In my prior posts on CAIR, I analyzed the real world impacts of the Court’s decision to vacate the program.  In my final post on CAIR, I highlight some of the legal implications from the Court’s decision on business and policy makers.  This is not meant to be a legal brief for lawyers, but rather a quick summary of what matters most from the CAIR decision.

 

 

 

  • Deadlines and Dates-  I had the pleasure of testifying in the U.S. Senate on the issue of ozone/soot deadlines and implementation of federal control programs.  The Court made an astute conclusion in finding that U.S. EPA should have coordinated attainment deadlines for ozone and soot that are applicable to the States with the reductions required under the CAIR program.  The Court held "EPA ignored its statutory mandate to promulgate CAIR consistent with provisions in Title I (of the Clean Air Act) mandating compliance deadlines in downwind state’s."  (page 25) 

 

  • Coordination with State Pollution Control Plans- It is illogical to create federal air pollution reduction programs for power plants and vehicles that take 10-25 years to fully implement while requiring States meet federal air quality standards in 3-5 years. Depending on the State, power plants and vehicles make up roughly 30-50% of the ozone problem.  You are handcuffing the State’s by designing federal programs that won’t assist their efforts to meet federal air quality standards until after applicable deadlines have past.  Especially when much of the ozone and soot problem is regional in nature, not local. (see CAIR II:  Short Term/Long Term Implications)

 

  • Cap and Trade "on the ropes"-  For pollutants with both regional and local consequences it may be enormously challenging to create a valid trading program using the current authority in the Clean Air Act. Both CAIR and CAMR have been vacated by the Courts.  Both represent the newest  cap and trade pollution trading programs developed by U.S. EPA.  Is this the end of cap and trade?    Examine the following quotes from the Court’s decision attacking the very foundations of a regional cap and trade program:
    • "Theoretically, sources in Alabama could purchase enough NOx and SO2 allowances to cover all their current emissions, resulting in no change in Alabama’s contribution to Davidson County, North Carolina’s non-attainment." (page 16)
    • "In Michigan we never passed on the lawfulness of the NOx SIP Call’s trading program."  (page 17)  Seems like a less then subtle suggestion the Court may have thrown out the NOx SIP Call if similar challenges were made.
    • "EPA’s approach-regionwide caps with no state-specific quantitative contribution determinations or emissions requirements-is fundamentally flawed." (page 59)

 

  • Economics of Compliance, Costs Cannot be the Driver-The Courts have rebuked EPA efforts to increase the relevance of the economic cost of pollution controls.  The CAIR decision once again declares costs secondary to environmental consequence. 
    • "EPA can’t just pick a cost for a Region, and deem significant any emissions that sources can eliminate more cheaply." (pg. 37)
    • "EPA’s interpretation cannot extend so far as to make one State’s significant contribution depend on another state’s cost of eliminating emissions." (page 39)
    • The Court strongly criticized EPA’s fuel adjustment method of granting more allowances to states with coal burning power plants versus gas or oil.  "The net result will be that states with mainly oil- and gas-fired EGUs (electric generating units) will subsidize reductions in states with mainly coal-fired EGUs…EPA’s appraoch contravenes [the Clean Air Act]." (page 41)

 

In my previous post on the CAIR decision, I discussed the environmental and practical ramifications of the Court’s decision vacating the program.  While speaking at a large permitting seminar for manufacturer’s, I had a chance to discuss the conclusions of my prior post with some State officials.  While I was correct that the CAIR decision complicates the State pollution control plans for ozone and soot, the environmental consequences discussed in my prior post need to be adjusted to account for additional factors. 

It is unclear how U.S. EPA will treat State air pollution control plans (SIPs) that rely on CAIR.  However, in the short term, not all the CAIR controls will be scuttled or switched off.  AEP and First Energy have entered into major settlements with U.S. EPA stemming from New Source Review (NSR) violations. 

These settlements require installation and operation of billions of dollars in new air pollution controls on power plants in Ohio.  The consent orders will act as a backstop now that CAIR is gone.  Perhaps some additional state actions will be needed to put additional backstops in place where no federal decree covers the plant.  In summary, it appears the Ohio may have the tools to deal with the short term issues presented by the absence of CAIR for sources within the State. 

The longer term consequences still remain and by 2015 will be felt if Congress does not act by replacing CAIR quickly.  CAIR was designed to drive a second wave of major reductions that will be very difficult to replace without some new federal program.  This second wave of reductions are essential for state’s trying to meet the tougher ozone standard (.075 ppm) and soot standard (fine particle- pm 2.5).  If State’s fail to meet either the ozone or soot standards, then existing businesses will likely be squeezed for additional air pollution reductions.  Also, economic development is more difficult in areas not attaining federal air quality standards.

Another consequence of the absence of a CAIR like program will be a lot more litigation between the states. It won’t just be North Carolina or the East Coast suing upwind sources.  Even Ohio may be suing its neighbors like Indiana to try and force additional reductions.  

Why?  Ozone is truly a regional issue.  Even City’s that some may think have no one to blame for their air pollution, such as Cleveland, in fact receive a substantial contribution from upwind sources. Take a look at the figures to the left.  They demonstrate how both ozone and P.M 2.5 are regional issues.  The majority of pollution in these major cities is from regional not local sources.

All this points to the need for Congressional action to replace CAIR to avoid a serious and costly problem for the State’s and businesses.  Unfortunately, any action is very unlikely until we have a new President.

With Michigan and Pennsylvania’s passage of the Compact, all of the Great Lake States have now endorsed it.  The next step is to go to Congress for ratification.   While the press has almost exclusively concentrated on the diversion aspects of the Great Lakes Compact, there are other provisions that could have important ramifications for businesses.  Ohio has yet to pass enabling legislation that will grant authority to the Ohio Department of Natural Resource to implement other important aspects of the Compact, most notably regulation of water withdraws. 

The driving force behind the Compact was to ban diversions to other States and Countries.  But the Compact also requires each of the eight states to establish a regulatory program for new or increased withdraws from the Great Lakes basin. Ohio’s enabling legislation will decide critical issues such as- how much water must be withdrawn before a permit will be required?  The Compact sets a default number of 100,000 gallons per day (gpd).  Other states have established higher thresholds, such as 1,000,000 gpd.

Another critical question – what type of review is required if a business triggers the need for a withdraw permit?  The Compact contains very broad language that requires a review of impacts to the Great Lake basin from which the withdraw takes place.  However, the Compact grants the states a tremendous amount of discretion to establish the level of review associated with new withdraws.  For example, Ohio could prohibit issuance of a withdraw permit if the proposed project would result in decreased flow in a tributary of Lake Erie.  Ohio could also require a detailed review of the impacts to the ecosystem if a withdraw is allowed.

While focus has rightfully been on protecting this tremendous freshwater resource from being diverted elsewhere, there are important policy questions that still remain unanswered.  How Ohio and the other Great Lake States regulate withdraws within their states will arguably have a more direct and immediate impact on its constituents. 

Continue Reading Important Issues Unaddressed After Passage of Great Lakes Compact

The recent decision issued by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal vacating the CAIR rule  has far reaching implications.  It probably justifies at least one more post.  Understandably, reaction has been related to the fact that this major clean air initiative was dismantled with a stroke of a pen.  A fact highlighted by EPA’s announcement in 2005 when the CAIR rule was implemented.

“CAIR will result in the largest pollution reductions and health benefits of any air rule in more than a decade. The action we are taking will require all 28 states to be good neighbors, helping states downwind by controlling airborne emissions at their source.”

–Steve Johnson, Acting EPA Adminstrator
3/10/2005

The Court included editorial comments trying to suggest the impact would be minimal.  For instance, the Court points to two power plant pollution control programs (the NOx SIP call and Acid Rain Program) that will still be effective in reducing emissions even after CAIR is gone. The Court also suggests that State’s could simply sue one another if more reductions are needed (using its Clean Air Act Section 126 authority).  Litigation is hardly an effective pollution control strategy.

Bottom line, there is simply no way to minimize the impact of its decision or the ramifications for States and US EPA.

 

The map to the left is a good representation of the breadth of the CAIR program.  Each dot represents advanced pollution controls on a power plant. (Click on the map to enlarge the view)  This map shows US EPA’s projections as to controls on power plants by 2010 after CAIR and CAMR (power plant mercury control program), both of which have been vacated by the Court.  While some of the dots may remain due to the NOx SIP Call and Acid Rain Program, many will disappear or be on hold. 

How many dots disappear?  US EPA projected that CAIR would result in 116 more units having advanced air pollution controls in 2010.  By 2020, the number was 287 more units. 

While the decision certainly impacts efforts at cleaner air, it also makes a mess of state air pollution control plans (called State Implementation Plans- SIPs) that have been submitted for approval by US EPA.  Most of the SIPs submitted rely on CAIR as a primary control method to achieve federal air quality standards for ozone and soot.  The ruling brings tremendous uncertainty as to how these state plans will be reviewed.

To support CAIR, US EPA provided modeling to show air quality improvement that would result from reductions brought about by the program.  State’s relied upon this modeling as part of their air pollution control plans to achieve federal air quality standards.

 

What was the magnitude of air quality improvement that US EPA projected? The Agency showed that in 2005, 104 areas didn’t meet ozone standards and 43 areas didn’t meet pm 2.5 (soot) standards.  By 2010, EPA projected the number of areas not meeting ozone and soot standards would be reduced to 14 and 20 respectively due in part to CAIR.

 

Now that the State’s cannot rely on CAIR as a cornerstone of their air pollution control strategies, those reduction must come from somewhere.  Without these massive reductions State’s face missing deadlines to meet federal air quality standards.  Missing the federal deadline can bring sanctions and more rigorous air pollution control requirements on businesses within the state. 

 US EPA has even adopted a tougher ozone standard which is currently being implemented.  The State’s face enormous challenges in meeting this new standard if there is no federal air pollution control program applicable to power plants.  From reading the decision, it may be very difficult to craft a legal program using administrative authority.  Congress may have to amend the Clean Air Act to give US EPA the authority, but since 1990 Congress has shown its reluctance to re-open the Clean Air Act.   

Continue Reading CAIR Decision Will Have Many Aftershocks

In the most recent issue of Builder’s Exchange, a construction attorney in my office (Jim Dixon) and I wrote an article discussing asbestos regulations as they pertain to contractors working at a job site. 

The article was intended to raise awareness in the construction industry that contractors can be liable for asbestos violations even if they do not perform asbestos remediation activities.  If you are the the prime contractor on a job or even a contractor given supervisory authority, the asbestos notification requirements could apply to both you and the owner of the building equally.  Failure to perform the requisite survey or provide the required notice in advance of demolition or renovation work is the most common enforcement action taken by Ohio EPA.  As set forth in the article, make sure you verify the owner has complied with the asbestos regulations before starting work at the site.

(Photo: Ktheory/everystockphoto.com)

For the first time a court has revoked a permit due to concerns over C02 emissions and climate change.  While there have been previous instances where states have denied permits due to concerns with C02 emissions, this is the first time a court has revoked a previously issued permit.  Notably, the Court did not base its decision on state law, rather it ruled the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires analysis and control of C02 emissions. 

Other courts are currently hearing similar challenges.  If this decision is a trend it will have major implications for any new facilities seeking an air permit.  In a future blog post I will discuss the implications of using the Clean Air Act, specifically the New Source Review provisions, to regulate CO2.  Much speculation has been made as to whether CO2 will be regulated even without action by Congress on comprehensive climate change legislation.

The CO2 decision was issued on June 20, 2008 in Georgia’s Fulton County Superior Court.  The Georgia Environmental Protection Division had approved a permit for the construction of a proposed 1200-megawatt coal-fired power plant.   Environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, challenged the permit saying the plant’s emission of 8-9 million tons of CO2 had to be considered. Siding with the Sierra Club, the Court overturned the State’s issuance and sent the permit back to perform the analysis it said was required under the CAA. 

Note: According to Sourcewatch, between 2007 and 2008, plans for 69 coal plants have been canceled.

Continue Reading First Court Revokes Air Permit Over CO2 and Clean Air Act

On June 4, 2008, the Clean Ohio Council approved two new grant rounds (Rounds 5 and 6) to encourage brownfield redevelopment through its Clean Ohio Revitalization Fund (CORF).  As noted in a recent stakeholder report on the Clean Ohio Program, the CORF is "seen as a significant national model that other states strive to replicate."  If you are not familiar with the program, I urge you to take the time to learn about the benefits. 

While the main benefit of the program is that it allows participants to offset clean up costs associated with industrial and commercial properties, there are also significant tax and legal advantages to participation. Attached is a client note that I prepared that provides more detail regarding the program. 

The most significant change made to the program is the creation of a new grant option called the "development ready track."  Now applicants have two options, they can elect to participate in the "known end use track" or the "development ready track."  The major difference is that under the "development ready track" an applicant for grant funds does not need to identify an end user that has committed to the property post clean up and development. 

The "development ready track" favors properties that have potential to attract future economic development.  For example, properties that have existing sewer and water service or are in close proximity to transportation will receive higher scores using the new scoring methodology developed for this track. 

Under the "development ready track" the maximum amount an applicant can request is $2 million instead of the $3 million potentially available under the "known end use track."   You may not use any of the grant funds for acquisition of the property, whereas the "known end use track" allows up to 33% of your total grant request to go toward acquisition. 

Even with these differences, the "development ready track" presents a new opportunity to communities, businesses and developers.  For communities, it provides an opportunity to drive economic growth toward priority development areas.   For developers, it increases the number of properties that could potentially be viable projects.

The new grant application forms can be obtained from the Ohio Department of Development’s web page.

Dave Douglas, Chief Sustainability Officer for Sun Microsystems, recently wrote an article in which he predicts the United State’s hit peak carbon in 2007 (meaning emissions will now trend downward).  Here is a quote from his article:

  So, now my prediction: Peak Carbon occurred in the US in 2007.

 Yep, I’m predicting that annual GHG emissions in the US will now drop regularly going forward, with only minor setbacks every once in awhile. My rationale is that there are short-term, medium-term and long-term drivers in place which are capable of, together, sustaining reductions over decades:

His article generated a lot of responses and criticism from many who believe the U.S. will continue to trend higher in emissions until meaningful federal greenhouse legislation passes Congress.  I actually agree with his prediction. 

$4 dollar gas is not going away.  From recent car sale reports, the American consumer is switching from SUV and pickups to compact cars.  Even if people are not buying a new car they are driving less.   The transportation sector makes up roughly one-third of total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.  Therefore, these consumer trends will translate into significant reductions.

Also, the switch toward renewable energy, the corporate sustainability movement, and greenhouse gas programs passed at the state level will all continue the trend downward.  Finally, federal legislation is inevitable, with many predicting a cap and trade program starting in 2012. 

In April, U.S. EPA released its greenhouse gas inventory report that analyzes emissions trends.  The main take away from the report…greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 1.1 from 2005 to 2006.  U.S. EPA concludes the decrease was attributable to the following:

  • compared to 2005, 2006 had warmer winter conditions, which decreased consumption of heating fuels, as well as cooler summer conditions, which reduced demand for electricity;
  • restraint on fuel consumption caused by rising fuel prices, primarily in the transportation sector; and
  • increased use of natural gas and renewables in the electric power sector.

    We have a long way to go, but it does appear that peak carbon is not such an outlandish prediction.

On June 17, 2008 Governor Strickland signed H.B. 285 which requires agencies to waive fines and penalties for paperwork violations that are first time offenses committed by a small business.  I certainly agree that that this is welcome relief for the small business owners that must navigate a myriad of federal, state and local paperwork requirements.  However, be careful if you are a small business owner, the bill doesn’t give a free pass for all paperwork violations.

First, you better make sure you are considered a small business.  You may think you are, but under the bill a series of federal government regulations really decides whether you are classified as a small business.  (Isn’t it somewhat ironic that a bill trying to address paperwork requires you to consult a forty-four page table of industrial classifications to determine whether your business constitutes a small business)  Small business classifications are based upon the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and the cutoffs are either annual revenue or the number of employees. 

Second, was it really a paperwork violation?  The bill says a "paperwork violation" is the violation of a law that mandates the collection of information by a state agency.  Sounds simple enough, but as a lawyer I think this is a vague definition. 

CAUTION:  I doubt a violation of permit or needed authorization is going to be considered paperwork under this definition.  As an example, the most common violation Ohio EPA takes enforcement against is for failure to provide notice of demolition or construction activities for purposes of asbestos compliance.   In 2007, Ohio EPA imposed 13 fines against companies for failure to file the notice.  Better make sure you keep filing those notices whether you are the owner of the property or a primary contractor for the project.

Third, even if you get by the first two steps, if your paperwork violations are related to environmental compliance you may still be in hot water.  The bill allows Agency’s to still impose fines if, among other exceptions, the following apply to your situation:

  • The violations is considered to present a direct danger to public health or safety….or presents "the risk of severe environmental harm", as determined by the head of the state agency
  • The violation is a failure to comply with a federal requirement for a program that has been delegated to a state agency for enforcement and the state is required to impose a fine
  • Also, a fine may be reinstated if you have subsequent violations

When I was at Ohio EPA all enforcement actions had to come across my desk prior for approval.  In my experience, it was uncommon to impose a fine for purely paperwork violations if a small businesses was at fault.  In the instances we did impose a fine, it certainly could fall within one of the exceptions discussed in this post.

 

Today, I am excited to launch a new blog dedicated to discussion of environmental legal and policy issues that impact or present implications to businesses and individuals living in Ohio.  My goal is to write my posts in a manner so that they will be accessible to individuals even if they do not have expertise in the field.  I hope to reach individuals in the business community, government, and the law grappling with environmental regulation or with an interest in the topic of environmental protection.  I hope my background provides readers with some unique insights into this complex topic. 

Posts may:

  • Discuss policy, current events and news related to environmental protection
  • Analyze the potential impacts of new environmental regulations
  • Identify significant new court decisions and discuss their implications
  • Provide updates or make observations regarding environmental programs and initiatives
  • Include opinions or observations relating to the general topic of environmental regulation

The site will be continuously updated.  Feel free to pass the site along to anyone you think may have some interest.  I would welcome your comments and suggestions.  I look forward to taking part in the virtual discussion of this fascinating and important topic.