Regulated industry has been expressing significant concern about disruption as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and seeking assurance from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the extraordinary circumstances across the United States would be taken into account in the event of any unanticipated noncompliance. Yesterday, March 26, 2020, EPA’s (EPA) Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) Assistant Administrator Susan Parker Bodine responded to these concerns with the issuance of a memorandum addressing the impact of the current global COVID-19 pandemic on EPA’s enforcement program. In it, OECA commits EPA to a “temporary policy” of exercising enforcement discretion for noncompliance “resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic,” provided that regulated entities follow the steps required in the policy.
As the country responds and adapts to unprecedented change as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, companies are, understandably, attempting to sort out what these shifts mean for operations now and in the near future. One operational aspect that companies must address is management of environmental compliance programs and responsibilities. Although it can be challenging to maintain compliance with environmental requirements during periods of uncertain or disrupted operations, doing so remains necessary as environmental regulatory requirements remain in force, despite disruptions to government functions. The current operational and regulatory climate is fluid and changing daily (at least), making it incumbent upon companies to remain vigilant in monitoring for updates and understanding the status of rules and requirements at any given moment. The keys to successfully navigating compliance challenges during the pandemic are preparedness, situational awareness, and early and frequent communication with regulatory agencies as appropriate, with the assistance of counsel as needed.
Following Governor Abbott’s recent proclamation of a state of disaster in Texas due to the COVID-19 pandemic, both the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) have issued guidance for regulated entities relating to environmental compliance concerns as well as other useful information relative to agency operations during these uncertain times.
A previous post, EPA Makes Room for State Flexibility in Addressing “Interstate Transport” Under the Clean Air Act, discussed the evolving policy of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding approval of state plans—required under the “Good Neighbor Provision” of the federal Clean Air Act—addressing “interstate transport” of air pollution. That article reviewed a series of guidance documents EPA issued in 2018 to allow states flexibility in addressing wind-borne emissions that can contribute to ground-level ozone pollution in other states located downwind. At stake are not only downwind states’ air quality objectives but the prospect of expensive additional emission controls on upwind states’ manufacturing facilities and power plants.
One of EPA’s 2018 guidance documents addresses the seemingly technical question of what “contribution threshold” to apply. That term refers to the quantity—measured in parts per billion (ppb) of ozone in the air at ground level—below which an upwind state’s impact on a downwind state’s ozone concentrations is small enough that any contribution would be considered essentially de minimis. Generally, a state will want its emission contributions to be deemed low enough that it would be clear that its emission sources would not need new control requirements.
The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recently published Guidance for Preparing Workplaces for COVID-19 (Guidance), outlining steps employers can take to help protect their workforce. The Guidance focuses on the need for employers to implement engineering, administrative, work practice controls and personal protective equipment (PPE), as well as considerations for doing so. While there is no specific OSHA standard covering infectious disease or COVID-19 in particular, some OSHA requirements may apply to preventing occupational exposure to the virus including OSHA’s Bloodborne Pathogens standard (29 C.F.R. § 1910.20) Personal Protective Equipment (29 CFR 1910 Subpart I) Hazard Communication (29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200) and Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (29 C.F.R. § 1904). Also, the General Duty Clause of OSHA which requires employers to provide a “place of employment . . . free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.”
The Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) outbreak is affecting virtually every sector of society and the economy. The healthcare sector and government agencies are on the front lines of the response. Providing support to these critical response activities as well as striving to maintain the strength of the overall economy by continuing regular business operations is vitally important. The private sector has important roles to play. The purpose of this blog post is to briefly outline some practical and legal tools available to help provide both direct support and maintain broader economic activities while ensuring environmental protection and compliance with natural resource laws.
This blog post will be updated as new or relevant information becomes available.
In June 2019, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019), which addressed the question of whether the Court should overrule the Auer doctrine, named after the 1997 Supreme Court case Auer v. Robbins. The Auer doctrine rests on the premise that agencies are in a better position than courts to interpret their own regulations. Under the doctrine, courts generally defer to an agency’s reasonable readings of its own “genuinely ambiguous” regulations. In a 5-4 decision, the Court declined to abandon the Auer doctrine on grounds of stare decisis but outlined important restrictions on the scope and applicability of the doctrine. See, e.g., Devon Energy Prod. Co., L.P. v. Gould, No. 16-CV-00161-ABJ, 2019 WL 6257793 (D. Wyo. Sept. 11, 2019) (“The Court [in Kisor] chose to restrict the Auer doctrine rather than abolish it.”); Johnson v. Starbucks Corp., No. 2:18-cv-02956, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145900, *8 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2019) (“Kisor did not overrule Auer,” but “limited the deference afforded to an agency’s interpretation”).
Federal environmental reviews are high on the list of project time, costs and risk drivers. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation are often chief among those drivers. The impact of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement or Biological Opinion (such as scheduling; consultant, mitigation and market opportunity costs; and litigation risks) often turns on the scope of analysis, which in turn depends on determining which effects will be caused by the action. In August 2019, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) established, for the first time, a regulatory causation standard governing ESA section 7 consultations, and, in January 2020, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) proposed a new rule clarifying the causation standard and scope of review under NEPA.
On January 22, 2020, the Texas Senate Committees on Natural Resources and Economic Development and Water and Rural Affairs (Senate Committees) held a joint hearing to consider Lt. Governor Dan Patrick’s 2019 interim legislative charge related to one of the most pressing matters facing the state—future water supply issues. This interim charge requires that these legislative committees make recommendations to promote the state’s water supply, including the development of new sources. The recommendations made will be the subject of consideration when the Texas Legislature reconvenes in 2021 and will inform future legislative initiatives. While a broad range of water supply topics was discussed during the hearing, notably, the subject of produced water, including opportunities for reuse within and outside the oil field, continues to be a focal point under review by state policymakers.
How can sitting still in the Northeast potentially land you in a world of trouble under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and corresponding state laws? Quite easily, if you happen to be in or leave a vehicle with its engine on and the vehicle itself is not in motion for more than a few minutes. That is the definition of “unnecessary vehicle idling” in many jurisdictions.
Across the Northeast and elsewhere, unnecessary vehicle idling is, subject to certain nuances and exceptions, generally prohibited. Recently, violators have come under attack by non-governmental organizations. State penalties vary, but the potential exposure can be severe, especially when the statutory maximum available penalties are calculated pursuant to the Federal CAA and compounded on a per-violation/per-day basis. Accordingly, owners and operators of all forms of trucking and transit companies should not sit still and should take proactive measures to educate or reeducate vehicle schedulers and operators alike on these anti-idling requirements.
Over the last decade, phase one of the Clean Air Act’s regional haze program cost companies (primarily electric generating companies) hundreds of millions of dollars in compliance costs and caused the early closure of a number of facilities. The program is just now entering the initial stages of its second planning period, with major implementation activities expected over the next few years. Unsuspecting companies are finding themselves the targets of the program’s requirements for the first time. In states that have taken early action—Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon and Washington—there has been a shift in attention from older power plants to oil and gas operations and manufacturing facilities in the pulp and paper, cement, and minerals sectors, among others. Even companies that have been through this regulatory process before are facing difficult new questions due to major rule changes enacted in 2017, changes to guidance and key technical documents, and a new focus on statutory provisions addressing “reasonable progress” that were not often used in the past. Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP partner Aaron Flynn has assisted numerous clients in dealing with regional haze issues. In this video, partner Allison Wood interviews Aaron regarding the recent developments in the regional haze program and regarding how companies can best position themselves as states and EPA decide on the next round of emission control requirements.
Since the first Gulf of Mexico rig was installed in 1947, over 12,000 offshore oil and gas platforms have been installed globally. A 2016 study forecasts 600 will require decommissioning by 2021 and 2,000 more by 2040 at a cost of US$210 billion. Many newer platforms are sited in deeper waters, facing higher decommissioning costs and complexity.
The 1958 UN Convention on the Continental Shelf and 1972 London Convention broadly prohibited ocean “dumping.” Subsequent frameworks recognize exceptions permitting in situ offshore structure decommissioning consistent with internationally recognized standards. The 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), for example, requires member states adopt rules no less stringent than the London Protocol, amending the original Convention to allow deliberate placement of subsea structures in defined circumstances. Thus, in situ offshore platform decommissioning has been recognized as conforming with governing treaties and legal frameworks.
The reach of the CWA is “notoriously unclear.” Sackett v. EPA, 132 S. Ct. 1367, 1375 (2012) (Alito, J., concurring). It can be difficult for a landowner to understand whether wetlands or a small creek on his or her parcel, for example, are federal waters that require a Clean Water Act (CWA) permit before the landowner can begin work to build a home, develop the property, or cultivate the land. Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) (together, the Agencies) issued a new, long-awaited final rule, titled the “Navigable Waters Protection Rule,” which seeks to streamline and clarify the geographic scope of federal CWA jurisdiction.
On January 9, 2020, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) released its highly anticipated proposed rule to improve its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. The proposed changes would be the first comprehensive amendment of the NEPA regulations since their original publication in 1978. CEQ’s proposed changes are designed to streamline and speed the NEPA review process, clarify important NEPA concepts, and codify key guidance and case law. CEQ’s Proposal is informed by comments it received on last year’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
NEPA requires that federal agencies analyze the environmental effects of their proposed federal actions. This means that virtually any project that requires a federal permit or authorization could be required to undergo a NEPA review. Development of broadband infrastructure, roads, bridges, oil and gas pipelines, and renewable energy facilities are just a few examples of the types of activities that could trigger NEPA. A NEPA review can take significant agency and applicant resources, can substantially delay permits and can provide a basis for a federal court challenge to the project.
Companies that manufacture or import products containing one or more of 20 common chemicals may soon be required to disclose those activities and pay fees to offset the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) review of those chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In December 2019, EPA finalized its list of 20 high-priority chemicals for risk evaluation and potential regulation under TSCA:
- Formaldehyde, a chemical commonly used in building products and as a preservative;
- Five phthalates used as plasticizers in products like plastic pipes, toys, food packaging, cosmetics and medical/dental products (BBP, DBP, DEHP, DIBP and DCHP) and one chemical used to make phthalates (phthalic anhydride);
- Three flame retardants (TBBPA, TCEP and TPP) and a chemical sometimes used in the manufacture of flame retardants and fire extinguishers (ethylene dibromide);
- A fragrance additive found in perfumes, cosmetics and other consumer products (HHCB, also known as galaxolide);
- Seven chlorinated solvents found in products like cleaning solutions, paint thinners and glues (1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, o-dichlorobenzene, p-dichlorobenzene, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene and 1,1,2-trichloroethane); and
- A chemical used to manufacture synthetic rubber (1,3-butadiene).
In his annual letter to CEOs, Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock expressed his belief that climate change and sustainability were important considerations in investment risk assessments. Investment based on these concepts is often captured under Environmental, Social and Governance Criteria, commonly called ESG. In his letter, Mr. Fink emphasized that he believes “we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance.”
BlackRock’s letter builds on the ever-advancing trend in corporate institutional investing over the past decade regarding the examination of corporate valuation and investment risk within the context of ESG issues, otherwise referred to as sustainable investing.
After conducting a “listening tour” in 14 cities across the state, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) has recently released proposed new rules for flood mitigation funding. The proposed rules implement new legislation and measures[1] adopted in the aftermath of recent notable flooding events experienced in Texas, including Hurricane Harvey, a storm that resulted in an estimated $125 billion in damages. As a result, the state will now play a significant role in funding flood mitigation infrastructure. The new measures include, among other things, the TWDB’s implementation of the legislative transfer of about $800 million from the state’s rainy day fund, mainly funded by oil and gas taxes, to a newly-established flood infrastructure fund (FIF).
One of the Supreme Court’s recurring environmental law topics is the scope of Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction. Various aspects of CWA jurisdiction and implementation have been addressed over the years by the Court, including the meaning of “navigable waters” in U.S. v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. (1985); Solid Waste Agency of N. Cook Cnty v. Army Corps of Eng’rs (2001); and Rapanos v. U.S. (2006), and judicial review of agency actions related to the applicability of the CWA dredge and fill permit program in Sackett v. EPA (2012) and U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs v. Hawkes Co. (2016). Most recently, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 6 in County of Maui v. Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, et al., a case that addresses the applicability of the CWA’s prohibition on “point source” discharges to “navigable waters” to releases from point sources to groundwater. The Court granted certiorari to address whether releases from point sources that are carried to navigable waters by groundwater are regulated under the federal NPDES permit program or under state non-point source management programs.
Over the past few years, certain states have relied on ambiguities in the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 water quality certification process to block the construction of significant energy infrastructure projects (e.g., oil and gas pipelines, coal export facilities, and liquid natural gas [LNG] terminals) determined by federal agencies to be in the public interest of individual states, regions, and the nation as a whole. Consistent with the cooperative federalism structure of the CWA—and the important role of states in protecting water quality within their borders—Section 401 requires applicants for a federal license or permit anticipated to result in discharges to navigable waters to obtain a certification from the relevant state that the discharge will comply with applicable state water quality standards. States can waive this requirement, and if they do not act within “a reasonable period of time (which shall not exceed one year) after receipt” of the request for the certification, waiver is automatic. 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a).
Under the Clean Water Act’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, industrial facilities in California are required to obtain coverage under the state’s NPDES general permit for discharges associated with industrial storm water activities (General Industrial Permit) or justify why they are exempt. For regulated facilities, including manufacturing facilities, landfills, mining operations, steam electric power generating facilities, hazardous waste facilities, and oil and gas facilities, failure to obtain coverage under the General Industrial Permit is a potential violation of the Clean Water Act (in addition to state law), which could expose the owner or operator of the facility to potential civil penalties of up to $54,833 per day. Enforcement, however, largely is dependent upon agency inspections or enforcement by citizen groups. Based on estimates by the California Coastkeeper Alliance, many facilities in California may have failed to enroll in the industrial storm water permit program.
On August 27, 2019, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) issued a White Paper proposing to disclose the names of entities that violate Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) standards, while continuing to withhold other details of those violations. This significant change in policy reflects broader issues in FERC’s handling of security information.
Energy industry: is your insurance sufficient to handle a major cyber event? Larry Bracken, Mike Levine and I, Andrea DeField, address this question and more in our recent article for Electric Light & Power, found here. In the article, we identify three major gaps in cyber insurance that we routinely see when analyzing coverage for energy industry clients. The first major gap is coverage for bodily injury or property damage caused by a cyber event. Most cyber insurance policies exclude coverage for both bodily injury and property damage, even if caused by a cyber event. Meanwhile ...
Last December, we reported that President Trump signed into law the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the 2018 Farm Bill). Since then, federal and state governments have rushed to implement the new law and state analogs in time for the 2020 growing season. As we have seen with the development of complex new regulatory schemes in other industries, regulatory uncertainty and opportunities abound.
As we have discussed previously, the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) addresses what is often termed “interstate transport.” That is the phenomenon in which emissions from factories, power plants, motor vehicles and many other emission sources are transported by prevailing winds across state lines, sometimes over great distances. The CAA looks to states, first and foremost, to include control measures in implementation plans to reduce emissions that travel into other states. The statutory objective is to prohibit “significant contributions” by upwind states to violations of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in downwind states. Although states have primary responsibility, EPA sometimes has invoked its CAA authority to establish federally enforceable requirements to address significant contributions when it concludes upwind states have not taken sufficient steps. In 2016, EPA adopted its most recent set of regulatory interstate transport controls in a rulemaking action called the “Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update”—or the “CSAPR Update” for short. On September 13, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a decision in closely-watched litigation involving challenges to the CSAPR Update. (The case is Wisconsin v. EPA, No. 16-1406.) While upholding this EPA regulation in most respects, the court ruled in favor of a challenge that concerns the timing of upwind-state emission controls.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD or the District) Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) made history as California’s first emissions cap-and-trade program. But the District’s decision to sunset the program has resulted in significant uncertainty surrounding RECLAIM’s transition for local communities and industry alike.
Widely acclaimed at its 1993 inception, the program was intended to promote more efficient emissions reductions by allowing facilities to meet their annual cap either by adopting pollution controls directly or by purchasing RECLAIM trading credits (RTCs) from other facilities able to install controls at lower cost and achieve emissions below their caps. In its early years supporters praised RECLAIM as a success, pointing to significant reductions across the South Coast Air Basin. But in more recent years, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other stakeholders criticized RECLAIM as falling short of expectations, pointing to periods of RTC price spikes reducing the program’s coverage and a subsequent glut of RTCs from plant closures that critics claim lowered the incentive for pollution reductions at remaining RECLAIM facilities.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is moving forward with steps necessary to seek delegation of the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program for produced water discharges. In doing so, Texas will be joining similar efforts underway or under consideration in the neighboring states of Oklahoma and New Mexico. Should EPA delegate such NPDES authority and separately take action to address the restrictive federal regulatory framework now in effect for onshore produced water discharges, this would result in streamlined and expanded beneficial reuse options for produced water in the key oil and gas producing states in the country.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently released its latest National Compliance Initiatives (NCIs), which aim to focus the Agency’s enforcement arm, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), on areas of significant environmental violations and other opportunities for the greatest environmental benefit through increased compliance with environmental laws. In a memorandum issued June 7, 2019, enforcement chief Susan Parker Bodine advised the Agency’s regional offices of the NCIs for upcoming fiscal years 2020 through 2023.
On August 12, 2019, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (together, the Services) signed final rules instituting the first comprehensive revisions to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations in 33 years. The Services made substantial and broad revisions to their regulations concerning the process and standards for listing species and designating critical habitat, the scope of protections for threatened species and the process for consultation with federal agencies.
On June 26, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019), which presented the question of whether the Court should overrule the Auer doctrine, named after the 1997 Supreme Court case Auer v. Robbins. The Auer doctrine rests on the premise that agencies have more expertise on their own regulations and are therefore in a better position than courts to interpret them. Under the doctrine, courts generally defer to an agency’s reasonable readings of its own “genuinely ambiguous” regulations. In a 5-4 decision, the Court declined to abandon the Auer doctrine on grounds of stare decisis but outlined important limitations on the scope and applicability of that doctrine.
Policy makers in California have pledged to resist Trump administration policy changes on environmental and other issues. Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), proposing the California Environmental, Public Health and Workers Defense Act of 2019, is the California legislature’s current preemptive response to the administration’s attempts to modify certain federal environmental and worker safety laws.
SB 1 has passed the California Senate. It is awaiting a final hearing in the State Assembly’s Appropriations Committee, likely sometime in mid‑to‑late August. After that, it moves to the Assembly floor, where a final vote is required by the end of California’s legislative session on September 13, 2019.
The United States’ first major offshore wind energy project is running into delays as federal agencies internally debate whether the project plan adequately protects the fishing industry.
Vineyard Wind—an approximately 800 megawatt, 84-turbine wind energy project to be located roughly 15 miles off the coast of Nantucket, Massachusetts—is scheduled to begin construction this year and would have the capacity to power over 400,000 homes by 2021.
Guarding confidential or sensitive information is a longstanding tradition that transcends daily life. From the pinky-swearing days of childhood (to prevent your parents from finding out you rode your bike beyond their imposed boundary), to the fourth down play when your team is one point down with three seconds left on the clock, to the unique, complex chemical composition of a lifesaving drug, the concept of secrecy has roots in just about everything we do. In the business world, secrets are routinely kept to protect market share, privacy of customers, technology or for any number of other legitimate business-related concerns. Indeed, disclosure of confidential information can pose a real threat to a business’s vitality.
In this installment of our Inside Look series, Hunton partners Paul Tiao and Fred Eames discuss the challenges to businesses operating in a constantly evolving cyber threat landscape and steps some companies have taken to protect from attacks. It's important for companies operating in this space to adjust to changes to international, federal and state regulations regarding critical infrastructure and information sharing, including seeking application for a US SAFETY Act certification.
Twenty Democratic candidates took the stage in Miami on June 26-27, with the hopes of winning over voters in the first 2020 Democratic presidential debate. During the four-hour event, top Democratic candidates contentiously debated hot button issues, such as immigration, gun control and healthcare. When it came to the topic of climate change, however, the debate left some viewers wanting more.
Although climate change has been deemed one of the most important issues for Democratic voters ahead of the 2020 presidential election, only about 15 minutes in total between the two nights were dedicated to the issue. Given the sheer number of participants and the debate format, it was difficult for the candidates, including those with fully formulated climate change platforms, to articulate any detailed substantive policy. Nevertheless, there were still some key takeaways from the first debate’s limited discussion on climate change.
Hunton Andrews Kurth’s environmental practice launches its video series, Inside Look, focusing on recent events and trends impacting regulated industries through discussions with our top attorneys and thought leaders. Our inaugural video focuses on recent changes in the composition of the US Supreme Court and the potential impact on industry. Partners F. William Brownell and Elbert Lin discuss the effect of the appointments of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on administrative law, voting patterns at the Court and the importance of originalism-type arguments in constitutional cases.
Watch for more Inside Look videos from the Hunton Andrews Kurth environmental practice by subscribing to the Nickel Report and Hunton Andrews Kurth’s YouTube channel.
The EU's Approach to Product Stewardship
While the European Union (EU) does not have any legal principle specific to product stewardship, it has applied the full range of EU environmental law principles to create a comprehensive framework for product stewardship. These principles include the prevention and precautionary principles, sustainability, extended producer responsibility, supply chain responsibility, and corporate social responsibility. In addition, product stewardship is a key instrument in the EU's latest strategic environmental focus areas: the circular economy and the toxic-free environment, two main themes of current EU environmental policy making.
On March 15, 2019, the House Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change held a hearing titled, “Protecting Americans at Risk of PFAS Contamination & Exposure.” The hearing examined approaches to eliminate or reduce environmental and health risks to workers and the public from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Department of Treasury and Internal Revenue Service have released Notice 2019-32 seeking comment on key issues to be interpreted in the Section 45Q carbon oxide sequestration tax credit. Congress significantly enhanced the Section 45Q tax credit in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, increasing the credit from $10/ton for CO2 used as a tertiary injectant (i.e., to produce oil or gas) to $35/ton; and increasing the credit for CO2 geologically stored but not used as a tertiary injectant from $20/ton to $50/ton. See our previous blog post here for additional details on the applicable credit amounts for projects before and after enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act and other credit amount details.
In Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699 (2015), the Supreme Court held that the cost of regulation is an essential factor that EPA must consider when deciding whether to regulate. Id. at 2707. According to the Court, “[a]gencies have long treated cost as a centrally relevant factor when deciding whether to regulate.”
In subsequent regulatory proceedings, however, EPA has offered different views as to what Michigan’s cost mandate means. At the end of the Obama Administration, EPA said Michigan only means that it need determine whether the costs of a regulatory action are “affordable” or can be “absorbed” by the regulated industry. 81 Fed. Reg. 24,421. More recently, EPA has said that its earlier statement “does not meet the statute’s requirements to fully consider costs,” and that the Supreme Court’s decision in Michigan requires that it “meaningfully consider cost within the context of a regulation’s benefits.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 2675.
As noted in previous blog posts, Assembly Bill 617’s (AB 617) Community Air Protection Program (CAPP) is limited in effect to specific, named communities included in it. Thus, stationary sources not located in a CAPP included community are not regulated by CAPP. However, AB 617’s new requirements are not limited to CAPP. AB 617 also requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop new regulations for criteria pollutant and toxics emissions reporting. The new regulation, titled “Regulation for the Reporting of Criteria Air Pollutants and Toxic Air Contaminants” (CTR Regulation) is not yet finalized, but the current draft will apply to stationary sources throughout California, regardless of whether they are located in a CAPP community.
Over the past several decades, significant tension has developed between the federal role in overseeing and authorizing certain types of energy infrastructure projects and states' roles in regulating water quality under the cooperative federalism structure of the Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act). This tension has played itself out in various contexts, but the most pronounced in recent years has been the battle over CWA Section 401 water quality certifications for energy infrastructure projects, in particular interstate natural gas pipelines.
On Wednesday, April 10, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO), titled Promoting Energy Infrastructure and Economic Growth, that requires the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies to undertake a series of regulatory actions to clarify the Clean Water Act (CWA) § 401 water quality certification (WQC) process. CWA § 401 provides states with the opportunity to evaluate the potential water quality impacts from discharges of proposed projects by certifying whether the discharge will comply with applicable water quality standards. States can waive this requirement, and if they do not act within “a reasonable period of time (which shall not exceed one year) after receipt” of a request for certification, waiver is automatic. 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a). A handful of states have relied on this process to thwart the development of energy infrastructure projects, either by denying certification due to concerns unrelated to water quality (such as opposition to hydraulic fracturing, climate change concerns, etc.) or by ignoring the statutory time period to reach a determination.
Everyone can agree that environmental assessments should be based on the best science. The “best” science, however, is an ever-advancing standard. Despite budget uncertainties and other hurdles, EPA scientists often pioneer new methods of assessment capable of detecting smaller and smaller increments of environmental impact. Although it may take years for EPA to develop and demonstrate a new method, stakeholders may benefit from paying attention to the development process and seeking opportunities to participate in it.
On March 21, 2019, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) held its monthly open meeting. Highlights of the meeting included the following:
- Electric Transmission Incentives Policy (Docket No. PL19-4-000)
- The Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) seeking comments on the scope and implementation of its electric transmission incentives regulation and policy.
- Section 219 of the Federal Power Act directs the Commission to use transmission incentives to help ensure reliability and reduce the cost of delivered power by reducing transmission congestion. The Commission issued Order No. 679 in 2006 to establish its approach to transmission incentives and set forth a series of potential incentives that it would consider. The Commission subsequently refined its approach in a 2012 policy statement.
- The NOI seeks comments in response to questions addressing many matters, including several that have not previously been addressed by the Commission’s transmission incentive policy, including:
A recently successful effort by Wisconsin utility MGE Energy to exclude an environmental proposal from its proxy statement may signal a new approach for boards of directors to consider when managing vexatious shareholder proposals.
Legalization of medicinal and adult-use cannabis in California has fomented a surge of seed-to-sale companies angling to lure market share from a sea of customers. The water may soon be agitated, however, by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). OEHHA is the lead California agency that oversees implementation of Proposition 65, formally known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. OEHHA recently announced that it has selected cannabis (marijuana), marijuana (cannabis) smoke, cannabis extracts, and delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) for review for possible listing under Proposition 65 as chemicals that cause reproductive toxicity. If the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DARTIC) determines that these chemicals cause reproductive toxicity based upon “scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles,” marijuana in its various forms will likely join a list of more than 900 chemicals known to the state to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. Companies that cultivate, distribute, and/or sell marijuana and products containing marijuana in California would then be required to warn consumers—and possibly employees and passersby—that exposure to these listed chemicals can cause reproductive harm.
While coming from opposite ends of the political spectrum, the administrations of US President Donald Trump and Mexico’s recently elected chief executive, Andrés Manuel López Obrador (commonly referred to as “AMLO”), have each heralded significant policy shifts with potential to affect bilateral relations as well as international energy markets.
EPA has shown a little love for states wanting action on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). On February 14, 2019, EPA announced its PFAS Action Plan, calling it “the most comprehensive, cross- agency action plan for a chemical of concern ever undertaken by the Agency.” The Action Plan consists of 23 priority action items with the majority identified as short-term or generally taking place or expected to be completed in the next two years.
An interesting confluence of issues may facilitate the creation of an improved regulatory framework for the beneficial use of produced water from oil and gas operations. Water supply and produced water management have the attention of many oil and gas companies for a variety of reasons. Concern over water supply and severe drought has lead a number of states and municipalities to look for sources of water outside the traditional sources of groundwater and surface water. At the same time, environmental groups are concerned over drought impacts to surface water and wildlife. Given the abundance of produced water in some formations, it may be possible to reuse produced water within oil and gas operations and beneficially use produced water outside of oil and gas operations. What are the issues surrounding produced water and how are they impacting the development of regulatory programs governing the use of produced water?
Last week, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its annual enforcement results for the 2018 fiscal year (ranging from October 1, 2017, to September 30, 2018). The report, prepared by EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), highlights the results of the agency’s civil and criminal enforcement of the nation’s federal environmental laws over the past year. The 2018 results mark the first full fiscal year of enforcement results, including inspections and compliance evaluations, under the Trump administration. A statement in the report from Susan Bodine, the Assistant Administrator for OECA, summarizes EPA’s enforcement priorities, explaining, “[i]n fiscal year 2018, we continued our focus on expediting site cleanup, deterring noncompliance, and returning facilities to compliance with the law, while respecting the cooperative federalism structure of our nation’s environmental laws.”
On Wednesday, February 7, Congressman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) introduced a federal resolution to recognize a “duty” of the federal government to create a Green New Deal (GND). This blog discussed the GND in a post on the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis on January 31.
Addressing climate change may be a primary focus of the resolution, but “green” is perhaps a misnomer, as the resolution calls for action on issues well beyond climate or the environment generally.
Energy companies may not be thinking much yet about federal legislation to regulate the consumer data they hold, but they should be. Privacy is shaping up to be a key legislative topic this year.
Why would an energy company need to care about privacy legislation? Because lots of different energy companies have extensive consumer data. Oil companies’ service station loyalty programs, electric utilities’ customer data—these are among the many types of consumer data that might end up being regulated under legislation Congress is expected to consider. Any company with large amounts of consumer data should pay attention to the issue. In addition, HR data may also be covered by privacy legislation, affecting every US company whether or not they hold consumer data.
“According to FERC, it is now commonplace for states to use Section 401 to hold federal licensing hostage.”
These are the words the DC Circuit used in Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, No. 14-1271, p. 10 (D.C. Cir., Jan. 25, 2019), to describe the state of play on § 401 certifications affecting hydroelectric facility licensing or re-licensing applications. CWA § 401(a)(1) requires, as a prerequisite for federal permits for activities that may result in a discharge into the navigable waters, that affected states certify that any such discharge will comply with applicable, enumerated provisions of the Clean Water Act. But, if a state fails or refuses to act on a request for certification within “a reasonable period of time (which shall not exceed one year) after receipt of such request,” the statute deems the certification requirements waived.
One of the first orders of business for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was to reinstate the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. This committee previously existed from 2007-2011 as the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming but was not renewed by Republicans when they gained control of the House in the 112th Congress. The new Select Committee will be chaired by Congresswoman Kathy Castor (D-FL).
On January 17, 2019, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) held its monthly open meeting. The first half of the meeting was dedicated to remembrances of Commissioner McIntyre, who passed away earlier this month. The Commission elected to name the Commission meeting room in his honor.
Highlights of the second half of the meeting included:
- Investigation on Rates Charged by Three Interstate Pipeline Companies: Chairman Chatterjee highlighted the Commission’s initiation on January 16 of investigations pursuant to Section 5 of the Natural Gas Act of three ...
According to the dictionary, a phrase is “ambiguous” if it has more than one meaning.
Chevron[1] is frequently cited for the proposition that the presence of “ambiguity” gives an agency the authority to interpret the statute to eliminate the ambiguity. A better view of Chevron is that only the Courts may resolve statutory ambiguity through interpretation. When faced with statutory terms that may be given more than one meaning, courts must determine, applying canons of statutory construction, what Congress has resolved, what Congress has given the Agency discretion to resolve, and what ascertainable standards have been established by Congress to govern the exercise of discretion by the Agency. In other words, Chevron contemplates that the Court declare what the law requires, including the scope of discretion afforded an agency to make policy choices that give content to broad statutory terms.
2018 was a big year for insurance coverage cases, especially those involving social engineering phishing, spoofing and other schemes of trickery and deception.
The insurance recovery lawyers at Hunton Andrews Kurth have compiled their list of the top insurance cases of 2018. A copy of the Review can be found here.
In September 2018, the US Interior Department issued a final rule rescinding the 2016 Venting and Flaring Rule, which took effect November 2018. The old rule, which never went into effect, would have required oil and gas companies to capture leaked methane gas, repair and prevent leaks, and devise new plans to reduce the flaring and venting of natural gas. Following the effectiveness of the new rule, the applicable policies setting limits on releases of methane gas will mostly be left to individual states.
With the Texas Legislature having now convened for the 2019 session, various key environmental issues are anticipated to be the subject of debate and legislative action. Based on bills filed to date, interim charges and recommendations made by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), environmental initiatives to be considered are expected to address, among others, the following subjects:
The US National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are the centerpiece of the US Clean Air Act (CAA) and establish allowable concentration levels for six "criteria air pollutants": ozone, particulate matter, lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. The CAA requires the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review and, as appropriate, revise the NAAQS at least every five years, and EPA has, since 1970, regularly adopted increasingly stringent standards. Whether those revisions have gone far enough or too far has become a predictably contentious issue, with each review involving debates over science, the role of EPA's Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC), the discretion of the EPA Administrator, and the format of the review process itself, among many other issues.
On December 20, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) held its December 2018 open meeting. This was the first meeting for Commissioner Bernard McNamee, who was confirmed by the Senate on December 6, 2018. Given his recent confirmation, Commissioner McNamee voted present on the consent agenda. Commissioner McIntyre was absent due to continuing health issues and did not vote on the consent agenda.
Industrial hemp has officially returned as a legal agricultural commodity in the United States. On December 20, President Trump signed into law the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, otherwise known as the 2018 Farm Bill. See PL 115-334, December 20, 2018, 132 Stat 4490. The 2018 Farm Bill re-legalizes the production of hemp after the crop was banned for more than eighty years under federal law. Hemp is a “cousin” of marijuana; both are varieties of the Cannabis sativa L. plant, but hemp does not have the psychoactive properties of marijuana. Hemp is one of the oldest cultivated industrial crops in the nation. It was grown as early as the 1600s until the mid-1930s when state and federal laws effectively ended the legal production, sales and use of the cannabis plant. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA) officially categorized “marihuana” as a Schedule I controlled substance, which was defined to include “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L.,” such as hemp.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly referred to as the Superfund law, directed the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create a list of the country’s most hazardous waste sites. Sites are proposed to be placed on this “National Priorities List” (or NPL as it is known to environmental law professionals) if they exceed a certain risk score, or Hazard Ranking, and added to the List if the ranking is confirmed after a formal notice-and-comment process. A detailed set of regulations called the National Contingency Plan (NCP) governs how sites placed on the NPL will be investigated, alternative remedies evaluated, and a final remedy selected and then implemented. The NPL, the NCP, and various EPA guidance memoranda have established what practitioners acknowledge is an imperfect but generally workable process in which EPA and states work with potentially liable parties to manage cleanups at NPL sites.
Nearly two years into the current administration, many questions remain regarding the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and US Department of Justice’s (DOJ) approach to environmental enforcement. EPA and DOJ have both issued various policies that we have covered in past blog posts that provide some level of insight on priorities and procedures, but a better assessment can only be made by looking at cases initiated, referred, resolved or concluded after a trial.
Nobody wants to live near a designated “Superfund” site. Aside from potential exposure to hazardous chemicals, the stigma associated with proximity to a Superfund site leads to loss of property value. In addition, the Superfund process is notorious for its record of protracted and expensive cleanups. In view of these well-founded concerns, a number of states have adopted voluntary cleanup programs (VCPs) as alternatives to the federal Superfund program. A well-structured and well-run VCP can keep a contaminated property out of the Superfund program while at the same time providing a mechanism for investigation and cleanup. VCPs often work particularly well to facilitate the cleanup and re-use of “Brownfields,” former industrial or commercial sites where future use is affected by real or perceived environmental contamination.
In recent years there has been an explosion in the availability of small, low cost, hand held (or drone mounted) air quality monitoring devices or air sensors. Although the most likely near term applications may be community groups seeking information on potential industrial impacts, even individual consumers may have use for such devices to monitor the quality of indoor air. The biggest hurdle to the effectiveness, and eventual integration into the realm of regulatory compliance, of these devices is the lack accepted standards for evaluating the quality of the data they produce. What role will EPA play in that?
On October 18, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) held its October 2018 open meeting. Commissioner Chatterjee again assumed the gavel on behalf of Chairman McIntrye, who was absent for the second consecutive open meeting. McIntyre subsequently announced that he would step down from the chairmanship due to continuing health issues.
Highlights of the meeting follow:
The implementation of California’s ambitious Assembly Bill 617 (AB 617) is well under way, but it is still very uncertain whether it can or will achieve its intended outcome. Despite the long process to select the initial list of communities to be included in the in the first year of CARB’s Community Air Protection Program (CAPP) (CARB’s AB 617 implementation program), the hard work to ensure AB 617 is a success remains—namely the development and implementation of the emissions monitoring/reduction plans in the selected disadvantaged communities. In the end, the biggest impediment to AB 617’s successful implementation might be the law’s own requirements, specifically its accelerated implementation schedule, which may not provide California’s air quality management districts (air districts) with enough time to achieve the law’s goals.
On September 20, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) held its September 2018 open meeting. This meeting did not include Chairman McIntyre, who is recovering from surgery. Commissioner Chatterjee assumed the gavel on his behalf for the meeting.
Depending upon the assets being acquired or project being developed, a well-designed due diligence plan can be a critical component in managing transaction risk both before and after closing or commercial operation. Adeptly managing the due diligence process requires careful thought to appropriate timing and scope at both the front and back ends.
Among the most critical items in ensuring a successful outcome are consulting decision-makers who are driving the transaction and engaging professionals to provide appropriate support well in advance. Too often, key risks are overlooked or not adequately allocated or managed as a result of a rushed or improperly focused due diligence effort. Particularly for assets or projects with an inherently higher environmental, health and safety, or social (EHSS) impact potential, attempting to manage risk through the purchase and sale or development agreements alone also may not suffice. For example, avoiding a risk by carving out particular assets, employing third-party risk management strategies such as insurance policies, and post-acquisition integration or stakeholder engagement plans can be among the more effective means of managing EHSS risk—but these each require careful strategic planning by a team of professionals with the skills and experience to navigate a transaction’s complexities, particularly in a cross-border context.
The phrase “interstate transport” conjures images of planes, trains and trucks carrying people and goods cross-country. But, under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the term is often used to refer to interstate air pollution—emissions from factories, power plants, motor vehicles, refineries and other sources that are transported by prevailing winds across state lines, sometimes over hundreds of miles. The interstate transport phenomenon often has posed for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) what the Supreme Court has called “a thorny causation problem: How should EPA allocate among multiple contributing upwind States responsibility for a downwind State’s excess pollution?” EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584, 1604 (2014). EPA’s efforts to address this issue have yielded, over the last two decades, a series of complex federal regulatory programs imposing increasingly stringent controls on emissions in most states in the eastern half of the country—first the “NOx SIP Call” rule in 1998, then the Clean Air Interstate Rule in 2005, followed by the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) in 2011 and, most recently, the 2016 “CSAPR Update” rule. Now, however, EPA, while vigorously defending the CSAPR Update rule against pending litigation challenges, is signaling a fresh approach for potential future interstate transport regulation, an approach that may involve greater deference to states’ analyses and determinations and that may eschew additional broad regulatory mandates imposed by EPA.
The New Source Review (NSR) program of the Clean Air Act requires major stationary sources to go through an extensive, time-consuming, and expensive review and permitting process prior to construction. Among other requirements, such sources are required to install the best available control technologies (BACT) to reduce levels of specific regulated pollutants. The NSR program also applies to existing facilities if they are modified in ways that result in significantly increased emissions.
The pace of enforcement actions has decreased in recent years, but more than a ...
As a former regulator (both as an inspector and an attorney, ensuring compliance and enforcing violations) in the environmental law enforcement space, I read EPA Assistant Administrator Susan Parker Bodine’s recent memorandum entitled Transition from National Enforcement Initiatives to National Compliance Initiatives with great interest. Having numerous facility inspections and enforcement settlements under my belt, I have seen firsthand the interplay between compliance and enforcement. To be sure, the threat of enforcement and the deterrence factor associated with resolving an enforcement action are powerful tools. But, if the end goal is compliance with environmental laws, does the road leading there have to be so scary for the regulated community? Whereas many regulated parties commonly see EPA and other environmental agencies as enforcement machines, this proposed transition to a more compliance-oriented approach may be not only a welcome change, but also an appropriate one that will actually improve compliance. After all, Ms. Bodine’s office is entitled the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). Isn’t it a good idea to have an equal focus on helping with compliance and on enforcement? And isn’t the point to maximize compliance? Shouldn’t OECA be striving for a world in which its “enforcement” arm goes out of business because it has “assured compliance?” That may be too much for the regulated community to hope for, but the notion of “compliance” initiatives over “enforcement” initiatives is not a bad way to start.
Our regulatory state is founded on the principle that regulated parties must have notice of their compliance obligations. Laws or regulations that fail to give fair notice violate due process and cannot give rise to liability. See, e.g., Gen. Elec. Co. v. EPA, 53 F.3d 1324 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
A notoriously unclear regulatory program addresses circumstances under which an existing facility triggers the Clean Air Act’s (CAA) “new source review” (NSR) program and its associated control technology and air quality review requirements. Over the past two decades, courts have concluded that the same words in the regulations have diametrically opposed meanings. Compare Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n, Inc. v. TVA, No. 3:01-CV-71, 2010 WL 1291335 (E.D. Tenn.Mar. 31, 2010) (boiler tube replacement is “routine” repair and replacement) with United States v. Ohio Edison Co., 276 F. Supp. 2d 829 (S.D. Ohio 2003) (boiler tube replacement is not “routine” repair and replacement). Indeed, after addressing the application of NSR to an industrial facility on two occasions, one three-judge panel in the Sixth Circuit produced five different opinions advancing three different interpretations of key provisions of the rules. See United States v. DTE Energy Co., 711 F.3d 643 (6th Cir. 2013); United States v. DTE Energy Co., 845 F.3d 735 (6th Cir. 2017). Disagreement among judges over the meaning of a regulation is objective evidence of a rule’s failure to provide fair notice of its compliance obligations.
This summer, EPA sparked public outrage with its proposed “significant new use” rule, or SNUR, addressing certain commercial uses of asbestos. Publications like Rolling Stone, Newsweek and The Daily Beast criticized EPA for loosening its regulations to pave the way for asbestos to be reintroduced to the market, allowing asbestos-containing construction materials to be used in homes and other buildings again for the first time in decades. National figures like Senator Brian Schatz and Chelsea Clinton drew attention to the proposal while condemning the Agency for increasing public exposure to this well-known carcinogen.
There’s just one issue: EPA’s proposed action does the opposite of what these critics claim. The SNUR would impose substantial new prohibitions on the listed uses of asbestos—which currently are not regulated by EPA at all—while giving EPA the necessary legal “hook” to restrict or even ban these uses outright in the unlikely event that a company actually tries to resume them.
How can news reports have gotten it so backward?
In an article published in Law360, two Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Partners discuss the passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 and its implications for Section 45Q of the Internal Revenue Code. Carbon capture and sequestration supporters expect this to significantly boost deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) across the US.
In May, EPA issued its 2016 Final Effluent Guidelines (ELG) Program Plan, which is EPA’s first screening step to selection of industries for possible revision or development of technology-based limits on wastewater discharges (i.e., effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs)). 83 Fed. Reg. 19281 (May 2, 2018). EPA releases a new ELG plan every two years, and the process bears watching because it cuts across all industry types (there are 59 industries with final ELGs in place) and provides some perspective on EPA’s assessment of pollutants of concern and emerging technologies to address those pollutants.
On July 19, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) held its July 2018 open meeting. This meeting was Commissioner Powelson’s last, following his announcement on June 28, 2018, that he would be leaving the agency.
Highlights of the meeting include the following:
The controversy continues over the scope of the take prohibition under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). As we noted here, the Solicitor’s Office for the US Department of the Interior (DOI) issued an opinion in late 2017 concluding that the MBTA does not prohibit the incidental take of migratory birds. Although this conclusion was consistent with the holdings of at least two US Circuit Courts of Appeal, the Solicitor’s Opinion came under immediate fire from conservation groups and several former government officials. In May of this year, two environmental groups filed lawsuits in federal court challenging the Opinion. In a court filing earlier this month, the government stated its intention to move to dismiss these suits based on several threshold grounds, such as whether the Opinion is a final agency action subject to judicial review. These lawsuits inject fresh uncertainty into an area of the law that DOI sought to clarify.
The US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued three significant, highly anticipated, proposals to revise the Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations on July 19. The proposals address critical habitat designation, ESA section 7 consultation, and protection of threatened species. Once published in the Federal Register, there will be a 60 day comment period for all three proposals. The proposals would make important changes in each area, and are likely to garner substantial attention in public comments. Some key highlights follow.
On July 9, President Trump announced Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit as his nominee to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh has developed an extensive history of jurisprudence during his twelve-year tenure on the DC Circuit. And, given the DC Circuit’s heavy administrative law caseload, Kavanaugh has authored numerous opinions involving environmental law. The upcoming confirmation process is sure to include a focus on Kavanaugh’s robust environmental and administrative law record and what it might portend for the future.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded a series of eight Superfund Listening Sessions between May 21 and June 18 to explain a number of initiatives to reform the Superfund program and promote the cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated sites. The PowerPoint presentations used in these sessions can be accessed here. While informative, the sessions and PowerPoint slides used by the speakers also raise some interesting questions about potential changes in the remedy selection process and the restoration of damaged natural resources.
A second district court has agreed that challenges to the 2015 Waters of the United States (WOTUS) Rule are likely to succeed on the merits. The US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia issued an order on June 8 enjoining the WOTUS Rule in 11 states. Georgia v. Pruitt, No. 2:15-cv-00079 (S.D. Ga. 2018). The rule was previously enjoined by the US District Court for North Dakota in 13 states. North Dakota v. U.S. EPA, 127 F. Supp. 3d 1047 (D.N.D. 2015). The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) (“the Agencies”) recently promulgated a new applicability date for the 2015 WOTUS rule (Applicability Rule), preventing its implementation until February 2020, but there have been several lawsuits challenging the Applicability Rule. Now, regardless of the outcome of challenges to the Applicability Rule, the 2015 Rule cannot be applied in 24 states[1] until a court issues a final decision on the merits, either upholding or invalidating the Rule, or the Agencies finalize a repeal and/or replacement of the 2015 Rule.
The Corps Struggles to Balance Competing Constitutional and Statutory Duties
Federal agencies must often balance competing policy concerns and legal requirements. This process may be difficult and fraught with intense public feedback, and frequently results in litigation. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) has found itself in the hot seat over how it manages the nation’s rivers, pitting its obligations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) against private property rights. Litigation in the federal courts may soon determine whether, and if so how, responsible the federal government is for unintentional or incidental flooding when the government manages rivers for the benefit of listed species. These cases also bring to the fore a burning question: When can government agencies be held responsible for natural events? With the increase in climate change-related litigation nationwide, this issue will likely only rise in prominence.
One of the first lessons that most Superfund practitioners learn is that it is no easy task to prevent EPA from placing a site on the National Priorities List. The NPL is the “list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States.”[1] It “contains the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites.”[2] There are nearly 1,350 sites on the NPL today. Since the first list was issued in 1980, only 399 – or, on average, ten per year – have been deleted. That is only two per state in a decade (on average). The pace of EPA’s decision-making on proposed deletions is protracted, if not glacial. And looking to the courts for relief from the stigma of having a site on the NPL rarely bears fruit.
It therefore surprised and may even have delighted some practitioners when the DC Circuit decided, in Genuine Parts Company v. EPA, No. 16-1416 (D.C. Cir. May 18, 2018), to overturn EPA’s decision to list the West Vermont Drinking Water Contamination Site on the NPL.
On May 14, 2018, the Department of Energy Office of Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability released its Multiyear Plan for Energy Sector Cybersecurity. The plan is significantly guided by DOE’s 2006 Roadmap to Secure Control Systems in the Energy Sector and 2011 Roadmap to Achieve Energy Delivery Systems Cybersecurity. Taken together with DOE’s recent announcement creating the new Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (“CESER”), DOE is clearly asserting its position as the energy sector’s Congressionally-recognized ...
2018 is turning out to be a banner year for nationally applicable developments—both judicial and administrative—with regard to National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS” or “Standards”) for ozone. As the year began, EPA was proceeding with implementation of the ozone NAAQS that it set in 1997 and 2008 in accordance with a rule that it had promulgated in 2015 describing requirements for State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and the transition from the 1997 NAAQS to the more stringent 2008 one. 80 Fed. Reg. 12264 (Mar. 6, 2015) (2015 SRR). The Trump administration was reviewing the prior administration’s 2015 decision further tightening the NAAQS to determine whether those more stringent NAAQS should be maintained, modified or reconsidered. To allow the Trump administration to complete that review, the DC Circuit placed in abeyance litigation challenging the 2015 Standards as either too stringent or too lenient. Murray Energy v. EPA, No. 15-1385 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 26, 2015). EPA had designated most of the country attainment/unclassifiable for the 2015 NAAQS, but had not made designations for other areas. 82 Fed. Reg. 54232 (Nov. 16, 2017).
On May 17, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) held its May 2018 open meeting. Highlights of the meeting include:
PURPA
In his opening remarks, Chairman McIntyre announced that the Commission would soon be turning to a review of its long-standing policies under the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). He noted that the Commission had initiated a review of these policies in 2015-2016 and had held a technical conference on certain PURPA issues in 2016. He has directed Commission staff to restart the initiative so the Commission can determine what, if anything, should be done to improve and update the policies. The other commissioners were supportive of this initiative. Commissioner Powelson pushed for an expedited review of the PURPA policies, referencing the previously developed record. Commissioner Glick indicated that any changes to policies should address issues raised not only by industry, but also by qualifying facility developers. The commissioners also acknowledged that more substantial changes to PURPA would have to be addressed by Congress.
On May 9, the White House released its Spring 2018 update to EPA’s regulatory agenda. Agency watchers quickly dove into the document to check the status and timelines for high-profile rulemakings and gain insights on the Trump administration’s priorities. But aside from any revelations about the administration’s own initiatives, this latest document was also notable for showing just how much EPA’s regulatory agenda can be driven by forces outside of the executive branch.
Recently, the Trump administration’s Assistant Administrator for Enforcement, Susan Parker Bodine, clarified the role of EPA’s Next Generation Compliance initiative in civil enforcement settlements by announcing that (contrary to the prior administration’s suggestion) there is “no default expectation” that “innovative enforcement” provisions will routinely be sought as injunctive relief in civil settlements. Does this suggest a broader reassessment of the “Next Gen” program by EPA?
On April 19, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) held its April open meeting. Among other things, the Commission issued major orders concerning the interconnection of large generating (and storage) facilities to the electric transmission grid and price formation in wholesale power markets. It also issued a notice of inquiry (NOI) exploring potential changes to the Commission’s policies governing the certification of new interstate natural gas facilities, addressed in a separate post. The Commission also took action on various other matters.
Two notable developments in the past few weeks signal potential changes ahead to the policies and timeframes for pipeline approvals, particularly natural gas pipelines under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission oversight. These developments reflect both the increased public scrutiny of the pipeline approval process seen in recent years and the emphasis placed by the current administration on expediting review and approval of major infrastructure projects, two factors that are in some tension with each other.
See the full report on PipelineLaw.com.
When California Assembly Bill 617 (AB 617) was signed into law, California ambitiously announced a new “community focused” strategy to improve air quality in California. AB 617’s stated goal is to improve air quality in environmental justice communities through local, community-specific strategies focused on the individual needs and issues particular to each community. The development and implementation of this “community focused” strategy is largely the responsibility of California’s local air quality management districts (AQMDs) because AB 617 places new, explicit responsibilities on AQMDs so that they take the lead in improving the air quality in their environmental justice communities.
Recent press reports indicate that a cyber-attack disabled the third-party platform used by oil and gas pipeline company Energy Transfer Partners to exchange documents with other customers. Effects from the attack were largely confined because no other systems were impacted, including, most notably, industrial controls for critical infrastructure. However, the attack comes on the heels of a Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) alert warning of Russian attempts to use tactics including spearphishing, watering hole attacks, and credential gathering to target industrial control systems throughout critical infrastructure, as well as an indictment against Iranian nationals who used similar tactics to attack private, education, and government intuitions, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). These incidents are raising questions about cybersecurity across the US pipeline network.
In April 2015, the United States Environmental Protection Agency issued a final rule governing the control and management of coal combustion residuals (CCR) in surface impoundments used to treat those residuals. In general, CCR consists of materials that result from the combustion of coal at coal-fired electric utility plants. As part of its rule, EPA required operators to submit initial closure plans for impoundments and post them on a publicly available website in November 2016. Under the rule, these initial closure plans must contain information related to the method of closure, and are subject to change as operators gather additional information.
The Trump Administration has pursued an ambitious goal to reduce federal regulation. The administration has slowed the promulgation of new rules, and in early 2017 a bevy of late-term Obama-era rules still subject to the Congressional Review Act were overturned by the GOP Congress.
Earlier this month, the United States House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology published a staff report entitled “Russian Attempts to Influence U.S. Domestic Energy Markets by Exploiting Social Media.” The report is the result of the Committee’s investigation into Russian efforts to influence U.S. energy markets.
See the full report on PipelineLaw.com.
EP Association Updating International Environmental Standards Following Admission of New Member Financial Institutions from China, Japan, Korea, Sweden and Taiwan
Following its annual meeting in São Paulo, Brazil, the Equator Principles Association (EP Association) announced plans to update its globally recognized risk management framework to reflect significant changes to the manner in which environmental and social impacts and risk mitigation strategies are recognized and managed by financial institutions, corporations, governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and society.
In a surprising decision, a federal judge last week blocked California from requiring Monsanto to put Proposition 65 warning labels on its Roundup products, ruling there is “insufficient evidence” that glyphosate—the active ingredient in the popular weed killer—causes cancer.
On February 15, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) held its February 2018 open meeting. Among other things, the Commission acted on two major rulemakings and took significant action regarding transmission planning in PJM.
Search
Recent Posts
Categories
- Agreements
- Air
- Batteries
- California
- Carbon
- Carbon Markets
- CERCLA
- Chemicals
- Climate
- Coal
- Duty to Defend
- Election
- Endangered Species
- Energy Transition
- Enforcement
- Environmental
- Environmental Justice
- Environmental Law
- EPA
- ESG
- General
- General Liability
- Manufacturing
- Mining
- Natural Resources
- Oil & Gas
- PFAS
- Policy
- Renewables
- Trade Agreements
- Utilities
- Waste
- Water
Tags
- 2015 Standards
- 2018 Farm Bill
- 2020
- 2020 Presidential Election
- 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality
- 316(b)
- 3D Printer
- 3D Printing
- 4(d) Rule
- 404
- 404 permits
- 404(g)
- 45Q
- AB 1200
- AB 2503
- AB 617
- Abeyance
- ABS
- ACE
- Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Sytrene
- active guidance
- ADAO
- Adaptation
- adjacent
- Administration
- Administrative Agencies
- Administrative Law
- Administrative Procedure Act
- Administrator Pruitt
- Adverse Modification
- Advertizing
- Advisory Opinions
- Affordable Clean Energy
- Aftermarket Parts
- Agency
- Agency Budget
- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
- Agency Guidance
- Agency Interpretation
- Agent
- Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018
- Air
- Air Emissions
- Air Permit
- Air Pollution
- Air Quality
- Air Quality Implementation Plan
- Air Quality Management District
- Air Quality Management Plan
- ALARP
- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
- Algae
- Allco Finance Unlimited v. Klee
- Allegheny
- Alternative Energy Portfolio
- Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard
- Ambient Air
- Amendments
- America's Water Infrastructure Act
- American Bar Association
- American Jobs Plan
- AMLO
- Anadarko Petroleum
- Andrés Manuel López Obrador
- Annie Kuster
- Anthony Kennedy
- Anti-Backsliding
- Anti-terrorism
- Antibacterial
- Antitrust
- AOC
- APA
- Appropriations
- APS
- AQMP
- Aquaculture
- Arbitration
- Arctice Grayling
- Army Corps of Engineers
- ARPA-E
- Articles
- Artificial Island transmission project
- Asbestos
- Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization
- Assumption
- Atlantic Coast Natural Gas Pipeline
- Audubon Society
- Auer
- Auer Deference
- Auxiliary Emissions Control Devices
- BAAQMD
- Backstop Siting
- BACT
- Bag Ban
- Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
- Bankruptcy
- BART
- Baseload
- Batteries
- battery storage
- Bay Area Air Quality Management District
- Beauty products
- Beneficial Use
- Beneficial Use and Reuse
- Bernie Sanders
- Best Available Control Technologies
- Beto O'Rourke
- BGEPA
- Biden Administration
- Bilateral Investment Treaty
- Biological Opinion
- Bipartisan Budget Act
- BIT
- Black-Capped Vireo
- BLM
- Blue Ribbon Task Force
- BOEM
- BOP
- Boston
- Boundary
- Brand Memo
- Brent Spar
- Brett Kavanaugh
- Brownfields
- BSEE
- Budget Proposal
- Bureau of Land Management
- Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
- CAA
- CAISO
- Cal-OSHA
- CalEPA
- California
- California Air Resources Board
- California Coastal Act
- California Consumer Protection Act of 2018
- California Department of Public Health
- California Department of Toxic Substances
- California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)
- California Environmental Public Health and Workers Defense Act of 2019
- California Environmental Quality Act
- California Legislature
- California Mining
- California Ocean Protection Council
- California OEHHA
- California Proposition 13
- California Proposition 65
- California Regional Water Quality Control Boards
- California State Lands Commission
- California State Water Resources Control Board
- California Superior Courts
- California Title 8
- California Water Code section 13304
- California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act
- California-China Clean Technology Partnership
- Cannabis
- Cap In Place
- Cap-and-Trade
- Capital Asset Pricing Model
- CAPP
- CARB
- Carbon Capture
- Carbon Capture and Sequestration
- Carbon Capture Demonstration Projects Program
- Carbon Capture Large-Scale Pilot Projects
- Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage
- Carbon Credits
- Carbon Dioxide
- carbon dioxide removal
- Carbon Intensity
- Carbon Markets
- Carbon Nanotubes
- Carbon Utilization
- CASAC
- Categorical Exclusion
- CBD
- CBI
- CCPA
- CCPS
- CCR
- CCR Rule
- CCS
- CCS Alliance
- CCUS
- CDP
- CDR
- CECP
- CEJST
- Center for Chemical Process Safety
- Centralized Waste Treatment
- CEQ
- CEQA
- CERCLA
- Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
- Certification
- Certified Unified Program Agencies
- CESER
- CFATS
- CFCs
- CFE
- CGL
- Chambers USA
- Chapter 91
- Chemical Data Reporting
- Chemical Exposure
- Chemical Risk Assessment
- Chemical Safety Board
- Chemicals
- Cheryl LaFleur
- Chevron Deference
- Cheyenne River Sioux
- Chloroflourocarbons
- Chlorpyrifos
- Chrysotile Asbestos
- CIP
- Circular Economy
- CITES
- Citizen Petition
- Citizen Suit
- Civil Penalties
- Civiletti
- Claims-Made
- Class VI
- Class VI Primacy
- Class VI Underground Injection Control
- Clean Air Act
- Clean Development Mechanism
- Clean Energy
- Clean Energy Standard
- Clean Hydrogen
- Clean Peak Energy Certificates
- Clean Power Plan
- Clean Water Act
- Clean Water Act Section 401
- Clean Water Act Section 404
- Cleaning Products
- Cleanup
- Climate
- Climate Change
- Climate Disclosure
- Closure by Removal
- CNTs
- CO2
- CO2 Emissions
- Coakley Order
- Coal
- Coal Ash
- Coal Ash Basins
- Coal Combustion Residuals
- Coal Leasing Moratorium
- Coal Mine Health and Safety Act
- Coalition for Competitive Electricity v. Zibelman
- Coastal
- Coastal Zone Management Act
- Comisión Federal de Electricidad
- Commercial General Liability
- Commercial Information
- Common Law
- Community Air Protection Program
- Compliance
- Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
- concurrent-remedies doctrine
- Confidential Business Information
- Congress
- Congressional Research Service
- Congressional Review Act
- Consent Decree
- Conservation Easement
- Considerations
- Constitutional Law
- Consultation
- Consumer Data
- Consumer Product Exposure Warnings
- Consumer Products
- Consumer Products Safety Commission
- Contaminated Sites
- Contribution Threshold
- Controlled Substances Act of 1970
- Cook Inlet
- Cookware
- Cooling Water Intake Structures
- Cooperative Federalism
- COP26
- COP28
- COP28 Agreement
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Social Responsibility
- Corporate Sustainability
- Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive
- Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)
- Corporate Valuation
- Corps
- Cosmetics
- Cost of regulation
- Council on Environmental Quality
- County of Maui
- COVID-19
- CPCN
- CPECs
- CPP
- CPS
- CPSC
- CPUC
- CRA
- Criminal Enforcement
- Critical Electric Infrastructure Information
- critical habitat
- Critical Habitat Designation
- Critical Infrastructure
- Critical Infrastructure Protection
- Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
- CSA
- CSAG
- CSAPR
- CSB
- CSR
- CSR reports
- CSR Standards
- CSR- and ESG-related risks
- Cultural Resources
- CWA
- CWA Citizen Suit
- CWA section 401
- CWA Section 404
- Cyber-Related Risks
- Cybersecurity
- D&O
- D&O Insurance
- Dakota Access Pipeline
- DAPL
- DARTIC
- Data Security
- DC Circuit
- DC Circuit Court of Appeals
- DCH
- Deadline Suits
- Deadlines
- Decarbonization
- Decommissioning
- Deep-Well Injection
- Deepwater Horizon
- Defeat Devices
- Defense Costs
- Deference
- Deidre G. Duncan
- Delisting
- Democratic Debate
- DEP
- Department of Energy
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Justice
- Department of Labor
- Department of the Interior
- Department of Transportation
- Designations
- Development
- Device
- Diligent Prosecution
- Dioxane
- Directors & Officers
- Director’s Order
- Discharge
- Diversity and Inclusion
- DJSI
- DOD
- DOE
- DOER
- DOI
- DOJ
- DOJ ENRD
- Domestic Energy Policy
- Domestic Terrorism
- DOSH
- Dow Jones Sustainability Index
- DPR
- DPU
- Draft
- Draft EA
- Draft Environmental Assessment
- drinking water
- Drought
- DTSC
- Due Diligence
- Duke Energy
- Duty to Defend
- Dynamic Scoring
- E&P Wastes
- EA
- eagle
- Eagle Take Permit
- Earth Day
- Economic Impact
- Economic Impacts
- Effluent
- Effluent Guidelines
- Effluent Limitations
- EHSS
- EIS
- EJSCREEN
- Election 2020
- Electric Ratepayers
- Electric Transmission
- Electric Vehicles
- Electricity
- Electricity Markets
- ELG
- ELGs
- Elizabeth E. Aldridge
- Elizabeth Warren
- Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
- Emergency Response
- Emergency Support Functions
- Emerging Contaminants
- Emission Caps
- Emission Control Requirements
- Emission Reduction Credits
- Emissions
- Emissions Caps
- emissions reporting
- Emphasis List
- Endangered Species
- Endangered Species Act
- Energy
- Energy Industry
- Energy Infrastructure
- Energy Package Insurance
- Energy Reforms
- Energy Storage
- Energy Transition
- Enforcement
- Enforcement Discretion
- Enforcement statistics
- Engine Certification
- Enhanced Oil Recovery
- ENRD
- Environment
- Environment and Natural Resources Division
- Environmental
- Environmental and Social Governance
- Environmental Appeals Board
- Environmental Assessment
- Environmental Bar
- Environmental Compliance
- Environmental Crimes
- Environmental Defense Fund
- Environmental Disclosure
- Environmental Due Diligence
- Environmental Enforcement
- Environmental Groups
- Environmental Impact Statement
- Environmental Justice
- Environmental Justice and Equity Board
- Environmental Law
- Environmental Law Institute
- Environmental Markets
- Environmental Permitting
- Environmental Protection Agency
- Environmental Rights
- Environmental Social and Corporate Governance
- Environmental Social and Governance
- Environmental Social Governance
- Environmental Social Justice
- Environmental Transactions
- EO 13891
- EOR
- EP3
- EP4
- EPA
- EPA audit policy
- EPR
- EPR Laws
- Equator Principles
- Equator Principles Association
- ERC
- ESA
- ESA consultation
- ESA section 7 consultation
- ESG
- ESG Diligence
- ETP
- EU
- European Climate Law
- European Green Deal
- European Sustainability Reporting Standards
- European Union
- Evaluation of Regionalization for Potential New Wastewater Systems
- EVs
- Exceptional Events
- Exceptional Events Rule
- Excess Insurance
- Excess Liability
- Exchange Act
- Executive Compensation
- Executive Memorandum
- Executive Office for United States Attorneys
- Executive Order
- Executive Order 13777
- Executive Order 14008
- Executive Order N-8-23
- Executive Orders
- Extended producer Responsibility
- Fair and Equitable Treatment
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- FAST Act
- Fathead Minnow
- Fatmucket Mussel
- FDA
- FECM
- Federal Action
- Federal Agencies
- Federal Agency Action
- Federal Budget
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Federal Lands
- Federal Permit
- Federal Power Act
- Federal Preemption
- Federal Register
- Federal Rule 20
- Federal Rule 71.1
- Federalism
- Fees
- FERC
- FET
- Fiduciary Liability
- FIFRA
- Fifth Circuit
- Final Rule
- Financial Information
- Fireworks
- First Amendment
- Fishing Industry
- Flaring
- Flint
- FloaTEC LLC
- Flood Infrastructure Funding
- Flood Mitigation
- Florida
- FLSA
- FOIA
- Food
- Food and Drug Administration
- Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
- Food Loss and Waste
- Food Marketing Institute
- Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media
- Food Waste
- Food Waste Reduction Alliance
- Fossil Fuels
- Fourth Circuit
- Fourth of July
- FPA
- FPA Preemption
- FPA section 202(c)
- FPOS
- Fracking
- Framework
- Framework Rule
- Fraud
- Free Trade Agreement
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freeport
- FSLA
- FTA
- Funding for Environmental Protection
- Funding Mechanism
- FUTURE Act
- FWS
- FY2017 budget
- FY2018
- GAO
- Gas
- GDPR
- Gender Equality
- General Data Protection Regulation
- General Industrial Stormwater Permit
- General Permit
- GenX
- George Clemon Freeman Jr.
- GHG
- GHG Emissions
- GHG Emissions Renewable Portfolio Standard
- Gilbert & Sullivan
- Global Carbon Markets
- Global Climate Negotiations
- Global Reporting Initiative
- Global Warming Solutions Act
- Glyphosate
- GOM
- Good Neighbor Obligation
- Good Neighbor Provision
- Government Investigations
- Grand River Dam Authority
- Grassroots Activisim
- Green Admendment
- Green Communities Act
- Green Deal
- Green New Deal
- Green New Deal; Climate Change
- Greenhouse Gas
- Greenhouse Gas Emissions
- Greenhouse Gas Protocol
- Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative
- Greenhouse Gases
- Grid
- grid reliability
- grid study
- Grocery Manufacturers Association
- Groundwater
- Guam
- Guidance
- Guidance Portal
- Gulf of Mexico
- Habitat
- Hardrock Mining Rule
- Harmful Algal Blooms
- Hawaii
- Hawkes
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Hazardous Materials Regulations
- Hazardous Waste
- HBCD
- HCFCs
- Health
- Health Advisories
- health advisory
- Health and Safety
- HECT
- Hemp
- HFCs
- high-density polyethylene (HDPE)
- Highly Reactive Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Cap and Trade
- Historical Matter
- HMR
- Holder
- Homeland Security
- Hoopa Valley Tribe
- House
- House of Representatives
- Houston Casualty
- Human Health Toxicity Values
- Human Rights
- Hurricane Harvey
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Hydroelectric Relicensing
- Hydrofluorocarbons
- Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
- Hydrogen
- Hydrogen Energy Earthshot
- Hydrological Connection Theory
- Hydropower
- ICMM
- ICSID
- IFC Performance Standards
- IGP
- IIA
- IIJA
- Impaired Waterbodies
- Impaired Waters
- Impairment
- Incident Response
- Incidental Take
- incidental take statement
- Indian Lands
- Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge
- Indonesia
- Industrial Accidents
- Industrial Hemp
- Infectious Disease Preparedness and Response Plan
- Inflaction Reduction Act
- Infrastructure
- Infrastructure Development
- Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)
- infrastructure security
- Initial & Boundary
- Innovation
- Inside Look
- Inspections
- Insurance
- Insurance Recovery
- Integrated Science Assessment
- Interagency Review
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
- Interior
- International Arbitration
- International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
- International Council on Mining and Metals
- International Energy Agency
- International Environmental Law
- International Investment Agreements
- International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association
- Interstate Transport
- Intervention
- Investment Risk Assessment
- IPCC
- IRIS
- IRIS Review
- IRS
- ISO-NE
- ITEK
- Jay Inslee
- Jewell
- Joe Biden
- John Hickenlooper
- Joint Venture Provision
- Judicial Review
- Judiciary
- Jurisdiction
- Jurisdictional Determination
- Justice40
- Kamala Harris
- Kavanaugh
- Kenk’s amphipod
- Kevin McIntyre
- Keystone XL
- Kigali Amendment
- Kisor
- Kisor Deference
- Kyoto Protocol
- Lake Erie
- Lake Powell Pipeline Project
- Lampsilis Siliquoidea
- Land Use
- Late Notice
- Lautenberg Act
- Law360
- LCPFAC SNUR
- LDC
- LDNR
- Lead
- Lead and Copper Rule
- Lease Sale
- Legislation
- Lesser Prairie Chicken
- Li-ion
- Liability
- Liability Insured
- Linear
- Liquefied Natural Gas
- Lithium-ion batteries
- Litigation
- Lloyds
- Lloyd’s of London
- LNG
- London Protocol
- Long-Form Warning
- Look-back period
- Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
- Low Carbon Fuel Standard
- MA DOER
- Maine Department of Environmental Protection
- Maintenance Fees
- Malaysia
- Manufactured Products
- Manufacturing
- Marijuana
- Maritime
- Markets
- Masias
- Mass Emissions Cap and Trade
- Massachusetts
- Massachusetts AG
- Massachusetts Clean Energy Center
- Massachusetts Climate Act
- Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources
- Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act
- MassCEC
- MATS
- Maximum Contaminant Levels
- MBTA
- MBTA; Wind Energy; Renewable Energy; protected species; natural resources; USFWS
- McGraw-Edison
- McIntyre
- MCL
- MCLG
- MCLs
- McNamee
- MEA
- MECT
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- Methane
- methane emissions
- Methane Repeal Rule
- Methylene Chloride
- Michigan
- microplastics
- Midnight Rule
- Midstream
- Migratory Bird Treaty Act
- Migratory Birds Treaty Act
- Millennium Pipeline
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Mining
- Mining Claims
- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
- Misbranding
- Mitigation
- Mitigation Rule
- MLP
- Modification
- Monitoring
- Monsanto
- Montana
- Montreal Protocol
- Moratorium
- MOU
- Mountain Valley Pipeline
- MSGP
- Multi-Sector General Permit
- Multiyear Plan for Energy Sector Cybersecurity
- Mulvaney
- Murray
- Murray Energy
- MVP
- NAAQS
- NAFTA
- NAIOP
- NALs
- Nancy Pelosi
- NATA
- National Ambient Air Quality Standards
- National Compliance Initiatives
- National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center
- National Defense Authorization Act
- National Determined Contributions
- National Emergency
- National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives
- National Enforcement Initiatives
- National Environmental Policy Act
- National Historic Preservation Act
- National Hydro Association
- National Marine Fisheries Service
- National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration
- National Parks and Conservation Ass’n v. Morton
- National Petroleum Council
- National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
- National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
- National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
- National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
- National Priorities List
- National Recycling Strategy
- National Register of Historic Places
- National Restaurant Association
- National Security
- Nationwide Permit
- Native American Law
- Natural Gas
- Natural Gas Act
- Natural Gas Leak Abatement Program
- Natural Gas Pipeline Certification
- Natural Gas Pipelines
- Natural Resource Damages
- Natural Resources
- Navigable waters
- NCCIC
- NCI
- NEC
- NECIs
- NEI
- Neil Chatterjee
- NELs
- NEPA
- NEPA Policy
- NEPA Review
- NERC
- NESCOE
- Net-Zero Emissions
- Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions
- New Chemicals Review Program
- New Rule
- New Source Review
- New York
- New York Department of Environmental Conservation
- New York State Department of Taxation and Finance
- NGA
- NGO
- NHPA
- NHTSA
- NIETC
- nitrogen dioxide
- NMFS
- No Exposure Certification Identification Number
- No-Action Letter
- NOAA
- NOI
- NONA
- Nonapplicability Identification Number
- Nonattainment
- Nonpoint Source
- North American Electric Reliability Corporation
- North Dakota
- Notice
- Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
- NPDES
- NPDES Delegation
- NPDWR
- NPL
- NSPS
- NSR
- nuclear
- nuclear energy
- NWP
- NY PSC
- Obama
- Occupational Safety and Health Act
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- OCE
- OECA
- OEHHA
- OEJECR
- Office of Civil Enforcement
- Office of Cybersecurity Energy Security and Emergency Response
- Office of Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability
- Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
- Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)
- Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights
- Office of Federal Register
- Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
- Office of Management and Budget
- Office of Natural Resources
- Office of Water
- Offshore Energy
- Offshore Platforms
- Offshore Wind
- Offshore wind energy
- Ohio
- Oil
- Oil & Gas
- Oil and Gas
- Oil and Gas Production
- Oil and Gas Wastewater
- Oil Pipelines
- Oil Pollution Act
- OIRA
- Oklahoma
- OMB
- One Federal Decision
- One Federal Plan
- OPA
- OSHA
- Outer Continental Shelf
- OW
- Ozone
- Pacific OCS Region
- Packaging
- Paperwork Reduction Act
- Paris Agreement
- Paris Climate Accord
- Paris Climate Agreement
- Particulate Matter
- Partido Revolucionario Institucional
- Passaic River
- PATH Act
- PBT
- PCBs
- PEMEX
- Penalties
- Penalty
- PennEast Pipeline
- Pennsylvania
- Perfluoroalkyl
- Permian Basin
- Permitting
- Pesticide Devices
- Pesticides
- Pete Buttigieg
- Petition
- Petition for Rulemaking
- Petitions for Objection
- PetraNova
- Petrochemical Regulation
- Petróleos Mexicanos
- Petroleum Products
- PFAS
- PFAS Action Plan
- PFAS in Products State Law Tracker
- PFAS Reporting Rule
- PFAS Strategic Roadmap
- PFBA
- PFBS
- PFNA
- PFOA
- PFOS
- PHMSA
- Physicians for Social Responsibility
- Pimphales Promelas
- PIP
- Pipe Manufacturing
- Pipeline
- Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- Pipeline Attacks
- Pipeline Construction
- Pipeline Safety
- Pipelines
- PIPES
- Plastic
- Plastic Carryout bag
- PNAS
- POCSR
- Point Source
- Point Source Discharge
- Policy
- Policy Statement
- Pollution
- Pollution Exclusion
- Pollution Liability
- Pollution Prevention for Healthy People and Puget Sound Act
- Polyalkyl
- Polyfluoroalkyl
- Port of Los Angeles
- Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
- Potentially Responsible Party
- POTW
- PRA
- Practical Law
- Precedent
- Preconstruction Authorizations
- Preemption
- Prejudice
- Preliminary Injunction
- President Biden
- President Trump
- Presidential Transition
- PRGs
- PRI
- Priebus
- Principal
- Principles for Responsible Investments
- Priority Pollutants
- Privacy
- Process Safety Management
- Produced Water
- Product Safety
- Production Cuts
- Production Sharing Contract
- Prohibition on Sale
- Project Development
- Prop. 65
- Proposition 65
- Protected Species
- Protecting Our Conserved Lands Act of 2019
- PRP
- Pruitt
- Pruitt Task Force
- PSC
- PSD
- PSH
- PSM
- Public Comment
- Public Lands
- Public Utilities
- Publicly Owned Treatment Works
- Pumped Storage Hydropower
- PURPA
- Quality Assurance Plan
- R-Project Transmission Line
- Racing Vehicles
- RAGAGEP
- Railroad Commission
- Railroad Commission of Texas
- Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC)
- Rapanos
- RBI
- RCRA
- RCRA Subtitle D
- REACH
- Reasonable Progress Plans
- RECLAIM
- Reconsideration
- RECs
- Redevelopment
- Refinery
- Reform
- Reforma Energética
- Regional Clean Air Incentives Market
- Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs
- Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)
- Regional Haze
- Regional Water Quality Control Boards
- Registration Evaluation Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals
- Regulation
- Regulation S-K
- Regulation S-X
- Regulations
- Regulatory
- Regulatory Agenda
- Regulatory Freeze
- Regulatory Guidance
- Regulatory Programs
- Regulatory Reform
- Regulatory Review
- Reliability
- Reliability Safety Valve
- Remediation
- Removal Action
- Renewable
- Renewable Energy
- Renewable Energy Certificates
- Renewable Energy Portfolio
- Renewable Fuel Standards
- Renewable Portfolio Standard
- Renewables
- Renewals
- Reporting
- Request for Information
- ReRED
- Rescind
- Resilience of the Bulk Power System
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
- Responsible Business Initiative
- Restoration
- Restriction of Hazardous Substances
- Retail
- Retailers
- Retained
- Retroactivity
- Return on Equity
- RFS
- RHA
- Richard Glick
- Rigs to Reefs
- RIN
- Ripeness
- Risk and Technology Review
- Risk Assessment
- Risk Evaluation
- Risk Management
- Risk Management Plan
- Risk Management Program
- Risk Management Regulations
- Rivers and Harbors Act
- RMP
- Roadmap Release
- Roanoke River Basin Association
- Robert Powelson
- ROE
- ROEs
- RoHS
- Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil
- Roundup
- Royalties
- RPS
- RRBA
- RRC
- RTR
- Rule 14a-8(i)(7)
- Rule 65(c)
- Rulemaking
- Russia
- SAB
- Sacred Sites
- SAFE
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Safe Harbor
- Safe Harbor Regulation
- Safe Harbor Warning
- Safer Consumer Products
- SAFETY Act
- Safety Management System
- San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
- SASB
- SaskPower’s Boundary Dam Unit 3
- SB 1371
- SCAQMD
- Science
- Science Advisory Board
- Science Advisory Board (SAB)
- Scope
- Scope 1
- Scope 2
- Scope 3
- Scott Pruitt
- SCOTUS
- SDWA
- SEC
- Section 10
- Section 104 Request
- Section 114 Request
- Section 179B(b)
- Section 208 Request
- Section 308 Request
- Section 4
- Section 401
- Section 404
- Section 408
- Section 45Q
- Section 5
- Section 6(b)
- Securities Act
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
- Securities Law
- Seismicity
- Seminole Rock
- Senate
- Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
- Senator Lamar Alexander
- SEP
- SEPs
- Services
- Settlements
- Sewage
- Shareholder Lawsuits
- Shutdown
- Sierra Club
- Significant Figures
- Significant Guidance
- Significant New Use Rule
- SIP
- Smelter
- SNUR
- Social
- Social Media
- Solar
- Solid Waste
- South China Sea
- South Coast Air Quality Management District
- SPCC
- Species
- Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Rule
- SSB 5135
- SSM SIP Call
- Stabilization Clause
- Standing
- Standing Rock Sioux
- Stare Decisis
- State
- State Administrative Appeals
- State Air Pollution Control Board
- State Constitutions
- State Environmental Quality Review Act
- State Implementation Plan
- State Law
- State Water Resources Control Board
- States
- Statute of Limitations
- Statutory Authority
- Statutory Interpretation
- Stormwater
- Strategic
- Straw Proposal
- Subrogation
- sulfur dioxide
- Sunset Review
- Superfund
- Supplemental Environmental Projects
- Supply Chain
- Supreme Court
- Supreme Court of Texas
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Surface Mining Act
- Surface Water Discharge
- Susan Bodine
- Sustainability
- Sustainability Accounting Standards Board
- Sustainable Development Goals
- Sustainable Investing
- SWDA
- Switzerland
- SWRCB
- Tailings Storage Facility
- Take
- Take Prohibition
- Takings
- Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)
- Tax
- Tax Credits
- Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
- Tax Reform
- Taxonomy Regulation
- TCEQ
- TCI
- Temporary Policy
- TERP
- Texas Alliance of Energy Producers
- Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
- Texas Legislature
- Texas Railroad Commission
- Texas Water Development Board
- Thailand
- THC
- The European Commission
- The Mikado
- The Treasury Department
- The Water Infrastructure Improvements Act
- the WIIN Act
- Third Circuit
- Threatened Species
- Title V
- TMDL
- TMDLs
- TNALs
- Toledo
- Tolling Order
- Total Maximum Daily Load
- Toxic Chemicals
- Toxic Substances Control Act
- Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
- Toxics
- Toxics Release Inventory
- Transcos
- Transition
- Transmission
- Transparency
- Transport
- Treasury
- Treaty Rights
- Trends
- TRI
- Tribal Rights
- Tribes
- Trump
- Trump Administration
- TSA
- TSCA
- TSF
- TWDB
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
- Ultimate Net Loss
- UNCLOS
- Underground Injection Wells
- Underground Storage Tank
- UNFCCC
- Unified Agenda
- United Airlines
- United Nations
- United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
- Urgenda
- US Army Corps of Engineers
- US Chemical Safety Board
- US Climate Alliance
- US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- US Customs and Border Protection
- US Department of Agriculture
- US Department of Justice (DOJ)
- US Environmental Protection Agency
- US Fish and Wildlife Service
- US FWS
- US SAFETY Act
- US Securities and Exchange Commission
- US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
- US Supreme Court
- USACE
- USDA
- USDOT
- USFWS
- USMCA
- Utilities
- utility
- vapor intrusion
- Vapor Recovery Units
- VCP
- venting
- Veto
- Village of Old Mill Creek. v. Star
- Vineyard Wind
- Virginia Clean Economy Act
- Virginia Community Flood Preparedness Fund
- Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
- Virginia State Corporation Commission
- vision of Corporation Finance
- VOCs
- Volatile Organic Compounds
- Voluntary Cleanup Program
- Voluntary Remediation
- Waiver
- Waiver Period
- Warnings
- Washington
- Waste
- Waste Discharge Identification Number
- Waste Electrical and Electric Equipment
- Waste Permitting
- Wasted Food
- Wastewater
- Wastewater Treatment
- Water
- Water Quality Certification
- Water Quality Criteria
- Water Regulation
- Water Reuse
- Water Supply and Management
- Water Systems
- Waterfront
- Waters
- Waters of the United States
- WDID
- WEA
- WEEE
- Well Blowout
- Well Control Rule
- WET Tests
- Wetlands
- Whole Effluent Testing
- Wholesale Electricity
- WildEarth Guardians
- Wildfire
- Wind
- Wind Energy
- Wind Energy Area
- wind farms
- Winning on Reducing Food Waste Initiative
- Winter v. NRDC
- Withdrawal or Reinstatement
- World Bank Group Equator Principles
- Worst-Case Discharge
- WOTUS
- WQBELs
- WQC
- Wyoming
- Zero Emissions
- Zero-Emissions Vehicle Initiative
- Zinke
Authors
- Yaniel Abreu
- Elizabeth E. Aldridge
- Walter J. Andrews
- John J. Beardsworth, Jr.
- Nancy B. Beck, PhD, DABT
- Jordan L. Bernstein
- Timothy E. Biller
- George Borovas
- Lawrence J. Bracken II
- Shannon S. Broome
- Karma B. Brown
- Samuel L. Brown
- F. William Brownell
- Courtney Cochran Butler
- Julia J. Casciotti
- Michelle G. Chan
- E. Carter Chandler Clements
- Abigail Contreras
- Benjamin Y. Cooper IV
- Christopher J. Cunio
- Alexandra B. Cunningham
- Andrea DeField
- Meredith Doswell
- Douglas L. Dua
- Deidre G. Duncan
- Frederick R. Eames
- Clare Ellis
- Latosha M. Ellis
- Susan S. Failla
- Geoffrey B. Fehling
- Andrea Field
- Hannah Flint
- Steven C. Friend
- Kevin E. Gaunt
- Andrew G. Geyer
- Erin Grisby
- Elisabeth R. Gunther
- Steven M. Haas
- Alexandra Hamilton
- Patrick Jamieson
- Kevin W. Jones
- Dan J. Jordanger
- Ryan T. Ketchum
- Sami M. Khan
- Jonathan H. Kim
- Scott H. Kimpel
- Charles H. Knauss
- Garrett Kral
- J. Pierce Lamberson
- Lucinda Minton Langworthy
- Jaclyn E. Lee
- Matthew Z. Leopold
- Charlotte Leszinske
- Brian R. Levey
- Michael S. Levine
- Elbert Lin
- Eric R. Link
- Nash E. Long
- David S. Lowman, Jr.
- Phyllis H. Marcus
- Jeffrey N. Martin
- Lorelie S. Masters
- Patrick M. McDermott
- Kerry L. McGrath
- Robert J. McNamara
- Michael J. Messonnier, Jr.
- Jennifer MikoLevine
- Todd S. Mikolop
- Angela Morrison
- Michael J. Mueller
- Eric J. Murdock
- Ted J. Murphy
- William L. Newton
- Henry V. Nickel
- Paul T. Nyffeler, PhD
- Peter K. O’Brien
- G. Michael O’Leary
- Evangeline C. Paschal
- Kate Perkins
- Shemin V. Proctor
- Shawn Patrick Regan
- Myles F. Reynolds
- Doris Rodríguez
- Brent A. Rosser
- Christian Rudloff
- Rachel Saltzman
- Arthur E. Schmalz
- Penny A. Shamblin
- Michael R. Shebelskie
- George P. Sibley, III
- Joseph C. Stanko
- Martin P. Stratte
- Javaneh S. Tarter
- Thomas W. Taylor
- Patricia Tiller
- Linda Trees
- Andrew J. Turner
- Emily Burkhardt Vicente
- Gregory R. Wall
- Thomas R. Waskom
- Malcolm C. Weiss
- Michelle-Ann C. Williams
- Susan F. Wiltsie