Ohio faces a two headed hydra when it comes to the impact of the proposed cap-and-trade bill in Congress- the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES):

  1. Ohio generates almost 90% of its energy from coal;
  2. Manufacturing represents one the largest employment sectors in Ohio (ranking 3rd nationally with 1.1 million workers as of 2006)

These two factors combine to raise the stakes significantly if a price is placed on carbon as a result of the cap-and-trade ACES proposal.  Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of greenhouse gases (GHGs).  Any regulatory approach that puts a price on GHGs will result in higher energy prices. 

Most manufacturers are not even covered under ACES because only the largest industrial sources are capped (25,000 metric tons or more).  However, the secondary effect of ACES- rising energy prices-could mean significant job losses in the manufacturing sector which is heavy user of power 

Potential Job Loses from Cap-and-Trade

A report released last week by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) projected that Ohio could lose from 80,000 to 108,000 jobs by 2030 if ACES passes. The job losses are directly attributable to rising energy prices. The NAM cap-and-trade report projects the following increases in commodities or electricity:

  • 26% increase in gasoline prices
  • 60% increase in electricity prices
  • 79% increase in natural gas prices

The 60% increase is actually conservative when compared to other studies.  Some have said total increases could be as high as 112% by 2030.  Such large price increases raise operating costs for many small and medium manufacturers.  Those cost increases will make many business unprofitable forcing them to close their doors, so the argument goes.

Is this really a complete analysis? Also, is opposition to ACES really the correct strategy?

A Call to Action- Diversity in Generation Key for Coal Dependent States

Based on my last two posts you may be expecting me argue that growth in green jobs attributable renewable energy development will significantly offset the manufacturing job loses.  For example, in 2008 there was a 70% increase in wind turbine related jobs nationally. 

While green jobs are important, a more fundamental issue presents itself- When it comes to preserving manufacturing jobs, reliance on coal power is unsustainable. 

The cost of energy produced from coal is going to dramatically increase regardless of whether climate change legislation passes.  A complex web of regulatory forces are at work driving coal energy prices higher over the next decade and into the future.  A honest assessment of these factors should serve as call to action- diversification.

An honest assessment of the forces at play demonstrates that coal reliant states are fighting a losing battle against energy price increases.  States must diversify their generation portfolios in order to become less sensitive to these forthcoming price shocks.  This means development of biomass, nuclear, wind, solar and other forms of electric generation.   

Analysis of Five Factors Driving Future Coal Power Energy Prices Higher

  1. New Source Review Enforcement Cases
  2. The fix for the Clean Air Interstate Rule or Multi-Pollutant Legislation 
  3. Mercury controls
  4. Ever tightening ozone and fine particle federal air standards (NAAQS)
  5. Massachusetts v. U.S. = regulation of greenhouse gases in some fashion

New Source Review (NSR) Enforcement Cases

Manufacturers and other businesses in the Ohio and throughout the Midwest have yet to see the full impact of the NSR enforcement cases on the price of energy.  The settlement with American Electric Power impacts sixteen (16) coal plants and is estimated to cost $4.6 billion.  Ohio Edison, subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp., settled its NSR case in 2005.   The settlement is projected to cost $1.1 billion to retrofit the Sammis Station.  The litigation has yet to fully conclude in the Duke Energy case and while the verdict was mixed, the case will still result in significant compliance costs. 

Also, a New Source Review regulatory fix seems unrealistic in the near term.  Therefore, future projects that could improve plant efficiency may be avoided out of fear of triggering NSR.

Bottom line:  Billions in new compliance costs for coal fired power plants over the next several years and an uncertain regulatory structure.

CAIR or Multi-Pollutant Legislation

The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) was a cap-and-trade regulation directed at coal-fired power plant emission of SO2 and NOx.  On July 11, 2008, a federal court found CAIR to be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.  While the rule remains in place while U.S. EPA develops a fix, U.S. EPA has put a CAIR-fix on the fast track.   It is uncertain what the "new-CAIR" program will look like, but there is little doubt it will result in a more expensive regulation. 

As an alternative to CAIR,  members of Congress have proposed multi-pollutant cap-and-trade legislation for coal fired power plants.  Regardless of whether CAIR remains as regulatory based or converts to legislation the consensus among Democrats was the Bush Administration rule did not require steep enough cuts from coal-fired power plants. 

Bottom line:  Either the CAIR fix or multi-pollutant legislation will raise compliance costs for coal-fired utilities

Mercury Controls

Based upon cost concerns, the Bush Administration rejected facility specific regulation of mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.  Instead, the Administration proposed a new cap-and-trade program called the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR).  A federal court ruled that mercury as a pollutant could not be regulated through a cap-and-trade mechanism.  On February 6, 2009, the Department of Justice (on behalf of the Obama Administration) dismissed its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.  U.S. EPA is currently developing regulations under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act that will require every coal-fired power plant to control mercury emissions.  

Bottom line:  All facilities may be required to reduce mercury emissions through carbon absorption or implementation of other technologies.  Under CAMR, utilities were hoping to avoid controls on some of the older less efficient plants.  The rejection of CAMR will drive compliance costs higher.

Ozone and Fine Particle Air Quality Standards

Coal-fired power plant contribute roughly one-third (1/3) of ozone causing pollutants and particulate matter pollution.  As U.S. EPA tightens the ozone and fine particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), coal-fired power plants will remain a major target of tighter regulation. 

Bottom line:  States pass new regulations to meet tighter federal air quality standards.  There is lag time between development of new federal standards and implementation of these new state regulations.  States will be forced to contemplate even stricter regulation of coal-fired power plants as a result of tighter federal standards.

Massachusetts v. EPA-  Greenhouse Regulation is Inevitable

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court declared CO2 and other greenhouse gases a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act.  This landmark decision has set in motion a series of proposed actions by U.S. EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the existing framework of the Clean Air Act. Regulation under the Act will be much more costly than the proposed cap-and-trade legislation. 

Bottom line:  The debate cannot be framed as pass cap-and-trade or have no climate change regulations.  Regulation is inevitable and most agree cap-and-trade is much more cost effective than regulation under the Clean Air Act.

The Sustainable Cleveland 2019 summit was unlike any other conference or summit I had attended.  I have been to plenty where the goal was simply to raise awareness-  Typically a parade of talking heads followed up by urgent pleas to do something in the future. 

The Cleveland Summit was much different.  It took some 700 attendees who represented a cross-section of the community and put them to work on development of an strategic plan to build green jobs in Northeast Ohio. 

The process used was called "Appreciative Inquiry" (AI) which was developed by Professor Cooperrider at Case Western Reserve University.  AI has been used by businesses and even the United Nations.  AI’s basic concept is that small groups put limits on development of a strategic plans. For that reason it is much better to tap into the knowledge of a large group.   

I have to say I was skeptical of the process going in.  But I was continually amazed at the number of talented people in my working groups that represented a cross-section of the community.  Here are some examples of people who sat at my tables:

  • CEOs
  • Non-profit representatives
  • Small business owners
  • Sustainability experts
  • Advocates
  • Students
  • City and County Government Officials
  • Attendees from other cities and countries

It was a great mix and cross-section of the community.  I would be lying if I didn’t find some of the ideas and opinions offered to be "wild" or out of touch with reality.   There were also times when the Summit got to be a bit too much cheer-leading and not enough specific action.  However, there was no denying the energy and purpose of the group. 

There was an excellent advance briefing paper that was given to participants.  The Sustainable Cleveland briefing paper includes good information as to groups, initiatives and progress to date in Northeat Ohio on sustainability.  There were also notable speakers at the Summit.  Here are a couple thoughts or observations that I found interesting that were offered by some of the speakers:

  • Mayor Jackson’s opening remarks:  He said Cleveland had made the mistake in the past of waiting to change course until the economy had improved.  He said "Cleveland won’t make that mistake again" and that Cleveland will "emerge first in developing a green economy."  My comment:  I like the sentiment of not waiting, but Cleveland is already behind many other cities in moving this direction.  We have to be realistic in our assessment of where we are now to get some place in the future…
  • Van Jones of the Obama Administration:  He made the observation that everyone points to China as the example of a dirty or old style industrial economy.  He said China has seen the direction of the future economy and is spending $12 million dollars an hour on development of clean energy.  My comment:  I thought this really was a good observation that we are in a global competition of developing clean energy.
  • Dr. Peter Senge, MIT:  He made some interesting observations regarding sustainability principles.  For example, to produce a computer chip you must use 630 times the weight of the chip in materials to construct it.  That is an amazing amount of waste those goes into developing a single small product.  The observation was made to show the opportunity to reduce waste in the process thereby saving money

Overall, I thought the Summit was a testament to the a growing positive attitude in Cleveland about change. Attendees were willing to devote three days in dark hall of the Convention Center to discuss these topics and develop a plan. 

A Dose of Reality

I will conclude by making an observation regarding building success out of the Summit.  I was lucky to participate directly in the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC).  The GLRC was a on-going process to develop a plan for protecting and cleaning up the Great Lakes. It was initiated by President Bush by Executive Order.  The idea was to follow the Florida Everglades model and secure significant funding for restoration of the Great Lakes.

The GLRC was on a scale five times the size of the Cleveland Sustainability Summit.  It involved multiple federal agencies, Indian tribes, state representatives, non-profit groups and environmental groups.

Similar to the Cleveland Sustainability Summit there was tremendous energy and optimism from the participants.  However, that optimism also led to the inclusion of some very unrealistic goals and actions in the GLRC plan for the Great Lakes.  I remember continually raising the concern that the plan had to be realistic and build toward the future.

Some of the most unrealistic proposals were included in the final plan.  What happened…after a full year in development, the plan was virtually shelved due to budget concerns at the federal level.  Participants were disheartened and charges were thrown around that the process was purely a political tool. 

I hope the concept of a lasting 10 year strategic plan for attracting green jobs to Cleveland does not follow a similar path.  Significant progress is possible, but it must include a dose of reality.

Cleveland has is trying to increase momentum toward become a hub of green industry.  As a recent Clevelander I appreciate the efforts to promote sustainability, renewable power, and other green industry as a means of attracting jobs and improving the economy.  (photo:flickr:heidigoseek)

I have had the luxury of working with many of the cities around the State on environmental issues.  I honestly believe Cleveland has more resources and a more developed culture on sustainability then the other major Ohio metropolitan areas.   If you think differently check out the compiled list on Positively Cleveland of 75 Green Thing in Cleveland Plus.

But make no mistake about it, Cleveland is facing tough competition.  Frankly, Michigan and Pennsylvania have been more aggressive in promoting policies that would attract green industry to their states which puts Cleveland at a disadvantage. Those windmill blades you see traveling up I-71, those were not built in Ohio and are more than likely not going to be put up at a site in Ohio.   So, if we want to be serious about a green industry in Cleveland we will have to be prepared to beat the competition.

Mayor Jackson is trying to take the first step toward putting together a strategic plan for attracting green industry.  On August 12-14 he is holding a summit called Sustainable Cleveland 2019.  Here is the description of the summit off of the City’s webpage:

From August 12-14, Mayor Frank G. Jackson will host a three-day summit, bringing together a diverse group of people vested in and dedicated to Cleveland to use their vast knowledge and imagination to create an action plan for building a green economy for Cleveland’s future. This summit will be facilitated by Dr. David Cooperrider of the Fowler Center for Sustainable Value at Case Western Reserve University. The goal is to create an action plan for economic sustainability that will support business growth; protect the environment; and, create opportunities for individuals to prosper.

I will be participating and no doubt will offer my opinions on the success of the summit in future blog posts.  But for right now, I am just pleased to see a focus on developing a strategy.  Now lets see if a viable strategy emerges. In a very general way, such a strategy should include:

  • Specific action items that focus on building a culture and structure needed to compete for green jobs
  • Courage and vision to make difficult choices.
  • An on-going commitment by more than just a few to implement the strategy
  • Participation by the business community
  • Linkage to Cleveland’s other major growth industry- Health Care

 

Back in 2006, while I was still at Ohio EPA, a major piece of state legislation worked its way through the General Assembly.  Senate Bill 265 was developed by business groups in Ohio to address concerns with the structure and implementation of Ohio air pollution permitting programs.  The main target to be fixed was the requirement for all non-federally regulated air sources to install Best Available technology (BAT).

Business groups believed that the BAT requirement put Ohio at a disadvantage to neighboring states by requiring a higher (and more costly) level of controls.  Even more importantly, Ohio businesses felt that implementation of BAT at Ohio EPA lacked the certainty that businesses look for in regulatory programs.

Issues with BAT

The lack of certainty stemmed from the fact that BAT was determined on a case-by-case basis with each individual permit that was submitted to the Agency.  Concerns were expressed that permit reviewers reached different conclusions as to what constituted BAT, sometimes for similar sources. 

During the debate over BAT I was at the center of the storm working as Director of Ohio EPA.  I had to testify numerous times before the Legislature.  While I did not agree with every argument against BAT, I did agree that Ohio EPA was placing too much time and energy into regulating small sources of air pollution.

  • FACT:  Ohio has some 70,000 regulated air sources in the State whereas Michigan has less than 10,000

The huge difference in regulated sources is not attributable to there being less industry in Michigan, rather it was because Ohio regulated much smaller sources.  For these reasons, Ohio EPA took a neutral position on the legislation.

Senate Bill 265 passed the Legislature and included two major components as an overhaul of the BAT requirement:

  1. It exempted all sources less than 10 tons per year from having to install BAT. 
  2. For sources larger than 10 tpy, Ohio EPA could only require BAT by adopting rules specifying what exactly BAT would be for particular sources.  The legislation gave Ohio EPA a three year window to adopt rules.  The window is up this month (August 3, 2009)

Region 5 U.S. EPA Questions Ohio’s Ability to Modify BAT

In the ensuing three years since passage of S.B. 265 the course of change has been anything but certain.  U.S. EPA has issued two letters to Ohio EPA.  A June 2008 letter rejected Ohio EPA’s rule which would exempt sources smaller than 10 TPY because U.S. EPA said Ohio EPA failed to prove Ohio’s air pollution control strategy would not be weakened.  On May 22, 2009, U.S. EPA sent a second letter expressing concern over the impending deadline of August 3, 2009 when Ohio would no longer be able to require BAT without source specific rules.

In discussing the letters with staff, Ohio EPA is confident it can work out with U.S. EPA the exemption of sources smaller than 10 TPY.  However, it is much more difficult to envision a resolution of the issue pertaining to sources larger than 10 TPY. 

As an indication of the messy situation that may emerge, U.S. EPA Region 5 could start issuing notices of violation (NOVs) to all sources that receive an air permit without BAT after August 3, 2009.  In an attempt to avoid such a situation, Ohio EPA has discussed passing a rule that would require BAT on all sources larger than 10 tpy.  The rule would specify BAT are those general characteristics set forth in S.B. 265. 

  1. Work practices;
  2. Source design characteristics or design efficiency of applicable air contaminant control devices;
  3. Raw material specifications or throughput limitations averaged over a twelve-month rolling period;
  4. Monthly allowable emissions averaged over a twelve-month rolling period.

 

 

Sierra Club Sues Ohio for Failing to Enforce the Clean Air Act

It was not just Region 5 of U.S. EPA that was attacking changes to BAT. The Sierra Club filed suit against Ohio EPA over its rule exempting sources smaller than 10 tpy.  The Sierra Club challenged Ohio EPA under the Clean Air Act”s citizen suit provisions. 

In a very surprising decision, Magistrate Judge Abel found the citizen’s suit provisions of the Clean Air Act did not allow suits against a State for failing to to enforce the Clean Air Act.  This decision will be appealed given its broader implications on the scope of the citizen suit provisions.  Given the prior precedents it is unclear whether Judge Abel’s decision will be upheld.

Lessons Learned

We will have to wait and see how these major issues unfold over the next few months.  However, there is no doubt that the situation that has emerged after three years is not at all what was envisions during passage of S.B. 265.

The complexities involved in trying to change a State’s air pollution control strategy on any significant scale are immense.  Ohio’s BAT experience is a prime example.  With 70,000 regulated sources the ability to determine the impact of the BAT changes is almost impossible.  Making such a demonstration is the first step toward gaining U.S. EPA’s approval.

Unfortunately, after three years businesses may be left with less certainty than they had before the overhaul was attempted. 

  • Back to case-by-case BAT
  • Region 5 scrutiny of Ohio EPA air permits
  • Continuing litigation of changes to Ohio’s State Implementation Plan (SIP)

 

This is hardly the specificity that the business community envisioned during passage of S.B. 265.  Business groups envisions rules that would specifically state that type of controls or work practices that must be utilized for different types of sources.  The stop gap rule proposed by Ohio EPA looks more like case specific BAT.

With the launch of Leed Version 3, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has increased the rigor of certifications and even issued the threat of "decertification"- losing your building’s green status.  USGBC has decided to throw only a pebble into the pond on this round- its still pretty hard to lose your building’s LEED status. However, Leed v3 foreshadows a time when serious work will continue beyond the certification stage.

MPRs AND DECERTIFICATION

Right now USGBC only ties the possibility of "decertification" to a fairly innocuous list of Minimum Program Requirements ("MPRs").   After your building attains LEED certification it can lose that status if it fails to adhere to any one of the following MPRs (additional commentary based upon LEED website):

  1. Compliance with environmental laws- New Construction..only up through certification. Existing building..its an on-going requirement;
  2. Project must be a complete, permanent building or space- No movable buildings please..and it must the entire building;
  3. Project must utilize a reasonable site boundary–  No gerrymandering please…you cannot shape your project in weird ways just so the project can qualify for points or meet a pre-requisite;
  4. Building must comply with minimum floor area requirements– Must be a project involving at least 1,000 square feet.  No toll booths or kiosks;
  5. Building must comply with minimum occupancy rates Must server at least one full-time equivalent employee…who the heck is worrying about certifying vacant buildings?;
  6. Must share whole-building energy and water usage data- Share this information for 5 years and make it accessible through the web.  However, its not a performance standard; and
  7. Project must comply with minimum building area to site area ratio- gross floor area must be no less than 2% of project boundary.  Who is certifying tiny buildings on large parcels?

Number six- the requirement to share energy and water usage data- was the most controversial, setting off some wild speculation.  Some worried that if their building failed to meet the projected water or energy usage projections it could lose its LEED certification.  This appears not to be the case.  

Preston Koerner wrote a good post discussing decertification on his blog JETSON Green.  Preston contacted the USGBC regarding the possibility of decertification based upon under performance on water and energy usage projections.  USGBC indicated that they just want people to share the information, decertification for failing to meet energy or water usage projections won’t happen under LEED V3.

ENERGY AND WATER USAGE CONTROVERSY

There has been controversy over whether LEED certified buildings actually perform better than standard construction.  Recently, a study sponsored by USGBC found that on average LEED certified New Construction buildings used 24% less energy.  However, the study also showed some buildings are performing much worse than models predicted.  As an extreme a small number are even performing worse than if they just met basic code requirements.

While the study shows LEED generally results in improved efficiencies, the study also shows certification is no guarantee on performance.  So while right now USGBC is requiring reporting of statistic, it seems inevitable that it will move toward some form of performance standards and verification.

If you are interested in the controversy surrounding decertification, Matt DeVries at Best Practices Construction Law has done the best summary of the blogosphere debate over decertification.  A lot of folks are worried about the implications of just being required to track all the data.

However, if LEED certification is truly going to become the gold standard for measuring sustainable buildings doesn’t the USGBC have to start verifying environmental performance of buildings?  I think at a minimum USGBC will require on-going verification if you want LEED certification of your existing building (post-new construction). 

TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

As the requirements to track LEED elements becomes more rigorous, technology has tried to ride to the rescue.  Houston Neal wrote a good review of various software options for tracking LEED projects.  He asked that I take a look and provide any comments.   All I can offer is that most of the software seems to assist with document management as you building a project toward submission for certification.  What about adding features to help track performance post certification? 

FINAL THOUGHTS

To me the trend appears clear…USGBC is moving away from simple certification and toward verification of greenbuilding performance claims.  In otherwords, the LEED process doesn’t end when the plaque goes up on the wall.

Here is a quick update on some of the important changes that were or were not included in the Ohio Budget (H.B. 1) that impact environmentally related issues and Ohio EPA’s budget:

ERAC Deadlines-   As discussed in my previous post, the Ohio Budget included mandatory deadlines placed on ERAC for making determinations on appeals filed before the Commission.  Environmental groups wrote a strong letter to the Governor requesting a veto the ERAC deadlines.  The Governor did not veto the provision, however it appears likely the language will be tinkered with in the Budget Corrections Bill. 

Extension of Deadline for Construction after Issuance of Air PTI:  All air permits for construction and installation of new sources in the State of Ohio include a requirement that the permit expires after eighteen (18) months if construction of the source has not been completed.  An appeal of an air PTI can complicate financing efforts for projects.  Banks may not provide financing while an appeal is pending.  To address this and other issues associated with the construction deadline, the Budget Bill included new language that allows extension of that deadline for any of the following reasons (copy of amendment for exact language):

  • Owner has undertaken a continuing program of installation or modification during the eighteen-month period
  • Owner entered a binding contract for construction of the source within the eighteen month period
  • Director of Ohio EPA issues an extension
  • The air PTI is the subject of an appeal by a third party receives an automatic extension based upon the number of days the permit was under appeal
  • Original permit is superseded by a subsequent air PTI

$1.25 increase in Solid Waste Tipping Fee to fund Ohio EPA:  The municipal solid waste tipping fee was increased by $1.25 a ton which raises the total fee from $3.50 a ton to $4.75 a ton. Of the increase, .25 goes to ODNR for the Soil and Water Conservation Districts. The remaining $1.00 will go to Ohio EPA to support its programs.  

The tipping fee increase was included, in part, to address a reduction in the amount of solid waste going into Ohio’s landfills.  As the fee continues to increase, businesses will have a greater incentive to look for alternative ways to dispose of industrial waste other than sending it to a solid waste landfill.  One such option is beneficial use of the material.  Ohio EPA has yet to to release its second draft of the beneficial use rules, however, as costs of disposal increase interest in this option will rise.

Spending Authority Caps:  While the Legislature agreed to restore the $1.25 increase in tipping fees, it failed to remove the spending caps that were placed on Ohio EPA fee accounts in the Senate.  The practical ramification is that even though the accounts have fee revenue, Ohio EPA will be prevented from spending the revenue to support its staff and programs.  Ohio EPA intends to seek removal of the spending authority caps through the Controlling Board.  If Ohio EPA gets support from business groups it appears likely the caps will be removed and possibility of dramatic staff reductions appears unlikely.

Rejection of the Expansion of Renewable Energy Projects-  Ohio has one of the broadest definitions for what qualifies as "renewable energy source" for purposes of meeting the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).  Efforts were rejected to expand the definition to include burning of solid waste.

Buried in the thousand pages of the Ohio Budget Bill (H.B. 1) is an amendment that could have a major impact on hundreds of pending and future appeals of environmental decisions.  The budget bill amendment includes language placing strict deadlines for issuing decisions on environmental appeals. The deadlines could impact some very controversial permit appeals, including the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) appeal of AMP Ohio’s air permit for its new baseload coal-fired power plant.

By law the Environmental Review Appeals Commission (ERAC) hears and issues decisions on a multitude of actions by Ohio EPA as well as a limited number of actions by other state agencies.  The appeals heard by ERAC include:

  • Ohio EPA rules
  • Ohio EPA enforcement orders
  • Ohio EPA permitting decisions in air, water, solid waste, hazardous waste, etc.
  • Actions by the Boards of Health related to solid waste facilities
  • Ohio EPA decision related to the Voluntary Action Program (brownfields)
  • Orders of the State Fire Marshall relative to underground storage tanks (BUSTR)
  • Water permits and orders issued by Ohio Department of Agriculture for large factory farms

At any given time ERAC will typically have hundreds of appeals pending.  Some appeals can sit before ERAC for years, but this is typically by mutual consent of the parties in the appeal.   However, its not uncommon  in complex cases for hearings to be scheduled 18 to 24 months after appeal has been filed. 

Obviously someone felt concerned that ERAC was taking too long in issuing the majority of its decisions because the Ohio Budget Bill included strict deadlines for making determinations.  Here is the language (click here for the actual H.B. 1 Budget amendment):

The commission (ERAC) shall issue a written order affirming, vacating, or modifying an action pursuant to the following schedule:

(1) For an appeal that was filed with the commission before April 15, 2008, the commission shall issue a written order not later than December 15, 2009.

(2) For all other appeals that have been filed with the commission as of October 15, 2009, the commission shall issue a written order not later than July 15, 2010.

(3) For an appeal that is filed with the commission after October 15, 2009, the commission shall issue a written order not later than twelve months after the filing of the appeal with the commission. 

The language is silent on what happens if ERAC fails to adhere to the deadlines.  If left as is the language could create a right to file an action against ERAC to compel it to issue a decision (called a mandamus action). 

I am told that the legislative intent of the language was to remove the appeal from ERAC’s jurisdiction and allow the Court of Appeals to hear the appeal.  If that was indeed the intent it would appear to be unworkable given the Court of Appeals doesn’t accept testimony of witnesses.   In addition, there would be no assurance a Court, with its very busy docket, would make a determination any quicker.

Regardless, the new deadlines could have a significant impact.  With so many appeals pending before ERAC, the Commission may be forced to shorten hearings, reduce discovery or take other steps to speed up the decision making process.  It is also possible the deadlines could influence ERAC’s level of scrutiny of Agency actions.

Indeed, the language could impact some very controversial actions currently under appeal, including the NRDC appeal of the AMP Ohio air permit on multiple grounds including regulation of greenhouse gases. According to ERAC’s docket, a hearing is scheduled to begin March 8, 2010. The original appeal was filed in early spring of 2008. Under the imposed deadlines a decision would have to be issued no later than December 15, 2009.

It is possible that the Legislature will used the Budget Correction Bill to amend the language. Given the fact that the public hasn’t had an opportunity to see it or provide input we may yet see substantial revisions. 

(Photo: wallyg/everystockphoto.com)

There has been much discussion regarding the use of Land Banks to assist in addressing the aftermath of the foreclosure crisis.  Here is an excerpt from the Cleveland Plain Dealer discussing the County’s recently launched non-profit corporate land bank:

Formally launched by the county in April, the new, nonprofit land bank is the first of its kind in Ohio.It could soon turn Cleveland into the nation’s biggest urban laboratory on how a declining industrial city with a comatose real estate market can downsize gracefully — and prepare to rebound in the future. The impact on the city as a whole could be far greater than individual projects such as the proposed medical mart and revamped convention center downtown.

Ohio recently passed Senate Bill 353 which allows a two year trial period for Counties to create a separate county land reutilization corporation for purposes of acquiring abandoned and tax delinquent properties.  By allowing creation of a separate corporation, the law addresses the issue of liability- a major short-coming of Ohio’s existing land banking law set forth in Ohio Revised Code 5722.  The law also allows for an expedited foreclosure process. The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland released an good analysis of the new legislation titled "Understanding Ohio’s Land Bank Legislation."

Why create a land bank?  Obviously, thousands of abandoned properties bring down property values across the board and create blight.  Abandoned properties also present other risks. Here is a quote from a University of Michigan study of its Land Bank program:

The U.S. Fire Administration reports that over 12,000 vacant structure fires are reported each year in the U.S., which results in $73 million in property damage annually.  In addition, abandoned properties tend to attract crime. A 1993 study of 59 abandoned properties in Austin, Texas, found that 34 percent were used for illegal activities and of the 41 percent that were unsecured, 83 percent were used for illegal activities.

While the focus of the recently enacted Land Bank Legislation has been as a tool for addressing abandoned residential properties, its utility should also be examined for application to brownfields. Land Banks can serve has effective means of addressing the complex legal and environmental issues that face brownfield properties. 

As an example, the Franklin County Land Bank was used successfully to address tax liens on the former Bedford Landfill which overcame a significant barrier to redevelopment.  The Bedford Landfill became a successful Clean Ohio project receiving a $3 million grant from the State of Ohio.

Today, I attended a presentation by members of the City of Cleveland’s Economic Development Department on the City’s Industrial Land Bank Program.  Nate Hoelzel and David Ebersole provided an interesting overview of this unique effort by the City to address large brownfield’s for redevelopment.

The City of Cleveland’s Industrial/Commercial Land Bank was launched in 2005.  The creation of the Cleveland Industrial Land Bank was preceded by an academic study by Cleveland State University.  The purpose of the bank is to try an assemble large tracks of abandoned property in areas identified by the City for priority commercial/industrial development.  Criteria include looking for properties of at least 20 acres in size and near key infrastructure.

In a relatively short time period (less than 4 years), the Land Bank has acquired 100 acres of brownfield property.  Thirty-seven (37) acres are currently on the market for industrial or commercial redevelopment.  The adjacent picture is from Economic Development Department’s web page shows the location of 3 tracks currently held by the Land Bank.

The industrial/commercial land bank is designed to overcome the unique aspects of  contaminated urban property that prevents major development.  Representatives for the City of Cleveland estimated it cost approximately $300,000 per acre to address urban brownfield property.  Such a staggering costs often drives development to greenfields and promotes urban sprawl.  The factors that drive such staggering costs include:

  • liability for contamination
  • assessment costs for investigating the extent of contamination
  • demolition costs for vacant buildings
  • property title issues including tax liens

Land Bank’s can overcome many of these barriers by providing public funds for costly environmental assessment, removing title issues and even potentially addressing liability through clean up of the property.  A property returned to the market may be free of tax liens and have received a full release from the State of Ohio for environmental contamination.

While successful for its relatively short existence, Cleveland’s Industrial Land Bank could be improved if provided additional flexibility.  The Land Bank relies upon the traditional legal framework for its activities.  The legal authority for municipalities to purchase underutilized land exists at the State level in Ohio Revised Code 5722 and at authority for the Industrial Land Bank is located in Section 183.021 of the City of Cleveland Code. Under these authorities, no separate corporation can be created which means the City can face significant liability exposure under federal Superfund laws (CERCLA) for owning contaminated property. 

During the presentation, the presenters mentioned the City’s effort to amend federal law during the effort in 2006 to reauthorize U.S. EPA’s brownfield program.  While amendment of federal law to allow municipalities or counties to acquire property without fear of CERCLA liability makes sense, it may be an uphill climb.  It may be more practical to allow for expansion of Ohio’s new Land Banking Legislation to specifically allow for political subdivisions to acquire brownfield properties through a separate corporation.  This would provide City’s a layer of liability protection for being active in purchasing these complex properties.

Today, a Georgia Appeals Court overturned a lower court’s ruling that invalidated an air permit for a coal-fired power plant on the basis of climate change.  In June 20, 2008 Georgia’s Fulton County Superior Court invalidated a permit for construction of a 1200-megawatt coal-fired power plant. The Court said the Georgia Environmental Protection Division should have considered CO2 a "regulated pollutant" under the Clean Air Act and required controls as part of the permit. 

When the lower Court decision was issued it marked the first time a State Court had invalidated a permit issued under the New Source Review (NSR) program for failing to consider CO2 a "regulated pollutant."  The decision sent major shock waves around the Country. 

Since the lower Court decision, a series of administrative appeal rulings and EPA proposals on climate change have been issued. The decisions have resulted in a complex regulatory web.  Lost was a clear indication whether CO2 should be considered a "regulated pollutant" under the Clean Air Act. 

The Georgia Appeals Court decision is well reasoned and navigates the various court and administrative rulings as well as EPA proposed rulemakings.  The Court’s final conclusion…as it stands right now CO2 is not a regulated pollutant under the Clean Air Act.  Until U.S. EPA promulgates actual regulations requiring reduction of CO2 emissions or controls, permits issued under the NSR program need not consider a facility’s CO2 emissions. 

Here is a key paragraph from the decision that succinctly sets forth the Court’s reasoning:

This ruling (lower Court’s invalidation of the permit)…would impose a regulatory burden on Georgia never imposed elsewhere.  It would compel [the State] to limit CO2 emissions in air quality permits, even though no CAA (Clean Air Act) provision or Georgia statute or regulation actually controls or limits CO2 emissions, and even though (to this Court’s knowledge) no federal or state court has ever previously ordered controls or limits on CO2 emissions pursuant to the CAA.  It would preempt ongoing Congressional efforts to formulate a CO2 emissions policy for all the State…If accepted it would engulf a wide range of potential CO2 emitters in Georgia-and Georgia alone- in a flood of litigation over permits, and impose far-reaching economic hardship on the State.  We reverse this ruling.

Here are some the items I feel the Court got right in its ruling (keep in mind I’m not making pronouncements about climate change, I am just saying I think the legal analysis is well reasoned).

  1. Analysis of Impact of Massachusetts v. EPA-  The landmark Supreme Court ruling only says that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are "pollutants" under the Clean Air Act.  Until EPA adopts affirmative regulations requiring controls or emissions limits on CO2, it will not be considered a "regulated pollutant" under the Clean Air Act.  Only "regulated pollutants" must be evaluated as part of the New Source Review Program.
  2. Johnson Memo is Determinative for Now (prior post)-  In Deseret Power, the Environmental Appeals Board said U.S. EPA retained discretion to decide whether monitoring requirements applicable to CO2 which currently exist in the Clean Air Act are enough to raise CO2 to the status of "regulated pollutant" under the Act.  Former EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, in one of his last acts, issued a memo setting for EPA’s formal determination that monitoring was insufficient to raise CO2 to the status of "regulated pollutant."  New EPA Administrator Jackson granted a request to reconsider the Johnson memo, however she did not go as far as to stay the effectiveness of the Johnson memo during the review.  The Court finds that the current state of the law is that monitoring is not enough to raise CO2 to the status of regulated pollutant.
  3. Formal EPA Rulemaking is Required to Trigger Regulation of CO2-  The Court concludes that until U.S. EPA completes a formal rulemaking that actually requires controls or emission limits on sources of CO2, permits can be issued without considering CO2 as a pollutant. 
  4. Rejection of IGCC as Part of BACT Analysis-  The Court also follows prior Court decisions on the issue of requiring all coal plants to be IGCC plants.  It overturned the lower Court ruling that would have required analysis of IGCC as pollution control under the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirement.  In rejecting a required analysis of IGCC, the Court found that BACT analysis, as set forth in the New Source Review Program, does not require redesign of a facility from a pulverized coal to a syngas plant.

 

On June 18th the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, on a vote of 12-7, passed the amended version of the Clean Water Restoration Act.  The proposal is seen by some as an attempt to fix a major hole in the Clean Water Act.  Others see it as a major extension of federal regulation.  I see it as a State’s rights issue…

The debate over the bill has centered on whether federal jurisdiction should cover essentially all streams and wetlands. (for a discussion of the jurisdiction issue see the extended entry to this post)  The hardcore supporters or detractors appear to break into two camps:

  1. Farmers who want the independence and flexibility to address irrigation or flooding without the need of federal permits
  2. Without passage the majority of streams and wetlands will be left completely unprotected leading to a complete destruction of water quality even in federally regulated waterways. 

If you think I’m painting the camps too dramatically let me provide some examples.  First from the protection camp (post on Blue Living Ideas).

Without CWRA, we could return to the times of the Cuyahoga River burning and the Great Lakes smelling like cesspools. The Clean Water Act is important legislation that needs restoration. It’s about birds; it’s about clean water; it’s about drinking water. CWA was intended to protect all of America’s waters from pollution, not just those that are navigable.

Now from the farmer’s perspective (post on Drovers).

Under current law, the federal government has jurisdiction over "navigable waters of the United States." However, by removing the word "navigable" from the definition, the CWRA would expand federal regulatory control to unprecedented levels – essentially putting stock tanks, drainage ditches, any puddle or water feature found on family farms and ranches—potentially even ground water—under the regulatory strong-arm of the federal government.

There are of course other perspective, such as the U.S. Chamber’s.  In a letter to the Senate Committee the U.S. Chamber opposes the Clean Water Restoration Act because it fears the expansive language will be used by citizen groups to stop development projects:

It has been well-documented that deletion of the term “navigable” from the definition of “waters of the United States” could lead to the unnecessary expansion of the CWA to certain intrastate waters. The bill does attempt to address this problem by listing the specific types of waters explicitly covered by the CWA and exempting others. However, the Chamber’s primary concern is that, despite the good intentions of the Committee in negotiating a compromise, S.787 as drafted is still subject to manipulation by activist groups whose only goal is to stop development.

Lost in the debate seems to be Republican notions of federalism.  When it comes to environmental protection, States seem to often loose the argument that they can craft better regulations or even be trusted to adopt any regulation at all.

The lack of trust makes groups push hard for federal regulation, which is unfortunate because State crafted water quality regulatory programs should be a much better alternative. Here are some reasons why an expanded Ohio jurisdiction over waterways and wetlands may be preferable to "putting all waters under federal protection." 

  1. Regulations crafted at the local level–  ideally States should be in a better position to address unique water quality issues that may be present in their state.  Rather than one size fits all approach under federal regulations.
  2. One permit instead of two-  If the Clean Water Restoration Act passes, anyone with development projects in the State that impacts a stream or wetland will have to get a 401 water quality certification and a 404 permit.  This means all development projects face distinct regulators who may push for different outcomes to mitigate for impacts. 
  3. Greater Flexibility-  In navigating federal regulations, companies and developers often must deal with the "national consistency" argument.  In other words, "we can’t be flexible in this instance because we have to worry we are setting national precedent."
  4. Navigation of only one regulatory structures-  Water quality regulation is a complex business.  It involves biological and chemical criteria.  Navigating two complex regulatory structures (federal and state) bogs down business.  An efficient regulatory structure can still be protective.

A state water permit program is not only a possibility, it was proposed by Ohio EPA in the fall of 2008 in response to shrinking federal regulation.  The State’s proposal has met with significant resistance which has slowed the rule development process down to a crawl.  However, for the reasons articulated above perhaps its worth reconsidering positions on the proposal.  

Those groups opposing both the Clean Water Restoration Act and Ohio EPA’s proposed Water Quality Permit Program must realize they will not get it both ways.  There is too much support for protecting streams and wetlands to have no regulatory program in place.  Without a strong push for State regulation, the default will be to push for federal regulation.

To fend off federal regulation through adoption of effective state regulation, supporters must address the perception of many that State’s engage in a "race to the bottom" when enacting environmental regulation.  Federal legislation like the Clean Water Restoration Act get pushed because fear by many groups that if regulation is left up to the State’s they will all compete to have the least amount of protections or requirements. 

(Photo: Colin Gregory Palmer/everystockphoto.com)

Continue Reading Clean Water Restoration Act- Federal Expansion or Restoring Protections?