While still early in the new administration, emerging enforcement trends are beginning to indicate that EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) will continue to pursue cases involving fraud in the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. We noted last summer that EPA and DOJ have pursued numerous enforcement actions against renewable fuel producers and importers that generated invalid Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs), which are the “currency” of the RFS program. Although it is reasonable to assume the vast majority of program participants comply with EPA’s regulations, the program has suffered from high profile cases of fraud and abuse requiring federal enforcement, including criminal prosecutions. Recent cases and statements by DOJ and EPA officials show that federal prosecution of RFS fraud, particularly that involving multi-state schemes, will continue. And RFS fraud cases may even occupy a larger portion of EPA’s enforcement bandwidth as EPA gives greater deference to states in enforcement of delegated programs like the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
As part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, Congress significantly increased and extended the Section 45Q tax credit for sequestration of carbon oxides. This has been a top priority of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) supporters for several years.
CCS is considered to be essential to global efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. The world’s most respected analysis organizations all estimate that fossil fuel use will increase in the coming decades, even with energy efficiency improvements and vast increases in renewable energy.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its annual enforcement and compliance results for the most recent fiscal year (FY) on February 8, 2018. The results, which cover the period from October 1, 2016, to September 30, 2017, are the Trump administration’s first annual statistical report on federal environmental enforcement. The results provide insight into the administration’s focus and priorities for enforcement.
A year ago, the regulated community and its environmental lawyers recognized that the Trump administration would bring a new approach to the enforcement of federal environmental laws, but the nature of the specific changes remained nebulous. While it is still early to speculate on the long-term impacts to enforcement that may be implemented by the administration, events over the prior year have brought the new administration’s enforcement philosophy and priorities into greater focus. This post reviews some of the key personnel, policy, and budget announcements made during President Trump’s first year in office that will shape the future of federal environmental enforcement by the Environmental Protection Agency in the coming years.
We are serious. And don’t call us Shirley.
So EPA sent your company a dreaded Request for Information (“RFI”). What do you do now? If you’ve never been through this process before, you likely have a lot running through your head:
- Did our company do something wrong? Is my company under investigation?
- Is this EPA’s way of asking for my help to improve its regulations?
- Do I have to answer this?
- How can I possibly compile all this information in 30 days?
- Do we need a lawyer to help us respond?
- What about confidential information? EPA is asking for customer or supplier information. Isn’t that private?
On Monday, the Trump Administration released an ambitious legislative proposal that aims to stimulate $1.5 trillion in new infrastructure investment over the next 10 years, expedite the federal permitting process, address rural infrastructure needs, and prepare the American workforce for the future. To accomplish those goals, the proposal includes aggressive recommendations to streamline key federal environmental review and permitting processes for infrastructure projects. In addition to traditional forms of infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, and airports, the Legislative Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America addresses drinking and wastewater systems, energy infrastructure, veterans’ hospitals, and Brownfields and Superfund sites.
Last October we saw the State of California implement its "PSM for Refineries" standard and now the State of Washington's Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) appears to be following suit, releasing draft language to adopt a rule of its own. This new chapter will only apply to Process Safety Management (PSM) for petrochemical refining facilities.
On January 22nd, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous (9-0) decision, authored by Justice Sotomayor, agreeing with industry groups, some eNGOs, and many states, that the district courts have jurisdiction over challenges to the 2015 Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) Rule. Nat’l Ass’n of Manufacturers v. Dept. of Defense, et al., No. 16-299 (Jan. 22, 2018). The Court wholly rejected the government’s claim that the WOTUS Rule is subject to exclusive appellate court jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act’s (CWA) judicial review provision and confirms that current and future challenges to the WOTUS Rule must be brought in district court. By reversing the Sixth Circuit decision which found that the CWA vests the federal courts of appeals with exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to the WOTUS Rule, the Supreme Court set in motion proceedings that will likely result in the lifting of the Sixth Circuit’s nationwide stay of the 2015 WOTUS Rule.
The House Energy & Commerce Committee is considering revising the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), a 1978 law enacted in the wake of the 1973 oil embargo to promote energy conservation and production by domestic alternative energy sources, including renewables. Why is Congress considering changing it, and what would the proposed revisions do?
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) announced last month that it will review its policies governing the certification process for natural gas pipelines. The announcement was made by FERC Chairman Kevin J. McIntyre on December 21, 2017, in fulfillment of a pledge that he made during his Senate confirmation hearing in September 2017. The format and scope of the review are still being determined.
Read the full report on PipelineLaw.com.
In 2016, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS or the Service) issued two policies on how to mitigate the impact of projects affecting fish and wildlife and natural resources: one overarching policy and one policy specific to Endangered Species Act implementation. Raising eyebrows, these mitigation policies were not limited to offsetting project impacts, but instead set a goal of improving the condition of affected resources.
Last October, the European Commission published its Work Programme for 2018. In the environmental area, a prominent topic is the EU initiative with respect to a ‘circular economy.’ This concept involves a transition to a “stronger and more circular economy where resources are used in a more sustainable way.”
The idea is to "close the loop" of product lifecycles through greater recycling and re-use, so as to realize benefits for both the environment and the economy. Simultaneously, the EU’s circular economy strategy should “extract the maximum value and use from all raw materials, products and waste,” “foster energy savings,” and reduce “Green House Gas emissions.” Accordingly, the Commission’s proposals cover the full lifecycle of products: from production and consumption to waste management and the market for secondary raw materials.
After a string of highly publicized attacks on energy pipelines in different areas of the country, several Congressmen addressed a letter to US Attorney General Jeff Sessions last month, asking that the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) respond to several questions concerning the ability and intent of the DOJ to investigate and prosecute criminal activity against energy infrastructure at the federal level. The letter also asks for DOJ clarification on whether attacks against the nation’s energy infrastructure fall within the DOJ’s understanding of 18 U.S.C ...
WOTUS, an acronym that has received a lot of attention in recent years, stands for the “waters of the United States.” When Congress enacted the Clean Water Act (“CWA” or the “Act”) in 1972, it prohibited “the discharge of any pollutant by any person” into navigable waters without a permit. The Act defines navigable waters as the “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1362(7), (12). But Congress failed to, in turn, define the words “waters of the United States,” and the Supreme Court has noted that these “words themselves are hopelessly indeterminate.” Sackett v. EPA, 132 S. Ct. 1367, 1375 (2012) (J. Alito, concurring). The meaning of these words matters because violations of the CWA are subject to substantial criminal and civil penalties, so knowing whether a feature on your site is a WOTUS subject to federal jurisdiction has important consequences.
A New Jersey court recently held that an electrical products manufacturer was entitled to coverage rights provided by a predecessor’s commercial general liability policies if it was found liable for environmental remediation costs as a result of cleanup efforts by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) along a 17-mile portion of the Passaic River in New Jersey.
Once large infrastructure projects, such as oil and natural gas pipelines, receive federal government approval, they are often the target of legal challenges from opposition groups. Opponents repeatedly argue that the environmental review, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), was insufficient. If a court finds deficiencies in the government’s NEPA analysis, can a court halt construction or cease operations even after years of project design, permit approvals at all levels of government, and tens of millions of dollars in investment? This question ...
The US EPA released its draft strategic plan for 2018-2022 on October 5, 2017.[1] Not surprisingly, the draft plan differs greatly from the Obama EPA’s last strategic plan. The change in administrations has produced innumerable shifts in the policies, goals and operations of the federal government. EPA’s draft strategic plan is emblematic of these shifts.
The stakes are high for anyone facing environmental liability in the wake of superstorms like Hurricanes Katrina, Sandy, Harvey, Irma, and Maria. If you are among the parties potentially liable for the costs to clean up a release of oil or hazardous substances caused by a major storm event, you may be thinking about a possible “act of God” defense. You may want to think again. In practice, the availability of this defense has proved elusive. It is still a good idea, however, to minimize risk in planning for the next “big one.” Ultimately, advance actions taken to avoid or mitigate the impacts of natural disasters may be the difference between being excused from or being saddled with cleanup liability.
Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court held that in the Federal Power Act (FPA), Congress had drawn a “bright line, easily ascertained, between federal and state jurisdiction…by making [federal] jurisdiction plenary and extending it to all wholesale sales in interstate commerce except those which Congress has made explicitly subject to regulation by the States.” FPC v. Southern California Edison Co. (Colton), 376 U.S. 205, 206-07 (1964). Several recent federal court decisions, including two decisions addressing the implementation of Zero Emissions Credits (ZECs) by New York and Illinois, highlight just how blurred that “bright line” has become in an era where Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulation relies primarily on markets, rather than cost-of-service ratemaking, to ensure just, reasonable and not unduly discriminatory electricity prices. For good measure, these decisions also break new ground on the justiciability of FPA preemption claims brought by private parties in federal court.
Environmental and public-health groups have taken issue with the EPA’s rule establishing procedures for chemical risk evaluations under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which allows the EPA to exclude certain conditions of use when assessing whether a chemical presents unreasonable risks. These groups fear the exclusions could provide a “loophole” allowing some chemical risks to go unaddressed. But putting those concerns aside, should companies affected by the rule actually want to take advantage of these exclusions? Are they really beneficial to regulated industries? Or do they risk undermining one of the primary goals that companies sought to gain by supporting TSCA reform—federal preemption of overlapping state restrictions?
Now that the “Big Six”[1] have announced that they will release an agreed-upon tax reform plan the week of September 25, the question becomes: Can they actually get it done? Is there enough time, motivation and a clear path forward to get permanent tax reform done in 2017? The answer is yes, it could happen. Politics will be the driving force, and the budget reconciliation process will provide the opportunity.
The Keeper.
For some, the name may conjure images of a character from Game of Thrones, protecting the realm from the evil to the north. But, the Keeper is actually a fairly important National Park Service (NPS) official and has a significant role under the National Historic Preservation Act (NPHA)—the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places.
From the Penobscot River in Maine to the St. Mary’s River in Florida, the Atlantic sturgeon ranges, swimming periodically up river to spawn and returning to marine waters when it is done. With a lifespan of up to 60 years, the Atlantic sturgeon can grow up to 14 feet long and weigh up to 800 pounds, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Despite this species’ mighty proportions and vast range, five distinct population segments of the species have been listed by the as threatened or endangered.
The regulated community in California may soon have additional reasons to implement supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) when settling an administrative environmental enforcement action. Under a 2009 State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) policy, settling parties may voluntarily undertake an environmentally beneficial project in return for an offset of a portion of any civil penalty, provided that the project meets certain criteria. The Water Board has now released sweeping proposed amendments to its Policy on Supplemental Environmental Projects (draft SEP Policy) that will incentivize more projects. Most notably, the draft SEP Policy:
Will consider projects that address climate change, such as greenhouse gas emissions reductions or those that build resilience to climate change impacts on ecosystems or infrastructure.
Will allow—subject to approval—greater than 50% of any monetary assessment in administrative enforcement cases to be allocated towards SEPs that are located in or benefit disadvantaged or environmental justice communities, or communities suffering from a financial hardship, or that further the Water Board’s priority of ensuring a human right to water. Under the original policy adopted in 2009, the maximum civil penalty reduction available via performance of a SEP is capped at 50%.
Will allow up to 10% of oversight costs to be included as part of the total SEP amount for the same reasons above. Otherwise, oversight costs are paid in addition to the total SEP amount.
Establishes a new category of SEPs called “Other Projects” to allow educational outreach and other “non-traditional” water quality or drinking water-related projects to be considered for approval.
Expands the applicability of SEPs to enforcement actions prosecuted by the Division of Drinking Water and its Districts and the Division of Water Rights.
It is no secret that California has had appliance efficiency standards in place for some time now. And it is no secret that the California Energy Commission (“CEC”) has been responsible for crafting those standards. According to the CEC and the California State Legislature, however, compliance with those standards has been hit-or-miss. In 2011, the Legislature found that “significant quantities of appliances are sold and offered for sale in California that do not meet the state’s energy efficiency standards,” and the CEC itself has stated that nearly half of all regulated appliances are non-compliant, and that certain product categories are entirely non-compliant. The broad range of products covered by the CEC’s efficiency standards may be partly to blame for the lack of compliance, as manufacturers may not even realize their product must comply. For example, the efficiency standards encompass nearly every device with a rechargeable battery and that rechargeable battery system, meaning everything from cell phones to laptops to tablets to golf carts must be tested, certified and listed in the CEC’s database before being offered for sale in California.
Over the last decade, regulators have accelerated their focus on vapor intrusion risk at hazardous cleanup sites. This has led to new cleanup standards, policies and guidance to evaluate potential risks, environmental investigation requirements for brownfield redevelopments, and the reopening of previously closed remedial actions. Recently, attention has turned from chronic to acute vapor intrusion risk. Although protection of human health is paramount, this recent focus has been plagued with concerns about the validity of the underlying science and a lack of comprehensive guidance from regulators on how to respond. This article explores the evolution of vapor intrusion regulation, particularly developments addressing acute risk, as well as trends in vapor intrusion- related litigation.
On August 23, the Department of Energy (DOE) released a study entitled “Staff Report to the Secretary on Energy Markets and Reliability.” This is the so-called “DOE grid study” that Secretary of Energy Rick Perry ordered his chief of staff Brian McCormack to produce in an April 14 memorandum, noting that “Over the last few years...grid experts have expressed concerns about the erosion of critical baseload resources.”
These concerns have been simmering for several years. As the US Environmental Protection Agency was developing the rule that became the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)—prompted by then-Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Ranking Republican Lisa Murkowski—held a multi-day meeting to evaluate potential electric reliability impacts from anticipated closings of coal-fired power plants prompted by the rule.
On August 15, 2017, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit (DC Circuit) issued its decision in Sierra Club v. Department of Energy (Freeport),[1] denying Sierra Club’s challenge to the Department of Energy’s (DOE) order authorizing export under the Natural Gas Act of 1938 (NGA) from the proposed Freeport Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Terminal in Freeport, Texas. The decision marks yet another victory in a string of successes for supporters of LNG export.
Several presidential administrations have sought to shorten the lengthy process for obtaining federal authorizations and permits, with particular attention on infrastructure projects that usually require multiple federal permits with accompanying environmental reviews. Despite consistent interest in improving this process, delays persist, in part because of how courts have interpreted the level of analysis required during these environmental reviews. This past Tuesday, President Trump issued a new Executive Order (EO) 13807: “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects.” As this EO is implemented, the big question is: How much relief can this or any other executive action provide?
On August 10, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) officially regained its quorum when Robert Powelson was formally sworn in as a commissioner. Mr. Powelson joins fellow Republican Neil Chatterjee and Democrat Cheryl LaFleur at the agency. It was also announced that Mr. Chatterjee would be FERC’s new chairman pending the expected Senate confirmation of Republican nominee Kevin McIntyre as chairman in the fall.
At full strength, FERC has five members, but three are the minimum legally required to conduct much agency business. FERC lost its quorum in early February when former Chairman Norman Bay resigned after Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur was elevated to chairman. In addition, former Commissioner Colette Honorable stepped down at the end of June, leaving LaFleur as the sole Commissioner. For the last six months, FERC staff has handled various routine matters under delegated authority, but FERC has been unable to act in contested proceedings.
In recent years, plaintiffs’ attorneys and public-interest groups have brought common law actions seeking injunctive relief or damages for air emissions they claim cause climate change. Because climate change is a global phenomenon, these actions have targeted both in-state and out-of-state sources. Does state common law reach this far?
A state’s common law is founded in its police powers, which are among the powers that the Constitution generally reserved to the states. By contrast, the Constitution specifically delegates to Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. A state’s police powers therefore do not extend beyond its borders. For this reason, the Supreme Court in the last century discovered a limited “federal” common law to address interstate pollution at a time when there were no federal laws regulating such interstate concerns. Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 241 (1901). As the Court observed, “[i]f state law can be applied, there is no need for federal common law; if federal common law exists, it is because state law cannot be used.” City of Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304, 314 n.7 (1981) (Milwaukee II).
The good news about the Process Safety Management (PSM) standard is that it is a performance-based standard. The bad news about PSM, well, is that it is a performance-based standard. While it provides the operator some flexibility on complying, it can often lead to being second-guessed by an agency. Not only does the operator have to comply with the regulations, the operator must comply with and document compliance with relevant codes and standards or Recognized and Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices (RAGAGEP). These include widely adopted codes such as the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), consensus documents such as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), non-consensus documents such as the Chlorine Institute (CI) and in most cases Internal Standards.
The Superfund program is much criticized for good reason on many grounds. It takes too long to investigate sites and decide on the appropriate cleanup. The costs for investigation and cleanup actions are excessive. The process is seemingly never-ending as contaminated sites languish on the National Priorities List for decades.
Streamlining the process is a worthwhile goal, but equally important would be reforms to promote remedy decisions that take account of the fact the resources are not unlimited. Money spent on cleanup is not available for another purpose. Unfortunately, because of its single-minded focus on often remote human health and ecological risks associated with exposures to chemical contaminants (usually based on highly conservative exposure assumptions), the Superfund program drives a lot of resources to cleanup that likely would be better allocated to another use.
In August 2014, residents of Toledo lost the use of tap water for two days because of a toxic algal bloom in the western basin of Lake Erie, which is their water source. In subsequent summers, the lake’s algal blooms have been smaller, but they remain a persistent phenomenon. In fact, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is predicting a significant cyanobacteria algal bloom in western Lake Erie this summer.
Numerous definitions of “harmful algal blooms” exist, but they generally can be understood as excessive growths of various species of phytoplankton, protists, cyanobacteria, or macro and benthic algae that negatively impact water quality, aquatic ecosystem stability, or animal and human health. The blooms may be toxic or nontoxic. Even nontoxic blooms can have repercussions for drinking water treatment, recreational use of the waterbody, and the overall economy.
Since President Trump’s inauguration and the beginning of Scott Pruitt’s tenure as administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), much of the focus of Clean Air Act activity in the new administration has been on global climate change issues. As more time passes, however, EPA is beginning to address other areas of Clean Air Act regulatory policy, and, in some respects at least, charting a new course that departs from the record of the Obama administration. One of the areas to which EPA has started to give renewed attention is the regional haze program.
Throughout the Obama administration, federal officials from the President on down touted an “all of the above” approach to energy policy. At the same time, they pressed forward with environmental regulations—climate change rules in particular—that would have made a seismic shift in the role fossil fuels play in the nation’s energy mix.
We all know the Trump administration is poised to make major changes. A shakeup for the EPA was a consistent theme of the Trump campaign. The President made things official in March when he signed an executive order that, among other things, called for a “review” of the Clean Power Plan (CPP), the EPA’s program to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants, and a proposed rule regarding the CPP is now under review at the White House Office of Management and Budget. The administration has also announced plans to cut the EPA’s budget, to take a new “red team-blue team” approach to climate change science, and to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord. That’s quite a lot of activity for an administration that is often accused of moving too slowly.
Earlier this week, July 4, 2017, was the nation’s 241st birthday. In Washington, DC, and in countless other places across the country, the event was celebrated with dazzling fireworks displays. My childhood days are long behind me. But, a good fireworks display still evokes awe and gives me goose bumps. Although fireworks are synonymous with the 4th of July, Americans are not alone in their appreciation of fireworks. All across the globe—from Europe, to Asia, to South America and back again—fireworks are a universal symbol of celebration.
In a closely watched case, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last week dismissed an interstate natural gas pipeline company’s challenge to the State of New York’s delay in issuing a water quality certification under section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) for the Millennium pipeline project. While the company requested a ruling that the state had waived its right to make a decision on water quality certification for the project, the court decided to dismiss the action – holding that even if the state agency’s lengthy delays did constitute a waiver under CWA section 401, there was no cognizable injury to the company that would give it standing to challenge the delays in court. Rather, according to the court, the remedy is for the company to present evidence of waiver directly to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to seek authorization to begin construction of the project. The case is one of several pending across the country that involve a state’s authority to issue, deny, or waive a CWA water quality certification for interstate natural gas pipeline projects.
Despite oil already flowing through the pipeline, federal litigation involving the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) took another turn last week when partial summary judgment was granted to tribes challenging the adequacy of the US Army Corps of Engineers’ review of DAPL under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other statutes. Two tribes, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, filed suit in July 2016 attempting to block construction of the last remaining segment and operation of DAPL. As sometimes is the case, agency approvals came faster than the court’s opinion, and without a stay of proceedings DAPL began operating in early June 2017. Having granted partial summary judgment, the court did not require pipeline operations to cease, instead delaying the question of an appropriate remedy until after further briefing by the parties.
A new policy directive issued earlier this week by the Department of Justice (Justice) has raised concern among regulated industry that the availability of Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) in civil settlements could be severely reduced, or even largely eliminated. If the directive is applied to restrict the availability of SEPs, it would remove a useful, and at times powerful, tool routinely used by the regulated community to negotiate acceptable settlement agreements in civil enforcement actions. It could also eliminate tens of millions of dollars of annual funding of such projects—which typically benefit local communities or address niche environmental issues—currently provided through the use of SEPs in consent decrees. Because applicable policies preclude Justice from requiring parties to include SEPs in settlements, it is difficult to identify any upside in any potential narrowing or elimination of SEPs as an optional tool to assist in the resolution of civil environmental enforcement actions.
Just before President Trump announced his decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, California is moving ahead with new greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations, making good on its commitment to continue its path regardless of what goes on in Washington, DC. This week, the Board of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) held a special meeting to consider a controversial new regulation targeting oil refineries. If adopted, as planned at the June 21, 2017, Board public hearing, Regulation 12, Rule 16: Petroleum Refining Facility-Wide Emissions Limits (Rule 12-16) would establish first-of-its-kind, refinery-specific, facility-wide caps on emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). The proposed caps limit refinery emissions to seven percent above recent operating levels.
Over the past several years, the EPA and states have wrestled with the highly controversial question of how to manage ash and other residual materials produced by the combustion of coal in coal-fired power plants. These so-called “coal combustion residuals” (“CCR”) have been traditionally managed in large man-made ponds at many power plant sites. While discharges from these impoundments directly to surface waters are regulated by permits issued under the Clean Water Act, the impoundments themselves have been regulated under state waste management programs. In 2015, EPA fundamentally changed the regulatory landscape for these facilities when it promulgated a federal rule setting national standards for design, operation and closure of CCR impoundments. EPA, Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities, 80 Fed. Reg. 21,302 (Apr. 17, 2015).
The effects of the regulatory reform initiatives of the Trump Administration are beginning to be felt at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) with the formal action by OSHA to finalize withdrawal of the “Volks Rule” regulation. On May 3, 2017, in response to a CRA resolution of disapproval, OSHA published a final rule removing amendments to OSHA’s recordkeeping regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations.
A common question that we all ask whenever we meet someone new in a social setting is “what do you do?” This seemingly innocuous question always makes me brace myself for the inevitable exchange that will follow. When I say that I am an environmental attorney, the next question is almost always whether I work for the “good” or “bad” guys. The clear assumption in this question is that environmental advocacy groups are “good,” while industry parties are “bad.” But is this issue really that black and white? Based on my experience, no. The issue is far from being that simplistic.
In a series of orders this week, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit granted motions by EPA to pause cases challenging several Obama-era regulatory actions while the new administration reviews those rules. With those cases on hold, the dispute over the fate of those rules will move out of the courts and into the administrative process.
In 1980, a lame duck Congress passed the nation’s first legislation, the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq. (CERCLA), to address the cleanup of toxic waste disposal sites. Comprehensive amendments were passed six years later. Over the next 30 years, EPA’s enforcement powers were used with increasing regularity and consistency to study, begin, and often complete cleanups at hundreds of the nation’s contaminated waste sites. The program has always had its critics, but not until the current administration has there been a fundamental reassessment of its basic cost-benefit structure, just as is being done with many other federal programs.
On April 11, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit canceled oral argument, which had been scheduled for April 19, in several consolidated cases challenging EPA’s 2015 revision of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone. The court took this action, and ordered that the case be held in abeyance, in response to an EPA motion asking that oral argument be continued, to give the appropriate Trump administration officials adequate time to review those standards. EPA’s motion indicated that the new administration is deciding whether to reconsider them.
What is the regulatory significance of the court’s action?
President Trump released his budget request for fiscal year 2018 on March 16. The budget blueprint, or “skinny budget” as it is being called, holds fairly flat the federal spending for programs other than entitlements. It requests a significant increase in defense spending that is offset by cuts to nondefense discretionary spending.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) faces drastic cuts, equaling nearly a third of its budget. This would bring the EPA’s total budget to levels not seen since 1990.
You’ve likely heard that just hours after the inauguration, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus issued a Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies captioned “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review.” The so-called Regulatory Freeze Memo sought to freeze midnight actions by the Obama administration. In response to President Trump’s freeze actions and expected regulatory reforms, California lawmakers are seeking to issue their own “freeze” to ensure regulations in place just before the transition remain effective in California. On top of that, California legislators have been introducing a series of bills designed to “insulate the state from dangerous rollbacks in federal environmental regulations and public health protections,” including:
- SB 49, entitled The California Environmental, Public Health, and Workers Defense Act of 2017, related to retaining all pre-Trump environmental regulations.
- AB 1646, related to website posting of petroleum refinery risk management plans (RMP) on public agency websites and establishment of emergency notification equipment.
- AB 1647, related to air monitoring for petroleum refineries.
- AB 1648, related to increasing CalOSHA’s refinery inspection resources.
- AB 1649, related to codification of Governor Brown’s Refinery Task Force.
- SB 584, related to speeding up the RPS 50 percent renewable goal by five years and setting a new 100 percent renewable goal at 2045.
Since 2013, EPA’s enforcement office has been promoting an initiative it terms Next Generation Compliance. In common parlance, the term “next generation” refers to the next stage of development or version of something. The term inherently suggests improvement – a better mousetrap, for example. Who would object to such progress? Several recent applications of EPA’s “Next Gen” strategy illustrate that, as with most things in life, the devil is in the details.
On February 28, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) that sets into motion a process for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (jointly, the “Agencies”) to review the Obama Administration’s Waters of the US (WOTUS) Rule. 80 Fed. Reg. 37,054 (June 29, 2015). The EO directs the Agencies to review the WOTUS Rule for consistency with the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the policies set forth in the EO, stating that “[i]t is in the national interest to ensure that the Nation’s navigable waters are kept free from pollution,” while at the same time “promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty, and showing due regard for the roles played by Congress and the States under the Constitution.” Following review, the EO instructs the Agencies to publish, as appropriate, a proposed rule for notice and comment rescinding or revising the WOTUS Rule.
Congress has been working diligently on comprehensive tax reform proposals to be passed through the budget reconciliation process following passage of the 2018 budget resolution. Lowering the corporate and individual tax rates will require offsets like repealing certain tax credits available to corporations. What is unclear is whether repeal of some tax credits might be retroactive in effect, which would raise arguments of unfairness for companies that have detrimentally relied on current law.
As previous Nickel Report posts have discussed, congressional efforts to rein in freewheeling agency interpretation and reinterpretation of ambiguous statutes have begun to intensify, and calls to reconsider Chevron deference have increased from both within the judiciary and without. One of the most vocal and eloquent critics of Chevron and its progeny, notably Mead and Brand X, is Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee to fill the current Supreme Court vacancy. In Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2016), Judge Gorsuch penned an exhaustive and erudite analysis of the tension between the separation of powers that the US Constitution demands and the deference that Chevron and Brand X require courts to afford to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, even if those interpretations differ from those previously announced by the courts.
In January, the US Army Corps of Engineers published the final 2017 nationwide permits (NWPs), renewing a critical permitting tool for both the government and the regulated community. To comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act), projects with minimal adverse environmental effects can obtain authorization for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States through the Corps’ streamlined NWP process. The Corps reissued all 50 of the 2012 NWPs, issued two new NWPs, one new General Condition and made a number of notable revisions.
This week President Donald Trump issued an executive order (EO) making good on vows to reduce regulations coming out of Washington. The Presidential Executive Order on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs sets two objectives — first, to eliminate two old regulations for every new one promulgated and, second, to impose a cap on the economic costs of regulations each year.
President Trump has already issued several executive memoranda directing federal agencies to expedite environmental reviews and approvals for all infrastructure projects (as noted in our post yesterday), with emphasis on high-priority matters, such as pipeline construction and an aim to boost steel manufacturing in the United States. Specifically, he seeks to renew and expedite the approval of two oil pipeline construction projects, the Keystone XL Pipeline (Keystone) and the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). He has further directed the Commerce Department to prepare a plan under which all new and repaired pipe used in the United States would be manufactured stateside.
Yesterday President Trump signed several Executive Orders (EOs) and Presidential Memoranda designed to speed environmental permitting and reviews. Among them is an EO to “Expedite Reviews and Approvals for High Priority Infrastructure Projects.” While past administrations have recognized the costs and delays of federal environmental permitting and encouraged timely decisions by regulatory agencies (e.g., EOs 13,212, 13,274 and EO 13,604), President Trump’s EO reflects a new sense of determination by the White House to move important infrastructure projects forward. The EO reflects a recognition that major infrastructure projects trigger an array of overlapping environmental and natural resource laws and requirements.
On Friday, January 20, President Trump’s Chief of Staff Reince Priebus issued a memorandum to executive branch department and agency heads placing an immediate hold on federal regulations that are under development.
This regulatory “freeze” has become standard practice in recent Administrations. In 2009, President Obama issued a temporary halt to regulations being developed by the outgoing George W. Bush Administration. In 2001, President Bush issued a temporary stay on regulations under development by the outgoing Clinton Administration. New presidents want to ensure that federal regulations reflect their policies and priorities.
The U.S. Supreme Court is not the only one keen on taking a closer look at deference to agency interpretations. Just as the Supreme Court will have an opportunity “to rein in a particularly aggressive use of agency deference” later this year, the House of Representatives is also set to take aim at judicial deference to agency interpretations through the recently proposed Regulatory Accountability Act (the Act) — a compilation of several earlier reform bills. A similar act was proposed last July and passed the House, but was ultimately not considered by the Senate. With the new incoming administration, however, the Act may have an increased chance of success.
Just before Christmas, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released controversial regulations, titled Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs under the Clean Air Act; Prepublication Final Rule, that EPA states will “modernize” the Clean Air Act Section 112(r)(7) Risk Management Program (RMP) regulations. These 1990s-era regulations, covering about 12,500 facilities across the country, require that facilities storing certain amounts of specified chemicals develop risk management plans to prevent the accidental release of those substances into the air and mitigate impacts of accidental releases that do occur. EPA initiated these RMP rule revisions under the directive of President Obama’s August 1, 2013, Executive Order (EO) 13650, Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security. After proposal on March 14, 2016, EPA received more than 44,000 comments, making rule issuance in just over six months’ time remarkable, especially given that the final rule and response to comments total about 600 pages.
[caption id="attachment_154" align="alignnone" width="300"] Photo by Alfonso Cuchi[/caption]
From the look of things, California is gearing up for a fight.
During the campaign, President-Elect Trump promised to redirect EPA’s focus away from climate change, with a greater emphasis on clean air and clean water. As part of this pledge, he vowed to dismantle the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) and roll back EPA regulations, which he sees as hampering U.S. competitiveness.
California sees things differently. On January 4, California’s Legislature announced it had hired Eric H. Holder Jr., President Obama’s former U.S. Attorney General, as outside counsel to lead the state’s legal challenges to the incoming administration on a number of fronts, including the environment. In a joint statement, the Legislature explained, “With the upcoming change in administrations, we expect that there will be extraordinary challenges for California in the uncertain times ahead. . . . This is a critical moment in the history of our nation. We have an obligation to defend the people who elected us and the policies and diversity that make California an example of what truly makes our nation great.”
Executive Branch agencies write vague rules. Then they give them meaning through interpretation. That meaning may change over time through re-interpretation. Indeed, it is not hard to find examples of rules that meant one thing one day and the opposite the next. See, e.g., Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015). This is a problem for regulated entities that face penalties for failure to comply. Reflecting such concerns, the deference doctrine has eroded slowly over the past two decades, with pronounced critical commentary from conservative Justices. In October 2016, the Supreme Court granted review in a case from the Fourth Circuit -- GG v. Gloucester County School Board (cert. granted Oct. 28, 2016)—where the court gave “controlling weight” to a staff interpretation of a Department of Labor (“DOL”) regulation. In Gloucester County, the Court will have an opportunity to rein in a particularly aggressive use of agency deference. Does this case presage more comprehensive review of the Court’s deference jurisprudence? And what does it portend for the Trump Administration’s efforts to reverse Obama Administration regulatory priorities?
Recently, several of the environmental attorneys in our Washington office gathered together to sign holiday cards. During the festivities, the song “Hard Candy Christmas” by Dolly Parton played, leading to a spirited discussion of what did the words “a hard candy Christmas” mean? Was this type of Christmas good or bad? Was this song happy or sad?
On Monday, December 19, the US Environmental Protection Agency released its enforcement and compliance annual results for fiscal year 2016 (FY 2016). The results compile environmental enforcement statistics for the final year of the Obama administration.
As the presidential transition draws nearer, many have asked what the change in administration will mean for the enforcement of our nation’s environmental laws. The Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Interior, Army Corps of Engineers, US Coast Guard and other agencies are all tasked with enforcement responsibilities under the major federal environmental statutes. The future of environmental enforcement under the incoming Trump administration thus depends on the future of each of these agencies.
Should environmental groups or citizens be able to file lawsuits against their governments to force them to step up action to fight climate change? Some climate activists have claimed that resorting to judicial remedies is necessary because, in their opinion, the political system focuses on short-term economic interests to the detriment of long-term environmental concerns. Attempts to involve the courts in climate policy decision making have had very limited success, but a recent decision in The Netherlands may reinvigorate those efforts.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) recently issued the first Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) of the Obama Administration. RGLs were developed by the Corps as a means of providing written, mandatory guidance to field offices, and are normally issued as a result of evolving policy, judicial decisions, and/or changes to the Corps’ regulations that affect the Corps’ permit program.
With Republican control of the executive and legislative branches of government after the November 8 election, attention has turned to the Congressional Review Act and its powers to “get rid of the regulations that are just destroying us,” in the words of President-elect Trump.
The Congressional Review Act (CRA or the Act) was enacted in 1996. It is a tool for Congress to exercise authority over executive and independent agencies, allowing Congress to override an agency’s final action by passing a joint resolution of disapproval.
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