We May Not Always Have Paris, But Perhaps We Can Do Better Than Paris

Posted on September 20, 2018 by Seth Jaffe

Last week, the Climate Leadership Council released an analysis demonstrating that the “Baker Shultz Carbon Dividends Plan” would result in greater reductions in greenhouse gas emissions than the US committed to attaining under the 2015 Paris agreement.  (And a shout out to ACOEL fellow Pam Giblin, who is a Senior Policy Advisor at the CLC.) 

I don’t doubt that the CLC analysis is right.  If I had to guess, I’d predict that they probably underestimate the reductions that would be reached with a robust carbon tax.

I understand the difficulty in convincing what passes for the GOP base at this point – and the GOP members of Congress – to endorse the carbon tax.  Oops, I meant dividend.  I’m hopeful that enough members will come around at some point.  My real worry is that the environmental movement will reject the plan because it calls for elimination of current regulations concerning carbon.

Years ago, Gina McCarthy used to say quite freely that the Obama administration would get most of its carbon reductions, not from direct regulation of GHG emissions, but instead from all of the other air regulations it was promulgating, such as the power plant MACT standards.

What environmentalists have to remember is that the reverse is also true – any robust program to reduce carbon emissions will also lower emissions of conventional pollutants.  Indeed, in defending the Clean Power Plan, environmentalists have made that very argument.  Why not acknowledge the same point in connection with a carbon tax and give up on a set of regulations that have always been clunky at best, are nowhere near as efficient a regulatory tool as a carbon tax, and which, as compared to a carbon tax, really benefit no one other than environmental lawyers and consultants?

God, wouldn’t it be a breath of fresh air to see Congress actually get something big done for the American people?  Let’s not screw this one up.

The D.C. Circuit Court Coal Combustion Conclusion: “C” is for Cookie, that’s good enough for me!”

Posted on September 19, 2018 by Kathy Beckett

As our blue friend, The Cookie Monster, looks for words that begin with “c” he immediately settles upon a single favorite, the cookie. There is a bias in the selection by The Cookie Monster, as he prefers only one thing, cookies.  By using one noun and offering no other, we can conclude The Cookie Monster has a bias against other “c” nouns like carrots, cabbage and  cauliflower.  Using The Cookie Monster preferred word “c” methodology as applied to the recent D.C. Circuit decision in Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, et al. v. EPA et al., No. 15-1219 (August 21, 2018), one can find several “c” words selected by the panel of judges, Henderson, Millett, and Pillard that predict the conclusion.  As with The Cookie Monster, early choice of words sends a message.

Beginning with the obvious, the petitions filed by industry and environmental advocates concerned “coal”, “coal residuals” to be precise.  The petitioners challenge the EPA 2015 Final Rule governing the disposal of coal combustion residuals produced by electric utilities and independent power plants.    The Court offers in their Background discussion an opening observation that contaminants that are cancerous are found in coal residuals that are disposed of in concentrated locations that are massive.  These disposal areas are constructed without composite liners sometimes using inadequate clay liners allowing the commingling of water and contaminants.  Background conditions may not be able to be restored.  Catastrophic risks are posed and consequences may be amplified.  A compendium of damage cases has been compiled.  Complete destruction of aquatic ecosystems are identified. 

With the initial “c” analysis as noted above, the casual reader can predict the EPA Coal Residual rule does not fare well with this panel.  A few opinion highlights are offered:

  • Congress’ passage of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (“WINN Act”) will have to be managed by EPA later.
  • Continued operation of unlined impoundments pursuant to 40 CFR 257.101 is vacated and remanded for consideration.
  • Clay-lined impoundments are not actually lined, so the court vacates 40 CFR 257.71(a)(1)(i).
  • Capricious describes the legacy ponds regulation.
  • Cure for select portions of EPA’s coal residual rule is a remand of (i) the regulation of coal piles; (ii) the Proposed Rule’s notice of Coal Residuals pile regulation; and (iii) the 12,400-ton threshold for beneficial use (and notice thereof).

Concurring, Henderson construes disposal to mean CCR is not curb trash. 

How Much Does Trump Even Care About Deregulation?

Posted on September 13, 2018 by Seth Jaffe

Rick Glick’s September 11 post discusses Judge David Norton’s August 2018 decision to issue a nationwide injunction against the Trump Administration’s “Suspension Rule,” which delayed implementation of the Obama Waters of the United States RuleAs noted in Rick's post, that case was not about the merits of the WOTUS rule.  It was simply about the Trump administration’s failure to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act in promulgating the Suspension Rule.

Which brings me to the point of this post.

The Administration’s failure to comply seems so obvious that one has to wonder whether the Administration even cared whether the Suspension Rule could survive judicial review.  Indeed, this case seems part of a clear pattern.  The Court noted as much in quoting a summary of such cases from the plaintiffs’ brief:

Clean Air Council v. Pruitt (vacating the EPA’s attempt to temporarily stay a Clean Air Act regulation without “comply[ing] with the … APA”); Open Communities All. v. Carson, (enjoining the defendant agency’s attempt, “without notice and comment or particularized evidentiary findings, … [to] delay[] almost entirely by two years implementation of a rule” adopted by the previous administration); Pennsylvania v. Trump (enjoining two new “Interim Final Rules” based on the defendant agencies’ attempt to “bypass notice and comment rule making”); Nat’l Venture Capital Ass’n v. Duke (vacating the defendant agency’s “decision to delay the implementation of an Obama-era immigration rule … without providing notice or soliciting comment from the public”); California v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt. (holding that the defendant agency’s attempt to postpone a regulation’s compliance dates “after the rule’s effective date had already passed … violated the APA’s notice and comment requirements by effectively repealing the [r]ule without engaging in the process for obtaining comment from the public”); Becerra v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, (holding that the defendant agency violated the APA in “fail[ing] to give the public an opportunity to weigh in with comments” before attempting to postpone a rule that had already taken effect).

To which the Court added its own footnote:

To this litany of cases, the court adds two more from the last several months— Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin. and Children’s Hosp. of the King’s Daughters, Inc. v. AzarAs these cases make clear, this court is but the latest in a series to recently find that an agency’s delay of a properly promulgated final rule circumvented the APA.  (My emphasis.)

I find it hard to believe that numerous smart lawyers, across a range of agencies, all suddenly forgot what the APA requires.  Isn’t it more likely that the Administration simply doesn’t care about the outcome?  The government of the most powerful nation on earth, that likes to think that it taught the world about democracy, doesn’t care about governing.  All it cares about is having Twitter material, to feed to its adoring fans and, equally importantly, to bait its many critics.

WOTUS Lives! . . . at Least in Half the States (for Now)

Posted on September 11, 2018 by Rick Glick

On August 16, a federal judge in South Carolina invalidated the Trump Administration’s suspension of the rule defining “waters of the United States” (WOTUS), under the Clean Water Act.  In South Carolina Coastal Conservation League v. Pruitt, the court found that the notice-and-comment opportunity supporting the Suspension Rule was too narrow and thus violated the Administrative Procedure Act.  The WOTUS suspension is the latest in a series of attempts by the Administration to stall implementation of Obama era regulations, none of which have met favor with the courts. 

As reported here about one year ago, the Trump Administration announced a two-step process to undo WOTUS.  The first step was to suspend WOTUS for two years, during which a revised WOTUS rule would be developed.  In the meantime, guidance on jurisdictional waters that had been issued in the 1980s by the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers would be reinstated.  The public notice of the Suspension Rule requested comments only on the suspension, but not the substance of either the Obama WOTUS rule or the 1980s guidance.

U. S. District Court Judge David C. Norton, a George H. W. Bush appointee, reasoned that the practical effect of the Suspension Rule is that the WOTUS rule would not apply and instead the 1980s guidance would control.  The court then noted that the definitions in the WOTUS rule and the 1987 guidance are “drastically different” and it is hard to comment on the Suspension Rule without talking about that difference.  That refusal to allow comment on the substantive differences violates the notice-and-comment provisions of the APA:  “An illusory opportunity to comment is no opportunity at all.”  The judge therefore rejected the Trump Suspension Rule, and imposed a nationwide injunction. 

Explaining the jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act has flummoxed the federal agencies and courts for decades.  Far from bringing clarity, the Obama WOTUS Rule drew over one million comments and multiple judicial challenges on the merits of the rule.  Initially the question was whether such challenges should be made in the U. S. district courts or the Circuit Courts of Appeal.  The Sixth Circuit held that the appellate courts had original jurisdiction and stayed all of the pending district court actions, but that decision was reversed earlier this year in a unanimous decision of the U. S. Supreme Court.  Thus, those lower court cases can continue.

Judge Norton, in South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, was clear that he was not ruling on the merits of the WOTUS Rule, but just the procedural correctness of the Suspension Rule.  In challenges on the merits, other federal courts have stayed the WOTUS Rule in 24 states.  Striking down the Suspension Rule means that WOTUS remains in effect in the other 26 states. 

At the moment, then, about half the country is subject to the WOTUS Rule, while the other half is not.  What could go wrong?

Strong Headwinds Face Water Quality Trading in the Chesapeake

Posted on August 2, 2018 by Ridgway Hall

The Chesapeake Bay watershed covers 64,000 square miles in parts of Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. When the six states and the District asked EPA to establish a multi-state Total Maximum Daily Load under the Clean Water Act in 2010 and assign each state its fair share, they took on the job of reducing discharges of nitrogen from all sources by 25%, phosphorus by 24% and sediment by 10%. The goal is to have all necessary measures in place to achieve this by 2025 to meet applicable water quality standards. With funding at the state and federal levels in short supply, a search was on for the most cost-effective ways to reduce these pollutants.  The states with the biggest burdens, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Maryland, each turned to the emerging practice of water quality trading.

Trading enables a discharger for whom the cost per unit of pollution reduction is lower than for other dischargers to reduce its pollution below what the law requires and sell that extra reduction as a “credit” to another discharger for whom the cost per unit of pollutant reduction is greater.  The result is that the seller makes money from the credit sale, and the buyer attains compliance at a lower cost than it would otherwise incur. Sounds simple, doesn’t it?  In October the Government Accounting Office published the results of a nationwide survey in which it found that only 11 states have water quality trading programs, and the only significant use being made was in Pennsylvania, Virginia and Connecticut, even though EPA has been promoting it since 1996. (I discussed this in “Water Quality: Wading into Trading” posted Nov. 28, 2017).

To encourage the Bay states to adopt trading programs that will comply with the Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations, EPA published a series of “Technical Memoranda” (TMs) addressing key elements of a trading program including “baseline” (the maximum amount of pollution allowed under any applicable law before a credit can be generated), protecting local water quality where a credit is used, credit calculation, and accounting for uncertainty. This is needed where a nonpoint source, like a farm, is generating credits by installation of best management practices (BMPs) and the pollution reduction benefits must be estimated using modeling. The TMs also address credit duration, certification by the agency, registration and tracking on a publicly posted registry, and verification that the BMPs on which the credits are based are being maintained.  Finally, they address sampling and public participation. (See my blog post of Sept. 26, 2016 “New Tools for Water Quality Trading”).  Credits can also be used to “offset” new or expanded discharges. The TMs are not regulations, but set forth EPA’s “expectations”.

Common Elements

Pennsylvania, Virginia and Maryland have adopted trading regulations which are intended to be consistent with the TMs.  The principal elements include . . . [CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE]

WOTUS: Legal Issue or Scientific Issue?

Posted on August 1, 2018 by Seth Jaffe

Last month, EPA and the Army Corps issued a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in support of their efforts to get rid of the Obama WOTUS rule.  It’s a shrewd but cynical document.  It’s shrewd, because it fairly effectively shifts the focus from the scientific question to the legal question.  Instead of asking what waters must be regulated to ensure that waters of the United States are protected, it asks what are the jurisdictional limits in the Clean Water Act.

It’s cynical, because, by failing to take on the science behind the 2015 rule, which seemed fairly persuasive to me, EPA and the Corps avoid the hard regulations necessary to protect our waters while clothing themselves in feel-good words about the integrity of the statute and the important role given to states under the Clean Water Act.

Part of the beauty of the SNPR is the way it carefully navigates between whether the broader jurisdictional interpretation taken by the 2015 rule is prohibited under the Clean Water Act or simply not required under the Clean Water Act.

The agencies are also concerned that the 2015 Rule lacks sufficient statutory basis. The agencies are proposing to conclude in the alternative that, at a minimum, the interpretation of the statute adopted in the 2015 Rule is not compelled, and a different policy balance can be appropriate.

I’m not sure I agree with the administration’s interpretation of the scope of the CWA, but it’s not crazy.  If I had to bet, I’d assume that it would survive judicial review.

The problem is that this simplistic legal approach ignores the science and ignores the missions of both EPA and the Corps.  If the 2015 rule is more protective of the nation’s waters, and if there are questions about the scope of jurisdiction under the CWA, then shouldn’t the administration be asking Congress to clarify EPA’s and the Corps’ authority so that they can regulate in a manner consistent with what good science says is necessary to protect the waters of the United States?

I’m not holding my breath.

Michèle Ma Belle

Posted on July 19, 2018 by Robert Falk

Michèle B. Corash, one of our giants of environmental law and my dear friend, mentor, and partner retired from active practice earlier this year.  She, her unique persona, and her achievements are well known to many, while Michèle’s other, quieter accomplishments, deeds, and attributes are likely known to only a few.  Because “these are words that go together well,” I will discuss just a small handful of her better and lesser knowns below.

As almost all of you may know, Michèle proudly served as general counsel of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from 1979 to 1982.  Prior to that she served as deputy general counsel for the U.S. Department of Energy, and, previously, was a special assistant to the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission.  (Since we shared a common initial job description in our federal government careers, in working together for almost three decades, one of Michèle favorite things to say to keep me on my toes was “once a special assistant, always a special assistant.”) 

As general counsel, Michèle, among other things, helped EPA give birth to CERCLA, as well as regulations implementing key provisions of RCRA and many of our other fundamental environmental statutes.  While her participation in the reach of our environmental laws is likely her more significant accomplishment, on the other side of the equation, she also served on then-Vice President George H.W. Bush’s Regulatory Reform Task Force, where she helped steer its recommendations to avoid the type of unconscionable approaches that we unfortunately witness all too often being undertaken by the current Administration. 

In her subsequent career in private practice, Michèle was widely recognized as a leader and innovator in environmental law.  She received the highest rating for environmental lawyers from Chambers USA virtually every year, and Legal 500 USA repeatedly ranked Michèle as a Leading Lawyer in Environmental Litigation.   On a wider stage, Michèle was listed in the Expert Guides to the World’s Leading Lawyers – The Best of the Best, and here on the “left” coast, California Lawyer also cited Michèle as one of the “Best of the West.”  (Perhaps of more significance to her personally, is that Michèle’s work was also recognized by The Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journal as having the “widest impact and is changing an industry or the law or the society as a whole.”)   

As many of you know, beyond her accomplishments in practice, Michèle was a founding member of the American College of Environmental Law and served as its President in 2008-2009 (culminating in a fabulous and still-remarked upon party in her penthouse condominium with its 360° view of San Francisco).  Prior to that, Michèle served on the ABA’s Standing Committee on Environmental Law and (after assigning me as a junior associate to be her special assistant for organizing it), chaired its International Conference on Environmental Law in Pacific Rim Nations in Hong Kong in 1991. 

Somewhat lesser-knowns about Michèle include her tireless promotion of women and diversity in the legal profession, in the business world more generally, and particularly within our firm.  (In addition to parties for ACOEL and many others, Michèle hosted current and former women attorneys and summer associates at a very well attended annual dinner at her home.)  Michèle also serves as a fabulous mentor to her nieces (who she regularly brought to work on Take Your Daughter to Work Day) and as a godmother to several close friends’ children.  As added evidence of her boundless energy, she has also been a longtime patron of the opera and remains an active member of the Board of the San Francisco Symphony. 

Although I could go on (and on) and tell you, many other things about what a wonderful mentor and friend Michèle has been over the years, instead, I prefer to conclude this serenade with Mr. McCartney’s lyrics:

Michèle, ma belle
These are words that go together well
My Michèle

Michèle, ma belle
Sont les mots qui vont très bien ensemble
Très bien ensemble

I love you, I love you, I love you . . . .

EPA Must Produce Any Agency Records Supporting Administrator Pruitt’s Statement that Human Activity Is Not the Largest Contributor to Climate Change

Posted on June 8, 2018 by Seth Jaffe

Last Friday, EPA was ordered to produce documents, in response to a FOIA request, on which Administrator Pruitt relied in stating on CNBC that: “I would not agree that [carbon dioxide] is a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” and “there’s a tremendous disagreement about of [sic] the impact” of “human activity on the climate.”

I’ve done a fair number of FOIA requests in my time.  The request here was about as plain and simple – and clear – as it is possible to be.  The extent to which the government contorted the request in order to make it seem impossible to answer did not sit well with the Court.  Here’s the request as modified by the plaintiffs.  They sought:

(1) agency records that Administrator Pruitt relied upon to support his statements in his CNBC interview,” and “(2) any EPA documents, studies, reports, or guidance material that support the conclusion that human activity is not the largest factor driving global climate change.

EPA objected to the request in part on the basis that it was an improper interrogatory that required the EPA to take a position on the climate change debate.  To which the Court stated that “this hyperbolic objection strays far afield from the actual text of both parts of the FOIA request.”

EPA also argued that the request was vague, asking “how is one to even know precisely what documents one relies on forming one’s beliefs.”  Yikes.  And what is the definition of “is,” Mr. Administrator?

I loved the Court’s response.

Particularly troubling is the apparent premise of this agency challenge to the FOIA request, namely: that the evidentiary basis for a policy or factual statement by an agency head, including about the scientific factors contributing to climate change, is inherently unknowable. Such a premise runs directly counter to “an axiom of administrative law that an agency’s explanation of the basis for its decision must include ‘a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.  EPA’s strained attempt to raise an epistemological smokescreen will not work here to evade its obligations under the FOIA.”

Epistemological smokescreen.  Humph.

Nor was the Court done.  Responding to EPA’s objection to having to take a position on climate change, the Court trenchantly noted that:

EPA’s apparent concern about taking a position on climate change is puzzling since EPA has already taken a public position on the causes of climate change.

The bottom line?  EPA must complete a search for responsive documents by July 2, 2018, promptly disclose responsive documents, and explain any withholding by July 11, 2018.

This is not the first case under this Administration where I’ve thought how blessed I am that I’m not at DOJ and in the position of having to defend the indefensible from EPA.

Just How Arbitrary Does EPA Have to Be to Be Arbitrary and Capricious?

Posted on May 29, 2018 by Seth Jaffe

Last Friday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated EPA’s rule adding the West Vermont Drinking Water Contamination Site to the National Priorities List, finding EPA’s decision to be arbitrary and capricious and not supported by substantial evidence.  As the opinion makes clear, EPA has to work pretty hard to lose these cases.

Why did EPA lose?

The critical issue was whether the overburden and bedrock aquifers beneath the site were directly connected.  EPA said that they were.  However, the petitioners pointed to cross-sections in the record that showed a confining layer existed between the bedrock and overburden aquifers.  More importantly, the record showed that EPA did not even attempt to explain why the cross-sections did not undermine its determination.  That’s a no-no.  As the Court noted:

It was arbitrary and capricious for EPA to rely on portions of studies in the record that support its position, while ignoring cross sections in those studies that do not. … Although EPA ‘is not required to discuss every item of fact or opinion included in the submissions it receives in response to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, it must respond to those comments which, if true, would require a change in the proposed rule.’

Counsel from DOJ tried to repair the damage in the litigation, to which the Court replied that:

These arguments come too late. We may only uphold a rule “on the basis articulated by the agency” in the rule making record.

Lesson for EPA?  Don’t ignore comments in the record – and don’t count on your lawyers to fill in the gaps.

Lesson for potential petitioners?  Make sure that the record looks as good as possible – and focus like a laser beam on EPA failures to respond to your evidence.

And who knew that there was a band called The Substantial Evidence?

How Much Deference Will EPA Get On Its CAFE Standards Decision?

Posted on April 30, 2018 by Seth Jaffe

There’s been a lot of discussion regarding EPA’s decision to withdraw EPA’s Mid-term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Model Year 2022-2025 Light-duty Vehicles. After pondering for a while, my question is how much deference courts will give to EPA’s decision.

I’ve previously speculated about whether the typical deference to agency decisions might eventually lose its luster, not because conservative judges hate Chevron, but simply because courts might get tired of agencies under this Administration abusing their discretion.

Contrary to the statements in the withdrawal decision, the Obama Mid-term Evaluation was exhaustive.  The withdrawal decision itself, on the other hand, was, as far as I can tell, based largely just on what scientists might objectively describe in jargon as “bitching and moaning” by the auto industry. 

I’ve also previously noted that, in the history of major environmental rules going back to the 1970s, the evidence shows that every single rule has cost less than estimated prior to implementation.  And that’s less than EPA’s estimates of compliance, not just less than industry’s estimates, which have routinely been wildly high.  The reason is that compliance cost estimates never fully account for the ability of the market to respond efficiently to the new standards.

There is some question as to whether the recent withdrawal decision even constitutes final agency action, but the courts will get a crack at this at some point and I am waiting with bated breath to see how they respond.

The Proposed Pebble Mine: Too Toxic for Trump?

Posted on April 17, 2018 by Peter Van Tuyn

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt began his tenure by decrying the so-called “sue and settle” policy approach, where EPA settles lawsuits brought against it in a manner that dictates EPA actions on court-approved deadlines, often well into the future.Observers were therefore somewhat surprised when, two and a half months later, EPA settled a lawsuit brought against it years earlier by the Pebble Limited Partnership (PLP), the want-to-be developers of the proposed Pebble mine in Alaska.  PLP declared victory and touted the settlement as providing it a “clear path” to the permitting process for the proposed mine.

It turns out that Administrator Pruitt himself made the decision to settle this lawsuit.  As reported in media, “[w]ithin hours of meeting with a mining company CEO, the new head of the US Environmental Protection Agency directed his staff to withdraw a plan to protect the watershed of Bristol Bay, Alaska, one of the most valuable wild salmon fisheries on Earth.”

The Pebble ore deposit sits at the headwaters of Bristol Bay, and the region produces roughly half of the world’s commercial sockeye salmon catch, with over 56 million sockeye returning to the Bay’s fresh waters in 2017 alone.  The commercial fishery supports 14,000 full and part time jobs and generates roughly 1.5 billion in annual revenue.  Bristol Bay salmon also support the subsistence lifestyle of area residents, and are one reason why Bristol Bay is a sought-after sport fishing destination.  The Pebble ore deposit is massive, contains low-grade quantities of copper, gold and molybdemum, and also has the potential to produce acid as the ore is disturbed.  It also lies at the headwaters of two of Bristol Bay’s most productive river systems.  In 2014, the EPA found that the mining of the Pebble ore could result in “irreversible” impacts to fish habitat.  EPA thus used its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to propose certain restrictions on the mining of that deposit to protect the salmon fishery.

Notwithstanding the response of the mine developer, a closer look at the settlement reveals that EPA did not abandon its proposed restrictions, but rather only committed to an agency process “to propose to withdraw” them.  Pursuant to the settlement, EPA initiated a public process and held public hearings in Bristol Bay, seeking input on whether to actually withdraw the proposed protections.  In that process, EPA received over one million comments, with over 99% of the comments supporting the proposed restrictions and asking EPA to leave them in place.

In what was called a “surprise reversal” by some observers, in January of this year Administrator Pruitt decided to leave the proposed restrictions in place.  In announcing his decision, Administrator Pruitt stated that “it is my judgment at this time that any mining projects in the region likely pose a risk to the abundant natural resources that exist there. Until we know the full extent of that risk, those natural resources and world-class fisheries deserve the utmost protection.”

The result of this decision is that the EPA’s proposed restrictions under Section 404(c) will remain in place as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers processes PLP’s Section 404 permit application for the mine, submitted by PLP to the Corps in December 2017.  Looking forward, the Corps cannot issue a final permit decision approving the mine unless and until EPA’s concerns are fully addressed. EPA retains the opportunity to finalize its proposed restrictions before the Corps makes its decision.  This leads one to wonder, as did many people from Bristol Bay, whether the proposed Pebble mine is simply “too toxic” for Trump?  

Disclosure:  Bessenyey & Van Tuyn, L.L.C. represents a client that opposes the proposed Pebble mine because of risks to Bristol Bay salmon.

And the Regulatory Reform Caravan Keeps Moving on Down the Road

Posted on February 26, 2018 by Donald Shandy

On January 25, 2018, The EPA published a guidance memorandum withdrawing the “once in always in” policy for the classification of major sources of hazardous air pollutants under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. This new EPA guidance allows stationary sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) that are classified as “major sources” to limit their HAP emissions to below major source thresholds and thereby be reclassified as “area” sources at any time. As Bill Wehrum, assistant administrator of EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, puts it, “It will reduce regulatory burden for industries and the states, while continuing to ensure stringent and effective controls on hazardous air pollutants.” I agree.

A major source is one that emits or has the potential to emit 10 tons per year of any single HAP or 25 tons per year of combination of HAPs. For the last 20 years, once a source became subject to a MACT it remained in that status even if it reduced emissions below the major source threshold(s).

The new policy follows a similar theme emerging from the Pruitt EPA: legally speaking, the once in always in policy was not supported by the language of the Clean Air Act. Under this new policy, a source can voluntarily accept limitations (even after previously triggering major source status) and avoid major source requirements. This would eliminate some of the resource intensive burdens of MACT such as recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

In 2007, the Bush EPA proposed a rule that would have replaced the historic policy. After taking comment on the proposal, the EPA never took a final action and it has never been withdrawn. Based upon the new guidance, EPA intends to revive the pending rulemaking consistent with the Wehrum guidance document. 

This new policy is a significant incentive for major sources to take efforts to reduce emissions on an actual or potential basis and fall below the triggering thresholds. As such, this new policy is good for business and the environment.

More Guidance on Guidance: DOJ Will Not Enforce “Improper” Agency Guidance Documents

Posted on February 21, 2018 by Seth Jaffe

In November, Attorney General Sessions issued a memorandum prohibiting DOJ from issuing regulations disguised as guidance.

Folders with the label Regulations and Guidelines

Now, DOJ has taken the prohibition a step further.  It will no longer rely on guidance issued by other agencies when taking civil enforcement action.  The memorandum has made the regulated community and the NGO community sit up and take notice.

I am sympathetic to the concerns raised in the Sessions memo.  I hate circumvention of notice and comment rulemaking by guidance.  However, as I noted when the memo was released, the problem with guidance documents is not how they are drafted; it’s how they are implemented.

For example, the new memorandum states that:

The Department may continue to use agency guidance documents for proper purposes in such cases.  For instance, some guidance documents simply explain or paraphrase legal mandates from existing statutes or regulations.

Well, but in the first instance, who decides whether a guidance document “simply explains or paraphrases legal mandates” or whether it instead “purports to create rights or obligations binding on persons or entities outside the Executive Branch”?

The agency does, of course – perhaps aided by its counsel, DOJ.

This will particularly be an issue where guidance has been in place for many years and has been relied on by both an agency and the regulated community as accurately describing what the law actually is.  Take, for example, the New Source Review Workshop Manual.  The Manual is not only not a regulation; it’s been in draft for 28 years.  Nonetheless, it’s been relied on as the bible for practitioners since then.  It might be exempt from this policy, which makes clear that it does not apply to internal training materials.  However, when internal training materials are used to say what the law is, that sounds like regulation masquerading as guidance to me.

Here’s another issue.  What are the implications of this guidance memorandum for cooperative federalism?  In a delegated program, what happens if states continue to rely on guidance documents in enforcing federal obligations?  Are we going to have one interpretation under federal law and another interpretation under state law?  Can you say “forum shopping”?!

Finally, I cannot resist pointing out the irony inherent in the AG issuing two separate guidance documents on the proper – and improper – use of guidance documents.

Statutory Deadlines Matter—EPA Gets Taken to the Woodshed

Posted on February 14, 2018 by Seth Jaffe

Last week, EPA was ordered to take final action on a Clean Air Act § 126(b) petition filed by the State of Connecticut, which asserted that emissions from the Brunner Island Steam Electric Station in Pennsylvania contribute to nonattainment in Connecticut.  

EPA did not dispute liability; it had clearly missed the original statutory deadline. The case was all about the remedy. EPA asked to be given until December 31, 2018 to respond. Plaintiffs said EPA could respond within 60 days.

Noting the “heavy burden” EPA bears in trying to demonstrate that it cannot comply with the congressionally mandated timeline, the Court ordered a response within 60 days, concluding that:

Defendants’ proposed schedule contravenes the congressional intent that EPA “act quickly on a Section 126(b) petition.”

I noted last spring that we are likely to see more of these cases. And I think we’re also going to see increasing judicial impatience with agency delay. I also wonder if this case might be the first bit of evidence that Scott Pruitt’s order precluding the notorious—if mythical—practice of “sue and settle” may have come back to bite EPA.

EPA had to know it was going to lose this case. In bygone days—meaning 2016—EPA would have negotiated for the best schedule it could have gotten. If EPA had told the plaintiffs it would respond to the petition within 90 or even 120 days, my guess is that the plaintiffs would have accepted such a proposal. Given the Pruitt memorandum, that was not possible. The outcome? The worst possible result for EPA.

Just wonderin’.

(Full disclosure: Foley Hoag has represented Talen Energy, owner of Brunner Island, on matters unrelated to Brunner Island. We take no position on the merits of the underlying § 126(b) petition.)

With the Stroke of a Pen…or a Tweet?

Posted on February 1, 2018 by JB Ruhl

John Milner’s recent post on executive orders, memorandums, and proclamations taps into something that is quite new and different for environmental lawyers—a president who uses these and other “direct actions” to shape environmental policy from day one, and who is doing so largely by undoing his predecessor’s direct actions.  

I’ve recently completed two empirical studies of presidential direct actions from FDR through the first year of the Trump Administration. In one paper we look at what topics presidents have focused on overall through time and then drill down on environmental (and energy) policies. In the other paper we examine the practice of presidents revoking predecessor direct actions (through yet another direct action).

Despite what you may read in the media, President Trump is by no means unlike other presidents in using direct actions, and lots of them, to steer policy early in his term, or in revoking predecessor direct actions to get the job done. What sets him apart is how early in his term he focused on environmental and energy policy, and how aggressive he has been in revoking President Obama’s direct actions in those fields. And then there’s…the tweets. Let’s take these one at a time.

Direct Actions and the Environment: There is a rich history of presidents using the big four direct actions—executive orders, memorandums, proclamations, and determinations—to shape policy straight from the White House, but environmental policy has not played a big role. Once you take out public lands policy, including the Antiquities Act, environmental policy has been a small component of direct action activity. Energy policy has been more prominent, however, and to the extent the two fields are increasingly merging, one does see more presidential attention going their way, but not usually concentrated at the beginning of a term. President Trump is quite different in this respect, using direct actions to dramatically change environmental and energy policy right out of the gate. 

Revoking Direct Actions: Presidents have revoked predecessor direct actions throughout history, and with great frequency. Here President Trump is no different, except that he is the first to bear down so much on environmental and energy policy. Part of the reason, of course, is that President Obama used direct actions to shape much of his administration’s environmental and energy policy, meaning President Trump could not advance his policies without negating President Obama’s actions. But he has gone further than that. For example, while not completely unprecedented, his orders “shrinking” existing national monuments established by Presidents Clinton and Obama have, for the first time, called into question whether a president has the power to do so.  

Tweets as Direct Actions: The rising use by politicians of social media as a channel of communication has raised questions regarding the status of President Trump’s frequent “tweets” as official policy. If the pen is mightier than the sword, is a tweet from the President even mightier?

Until recently, no one could be blamed for thinking a tweet is just a tweet—but they warrant their own treatment (tweetment?) given how important a role they have come to play in the Trump Administration. For example, former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer somewhat circularly explained the status of President Trump’s tweets, stating that “The President is the President of the United States, so they're considered official statements by the President of the United States.” CNNPolitics, White House: Trump’s Tweets are “Official Statements." Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals apparently took him at his word when ruling on the so-called “travel ban,” pointing to a Trump tweet as tantamount to an official presidential “assessment.” Hawaii v. Trump, No. 17-15589, n. 14 (9th Cir., June 12, 2017). Indeed, the Department of Justice recently declared in litigation that Trump’s tweets are “official statements of the President of the United States.” James Madison Project v. Dep’t of Justice.  It’s not entirely clear where we are supposed to go with that—are tweets truly direct actions, or just official statements, and what’s the difference?

Presidents through time have shaped policy through direct actions, revoked predecessor direct actions, and, more recently, tweeted. For environmental lawyers, though, President Trump has done all three in ways that seem to be changing the rules of the game. Stay tuned for more?  How can you not?

WHEN SCOTT MET JANUS

Posted on January 16, 2018 by Robert M Olian

The amateur horologists among you will recall that all of the calendar months are named after fabric fresheners (February - Febreze), gods (March - Mars, April - Aphrodite, May - Maia, June - Juno), emperors (July - Julius, August - Augustus), or simply their place in the calendar - Sept, Oct., Nov. and Dec. for the seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth…. Whoa, wait a sec!  (I could explain, but instead that issue is left as an exercise for the reader).

We are interested in January, named for the god of beginnings, Janus, who is always depicted as facing in two directions.  Could one write a blog post about the current state of environmental law based on the theme of a two-faced ruler who thinks he’s one of the gods?

OF COURSE one could! But that would be too easy. Instead, how about a blog post to make everyone happy, while the festive warmth of the holidays is still washing over us? Using the game of MadLibs as our inspiration, first complete the following phrase by choosing either Answer A or Answer B.

“I {insert answer} vote for Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential election.”

A. did not

B. did

If you picked answer A, read the following blog post using the phrases from option A. If you picked answer B, read the post using the phrases from option B. Make sure you use the correct option, or you will be an unhappy reader instead of a happy reader, and we don’t want that.

*******************

The environmental trade press is replete with top ten lists at this time of year —top ten judicial rulings, top ten regulatory decisions, etc. — but the goal here is to step back and look at things from the 50,000-foot level. Here’s the shorter meta list:

1.  EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt installed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) costing nearly $25,000 in his personal office (EPA already had another secure room in the headquarters building) and is the only EPA Administrator to ever request a 24/7 security detail. The 18-member security detail cost taxpayers more than $830,000 in Pruitt’s first three months at the helm and required that EPA agents be pulled away from ongoing criminal investigations to staff the security detail. These actions suggest that EPA is being run by someone who is

1A. self-aggrandizing to the point

1B. appropriately conscious

of

2A. paranoia.

2B. security risks that are increasingly important at a time where environmental issues intersect those of national security.

2. “More than 700 people have left the Environmental Protection Agency since President Trump took office, a wave of departures that puts the administration nearly a quarter of the way toward its goal of shrinking the agency to levels last seen during the Reagan administration,” (NYT, 12/22/17), including a disproportionate number of scientists. The brain drain is intentional according to:

1A. Obama science adviser Thomas Burke

1B. Trump OMB Director Mick Mulvaney

who added,

2A. “The mission of the agency is the protection of public health. Clearly there’s been a departure in the mission.”

2B. “You can’t drain the swamp and leave all the people in it. So, I guess the first place that comes to mind will be the Environmental Protection Agency.”

3. The United States withdrew from the Paris climate accords, a move that was

1A. denounced

2A. praised

by many, ranging from:

2A. the Pope to the head of Goldman Sachs.

2B. Charles Koch to David Koch.

4. The United States was battered by record flooding, hurricanes and forest fires, all of which were

1A. substantial evidence suggesting the existence of

1B. a bizarre coincidence.

2A. anthropogenic climate change.

2B. [Sorry, there is no phrase to describe something whose existence is denied]


But wait, you say, that’s only four items, not a top ten. Sorry, but there are eight; you only read four. If one of you As will add another to the comments, and one of you Bs will do likewise, that will get the total to 10.

Chronic Pesticide Exemptions May Increase Risks to Our Pollinators

Posted on January 8, 2018 by Stephanie Parent

EPA has the responsibility to protect the public and the environment, including bees and other pollinators, from the use of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Before any pesticide can be sold or distributed in the United States, EPA must register it after determining that its use will not generally cause “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” Section 18 of FIFRA allows use of pesticides that have not met this standard if “emergency conditions exist.” Congress intended use of Section 18 emergency exemptions to address urgent pest conditions such as severe and unexpected insect outbreaks. Yet, in some cases, EPA seems to administer the emergency exemption program so that it functions as a shortcut, allowing pesticide use to bypass the registration standard.

EPA’s repeated “emergency” exemptions for use of the insecticide sulfoxaflor on cotton and sorghum over the last six years are a good example of this. Sulfoxaflor is an insecticide, which EPA acknowledges is very highly toxic to bees. In 2015, the Ninth Circuit vacated EPA’s decision to register sulfoxaflor because “[w]ithout sufficient data, the EPA has no real idea whether sulfoxaflor will cause unreasonable adverse effects on bees, as prohibited by FIFRA.” In 2016, EPA registered sulfoxaflor without additional bee data or studies. Instead, EPA explained that the new registration results in “essentially no exposure to bees” because this time it did not allow use on indeterminate blooming crops, such as cotton, or on crops grown for seed. And, the registration restricted applications on certain “bee attractive” crops to post-bloom only.

Despite these restrictions in the registration designed to avoid harm to bees, EPA has exempted the use of sulfoxaflor over 70 times from 2011 through 2017. All but one of these exemptions was for use on cotton, which was retracted from the registration application following the Ninth Circuit’s decision, or on sorghum, which was never included in the registration in the first instance. Most recently, EPA exempted the use on alfalfa grown for seed, even though the registration also prohibits such use to avoid adverse effects to bees. The Center for Biological Diversity, where I work, makes the case that EPA’s chronic approvals of Section 18 exemptions for use of sulfoxaflor no longer reflect “emergency conditions” and are circumventing the FIFRA’s registration standard. We may learn more about sulfoxaflor and other exempted pesticide uses when EPA’s Office of Inspector General concludes its evaluation of whether EPA’s emergency exemption process maintains environmental and human health safeguards. 

ACOEL’s Alex Dunn to Serve as Regional Administrator for EPA Region 1

Posted on December 13, 2017 by Andrea Field

Last month, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced the well-deserved appointment of the ACOEL’s own Alexandra Dapolito Dunn as Regional Administrator for EPA Region 1.  The press release accompanying the announcement described Alex’s exceptional qualifications and extensive environmental experience.  It also included endorsements and accolades for Alex from a remarkably diverse group of people, including senior regulators in the Region 1 states, representatives from environmental advocacy groups, and academics.

Those of us in the College both congratulate Alex and thank her for helping to raise the profile of the American College of Environmental Lawyers by somehow ensuring (we don’t know how and we don’t care) that Administrator Pruitt’s press release included numerous references to the College.  The announcement not only noted Alex’s membership in the ACOEL (and her recent election to the College’s Board of Regents), but also it included the endorsement of Alex by John Cruden and noted John’s current position as ACOEL president.

So, best of luck, Alex, and thanks for your efforts to help us achieve John Cruden’s goal of spreading the word on the ACOEL!  

The Truth about Sue and Settle that Scott Pruitt Ignores

Posted on December 4, 2017 by Jonathan Z. Cannon

Seth Jaffe’s post about EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s sue and settle directive is right on. As he notes, the Administrator punts on the question at the core of his holy war against sue and settle: that is, what is the evidence that sue and settle has been abused in the way he presumes?  In particular, was sue and settle systematically used during the Obama administration as a vehicle of collusion between environmental groups and sympathetic agency officials, catering to the greens through rulemaking in secret? That was the characterization advanced by the Chamber of Commerce and other pro-business and anti-regulatory groups that made sue and settle a battle cry in their war against Obama’s environmental policies. Without citing any evidence, Pruitt has proceeded as if that characterization is correct.

A careful, fact-based, analytically disciplined examination of the practice of sue and settle during the Obama administration shows that this characterization is not correct.  That examination appeared in a law review note by a former law student of mine, Ben Tyson, who went on to clerk for Chief Justice Roberts on the Supreme Court.  I recommend that anyone who is interested in this issue -- and who delights in careful research and analysis – read the entire article. But here’s a brief summary for those who don’t have the time.

Tyson’s analysis is based on eighty-eight sue and settle cases arising under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Endangered species act during the Obama administration.  This data set includes twenty-eight cases that were missed by the Chamber of Commerce in its 2013 report, Sue and Settle: Regulating Behind Closed Doors.  In his analysis Tyson is careful to distinguish between decision-forcing consent decrees, which simply require the agency to do what it is statutorily required to do and do not have a potentially adverse effect on public participation in rulemaking, and substantive consent degrees, in which the agency agrees to propose a particular regulatory change, with dismissal of the litigation dependent upon adoption of that change after public notice and comment. Of the total eighty-eight sue and settle suits, seventy-nine were brought by environmental groups.  But all but four of these suits by environmentalists sought decision-forcing consent decrees, not substantive outcomes. And in three of those four cases, there was at least one industry intervenor that had a right to be heard on the proposed decree.  Tyson concludes: “Sue-and-settle, when used by environmental group plaintiffs, is not principally about secret, backdoor rulemaking.” Instead, overwhelmingly, environmental groups used litigation to enforce existing statutory requirements. 

Ironically, although industry brought far fewer sue and settle suits overall (only nine compared to the environmental groups’ 79), five of those suits resulted in consent decrees with substantive terms. And there was no environmental intervenor in any of those cases to contest entry of the consent decree. Based on the data, industry used sue and settle to achieve substantive outcomes more often than environmental groups. And the total number of substantive sue and settle suits by industry and environmental groups was relatively small (9, or 10% of the 88 cases). Improving public participation is always worth attention, but one wonders what all the fuss was about.

Pruitt Banishes “Sue and Settle” – A Solution In Search of a Problem?

Posted on November 27, 2017 by Seth Jaffe

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt earlier this month issued a Directive prohibiting the practice of “sue and settle.”  He also issued a Memorandum to senior staff explaining in more detail some of the concerns about “sue and settle.”  They are two very strange documents.

As to the substance of how EPA will handle future citizen suit claims, there are some specific concrete steps which individuals and groups across the political spectrum actually can support.  These include:  (1) making more information available to the public about notices of intent to sue and filed complaints; (2) involvement of affected states; (3) maintenance of a data base of citizen suits; and (4) providing a public explanation and rationale for settlement of citizen suits; and (5) providing opportunities for public comment, even where not otherwise required by law.

So far, so good.  However, at a certain point, the Administrator seems to have gone off the rails.  First, one final substantive point – the Directive purports to forbid the payment of attorneys’ fees in any settlement, on the ground that, in a settlement, there is no “prevailing party.”  Of course, if a citizen’s group has a meritorious claim, why would it give up its claims to attorneys’ fees?

What’s really strange about the documents, though, is that they make no effort to demonstrate that there has been such a thing as “sue and settle.”  Instead, the Directive merely states that:

"It has been reported, however, that EPA has previously sought to resolve lawsuits filed against it through consent decrees and settlement agreements that appeared to be the result of collusion with outside groups."

The Administrator pledges that the “days of this regulation through litigation, or ‘sue and settle’ are terminated.”

The Memorandum is even better, citing to the Federalist Papers and the correspondence of Thomas Jefferson.  I’m almost persuaded that this is the greatest threat to the American Way of Life since the fluoridation of water.  Far be it from me to compare the Administrator to General Jack D. Ripper, but this is what first came to my mind after reading these documents.

EPA Tries Again to Keep Toxic Pollution Information from Communities

Posted on November 21, 2017 by Peter Lehner

Your Thanksgiving turkey, like most meat in America, was probably produced at an industrial animal facility in rural America. These facilities hold thousands or tens of thousands of animals in a confined space and can produce as much waste as a mid-sized city. They are prodigious factories that generate dangerous air and water pollution, yet unlike other factories, they’ve been given a free pass from reporting their toxic emissions.

Community and environmental groups have been pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to address pollution from animal feedlots for decades, and recent court decisions seemed to indicate that the veil of secrecy surrounding these operations might finally be tugged back. However, instead of following the court’s latest ruling to ensure that industrial animal factories report toxic emissions, the EPA is proposing a sweeping exemption that would shield thousands of livestock facilities from reporting. 

This move represents the third attempt by the EPA to block these reporting requirements. Under President George W. Bush, the EPA suspended them in 2005, claiming the issue was being studied, then pushed through an illegal exemption in 2008, which was rejected in court.  And now, Scott Pruitt’s EPA is making a fresh attempt to make the exemption even broader. It’s a move that favors industry over the health of affected communities. The EPA itself has rejected this exemption, a proposal favored by industry, three times before.

While polluters are benefiting from the EPA’s dereliction of duty, people who live near these facilities continue to suffer. “During the summer we can’t keep our doors or windows open because of the stench,” writes Iowa farmer Rosemary Partridge, who lives near 30,000 hogs concentrated in factories near her farm. Partridge has worked with Earthjustice since 2015 to fight for more oversight of industrial animal agriculture. “Sometimes it gets so bad [my husband and I] get headaches and feel nauseous.”

Toxic gases from animal waste, which is often stored in open pits and sprayed over fields, include substances like hydrogen sulfide and ammonia that can cause nausea, headaches and chronic lung disease. Children in nearby schools have a heightened risk of asthma. Dairy farm workers have fallen into manure pits and drowned after being overcome by toxic fumes.

Feedlots tend to be clustered in low-income communities, and in some parts of the country, especially the Southeast, in communities of color. Earthjustice and others brought a civil rights complaint in 2014, which EPA found to have merit, over the concentration of hog farms in North Carolina.

A recent stinging report from the EPA’s independent Office of the Inspector General recommended that the EPA stop shielding polluters. Yet the agency still took a third, wild swing at stopping pollution reporting requirements for industrial animal agriculture. It’s time for the EPA to put down the bat and take the field for healthy communities.

Paper or Cyber? Protecting Confidential Information

Posted on November 9, 2017 by Ronald R. Janke

Equifax, Yahoo, South Korea – reports of the theft of computer-based information by known, suspected or unknown hackers have become commonplace.  A recent report of the hacking into a Securities and Exchange Commission database containing confidential information is of special interest to environmental lawyers, because it poses the question of how can regulated entities electronically submit confidential information to government agencies and be confident that such information will not be stolen through a breach of cyber security. Environmental lawyers are almost universally ill-equipped to answer that question. Even with the help of cyber security experts, the growing number of reported hacks of corporate and government networks provides little comfort for submitting confidential data electronically.

Currently, the best practice may be to submit any confidential information in hard copy.  In my experience, agencies protect such information by techniques such as storing documents with confidential information in separate, locked files, using a log to record when a document is removed and returned and who has taken it.  While a document with confidential information may be stolen from a file or erroneously filed with publicly-available documents, someone has to be physically present to obtain that document.  In contrast, documents stored electronically can be subjected to a cyber-attack by anyone located anywhere in the world.

Agencies may require or prefer to receive all information electronically.  Applicants for permits and other approvals may have little choice in such circumstances, but they can initiate a conversation with the agency employee responsible for receiving any confidential information.  Expressions of concern over cyber security may instill some sense of personal responsibility in the recipient for protecting the confidentiality of sensitive information by limiting how it is accessed and used.  While agency rules may apply equally to all confidential information, the duty to protect confidential information is more personal when it is in a document located in a file drawer maintained in one’s office than when information is stored electronically on a computer database, perhaps with thousands of other documents.   In the latter case, cyber security becomes ultimately the duty of information technology specialists who design and maintain the agency’s computer networks.

TIME FOR ACOEL TO STAND UP FOR ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

Posted on November 6, 2017 by Stephen L. Kass

On this 10th anniversary of the founding of ACOEL, it is appropriate to devote some thought to what we have achieved in furthering ACOEL’s goals of “maintaining and improving the ethical practice of environmental law; the administration of justice; and the development of environmental law at both the state and federal level.” My focus here is on the most significant threat in our history to our third goal (development of environmental law) and, as a consequence, our second goal (administration of justice).

For the first time since the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1970, our federal government is led by officials (the President, the EPA Administrator, the Secretaries of Energy and Interior, the Attorney General and White House staff)  openly committed to eviscerating or repealing  large portions of the federal laws on which environmental protection in our country is premised.  While there have been times when new administrations,  EPA Administrators or Cabinet Secretaries have sought to reverse policies or programs under individual statutes, our nation has not previously experienced a wholesale attack on the entire range of protections promised by NEPA, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Superfund Law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Oil Pollution Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act and a myriad of less well-known laws and regulations that have helped the U.S. confront our own environmental challenges while leading the world in the development of environmental law.  Because environmental impacts are increasingly recognized as disproportionately affecting the poor, the curtailment of environmental enforcement under many of these laws also undermines the belated efforts our nation has begun to make toward environmental justice.  The White House’s and EPA’s joint denial of human-induced climate change (and the censoring of EPA employees who attempt to speak about it) is the most visible – and dangerous – part of this initiative, but it is only part of the larger effort to rescind or hollow out the body of environmental law on which our nation, and the world, have come to depend.

ACOEL should speak and act to reverse this dangerous and irresponsible trend within our federal government.  I recognize that many of our individual members, or their firms, may represent one or more clients who believe that, at least in the short run, their businesses will benefit from fewer environmental regulations, more lenient enforcement of environmental standards or the reversal of efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.  Because of their professional commitments, it is of course appropriate, and in some cases necessary, for those ACOEL members to recuse themselves from participation in any such statements or actions by our organizations as a whole.  Yet ACOEL has acted as an institution in the past in advising ECOS (the Environmental Council of the States) on Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act developments, and we are currently carrying out, or planning, important environmental law training programs in Africa, Asia and Cuba.  To do that with credibility requires that we actively defend, both publicly and privately, the corpus of environmental law of which we are justly proud in our own nation.  ACOEL’s goals, and our organization’s significance, require that we do no less.

Trump’s 2-For-1 Order: Still Arbitrary and Capricious After All These Months

Posted on September 15, 2017 by Seth Jaffe

In June, I posted about Foley Hoag's brief in support of those challenging Executive Order 13771, the so-called “2 for 1” EO.  By ignoring the benefits of existing and proposed regulations, the Order ignores the purposes behind the legislation pursuant to which regulations are promulgated.  The Order is thus the definition of arbitrary and capricious.

Late last week, OMB issued a memorandum to executive agencies, requiring them to develop “Regulatory Cost Allowances” for FY 2018.  The memorandum is only one page.  In that one page, it uses the word “cost” 11 times.  The word “benefit” does not appear.

The memorandum notes that the purpose of the Order is to “lower regulatory burdens” and “to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources.”

I hate to beat a dead horse, but one would have thought that the absolute size of the “regulatory burden” is not what’s relevant; what’s relevant is whether that regulatory burden is exceeded by the benefits of proposed regulations.  One would also have thought that requiring expenditures of private funds for regulatory compliance would be seen as “prudent” if those compliance costs are exceeded by the benefits.

Indeed, one would have thought – and I do still think – that seeking to lower regulatory compliance costs without regard to the benefits provided by government regulations is just plain crazy.

Silly me.

WHICH WAY ARE THE WINDS BLOWING ON THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT OF AIR POLLUTANTS?

Posted on September 5, 2017 by David Flannery

At a time when the international transport of air pollutants is squarely before the DC Circuit in connection with the challenge to the Cross State Air Pollution Rule Update (State of Wisconsin, et al v. EPA, Case No. 16-1406) there is new information confirming that “but for” international transport, every air quality monitor in the nation would be achieving compliance with both the 2008 and 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) for ozone Assessment of International Transport and Improved Ozone Air Quality

In November 2016, EPA proposed a rule addressing implementation of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in which it requested comments on whether the international transport provisions of Section 179B of the federal Clean Air Act should be limited to nonattainment areas adjoining international borders. Section 179B allows a state which is not in attainment with the ozone NAAQS to seek relief from certain implementation requirements of the Clean Air Act if it can show that the NAAQS would be met “but for” international emissions. Among those responding to this request for comments, the State of North Carolina noted that “contribution from sources outside of the U.S. has become more prominent in the overall ozone profile for many areas” and that “transport of ozone is well documented and not restricted to impacting only areas adjacent to Canada or Mexico.” http://www.csg.org/aapca_site/news/documents/NorthCarolinaDEQ-2-13-2017.pdf

In his letter of June 6, 2017 EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt extended the deadline for promulgating designations related to the 2015 ozone NAAQS by 1 year and in doing so, identified international transport as one of the complex issues that EPA would review during the extension period (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-06/documents/az_ducey_6-6-17.pdf).  However, in its Federal Register notice published on August 10, 2017, EPA withdrew its announced 1-year extension of the deadline for promulgating initial area designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/08/10/2017-16901/withdrawal-of-extension-of-deadline-for-promulgating-designations-for-the-2015-ozone-national). The notice of withdrawal of the 1-year extension makes no specific mention of international transport, although the notice offers the following statement: 

The EPA has continued to discuss and work with states concerning designations, and now understands that the information gaps that formed the basis of the extension may not be as expansive as we previously believed. 

While, as noted above, it is becoming increasingly clear that “but for” international emissions every monitor in the nation would be complying with ozone NAAQS requirements, the implementation of that conclusion is for the moment, at least, blowing in the winds of regulatory change.