California v. U.S. EPA--Fighting for the Last Word on Mobile Source Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Posted on January 8, 2008 by Michèle Corash

Following the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, deciding that greenhouse gases are a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, a federal-state skirmish has emerged in the climate change arena over mobile source emissions. The United States Government estimates that the transportation sector accounts for approximately one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. Over the past months, the question of how to reduce those emissions has evolved into a dramatic political and legal battle, pitting California’s Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger against U.S. President George Bush. 

The stage for this tussle was set long ago when Congress adopted the federal Clean Air Act and included in the law a special provision for California. Specifically, Section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act prohibits individual states from adopting emission standards for new motor vehicles. However, in recognition of California’s unique smog problems, a subsection (b) was added to enable California to adopt standards more stringent than federal standards so long as it applies for and obtains a waiver from the U.S. EPA. As one court recently explained, under Section 209(b), “Congress has essentially designated California as a proving ground for innovation in emission control regulations.” Other states are then free to adopt California’s standards pursuant to Section 177 of the Clean Air Act, so long as the standards are adopted at least two years before the model year that they regulate. 

In 2002, California invoked its unique Clean Air Act authority to address greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources. In particular, the State passed AB 1493 requiring the California Air Resources Board to develop and adopt regulations for the greenhouse gas emissions of passenger automobiles and light duty trucks. In September of 2004, the Air Resources Board adopted standards that apply to such vehicles beginning with model year 2009. As required by the Clean Air Act, California then requested a waiver from the U.S. EPA so that the standards could enter into force. While the waiver request was pending, no less than sixteen other states lined up to adopt California’s standards—for all practical purposes, the California standards were poised to become the de facto national standard.  

Automobile manufacturers challenged those regulations in federal courts in both Vermont and California, arguing that the state automobile emission standards for greenhouse gases constituted fuel efficiency standards, and that fuel efficiency standards are exclusively regulated by the federal government under the Environmental Policy and Conservation Act (“EPCA”).[1] Both courts rejected the manufacturers’ challenges, deciding that federal law did not preempt California’s ability to affect fuel economy through the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, so long as the U.S. EPA granted a waiver under the Clean Air Act—the stage was set for a showdown between California and the U.S. EPA.

The U.S. EPA played its hand slowly. During the summer of 2007, the U.S. EPA held hearings on California’s waiver request. Perhaps foreshadowing its upcoming decision on the request, the U.S. EPA then announced in the fall that it would begin its own “Rulemaking To Address Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Motor Vehicles,” planning for the adoption of federal regulations by October 2008. Finally, the shot was fired on December 19, 2007, when Stephen Johnson, the U.S. EPA Administrator, held a press conference announcing his agency would not grant a waiver to California’s regulation. At the same time, President Bush signed a new energy bill, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, requiring a fleet average of thirty-five miles per gallon by 2020 and an annual production of thirty-six billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022.[2] In making the announcement, Johnson specifically cited Bush’s recent signing of the bill and said, “The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules. I believe this is a better approach than if individual states were to act alone.”

Retaliation came swiftly. Little more than two weeks after Johnson’s announcement, California, along with 15 other states and five environmental groups, petitioned the Ninth Circuit on January 2, 2008, for review of the waiver denial.  In the lawsuit, California will need to make the case that its regulation under Section 209 was necessary to “meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.”  As a coastal state with limited fresh water resources, the effect of climate change on California may indeed be severe, involving rising sea levels, a reduction in the Sierra snow pack, and higher temperatures that would exacerbate the state’s ozone nonattainment problem, which is already the worst in the nation. A recent Stanford University study added fodder to this argument when it found Californians’ health will be disproportionately affected by greenhouse gas emissions, because the state is home to six of the most polluted cities in the United States. California will also need to make the case under section 209, that its standards “will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards.” To that end, the California Air Resources Board released a January 2, 2008, assessment that concludes the federal law, even when fully implemented, will not be as effective as California’s standards at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles. Even if California is successful, California’s regulation will have to be modified as it was to apply to 2009 model cars—models that will shortly be coming to market. 

The EPA’s first legal maneuver in response to California’s petition may be to request a transfer from the Ninth Circuit to the more agency-friendly D.C. Circuit. Most challenges of EPA regulations must be filed in the D.C. Circuit—the relevant jurisdictional trigger being whether the action has “nationwide scope or effect.”  While the issue of the waiver makes its way through the courts, the U.S. EPA’s rulemaking will also go forward. To meet its goal of final action by October 2008, the U.S. EPA will have to move quickly, with the public comment period coming by summer 2008 at the latest. 

As these battles are fought, looming on the horizon is a general election in November, and a new federal administration beginning in January of 2009. If the U.S. EPA adopts regulations in October 2008 that do not go as far as the California standards, yet another legal challenge seems almost inevitable, if for no other reason than to stall any final rule until the administration changeover. When the dust does settle, presumably in 2009, the road to mobile source emission reductions will finally be paved.

Michèle Corash is a partner in the international law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP and a member of the firm’s environmental law practice group. She served as General Counsel of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from 1979 to 1982 and previously as Deputy General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Energy and Special Assistant to the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission. Ms. Corash has consistently been listed in American Lawyer’s Corporate Counsel among the “Best Lawyers in America for Environmental Law” and in numerous other publications as being at the top of her field. She represents companies on a broad range of state, national and international environmental issues and claims regarding exposure to toxic substances. With the experience of being a former General Counsel of the EPA, Ms. Corash is well versed, and has been for many years, in the evolving area of clean technology, renewable resources and climate change. She advises clients on the many issues now facing corporations as they face the challenges of new technologies, infrastructures, markets and regulatory regimes.

Contact information: mcorash@mofo.com or (415) 268-7124



[1] Adopted in 1975, EPCA provides for the establishment of national corporate average fuel economy (“CAFÉ”) standards that apply to all passenger automobiles and light duty trucks.

[2] Coincidentally, at the same time, the European Commission adopted a proposal for legislation to dramatically reduce the average carbon dioxide (“CO2”) emissions of new passenger cars by 2012. If adopted by the European Parliament, the proposal requires, by 2012, a fleet average of 130 grams of CO2 emissions per kilometer, with another 10 grams per kilometer reduction from alternative sources such as biofuels and more efficient air-conditioning. Considering Europe’s cars currently emit on average 160 grams of CO2 per kilometer, this represents an almost twenty percent reduction of CO2 emissions in four years. 

Conferences and Events

Posted on December 6, 2007 by Rachael Bunday

The ACOEL group will be meeting on January 31st during the Lex Mundi North American Regional Conference in Miami. The meeting will take place at the Miami office of the law firm Akerman Senterfitt, from 12:15 - 2:45.

Minimum Streamflow in Arkansas

Posted on November 30, 2007 by Brian Rosenthal

  With some exceptions and common law developed standards, Arkansas has traditionally followed the reasonable use theory of the riparian doctrine. A riparian user must use water in a manner that is reasonable compared to others’ rights  (including as to ground water). 

            As a mid-south state, Arkansas receives a moderate amount of rain per year (approximately 49.19 inches on average since 1895 compiled from the Arkansas Natural Resource Commission’s Arkansas Ground Water Protection and Management Report for 2006). Stress on the amount, use of and quality of its underground aquifers, primarily in east and southeast Arkansas, have  resulted in increased scrutiny and planning for alternate water sources, including from conservation, recovery and surface water.        

            Arkansas has no current active system in operation for regulating water usage.  The Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, however, is directed to monitor our state’s water resources and can set minimum streamflows by rulemaking (but this step requires consultation with other state agencies). Water needs to be considered are domestic and municipal water supplies; agricultural and industrial; navigation; recreational; fish and wildlife and other ecological needs. The regulations and laws describe preferences and priorities, but are untested in practice.

            Minimum streamflows are to be set on a case by case basis, defining such stream flows as the “quantity of water required to meet the largest of the following instream flow needs as determined on a case-by-case basis:” (1) interstate compacts, (2) navigation, (3) fish and wildlife, (4) water quality, and (5) aquifer recharge. 

            After minimum flows are established, non-riparian permits may be applied for from “excess surface water.” Excess surface water means twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of water available on an average annual basis from any watershed basin above that amount required to satisfy all of the following:

                        1.         Existing riparian rights as of June 28, 1985

                        2.         The water needs of federal water projects existing on June 28, 1985

                        3.         The firm yield of all reservoirs in existence on June 28, 1985

                        4.         Maintenance of instream flows for wish and wildlife, water quality, aquifer recharge requirements, and navigation

                        5.         Future water needs of the basis of origin as projected in the State’s Water Plan

                        6.         Additionally, in the White River Basin, permitted transfers may not exceed on a monthly basis an amount that is 50% of the monthly average.

           

Minimum streamflow is important because of its relevance to the Commission’s planning in the case of a possible shortage. Separate and apart from its use in this way, minimum streamflows are also used to determine when excess surface water is available for transfers to nonriparians.

            These standards may be reviewed in the near future to begin establishing minimum streamflows and potentially, associated protected levels, which the Commission may attempt to implement by rule under shortage conditions. The White River is scheduled as the first river to be reviewed in conjunction with the Memphis District Corps of Engineers’ Grand Prairie Area Demonstration Project.  While such irrigation projects were unusual in eastern states, another such project is on the horizon with the Corps’ November 2007 Record of Decision issued for the Bayou Meto Basin of Arkansas.    

            Thus, Arkansas’s riparian rights doctrines are yielding to state systems of oversight based on depleted aquifers and increased demands. For more information on Arkansas’s water resources and rules, click here.

Oregon Water Developments

Posted on November 30, 2007 by Rick Glick

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski has announced that water will be among the top three priorities for the 2009 legislative session. During the interim, here are some developments to track:

            Oregon Oasis Project

            During the 2007 legislative session, agricultural interests in northeast Oregon proposed the Oasis Project, a bill (H.B. 3525) to withdraw up to 500,000 acre-feet of water per year for 25 years from the Upper Columbia River (above Bonneville Dam) for irrigation purposes. The Oasis Project was offered as a solution to shrinking water supplies for high value agriculture in eastern Oregon and to provide a measure of equity relative to Columbia water use by Oregon’s neighbors. 

            Of the total river flow of 198 million acre-feet per year, irrigated agriculture withdrawals comprise 6.93%. Of that amount, Idaho withdraws 52.5%, Washington 32.8%, Montana 7.3% and Oregon 7.4%. If the Oasis Project were to be implemented, its share of water drawn from the Columbia would increase to 9.25%. 

            The reason that Oregon’s share is relatively small is that the state placed a “temporary” moratorium on such withdrawals in 1994 that remains in place to this day. In December 1993, the four Northwest governors signed a letter suggesting that the states defer to the Northwest Power Planning Council for proposing a cooperative policy for salmon recovery with federal agencies. In a January 6, 1994 letter, Oregon’s representatives to the Northwest Power Planning Council requested that the WRD adopt rules temporarily restricting use of Columbia River water. This “temporary” moratorium has lasted 13 years. In the meantime, Washington has actively encouraged new irrigation in the Columbia basin and continues to do so. The 500,000 af/y withdrawal proposed by the Oasis sponsors represents about 0.0025% of the total river flow.

            Of the total diversion from the Columbia that Oasis would authorize, 195,000 would be devoted to replacing depleted ground water supplies for irrigation of 65,000 acres. 300,000 acre feet of “new” water would be used to add 100,000 acres under cultivation. 5,000 acre feet would be available for municipal use. A fee of $10 per acre-foot of new water would be used by the WRD to develop and manage instream water conservation projects in collaboration with the Warm Springs and Umatilla tribes. 

            H.B. 3525 failed to pass in 2007, but the bill’s sponsors continue to be hopeful of ultimate success. In the meantime, they are exploring other alternatives. Prime among them is withdrawing Columbia River water during the winter months for aquifer storage and recovery (ASR). ASR, if feasible, could replenish the critical ground water areas and provide a sustainable water source for many years. A bill is being proposed for the interim 2008 legislative session to fund a feasibility study of this approach. Another potential alternative is to establish a regional water bank to facilitate cooperative use of the resource. Scoggins Dam Raise and Title Transfer Project

 
            A consortium of Portland area municipal water and sewer utilities are joining together to form the Tualatin Basin Water Supply Project Partnership, comprised of Clean Water Services, Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD), Tualatin Valley Irrigation District (TVID), Washington County, Lake Oswego Corporation and the Cities of Beaverton, Hillsboro, Tigard, and Forest Grove.  The partnership is working to secure future water supplies for environmental and community needs. Clean Water Services is a county service district that provides sanitary sewer service and urban surface water management to a 123 square mile area within Washington County, Oregon. The population served is approximately 470,000 within the 12 member cities and unincorporated county areas, one of the fasted growing areas in the state.

            The Project seeks to provide an additional 52,000 acre-feet of water for multiple uses in the Tualatin Basin through title transfer of the federal Tualatin Project to a local entity, a raise of Scoggins Dam and construction of a raw water pipeline.  The partnership and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation will jointly fund the Project. Currently, the partnership is pursuing federal funding from Reclamation to complete a Planning Report/Draft Environmental Statement and is exploring the possibility of transfer of title of the physical facilities associated with the Tualatin Project.

            Oregon Water Supply and Conservation Initiative

            The Oregon Water Resources Department has launched and the 2007 legislature appropriated funds to create a means of identifying Oregon water needs and potential solutions. It is the first major statewide planning action for future water resources in a very long time. 

            The Oregon Progress Board’s State of the Environment Report (2000) noted that one of the state’s major environmental challenges is inadequate water supply. That is the impetus for the Oasis and Tualatin projects described above. Surface waters in most of Oregon during non-winter months are fully appropriated by existing out-of-stream and instream uses. Ground water resources are showing signs of overuse and are becoming unstable in many areas. Conflicts between instream and out-of-stream needs, exacerbated by listings of aquatic species under the Endangered Species Act, have become increasingly divisive and expensive to resolve.  The Initiative consists of five key components:

(1)   Assessment of existing and future water needs in Oregon

(2)   Completion of a statewide inventory of potential storage sites;

(3)   Statewide analysis of conservation opportunities;

(4)   Completion of a statewide investigation of basin yield estimates;

Match funding for community-based and regional water supply planning.

Minimum Streamflow in Arkansas

Posted on November 30, 2007 by Brian Rosenthal

 With some exceptions and common law developed standards, Arkansas has traditionally followed the reasonable use theory of the riparian doctrine. A riparian user must use water in a manner that is reasonable compared to others’ rights  (including as to ground water). 

            As a mid-south state, Arkansas receives a moderate amount of rain per year (approximately 49.19 inches on average since 1895 compiled from the Arkansas Natural Resource Commission’s Arkansas Ground Water Protection and Management Report for 2006). Stress on the amount, use of and quality of its underground aquifers, primarily in east and southeast Arkansas, have  resulted in increased scrutiny and planning for alternate water sources, including from conservation, recovery and surface water.        

            Arkansas has no current active system in operation for regulating water usage.  The Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, however, is directed to monitor our state’s water resources and can set minimum streamflows by rulemaking (but this step requires consultation with other state agencies). Water needs to be considered are domestic and municipal water supplies; agricultural and industrial; navigation; recreational; fish and wildlife and other ecological needs. The regulations and laws describe preferences and priorities, but are untested in practice.

            Minimum streamflows are to be set on a case by case basis, defining such stream flows as the “quantity of water required to meet the largest of the following instream flow needs as determined on a case-by-case basis:” (1) interstate compacts, (2) navigation, (3) fish and wildlife, (4) water quality, and (5) aquifer recharge. 

            After minimum flows are established, non-riparian permits may be applied for from “excess surface water.” Excess surface water means twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of water available on an average annual basis from any watershed basin above that amount required to satisfy all of the following:

                        1.         Existing riparian rights as of June 28, 1985

                        2.         The water needs of federal water projects existing on June 28, 1985

                        3.         The firm yield of all reservoirs in existence on June 28, 1985

                        4.         Maintenance of instream flows for wish and wildlife, water quality, aquifer recharge requirements, and navigation

                        5.         Future water needs of the basis of origin as projected in the State’s Water Plan

                        6.         Additionally, in the White River Basin, permitted transfers may not exceed on a monthly basis an amount that is 50% of the monthly average.

           

Minimum streamflow is important because of its relevance to the Commission’s planning in the case of a possible shortage. Separate and apart from its use in this way, minimum streamflows are also used to determine when excess surface water is available for transfers to nonriparians.

            These standards may be reviewed in the near future to begin establishing minimum streamflows and potentially, associated protected levels, which the Commission may attempt to implement by rule under shortage conditions. The White River is scheduled as the first river to be reviewed in conjunction with the Memphis District Corps of Engineers’ Grand Prairie Area Demonstration Project.  While such irrigation projects were unusual in eastern states, another such project is on the horizon with the Corps’ November 2007 Record of Decision issued for the Bayou Meto Basin of Arkansas.    

            Thus, Arkansas’s riparian rights doctrines are yielding to state systems of oversight based on depleted aquifers and increased demands. For more information on Arkansas’s water resources and rules, click here.

Wind Power Project Permitting: Demonstrating a Need for Clean Power and Evaluating the Economic and Wildlife Impacts of Wind Farms

Posted on November 30, 2007 by Jeff Thaler

Structure/Cause

Total Bird Fatalities

Vehicles

60-80 million

Buildings and windows

98-980 million

Power lines

10,000 – 174 million

Communications Towers

4-50 million

Agricultural Pesticides

67 million

Housecats

100 million

Wind Generation Facilities

10,000 – 40,000

There have been few studies on bat mortality. Most have focused on Virginia and West Virginia where there are more caves as well as largely deciduous forest habitats. Outside of a study at Searsburg, Vermont (P. Kerlinger 2002), which failed to document any bird or bat mortality, there are currently no published studies of bat mortality for wind power facilities in New England. For facilities located on temperate forest ridges in the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic, fatality rates range from 15.3 to 41.1 bats per megawatt (MW) of installed power, per year.[16]    Bat fatalities appeared to be greater at turbines nearer to wetlands (Jain et al 2007). Wind turbines on higher, more windy and sub-alpine ridgelines are expected to have far fewer bat fatalities.

The primary reason for very low rates of bird and bat mortality is that they migrate at altitudes wellabove the rotor-swept area. All post-2004, published (59) and unpublished (72) studies to date have consistently documented that birds and bats fly well above (i.e., 1000 to 2000 feet above) the turbine blades during migration periods.

Conclusions

Not only environmental lawyers, but all concerned decision-makers and citizens must confront the largest threat to our public’s environment, health, and property in decade: climate change from global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. This century’s realities require prompt and decisive action on many fronts, only one of which is the expedited permitting and construction of clean, renewable, and indigenous sources of power for our homes and businesses. It is critical that we help advocate not only for individual projects, but also for modernized policy- and decision-making that balances traditional environmental wildlife concerns with the new threats to wildlife, forest,  coastal habitats, and our way of life. The need is urgent. The time is now.



[1] As of December 2007 there are three proposed wind farms that have received some regulatory review, totaling 243 MW. Studies suggest there is significantly more wind capacity developable in Maine, and of course many more times that across the United States.

[2]   The Task Force web site has a wealth of information, including a number of presentations, and is at: http://www.maine.gov/doc/mfs/windpower/summaries.shtml

[3] The October 30, 2007 presentation can be found at: http://www.maine.gov/doc/mfs/windpower/meeting_summaries/103007_summary_files/Grace_Wind_Task_Force_103007.pdf

[4] A recent presentation by Maine DEP Commissioner David Littell summarizing wind power and its

greenhouse gas and air quality benefits is at: ttp://www.maine.gov/doc/lurc/minutes/080107/Littellpresentation.pdf

[5] The general IPCC website is at:     http:www.ipcc.ch/   A summary of the Synthesis Report can be found at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf     

[6]   For the NECIA report see:  

http://www.climatechoices.org/assets/documents/climatechoices/confronting-climate-change-in-the-u-s-northeast.pdf    For the NECIA link to specific reports in individual states, go to:   http://www.climatechoices.org/ne/resources_ne/nereport.html

[7] http://www.climatechoices.org/assets/documents/climatechoices/maine_necia.pdf   

[8] http://www.earthscape.org/r1/r1/epa06/MAINE.PDF

[9] “Analysis: Economic Impacts of Wind Applications in Rural Communities”, National Renewable Energy Laboratory and M. Pedden

[10] Poletti and Associates, Inc. Real Estate Study

[11] http://www.aceny.org/pdfs/misc/effects_windmill_vis_on_prop_values_hoen2006.pdf.

12http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/binaries/wind_online_final.pdf)

 

[13] Erickson, W.P. et al, “Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines”, 2001.

[14] This study, by Jain et al., can be found at:

www.mapleridgewind.com/documents/06-25-07_MapleRidgeAnnualReport2006.pdf

[15] National Research Council, 2007, “Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy”, based upon Mid-Atlantic Highlands region, http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11935#toc; also see generally Erickson et al. 2001; Klem 1991; Pimental and Acquay 1992; Coleman and Temple 1993;

[16] Kunz et al. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment Issue 6, Vol. 5: August 2007.

[15] National Research Council, 2007, “Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy”, based upon Mid-Atlantic Highlands region, http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11935#toc; also see generally Erickson et al. 2001; Klem 1991; Pimental and Acquay 1992; Coleman and Temple 1993;

[16] Kunz et al. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment Issue 6, Vol. 5: August 2007.

Carbon Capture and Sequestration Issues and Debate

Posted on November 27, 2007 by Jeff Thaler

The proposed construction of a 700-megawatt coal-and-biomass-fuel power plant on the site of a former nuclear power plant in Maine has sparked a great deal of analysis into current issues and technologies associated with carbon sequestration, including but not limited to coal power plants. The Twin River Energy Center in Maine proposed an innovative technology to convert coal and wood biomass to a nearly sulfur-and particulate-free gas that would be burned to drive steam turbines, as well as to create a small amount of diesel fuel. 

            As in many parts of the country, the project proposal kindled debate about the use of America’s substantial coal resources in a time of climate change and greenhouse gas concerns.   Consequently, a large conference was recently held by the Chewonki Foundation with participation of experts from around the country, as well as Twin River representatives, to discuss carbon capture and storage technologies and opportunities. The Twin River project would have the technology to capture carbon, but no ready sequestration site nearby presently exists. 

            The general consensus from conference presentations was that (1) carbon capture and sequestration will need to play an important role in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, not only in the United States, but especially in China, India and other parts of the world; (2) at the present time, there is insufficient geological information -- both on land and below the ocean floor -- about the potential for carbon dioxide storage not only in Maine but in the Northeast in general; and (3) it is imperative that government, industry and environmental groups work together in exploring the viability of carbon sequestration. 

            Maine is a member of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the nation’s first carbon-and-trade program, which involves all Northeast states from Maine to Maryland, with the exception of Pennsylvania. Commencing January 1, 2009, it required reduction of pollution from the region’s largest power plants by 10% by 2019. However, while the region itself is not heavily dependent upon coal-fired generation, it is heavily dependent upon fossil-fuel generation, as well as being downwind of substantial coal-generated power to the west and south.

            During the Chewonki conference, findings were presented from the MIT Future of Coal Study; the U.S. Department of Energy presented on the priorities and challenges of carbon capture and storage; several speakers focused on technological issues of producing low-greenhouse gas liquid fuels, as well as the monitoring and site characterization for carbon storage; and a presentation was made by a Twin River consultant on the mine-to-wheels analysis of projected carbon dioxide emissions from the proposed plant. 

            A link to the carbon capture and storage presentations can be seen here.   After the presentation, local voters in Wiscasset rejected a change in the zoning ordinance concerning height of structures. The project developer is still intending to pursue the project following some refinements.

           In full disclosure, the author is lead environmental permitting attorney for the Twin River project, and his firm generally represents Twin River. For more information on the author, including contact information, please see firm website here.  

The IOGCC Issues Its Model Program For The Geologic Sequestration of CO2

Posted on November 27, 2007 by David Flannery

 On September 25, 2007, the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) issued its model program for the storage of carbon dioxide in geologic formations. The full text of the model program can be found here.

          OVERVIEW - Even though USEPA has announced that it will undertake the development of regulatory program for such activities under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the IOGCC model program is premised on the belief that the regulation of CO2 geological storage should be left to regulation by the states, rather than USEPA. Equally significant is the IOGCC view that the storage of CO2 in geological formations should be viewed as the storage of a commodity - not waste disposal. While the IOGCC proposes its CCS program in anticipation of a national program that would constrain the emission of CO2 to the atmosphere, the IOGCC avoids making recommendations about how CO2 should be constrained.

          PROPERTY RIGHTS - The model program provides that an applicant for any such project should acquire the property rights to use pore space in the geologic formation for storage. While much of the IOGCC’s model program addresses the need to acquire property rights through negotiation, eminent domain or unitization of oil and gas rights, the model program specifically states that the IOGCC is less concerned about what mechanism is used to acquire those rights and is more concerned that all necessary property rights be acquired by valid, subsisting and applicable state law. The IOGCC goes on to recognize that states might develop alternative mechanisms to acquire property rights, such as adapting the concept of the forced unitization of oil and gas industry rights to other property interests. An applicant must demonstrate that a good-faith effort has been made to obtain the consent of a major of owners "having property interest affected by the storage facility." The program provides for an applicant to have the power of eminent domain and provides that an applicant will be deemed to have necessary property rights to the extent that the applicant has initiated unitization or eminent domain proceedings and have thereby gained the right a of access to the property.

          COVERED FACILITIES - The definition of "storage facility", includes the reservoir, wells and related surface facilities but apparently not pipelines used to transport carbon dioxide from capture facilities to the storage and injection site. The IOGCC has stated its intent to consider over the next year, how its model program might best be expanded to include pipelines.

          LIABILITY RELEASE - Following completion of the project an operator would be obligated to monitor the project to assure its integrity. At the completion of that period, title to the facility would be transferred to the state and the operator and all generators of CO2 injected would be released for all regulatory liability and any posted performance bonds would also be released. Over the next year, the IOGCC has stated that it will consider the possibility of expanding the liability release to include common law tort liability. As part of the inducement for a state to allow liability transfer, the program establishes a trust fund which would assess a fee on each ton of CO2 injected. The trust fund provides the financial resources for the state to take title to project at the end of its operating life.

          COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS - Cooperative agreements are authorized for use in connection with projects that extend beyond state boundaries.

          EOR PROJECTS - Enhanced Oil Recovery projects are not covered by the model program, although agencies are encouraged to develop rules on how enhanced recovery operations would be converted to carbon dioxide storage projects.

          PERMIT REQUIREMENTS - The program provides detailed requirements for completing an application for approval of a CCS project. Among other things maps accompanying a permit application would be required to identify existing oil and gas and coal mining operations. Public notice is completed upon mailing. The agency shall issue a permit to drill and operate once it has completed a review of the application. The permit would expire within twelve months from the date of issuance if the permitted well had not been drilled or converted. The program also sets forth detailed well operational standards, including requirements for safety plans, leak detection, and corrosion monitoring and prevention.

This article was authored by David M. Flannery, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.

Regional Governors Sign On to Progressive Climate Change Agreement

Posted on November 27, 2007 by Linda Bochert

 On November 15, 2007 the Midwest Governors Association held the Energy Security and Climate Change Summit in Milwaukee, WI. The Summit provided Midwest leaders with the opportunity to come together on an issue of global importance and sign onto the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord (the Accord). Full signatories to the Accord include Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Kansas, and the Canadian Province of Manitoba. Indiana, Ohio, South Dakota signed on as observer states, and although Nebraska and North Dakota did not sign onto the Accord, they did adopt the accompanying Energy Security and Climate Stewardship Platform (the Platform).  

          The Accord cites the lack of national leadership on climate change issues and asserts that Midwestern States are well positioned to take a leadership role in climate change policy. Several specific goals were put forth along with an aggressive timeframe within which to accomplish them. Of particular importance will be establishing targets for GHG emission reductions and implementing a regional cap and trade program.

          The Platform provides policy options and measurable goals to help facilitate the transition to a lower-carbon energy economy. Among its top priorities are the development of widespread energy efficiency programs, utilization of bio-based products and transportation, increased development of local renewable electricity, and increased support for advanced coal technologies. 

More information about the Midwestern Governors Association, the Accord and the Platform is available online here.

Carbon Capture and Sequestration Issues and Debate

Posted on November 27, 2007 by Jeff Thaler

The proposed construction of a 700-megawatt coal-and-biomass-fuel power plant on the site of a former nuclear power plant in Maine has sparked a great deal of analysis into current issues and technologies associated with carbon sequestration, including but not limited to coal power plants. The Twin River Energy Center in Maine proposed an innovative technology to convert coal and wood biomass to a nearly sulfur-and particulate-free gas that would be burned to drive steam turbines, as well as to create a small amount of diesel fuel. 

            As in many parts of the country, the project proposal kindled debate about the use of America’s substantial coal resources in a time of climate change and greenhouse gas concerns.   Consequently, a large conference was recently held by the Chewonki Foundation with participation of experts from around the country, as well as Twin River representatives, to discuss carbon capture and storage technologies and opportunities. The Twin River project would have the technology to capture carbon, but no ready sequestration site nearby presently exists. 

            The general consensus from conference presentations was that (1) carbon capture and sequestration will need to play an important role in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, not only in the United States, but especially in China, India and other parts of the world; (2) at the present time, there is insufficient geological information -- both on land and below the ocean floor -- about the potential for carbon dioxide storage not only in Maine but in the Northeast in general; and (3) it is imperative that government, industry and environmental groups work together in exploring the viability of carbon sequestration. 

            Maine is a member of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the nation’s first carbon-and-trade program, which involves all Northeast states from Maine to Maryland, with the exception of Pennsylvania. Commencing January 1, 2009, it required reduction of pollution from the region’s largest power plants by 10% by 2019. However, while the region itself is not heavily dependent upon coal-fired generation, it is heavily dependent upon fossil-fuel generation, as well as being downwind of substantial coal-generated power to the west and south.

            During the Chewonki conference, findings were presented from the MIT Future of Coal Study; the U.S. Department of Energy presented on the priorities and challenges of carbon capture and storage; several speakers focused on technological issues of producing low-greenhouse gas liquid fuels, as well as the monitoring and site characterization for carbon storage; and a presentation was made by a Twin River consultant on the mine-to-wheels analysis of projected carbon dioxide emissions from the proposed plant. 

            A link to the carbon capture and storage presentations can be seen here.   After the presentation, local voters in Wiscasset rejected a change in the zoning ordinance concerning height of structures. The project developer is still intending to pursue the project following some refinements.

           In full disclosure, the author is lead environmental permitting attorney for the Twin River project, and his firm generally represents Twin River. For more information on the author, including contact information, please see firm website here.