A report released today by the U.S. Conference of Mayors estimates that job growth associated with green industries could be the fastest growing job market over the next few decades.  As reported in Time Magazine:

A major shift to renewable energy and efficiency is expected to produce 4.2 million new environmentally friendly "green" jobs over the next three decades, according to a study commissioned by the nation’s mayors.

By 2038, another 4.2 million green jobs are expected to be added, accounting for 10 percent of new job growth over the next 30 years, according to the report by Global Insight, Inc.

"It could be the fastest growing segment of the United States economy over the next several decades and dramatically increase its share of total employment," said the report, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press.

Ohio, with its long history of manufacturing and its heavy reliance on fossil fuels, has been slower to embrace green ideas as means of turning its economic fortunes around.   However, the drumbeat of bad economic news has more Ohio leaders looking for new opportunities to jump start Ohio’s economy.  From 2000 to 2007, Ohio lost 209,000 jobs.  During that same period Cleveland lost 63,000 jobs based upon a report compiled using Department of Labor statistics. 

The single largest development was passage of legislation (S.B. 221) this summer that created a renewable portfolio standard, advanced energy portfolio standard and energy efficiency requirements. However, a review of recent local news stories and events shows the Buckeye State is beginning to focus on developing a green economy:

  • Cincinnati Wants to Lead Green Roof Movement in U.S.- The City Council on Wednesday became the first in Ohio with a plan to channel grants and loans to residents and businesses to replace tar and shingles with vegetation.
  • Columbus Summit on Sustainability and the Environment-  MORPC, the Columbus metropolitan planning organization, held a successful multi-day summit at the Columbus Convention Center.  Over 500 individuals attended that event that had a wide range of presentations relating to sustainability. 
  • Eight Major Green Projects in Northeast Ohio– They include attracting fish to the Cuyahoga River shipping channel through installation of plants along the bulkhead, deconstruction of abandoned homes to recycle the materials, local food from urban community gardens, etc.
  • Wind Turbines on Lake Erie- Cuyahoga County officials this week rolled out the first three reports from their $1 million study of a grand vision — erecting two to 10 wind turbines in the lake off Cleveland’s shore.  Constructing off-shore wind power in fresh water is seen as a possible economic driver in Northeast Ohio.
  • Ohio State University Participates in Solar Decathlon– 20 university teams will participate in the 2009 Solar Decathlon. The teams, chosen from the United States, Canada, and Europe, will each receive $100,000 from DOE to design, build, and operate energy efficient, solar-powered homes.  The Solar Decathlon is an international, biennial competition that challenges university teams to design and build energy efficient solar-powered homes.
  • Ohio Has 28 Solar Sites as Part of National Solar Tour-  Green Energy Ohio organized the tours in Ohio as part of the American Solar Energy Society.  The tours are from October 3-5.
  • Ohio Gov. Recognizes U. of Toledo Solar Power Leadership-

 

On September 12, 2008, Ohio EPA issued proposed rules that would require a new permit, called a "state water quality permit", for all dredge or fill impacts to non-federally regulated streams.  Ohio may be the first state in the country to try and expand state stream permit requirements in reaction to recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions limiting the coverage of the Clean Water Act.  As discussed below, Ohio’s effort will be controversial.

 The Supreme Court in Rapanos and SWANCC limited federal jurisdiction of the nation’s waterways based upon its interpretation of the Clean Water Act’s trigger for jurisdiction- "Navigable Waters".  In a prior post (Narrowing Federal Jurisdiction Over Waterways), I discussed the pressure mounting on States to react to federal court decisions which leave many waterways unprotected.  

Currently, Ohio EPA only requires a permit (401 permit) to fill or dredge a stream if the stream is under federal jurisdiction.   No permit is required if a stream is considered a state waterway but not a federal waterway.

In the past this approach didn’t matter much because the Army Corps had a very expansive interpretation of federal waterways.  However, with the federal authority shrinking based upon a flurry of recent federal court decisions, the State felt it could no longer allow more and more streams to go unprotected.  In reaction, they have proposed a new rule that would require a permit for dredge or fill activity on any Ohio waterway, defined as "waters of the state" under Ohio Revised Code 6111.01(H). 

While Ohio EPA’s action is understandable, after reviewing the rule, the Agency may be overcompensating.  The definition of a "water of state" is quite expansive under O.R.C. 6111.01(H), it includes:

 "…all streams, lakes, ponds, marshes, watercourses, waterways, wells, springs, irrigation systems, drainage systems, and other bodies or accumulations of water, surface and underground, natural or artificial, regardless of depth of the strata in which underground water is located, that are situated wholly or partly within, or border upon, this state, or are within its jurisdiction, except those private waters that do not combine or effect a junction with natural surface or underground waters."

I can see the lobbyists now, holding up pictures of a small puddle and arguing that Ohio EPA would require a permit for putting a few shovels of dirt in the hole.  Only problem is there is not much in the rule to refute this claim from a purely legal perspective.  The rule does not contain an exemption from permit requirements for small water bodies or deminimis impacts. 

In my experience the Agency is typically not persuasive when it argue "just trust us" to apply the regulation fairly.  As a result, there is no doubt this rule package will be very controversial. 

Other issues with the package include the following:

  1. Same Level Review for All Impacts-  While flawed, Ohio’s isolated wetland permit requirements appropriately tries to match the level of review required with the amount/severity of impact.  The proposed rule makes no such effort.  All impacts are required to submit the same amount of technical information as part of their application. Also, all projects will be reviewed within 180 days, expedited review requirements for smaller projects is not included in the rule.
  2. Drainage Ditches- Who can clean out a ditch and when has been a controversial issue in Ohio for some time.  The proposed rule would put significant limitations on when ditches can be cleaned out for purposes of flood control or drainage.
  3. Clean Fill Materials- The rule limits fill to material "free from toxic contaminants in other than trace quantities."  While this limitation often appears in 401 permits, it has always been vague.  The rule adds no clarity to what is considered "trace quantities."  For instance, arsenic is naturally occurring in most Ohio soils.  Couldn’t this limit be viewed to prohibit use of even typical Ohio farm soil as fill?
  4. All Permit Applicants Will Have to Wait-  The rule requires every applicant provide a copy of a determination letter from the Army Corps of Engineers as to whether the waters to be impacted are within federal jurisdiction.  Shouldn’t some waters be just obviously not within federal jurisdiction?  This requirement is problematic because the Army Corps has been very slow to issue jurisdictional determinations. 
  5. Ohio EPA Guidance Elevated to Legal Requirements-  The rule requires all applicants evaluate the quality of streams in accordance with a series of technical guidance developed by Ohio EPA.  While these guidance documents have been used for years in permit reviews, it certainly will be controversial to make them mandatory. 

Comments on the rule package are currently due October 27, 2008.  However, business associations  are already requesting Ohio EPA allow for more extensive public involvement in the development of the rules.

 (Photo: flickr, heather0174)

Al Gore, speaking at the annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative, called for young people to perform acts of civil disobedience to stop construction of new coal plants.  He also has called for State Attorney Generals to review whether utilities are committing stock fraud by discounting the threat of global warming. 

I put this post up after writing yesterday about the Arkansas proposal to pass legislation prohibiting construction of new coal plants.  Preventing construction of new coal plants that do not use carbon sequestration appears to be the number one strategy of green groups and those concerned with global warming. 

Ohio could soon be a major battle ground.  While the AMP Ohio facility has received its permit for construction of its new baseload coal power plant, it should be bracing itself for challenges on all fronts. During the public comment period on the new period concern was expressed that the facility would emit 7.3 million tons of CO2 per year.  Right now AMP Ohio appears to be the rare coal plant project that is still moving forward having received its authorization to construct from Ohio EPA.

 

As reported in the Texarkana Gazette, the Arkansas State Commission on Global Warming is likely to recommend a ban on new coal fired power plants.  The Commission is also proposing construction of a new $1.5 billion dollar plant be delayed until carbon sequestration technology can be added to the plant. 

What is the Arkansas Governor’s Commission on Global Warming?  Here is a description taken right from its web page:

With the signing of Act 696 of the Arkansas 86Th General Assembly (HB2460), Governor Mike Beebe established the Governor’s Commission on Global Warming. By design the Commission represents a wide diversity of views and perspectives with members coming from business, industry, environmental groups, and academia.

The Commission is charged with setting a “global warming pollution reduction goal” for Arkansas and a “comprehensive strategic plan for implementation of the global warming pollution reduction goal.” The Act sets several study and evaluation requirements and requires a final report be provided to the Governor by November 1, 2008.
 

The developments in Arkansas represent yet another in a series of legal, legislative and political attacks on new coal fired power plants.  The attacks have been successful, between 2007 and 2008 plans for at least 69 coal plants have been canceled.

In the article a utility representative comments that the decision would force continued use of older less efficient coal fired power plants.  His argument that the decision will be bad overall for the environment. 

While I sympathize with the argument we should not be adding to the problem, what alternatives are being suggested to replace old plants or meet ever increasing demands for electricity?  While renewables are a great solution, there is no denying they do not provide the baseload generation of either a coal or nuclear plant. 

 

On September 24, 2008 U.S EPA filed its petition to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for rehearing En Banc on the vacatur of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).  While focus may be on EPA’s request for rehearing, a significant concession was made in EPA’s brief that has major implications regardless of whether rehearing is granted. 

EPA Concedes CAIR Phase Two Reductions Are Not Aggressive Enough

EPA elected to not seek review of the Court’s holding that the 2015 deadline for Phase II reductions is unlawful because it is inconsistent with the shorter compliance deadlines for ozone and p.m. 2.5 contained in the Clean Air Act.  The Court held EPA must require reductions as "expeditiously as practical" but no later than the deadlines established in the Clean Air Act (typically 2010).  In the Court’s words:

EPA did not make any effort to harmonize CAIR’s Phase Two deadline for upwind contributors to eliminate their significant contribution with the attainment deadlines for downwind areas North Carolina v. EPA slip op. at 25

EPA’s concession on the Phase Two deadline runs counter to the Bush Administration’s position that a legislative fix of CAIR must preserve the entire program.  To the extent EPA’s concedes this point in its rehearing is somewhat puzzling as it was unnecessary at this stage of legal maneuvering.  Perhaps this concession paves the way for a Congressional compromise over a short term legislative fix that preserves Phase I of the program.   Certainly this concession means a rewrite of CAIR that includes more aggressive reductions seems inevitable.

EPA’s Arguments in Support of Rehearing

EPA’s brief appears to try and lay a guilt trip on the Court as its justification for a rehearing.  EPA rightfully points out the major benefits of CAIR that will be lost if at least Phase I of the program is not preserved:

Most significantly, vacatur will jeopardize massive emission reductions…and accompanying improvements in public health.  EPA estimated that CAIR would prevent 13,000 deaths annually by 2010 and 17,000 premature deaths annually by 2015.

Vacatur will also destroy or reduce the value of banked allowances that companies generated through early emission reductions…6.9 million tons of banked Title IV allowances have lost over three billion dollars in value [since the Court’s decision]

There is no doubt the courts decision to throw out the CAIR program has resulted in chaos both in the trading markets and with State’s struggling to reach attainment with federal air quality standards.  We will see if the Court agrees that these dire consequences satisfy the standard for review that the matter involve a question of "exceptional importance." 

As a second basis justifying review of the decision, EPA argues that the Court has been inconsistent in its review of the NOx SIP Call and CAIR.  The EPA argues the Court previously upheld the NOx SIP Call in Michigan v. EPA and CAIR uses the "same fundamental approach approved in Michigan."  Both air pollution control programs use economic factors to determine the amount of contribution to downwind state nonattainment upwind states must eliminate.  The economic factor being "highly cost effective controls."

This is the crux of the legal issue and has significant implications for the design of any cap and trade program to control air pollution.  Does the Clean Air Act call for elimination of contribution to downwind air quality issues based upon cost of controls or does it require reductions based upon a State’s actual contribution to downwind nonattainment?  If it is ultimately decided that actual contribution must be eliminated, it may prove very difficult to craft a valid cap and trade program without new legislative authority.

EPA’s strategy to argue inconsistency appears pretty risky given the fact the Court raises questions regarding legality of the NOx SIP Call.  Specifically, the Court states:  "In Michigan we never passed on the lawfulness of the NOx SIP Call’s trading program."  The Court’s decision appears to suggest it would have thrown out the NOx SIP Call as well if proper challenges had been made.  

The EPA appears to face a steep climb to ultimately win its appeal.   The Court was unanimous in its finding that basing required reductions on cost effective controls does not comply with the Clean Air Act.

What’s Next For CAIR?

Through legal maneuvering, U.S. EPA can effectively delay the effectiveness of the Court’s decision to vacate CAIR.  The rehearing petition will likely delay it for a couple months while the Court considers the petition including allowing comment by other parties.  Even if the rehearing is denied, which appears likely given the original decision was unanimous, U.S. EPA can file a motion to stay the effectiveness of the decision while it seeks appeal to the Supreme Court.  By Court rules a stay, if granted or not challenged by the other parties, is good for 90 days.

While EPA delays the effect of the Court’s vacatur of the program, efforts will focus on a legislative fix that can preserve at least the immediate future of the program.  However, time is running out on this "quick fix" option as Congress adjourns for the election.

 

Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is a critical strategy proposed for combating climate change.  It involves the injection of CO2, a greenhouse gas, generated by coal-fired power plants and industrial facilities deep beneath the earth’s surface for long term storage. 

There are potential significant issues with CCS, including:

  1. 1.  Pollutants from the plant mixing with the CO2 that is injected leading to contamination of water supplies;
  2. 2.  Potential mobility of CO2 once it is injected; and
  3. 3.  Corrositivity of CO2 may result in release of subsurface contaminants into drinking water supplies

The Department of Energy and Coal State’s are betting heavily on the success of carbon sequestration.  Federal funds are supporting some 25 projects around the country that will investigate the feasibility of CCS. 

To address the concerns with CCS, U.S. EPA and the States are beginning to develop regulations for CCS projects.  This Summer major developments include release of U.S. EPA’s rules and the issuance of an Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit by Ohio EPA for an Ohio test site.

Beginning this month, the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Project (MRCSP) is utilizing FirstEnergy’s R.E. Burger Plant as a test site for injection of up to 3,000 tons of CO2. As reported on the MRCSP web page, the period of injection could vary from three to eight weeks, depending on the properties of the injection zones and the time needed for experimental set-up, regulatory oversight and monitoring.

The injection follows Ohio EPA’s issuance on September 2, 2008 of a permit to allow the installation and pilot testing of the underground injection well for purposes of carbon sequestration.  This is the first permit issued in Ohio that would allow injection of CO2 subsurface for purposes of carbon sequestration.  Some interesting aspects of the permit include:

  1. Injection will occur at three different geologic locations-  the intervals range from 5,923 feet to 8,274 feet below surface.  The intervals are selected to prevent mobility of the injected CO2.
  2. Closure financial responsibility–  Total project closeout including closure of the well in accordance with regulatory requirements were estimated at $75,000 to $100,000.  This amount only covers sealing of the well.  No money is set aside in the event any other issues arise. Some may question whether this is sufficient financial assurance if it was anything other than a test site.
  3. Monitoring of Injected Fluids–  On a quarterly basis, the injected material will be analyzed for various contaminants including SO2, NOx, particulate matter, and mercury.  The monitoring is an attempt to verify contaminants from the plant are not mixed with the injected CO2.

Issuance of the permit precedes finalization of U.S. EPA proposed rules governing regulation of carbon sequestration projects.   U.S. EPA’s proposed rules and Ohio EPA’s permit rely on similar legal authority on the Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA).  The permit together with the proposed rules give insight into how CCS projects could be regulated in the future. Areas covered by both the permit and U.S. EPA’s proposed rule include:

  • Geologic site characterization to ensure that wells are appropriately sited
  • Requirements to construct wells in a manner that prevents fluid movement into unintended zones;
  • Periodic re-evaluation of the area around the injection well to verify that the CO2 is moving as predicted within the subsurface;
  • Testing of the mechanical integrity of the injection well, ground water monitoring, and tracking of the location of the injected CO2 to ensure protection of underground sources of drinking water;
  • Extended post-injection monitoring and site care to track the location of the injected CO2 and monitor subsurface pressures; and
  • Financial responsibility requirements to assure that funds will be available for well plugging, site care, closure, and emergency and remedial response.

While the regulations and permitting of CCS are moving forward, not everyone is embracing CCS. In recent testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, serious concerns were raised by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) about the potential effect CCS technology may have on the nation’s underground sources of drinking water.  Strong regulations and successful pilot tests will go a long way to addressing these concerns.

 

A lawsuit filed this week  raises an important question about the relationship between the federal government and states pertaining to environmental regulations.  At issue is how much flexibility state’s have to modify their air pollution control plans used to comply with federal air quality standards.  As reported in the Columbus Dispatch, the Sierra Club has challenged Ohio’s ability to increase the threshold for triggering the requirement to install best available technology (BAT) on smaller sources of air pollution. 

The specific exemption was included in Sentate Bill 265 which increased the BAT exemption from 1.8 tons per year to 10 tons per year.  These sources will still have to include air pollution controls, typically what is called "reasonably available control technology" (RACT).  However, they will no longer have to meet the more stringent BAT standard.

The Sierra Club goal is to prevent small pollution sources from being allowed to increase emissions.  However, they are missing the critical issue.  As long as overall pollution levels remain the same, shouldn’t states be allowed to choose what methods they will employ to meet federal air quality standards?  Also, shouldn’t states be allowed to change methods if they find one to be ineffective or inefficient?  

The increase in the BAT trigger threshold was adopted because there was a strong belief Ohio was over regulating small sources of air pollution.  As an example, Ohio regulates over 70,000 air sources while its neighbor, Michigan, only regulates 7,000.  Obviously the disparity is not attirubated to Michigan having far less industry or manufacturing, its attiributable to the fact Michigan has a higher threshold for triggering the need for a permit. The Legislation was an attempt to address this disparity.  [A prior post discussed the policy motivations behind the legislation and U.S. EPA’s concerns with the changes]

The Sierra Club argues the change violates the Clean Air Act’s "anti-backsliding" prohibition.  Under the Clean Air Act, state’s are not allowed to undermine the progress made in improving air quality by reducing air pollution control requirements.  However, state’s have some discretion to substitute old requirements with equally effective new requirements.

Ohio wants to amend its state air pollution control plan (SIP) to substitute the requirement to install BAT on small sources with other requirements targetting other sources that are currently being implemented.  The new requirements will more than make up for any pollution increase attributable to dropping BAT for small sources.

Shouldn’t the State’s be allowed to substitute less effective or inefficient pollution control requirements with new requirements that will produce equal or greater reductions?  Hopefully, the Courts and U.S. EPA will say yes.  Otherwise, less effective requirements remain on the books forever. 

The initial comment period is now closed on the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio’s (PUCO) draft rules for implementation of the Alternative and Renewable Energy Requirements. The PUCO received hundreds of pages of comments from a wide variety of perspectives: Utilities, Renewable Energy Developers, Industrial Customers, Environmental Groups, Clean Coal Technology Providers, and Consumer Groups.

The rules were set in motion by passage of Ohio’s comprehensive Energy Legislation (SB 221) which includes provisions designed to promote alternative and renewable energy development.  The legislation includes both an Advanced Energy Portfolio Standard (AEPS) and a more traditional Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS). 

While the Legislation was very complex, major policy issues were left to be sort out through rule promulgated by the PUCO.  The comments received on the first draft of the rules for implementation of the AEPS and RPS reveal significant differences of opinion over critical issues.

Here is my critical issue list.  The rules must address squarely these issues to determine the direction of Ohio’s energy policy.

  1. What are "advanced energy"  resources and projects and how best to promote it?  For example, right now the rules contain no standards for what qualifies as clean coal.  Comments I submitted pointed out that a simple reduction of a few pounds from a 500 mw source that emits a 1,000 tons of pollution could still be considered a "clean coal" source.  Worse yet, the entire generation could qualify toward meeting the AEPS.  Without modification the AEPS could be rendered effectively meaningless.
  2. Double counting environmental attributes- It appears from the comments that Ohio doesn’t recognize this debate has been going on nationally for some time.  Many of the 26 or so states that have had RPS standards have been sorting this type of issue out.  The standard practice emerging nationally is not to allow CO2 emission reduction credits to be separated from a Renewable Energy Credit (REC).  Allowing otherwise distorts the voluntary CO2 and REC markets.
  3. How much teeth does the RPS have?  Many comments were submitted that the rules would grant the PUCO too much discretion to waive compliance with the RPS standard based upon a "act of god" (force majeure).  Also, SB 221 allowed compliance with RPS benchmarks to be waived if electric rates rise as a result of the RPS by more than 3%.  But how you measure the 3% increase is critical to determining whether there truly will be a RPS requirement in Ohio.  It seems the rules have to answer the question-are we serious about having an RPS standard in Ohio?

 (a summary of the major comments on the AEPS and RPS by clicking on "continue reading" below)

(photo: Kevin Dooley/everystockphoto.com)

Continue Reading Major Issues Revealed With Ohio’s Alternative and Renewable Energy Rules

As reported on CNN, the Senate is debating how or whether to legislatively restore the CAIR program that was struck down in Court.  EPA still has a week or so to decide whether to appeal, but all bets are that Congress needs to act in order to save the program.

The game of chicken centers around whether the entire program should be restored, meaning reductions in Phase I set to take effect in 2009/2010 and Phase II which is to take effect 2015.  The White House insists on both Phase I and Phase II.  (proposed CAIR legislation) Senate Democrats, who have long been unhappy with the strength of the CAIR program are talking like they are only willing to put in place Phase I and then work on long term legislation for a stronger program.

President George W. Bush is "pushing for a full codification of CAIR," Carper told reporters. "That just ain’t gonna happen. I think they may not be able to get what they want, but they can get what we all need."

But the White House has allies in the U.S. Senate. In a sign of the ongoing standoff, Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, and Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., introduced a bill Thursday that would restore the full program instead of just the first phase.

"Options to quickly reinstate Phase I CAIR followed by tighter legislation do not save as many lives as the full CAIR fix until eight to 20 years from now; that means 6,500 to 41,000 more lives will be lost mostly in the next three to six years," according to a statement released by the lawmakers.

With only a few week before Congress is set to adjourn, there does not appear to be much time to resolve the drama.  With so much at stake and the chaos that will ensue if no type of fix is adopted, its hard to believe no action will be taken.  But as long as the White House insists on reinstatement of the whole program it appears likely there will be no resolution.  The Eastern State, Democrats, Environmental Groups and even some of the Utilities believe too strongly CAIR is a weak program.  If this was not the case, Congress would have passed Clear Skies-the legislative precursor to CAIR. 

With very little fanfare, the Department of Commerce put on their web page two documents that change the policy interpretations of the prevailing wage requirements. The "policy interpretation" is controversial.  As reported in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Republican controlled House and Senate will likely be discussing ways to block the change.

What are Prevailing Wage laws? To offset the low bid public contract requirement,  the ""prevailing wage" law requires wages commonly paid to construction workers in a particular region will determine the minimum wage paid to the same type of workers employed on publicly funded construction projects. (For additional background view the extended entry below)

The Strickland Administration is claiming that the release of the Commerce Department’s new guidance document on prevailing wage is a "simple clarification" of existing law.   The spokesman for the Governor said the law was simply "misapplied" to two situations, one of which is brownfield redevelopment projects.  However, many view it as a broad expansion of the applicability of prevailing wage that could drive up construction costs. 

Strickland Administration Frames the Debate: "In recent years there has been no clear approach used by the Department when determining whether publicly-funded construction activity is so intertwined with private construction activity that the activity constitutes a single "project" (triggering prevailing wage) and when they are sufficiently "separate and unrelated" that they constitute separate projects, one publicly supported (which triggers prevailing wage) and one privately financed (which does not trigger prevailing wage).

THE ISSUE: When a Clean Ohio grant pays for remediation work and demolition but the rest of the project development is privately financed, then what portion is covered by prevailing wage?

FROM ADMINISTRATION’S NEW POLICY STATEMENT:  Whenever a public entity contributes funding or other direct support (e.g.-public land) to a project, even an otherwise privately-financed project, prevailing wage must be paid to the workers on the project.

RAMIFICATION ON BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS:  Under the Administration’s new policy, prevailing wage will apply to all construction work at a site receiving Clean Ohio funds whenever an end-user is identified.  Therefore, if the Clean Ohio grant application includes a commitment to use the site by a new tenant or developer, prevailing wage applies to all construction at the site work.  If no end-user is identified in the application, prevailing wage only applies to remediation work at the site.

DISCUSSION:  It simply is a false distinction to apply prevailing wage on the basis of whether an end user has been identified.  Under Clean Ohio guidelines, grant funds can only pay for :

  • environmental remediation (including asbestos abatement)
  • demolition
  • a portion of the purchase cost of the property (optional under end user track). 

The Clean Ohio guidelines forbid expenditure on building improvements or infrastructure improvements.   If it is illegal to use to program funds for this work, how can prevailing wage be deemed to apply?

Developers will have to run the numbers.  By choosing the "development ready track" (no end-user), applicants can only seek $2 million in state funds versus $3 million for end-user projects.  Developers will be calculating whether overall project costs exceed the extra $1 million available if prevailing wage applies.  Some may say that’s acceptable, but if makes less brownfield projects viable that is not a good result for Ohio’s cities.

It seems questionable that the Administration can make such a broad change in application of the prevailing wage through a simple "policy interpretation."  Legal challenges or legislative action seems inevitable.

Continue Reading How the New Policy on Prevailing Wage Impacts Brownfield Projects