Category: Environmental Law

EPA and Army Corps Issue New “WOTUS” Rule While Supreme Court Considers Jurisdiction Over Adjacent Wetlands

Yesterday, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) (together, the Agencies) published a final rule revising the definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) subject to federal regulation and permitting requirements under the Clean Water Act (CWA).  This rule is the latest attempt by the Agencies to craft a durable rule defining WOTUS.  The new rule, which largely mirrors the 2021 proposal, asserts a broader geographic scope of federal jurisdiction than the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR).  In particular, the Agencies adopt the broadest possible interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rapanos (through incorporation of both the plurality’s “relatively permanent” test and Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test).  The final rule would, for the first time, codify aspects of the Agencies’ 2008 Rapanos Guidance and would rely on the significant nexus test’s case-by-case approach for evaluating jurisdiction for tributaries, wetlands, and other waters.  The Agencies released the final rule while the Supreme Court considers the scope of CWA authority over a major category of WOTUS, “adjacent wetlands,” in Sackett v. EPA, and the Supreme Court could hand down a decision in the coming months that could require changes to the rule.

For project proponents, the new rule would likely mean more features would be subject to regulation under the CWA, and projects that might have previously qualified for nationwide permits may no longer meet the acreage limits and would instead require an individual permit.  Also, case-by-case significant nexus determinations could result in lengthy reviews with uncertain and inconsistent results.

The final rule will go into effect on March 20.  While the Agencies previously characterized this rule as Phase 1 of a two-step process to enact a new WOTUS definition, EPA recently indicated that it is not currently planning a major second phase.

Summary of Final Rule

The rule defines WOTUS to include:

  1. Traditional navigable waters (TNWs), the territorial seas, and interstate waters.  TNWs include large rivers and lakes and tidally influenced waterbodies used in interstate or foreign commerce.  Interstate waters are rivers, lakes, and other waters that flow across, or form part of, State boundaries.  The TNW definition (i.e., all waters currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide) is consistent with the text of the 1986 regulations and the NWPR.  However, the preamble indicates that the Agencies plan to include “waters currently being used for … commercial waterborne recreation (for example, boat rentals, guided fishing trips, or water ski tournaments),” which appears to broaden the scope of TNW waters.
  2. Impoundments of WOTUS.  The final rule retains the provision in the 1986 regulations that defines WOTUS to include impoundments of WOTUS.  The preamble defines impoundments as “created by discrete structures (often human-built) like dams or levees that typically have the effect of raising the water surface elevation, creating or expanding the area of open water, or both.”  88 Fed. Reg. at 3,066.
  3. Tributaries.  The final rule extends jurisdiction to tributaries of categories 1 and 2 waters if the tributary meets either the Agencies’ new formulation of the relatively permanent or the significant nexus standards from Rapanos (discussed in more detail below).  Ephemeral streams that meet the significant nexus test would be jurisdictional tributaries.  In this respect, the rule is much broader than the NWPR, which categorically excluded ephemeral tributaries from jurisdiction.
  4. Adjacent wetlands.  The rule retains the definition of “adjacent” from the 1986 regulations meaning “bordering, contiguous, or neighboring” and adds language that adjacent wetlands are considered WOTUSifthey meet the relatively permanent or significant nexus standards.  The NWPR had narrowed the definition of adjacent wetlands to include only those wetlands that abutted or otherwise had a direct surface connection to other jurisdictional waters in a typical year.  The final rule creates a broader category of adjacent wetlands, leading to additional regulatory requirements for activities that cross or impact such features.
  5. Other waters.  The rule asserts jurisdiction over “other waters” under the relatively permanent and significant nexus standards from Rapanos.  Under this provision, which essentially serves as a “catch-all” category, “intrastate lakes and ponds, streams, or wetlands” not identified in categories 1-4 can be assessed for jurisdiction under the relatively permanent standard or significant nexus standard.  This list is intended to be exclusive, 88 Fed. Reg. at 3,100, but broad enough to include a large variety of water types (e.g., prairie potholes, sloughs, playa lakes, etc.).  This category is a clear departure from the 2008 Rapanos Guidance, which did not assert jurisdiction over “other waters” based on the relatively permanent waters or significant nexus standards.

Exclusions.  The final rule provides a list of features that are excluded even where they would otherwise qualify as jurisdictional impoundments, tributaries, adjacent wetlands, or other waters.  Importantly, features that qualify as category 1 waters (TNWs, territorial seas, and interstate waters) cannot be excluded even if they meet the criteria of the exclusions provided.  Key non-jurisdictional waters or exclusions include waste treatment systems, ditches, prior converted cropland, artificially irrigated areas, artificial lakes or ponds, and swales and erosional features.  The list of exclusions is similar to the list provided in the 2015 WOTUS Rule and 2020 NWPR, although it does not provide the clear definitions that were included in the NWPR and in some instances changes the exemption based on preamble interpretations.

Key Definitions. The rule also includes a number of important definitions.

  • The “relatively permanent standard” asserts jurisdiction over relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing waters connected to category 1 waters, and waters with a continuous surface connection to such relatively permanent waters or to category 1 waters.  88 Fed. Reg. at 3,006.  The final rule does not define or quantify what constitutes “relatively permanent” flow.  The preamble states that the relatively permanent standard encompasses surface waters that have flowing or standing water year-round or continuously during certain times of the year.  88 Fed. Reg. at 3,084.
  • The significant nexus standard asserts jurisdiction over waters that, either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affectthe chemical, physical, or biological integrity of category 1 waters.  In a change from the proposal, the final rule defines “significantly affect” to mean “a material influence on the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of [category 1] waters.”  To determine whether waters, either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, have a material influence on the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of category 1 waters, the Agencies will assess the  list of functions and factors, including, for example contribution of flow, distance from a category 1 water, and hydrologic connections.  The preamble states distance from a category 1 water and hydrology—will generally be given the greatest weight in the assessment.  88 Fed. Reg. at 3,120.  The new significant nexus standard will likely allow for broader assertions of jurisdiction because it allows the Agencies to aggregate all tributaries and adjacent wetlands within a particular geographic area and evaluate whether they have a “material influence” on category 1 waters based on a case-by-case application of the enumerated factors and functions.  This type of case-by-case significant nexus analysis has resulted in lengthy review times as well as unpredictable and inconsistent results.

Existing Jurisdictional Determinations

Landowners may obtain a jurisdictional determination in the form of either: (1) an approved jurisdictional determination (AJD), which is a Corps document identifying the limits of WOTUS on a parcel; or (2) a preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD), which is a non-binding document in which an applicant can assume all waters will be treated as jurisdictional without making a formal determination.

The Agencies take the position that AJDs issued pursuant to the NWPR may not be relied upon in making new permit decisions.  According to the preamble, because the NWPR was vacated by two district courts, NWPR AJDs “may not reliably state the presence, absence, or limits of [WOTUS] on a parcel and will not be relied upon by the Corps in making new permit decisions.”  88 Fed. Reg. at 3,136.  The Agencies take the position that AJDs issued under earlier WOTUS definitions—except those AJDs issued under the NWPR—remain valid until the AJD’s expiration date.  Also, the new rule will govern any pending requests for AJDs, if the AJD is issued on or after the effective date of the rule (March 20, 2023).

In contrast to AJDs, PJDs are advisory in nature and have no expiration date.  The preamble clarifies that the new WOTUS rule has no impact on existing PJDs.

Potential Litigation and the Sackett Case

Multiple challenges to the new rule are likely to be filed in district courts across the country.  The state of Texas and an industry coalition immediately filed suits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and other suits are likely.  At the same time, the Supreme Court’s pending decision in Sackett may have implications for the durability of provisions of the rule.

Many commenters recommended that the Agencies defer issuing a final rule until the Supreme Court issues a decision in Sackett—a case in which the issue before the Court is “the proper test for determining whether wetlands are [WOTUS] under the [CWA].”  A decision in the Sackett case is expected in the next few months.  Perhaps trying to insulate the rule from a potentially unfavorable Supreme Court decision, the Agencies assert in the preamble the severability of the individual provisions of the rule.  The preamble states, “if a court were to determine that a wetland cannot be treated as adjacent if it is separated from a jurisdictional water by road or other barrier, the agencies intend that other categories of wetlands within the rule’s definition of ‘adjacent’ would remain subject to jurisdiction.”  88 Fed. Reg. at 3,135.  Although it is not clear how the Supreme Court will rule in Sackett, it is possible that the decision could require the Agencies to make changes to the new WOTUS definition or face legal challenges.

Article By Kerry L. McGrath, Brian R. Levey, Andrew J. Turner, Karma B. Brown, Deidre G. Duncan, and Matthew Z. Leopold of Hunton Andrews Kurth

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2023, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Environmental Justice Update: EPA Announces $100 Million in EJ Grants to Local Groups and Issues Guidance Outlining Potential Federal ‘Cumulative Impact’ Claims

“Environmental justice” (EJ) continues as the primary leitmotif of Biden Administration environmental policy in the first weeks of 2023.

Below, we unpack two recently announced EJ efforts: a grant program for groups in environmentally overburdened communities and guidance on legal resources to address “cumulative impacts” issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Legal Counsel and outline what these mean for the regulated community taken together in the context of other recent EJ developments.

EPA Announces $100 Million in Grants to Community Groups

This week, EPA announced the availability of approximately $100 million in grants for projects that “advance EJ in underserved and overburdened communities.” The grant programs are part of funding allocated by the Inflation Reduction Act programs discussed here.

Summaries of the two programs:

  • The Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Program (EJCPS) Cooperative Agreement Program. The EJCPS program provides $30 million in funding directly to community-based non-profit organizations for projects focused on addressing local environmental or public health issues in their communities. Five million of the funding is reserved for small community-based nonprofit organizations with five or fewer full-time employees. EPA anticipates funding approximately 50 awards of $500,000 and 30 awards of $150,000.

  • Environmental Justice Government-to-Government (EJG2G) Program. EJG2G will provide an estimated $70 million in funding for state, tribal, and local projects completed in conjunction with community-based organizations. In total the agency anticipates funding approximately 70 projects of up to $1 million each for a 3-year project.

Interested applicants must submit proposal packages on or before April 10, 2023, for projects to begin on October 1, 2023.

EPA’s efforts to fund local groups are part of its broader strategic goal of enhancing equitable apportionment of resources and the benefits of environmental policies. EPA’s Equity Action Plan, discussed here, prioritizes building capacity in environmentally underserved communities to lead projects. Projects like these would lead to increased community engagement, which in turn could lead to more equitable outcomes in the environmental space. The strategy of building up local capacity to engage on environmental issues, mirrors private-sector efforts like Bloomberg Philanthropies $85 million “Beyond Petrochemicals” campaign, discussed here.

Federal Cumulative Impact Guidance

EPA’s Office of General Counsel released its Cumulative Impacts Addendum this week. This addendum builds on EPA’s Legal Tools to Advance Environmental Justice, which was released in May 2022. Taken together, these encyclopedia-like documents were created with the purpose of “identifying and making appropriate use of every authority and tool available to EPA under the law to incorporate environmental and climate justice considerations in our work,” in the words of EPA Administrator Michael Regan. The addendum itself indicates that it “is not intended to prescribe when and how [EPA] should undertake specific actions, nor does it provide methodologies for how to conduct a cumulative impacts assessment.” (Note: EPA’s Office of Research and Development has advanced a definition of “cumulative impacts,” summarized here, and is researching methodologies to deploy the concept.)

Structurally, the addendum breaks EPA’s authorities to address cumulative impacts into six subject-matter focused chapters:

  • Clean Air Act Programs

  • Water Programs

  • Waste Management and Emergency Response Programs (i.e. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Oil Pollution Act; the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act; and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act)

  • Pesticides and Toxics Programs (i.e. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; and the Toxic Substances Control Act); and

  • Environmental Review Programs (i.e. National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews).

EPA’s intent with the addendum was to outline legal resources for federal, state, and local regulators to consult situationally outlining potential tools that could be used to address cumulative impacts. These legal tools, used in conjunction with EJ-focused screening tools like EJSCREEN (discussed here) and newly developed and (increasingly available) data (see our discussions here and here), are part of EPA’s high prioritization of EJ issues.

Takeaways for the Regulated Community

We offer two takeaways from these developments:

First, EPA’s commitment to a “whole of government” approach to address EJ issues continues unabated. Over time, the Biden Administration has exhibited a willingness to allocate money to address EJ issues; reorient EPA and DOJ to better address them; develop new tools; and indeed, build capacity to engage local communities in an effort to benefit more Americans regardless of their race, language or socioeconomic status.

Second, taken collectively, these efforts will necessitate changes in process for regulated entities because governmental and community engagement in the EJ space is altering the policymaking process at a rapid rate. Relevant here, we expect that a secondary effect of EPA and private parties “building capacity” in local communities will be an increase in community involvement — and potentially opposition — to businesses operating in their communities. These groups are likely to deploy all available resources — including those outlined in the addendum — to address their concerns.

© 2023 ArentFox Schiff LLP
For more Environmental Policy Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

New Climate Guidance Issued to Federal Agencies Conducting Environmental Impact Analyses

Overview

On January 9, 2023, the Council for Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) published interim National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change (hereafter, “guidance” or “GHG Guidance”).1 CEQ intends for agencies to apply the guidance now even as CEQ seeks public comment on it.2 The guidance aims to establish best practices to ensure that Federal agencies conduct detailed analyses of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change when evaluating proposed major Federal actions in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and CEQ’s Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA.3 The guidance states that these analyses should (1) quantify a proposed action’s GHG emissions; (2) place GHG emissions in appropriate context and disclose relevant GHG emissions and relevant climate impacts; and (3) identify alternatives and mitigation measures to avoid or reduce GHG emissions.

The long-awaited GHG Guidance does not set a numerical threshold for significant impact under NEPA, but it emphasizes achievement of national and other climate objectives. The guidance also stresses monetization of climate-related impacts (social cost of carbon) and consideration of alternatives to fossil energy production and transport, mitigation of climate-related impacts, and resilience and adaptation to climate-related vulnerability. Also prominent in the guidance is consideration of disparate impacts to environmental justice communities.

GHG Guidance

Quantifying a Proposed Action’s GHG Emissions

The guidance explains that agencies should quantify the reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect GHG emissions of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives (including the no-action alternative) to ensure that each agency adequately considers the incremental contribution of its action to climate change. CEQ recommends that agencies quantify gross emissions increases or reductions (including direct and indirect emissions) individually by each GHG, as well as aggregated in terms of total CO2 by factoring in each pollutant’s global warming potential (“GWP”). CEQ further recommends that agencies quantify the proposed action’s total net GHG emissions or reductions (both by pollutant and by total CO2 emissions) relative to baseline conditions. Finally, CEQ recommends that “[w]here feasible . . . [agencies] should present annual GHG emissions increases or reductions, as well as net GHG emissions over the projected lifetime of the action, consistent with existing best practices.”4 CEQ emphasizes that agencies should be guided by the rule of reason when quantifying emissions. The guidance does not set a “significance” threshold that would trigger the requirement to prepare an EIS.

Disclosing and Providing Context for a Proposed Action’s GHG Emissions and Climate Effects

In the eyes of CEQ, quantifying emissions and summarizing this information in a NEPA document is not sufficient. Agencies should also disclose and provide context for GHG emissions and climate effects to help decision makers and the public understand a proposed action’s potential GHG emissions and climate change effects. CEQ provides a list of best practices for disclosing and contextualizing quantified GHG emissions:5

  • Use the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (“SC-GHG”) to estimate the dollar value of impacts associated with each type of GHG emission;
  • Explain how the proposed action and alternatives would help meet or detract from achieving climate action goals and commitments, and discuss whether and to what extent the proposal’s reasonably foreseeable GHG emissions are consistent with GHG reduction goals;
  • Summarize and cite to available scientific literature to help explain the real-world effects associated with an increase in GHG emissions that contribute to climate change; and
  • Provide accessible comparisons or equivalents to help the public and decision makers understand GHG emissions in more familiar terms (i.e., household emissions per year, annual average emissions from a certain number of cars on the road, etc.).

CEQ explicitly states that monetizing the “social cost” of GHG emissions as recommended does not require the agency also to monetize the social benefits of the proposed action, nor does it have to compare estimated costs and benefits.6 The guidance also emphasizes the use of “substitution analysis” to discern the GHG-related changes associated with shifting energy sources if the proposed or alternative actions occurred.7

Identifying Reasonable Alternatives and Potential Mitigation Measures

The GHG Guidance directs agencies to use the NEPA process to identify and assess the reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize GHG emissions or climate change effects. CEQ recognizes that reasonable alternatives must be consistent with the purpose and need of the proposed action, and that agencies are not required to select the alternative with the lowest net GHG emissions or climate costs or the greatest net climate benefits.8 However, “in line with the urgency of the climate crisis,” agencies should identify the alternative with the lowest net GHG emissions or the greatest net climate benefits among the alternatives they assess and should “use the NEPA process to make informed decisions grounded in science that are transparent with respect to how Federal actions will help meet climate change goals and commitments, or alternately, detract from them.”9 When quantifying reasonably foreseeable emissions associated with the proposed action or alternatives, CEQ directs agencies to include reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect GHG emissions of their proposed actions. CEQ provides that processing, refining, transporting, and end-use of the fossil fuel being extracted, including combustion of the resource to produce energy, would constitute indirect emissions of fossil fuel extraction.10

CEQ encourages agencies to mitigate GHG emissions “to the greatest extent possible.”11 It instructs agencies to consider potential mitigation measures by determining whether impacts from a proposed action or alternatives can be avoided, considering whether adverse impacts can be minimized, and rectifying or requiring compensation for residual impacts where unavoidable. CEQ considers available mitigation that avoids, minimizes, or compensates for GHG emissions and climate change effects to include measures like renewable energy generation and energy storage, carbon capture and sequestration, and capturing GHG emissions such as methane.12

Examples

The guidance provides a number of examples as to how it would work in specific scenarios. For example, the guidance notes that “absent exceptional circumstances,” construction of renewable energy projects “should not warrant a detailed analysis of lifetime GHG emissions.”13 CEQ uses natural gas pipelines as an example of consideration of indirect effects, stating that they create the “economic conditions for additional natural gas production and consumption, including both domestically and internationally, which produce indirect (both upstream and downstream) GHG emissions that contribute to climate change.”14 When discussing the need to analyze the effects of climate change on a proposed action (and not just the impacts of the proposed action on climate change), CEQ gives as an example a project that may require water from a source with diminishing quantities available and advises the agency consider such issues to “inform decisions on siting, whether to proceed with and how to design potential actions and reasonable alternatives, and to eliminate or mitigate effects exacerbated by climate change.”15

Conclusion

Robust comments are likely to be filed to further inform CEQ’s effort on the GHG Guidance. Nevertheless, CEQ has directed agencies to apply the guidance to all new proposed actions and to consider applying it to proposed actions that are currently under NEPA review. Comments on the interim guidance are due March 10, 2023.

FOOTNOTES

1. CEQ, National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas, 88 Fed. Reg. 1,196 (Jan. 9, 2023), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-01-09/pdf/2023-00158.pdf (“GHG Guidance”).

2. Id.

3. Note that CEQ has announced its intention to further revise its existing NEPA regulations in 2023, after having issued an earlier round of regulatory amendments in 2022. See CEQ Fall 2022 Regulatory Agenda, National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations Revisions Phase 2, RIN No. 0331-AA07, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202210&RIN=0331-AA07; CEQ, National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations Revisions, 87 Fed. Reg. 23,453 (Apr. 20, 2022), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-04-20/pdf/2022-08288.pdf.

4. GHG Guidance at 1,201.

5. Id. at 1,202-03.

6. Id. at 1,203, 1,211.

7. Id. at 1,205.

8. Id. at 1,204.

9. Id.

10. Id.

11. Id. at 1,206.

12. Id.

13. Id. at 1,202.

14. Id. at 1,204 n.86.

15. Id. at 1,208.

For more Environmental and Energy News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2023 Bracewell LLP

Federal PFAS Drinking Water Standards: 2023 Is the Year

On Friday, October 7, 2022, the EPA formally sent its proposed federal PFAS drinking water standards to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for consideration and approval or rejection. The proposed rule cleared OMB review on November 30, 2022; however, the EPA has not yet released the proposed rule. While the details of the rule under consideration are not yet known, what is evident from the title of the document logged on the OMB website is that the drinking water standards will address PFOA and PFOS. At least from the document title, it does not appear that any other PFAS will be subject to Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulation at the moment.

The delay in releasing the proposed drinking water standards for over a month now, though, could suggest that the proposed rule may seek to regulate more than just PFOA and PFOS, and the EPA may be looking to shore up language and support language in the proposed rule for such a proposal in light of comments from the OMB. Similarly, many wonder whether the EPA proposed a limit so low that the OMB had concerns as to whether the limits were detectable. With the EPA keeping its proposed language a closely guarded secret for the time being, much of the discussions rest on speculation. What we do know is that he EPA is statutorily required to put forth a proposed standard before the first half of 2023, and it has publicly pledged repeatedly to act more quickly than that statutory requirements.

Thus, 2023 will see federal PFAS drinking water standards for at least two PFAS from the EPA and we predict that it is only a matter of days before the country sees the EPA’s proposal, which will kick off what promises to be an extremely contentious public comment period.

Now more than ever, the EPA is clearly on a path to regulate PFAS contamination in the country’s water, land and air. These regulations will require states to act, as well (and some states may still enact stronger regulations than the EPA). Both the federal and the state level regulations will impact businesses and industries of many kinds, even if their contribution to drinking water contamination issues may seem on the surface to be de minimus. In states that already have PFAS drinking water standards enacted, businesses and property owners have already seen local environmental agencies scrutinize possible sources of PFAS pollution much more closely than ever before, which has resulted in unexpected costs. Beyond drinking water, though, the EPA PFAS Roadmap from 2021 shows the EPA’s desire to take regulatory action well beyond just drinking water, and companies absolutely must begin preparing now for regulatory actions that will have significant financial impacts down the road.

Article By John Gardella of CMBG3 Law

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2023 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.

Caremark Liability Following the SEC’s New ESG Reporting Requirements

Recent developments in the Court of Chancery concerning a corporate board’s duty to monitor and provide oversight over a corporation’s operations, so-called Caremark claims, are likely to intersect with the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) proposed new ESG disclosure obligations to create a new category of corporate risk.  In this article, we discuss the recent trends in Delaware law that have led to a revitalization of Caremark and the SEC’s current proposals for enhanced ESG disclosure, the intersection of which can be expected to result in litigation and other corporate risk, and some commonsense steps corporations can take to mitigate this potential new category of risk.

The “Caremark” Doctrine

One of the more notable developments in Delaware case law in recent years has been the revitalization of “Caremark duty” claims.  Caremark actions traditionally were notoriously difficult to plead—in explaining the doctrine, the Chancery Court famously called it “the most difficult theory in corporation law upon which a plaintiff might hope to win a judgment.”  In re Caremark Int’l Inc. Deriv. Litig., 698 A.2d 959, 967 (Del. Ch. 1996). In recent years, however, the Delaware courts have breathed new life into the Caremark doctrine by allowing these types of claims to proceed to discovery.

Specifically, the Caremark doctrine was returned to potency in 2019 following the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in Marchand v. Barnhill, 212 A.3d 805 (Del. 2019).  Although Marchand did not change the Caremark standard, it demonstrated the Delaware courts’ greater willingness to permit Caremark claims to pass the motion to dismiss phase if they could be plausibly pled.  Marchand ultimately laid the groundwork for a number of subsequent rulings demonstrating the renewed vitality of Caremark claims—not only have at least four Caremark suits survived a motion to dismiss since Marchand, but there are also several ongoing Caremark suits in Delaware.

Under Caremark, there are two distinct types of claims.  The first type concern a board’s failure to implement a system of controls to prevent some unlawful misconduct that occurred.  The second type of claims concern a failure to monitor by the directors.  It is imperative, therefore, that boards focus on:  (1) establishing adequate information and reporting systems to monitor “mission critical” aspects of their company’s business; and (2) monitoring those systems once in place.

The SEC’s Proposed New Climate-Related Disclosures

On March 21, 2022, the SEC proposed new rules requiring companies to report extensive line-item disclosures on climate-related ESG issues, entitled: “The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors.”  If implemented as written, the proposed rules would require registrants to make significant additional disclosures regarding the impact of climate-related risks on their business.

Among other things, under the proposed rules, registrants would be required to disclose:

  1. Greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, regardless as to whether those emissions are deemed material by the company.  Emissions would now be reported by “scope” or type.

  2. “Climate-related risks” that are “reasonably likely to have a material impact,” including climate-related conditions and events that impact financial statements, business operations, or value chains.

  3. Governance disclosures related to climate risk, including how the board and management assess and manage these climate-related risks.

  4. Any targets or goals related to the reduction of GHG emissions.

These proposed new rules are part of the Biden Administration’s efforts to “advance consistent, clear, intelligible, comparable, and accurate disclosure of climate-related financial risk.”  Yet the sheer breadth, specificity, and complexity of the proposed rules would result in one of the most profound changes to public companies’ disclosure obligations in the history of the SEC.

Additional Caremark Exposure

The SEC’s climate-related disclosure rules will likely fuel ESG-related Caremark claims.  In particular, heightened disclosure requirements will provide ammunition for derivative or class action lawsuits and may expose companies to specific indirect risks, including heightened exposure to pre-suit discovery and proxy contests.

Direct Litigation Risk

The SEC’s new reporting requirements are likely to create new grounds for investors to assert liability claims against corporations and their boards of directors and management. Shareholders can be expected to leverage the new disclosures to seek to hold companies accountable for failing to properly oversee, mitigate or eliminate climate-related risk.  The revitalized Caremark doctrine is likely to be employed to allege boards and managers failed to oversee so-called “mission-critical” aspects of their business that generate climate-related risk.

In this vein, plaintiffs may choose to use disclosures required by the SEC’s proposed rules as the basis for a breach of duty to monitor or Caremark claim through either a derivative suit, brought on behalf of the company against its directors and officers, or a class action suit, brought on behalf of a class of injured shareholders or investors.  Caremark claims will likely arise if and when a board fails to exercise proper oversight with respect to climate-related risks or to consider proper mitigating steps. This new threat will be amplified for companies that (i) have yet to fully examine how ESG issues factor into their mission-critical operations or (ii) have yet to devote resources and personnel to measuring (using consistent, comparable and reliable data) and analyzing their own ESG-related risks. Companies need to be able to ascertain and address their most pressing ESG-related risks to avoid future Caremark liability.

Indirect Risks

Indirect risks from the proposed new disclosure regime may manifest in a variety of ways..  They can result in the disclosure of embarrassing or harmful information about a company, its board, or managers, and lead to the replacement of key company executives or directors by aggrieved shareholders.  Moreover, they give rise to issues that are expensive and resource-intensive to address.  While these risks are indirect to companies, they pose a direct threat to board members and managers.

Pre-Suit Discovery.  Boards can expect new disclosure requirements to enable shareholders to gain greater access to pre-suit discovery.  Section 220 of Delaware’s General Corporate Law provides shareholders with a qualified right to inspect a company’s books and records for suspected corporate wrongdoing or mismanagement, and need only demonstrate a “credible basis” to proceed.  The new ESG reporting requirements will likely provide shareholders with even more information as ammunition to fuel Section 220 demands.  Opening a company’s books to pre-suit discovery could expose boards, management, or companies to serious reputational harm, as well as provide fodder for future lawsuits against the current board.

Proxy Contests.  New ESG-related disclosures are also likely to generate greater turmoil in the form of proxy battles at the board level.  Historically, shareholder activists have been focused on addressing short-term profit, stock price and total shareholder return.  Yet activist campaigns containing an environmental or social objective have doubled as a proportion of campaigns overall during the five years between 2016 and 2021, including a successful campaign against Exxon to place directors on its board.  The proliferation of new ESG reporting requirements is expected to further fuel these contests, particularly with respect to companies that are perceived to be lagging on ESG commitments or expectations.

Avoiding Environmental-Caremark Claims

Companies should take several steps in preparation for the increased pressure expected to arise from the need to address ESG issues.

First, companies should be aware of the obligations and risks they face with regard to ESG issues.  That means determining what ESG-related risks could detrimentally impact a “mission-critical” aspect of a company’s business.  What is determined to be “mission-critical” will necessarily vary by company.

Second, once companies are cognizant of the ESG-related risks they face, they will need to start implementing appropriate governance structures so that they are aware of, and can take steps to address, ESG risks.  Directors should establish responsible committees and internal information and reporting procedures to ensure board members have proper oversight of these efforts.  This will allow boards to demonstrate their engagement in response to potential Caremark claims, as well as to respond to any ESG risks arising in the company’s operations.

Third, with these governance structures in place, companies must focus on generating, collecting, and analyzing consistent and comparable data on the ESG-related risks they face.  These data should be actively monitored by managers and board members so they can identify and address ESG risks before they result in catastrophic situations and resulting litigation.  And, if Caremark claims ensue, boards will be able to use these governance structures and reporting regimes to demonstrate that they have satisfied their oversight obligations.

Finally, once these systems are in place, companies should take steps to prepare for the adoption of the SEC’s new climate-related disclosure requirements.  The development of governance and reporting structures will undoubtedly aid in the collection of information for these purposes.  While taking these steps, it is advisable that corporate executives and boards seek input from subject matter experts and experienced legal counsel to help design and implement robust compliance and monitoring regimes that can help to discourage or forestall future litigation in the form of Caremark or other claims related to ESG issues.

©1994-2022 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.
For more Securities Law coverage, click here to visit the National Law Review.

FTC Starts Long-Awaited Green Guides Review

  • On December 14, 2022, at an open meeting of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”), FTC commissioners voted unanimously to publish a Notice in the Federal Register announcing a Request for Public Comments on potential amendments to the Commission’s Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (“Green Guides” or “Guides”).
  • The FTC solicits comments on the ongoing need for the Guides and on specific claims addressed in the Guides, including “recyclable,” “recycled content,” “degradable,” “compostable,” and more. It also asks if it should initiate a rulemaking process and address claims it declined to consider during the last review, such as “organic” and “sustainable.”
  • Importantly, given the growth in some state laws that purport to restrict claims, the FTC asks for input on whether the Guides conflict with federal or state laws. This proceeding is expected to garner significant input.
  • Once the Notice is published in the Federal Register (which the FTC anticipates will be in mid-January 2023), interested stakeholders will have 60 days from the date of the Notice to submit comments to the FTC, unless an extension is granted.
  • For more information about the FTC Notice, please read our report here.

© 2022 Keller and Heckman LLP

For more Energy and Environmental Law news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Beware Before You Flare: EPA Revamps Rulemaking to Pave the Way for Methane Emission Reductions

On November 15, 2022, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) issued the pre-publication version of supplemental proposed rulemaking for reduction of methane emissions in the oil and natural gas sector. The original proposed rule, published on November 15, 2021, sought to strengthen methane standards for new sources (New Source Performance Standards or NSPS), establish nationwide emission guidelines (EG) for regulation of existing sources, and develop new standards for unregulated sources. US EPA ultimately received more than 470,000 public comments. The rules, once finalized, will be included in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOOb (NSPS) and Subpart OOOOc (EG).

The agency anticipated a need for additional review in the original proposed rule, in which US EPA stated it would issue supplemental proposed rulemaking under its authority in the Clean Air Act sections 111(b) and (d). While the original rule already had an ambitious target of reducing methane by 74%, the supplemental proposal would reduce methane from covered sources by 87% below 2005 levels. The rule generally governs production and processing (i.e., well sites, compressor stations, and natural gas processing plants) as well as natural gas transmission and storage.

Key changes in the supplemental proposed rule include the following:

  • Super-emitter Response Program: Establishment of a super-emitter response program intended to reduce the risk of such events. Owners or operators that receive certified notifications of emissions greater than 100 kg/hr of methane would be required to take action.
  • Well Closure Plans: EPA will now require owners of well sites to submit a well closure plan that includes steps to plug wells, requires financial assurance, and includes a schedule to complete the closure and perform a final survey.
  • Advanced Methane Detection: In response to comments supporting advanced methane detection technologies, EPA has proposed a matrix where owners and operators have the flexibility to use approved alternative screening approaches with development of a plan and notification to the agency. The agency will further update the proposed protocol for optical gas imaging (OGI) in Appendix K.
  • Leak Inspection: EPA will now require identification and correction of leaks, a source of fugitive emissions, at all well sites, including new and existing. While EPA removed exemptions, the type of leak monitoring will vary depending on site characteristics and equipment in four primary categories: (1) single wellhead-only and small well sites; (2) wellhead-only sites with two or more wellheads; (3) sites with major production and processing equipment; and (4) well sites on the Alaska North Slope.
  • Flares: EPA will require flare flames to be lit at all times. Additionally, in order to flare, owners of oil wells with associated gas will be required to either implement alternatives permitted by the rule (such as routing to a sales line) or certify that alternatives are not safe or technically feasible.
  • Additional Regulated Sources: EPA has added strengthened standards for pneumatic pumps (zero-emission standard), updated standards for wet seal centrifugal compressors, and developed new standards for dry seal centrifugal pumps (currently unregulated).

Given the agency’s significant focus on environmental justice and community outreach, US EPA also seeks to provide more opportunities for vulnerable communities and Tribal communities to participate in the development of state plans. In fact, the agency held a webinar specific to Tribal communities and environmental justice communities on November 17, 2022. During the webinar, US EPA explained how the revised rule requires states to conduct meaningful engagement with vulnerable communities through early outreach and request for input. States developing plans for EG will be required to participate in “timely engagement with pertinent stakeholder representation . . . [i]t must include the development of public participation strategies to overcome linguistic, cultural, institutional, geographic, and other barriers to participation to assure pertinent stakeholder representation.”

The agency is also seeking additional insight from the regulated industry on advanced technologies that can be utilized to reduce methane and utilize associated gas. The original proposed rule requested public comment on a potential standard for oil wells with associated gas that would require owners or operators to route associated gas to a sales line or, alternatively, use it for another beneficial use. During this round of comments, US EPA now seeks to understand emerging technologies “that provide uses for the associated gas in a beneficial manner other than routing to a sales line, using as a fuel, or reinjecting the gas.”

The agency extended the timeline for a final rulemaking to 2023 and has issued new opportunities for public comment and training. Written comments are due to the agency by February 13, 2023 and can be submitted to Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317. There will also be a series of public hearings on January 10-11, 2023 that require advance registration. To assist in preparation, US EPA published a document highlighting areas where the agency continues to seek public input. We are prepared to assist clients in engaging with the agency by providing comment and preparing for the final rule to be implemented next year.

Article By Jennifer Tharp of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

IRS and Treasury Department Release Initial Guidance for Labor Requirements under Inflation Reduction Act

On November 30, 2022, the IRS and the Treasury Department published Notice 2022-61 (the Notice) in the Federal Register. The Notice provides guidance regarding the prevailing wage requirements (the Prevailing Wage Requirements) and the apprenticeship requirements (the Apprenticeship Requirements and, together with the Prevailing Wage Requirements, the Labor Requirements), which a taxpayer must satisfy to be eligible for increased amounts of the following clean energy tax credits under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code), as amended by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”):

  • the alternative fuel vehicle refueling property credit under Section 30C of the Code (the Vehicle Refueling PC);
  • the production tax credit under section 45 of the Code (the PTC);
  • the energy efficiency home credit under section 45L of the Code;
  • the carbon sequestration tax credit under section 45Q of the Code (the Section 45Q Credit);
  • the nuclear power production tax credit under section 45U of the Code;
  • the hydrogen production tax credit under section 45V of the Code (the Hydrogen PTC);
  • the clean electricity production tax credit under section 45Y of the Code (the Clean Electricity PTC);
  • the clean fuel production tax credit under section 45Z of the Code;
  • the investment tax credit under section 48 of the Code (the ITC);
  • the advanced energy project tax credit under section 48C of the Code; and
  • the clean electricity production tax credit under section 48E of the Code (the Clean Electricity ITC).[1]

We discussed the IRA, including the Labor Requirements, in a previous update.

Start of Sixty-Day Period

The IRA provides an exemption from the Labor Requirements (the Exemption) for projects and facilities otherwise eligible for the Vehicle Refueling PC, the PTC, the Section 45Q Credit, the Hydrogen PTC, the Clean Electricity PTC, the ITC, and the Clean Electricity ITC, in each case, that begin construction before the sixtieth (60th) day after guidance is released with respect to the Labor Requirements.[2] The Notice provides that it serves as the published guidance that begins such sixty (60)-day period for purposes of the Exemption.

The version of the Notice that was published in the Federal Register on November 30, 2022, provides that the sixtieth (60th) day after the date of publication is January 30, 2023. January 30, 2023, however, is the sixty-first (61st) day after November 30, 2023; January 29, 2023 is the sixtieth (60th) day. Currently, it is unclear whether the Notice erroneously designated January 30, 2023 as the sixtieth (60th) day or whether the additional day to begin construction and qualify for the Exemption was intended, possibly because January 29, 2023 falls on a Sunday. In any event, unless and until clarification is provided, we expect conservative taxpayers planning to rely on the Exemption to start construction on creditable projects and facilities before January 29, 2023, rather than before January 30, 2023.[3]

Beginning Construction for Purposes of the Exemption

The Notice describes the requirements for a project or facility to be deemed to begin construction for purposes of the Exemption. As was widely expected, for purposes of the PTC, the ITC, and the Section 45Q Credit, the Notice adopts the requirements for beginning of construction contained in previous IRS notices (the Prior Notices).[4] Under the Prior Notices, construction of a project or facility is deemed to begin when physical work of a significant nature begins (the Physical Work Test) or, under a safe harbor, when five percent or more of the total cost of the project or facility is incurred under the principles of section 461 of the Code (the Five Percent Safe Harbor). In addition, in order for a project or facility to be deemed to begin construction in a particular year, the taxpayer must demonstrate either continuous construction or continuous efforts until the project or facility is completed (the Continuity Requirement). Under a safe harbor contained in the Prior Notices, projects and facilities that are placed in service no more than four calendar years after the calendar year during which construction of the project or facility began generally are deemed to satisfy the continuous construction or continuous efforts requirement (the Continuity Safe Harbor).[5]

In the case of a project or facility otherwise eligible for the newly-created Vehicle Refueling PC, Hydrogen PTC, Clean Electricity PTC, or Clean Electricity ITC, the Notice provides that:

  • “principles similar to those under Notice 2013-29” will apply for purposes of determining whether the project or facility satisfies the Physical Work Test or the Five Percent Safe Harbor, and a taxpayer satisfying either test will be deemed to have begun construction on the project or facility;
  • “principles similar to those under” the Prior Notices will apply for purposes of determining whether the project or facility satisfies the Continuity Requirement; and
  • “principles similar to those provided under section 3 Notice 2016-31” will apply for purposes of determining whether the project or facility satisfies the Continuity Safe Harbor, with the Notice specifying that the safe harbor period is four (4) years.

Taxpayers and commentators have observed that the existing guidance in the Prior Notices is not, in all cases, a good fit for the newly-created clean energy tax credits. Additional guidance will likely be required to ensure that the principles of the Prior Notices may be applied efficiently and seamlessly to the newly-created tax credits.

Prevailing Wage Determinations

The Notice provides that, for purposes of the Prevailing Wage Requirements, prevailing wages will vary by the geographic area of the project or facility, the type of construction to be performed, and the classifications of the labor to be performed with respect to the construction, alteration, or repair work. Taxpayers may rely on wage determinations published by the Secretary of Labor on www.sam.gov to establish the relevant prevailing wages for a project or facility. If, however, the Secretary of Labor has not published a prevailing wage determination for a particular geographic area or type of project or facility on www.sam.gov, or one or more types of labor classifications that will be performed on the project or facility is not listed, the Notice provides that the taxpayer must contact the Department of Labor (the “DOL”) Wage and Hour Division via email requesting a wage determination based on various facts and circumstances, including the location of and the type of construction and labor to be performed on the project or facility in question. After review, the DOL will notify the taxpayer as to the labor classifications and wage rates to be used for the geographic area in which the facility is located and the relevant types of work.

Taxpayers and commentators have observed that the Notice provides no insight as to the DOL’s decision-making process. For instance, the Notice does not describe the criteria that the DOL will use to make a prevailing wage determination; it does not offer any type of appeal process; and, it does not indicate the DOL’s anticipated response time to taxpayers. The lack of guidance on these topics has created significant uncertainty around the Prevailing Wage Requirements, particularly given that published wage determinations are lacking for many geographical areas.

Certain Defined Terms under the Prevailing Wage Requirements

The Notice provides definitions for certain key terms that are relevant to the Prevailing Wage Requirements, including:

  • Employ. A taxpayer, contractor, or subcontractor is considered to “employ” an individual if the individual performs services for the taxpayer, contractor, or subcontractor in exchange for remuneration. Individuals otherwise classified as independent contractors for federal income tax purposes are deemed to be employed for this purpose and therefore their compensation generally would be subject to the Prevailing Wage Requirements.
  • Wages. The term “wages” includes both hourly wages and bona fide fringe benefits.
  • Construction, Alteration, or Repair. The term “construction, alteration, or repair” means all types of work (including altering, remodeling, installing, painting, decorating, and manufacturing) done on a particular project or facility. Based on this definition, it appears that off-site work, including off-site work used to satisfy the Physical Work Test or the Five Percent Safe Harbor, should not constitute “construction, alteration, or repair” and therefore should not be subject to the Prevailing Wage Requirements. It is not clear, however, whether “construction, alteration, or repair” should be read to include routine operation and maintenance (“O&M”) work on a project or facility.

The Good Faith Exception to the Apprenticeship Requirements

The IRA provides an exception to the Apprenticeship Requirements for taxpayers that make good faith attempts to satisfy the Apprenticeship Requirements but fail to do so due to certain circumstances outside of their control (the Good Faith Exception). The Notice provides that, for purposes of the Good Faith Exception, a taxpayer will be considered to have made a good faith effort to request qualified apprentices if the taxpayer (1) requests qualified apprentices from a registered apprenticeship program in accordance with usual and customary business practices for registered apprenticeship programs in a particular industry and (2) maintains sufficient books and records establishing the taxpayer’s request of qualified apprentices from a registered apprenticeship program and the program’s denial of the request or lack of response to the request, as applicable.

Certain Defined Terms under the Apprenticeship Requirements

The Notice provides definitions for certain key terms that are relevant to the Apprenticeship Requirements, including:

  • Employ. The Notice provides the same definition for “employ” as under the Prevailing Wage Requirements.
  • Journeyworker. The term “journeyworker” means a worker who has attained a level of skill, abilities, and competencies recognized within an industry as having mastered the skills and competencies required for the relevant occupation.
  • Apprentice-to-Journeyworker Ratio. The term “apprentice-to-journeyworker ratio” means a numeric ratio of apprentices to journeyworkers consistent with proper supervision, training, safety, and continuity of employment, and applicable provisions in collective bargaining agreements, except where the ratios are expressly prohibited by the collective bargaining agreements.
  • Construction, Alteration, or Repair. The Notice provides the same definition for “construction, alteration, or repair” as under the Apprenticeship Requirements. This suggests that, like the Prevailing Wage Requirements, off-site work is not subject to the Apprenticeship Requirements. In addition, the same open question regarding O&M work under the Prevailing Wage Requirements applies for purposes of the Apprenticeship Requirements as well.

Record-Keeping Requirements

The Notice requires that taxpayers maintain and preserve sufficient records in accordance with the general recordkeeping requirements under section 6001 of the Code and the accompanying Treasury Regulations to establish that the Prevailing Wage Requirements and Apprenticeship Requirements have been satisfied. This includes books of account or records for work performed by contractors or subcontractors of the taxpayer.

Other Relevant Resources

The DOL has published a series of Frequently Asked Questions with respect to the Labor Requirements on its website. In addition, the DOL has published additional resources with respect to the Apprenticeship Requirements, including Frequently Asked Questions, on its Apprenticeship USA platform. It is generally understood that, in the case of any conflict between the information on these websites and the information in the Notice, the Notice should control.

[1] The Labor Requirements also are applicable to the energy-efficient commercial buildings deduction under section 179D of the Code.

[2] The IRA provides a separate exemption from the Labor Requirements projects or facilities otherwise eligible for the ITC or the PTC with a maximum net output of less than one megawatt.

[3] Interestingly, the DOL online resources described below observe that projects and facilities that begin construction on or after January 29, 2023 are not eligible for the Exemption, which appears to recognize that January 29, 2023, and not January 30, 2023, is the sixtieth (60th) after publication of the Notice.

[4] Notice 2013-29, 2013-20 I.R.B. 1085; Notice 2013-60, 2013-44 I.R.B. 431; Notice 2014-46, 2014-36 I.R.B. 541; Notice 2015-25, 2015-13 I.R.B. 814; Notice 2016-31, 2016-23 I.R.B. 1025; Notice 2017-04, 2017-4 I.R.B. 541; Notice 2018-59, 2018-28 I.R.B. 196; Notice 2019-43, 2019-31 I.R.B. 487; Notice 2020-41, 2020-25 I.R.B. 954; Notice 2021-5, 2021-3 I.R.B. 479; and Notice 2021-41, 2021-29 I.R.B. 17.

[5] In response to procurement, construction, and similar delays attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, the length of the safe harbor period was extended beyond four (4) years for projects or facilities for which construction began in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, or 2020, which we discussed in a previous update.

Article By Elizabeth L. McGinley, Steven J. Lorch, Don J. Lonczak, and Michael A. Recchia of Bracewell LLP

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Bracewell LLP

New York Enacts Crypto Mining Moratorium

On November 22, 2022, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law a two-year moratorium against granting permits to crypto mining operations that “are operated through electric generating facilities that use a carbon-based fuel.” Renewable sources of energy are not impacted.

The legislation, among the first of its kind in the nation, prohibits the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation from issuing any new or renewal permits to electricity generating facilities reliant on carbon-based fuel supporting crypto mining operations that use proof-of-work authentication methods to validate blockchain transactions. The law applies to all permits and renewal applications filed after its effective date, and therefore grandfathers certain businesses that held permits prior to the date of enactment. The Department of Environmental Conservation and the Department of Public Service are also tasked under the legislation with preparing an environmental impact statement on cryptocurrency mining operations that use proof-of-work authentication techniques.

For more Environmental Law news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

PFAS Medical Monitoring Goes To State Supreme Court

A year-and-a-half ago, we predicted that in the PFAS litigation world, medical monitoring claims would quickly become a claim that finds its way into numerous PFAS cases with ever-increasing risks and cost to companies embroiled in the lawsuits. On November 15, 2022, the viability of medical monitoring claims with respect to PFAS found its way to the New Hampshire Supreme Court for oral argument. While courts are currently divided as to whether medical monitoring claims should be permitted to proceed without proof of actual injury to the plaintiffs, the result of the New Hampshire Supreme Court case will likely have ripple effects in other states where medical monitoring claims continue to proliferate.

PFAS Medical Monitoring Costs – The Current Landscape

PFAS medical monitoring costs is not a new topic for the litigation – it is something that plaintiffs’ counsel push for either as a damages component to a cause of action or as a term for settlement negotiations in PFAS cases. Yet, to date, only a few states allow for medical monitoring costs to be pled as a cause of action unto itself. Instead, states either require an underlying harm to be proven before the courts will consider awarding medical monitoring costs or states have outright rejected the medical monitoring theory of damages altogether.

The American Law Institute (ALI) is a prestigious legal organization that develops “Restatements” of various laws in the United States, including tort law. The ALI’s work and the Restatements, while not binding on courts, are widely regarded by attorneys, judges and legal scholars as a comprehensive understanding of many of the nuanced parts of legal theories. Through decades of work and revisions, the Restatement (Third) of Torts is now nearing the final stages of completion.

Significantly, the Restatement (Third) is contemplating including recommendations that courts allow plaintiffs to recover monetary damages for medical monitoring expenses, even though the plaintiffs do not have any present bodily harm. With respect to PFAS litigation, medical monitoring costs have been awarded in some states or through settlements to plaintiffs alleging some degree of injury from PFAS. The Restatement (Third) approach, though, opens the door to citizens in the country with no bodily injury from PFAS to participate in free (to the plaintiffs) medical monitoring to ensure that health issues do not arise related to PFAS.

The ALI’s approach to medical monitoring is a topic that is hotly contested in many legal circles, as awarding medical monitoring costs absent any injury is a highly controversial recommendation that seems to upend decades of tort law. Opponents argue that one of the very tenants of tort law is that there is an injury to the plaintiff – without an injury, there is no tort. Courts are currently split on whether they permit medical monitoring costs to be awarded to plaintiffs without any injury.

PFAS Medical Monitoring In New Hampshire

In Kevin Brown v. Saint Gobain, the plaintiffs’ drinking water was allegedly contaminated with PFOA as a result of a Saint-Gobain facility that discharged PFOA into local waterways, which fed drinking water sources. The case made its way through the USDC-NH, but the defendant certified the question to the New Hampshire Supreme Court of whether New Hampshire law permits the plaintiffs, who are asymptomatic, to bring a claim for the costs of their being periodically medically monitored for symptoms of disease caused by exposure to PFOA.

At oral argument on the issue, the parties and the Court held a spirited debate as to whether the seventeen states that allow medical monitoring as a form of relief are similar legally to New Hampshire, such that the state should adopt a broad interpretation and allow medical monitoring claims without proof of present injury. Defendant and parties who filed amicus briefs in support of defendants argued that the Court should defer to the legislature on the issue, as the legislature has primary responsibility for declaring public policy.

Impact On Companies

The issue of permitting PFAS medical monitoring claims without any present injury is one that has enormous impacts not only on PFAS manufacturers, but any downstream commerce company that finds itself in litigation (often class action lawsuits) alleging medical monitoring damages. The litigation is already shifting in such a way that downstream commerce companies (i.e. – companies that did not manufacture PFAS, but utilized PFAS in manufacturing or products) are being named in lawsuits for personal injury and environmental pollution at increasing rates. Allowing a medical monitoring component to the recoverable costs that can pled would significantly raise the risks and potential liability costs to downstream companies.

It is of the utmost importance that businesses along the whole supply chain in various industries evaluate their PFAS risk. Public health and environmental groups urge legislators to regulate PFAS at an ever-increasing pace. Similarly, state level EPA enforcement action is increasing at a several-fold rate every year. Companies that did not manufacture PFAS, but merely utilized PFAS in their manufacturing processes, are therefore becoming targets of costly enforcement actions at rates that continue to multiply year over year. Lawsuits are also filed monthly by citizens or municipalities against companies that are increasingly not PFAS chemical manufacturers.

Article By John Gardella of CMBG3 Law

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.