Two federal appeal courts (Fifth and Second Circuits) have issued decisions that will allow lawsuits to proceed that assert common law tort claims based on business contribution to climate change.  Comer v. Murphy Oil USA Inc. is the second decision in the last two months to allow claims to proceed.  Earlier in October, the Second Circuit allows a federal common law tort claim to proceed in Connecticut v. American Electric Power.

In Comer, Mississippi coastal residents, following hurricane Katrina, sued a number of energy, oil refining and chemical manufacturing companies claiming their greenhouse gas emissions contributed to climate change.  The residents argue, that climate change increased the intensity of hurricane Katrina which led to massive damages along the cost.

A key distinguishing factor between the Comer and Connecticut is that the plaintiffs rely upon different legal theories to present their cases.  In Connecticut it was based purely on federal common law tort claims.  In Comer, the Mississippi residents grounded their claims in state common law theories of nuisance, trespass and negligence.  After these decisions, it appears either federal or state law claims can proceed.

It is important to note that another federal district court (Northern District of California) in the case of Native Village of Kivalina v Exxon Mobil Corp.  dismissed a common law tort claim because the Court determined Plaintiffs failed to establish standing.  However, district courts had dismissed similar claims that were later overturned by the appellate court decisions cited above.  Certainly this decision will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit which means we will have three federal district courts weigh in on this question. 

What are the implications of these decisions?

We are a long way from plaintiffs successfully collecting millions or even billions in damages from businesses for their greenhouse gas contribution to climate change.  The two federal appeal courts have only determined that there is enough of an argument for plaintiffs to be allowed to proceed to trial or in other words, the plaintiffs have standing. 

The legal standards for standing are much lower than what is required to be successful in winning a judgment.  For example, tort claims must meet more stringent causation standards than are required to demonstrate standing.  The Comer court found that plaintiffs had demonstrated sufficient causation.  The Court said plaintiffs did not have to show that the defendants greenhouse gas emissions alone caused the damages suffered by plaintiffs.  Rather, it is sufficient for standing that defendant’s emissions contributes to the injuries suffered. 

While plaintiffs can now proceed to trial, there is certainly no guarantee of success.  However, these two appellate decisions will certainly embolden many more to file suits against utilities, chemical manufacturers, refiners, etc.  A flood of litigation is certainly on its way.

All this litigation creates significant uncertainty for the business community.  If just one plaintiff is successful in securing damages, the risk of liability will be massive for businesses.  All of this should be considered as the Senate continues to debate Climate Change legislation. 

The Obama Administration proposal for funding the Great Lakes, known as the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), has cleared a key House-Senate conference committee.  The legislation would provide $475 million for a comprehensive Great Lakes restoration and protection initiative.  The funding would be targeted toward the most critical environmental concerns facing the Great Lakes, including invasive species, toxic sediments, non point source pollutants and wildlife habitat loss.

While its wonderful news that increased funding is being directed toward the Great Lakes, there are key components of the legislation that could leave a large portion of the federal money unspent.  Those key components relates to clean up of contaminated sediment under the Legacy Act (the primary vehicle for providing federal funding for removal of sediments).

A recent U.S. EPA Inspector General Report was highly critical of the pace of clean up under the Legacy Act. 

Contaminated sediment is a massive problem in the Great Lakes. There is an estimated 75 million cubic yards of contaminated sediment. To date, under the Legacy Act, five sediment projects have been completed removing 800,000 cubic yards of contamination.  This represents about 1% of the problem.  As stated in the report, at the current pace, it would take more than 77 years to complete all the contaminated sediment projects in the Great Lakes.  

Now this is where I part ways with the Inspector General Report.  The IG placed the blame for the slow pace of contaminated sediment clean up on the lack of management within the Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO).  The real story is the lack of resources at the state and local level.

Cost of removal of contaminated sediment is estimated at $3 billion in federal, state, and local funds. The Legacy Act includes the requirement for a 35% local share before federal funds can be used for clean up. 

 

Sediment projects carry large price tags. Even a small sediment project can cost millions of dollars. While at least five project have been able to cobble together required 35% match, in some cases it took 5-10 years to generate the funds.  In many other instances there are simply not the resources to develop the required 35% match. 

 

The inability to generate this level of funding can be attributed to:

 

  • Limited amount of companies with money to pursue who contributed to the contaminated sediment problem (known as PRPs); 
  • Even if PRPs are identified, complex legal actions or settlements must be pursued which can slow the process for years;
  • Furthermore, the current strain on local and state governments due to economic considerations, especially in the Midwest, makes state/local funding unlikely

As long as the millions in funding for sediment clean up in GLRI includes the 35% local share requirement, major portions of the federal money could remain sitting unused.  Statutory changes to the Legacy Act are needed to provide authority to waive or reduce the 35% local share if it can be demonstrated, for instance that:

 

  • There are no or few PRPs;
  • The project should be fast tracked based on human health or environmental risks:
  • Local or State governments are constrained on their ability to contribute more of the local share

 

The past two days I have been in Houston at the Environmental Markets Association (EMA) fall conference.  If you are not familiar with the EMA, it is an organization that supports the use of market-based solutions to environmental issues.  The members are largely made up of consultants, traders of environmental credits and project developers. 

Many of the members were on the ground floor when the first cap and trade programs were implemented in the 90’s regarding acid rain.  The also participated in the two cap and trade programs on utilities that followed acid rain- NOx SIP call and CAIR. 

Finally, there is also expertise in the burgeoning carbon markets.  Whether that involves the "voluntary markets" in the U.S., state mandatory programs like RGGI in the east, or the international cap and trade program in the European Union.

Bottom line, these folks have the expertise in trading various environmental credits under a wide range of programs.  They have seen what has worked (acid rain) and what hasn’t worked (collapse of the CAIR program). 

The big topic of course is the Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer bills pending in Congress.  There was a lot of discussion regarding the various elements of these bills.  From the various perspectives offered over the last few days I draw the following perspectives regarding the drive for a federal CO2 cap and trade program in the U.S.:

  • Complexity– Many expressed concern that the Waxman-Markey Bill is overly complex.  That instead of focusing on setting up a core program- namely putting a price on carbon-the bill tries to dictate the minutia around the program.  The more complex the program the more difficult it is to operate.
  • Offsets– Many concentrated on the debate over the domestic and international offset programs.  There appeared to be consensus that an offset program was absolutely key to bringing down the cost of compliance.  The concern expressed was that both Waxman-Markey and Boxer-Kerry put too many conditions on the offset program.  These include limiting how many offsets each company can use for compliance.  What types of offsets will qualify.  How quickly EPA can certify the verification procedures for creating offsets. 
  • Stabenow-Baucus Offsets Bill– This bill is seen as a mechanism to clean up what is wrong with the offset programs established in the other bills.  A lot of hope was being placed on this being the vehicle to correct the problems.
  • EPA Preclusion-  While not receiving a lot of attention, a huge difference between the House and Senate bills is whether EPA is precluded from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.  House says EPA is precluded, Senate does not.  As I have discussed on in prior posts, this is a huge issue.  In fact, one of the main reasons to set up a cap and trade program is to pre-empt EPA from establishing an unworkable command and control program under the Clean Air Act.
  • Stability Reserve-  This is the concept of trying to address carbon prices getting to high after the program is established.  Rather than simply placing a cap on prices, both bills create the concept of a reserve of allowances that could be released if prices get to high.  This is not a cap, if the trigger is met it allows future allowances to be auctioned off.   EPA is supposed to take the proceeds from the auctions and purchase offsets to make the impact of releasing more allowance neutral.  The concern on the stability reserves were: 1) the triggers to tap into the reserve and whether it really can control prices from getting too high; and 2)  what happens if not enough offsets are available for EPA to purchase because all the limitations placed on which types of offset qualify.
  • Verification Procedures for Offsets-  The Senate would require notice and comment on every offset project which was seen as overly cumbersome.  The House allows pre-compliance offset credits to qualify for only 2009-2012. Also, projects must meet either a state verification procedure or one deemed by EPA as stringent as a state verification procedure.  The short duration of pre-compliance offset projects was concerning because it may severely limit available offset credits after 2012.  The limitations on verification procedures could disqualify many projects that went through non-state certified verification procedures. 

Many more observations and comments were made.  I certainly learned a lot from the experts who work have been working in environmental markets since the 1990’s.  Their expertise certainly should carry a lot of weight with Congress.  Otherwise, we risk have politicians set up a program that is doomed to failure from the start.

 

Any business spending money on an environmental investigation or on clean up at property they own examine closely a federal tax incentive which is set to expire December 31, 2009.  The incentive allows environmental clean up costs to be fully deductible in the year they are incurred, rather than having to be capitalized and spread over a period of years. 

Some businesses may not look closely at that tax incentive because they don’t think they own a "brownfield" property.  Many conjure images of falling down and abandoned manufacturing buildings when they think of a brownfield.  However, the incentive, known as the Federal Brownfields Tax Incentive, is very broad and inclusive as to what constitutes eligible properties.  Properties in full productive use with contamination can be eligible.

Until 2000, the Federal Brownfield Tax Incentive did include restrictions on which properties could be eligible.  The law included requirements on specific land use, geographic and contamination requirements for determining eligible properties.  However, most of these limitations were removed in 2000. 

Section 198 of the Internal Revenue Code contains the requirements for expensing environmental remediation costs.  Section 198 defines "qualified contaminated site" as the following:

The term "qualified contaminated site" means any area-

(A) which is held by the taxpayer for use in a trade or business or for the production of income, or which is property described in section 1221(a)(1) in the hands of the taxpayer, and

(B)  at or on which there has been a release (or threat of release) or disposal of any hazardous substance.

(Note: sites on the National Priorities List are excluded from eligibility)

The two requirements set forth in Section 198 are not very limiting, potentially allowing any property to be eligible that is held by a business upon which contamination is present.  Any business looking to qualify their property as eligible must obtain a statement from the designated state agency (typically the State EPA where the property is located) that there has been a release, threat of release, or disposal of a a hazardous substance at or on the property. 

Clean ups at former gas stations or  those involving underground storage tanks containing gasoline now also potentially qualify.  In 2006, the tax incentive was further expanded to include contamination from petroleum products (e.g., crude oil, crude oil condensates, and natural gasoline). 

What types of expenses are deductible? Generally speaking, any expenses incurred in connection with abatement or control of hazardous substances, including:

  • Site assessment and investigation;
  • Site monitoring;
  • Clean up costs;
  • Operation and maintenance costs;
  • State voluntary cleanup program oversight fees; and
  • Removal of demolition debris

While the incentive was extended at least three times since 1997, it is set to expire on December 31, 2009.  If the incentive provides advantages to your business it may make sense to consider managing your clean ups in the remaining months to maximize its benefits before it expires.  Also, note that it is possible previously filed tax returns can be amended to include deductions for past clean up expenditures.

U.S. EPA has a very useful fact sheet and answers to frequently asked questions on their website that provide further guidance on the incentive. 

[Disclaimer: You should consult your environmental counsel, CPA and tax counsel to determine whether your specific circumstances would qualify for the Federal Brownfield Tax Incentive]

[Photo: everystockphoto.com/Here in Van Nuys]

U.S. EPA has initiated the process for determining what controls it will require should it finalize its proposal to regulate large industrial sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs).  As discussed in a prior post, the first phase of the program would cover sources emitting more than 25,000 tons of CO2 or equivalent emissions.  In subsequent phases of the program smaller sources would likely be covered.

Under EPA’s proposal GHGs would become a pollutant covered under its New Source Review (NSR) program.  NSR requires new or modified sources that emit over established thresholds to install Best Available Control Technology (BACT).  The question is…what are the "best available" controls for reducing GHG emissions? 

I was interviewed for a story appearing in Climatewire that discussed the complexities involving in determining BACT for GHGs.  Unlike many mainstream media newspaper articles, the Climatewire article does an excellent job of providing an analysis of the issues related to implementation of this complex regulatory program. 

Two major issues:

  1. What is BACT going to be for non-utility pollution sources? 
  2. How on earth will EPA determine BACT for a wide variety of sources by its stated deadline of March 2010?

Efficiency improvements co-firing biomass are the two most likely candidates for utility sources.  But less analysis is known regarding potential methods to reduce GHGs emissions from other potentially covered sources like cement and steel production facilities. 

The preamble to U.S. EPA’s proposed NSR GHG regulations makes clear the Agency believe the rules must be finalized by March 2010 because they must coincide with the rule regulating GHGs from light duty vehicles.  It seems like an impossible task to determine BACT for the range of sources that will be potentially covered in less than six (6) months.   Without established BACT standards, there is likely to be massive uncertainty and delays in permitting. 

[A complete re-printing of the Climatewire article is available in the extended entry with their permission]

photo: everystockphoto- cjohnson7

 

Continue Reading EPA Begins Process of Determining BACT for CO2

The saga involving the Environmental Review Appeals Commission (ERAC) appears to have come to a conclusion (see prior post). ERAC had limited all administrative hearings to 1-hour in response to deadlines imposed by the Ohio General Assembly.  Today, a Franklin County Common Pleas Court issued an judgment entry today ordering ERAC to: 

  1. Vacate all one hour hearings;
  2. Require full and fair hearings (de novo); and
  3. Declaring the Legislative imposed deadlines as non-binding

While we may now return to the status quo as it relates to the hearing process on environmental appeals, the fallout is not over. 

First, ERAC will now have to go through the process of re-scheduling hearings in hundreds of pending appeals.  The result may be a longer time frame for decisions than what would have occurred had the General Assembly never tried to impose deadlines. 

Second, Legislation is still possible.  The deadlines were imposed for a reason and business groups may try to re-craft deadlines in a more constructive manner.  The Court found the deadlines non-binding because no ramification was imposed on ERAC if it missed the deadline.  Some may see that as a road map to creating effective deadlines. 

My hope is that all of this will bring about positive change in terms of increased funding for ERAC.  Most see that as the real answer.  Now we just have to find the money, which may be no easy task.

On September 30th, U.S. EPA announced the release of its proposed rule regulating emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from large industrial sources. The proposal represents a risky move by U.S. EPA in the event climate change legislative efforts fail and U.S. EPA is forced to move forward with the rules.  The risk is two fold: 1) U.S. EPA’s action is grounded in questionable legal authority; and 2) the action starts a process that eventually leads to regulation of small sources and issuance of millions of federal air permits.

Under the proposal, at least initially, only large industrial facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of GHGs a year will be required to obtain construction and operating permits covering their emissions.  The construction permits will come under U.S. EPA’s New Source Review Program (NSR) and the operating permits will come under its Title V Program (Title V). 

What does triggering NSR mean for these sources?

Once a source triggers NSR, it must go through a lengthy and complicated permitting review process.  The review is designed to identify the best available control technology (BACT) which will reduce emission of the pollutant, in this case greenhouse gases (GHGs). 

Unlike the proposed cap and trade legislation, each and every source triggering NSR will be required to go through this case by case review process and install controls. Under cap and trade, sources can either install controls or cover their emission by purchasing pollution permits (allowances).  Therefore, cap and trades results in more cost effective reduction in emissions than a simple mandate on all sources.

What does coverage under Title V mean for these sources?

The Title V permit is meant to cover large sources that typically have multiple air permits or are subject to a variety of air pollution regulations.  The purpose of Title V is to consolidate all these requirements into a single permit.  Some Title V permits can be as large as 500 pages or more. Under the proposed rule, sources that emit more than 25,000 tons per year of CO2 or CO2 equivalent emissions (CO2e) will be required to obtain Title V permits. 

What doesn’t make sense is that some sources may only be covered by Title V permits because of their GHG emissions.  This could result in the strange outcome of Title V permits that are virtually blank because those sources have very little other applicable air pollution regulations. The effectiveness of such an approach has to be questioned.

Key Issue: Established Thresholds Triggering NSR or Title V 

Why is the EPA’s action risky?  The agency is proposing the "tailoring" thresholds applicable to GHG emissions that trigger regulation:

  • 25,0000 tons of CO2e for new sources triggers NSR
  • an emission increase of between 10,000 and 25,000 tons of CO2e from existing sources following a modification to the facility will trigger NSR
  • Sources with 25,000 tons of CO2e will be required to obtain Title V permits after five years

Only problem is the Clean Air Act specifies the following thresholds:

  • 100 tons from 28 specified industries trigger NSR for new sources
  • 250 tons from all other types of sources trigger NSR for new sources
  • 100 tons from any source triggers Title V

EPA notes that without modification of the thresholds 40,000 NSR permits would be triggered each year, where currently only 300 are triggered.  Also, 6,000,000 sources would fall under the Title V program whereas the program only currently covers 15,000 sources.

Its a pretty basic tenant of law that Agencies must follow statutory law and cannot re-write them using regulations.  Former Air Administrator Jeff Holmstead commented on this issue in the New York Times

"Normally, it takes an act of Congress to change the words of a statute enacted by Congress, and many of us are very curious to see EPA’s legal justification for today’s proposal,"

Major Risk #1-  EPA could lose its legal argument that it has authority to raise the thresholds

How does the EPA claim it has the legal authority to raise the thresholds?  Under the doctrines of "absurd results" and "administrative necessity."  Both legal doctrines are similar in that Courts have recognized the ability of agencies to depart from the plain meaning of a statute if application would result in "absurd results" or there is an "administrative necessity." 

EPA explains why these doctrines should apply in the preamble to the rule:

[T]o apply the statutory PSD (NSR) and title V applicability thresholds to sources of GHG emissions would bring tens of thousands of small sources and modifications into the PSD program each year, and millions of small sources into the title V program.  This extraordinary increase in the scope of the permitting programs, coupled with the resulting burdens on the small sources and on the permitting authorities, were not contemplated by Congress in enacting the PSD and title V programs.  Moreover, the administrative strains would lead to multi-year backlogs in the issuance of PSD and title V permits, which would undermine the purposes of those programs.  Sources of all types- whether they emit GHGs or no- would face long delays in receiving PSD permits, which Congress intended to allow construction or expansion.  Similarly, sources would face long delays in receiving Title V permits, which Congress intended to promote enforceability.  (preamble pg. 20)

EPA goes on to state in the preamble that courts are "reluctant" to invoke the "absurd results" doctrine "precisely because it entails departing from the literal application of statutory provisions."  However, EPA asserts this is "one of the rare cases" where it should apply. (preamble pg. 63)

If the Court disagrees with EPA’s legal rationale, the rule would be rendered illegal and sent back to U.S. EPA.  However, even without the "tailoring rule" NSR and title V would apply to GHG emissions. 

EPA has stated its intent to move forward with other climate change regulations, such as the light-duty vehicle rule (which EPA says will be finalized no later than March 2010).  After these rules are finalized, GHGs are considered a "regulated pollutant."  If the attempt to raise the thresholds is thrown out, GHG status of a "regulated pollutant" would mandate application of the 100/250 ton NSR and 100 tons thresholds set forth in the Clean Air Act.

For this reason EPA’s proposed rule represents a major gamble.  Perhaps that is the leverage they are looking for in the climate change legislative negotiations.  However, if things fall apart EPA may have crossed the point of no return.

Major Risk #2:  The thresholds are temporary in nature resulting in regulation of much smaller sources in the future. 

In U.S. EPA’s Press Release Administrator Jackson states

“This is a common sense rule that is carefully tailored to apply to only the largest sources — those from sectors responsible for nearly 70 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions sources. This rule allows us to do what the Clean Air Act does best – reduce emissions for better health, drive technology innovation for a better economy, and protect the environment for a better future – all without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the better part of our economy.”

Jackson made the announcement regarding the proposed rule during a speech to the Governor’s Global Climate Summit.  In her remarks she made the following statement:

Defenders of the status quo are going to oppose this with everything they have. Very soon, we will hear about doomsday scenarios – with EPA regulating everything from cows to the local Dunkin’ Donuts. But let’s be clear: that is not going to happen. We have carefully targeted our efforts to exempt the vast majority of small and medium-sized businesses. We know the corner coffee shop is no place to look for meaningful carbon reductions.

While I do not assert EPA is going to regulating the local Dunkin’ Donuts, I do think the EPA’s description that it will only apply to the largest sources is misleading.  EPA makes clear through out its preamble that the proposed 25,000 CO2e thresholds represents only a "first phase" of the rule.  This is because EPA believes the "absurd results" and "administrative necessity" doctrines, if applicable, only provide temporary relief from the Clean Air Act stated thresholds.  

EPA says that "if  variance from the statutory requirements nevertheless is necessary to allow administrability, the variance must be limited as much as possible." (preamble pg. 20). EPA describes the process in its preamble as follows:

The first phase, which would last 6 years, would establish a temporary level for the PSD and title V applicability thresholds at 25,000 tons per year (tpy), on "carbon dioxide equivalent" (CO2e) basis, and a temporary PSD significance level for GHG emissions of between 10,000 and 25,000 tpy CO2e.  EPA would also take other streamlining actions during this time.  Within 5 years of the final version of this rule, EPA would conduct a study to assess the administrability issues.  The, EPA would conduct another rulemaking, to be completed by the end of the sixth year, that would promulgate, as the second phase, revised applicability and significance level thresholds and other streamlining techniques, as appropriate. (preamble pg.2)

EPA contemplates taking "streamlining activities" vaguely referenced as changing potential to emit calculations as well as creation of general permits.  EPA also states "we expect permitting authorities to ramp up resources for permit issuance."  (preamble pg. 64).  Taking these actions will allow EPA to "bridge the gap between literal language and congressional intent", thereby making it possible to "include more of these sources" in the NSR and Title V program.  (preamble pg. 70).

As a result, EPA is clearly stating its intent that more and more sources fall under the NSR and title V programs by gradually reducing the thresholds over time down to the Clean Air Act statutorily established thresholds.  While EPA may state that their intent is to only gradually phase in smaller source over many years, the argument will be how quickly can "streamlining" techniques be implemented and more permit reviewers hired to bring more and more sources under the program. 

Therefore, EPA’s proposed rule fails to set forth a policy statement that regulation of small sources of GHGs is illogical.  Rather, EPA states it needs more time and resources to bring these sources under the program.  By no means am I a defender of the status quo, but it is certainly fair to question whether this is the best approach to addressing climate change. 

The latest developments in the saga involving current hearing process in the Ohio Environmental Review Appeals Commission (ERAC) shows chaos rains for the hundreds of appeals pending before the Commission.  As previously covered on this blog (see, A Dozen Companies File Constitutional Challenges to 1-hour Hearings), in response to legislative deadlines imposed on the Commission, ERAC has scheduled or has proposed to schedule 1-hour hearings with no discovery on ALL pending appeals.

Businesses as well as environmental groups were very concerned with ERAC’s approach.  The first legal challenge to be filed sought a writ of mandamus from the 10th Appellate Court to compel ERAC to provide for full blown hearings (de novo hearings).  The State, attorneys for ERAC and the attorneys for the 13 companies negotiated an uncontested motion for the writ.  Despite the uncontested nature of the motion, the Court issued a ruling declining to issue the writ.  However, the ruling contained some non-binding language (dicta) regarding due process rights:

Indeed, the clear legal right and clear legal duty identified are uncontroversial-relators have a right to de novo hearings that comply with due process, and the Commission has the duty to provide for such.

Despite the language in the order, ERAC continued to proceed with holding 1-hour hearings.  I even heard a story of one attorney who tried to put a witness on to introduce evidence only to be cut-off after thirty minutes by the Commission telling them "your time is up." 

The attorneys representing the original 13 companies followed the Appeals Court advice and filed a declaratory judgment action in common pleas court.  Shortly after the suit was filed, the Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against ERAC preventing the Commission from holding any of the 1-hour hearings in the 40 upcoming hearings involving the 13 companies.

Even after the TRO was obtained, ERAC continued to proceed with 1-hour hearings in cases that were not covered by the Order.  Chairwoman of the three-member commission, Lisa Eschleman, was quoted in the Columbus Dispatch as saying:  "ERAC is going to proceed as scheduled so that we can comply with the mandate of the General Assembly," 

Because ERAC is continuing to proceed with 1-hour hearings on appeals not involving the 40 subject to the TRO, each Appellant is being forced to go to the Court and request their own TRO. Others have elected just to proceed with 1-hour hearings probably betting that the decision will be overturned on appeal because due process was not provided.

If companies and environmental groups are both upset with the current process, why hasn’t the State which represents Ohio EPA and the Ohio Department of Agriculture (among others) been vocal?  I have been told that one reason the State is not objecting to ERAC’s process is that the whole mess has forced settlement of a lot of pending appeals.  Another reason for the lack of concern maybe that 1-hour hearings make it much more likely that the decision of the State Agency will be upheld due to the limitations on presenting evidence.

Hopefully, the Court will issue a decision in the declaratory judgment action that results in a permanent fix- restoring full hearings on appeals.  Until such a decision is issued, the situation involving the hundreds of appeals before the Commission remains in a state of flux. 

Meanwhile, the outcry has grown (including me) that the real solution to this problem is to fund ERAC who has a tiny budget. Only problem- where do you get the money in a State which is facing a $1 billion dollar hole in their current budget.  On Tuesday, the Columbus Dispatch issued a editorial against legislative deadlines and supporting more funding:

"Such a delay demands further explanation, but arbitrarily rationing time before the commission is unreasonable. Lawmakers should consider whether the three-person commission, which has only two additional employees, needs more help. Unlike other such boards, ERAC members conduct all their own hearings, do their own legal research and write their decisions."

The first step to establishment of a comprehensive climate change regulatory program has been completed by U.S. EPA .  On September 22nd, the Agency finalized its rule on mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs).  The rule give the initial glimpses into what the potential overall control program will look.  The most important insight- which industries are likely to be required to control emissions.  

Who is required to report? 

To be covered by the rule, you must first fall within the source categories specified by U.S. EPA.  You must also emit more that a specified threshold.  EPA estimates 10,000 facilities will be covered representing 85% of all domestic GHG emissions.

COVERED INDUSTRIES- coal fired power plans, aluminum production, ammonia production, cement, electronics production, lime, petrochemical, petroleum refining, certain underground coal mines and municipal landfills.  Also covered are importers and exporters of coal, natural gas and petroleum products.

IMPORTANT "NON-COVERED" INDUSTRIES- reporting is not currently required for the following: electronics manufacturers, ethanol production, industrial landfills, wastewater treatment, suppliers of coal.

THRESHOLD- Only the largest facilities emitting GHGs- those that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 equivalent emissions per year- are required to report annually to U.S. EPA. 

If you are having trouble figuring out whether your facility may be covered, U.S. EPA has developed an "applicability tool" which walks you through the process of determining coverage.

What pollutants are considered GHGs?

There was some open debate as to some of the more "fringe" GHGs.  For now, U.S. EPA covers the following pollutants under the mandatory reporting rule:  carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), hydofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and other fluorinated compounds.

Non-CO2 pollutants must be converted to CO2 equivalent emission under the rule.  This is so emissions of various pollutants can be measured in a common currency.  The equivalency is based upon the global warming potential of the gas.  For example, one ton of methane is equal to 21 metric tons of CO2.

When does reporting start?

Recordkeeping obligation will begin January 1, 2010 for covered facilities.  The first mandatory report must be submitted to U.S. EPA by March 31, 2011 (reporting 2010 emissions). 

When do I have to install monitors?

U.S. EPA allowed some flexibility on use of required monitoring.  It allows the use of "best available monitoring methods" in the first quarter of 2010.  You can ask for an extension for up to December 31, 2010.  You can also use calculations specified by U.S. EPA in place of some monitoring.   However, if your facility already has a continuous emission monitor (CEM) you are expected to add GHG capability.

Do I have to hire a consultant to assess my emissions?

No, but…  U.S. EPA elected not to require third party verification of reported emissions.  However, companies must certify the accuracy of their records.  If you do not have staff on-hand who understand the protocols and methods for determining emissions, companies should strongly consider outsourcing this work.

Can I ever get out of the reporting obligation?

U.S. EPA decided to show limited flexibility on its "once in always in" policy.  You can exit the mandatory reporting program if you do either of the following:  a)  decrease emissions below 25,000 metric tons for five years in a row; or b) reduce below 15,000 tons per year for three years in a row.

In March of this year Canada and the United States submitted a bi-national proposal to reduce emissions from ships at ports.  The proposal marked the culmination of years of study of the costs and benefits of requiring emission reductions from ocean going vessels.  However, the proposal never mentions the Great Lakes and includes no analysis of the costs or benefits of extending the requirements to the region.  

Now, in a separate proposed rule making issued on August 28th,  U.S. EPA has proposed to expand the costly shipping regulations to include the Great Lakes region.  The proposed expansion would in essence amend the bi-national proposal even though no formal application has been submitted to the governing international body.  In addition, EPA has not provided a study of the costs/benefits of extending the regulations to the Great Lakes.

Background on North American Emission Control Area

In March 2006, President Bush and Canadian Prime Minister Harper agreed to prepare a bi-national application to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to designate nearly all of North America’s coastlines as an Emission Control Area (ECA).  Ships that enter the ECA are required to reduce emissions through a combination of cleaner burning fuel and air pollution controls. (see, U.S. EPA’s frequently asked questions on ECAs)

On March 30, 2009, U.S. EPA submitted the final ECA application to the IMO.  The U.S.-Canadian ECA application included years of work and study of the ship traffic, anticipated air pollution reductions as well as the projected costs of the proposed controls.  A thorough explanation of the studies can be found in the application.  However, the ECA application does not include any studies or evaluation of the shipping traffic or costs in the Great Lakes region.  In fact, no where in the document is the term Great Lakes even found.

[Below are the charts showing the proposed emission reductions as well as the proposed ECA]

 Figure 1- Proposed ECA included in the March 2009 application to the IMO.  Green line denotes area covered by the ECA.

Figure 2- Chart shows the phase in of sulfur limitations on fuel as well as air pollution controls requirements.  Lower sulfur fuel will reduce fine particle pollution in port cities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposal requirement to move from fuel with a 15,000 parts per million (ppm) sulfur content to a clean fuel with only a 1,000 ppm sulfur content amounts to a 98% reduction.  The overall costs of the regulations to the shipping industry is $3.2 billion, with the largest costs being fuel switching at $1.9 billion.

The proposal assumes that ships will reduce the cost of compliance by carrying two fuel tanks.  One tank would contain the much dirtier high-sulfur fuel which would utilized at sea outside the ECA.  Once the ship enters the ECA, it would switch to the low-sulfur fuel.

EPA Proposed Regulation to Extend ECA to Internal Waters Including the Great Lakes

On August 28, 2009 U.S. EPA issued a proposed rule titled "Control of Emissions From New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters Per Cylinder."   The preamble to the regulations includes the following statement regarding the proposed ECA:

However, our recent proposal for ECA designation that was submitted to IMO, although intended to protect air quality in U.S. ports and internal areas, does not explicitly state that it applies to internal waters. Therefore, we are proposing regulatory text under the authority of APPS, in order to avoid confusion on whether vessels must meet ECA requirements in internal waters. The text clarifies that the ECA requirements generally apply to internal waters, such as the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes, that can be accessed by ocean-going vessels. Vessel emissions in these waters affect U.S. air quality to an equal, if not greater extent that emissions taking place in coastal waters. Specifically, the proposed rule would require compliance with the fuel sulfur requirements and the NOX emission standards of Regulations 13, 14, and 18 in internal waters. (emphasis added)

While there is no doubt cleaner ships in the Great Lakes would improve air quality.  The issue is that U.S. EPA appears to be amending the bi-national application to the IMO without any supporting information.  The IMO ECA application does not include costs for the Great Lakes shipping fleet which is of a different make up than those traveling to ocean ports on the coasts.  

For example, the IMO ECA application estimates compliance costs will be reduced through fuel switching between high sulfur and low sulfur fuel.  However, that will not be an option for ships traveling in the Great Lakes which will always be within the ECA.  Also, the Great Lakes fleet tend to be smaller in size than some of the large vessels that enter the coastal ports.  No analysis has been performed on the costs and benefits given the different make up of the Great Lakes fleet. 

Smaller marine engines are already required to use lower sulfur fuel under the Nonroad Diesel Rule (finalized June 29, 2004).  It is possible that the proposal to extend the ECA to the Great Lakes would have negligible impacts because ships tend to be smaller.  However, without any analysis of the Great Lakes fleet is it impossible to make this determination.

U.S. EPA proposed rule was issued on August 28, 2009 and the Agency has allowed public comments only until September 28, 2009.