Act that conflicts with  the plain language of the statute.

Many environmental groups are expecting that the future EPA Administrator will simply revoke the memo.  In the alternative, if their legal challenge is successful they expect future Administrator Jackson to issue her own interpretation which says CO2 is a regulated pollutant. 

I think they may be disappointed.  If such a memo were issued it would trigger an array of Clean Air Act regulations of CO2 emissions.  Many of these regulations are ill-suited for controlling CO2.  I would expect the future Administrator will get strong advice from her staff at EPA to proceed with caution in adopting new interpretations that could result in instantaneous regulation.  At a minimum, I believe they will advise that EPA construct a regulatory scheme in a deliberate fashion through a formal rulemaking process which could take at least a year. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On January 12, 2009, U.S. EPA proposed a major revision to its rules implementing the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

In yesterday's post, I discussed the possibility of E-check expanding in Ohio as a result of U.S. EPA's proposed revisions to implementation of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (.08 ppm).  Today I want to discuss the larger ramifications of the proposed rule.  The proposal provides a crystal ball type glimpse into how U.S. EPA may implement the 2008 8-hour ozone standard (.075 ppm). 

Depending upon how EPA builds off this proposed rulemaking when developing an implementation rule for the new .075 ppm ozone standard, there could be good news for many areas in the Country, including areas in Ohio.  This is especially true for Cleveland which has been under the most stringent ozone requirements in the State. 

As discussed in yesterday's post, the rigidness of U.S. EPA's requirements is largely dependent upon how areas are classified under the Clean Air Act. The short version- Subpart I good...Subpart II bad.  The chart below captures how EPA requirements ratchet up the more severe your ozone problem.  With each higher classification Subpart II piles on more federal mandates.  Subpart I areas don't carry these same mandates.  In addition, there is no classification system-all areas area considered "basic" non-attainment areas.

In recognition that Subpart II carries with it far more regulatory baggage, in 2004 U.S. EPA tried to expand the scope of Subpart I. In order to expand the scope of Subpart I, U.S. EPA drew a line in the sand at a 1-hour design values of .121 ppm.  Areas below .121 ppm were placed in Subpart I. Using this dividing line, there were 126 areas in country designated "non-attainment" for ozone, 84 were under Subpart I and 42 were under Subpart II.  Cleveland was the only Subpart II area in Ohio.

However, legal challenges resulted in the Court throwing out EPA's dividing line of .121 ppm.  The D.C. Circuit Court said that the Supreme Court required .09 ppm on the 8-hour scale as the level for determining which areas would be subject to Subpart II.  In its latest proposal, EPA acknowledges it has discretion to place areas with an 8-hour design value of less than .09 ppm into Subpart I. EPA is proposing to forgo this option and place all areas under a Subpart II classification because it does not want to delay implementation of the 8-hour ozone standard any further. 

I would predict they will not forgo this option when it comes to implementation of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard of .075 ppm.  I believe they will put all areas with design values less than .09 ppm into Subpart I in order to provide maximum flexibility to the States designing their control plans to meet the standard (referred to as SIPs- State Implementation Plans). 

What is the ozone status in Ohio right now?  Based upon 2005-2008 Air Quality Data here are the current ozone design values for the highest ozone areas in the state.

CINCINNATI- .085 ppm

COLUMBUS- .08 ppm

CLEVELAND- .084 ppm

Based on current air quality Ohio should have no areas close to the .09 ppm cut off for placing areas into Subpart II of the Clean Air Act.  This would include Cleveland which is currently under Subpart II. This is good news for the States.  This approach would give Ohio EPA and other States the maximum flexibility in putting together their SIPs to attain the .075 ppm ozone standard.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

[NOTE: THIS POST WAS REVISED BASED UPON ADDITIONAL REVIEW AND INFORMATION]  The unpopular automobile tail pipe test known as E-check may resurface in Cincinnati under a U.S. EPA proposed rule.  Right now, Cleveland is the only area in Ohio with E-check because the area is under a federal mandate to operate the test.  That federal mandate could expand under a recent U.S. EPA proposal.

E-Check has operated in Ohio since 1995.  It operated for 10 years in Cleveland, Cincinnati and Dayton.  The program was always very unpopular with the general public.  Efforts to discontinue the program were instituted in the Ohio General Assembly on numerous occasions.  Finally, improving air quality and expiration of the 10 year contract allowed both Cincinnati and Dayton to get rid of E-Check back in 2006.  In November 2008 U.S. EPA issued final approval of the removal of E-Check as a control measure for both Cincinnati and Dayton. 

Now E-check may see a resurgence.

U.S. EPA has proposed modifications to the implementation rule for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.  The implementation rule was issued back in 2004.  The rule was challenged by a group of environmentalists.  In 2006, in response to the challenge, a federal court vacated certain portions of the rule.  U.S. EPA has now issued a revision to the implementation rule in response to the Court decision.

One of the main components of the rule vacated by the Court was the manner in which U.S. EPA classified certain areas under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.  Some areas with lower ozone levels were classified as Subpart I areas and higher ozone areas were placed under Subpart 2 of the Clean Air Act.  The distinction between Subpart 1 and 2 areas greatly affects the amount of flexibility these areas have in designing the air pollution control plans to comply with the 8 hour ozone standard. 

U.S. EPA attempted to place as many areas under Subpart 1 to provide the greatest degree of flexibility.  Of the 126 areas designated nonattainment, 84 were classified as under Subpart 1, and the remaining 42 as under Subpart 2.  Areas under Supart 2 are further broken down by severity of ozone.  The higher the ozone the higher the classification,  The higher the non-attainment classification the more federally mandated control programs and restrictions will apply to the area. (see next post for a chart on Subpart 2)

Under the old rule, Cleveland fell under Subpart 2 and was classified as a "moderate" non-attainment areas.  "Moderate" non-attainment areas are federally mandated to operate a basic vehicle inspection and maintenance program (I/M program).  Dayton, Cincinnati, Columbus and other areas of the state were classified under Subpart I which carried no federal mandate to run an I/M program like E-check.

Under the proposed rule, all areas designated non-attainment with the 1997 8-hour ozone standard will be classified under and subject to the requirements of Subpart 2 of the Clean Air Act.  If an area has already reached attainment with the 1997 8-hour standard the rule will not apply.  This means Dayton will not be covered under the rule as it has already achieved compliance.  However, areas like Columbus and Cincinnati which have yet to comply with the 1997 8-hour ozone standard risk being reclassified as Subpart 2 non-attainment areas.

Under the proposed rule, EPA would make retroactive classifications based upon 2001-2003 air quality data, not the latest readings which show notable improvement in ozone levels.  If EPA maintains this aspect of this proposal, some areas of the Country will be playing a game of high stakes poker with regard to meeting the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.  EPA states:

Marginal nonattainment areas would have a maximum statutory attainment date of June 15, 2007 and moderate areas a maximum date of June 15, 2010.  Since the marginal area attainment date has passed, EPA proposes that any area that would be classified under the proposal as marginal, and that did not attain by June 15, 2007...would be reclassified immediately as moderate under the rule.

What EPA doesn't specifically address but flows from the statement above is that areas that do not meet the June 15, 2010 deadline as a moderate areas face being bumped up to the "serious" nonattainment classificaiton.  This would not only bring E-check, but a host of stringent federal requirements.

Appendix A to the proposed rule identifies the proposed Subpart 2 Classification for areas likely covered by the rule.  Under the proposal, both Columbus and Cincinnati will be classified as "moderate" non-attainment areas.  The "moderate" designation carries with it the federal mandate to operate an I/M program.

Columbus and Cincinnati could avoid I/M programs if they can fully attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard before this rule would become effective.  How do things look? 

Columbus:  Ohio EPA has submitted a redesignation request for Columbus which is still under review by U.S. EPA.  Ohio EPA says that the current air quality data from 2005-2008 shows Columbus with a .08 ppm ozone design value.  This is well under the .084 ppm necessary to show compliance.  If recent ozone trends continue Columbus could be redesignated before U.S. EPA finalizes its proposal thereby avoiding any of the complications brought on by the proposed rule.  

Cincinnati:  Ohio EPA submitted a redesignation request for Cincinnati.  However, unlike Columbus, Ohio EPA relies on modeling and not real air quality data in its request for redesignation.  Real air quality data in the SIP submittal shows a design value of .086 ppm.  Even the updated air quality information for 2005-2008 shows Cincinnati with a .085 ppm design value.  While modeling may show  .084 ppm, real air quality data does support the modeling estimates.  The 2009 ozone season could really be make or break for Cincinnati.  If its a bad ozone season, Cincinnati may not only face the return of E-check but a "serious" non-attainment classification which would bring a host of consequences.

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

After reauthorization of the Clean Ohio program this November by Ohio Voters, the State has announced their intention to maintain two grant funding rounds per year going forward.  Hopefully this will allow the program to operate more consisentely.  In the past, project developers were often forced to try and rush projects because future funding rounds were uncertain. 

Round 5 was completed in December, with seven projects recieving around $12.7 million in funding.  This was less than the $17 million the state had available in that round.  This marks the first time less then the full amount of funding available was awarded. 

The State has already announced the schedule for the next two funding rounds:

Round 6- Unless your project is already been listed on Ohio's Brownfield Inventory, you are too late to qualify for this round.  The deadline for filing the form to be listed in the inventory was December 5th.

- Grant applications are due January 9th

- Awards will be announced in May of 2009

Round 7

- No deadline for listing a property with the brownfield inventory has been announced to date.  Typcially, the deadline is 30 days prior to the deadline for filing a grant application.

-Grant applications are due July 25th

-Award will be announced in November of 2009

The Ohio Department of Development (ODOD) who administers the program also announced other enhancements to improve the program.  These include:

• Clean Ohio Assistance Fund applications will be processed in 10 days instead of 30 days
• Disbursement requests can be made every 30 days instead of 60 days
• Information regarding public bidding of work associated with Clean Ohio projects will be made available to small and minority owned businesses

The announcement to make the program more consistent should be great news for everyone who works with the program.  This will allow project developers and governments to tee up projects when they are truly ready versus trying to rush the project to meet the funding deadline. 

With the overall lack of development occurring in Ohio right now due to the poor economy, this is a great time to develop Clean Ohio projects because the next few rounds will likely be less competitive.  This was certainly true for Round 5 in which the State did not even award all the money that was avaiable.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

(Image: CO2 Emissions in the U.S.)

Perhaps its obvious that the window of opportunity to obtain an air permit without CO2 controls is closing quickly.   Don't delude yourself that controls will wait for Congressional action on climate change.

The battle over requiring CO2 controls without additional rulemaking or legislation is being waged right now. The saga is being played out in the aftermath of the Deseret Power decision and the ensuing memo issued by EPA Administrator Johnson.  Here is a quick synopsis of what has transpired to date:

1. Deseret Power rejected EPA's basis for approving permits without CO2 controls.  However, the Environmental Review Board left the window open.  It said EPA could come out with a new position on the issue as to whether CO2 is a "regulated permit."
2. EPA Administrator Johnson quickly took advantage of the opening issuing a new interpretative memo saying the Clean Air Act's requirement to monitor CO2 was not tantamount to regulation of CO2.  Therefore, new permits did not need to include controls for CO2. 
3. In the latest round of the Deseret saga, the Sierra Club has filed a petition challenging the legality of the Johnson memo.  Citing Section 307(d) of the Clean Air Act, the group argues EPA's memo amounts to a new substantive rulemaking that must go through the notice and comment process.  If EPA denies the petition, the Sierra Club can appeal directly to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.  The hope is that if the memo is declared illegal an Obama Administration would issue a much different memo- one saying controls for CO2 are required.

To me the saga over the Deseret Power decision is a simply good theater.  The fact is CO2 will be a regulated pollutant and soon.  In my mind, if you are seeking an air permit for a source with significant CO2 emissions you may have less than a year or so to get your permit before the whole playing field changes.   We should look to clues from President-elect Obama's pick to head the EPA as to what may happen in the near future.

President-elect Obama named Lisa Jackson to head U.S. EPA.  Ms. Jackson was the former Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.  According to some national news organization she brings a mixed record.  U.S. News and World Report stated the following:

She is credited with helping put New Jersey in a leadership role on the issue of climate change and with encouraging the state to adopt a moratorium on building new coal plants. Yet she also has made choices that have been applauded by industry, including an effort earlier this year to use private companies to clean up thousands of contaminated sites around the state.

In recent days, when Jackson's name emerged as Obama's likely pick, some of these issues resurfaced. A few New Jersey-based environmental groups have put out press releases criticizing Jackson's record, and their comments have gotten national attention. But many observers say the criticism is overblown and that Jackson, though having at times taken stands the groups didn't fully agree with, has largely been an ally.
 

Jackson's background shows EPA is likely to take some form of quick action on CO2 shortly after January 20th with Obama is sworn into office.  New Jersey participates in RGGI which is the cap and trade program for CO2 emissions from power plants in the Northeast.  Is no surprise Jackson and the rest of the Obama team strongly supports a national greenhouse gas cap and trade program.  However, such legislation is likely a year away at a minimum. 

What may happen in the interim?  There are several issues pending before U.S. EPA that could result in regulation of CO2 in the near term.  

1. The "endangerment finding" on CO2- EPA still needs to take action in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA.  This is the case regarding California's request for a waiver to set standards for CO2 from vehicles.  While the Court said CO2 is a pollutant, under Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act vehicle emission of greenhouse gases are not regulated until the EPA determines CO2 from cars would "endanger  public health and welfare."
2. Deseret Power interpretive memo-   An Obama Administration could also try and retract the memo issued by EPA Administrator Johnson in response to Deseret Power. 
3. Comprehensive Rulemaking on GHG Regulation-  EPA has issued its Advanced Notice of Public Rulemaking seeking comments as to whether to comprehensively regulate CO2 and other GHGs under the Clean Air Act.  An Obama Administration could accelerate action on this rulemaking effort. 

One of these three course of action will happen.  The question is just how soon.  New Jersey declared CO2 an air contaminant back in 2005.  In order to make such a declaration, New Jersey had to go through a formal rulemaking process declaring CO2 "injurious to human health and welfare."  Take a look at the conclusions in the NJ rulemaking, don't they appear to be exactly what would be need for an endangerment finding?

This interpretation (declaring CO2 an air contaminant)  is consistent with the statutory definition of air pollution at N.J.S.A. 26:2C-2 and the Department’s regulatory definition of “air pollution” at N.J.A.C. 7:27-5.1, which states that “’air pollution’ means the presence in the outdoor atmosphere of one or more air contaminants in such quantities and duration as are, or tend to be, injurious to human health or welfare, animal or plant life or property, or would unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property throughout the State ….”

The exclusion of CO2 as an air contaminant is no longer valid, given the intent of the Department’s definition of air contaminant throughout N.J.A.C. 7:27 and the definition of air pollution at N.J.A.C. 7:27-5.1, because scientific evidence has evolved to the point that adverse environmental and human health impacts due to increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are now clear.

Also, New Jersey passed the New Jersey Global Warming Response Act which committed the state to returning global warming pollution to 1990 levels by 2020 and cutting global warming pollution levels by 80 percent by 2050.  New Jersey is only one of three states to make greenhouse gas reductions state law. 

The pressure on Jackson to take action to block new coal plants and regulate CO2 will be enormous.  She will have a hard time defending a slow and deliberate pace when her State has already taken significant action, including a State-like "endangerment finding."  This means some type of action to regulate CO2 will likely come in the first year of the Obama Administration.  As a result, the window of opportunity to avoid CO2 controls in a permit is closing quickly.   

The most likely course of action could be peeling the endangerment finding away from the ANPR and proceeding with a finding CO2 does endanger public health.  The other option that could have a quick and dramatic impact would be to retract the Johnson memo responding to Deseret Power.  A Jackson EPA could declare the memo was issued illegally and issue a new interpretive memo. 

(Image:  flickr Tom Raftery)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks