“Move Not Away from Struggle, But from Stillness”

Posted on July 13, 2017 by Renee Cipriano

Out of struggle and challenges comes a brighter future.  For environmental practitioners, the time is now to engage in struggle. 

I witnessed firsthand the creation and evolution of the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS).  Back in 1994, ECOS was the brainchild of several state environmental commissioners, including Mary Gade, the then Director of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.  In ECOS’s early years, the federal-state relationship was evolving, and state regulatory sophistication could not be denied.  The path to create a strong state organization with meaning was not easy and the young organization was forced to deal many struggles coming into its own.  As Ms. Gade explained in a 1996 American Bar Association article published in Natural Resources & the Environment, Winter 1996, “[t]he states were coming of age.  The formation of ECOS is a quantum leap forward in the ongoing shift in the balance of responsibility for protecting the nation’s environment.” She continued, “ECOS may not seem at all exceptional, yet more than any other environmental organization, it embodies the rising environmental leadership of states and the long overdue transfer of power in the federal–state relationship.”

Challenges and struggles have characterized the federal-state partnership upon which the nation’s regulatory system was built. The formation of ECOS helped the states collaborate and deal with the struggles together head on.  Today, no question exists that states are primarily responsible for the administration of environmental laws in this country, assuming more than 96% of the delegable authorities under federal law.  The states are on the frontline of enforcement, permitting, innovation and streamlining efforts.  The public looks to them first for answers.  Industry relies on the states to be effective partners, balancing the needs of industry and the public while allowing industry to run operations efficiently and in compliance.

Over the life of ECOS, state environmental regulators have been delegated more responsibility for environmental protection, education and enforcement but the resources provided them have measurably decreased.  Federal monies dedicated to financially support state programs have declined and are jeopardized further by proposed budget cuts.  At the same time, state elected officials face their own budget crises.  In response, state environmental protection agencies are being challenged to operate with little to no state funding and instead rely on federal funding and increased fees imposed on regulated entities.

With funding issues looming larger today than ever, there is a need to revisit both our national approach to environmental protection and, whether we are effectively enlisting the federal-state partnership to avoid staff duplication, regulatory confusion and resource waste.  For example, states and stakeholders should be able to rely on the state’s implementation of federally approved state programs without facing contrary interpretations from U.S. EPA.  Some state decisions are scrutinized repeatedly, with no meaningful purpose or resulting benefit; sometimes years after decisions are made. Stakeholders should be able to expect that if U.S. EPA identifies a deficiency in the state administration of a delegated program, U.S EPA will act swiftly under the authority granted to it by Congress to demand a fix to deficiency and approve the state’s modification just as timely.  And states should be able to rely on U.S. EPA to ensure that state delegated programs it approves set a level playing field across the nation to avoid disadvantaging economic growth in one state simply because another state’s approved program does not quite meet U.S. EPA’s interpretation of federal standards.

This brings us to the current Administration’s work around regulatory reform.  See President Trump, E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (Jan. 30, 2017); President Trump, E.O. 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda” (Feb. 24, 2017); EPA, Evaluation of Existing Regulations (Apr. 13, 2017).  Although many see “regulatory reform” under a Pruitt U.S. EPA as the end of environmental protection, I prefer to see it as an opportunity to examine holistically our current environmental regulatory framework and identify innovative ways to build on our environmental successes.  Even more importantly, I also see it as an opportunity to reinvigorate the national conversation around the federal-state relationship and embrace more fully the unparalleled state leadership we have in our country.  There is a rightful place for both U.S. EPA and the states as we move towards addressing our future environmental challenges but we can no longer support or afford duplication and burden without purpose.

In June, 2017, ECOS issued a document entitled COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM 2.0: Achieving and maintaining a Clean Environmental and Protecting Public Health.  Under the leadership of Executive Director and General Counsel Alexandra Dunn, and through a consensus based process among members of ECOS, this blueprint for the future presents both the principles that should guide the federal-state relationship and lists the important “policy neutral issues” where application of cooperative federalism could be focused.  This document is not only insightful but timely and provides the opportunity for positive reforms that will allow the nation to continue its great work of environmental protection into the future.  It is a must read.

My yoga teacher always tells the class to “move away from struggle” when she is challenging us with new and different yoga moves. I find though, that unless I struggle, my moves will never improve.   Engaging in the process of change can be a struggle—from start to finish.  But we cannot do better if we don’t.  The national conversation is now, and we are only wasting our opportunity for an even better environmental regulatory system for the future if we decide to move away from struggle and move to stillness.

NGOs 1, Trump EPA 0: The First Skirmish in the Great Environmental Rollback War Goes to the Greens

Posted on July 11, 2017 by Seth Jaffe

Last week, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals handed environmentalists at least a temporary win in what I think was the first case to reach judicial decision in Scott Pruitt’s great environmental roll-back tour of 2017.  The Court rejected EPA’s effort to stay the effective date of the New Source Performance Standards for fugitive emissions from oil and natural gas operations, pending EPA’s reconsideration of certain aspects of the Obama-era rule.

Notwithstanding Judge Brown’s dissent, EPA’s position on the merits seemed barely credible.  I understand the argument that the stay was not final agency action and thus not judiciable.  It just doesn’t seem compelling to me.  If EPA had amended to rule to extend the compliance deadlines, that clearly would have been subject to judicial review.  Why should the answer be different because EPA styles its action as a stay, rather than a revision to the regulations?  The impact is exactly the same.

As to EPA’s position that the four issues which it was reconsidering could not have been addressed during the original rulemaking by the industry groups now seeking reconsideration, EPA’s position was almost embarrassing.  As the Court repeatedly demonstrated, not only could the industry groups have addressed the issues during the original rulemaking, but they actually did so.  Moreover, EPA did consider those comments and, at least in parts, adopted them in the final rule.  My favorite example is the court’s discussion regarding the criteria for exemption for well-site pneumatic pumps.  As the Court noted:

[The American Petroleum Institute] … proposed precisely the technical infeasibility language EPA adopted in the final rule, suggested that an engineer certify technical infeasibility, and justified its proposed exemption based on a lengthy description of why existing sites were not designed to “handle” EPA’s proposal.

The record thus belies EPA’s claim that no industry group had an opportunity to comment on the “scope and parameters” of the pneumatic pump exemption.

The real question at this point is whether this decision is any kind of harbinger.  Practitioners know that the record of the Bush EPA in rolling back Clinton rules was shockingly poor, given Chevron deference.  Are we going to see the same again?  The Court threw EPA what could prove to be a rather large fig leaf by noting that the decision does not prevent EPA from reconsidering the methane rule.  The Court also quoted FCC v. Fox Television Stations – the same case on which EPA is relying in its rollback of the WOTUS rule:

[EPA] is free to [reconsider the rule] as long as “the new policy is permissible under the statute.., there are good reasons for it, and … the agency believes it to be better.”

This is where the battles are going to be fought over the next several years.

Comprehensive Study of Impacts of Shale Development Released

Posted on June 28, 2017 by Kinnan Golemon

A report, Environmental and Community Impacts of Shale Development in Texas was released by The Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas (TAMEST) to the public on June 19, 2017 (1). TAMEST is a nonprofit and brain trust for Texas composed of Texas-based members of the National Academics of Sciences, Engineering and Medicines and the state’s Nobel Laureates.  This entity was the original idea of my law school classmate and friend, Honorable Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, in 2004. The recently released report is the product of the TAMEST Board decision in 2015 to organize a task force charged with writing a report to “collect the best science available and summarize what we do and do not know” about environmental and community impacts that are posed by new technologies for the extraction of hydrocarbons from shale and other tight rock formations.

Texas, although oil had already been produced at various locations within its boundaries, became a dominant entity in oil and gas production on January 10, 1901, when the Lucas Gusher at the Spindletop salt dome in Jefferson County, roared to the surface: soon producing 100,000 barrels of oil per day, more than all U.S. wells combined (2). Oil and Gas production for the next 100 years was driven by “conventional” vertical well technology seeking resources from porous formations. However, commencing in the late 1980s and through the 1990s, a company founded by an affable, brilliant, tenacious and innovative son of immigrant Greek parents, George Mitchell, undertook an extended effort to access organic resources trapped in shale and very tight rock formations. After many years of limited or no success, Mitchell Energy, by century end, had demonstrated that certain hydraulic fracturing strategies [i.e. well completion techniques similar to those used since the late 1940s] (3) could be deployed in organic rich formations to produce natural gas economically.

Mitchell Energy’s acquisition by Devon Energy in 2002 resulted in another known technology, horizontal well drilling, being deployed along with hydraulic fracturing to produce the basic technological template that is utilized for shale development of oil and gas throughout the U.S., and currently being deployed elsewhere in the world today (4). The production from shale has also resulted in the largest transformation of the U.S. petrochemical industry in a generation, with $185 billion in new U.S. petrochemical projects either under construction or in planning (5).

Those interested in current and future energy policy, as well as the economic, social and environmental impacts associated with modern-day fossil fuel extraction and production, will find this authoritative, comprehensive and well-written report, see http://www.tamest.org, to be far more enlightening than one gains from other current information sources.

Interestingly, a portion of the funding for the report was provided by the Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation, a mission-driven grantmaking foundation that seeks innovative sustainable solutions for human and environmental problems that was established prior to his death (6).

 

  1. The Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas, 2017, Environmental and Community Impacts of Shale Development in Texas. Austin, TX: The Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas. Doi: 10.25238/TAMEST stf.6.2017
  2. www.history.com/topics/spindletop
  3. Society of Professional Engineers (SPE) CD ROM https://www.store.com/spe.org/Legend of-Hydraulic Fracturing-P.433.aspx
  4. https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2014/03/shale-development-global-update-v2.pdf
  5. Christopher M. Mathews. “Shale Boom’s Impact in One Word: Plastics”. Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2017, A1.
  6. http://cgmf.org/p/founders.html

The Takings Line is Bent

Posted on June 26, 2017 by Brian Rosenthal

In an expansive review of regulatory takings, the Supreme Court reiterates governments must pay when overly impinging individual property rights by regulatory means, resulting in compensable takings.  The Court announces a flexible approach to analyze the private party’s parcel deemed taken by regulatory action (past or present).  Particularly, but not exclusively, when more than one parcel is involved as was the case before the Court, a new test emerges to define the taken parcel. The test includes consideration of the landowner’s expectations.  

The dissenters believe the Court for the first time strays away from its precedential findings on the whole parcel in issue as defined under state law, and predict the new multi-factor parcel review test will “tip the scales in favor of the government” for uncompensated takings by allowing the government to frame the taking as reasonable as it relates to the defined parcel and burden.

The majority is equally passionate, noting its test mitigates against the government’s unchecked usurpation and sometimes over-eager use of private property rights in the guise of the greater good.  The Court suggests “[p]roperty rights are necessary to preserve freedom” and supports its test as best suited for that protection.

The case involved a state’s restricting the development of lots on a protected river to those of a certain size, and resulted from unique circumstances where the property owners had come into possession of adjacent lots, each individually failing the development requirement.  Analyzing the facts under a multi-step review, the Court found the lots retained their economic value as a whole and supported a “no compensable taking” finding by looking at the following factors:

  1. No complete loss of economic value [might be non-compensable even if a complete loss where state property and nuisance laws would be deemed legitimately and commonly understood as a fair counterbalance to the regulatory taking (perhaps like wetlands restrictions)];

  2. Land treatment under governing state and local real estate law (how and where bounded);

  3. Physical characteristics (including topography and both its human and ecological features, such as if it were a coastal property or, as  here, a scenic river);

  4. Value (including any opportunities the burden may create, such as preserving a vista or greenspace or relationship of the lots); and

  5. Reasonable expectations of the landowners.

This case has been closely watched by both land use practitioners and regulating governments and municipalities.  Its implications reach squarely to environmental laws and regulations such as water regulations and use and development restrictions.

Is It a Dividend? Is It a Tax? Could President Trump Care Less?

Posted on June 26, 2017 by Seth Jaffe

In February, I posted about the formation of the Climate Leadership Council and its push for what it calls its “Carbon Dividend” plan.  In essence, it’s a gradually increasing carbon tax.  The plan would be revenue neutral, with the proceeds being returned to taxpayers.  Thus, the name.  I loved the idea and I still love it.  I particularly love that the tax starts at $40/ton – that’s a serious number.

However, as I noted in February, the founders of the CLC are a who’s who of the old-line GOP establishment – precisely those whom President Trump would generally refer to as “losers”, unless he could spare the time to come up with something more derogatory.

The CLC has now brought on a number of corporate heavyweights, including GM and four of the world’s largest oil and gas companies (BP, ExxonMobil, Shell, and Total), among others.  They published their support in a Wall Street Journal ad.  In a cheerful bit of optimism, the program is now called “The Consensus Climate Solution.”  The ad describes the plan as “Pro-Environment, Pro-Growth, Pro-Jobs, Pro-Competitiveness, Pro-Business and Pro-National Security.”  Who could be against it?  Here’s a hint.  I think that the tag line would work better if phrased as follows:

Pro-Environment, Pro-Trump, Pro-Growth, Pro-Trump, Pro-Jobs, Pro-Trump, Pro-Competitiveness, Pro-Trump, Pro-Business, Pro-Trump, and Pro-National Security (and Pro-Trump)

Seriously, this is no time for cynicism.  This is a great plan.  A tax starting at $40/ton would have real impact.  (The most recent RGGI auction price?  $2.53/ton.)  As I noted earlier this week, we need smart people of good will and of all political stripes advocating solutions if we’re going to get anywhere.

Trump may call you losers, but, men and woman of the CLC, I salute you!

The Annual Texas Environmental Superconference—Austin in August?

Posted on June 26, 2017 by Jeff Civins

The Texas Environmental Superconference is one of a kind. Held each year in Austin in sweltering early August, this conference consistently sells out, attracting over 500 participants from the public and private sectors.Indeed, now in its 29th year, it was the winner of the first American Bar Association Section of Environment, Energy & Resources (ABA SEER) award for Best State or Local Bar Environment, Energy and Resources Program of the Year.

The key to the conference’s popularity is its unabashed willingness to integrate humor into content--with annual themes, skits, quizzes, prizes, and, for the past several years, even a conference song.Past themes have included Yogi Berra quotes (“It’s like déjà vu all over again”); Clichés (“The best thing since sliced bread”); Shakespeare (“Much Ado About Pollution”); “Star Wars (“May the farce be with you”); and Willie Nelson songs (“On the Road Again”).Dwarfing all other past conferences, though, was the Disney movie-themed conference, which featured the song “SuperconferenceAustinTexasExpialidocious” and is the subject of 2 You Tube videos. (introductory remarks and conference song).

Speakers generally weave the conference themes into their presentations and, on occasion, even appear in costume.For example, an EPA chief of enforcement appeared as Harry Truman in the politically-themed conference, “Join the Party,” and as Darth Vader, in the Star Wars-themed program. And an EPA General Counsel appeared as a tiara-wearing Wonder Woman in the super hero-themed program.A former EPA Regional Administrator and TCEQ Chairman appeared variously as the Beatles, the Odd Couple, Game Show contestants, and Yoda and Luke Skywalker.

This year’s conference – to be held on Thursday-Friday, August 4-5, 2017 – has as its theme board games and is entitled “Let the Games Begin.”The Wednesday evening session on enforcement is entitled “Trouble.”Registration is at Environmental Superconference-2017.

Participants look forward to attending each year for the chance not only to experience a fun and informative program, but also to network and to informally discuss issues of concern with other environmental professionals representing diverse perspectives, e.g., private and public sectors; regulators, regulated community, and environmental organizations; legal and technical professionals; and local, state, and federal governments.

The conference is organized by the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Section of the State Bar of Texas, in conjunction with other environmental professional organizations, including ABA SEER, the Air & Waste Management Association—Southwest Section, the Water Environment Association of Texas, the Texas Association of Environmental Professionals, and the Environmental Health and Safety Audit Center.Proceeds from the conference are used to fund environmental internships, student writing awards, and section outreach programs.

Thanks to a generous contribution from Supporter, EARTHx (formerly Earth Day Texas), the Superconference this year is offering –and last year offered--scholarships for employees of non-profit organizations with environmental matters as a significant focus.

The Annual Texas Environmental Superconference is the answer to the question, why come to Austin in early August?

Coal and Climate Change: An Opportunity for U.S. Technology Leadership

Posted on June 19, 2017 by William Brownell

It’s been a rough decade for coal in the United States. The advent of hydraulic fracturing in shale formations made natural gas plentiful and cheap. Concern over climate change fueled scores of new policies intended to accelerate growth in renewables and push aging coal units off the grid. U.S. coal consumption peaked in 2007, declining approximately 30 percent by 2015. A year later, five of the largest coal companies in the United States declared bankruptcy.

But it was a pretty good decade for coal in the rest of the world. Coal consumption grew by nearly 50 percent in China, which in 2013 was consuming nearly as much coal as the rest of the world combined. India similarly saw its coal use nearly double over the past ten years. This demonstrated a broader trend around the world: the top 20 coal-using nations were burning 23 percent more coal by 2015 than in 2005. 

If there’s been a war on coal, from a global perspective, coal is winning – and it hasn’t been close. As Charles Mann wrote in Wired in 2014: “In fact, a lump of coal is a thoroughly ubiquitous 21st-century artifact, as much an emblem of our time as the iPhone.”

Any discussion about coal, of course, is inextricably tied to questions about climate policy, with its most ardent proponents looking not just to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but to eliminate fossil fuels altogether. And indeed, by the end of 2015, it looked as though climate policies, and a combination of other factors, would bend the curve of global coal consumption downward, with natural gas generating more electricity than coal for the first time in history.  That year global coal consumption fell 1.8 percent – the largest decline, in absolute terms, since the International Energy Agency (IEA) began keeping records in 1971. Reductions in the United States (-12.7 percent) and China     (-1.5 percent) were offset by modest increases in India (+4.8 percent) and Indonesia (+15 percent). Coal’s share of global primary energy consumption was at 29.2 percent – its lowest level since 2005.

But this did not stop the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), in its 2016 Outlook Reference Case, from  projecting that coal would remain “the second-largest energy source worldwide – behind petroleum and other liquids – until 2030.” From 2030 through 2040, the EIA projected coal to remain the third-largest energy source, behind both liquid fuels and natural gas. Heralding coal’s demise seems premature. 

Against this background, I argued in 2014 with my colleague Scott Stone in a paper published by the Atlantic Council, that the United States has the potential to demonstrate meaningful leadership in the further development and broader deployment of advanced fossil energy technologies.  Clearly, industry has risen to the technology challenge when it comes to conventional air pollutants:  since 1970, coal use in the United States increased by more than 173 percent while emissions of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and other air pollutants declined by approximately 90 percent.  The same could prove true for carbon dioxide, but only if we move away from policy approaches that are disconnected from the financial and regulatory landscapes needed to build clean coal technologies at meaningful scales.

For starters, the disparity between the financial resources invested in “clean tech” and in CO2 capture technologies could not be greater. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has reported that between 2004 and 2012, around $20 billion was invested in CO2 capture, against $1.6 trillion for all other “clean” energy technologies. This clean tech investment is important and should continue.  Nevertheless, it is worthwhile noting that, over this time, global GHG emissions only continued to increase – a trend expected to continue for the foreseeable future.

Technologies are developing to ensure coal can be utilized in a manner consistent with stringent environmental standards, including for CO2. And indeed, the United States harbors legions of highly trained engineers who know more about building and operating state-of-the-art coal plants than virtually anywhere else on the planet.

This is important for the security and the reliability of the U.S. energy system. But it is equally important for the rest of the world. Outside the United States, there are many regions where natural gas is not cheap, nuclear is not available, and renewables are insufficient. These regions will look to coal to alleviate energy poverty and grow their economies, just as the United States did over the past century and China and India have done over the past half-century.  The question is not whether these regions will build new coal plants. They will. The question is whether they will build them with the technologies of yesterday or the technologies of tomorrow.

Here is where the United States can lead – on coal, technology, and climate.   

The Yanomami Model for Superfund

Posted on June 16, 2017 by Rick Glick

In a recent editorial, the Wall Street Journal celebrates the new priorities being set by Scott Pruitt’s EPA.  Mr. Pruitt, in the Journal’s opinion, is properly elevating the “more immediate” problem of Superfund sites over the “religion” of climate change.  Sadly, it seems, the misguided and naïve Obama Administration preferred “symbolic” climate measures over the more prosaic but urgent cleanup of Superfund sites. 

This of course is a false choice, since the country—and planet—must confront a wide array of pressing environmental problems.  Implementation of the Clean Power Plan doesn’t have much bearing on Superfund administration; both climate change and environmental cleanups need attention.  But aside from the Journal’s gratuitous trolling of climate policy, they are correct that Superfund is a program in need of reform.

One of the examples cited in the editorial is the Portland Harbor Superfund site, comprised of about 10 miles of contaminated river sediment.  Prior to listing, Oregon DEQ’s approach was to control potential ongoing contributions from upland sites, coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers to remove the most serious pockets of contamination in the course of routine maintenance dredging, and then let natural riverine processes bury the rest.  There is a lot of science to support the notion that this approach would be plenty protective of human health and the environment.

Alas, EPA Region 10 added Portland Harbor to the National Priority List in 2000.  Seventeen years and over $100 million later, Region 10 issued its Record of Decision, but then hit the pause button because much of the data supporting the ROD had become stale.  A new round of sampling is soon to begin.  In the meantime, scores of PRPs are locked into the process with no way out until costs are fixed.  EPA currently pegs the cost at $1.05 billion, a figure no one but Region 10 believes to be close to the actual cost.

EPA’s selected remedy relies much more heavily on contaminant removal and capping, and less on natural processes, than the remedy proposed by the PRPs.  Unfortunately, EPA’s remedy does not reflect the enormous body of data that indicate such an aggressive approach is not necessary to protect people or the environment.  A prime driver for EPA is that it assumes a much higher rate of resident fish consumption by humans than do the PRPs’ scientists.  The region’s iconic salmon species migrate through the Portland Harbor without bioaccumulating toxins in the sediments.  Never has so much money been deployed to produce so little environmental benefit.

In his book In Trouble Again, the English gonzo explorer Redmond O’Hanlon describes his adventures trekking the Amazon rainforest and his encounter with the Yanomami people.  O’Hanlon witnessed the Yanomami blowing a hallucinogen called yoppo up each other’s noses and decided to give it a try.  What could possibly go wrong?  It turned out that the drug induced excruciating pain and that the only high he realized was relief when the effects wore off. 

As administered, Superfund is much like taking yoppo.  The process is so time consuming, expensive and uncertain that its chief benefit is to induce PRPs to enter state voluntary cleanup programs to avoid a federal Superfund listing.  Many more sites have been remediated, and I would bet at much lower cost, through such state programs than ever will through the formal Superfund process.

Does the Clean Water Act Cover Discharges To Or Through Groundwater, Part II?

Posted on June 15, 2017 by David Buente

One year ago, I published a blog post for the American College of Environmental Lawyers discussing a recent topic of interest in Clean Water Act (“CWA”) jurisprudence—whether the discharge of pollutants into groundwater which is hydrologically connected to a surface water is regulated under the CWA.  I observed that recent district court opinions had come out on either side of this issue, and argued that the line of cases rejecting jurisdiction over discharges to hydrologically connected groundwater correctly interpreted the CWA. 

Today, this issue is still very much a developing area of CWA doctrine.  First, additional district courts have issued decisions both in favor of and against CWA jurisdiction over discharges to hydrologically connected groundwater.  For example, in March 2017, in Sierra Club v. Virginia Electric and Power Co., a CWA citizen suit over alleged discharges from coal ash basins, the Eastern District of Virginia held that “[t]he CWA regulates the discharge of arsenic into navigable surface waters through hydrologically connected groundwater.”   However, a few weeks later, in April 2017, the District of South Carolina came to the opposite conclusion in Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., a CWA citizen suit regarding alleged discharges resulting from an oil pipeline spill, holding, “[T]he CWA does not apply to claims involving discharge of pollution to groundwater that is hydrologically connected to surface waters.”

These two cases should result in another circuit court weighing in on this important jurisdictional issue.  As noted in my previous post, only the Fifth and Seventh Circuits have issued opinions on this topic, both determining that discharges to groundwater which is hydrologically connected to waters of the United States are not regulated under the CWA or the Oil Pollution Act (courts have typically interpreted the term “navigable waters” to have the same meaning under both acts).  The plaintiffs have already appealed the Upstate Forever decision to the Fourth Circuit, and the Virginia Electric and Power Co. decision has likewise been appealed, although a decision is pending on whether the latter district court decision is yet ripe for appeal.  The Fourth Circuit’s stance will be especially enlightening given that the Ninth Circuit’s Hawai’i Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui case has not advanced in any substantial manner since briefing took place last Summer.

Another important development on this front since my last post is the January 2017 transition from the Obama Administration to the Trump Administration.  On February 28, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order requiring the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the Army Corps of Engineers to review the agencies’ definition of “navigable waters” in their 2015 rule and to “consider interpreting the term” to reflect Justice Antonin Scalia’s narrower definition in his plurality opinion in Rapanos v. United States.  As noted in my last post, the 2015 rule already expressly excluded isolated groundwater as a water of the United States.  80 Fed. Reg. at 37073.  Any revised rule would almost certainly keep that exclusion, and could even expand upon it to explicitly exclude hydrologically connected groundwater from the definition of waters of the United States. 

On the other hand, it is worth noting that the Town of Marion, Massachusetts, recently filed a petition for review with the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit EPA Region 1 issued to Marion for its wastewater treatment plant in April 2017.  EAB Docket No. MA0100030.  That permit, issued by the EPA since President Trump’s inauguration, regulates groundwater contamination from sewage sludge lagoons and arguably adopts the broader view of Clean Water Act jurisdiction over hydrologically connected groundwater, so the Trump Administration’s position on this crucial jurisdictional issue is not yet clear.         

The issue of whether the Clean Water Act regulates discharges to groundwater which is hydrologically connected to a water of the United States continues to be an important, developing area of the law.  Hopefully, with cases pending before the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, some more clarity on this topic will emerge in the not-too-distant future.

THE PRESIDENT’S CRUSADE AGAINST BIRTH CONTROL HARMS WOMEN AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Posted on June 14, 2017 by Leslie Carothers

Environmentalists have long debated the need to address links between population growth and environmental harm.   Perennial issues include whether excessive consumption by the rich contributes more to environmental degradation and deserves more attention than population growth in poor countries and the merits of governmental incentives and disincentives to alter birth rates in either direction. Six writers with different perspectives explore these issues in the March/April issue of ELI’s Environmental Forum.  

Professor Lucia Silecchia at Catholic University ably presents the case for focusing on poverty reduction and education, citing the warnings of Pope Francis against population control as a simplistic solution.  (However, the views of the Catholic hierarchy have not caused the great majority of Catholic women to refrain from use of artificial contraception).  None of the population experts joining the ELI debate, including Paul Ehrlich of Stanford and Joe Bish of the Population Media Center, supports coercive measures to reduce birth rates; but they generally agree that at a minimum, a much stronger effort to meet massive unmet needs for family planning education and service is essential to slow the rise in our numbers and make a meaningful difference.

Experts estimate that over 200,000,000 women in developing countries want to avoid pregnancy but are not using modern contraception.  Melinda Gates, Co-Chair of the Gates Foundation, reports that during her visits with African women to talk about vaccination programs for children, the women generally speak up for improving access to contraception.   Worldwide birthrates have declined from about 5 births per woman to 2.4 from 1960 to 2015 according to World Bank figures.  But many developing countries in sub-Saharan Africa remain at near 5.  If each of those 200,000, 000 women decided to have two fewer children, the result would be an appreciable reduction in population growth that would measurably increase family living standards and reduce impacts on scarce resources and the warming of the planet.    

President Trump’s recent decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord was disappointing but not unexpected.  More bad news for people and the environment has been the Trump Administration’s extraordinary set of initiatives to slash access to family planning services internationally and here in the U.S.  The Administration has launched a veritable crusade to reduce women’s autonomy, increase family poverty, and derail progress toward lower birth rates compatible with environmental sustainability.  The Monday following his inauguration and the Women’s Marches, President Trump announced that he was reinstating the “gag rule” prohibiting federal funding for international family planning programs if they provide counsel, referrals, or do lobbying for abortion services even with their own funds.  This rule has been on and off as U.S. Presidents have changed over the years; but Population Action International (PAI), the leading advocate for international family planning support, describes the Trump version as the gag rule on steroids.  That is because the old rule applied directly only to family planning programs of about $600 million.   Flanked by a lineup of well-heeled white men, the President signed an Executive Order intending to apply the new gag rule to all “global health assistance programs” receiving 15 times more U.S funding than family planning programs alone.  The impact according to PAI will be greatly reduced access to birth control services for women in 60 low and middle income countries, especially in Africa.

Women in the United States are now in the cross hairs of the crusade to make access to birth control more difficult and costly.   The week before the President announced his intention to exit the Paris agreement, the online news site Vox reported that a regulation had been drafted and sent forward to the Office of Management and Budget to roll back the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that employers include cost-free contraception in their health insurance programs.  The Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case to allow a privately held firm to claim a religious exemption, as if it were a church, has not settled the issue of application of the religious exemption.  While further litigation and negotiations continue, the Trump Administration is preparing  regulatory action to greatly broaden the basis for objections by allowing any employer with religious or “moral convictions” against offering contraceptives without cost to opt out of providing insurance covering them.  This little change would be promulgated as an interim final rule entering immediately into effect before any public comment or hearings though it affects 55 million women who have benefited from the requirement.

Advocates for women’s health services such as the Center for Reproductive Rights will challenge the content and process for the rule if it moves forward.

And there is more.  The “health care” bill passed by the House of Representatives and celebrated by the President would allow states to seek waivers of required elements of the current Affordable Care Act such as offering prescription drug or maternity benefit among others, a further blow to women’s health programs.

The deep cuts in Medicaid contemplated by the House health bill together with the reduction levels floated in the Administration’s skimpy outline of its budget proposals dealing with other federal benefit programs would further burden access to birth control services by reducing insurance coverage and imposing higher costs on people least able to afford them.  In addition to eliminating all funding in support of international family planning programs as well as the UN Population Fund, the budget would slash U.S Medicaid funding that also supports reproductive health care for millions of women.

The continuing campaigns of the anti-abortion and now the anti-contraception factions to limit access to reproductive health care by other people have a grossly disproportionate impact on low income women and families.  Women with resources may be inconvenienced by new limitations but will rarely be prevented from obtaining contraceptives or even abortions as before.  

Perhaps psychologists or sex therapists can divine why the President and his minions seem so fixated on reducing women’s access to birth control.  Whatever their motivations, this is an issue environmental advocates should not ignore.  Improving the lives of women and their families and increasing women’s ability to participate in decisions in their communities are the primary goals of advocates for women’s reproductive rights.    But the benefits of lower birth rates to reduce pressure on natural resources and to help slow global warming are real and merit strong support.  

Categories:  Sustainability, Climate Change

Tags:  Population, Environment

 


TSCA Implementation: What’s in Pruitt’s Playbook?

Posted on June 9, 2017 by Lynn L. Bergeson

Candidate Trump’s views on chemical management were not well articulated, if they were articulated at all, in sharp contrast to his views on climate change.  Whether the silence signaled support for the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg), which extensively amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) upon its enactment last June, or something else was an open question before now.  Several developments suggest U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Pruitt is firmly behind implementing the new law on schedule.  What is less clear is how key policy issues will be decided.

TSCA is the federal law that authorizes EPA to regulate imported, manufactured, and processed industrial chemical substances.  Lautenberg extensively amended TSCA, adding significant new definitions, expanding testing authority, regulating new and existing chemicals, expanding information reporting, narrowing confidential business information protection, and modifying preemption opportunities, among other changes.  Further information is available on our TSCA Reform website:  http://www.lawbc.com/knowledge-resources/tsca-reform-news-info.

The unexpected election results inspired considerable concern in some quarters regarding whether Lautenberg’s implementation would succumb to the anti-regulation rhetoric emanating from the Trump White House, torpedoing the hard fought gains reflected in the new law’s passage.  These fears were exacerbated with news of President Trump’s 2018 budget, which proposes a jaw-dropping 31 percent reduction in EPA funding (from $8.05 billion in 2017 to $5.65 billion in 2018).  Under this plan, 3,200 EPA employees would lose their jobs, and some 50 EPA programs would be scrapped.

To date, there has been no public change in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention’s (OCSPP) course of conduct regarding TSCA implementation.  Acting Toxics Assistant Administrator Wendy Cleland-Hamnett is an experienced, able leader, well respected by staff and diverse stakeholders alike. Nancy B. Beck, Ph.D., DABT, was brought on May 1 as the principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for OCSPP.  Dr. Beck holds a doctorate in environmental health and for the past five years has served as the senior director for Regulatory Science Policy at the American Chemistry Council.

The Pruitt Administration can be expected to drive EPA regulatory and science policies.  Mr. Trump is an outspoken critic in other contexts, such as with regard to climate change and Clean Water Act issues, of what he described as the Obama EPA’s “manipulated” (fake?) science to support a political outcome and, of course, vowed to “fix” this.  Under Lautenberg, EPA is required to promulgate the TSCA “framework” rules, TSCA Inventory notification, procedures for prioritizing chemicals for risk evaluation, and procedures for chemical risk evaluation,  by mid- June 2017.  It is difficult to predict how exactly the new Administration can be expected to influence the many critically important policy issues at play in these proposals.  Dr. Beck’s recent arrival at EPA, however, significantly enhances the front office’s bandwidth in science policy issues, and may suggest a policy bent decidedly more business-friendly than the proposed rules crafted under the Obama EPA.

That the Administration will seek to influence chemical regulatory policy is clear as the stakes are high and the consequences for the domestic chemical industry too great to be ignored.  How, for example, will “weight of evidence” be defined; must all “conditions of use” be included in the scope of every Section 6(b) risk evaluation; how should the “reasonably foreseen” provision in the definition of “conditions of use” be applied; will the composition of the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals change and when?  These are just a few of the many consequential decisions that this Administration will decide concerning Lautenberg’s implementation, some of which will almost certainly be litigated.  In that the three framework rules and the scope of the risk evaluations for the ten chemical substances identified on December 19, 2016, will be out soon, we should have a much clearer sense of the chemical policies the Pruitt Administration supports.

Interesting questions also arise from application of the Executive Orders (EO) President Trump has issued with respect to their impact on TSCA implementation.  EO 13,777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, issued on February 24, 2017, and EO 13,771, which directs the head of every agency to designate an officer to “oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies effectively carry out regulatory reforms,” could significantly impact TSCA implementation.  Of particular relevance is EO 13,771, requiring that agencies identify two rules for repeal for every new regulation the agency proposes.  The imperatives of the EOs must be viewed in the context of the cold, hard fact that an expectedly unfriendly Trump Office of Management and Budget will be in charge of regulatory reviews of each regulation, and significant EPA policies.  Application of the EO to the TSCA implementation could burden the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics’ already strained resources to an unsustainable degree, hamper its ability to devote its limited resources to implementing the new law, and seriously disrupt the chemical manufacturing community by holding hostage urgently needed new chemicals.  EPA is urged to stay focused and on target as failure to implement the new law timely and credibly will invite an erosion of the trust the public was beginning to place in the federal government’s ability to manage chemical risks since Lautenberg’s bipartisan enactment.

The Millennial Environmental Voice: We Can’t Hear You Now

Posted on June 8, 2017 by Linda Benfield

The United States’ environmental agenda shifted abruptly with the election. Instead of implementing greenhouse gas initiatives, bolstering incentives for renewable energy projects, and fine-tuning various air, water and waste standards, we are suddenly discussing the future of the Endangered Species Act, debating withdrawal from the Paris Accord, filing away the Clean Power Plan, and considering the limits of science in regulatory decision-making.

Through all the discord, angst and celebration of the changed focus of environmental regulation, the Millennials have yet to assert their generational voice. Born between 1981 and 1996, these citizens are 21-36 years old. In 2015, they became the largest share of the American workforce at 33%, and there are estimates that Millennials will make up 50% of the American workforce by 2020. With those numbers, and their age, they have the potential to significantly impact elections for the next 35 years.

But who are they, and how will they impact the environmental agenda?  Only 50% of Millennials voted in the 2016 election – the worst turnout of any voting-age generation, and a decrease in their voting participation from the 2012 election. The tropes for this generation peg them as “socially conscious,” and willing to deeply engage in causes they believe in. However, empirical “time-lapse” research comparing responses from different generations at the same point in the responders’ lives, actually indicates that Millennials are no more altruistic than previous generations, and no more determined to seek meaning in their work and lives or do work that is worthwhile to society. This generation also faces different economic and social challenges than their parents did, and it is not clear how that perspective will translate to addressing environmental challenges.  

In the last 50 years, we have fundamentally changed the environmental “baseline.” Millennials never experienced burning rivers, and they didn’t grow up underneath the Denver “Brown Cloud.” The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and 40 C.F.R. are their baseline - and that is a different perspective than their Baby Boomer parents had when they were fighting against tangible environmental degradation. The Millennials can fundamentally impact our election results – if they vote. And until they vote, we won’t know what the environmental voice of this powerful generation sounds like. 

It’s the Infrastructure, Stupid

Posted on June 7, 2017 by Gregory Bibler

On May 23, 2017, President Trump issued his Fiscal 2018 budget proposal.  EPA’s press release, issued the same day, declared:  “EPA Budget Returns Focus to Core Statutory Mission.” https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-budget-returns-focus-core-statutory-mission  EPA made clear that “returning” to the “mission” means reducing the size of the agency.  EPA’s budget would be cut by 31 percent, compared to the Fiscal 2017 enacted budget, and its current workforce would be cut by 25 percent.  The President proposes to cut 600 more positions than indicated in his March 16 budget proposal (which was abandoned with surprisingly little fanfare when the President signed the Fiscal 2017 enacted budget on May 5). 

But there is at least one bright spot in the President’s new budget proposal.  Funding is to be preserved for programs “supporting the President’s focus on the nation’s infrastructure.”  “Infrastructure,” according to EPA, includes improvements to drinking water systems.  Toward that end, the budget includes $2.3 billion for State Revolving Funds and $20 million in additional appropriations for the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program.

The President is sticking by his campaign promise to help communities like Flint, Michigan finance improvements needed to reduce lead in drinking water, particularly in homes and schools.  Providing funding for these particular programs stands in contrast to the overall tenor of the budget, and the campaign’s promise to eliminate “wasteful” EPA grants. 

Revelations in Flint triggered widespread and, as it turns out, legitimate concerns about the effectiveness of existing regulatory programs to protect against lead contamination in drinking water. http://www.goodwinlaw.com/-/media/files/publications/attorney-articles/2017/eba-winter-journal-2017flint-inspires-renewed-vigi.pdf It has been more than 30 years since Congress enacted the Safe Drinking Water Act, and more than 25 years since EPA adopted the Lead and Copper Rule (“LCR”).  After Flint, increased lead testing in schools, and greater scrutiny of data already being collected by public water systems, revealed that elevated lead levels continue to be a pervasive problem in U.S. cities and school buildings (including more than half of the 300 public school buildings tested in 2016 in Massachusetts).

In October 2016, in the waning days of the Obama administration, EPA issued a white paper that announced that the LCR and its implementation are in urgent need of overhaul.  The LCR is a protocol for testing and treatment, not a set of numerical standards.  EPA stated that more prescriptive requirements that are more effective and readily enforceable need to be adopted.  Notwithstanding the Trump administration’s current war on environmental regulation, EPA has stated that it intends to formulate more stringent and clear requirements.  Meanwhile, in December 2016, Congress actually succeeded in amending the Safe Drinking Water Act to replace the moribund school drinking water provision, which was declared unconstitutional in 1996, with a new provision that, among other things, established a voluntary school lead testing grant program.

It is apparent that, on the issue of safe drinking water at least, the Trump administration has accurately measured the political mood.  Despite draconian cuts proposed to almost all of EPA’s budget and staffing, the administration has recognized that improving the regulation, testing and treatment of drinking water in schools and public water systems is politically expedient, and may do more good than harm.  It is good policy and good politics.

Trump's "2 for 1" EO: Can You Say "Arbitrary and Capricious"?

Posted on June 6, 2017 by Seth Jaffe

Last month, Mark Walker posted about Executive Order 13771.  Mark’s post was generally favorable, noting that a number of other countries have implemented some version of what is known as a “regulatory budget.”  This post provides something of a counterpoint to Mark’s. 

Put simply, I think that the Order is indefensible.  It’s not about regulatory reform.  It’s a transparent attempt to halt environmental regulation in its tracks, without regard to the benefit those regulations provide.

This week, on behalf of our client, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Foley Hoag filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in the case challenging the EO.  One paragraph from the brief pretty much summarizes the argument:

It is important to note, as Executive Order 13771 acknowledges, that agencies are already required, where not prohibited by law, to ensure that the benefits of regulations exceed their costs. Thus, the only impact of the Executive Order is to prohibit agencies from promulgating regulations whose benefits exceed their costs, unless they eliminate two other regulations whose benefits also exceed their costs. This is the definition of unreasoned decisionmaking. It is also a thumb in the eye of Congress, which enacted public health and environmental statutes in order to benefit the public.

It is a bitter irony that the government is defending the EO in part on the basis that it is just another in a long line of regulatory reform EOs, even though the EO is in fact a repudiation of those prior orders, not an extension of them.  This order is not about cost-benefit analysis; it is about cost-only analysis.  By definition this approach ignores the public benefits that the underlying statutes are intended to provide.  Thus, the “savings clause” cannot save the EO, because there is nothing left to save.

Energy Benchmarking, An Idea Whose Time May Have Come (And Just May be Politically Palatable)

Posted on June 5, 2017 by James B. Witkin

Given the current political climate in Washington, environmental programs most likely to survive unscathed are those that rely on market principles, especially if they are enacted at the state or local level. Sustainability advocates may want to take a closer look at energy benchmarking programs, which pass both of those tests.  

The jurisdictions closest to me, the District of Columbia and its close-in neighbor to the north, Montgomery County, Maryland, have adopted mandatory energy benchmarking programs for many commercial buildings. Other cities with similar programs include Seattle, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Kansas City and New York City. Many of those jurisdictions began requiring compliance for public buildings, then larger commercial buildings, and finally smaller buildings. In Montgomery County, buildings over 250,000 square feet had to start benchmarking last June; starting June 1, 2017, most buildings over 50,000 square feet must comply. In New York City, buildings larger than 25,000 square feet must benchmark by next May.

Although benchmarking programs vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, generally they require building owners to measure and report information on various types of energy and water usage. Some of that information may come from the owner’s own records; in tenanted buildings, landlords may need to obtain the information from tenants. Often the information is input into software such as the EPA’s Energy Star Portfolio Manager Program, which allows for uniform reporting and effective comparison of the data among buildings. That information is made available to the public.

There are several goals of benchmarking. First, it provides owners with information they may not have had, or understood—as one EPA benchmarking website states, you can’t manage what you don’t measure. By making owners focus on their energy costs, and see how those compare to their neighbors’, they should theoretically make efficient management and upgrade decisions.  Second, armed with this information, tenants looking to lease space (or buyers looking to purchase commercial properties) are better able to evaluate what their long term energy costs will be, and can make better leasing or purchasing decisions. Nothing like a lousy score to shame a landlord into making an upgrade decision that ideally is both cost effective and green.

While the programs are still young, some data indicate that they are working. (See the reports issued by the Institute for Market Transformation, and the studies cited by them.) Benchmarking seems like a concept that people on both sides of the isle should be able to support. 

Learning to talk about environmental issues across the political/ideological/economic/philosophical divide, with help from the Institute for Georgia Environmental Leadership

Posted on June 1, 2017 by Patricia Barmeyer

There is an organization in Georgia dedicated to the goal of building a network of leaders in the environmental area who can collaborate to work on solutions to important issues, instead of defaulting always to debate and often litigation.  The Institute for Georgia Environmental Leadership was created in 2001, and I am currently participating as a member of the seventeenth IGEL class, the fifth lawyer from my firm to go through the program. It is similar in some ways to leadership programs throughout the country, but there is no other leadership program focused entirely on environmental issues.

IGEL is an experiential program, working on both substantive environmental issues and leadership development, as well as conflict management strategies.  The program has 30-35 participants every year, chosen from almost 200 applicants. Each class is chosen to represent a broad diversity of environmental leaders from business, government, academia and NGOs. Several Georgia members of ACOEL are IGEL alumni. The program consists of four 3-day sessions, held in areas to represent Georgia’s environmental diversity—metro Atlanta, the coast, the southwest agricultural area, and the north Georgia mountains. The sessions include outside speakers, group discussion, and field trips.  Every step of the way includes participation from folks with differing views, including scientists, planners, developers, permittees, regulators, environmental activists, and community leaders. The program requires, and secures, a commitment from all class members to be at every session.  It is very time-consuming—and it is hard to be out of the office for three days at a time.  But it is also lots of fun, both the sessions and the field trips.

IGEL is a non-profit organization, governed by a volunteer board composed of alumni of the program.  IGEL operates out of Georgia State University College of Business, in the Center for Ethics and Corporate Responsibility, which has developed the curriculum for the program.

IGEL seeks to provide environmental leaders the knowledge, advanced skills and network necessary to help resolve Georgia’s environmental challenges now and in the future. It’s hard to quantify outcomes, but IGEL has created, and continues to grow, a network of committed environmental leaders who share the IGEL experience, have a broader perspective because of that experience, and do, as a result, have improved channels for communication and a deeper appreciation of opposing environmental concerns.  Our world today is highly polarized; IGEL provides a valuable service in creating a safe space for honest dialogue and respectful disagreement about important environmental issues.  If you are interested you can learn more by checking out the website. http://www.igeleaders.org/  

THE CUYAHOGA RIVER MAKES NEWS AGAIN: A POSTSCRIPT

Posted on May 31, 2017 by Michael Hardy

On May 11, 2017, I published a blog piece about the efforts of the Army Corps of Engineers to circumvent the State of Ohio’s “anti-degradation” water quality rules for the disposal of contaminated sediments from portions of the Cleveland Harbor and Shipping Channel.  Instead of dry land disposal in Confined Disposal Facilities (“CDF”), the Corp cited its own “Federal Standard” that justified, in its view, “open lake disposal” in Lake Erie at considerable cost savings.  The United States District Court ruled on May 5, 2017 that action was “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act.  The District Court showed no deference to the Corp’s “scientific” efforts to create its own rules in contravention to Ohio’s water quality standards.

The controversy arose in the context of the disposal of the contaminated sediments in the shipping channel of the Cuyahoga River, which makes up the last six miles of the River ( the northern end spilling into Lake Erie).  The River travels approximately 85 miles in total and drains nearly 815 square miles in four counties.  Just several miles south of the shipping channel is the 33,000 square acre Cuyahoga Valley National Park, with a number of significant tributaries feeding the River.  These upstream waters provide significant sand and gravel loadings to the northern reach of the River.

Recognizing that it could not afford to build a new $150,000,000 CFD, the Port of Cleveland looked for ways to reduce the sediment loading upstream of the navigation channel.  Adapting innovative “green” technology, the first of its kind at a port like Cleveland’s, the Port installed a “bed load interceptor” machine in the water about five miles upstream of the Shipping Channel that captures the sediment and extracts the clean sand for disposal into onsite piles.  With less sediment coming downriver, the Port hopes to extend the life of the existing CDF for another 30 years. The collected sand has a financial value for use in composting, construction, landscaping and road fill.  Here is a link to a recent The Plain Dealer(Cleveland.com) article that describes the technology, as well as its costs and resultant savings in dredging/disposal costs, and that depicts the process and the location of the interceptor.

The Port of Cleveland’s success with the interceptor has prompted other ports to examine the application of the technology to their locations, including a port on Lake Superior and sites in the Mississippi River delta.

Superfund Reform, Part 2: Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due

Posted on May 30, 2017 by Seth Jaffe

Last week, I offered less than fulsome praise of EPA Administrator Pruitt’s announcement that he was taking control of remedial decisions for big Superfund sites.  Now, he’s followed up with a memorandum announcing establishment of a task force to look at ways to reform Superfund implementation.  While he’s still plainly wrong in putting Superfund “at the center of the agency’s core mission,” I have to confess that I think he otherwise has pretty much hit a home run with the latest memorandum.

Let’s start with the basics.  Superfund is a mess.  It’s one of the most poorly written statutes in Congressional history, and Superfund cleanups take way too long, are way too expensive, and fail to deliver bang for the buck in either risk reduction or productive reuse.

In a perfect world, Superfund would be amended to privatize cleanups and put cost-effective risk-based cleanups at the center of the program.  However, Scott Pruitt cannot unilaterally amend Superfund.  Heck, he may not realize it, but even Donald Trump cannot unilaterally amend Superfund.

Given this reality, Pruitt’s memorandum identifies all of the appropriate goals for meaningful administrative reform.  They include:

  • a focus on identifying best practices within regional Superfund programs, reducing the amount of time between identification of contamination at a site and determination that a site is ready for reuse

  • overhaul and streamline the process used to develop, issue or enter into prospective purchaser agreements, bona fide prospective purchaser status, comfort letters, ready-for-reuse determinations

  • Streamline and improve the remedy development and selection process, particularly at sites with contaminated sediment, including to ensure that risk-management principles are considered in the selection of remedies

  • Reduce the administrative and overhead costs and burdens borne by parties remediating contaminated sites, including a reexamination of the level of agency oversight necessary.

The last is my personal favorite.

I somehow expect I’m not going to be praising this administration on a regular basis, but I can still acknowledge when they get something right.  Let’s just hope that the task force is for real and comes up with a set of meaningful administrative improvements.

Fingers crossed.

States Challenge Trump Administration’s Approach to Climate Change Through Energy Efficiency Rules

Posted on May 26, 2017 by Chester Babst

When President Trump issued his energy-related Executive Order in March directing further review by the EPA Administrator of, among other things, the Clean Power Plan, it signaled the death knell for what was arguably President Obama's centerpiece domestic action on climate change. But while the Order's likely intent to neutralize this and other rules would have appeared to pave the way for a flurry of lawsuits filed by environmental groups and States particularly concerned about global warming, the federal dockets have thus far been somewhat quiet with respect to the Trump Administration's handling of prior climate change-related rulemaking.

A group of 10 states have begun to push back, though, by filing a petition in the Second Circuit. The rule that is requested to be reviewed? It doesn't involve coal-fired power plants. Nor wellpads or compressors. Rather, the petition involves rulemaking aimed at the ominous ... ceiling fan. The rule, enacted by the Department of Energy in January, establishes minimum energy efficiency standards for fans manufactured after January 2020 pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.  According to the DOE, the rule is projected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by over 200 million tons and methane emissions by 17 million tons through 2049.  Some 12 days after the rule was finalized, DOE delayed the effective date by 60 days with the stated intent of conducting further review and consideration of new regulations, consistent with the Freeze Memo. In March, DOE subsequently pushed back the effective date even further until September, with the basis being that DOE Secretary Rick Perry was, perhaps unsurprisingly, unable to accomplish the review and consideration of the rule within the 60-day timeframe.  Additional energy efficiency rulemakings finalized but not published under the Obama Administration currently remain unpublished.

The significance of the lawsuit is not so much about its substantive impact on climate change. After all, the projected GHG reductions under the ceiling fan rule are only a small fraction of those projected as part of the Clean Power Plan, which itself left some wondering whether it could meaningfully affect climate change on a global level.  Further, the Clean Power Plan’s vitality was already in question following the Supreme Court’s stay.  Rather, the petition carries broader implications for the Trump Administration's apparent strategy of stalling, as opposed to directly revising or withdrawing, environmental rulemaking that it fundamentally opposes. The strategy is not a wholly illogical one, especially considering the possible legal and practical limitations that some commentators have expressed the Administration might initially face if it were forced to provide, on-the-record, a definitive basis for full-fledged withdrawal of notable climate change regulations.

One of the key figures for the petitioners, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, has contended that the DOE's delays violate the Administrative Procedure Act in that they constitute a substantive revision to a final rule without going through proper notice and comment. He is joined by nine other states (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington) as well as New York City. If the petitioners prevail, it will likely force EPA and other agencies to confront existing rulemaking head-on, and would otherwise challenge the viability of President Trump's energy-related Executive Order, including associated OMB guidance for implementation of the rule review procedures.  Further pressure could also come as a result of a challenge to the so-called “2-for-1” Executive Order, which environmental groups have claimed also directs arbitrary repeal of rulemakings.  But until then, neither industry nor environmentalists should be surprised if climate change or other significant environmental regulations carried over from the Obama Administration remain in an infinite loop of administrative review.

A 2-Fer

Posted on May 25, 2017 by Mark Walker

Trump’s 2-for-1 Executive Order 13771 (January 30, 2017) requires that two existing regulations be eliminated for each newly enacted regulation in order to control regulatory costs and burdens.  The EO requires that the total incremental cost of all new and repealed regulations in FY 2017 be $0 or less.  The EO applies to most federal agencies, including the EPA.

Can anyone seriously contend that we cannot afford to get rid of some existing federal regulations?  Apparently yes - the idea was immediately dubbed by some as “ridiculous”.  A lawsuit has already been filed challenging the EO as facially arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. 

Fourteen States recently filed an Amici Curiae brief in the lawsuit supporting the EO, pointing out that numerous Presidents, Democratic and Republican alike, have previously issued executive orders seeking to reduce the number of federal regulations and the overall regulatory burden.

The notion of eliminating one or more existing regulations for each new regulation in order to reduce costs is nothing new.  The Netherlands, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom have all previously enacted similar policies.  The UK currently has a 3-for-1 policy, which is estimated to have saved billions.

Certainly the 2-for-1 policy presents administrative and procedural challenges.  There is the sticky problem of estimating costs, as the EO is intended to address total opportunity costs (opportunities foregone by society as a whole - workers, businesses, consumers, households, etc.), and not simply business compliance costs.  In addition, the repeal of existing regulations must be done in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act, which itself can be time consuming and costly.

The EO contains a savings clause that says no existing regulations can be repealed where prohibited by law.  Therefore, regulations expressly required by law without the consideration of costs cannot be repealed pursuant to the EO.  However, discretionary regulations are fair game.  Once again, we’ll have to wait and see how this EO holds up after court scrutiny.

The Making of Bad Law

Posted on May 24, 2017 by John Barkett

One of the challenges for lawyers involved in CERCLA litigation is educating the judge on how CERCLA works.  But when both the advocate and the court misapprehend how CERCLA works, Voila!  Bad law is made. 

CERCLA is hardly a model of clear drafting, but one area of confusion involves the difference in the burden of proof in the application of Section 107(a)(4)(A) and (B).  As CERCLA practitioners know, a party liable under one of the four categories of Section 107(a)(1) – (4) is liable under Section 107(a)(4)(A) to the United States, a State, or a Tribe for costs that are incurred “not inconsistent with the national contingency plan.”  On the other hand, under Section 107(a)(4)(B), “any other necessary costs of response incurred . . . consistent with the national contingency plan” is the standard applicable to private cost recovery claims.   

Washington State Dep't of Transp. v. Washington Natural Gas Co., 59 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. Wash. 1995) is one of many decisions that explain the distinction. In a 107(a)(4)(A) action, a defendant has the burden of proving that the government or Indian tribe’s costs are inconsistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP) because of the presumption of NCP consistency attached to governmental or tribal actions. “In contrast, any ‘other person’ seeking response costs under § 9607(a)(4)(B) must prove that its actions are consistent with the NCP.”  59 F.3d at 799-800 (citation omitted).  In other words, Section 107(a)(4)(A) focuses on costs because consistency is presumed.  Section 107(a)(4)(B) focuses on actions because consistency must be proved.

Lawyers, law clerks, and judges who do not understand the distinction can become the purveyors of bad law.  Pentair Thermal Mgmt., LLC v. Rowe Indus., Inc. Nos. 06-cv-07164 NC & 10-cv-01606 NC, 2013 WL 1320422 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2013) illustrates the problem.  In Pentair, there was a cleanup of polychlorinated biphenyls in soils.  There was no quarrel with the NCP process leading up to the selection of an excavation remedy. But during remediation problems were encountered that resulted in adjustments to the remedy and increased costs. CERCLA practitioners know that fundamental changes to a National Priorities List-site remedy require another round of public participation.  40 C.F.R. §300.435(c)(2)(ii)(H).  To defeat plaintiff’s costs, defendant decided to argue that the changes to the remedy required re-notice to the public of the remedial action because they were fundamental changes, and thus plaintiff’s actions were not consistent with the NCP.

Defendant’s argument was premised on United States v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company, 200 F.3d 679 (10th Cir. 1999), where the court of appeals concluded that the Environmental Protection Agency’s problems during a remedial action did, indeed, represent a fundamental change to the remedy requiring re-notice to the public. The court of appeals held that despite an NCP violation, on remand, the burden of proof remained on the defendant to establish that “EPA’s remedial actions resulted in demonstrable excess costs that would not have otherwise been incurred.” Id. at 695.

The district court in Pentair found NCP consistency even with the changes to the remedy.  However, without appreciating the fact that Burlington Northern was a Section 107(a)(4)(A) case—presumably because defendant was relying on the decision—the court said that even if the remedial changes were fundamental, defendant would still lose based on Burlington Northern and another governmental cost recovery action, Minnesota v. Kalman W. Abrams Metals, Inc., 155 F.3d 1019 (8th Cir. 2015).  Both of these were Section 107(a)(4)(A) cases where a defendant must prove which of the government’s costs were inconsistent with the NCP.  The district court in Pentair failed to appreciate the distinction.  It wrongly held that, had the district court determined that the remedy changes were fundamental, defendant would still have had the burden of proof to show which of plaintiff’s costs were non-NCP compliant. 

The dangers of dicta!  Compounded by the failure to comprehend the different burdens of proof in a 4(A) and a 4(B) action.  That’s the formula for making bad law.

Trumping the National Monument Designations of Past Presidents

Posted on May 23, 2017 by Larry Ausherman

When a President of the United States sets aside important federal lands for conservation, the accompanying fanfare typically invokes the notion of forever.  But, in light of President Trump’s Executive Order 13792, maybe these national treasures should be asking our government the timeless question posed long ago by The Shirelles, Carole King, and others:  “Will you still love me tomorrow?”

On April 26, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13792, which directs the Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, to review and make recommendations concerning many prior presidential designations or expansions of national monuments that were made under the Antiquities Act of 1906.  The Executive Order essentially suggests that some past monument designations may have been made without adequate public input, and may be overbroad or unduly restrictive of other uses of the designated lands.  The Executive Order concerns monument designations or expansions since 1996, where the designation or expansion covers more than 100,000 acres or where Secretary Zinke determines it was made without adequate public outreach and coordination with stakeholders. 

But the Executive Order, together with the review it requires, is probably only the first step.  The review probably foreshadows a future attempt by President Trump to at least pare back certain existing national monument designations, based on Secretary Zinke’s recommendations.  Prominent among the monuments that are in the cross hairs is President Obama’s controversial Bears Ears National Monument in Utah. 

The Secretarial review is on a fast track.  The Executive Order provides that the Secretary’s interim report is due in mid-June.  The final report is due in late August, and it should include recommendations for subsequent actions.  In the meantime, the Department of the Interior is inviting public comment.  On May 5, 2017, it issued a press release describing the scope of and deadlines for public comment.  It also listed the twenty two national monuments and five marine monuments that are subject to the ongoing review.

The Antiquities Act was enacted during the term of Theodore Roosevelt, and it empowers presidents to create national monuments with federal land to protect “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest.”  The presidential power created by the Act is unique in that it allows presidents to unilaterally protect federal land by designating national monuments.  In that regard, presidential power under the Act goes beyond the often used power to issue executive orders.  Presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Barack Obama have used the power given to them under the Act. 

Both presidential power to create national monuments under the Antiquities Act and Congressional power to change them under the Property Clause of the Constitution are well recognized, but President Trump’s signing of Executive Order 13792 leaves a looming question:  Does a president have the power either to abolish or to reduce in size a monument designated by a previous president?  The Antiquities Act is silent on that question.  According to a 1938 opinion of the United States Attorney General and the legislative history of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the Antiquities Act does not confer upon the president the power to abolish entirely an existing national monument designation.  No previous president has done so.  But the administration likely will not concede the issue of whether the president can abolish a monument.  Regardless of the Act, some note that the Constitution grants the president broad power to reverse actions of previous presidents.  The separate question of whether a president may merely reduce the size of a monument or change its boundaries is probably a closer call than the question of complete abolition of it.  Rather than abolish national monuments, President Trump might attempt to reduce the size of one or more of them.

The Act limits the size of lands that can be reserved for national monuments to “the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected . . .”  But that limitation can be difficult to quantify, and it has generally not stopped presidents from designating very large swaths of land as national monuments.  For example, much of the public and political criticism of Bears Ears National Monument – designated by President Obama in the last month of his term – focuses on its huge size, which is about 1,350,000 acres of public land.  President Clinton’s 1996 designation of Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument covers about 1.9 million acres.  It has been subject to similar criticism, and it is also under review by Secretary Zinke.  Although it is somewhat unusual for a president to reduce the size of an existing monument, Presidents Wilson, Truman, and Eisenhower have done so.  However, these past reductions were not challenged, and so case law on the questions presented by the Executive Order is scarce.  Unlike these past actions to reduce monument size, any move by President Trump to change established monuments likely will be challenged.  The issues raised by his Executive Order are already highly contentious.

It remains to be seen whether any future effort by President Trump to abolish or reduce a monument’s size will withstand the inevitable legal challenge, but we can predict a few of the issues that could be raised.  Of course, the prominent initial question is whether either the Antiquities Act or the Constitution’s general grant of executive authority authorizes a president to change monument designations of past presidents. 

If the answer to that question is “yes,” many unresolved questions may arise about the scope of presidential authority to change designations.  Can a president abolish a monument altogether?  If a president can only alter, but not abolish, a monument, then by what criteria should the validity of the alteration be measured?  Is the challenged reduction in size so substantial as to thwart the conservation purposes for which the monument was created?  In the words of the Act, does the reduction leave the “smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected”?  Is a paltry level of public outreach or coordination preceding a president’s designation of a monument adequate legal justification for changing the monument?  Is outreach or coordination even legally relevant to a monument’s validity, and if it is, how should the adequacy of public outreach and coordination with stakeholders be tested?

Politics and public opinion will also steer the upcoming debate.  The national monument issue raised by the Executive Order is a lightning rod for many, including environmental groups, Tribes, State and local governments, and those who favor limiting the reach of the federal government.  This episode would not be the first time that President Trump has announced controversial policy that invites high profile legal challenges and the media attention that accompanies them.

I tend to be wary of landscape scale reservations of federal lands under the Antiquities Act and some other laws.  They can be as political as they are large.  Abuse of power is a concern.  We always should consider whether the designation fits in size and purpose the law that is being used to authorize it.  Is the designation simply a misguided, feel-good lob at a legacy, orchestrated by an outgoing president in his final days?  Or is it something more substantial, with a size and purpose that are supportable under the authorizing legislation?  Those are good questions for the president making the designation, for a reviewing court, and for Congress, in the rare case where it considers whether to change a designation.  But, when it comes to existing national monuments, I at least question whether President Trump (and then each of his successors) should be the one who gets to decide.

Until now, national monuments have, for the most part, enjoyed an air of permanence.  With some exceptions, presidents have typically deferred to the monument designations of predecessors, even while dismantling other aspects of a previous administration’s policies.  But President Trump’s actions raise questions about whether the tradition might end.  As legal challenges unfold, it may be years before we know to what extent this president, and every future president, could toss established national monuments into the same bin of ephemera that is used to dispose of old political appointments and presidential proclamations.

Can We Really Expect An Administrator Not To Administrate?

Posted on May 19, 2017 by Jeffrey Porter

This month EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced that he will personally pass judgment on any Superfund remedy estimated to cost more than $50 million.  Revisions to CERCLA Delegations of Authority 14-2 Responses and 14-21A Consultations, Determinations, Reviews and Selection of Remedial Actions at Federal Facilities, May 9, 2017.

Administrator Pruitt’s announcement begins with his unequivocal assurances that the “Superfund program is a vital function” of EPA, and that he is taking this action “to facilitate the more-rapid remediation and revitalization of contaminated sites and to promote accountability and consistency in remedy selection.”

Skeptics fear that Administrator Pruitt has some other secret objective.   But no one can seriously argue that this isn’t Administrator Pruitt’s decision to make.  The Superfund statute unequivocally says “[t]he President shall select appropriate remedial actions determined to be necessary” in accordance with the statute and the implementing regulations, and “which provide for cost-effective response.”  42 U.S.C. §9621(a).  The implementing regulations unequivocally delegate that responsibility to Administrator Pruitt  (well, to be precise, it is theoretically possible that another federal agency or a state can be a “lead agency” under the regulations but, in that unlikely case, the Administrator’s May 9th decision presumably wouldn’t apply).  

After all, it was a perceived need for prompt federal action to clean up the most complex contaminated sites in our country that drove the enactment of the Superfund statute over thirty-five years ago.  Because Congress perceived that need, the statute limits the ability of anyone, including state and local governments, to interfere with the selection and implementation of a Superfund remedy.

Over the decades, the contaminated sites posing the most immediate concern have been addressed, sites that would never have been prospects for Superfund listing thirty years ago have found their way into the program, and the Superfund statute has been interpreted, and reinterpreted, in regulations, countless judicial decisions, and EPA guidance documents.   If those regulations, judicial decisions and guidance documents have one thing in common, it is that they vest in EPA the maximum decision-making discretion permitted by the statute.

Because the sites posing the most immediate concern have been addressed, and what was once new is now the subject of thousands of pages of regulations, judicial decisions and guidance documents, anyone familiar with the Superfund program has to agree that regional program staff have, over the decades, been increasingly left mostly alone to make remedial decisions costing hundreds of millions of dollars.

And, as someone who has practiced in this area of environmental law for almost thirty years, I think it is equally clear that regional decision-making has attempted to soften the effect of Congress’s unambiguous statement of its intention that no one, including state and local governments, stands in the way of Superfund remedies by local consensus building, and that what Administrator Pruitt calls “consistency” has suffered as a result.

As a life-long Democrat, I have plenty of concerns about the Trump Administration’s environmental agenda.  But Administrator Pruitt has been anything but obtuse about his support of aspects of that agenda that concern me so I’m going to take him at his word regarding his intentions for the Superfund program, including because increased accountability and consistency in the Superfund program would be a very good thing.

Scott Pruitt Just Solved All of the Problems with Superfund. Not.

Posted on May 17, 2017 by Seth Jaffe

Last week, EPA Administrator Pruitt issued a memorandum requiring that all Superfund remedies estimated to cost at least $50 million be approved by the Administrator.  I’m not optimistic that this will cure, or even ameliorate, what ails CERCLA.  

First, the memorandum gets off on precisely the wrong foot.  Administrator Pruitt states that:

 The Superfund program is a vital function of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and under my administration, Superfund and the EPA’s land and water cleanup efforts will be restored to their rightful place at the center of the agency’s core mission.

What’s the problem with this statement?  When EPA has actually looked at the top risks addressed by its programs, risks from Superfund sites never even make the list.  Except for a limited set of circumstances, Superfund has been a colossal waste of money, resources, and focus for EPA.  If Administrator Pruitt wants to reform Superfund, he shouldn’t be “placing it at the center of the agency’s core mission.”  He should be further deemphasizing it.

Even if one assumes that this is just puffery, the new approach is flawed on the merits, for at least two reasons.

First, the problem with Superfund is that it’s the last bastion of command and control regulation.  I understand that Pruitt may want to take the reins precisely to reduce the number of ukases issuing from the regional offices.  However, the underlying problem will remain; he just thinks he’ll be providing kinder, gentler, command and control.  Wouldn’t it be better to support fundamental reform of CERCLA, to create a privatized program, such as in Massachusetts and other states?

Finally, while PRPs might just wish Superfund went away, in the real world, PRPs just want certainty and timely decisions.  Aside from a few cases where Pruitt might put the kibosh on expensive remedies that don’t eliminate real risks, I fear that in the majority of cases, all that will happen will be that cleanup decisions will be delayed; PRPs will pay more as a result of such delays.

This administration continues to give regulatory reform a bad name.

BUSINESS AND PARIS: CAN WE TALK?

Posted on May 16, 2017 by Charles F. Becker

Addressing environmental issues on a world scale will always be a difficult proposition.  The most recent attempt, the Paris Climate Accord, was no exception.  Every nation, leader and business had an opinion on what needed to be done.  Eventually, enough countries signed on to allow the Paris Agreement to be deemed “in force.” 

What was surprising about the discussions leading up to the Agreement was that 81 companies chose to publicly declare they would take action to reduce their emissions.  The companies included Wal-Mart, Mars, IKEA, Siemens, Amazon, GE, GM and Best Buy.  Not a bad group of supporters.  The declarations were, of course, prior to the election and President Trump is now deciding whether the United States is better served being out of the Paris Agreement.

One would think that after the election, there might be some changes in corporate support for the Accord.  But not so.  Most of the signing companies, and hundreds more, have reaffirmed their commitment to reduce their emissions.  Even coal companies have expressed support.  In making his decision on Paris, the President might want to consider the viewpoint of those businesses.  For example, in a March statement to Bloomberg, representatives of Apple, Amazon, Google and Microsoft said:

We believe that strong, clean energy and climate policies, like the Clean Power Plan, can make renewable energy supplies more robust and address the serious threat of climate change while supporting American competitiveness, innovation and job growth.

 

A common theme from all of the corporate supporters is to acknowledge that climate change is real and that they want to do something about it for the good of the planet. 

I have to say, however, if that’s really what the businesses believe, they aren’t helping their cause by saying it to a President who has very publicly advanced a contrary view.  The good news is, these businesses didn’t really mean it.  They were just setting out alternative facts.  Businesses care about “shareholder value” -- what action will be best for the bottom line.  That’s not a shocking concept and it provides a very understandable basis for supporting the Paris Agreement.  They just need to be willing to explain it better.  I believe this is the letter the companies really meant to send: 

Dear President Trump:

 

Regarding your consideration of withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, please don’t do it.  We know you’ve got our best interests at heart, but you’ve done enough.  Let us explain.

 

We sell things—steaks, trucks, drain pipes, wigs, designer clothes.  You know, stuff people can’t live without.  It’s a whole different world from selling real estate.  You get by with a Phase I every once in a while, but we have regulation on everything we do.  And it’s been that way for a long time.

 

The difficulty is that we have discovered two simple truths.  First, people (and by that we mean our customers, your voters) actually want environmental regulation.  Even now, after all of your great efforts to explain why climate change was invented by the Chinese and late night talk show hosts, Pew Research says that 74% of the people (our customers, your voters) believe that the country should do whatever it takes to protect the environment.  We know, that’s made up of 52% Republicans and 90% Democrats, but we did our own research and discovered that we sell coffee and cola and cars to Republicans and Democrats.  We’re as shocked as you, but there it is.

 

Second, and this is really important: Quit changing the rules!  We were just getting used to the regulations.  We have already taken steps to address future goals, like those in the Paris Agreement.  For example, many of us have converted our facilities from coal to gas.  We’re not going back. 

 

Don’t get us wrong.  We’ll vote for you and we wish you nothing but the best.  But Here’s the Thing (sorry, couldn’t resist): we’re going to outlive your time – by a lot.  In a few years, you’ll be gone from office.  Sooner or later the Democrats are going to be back in power.  Sure, they all have really small hands, but what do you think they’re going to do with them?  You guessed it – they’re going to change your rules and go back to where we are now.  We’ve seen it over and over.  And they are going to make up for lost time with 74% of the people (our customers, your voters) saying it’s a great idea. 

 

What we’re trying to say is THIS WHIPSAW REGULATION IS KILLING US!

 

Only you can make it stop and leaving us in the Paris Agreement would be a great place to start.

 

We can’t tell you how appreciative we are of your attempts to reconsider some of the regulations for a few years.  Really, thank you.  But we need to make money and it’s a lot harder to do when we have to keep changing all our procedures and equipment that 74% of the people (you know) said they wanted in the first place.

So, if you could see your way to just switching your focus to getting that really important wall built and put these environmental changes on the back burner, that would be huge . . . believe me.

                                                            Most Sincerely,

 

                                                Your Friends Making Incredibly Great Stuff