Environmental Law Archives - Page 14 of 40

Red States Move to Penalize Companies That Consider Climate Change When Making Investments

A number of conservative-leaning states, particularly those with a significant fossil fuel industry (e.g., Texas, West Virginia), have begun implementing polices and enacting laws that penalize companies which “pull away from the fossil fuel industry.” Most of these laws focus on precluding state governmental entities, including pension funds, from doing business with companies that have adopted policies that take climate change into account, whether divesting from fossil fuels or simply considering climate change metrics when evaluating investments.

This trend is a troubling development for the American economy. Irrespective of the merits of the policy, or fossil fuel investments generally, there are now an array of state governments and associated entities, reflecting a significant portion of the economy, that have adopted policies explicitly designed to remove climate change or other similar concerns from consideration when companies decide upon a course of action. But there are other states (typically coastal “blue” states) that have enacted diametrically opposed policies, including mandatory divestments from fossil fuel investments (e.g., Maine). This patchwork of contradictory state regulation has created a labyrinth of different concerns for companies to navigate. And these same companies are also facing pressure from significant institutional investors, such as BlackRock, to consider ESG concerns when making investments.

Likely the most effective way to resolve these inconsistent regulations and guidance, and to alleviate the impact on the American economy, would be for the federal government to issue a clear set of policy guidelines and regulatory requirements. (Even if these were subject to legal challenge, it would at least set a benchmark and provide general guidance.) But the SEC, the most likely source of such regulations, has failed to meet its own deadlines for promulgating such regulations, and it is unclear when such guidance will be issued.

In the absence of a clear federal mandate, the contradictory policies adopted by different state governments will only apply additional burdens to companies doing business across multiple state jurisdictions, and by extension, to the economy of the United States.

“Republicans and right-leaning groups fighting climate-conscious policies that target fossil fuel companies are increasingly taking their battle to state capitals. Texas, West Virginia and Oklahoma are among states moving to bar officials from dealing with businesses that are moving to ditch fossil fuels or considering climate change in their own investments. Those steps come as major financial firms and other corporations adopt policies aligned with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

Article By Jacob H. Hupart of Mintz

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

Restaurant Greenwashing: Diners Beware or Industry Beware?

In June 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed in California in which restaurant greenwashing was alleged due to sustainability statements made on Red Lobster’s menus. Now, Red Lobster has filed pleadings with the court seeking to have the case dismissed, arguing that plaintiffs failed to establish any colorable claim on which they can prevail. While it remains to be seen what the court will do with the lawsuit, the critical takeaway from the litigation is that any industry, not just the consumer goods industry, must realize that marketing buzzwords such as “sustainable”, “environmentally friendly”, and “responsibly sourced” are in the crosshairs. Now more than ever, globally situated companies of all types that are advertising, marketing, drafting ESG statements, or disclosing information as required by regulatory agencies must pay extremely close attention to the language used in all of these types of documents, or else run the risk of enforcement action or lawsuits.

Restaurant Greenwashing Lawsuit

The 2020 Red Lobster lawsuit alleged that “Seafood With Standards” statements on Red Lobster’s menus regarding the sustainability, traceability and responsible sourcing of its lobster and shrimp were false. Instead, the lawsuit argues, the Maine lobster served by Red Lobster are not sustainably sourced and the farmed shrimp used by the restaurant chain are not responsibly sourced. The lawsuit alleges that Red Lobster’s purveyors instead use environmentally damaging and inhumane methods for catching or harvesting the seafood supplies. As such, marketing statements made on Red Lobster’s menus and in other advertising were false and misleading.

The claims in the Complaint range from allegations that fishing practices harm whale populations to allegations of inhumane treatment of female shrimp to boost reproductivity to allegations of antibiotic and chemical use in shrimp farms to promote rapid growth. The relief sought in the lawsuit is injunctive relied for the court to stop any practices found to be deceptive and misleading, as well as over $5 million in damages (which are as of yet unspecified in terms of exact amount).

Last week, Red Lobster fought back, arguing that the plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the marketing slogan and the information on the restaurant chain’s menus are overbroad. Instead, the company argues, the language on the menus merely invites diners to visit the Red Lobster website to learn more about the company’s commitment to sustainable, tracing and sourcing initiatives. The plaintiffs disagree and argue that an ordinary consumer would not view Red Lobster’s menus as merely a “redirect” to the company’s website, but instead an assertion about the products found on the menu.

Corporate Preparation Is Key

In less than two months in 2022, the fashion industry, the cosmetics industry, and the restaurant industry have seen litigation and regulatory agency activity increase with respect to greenwashing concerns. Restaurant greenwashing complaints provide a natural supply of potential plaintiffs for potential class action lawsuits given the number of consumers that would be subject to the reach of marketing by the industry. We predict that 2022 will see a great degree of regulatory enforcement action and legislation seeking to curb over zealous marketing language or statements that could be seen as greenwashing, and the Red Lobster lawsuit is certainly one to watch to determine the future impact on the industry.

While there are numerous avenues to examine to ensure that ESG principles are being upheld and accurately conveyed to the public, the underlying compliance program for minimizing greenwashing allegation risks is absolutely critical for all players putting forth ESG-related statements. These compliance checks should not merely be one-time pre-issuance programs; rather, they should be ongoing and constant to ensure that with ever-evolving corporate practices, a focused interest by the regulatory agencies on ESG, and increasing attention by the legal world on greenwashing claims, all statement put forth are truly “ESG friendly” and not misleading in any way.

This article was written by John Gardella of CMBG3 law firm. For more articles on greenwashing, please see here.

Crossing the Wires of Energy and Cryptocurrency Policy: U.S. Congress Investigates the Environmental Impact of Crypto Mining

The rapid adoption of cryptocurrency and other popular blockchain applications has captured our global economy’s attention. Even as the value of cryptocurrencies slid from their all-time highs, the promise of these digital assets and the infrastructure being developed to support them has been transformative.

As with most emerging technologies, policymakers are still exploring the best approaches to regulating these new digital assets and business models. Questions about consumer protection, security, and the applicability of existing laws are to be expected; however, the environmental impact of these energy-intensive business practices has prompted considerable study and regulatory activity across the globe, including attention in the United States.

To understand the increasing energy demands associated with major cryptocurrencies – predominantly, Bitcoin and Ethereum – it is important to understand how many cryptocurrencies are generated in the first instance. Many countries, including China, have banned cryptocurrency mining, and, with the United States becoming the largest source of cryptocurrency mining activity, Congress began active investigations and hearings into the energy demands and environmental impacts in January 2022.

Proof of What? Why certain cryptocurrencies create high energy demands.

Not all cryptocurrencies – or blockchain platforms, for that matter – are created equal in their energy demands. The goal of most major cryptocurrency platforms is to create a decentralized, distributed ledger, meaning that there is no one authority to verify the authenticity of transactions and ensure that assets are not spent twice, for example. There needs to be a trustworthy mechanism – a consensus system – to verify new transactions, add those transactions to the blockchain, and to confirm the creation of new tokens. Bitcoin alone has well over 200,000 transactions per day,^[1] so it should not come as a surprise that these platforms take an enormous amount of processing power to maintain.

There are currently two primary ways that network participants lend their processing power, which are framing part of the modern energy policy debates around cryptocurrency. The first form is “proof of work,” which is the original method that Bitcoin and Ethereum 1.0 employ. When a group of transactions (a block) needs to be verified, all of the “mining” computers race to solve a complex math puzzle, and whoever wins gets to add the block to the chain and is rewarded in coins. The competitive nature of proof of work consensus systems has led to substantial increases in computing power provided by institutional cryptocurrency mining operations and, with that, higher energy demands.

The second form is “proof of stake,” which newer platforms like Cardano and ETH2 use, promises to require considerably less energy to operate. With this method, validators “stake” their currency for a chance at verifying new transactions and updating the blockchain. This method rewards long-term investment in a particular blockchain, rather than raw computing power. A validator is picked based on how much currency they have staked and how long it has been staked for. Once the block is verified, other validators must review and accept the data before it’s added to the blockchain. Then, everyone who participated in validating the block is rewarded with coins.

While proof of stake consensus systems are becoming more common, the dominant – and most valuable – cryptocurrencies are still generated through energy-intensive proof of work systems.

Turning out the lights on Crypto: China bans domestic mining and other countries follow.

China has been incredibly influential in the modern cryptocurrency debate around energy use. For several years, China was the cryptocurrency mining capital of the world, providing an average of two-thirds of the world’s processing power dedicated to Bitcoin mining through early 2021.^[2] In June 2021, however, China banned all domestic cryptocurrency mining operations, citing the environmental impacts of Bitcoin mining energy demands among its concerns.^[3]

As Bitcoin miners fled China, many relocated to neighboring countries, such as Kazakhstan, and the United States became the largest source of mining activity – an estimated 35.1% of global mining power.^[4] The surge in Bitcoin mining activity in Kazakhstan has not been without its controversy. Many Kazakhstan-based crypto mining operations are powered by coal plants, and there has been considerable unrest sparked by rising fuel costs.^[5]

With some countries experiencing negative impacts from cryptocurrency mining operations, several countries have followed China’s lead in banning cryptocurrencies. According to a 2021 report prepared by the Law Library of Congress, at least eight other countries – Egypt, Iraq, Qatar, Oman, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Bangladesh – have banned cryptocurrencies.^[6] Many other countries have impliedly banned cryptocurrency or cryptocurrency exchanges, as well.^[7]

U.S. Congress shines its spotlight on the energy demands of cryptocurrency mining.

Now home to over a third of the global computing power dedicated to mining bitcoin, the United States has turned its attention to domestic miners and their impacts on the environment and local economies.

In June 2021, U.S. policymakers were still predominantly focused on the consumer protection and security concerns raised by digital currencies; however, Senator Elizabeth Warren alluded to her growing concerns about the environmental costs of, particularly, proof of work mining.^[8] On December 2, 2021, Senator Warren sent a letter requesting information on the environmental footprint of New York-based Bitcoin miner Greenridge Generation.^[9] The letter observed that, “[g]iven the extraordinarily high energy usage and carbon emissions associated with Bitcoin mining, mining operations at Greenridge and other plants raise concerns about their impacts on the global environment, on local ecosystems, and on consumer electricity costs.”^[10] Senator Warren’s concerns sparked several rounds of congressional oversight and inquiries into the environmental impacts of, particularly, proof of work cryptocurrencies, over the past month.

Committee Hearing on “Cleaning up Cryptocurrency” begins oversight and investigation into the energy impacts of blockchains.

On January 20, 2022, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing, where the externalities of cryptocurrency mining were the focus of the agenda. An early indicator of the Subcommittee’s views on the issue, the title for the hearing was “Cleaning up Cryptocurrency: The Energy Impacts of Blockchains.”^[11]

The hearing focused heavily on the amount of energy used to power proof of work cryptocurrency mining. Bitcoin Mining has been widely criticized for the massive amounts of power it consumes – globally, more than 204 terawatt-hours as of January 2022. Although some operations are attempting to utilize renewable energy, the machines executing these algorithms consume enormous amounts of energy primarily sourced from fossil fuels.

The five industry experts testifying before the House Energy and Commerce Oversight Subcommittee had competing views on how regulators should address the energy consumption of cryptocurrencies—with some experts opining that the computational demands were a “feature, not a bug.”^[12] Two of the experts – Brian Brooks, CEO of Bitfury Group, and Professor Ari Juels, Faculty member at Cornell Tech – debated the technical merits between proof of work and proof of stake systems, described earlier in this article.^[13] Similarly, Gregory Zerzan, an attorney with Jordan Ramis, P.C. who previously held senior positions in the United States Government, encouraged the Subcommittee not to lose sight of the fact that cryptocurrencies are but “one aspect of a larger innovation, blockchain.”^[14] Although the viewpoints of the experts varied considerably, there was a clear consensus among the experts: energy-efficient alternatives should guide the path forward.

John Belizaire, the founder and CEO of Soluna Computing, said that cryptocurrency mining could further accelerate the transition to renewable energy sources from an energy perspective.^[15] Renewables currently suffer from one significant deficiency – intermittency. An example of this challenge is the so-called “duck curve,” which illustrates major differences between the demands for electricity as compared to the amount of renewable energy sources available throughout the day. For example, when the sun is shining, there is significantly more power than consumers need for a few hours per day; however, solar energy does not provide nearly enough energy when demand spikes in the late afternoon and evening.^[16] While there has been progress in the development of lithium battery storage – a critical piece in solving the issues mentioned above– for the time being, deploying these batteries at scale is still too expensive.

In addressing gaps in battery storage, Belizaire testified that “Computing is a better battery.”^[17] Computing, he states, “is an immediately deployable solution that can allow renewables to scale to their full potential today.”^[18] Belizaire highlighted that, unlike other industrial consumers, cryptocurrency miners can turn their systems off when necessary, giving miners the ability to absorb excess energy from a given area’s electrical grid rather than straining it. This ability to start and stop or pause computing processes can increase grid resilience by absorbing excess energy from renewable resources that provide more power than the grid can handle. Brooks shared similar hopes for how Bitcoin mining could help stabilize electric grids, support the viability of renewable energy projects, and drive innovation in computing and cooling technology.^[19]

Steve Wright, the former general manager of the Chelan County Public Utility District in Washington, testified that “the portability of cryptocurrency operations could be a benefit in terms of locating operations based on underutilized transmission and distribution capacity availability.”^[20] Still, with ambitious goals to expand transmission and increase and integrate large amounts of carbon-free emitting generation, Wright testified that “substantial collaboration and coordination will be necessary to avoid cryptocurrency mining exacerbating an already very difficult problem.”^[21]

Congressional Democrats continue the investigation into domestic mining operations and the Cryptomining Industry response.

The January 20, 2022 Hearing made clear that policymakers are doing their due diligence into the impact that the United States could experience as the number of domestic cryptocurrency mining operations increase. Commentary from the Hearing forecasted that scrutinizing the sources and costs of energy used in cryptocurrency mining would be a priority for Democrat members of Congress.

To that end, on January 27, 2022, eight Democrat members of Congress led by Senator Elizabeth Warren “sent letters to six cryptomining companies raising concerns over their extraordinarily high energy uses.”^[22] Citing the same concerns raised in her December 2021 letter to Greenridge, Senator Warren and her colleagues observed that “Bitcoin mining’s power consumption has more than tripled from 2019 to 2021, rivaling the energy consumption of Washington state, and of entire countries like Denmark, Chile, and Argentina.”^[23] To assist Congress in its investigation, Riot Blockchain, Marathon Digital Holdings, Stronghold Digital Mining, Bitdeer, Bitfury Group, and Bit Digital were all asked for information related to their mining operations, energy consumption, possible impacts on the climate and local environments, and the impact of electricity costs for American consumers.^[24] Senator Warren and her colleagues requested written responses by no later than February 10, 2022, so this increased oversight will likely continue.

Even with increased oversight, current trends in crypto mining and renewables could soon make such inquiries a moot point. Amid the heated debate over the environmental impact of cryptocurrencies, miners are increasingly committed to changing the negative reputation that it has built over the years – especially as these operations move to the United States. In November of last year, Houston-based tech company Lancium announced that it raised $150 million to build bitcoin mines across Texas that will run on renewable energy.^[25] In 2022, the company plans to launch over 2,000 megawatts of capacity across its multiple sites.^[26] Bitcoin mining company Argo Blockchain, a company listed on the London Stock Exchange, secured a $25 million loan to fund its “green” mining operation.^[27] The 320-acre site will only use renewable energy, the majority being hydroelectric.^[28] This deal is set to transform Argo’s mining capacity and is expected to be completed in the first half of 2022.^[29]

Capital Markets also appear to have a growing appetite for the development of green crypto mining. In April of last year, Gryphon Digital Mining raised $14 Million Series A to launch a zero-carbon footprint Bitcoin mining operation powered exclusively by renewables.^[30] In a raise that closed in just over two weeks, institutional investors – who were significantly oversubscribed – accounted for over thirty percent of the round.^[31]

As congressional, social, and economic pressures grow, it is evident that there is going to be a big focus on the sustainability of Bitcoin mining. As such, we may very well see announcements, like the deals mentioned above, well into 2022 and beyond.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Bitcoin Transactions Per Day, YCharts, https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_transactions_per_day (last visited Jan. 29, 2022).

[2] Bitcoin Mining Map, Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, https://ccaf.io/cbeci/mining_map (last visited Jan. 29, 2022) [“Bitcoin Mining Map”].

[3] Samuel Shen & Andrew Galbraith, China’s ban forces some bitcoin miners to flee overseas, others sell out, Reuters, June 25, 2021, https://www.reuters.com/technology/chinas-ban-forces-some-bitcoin-miners-flee-overseas-others-sell-out-2021-06-25/ (last visited Jan. 29, 2022).

[4] See Bitcoin Mining Map.

[5] Tom Wilson, Bitcoin network power slumps as Kazakhstan crackdown hits crypto miners, Reuters, Jan. 7, 2022, https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/bitcoin-network-power-slumps-kazakhstan-crackdown-hits-crypto-miners-2022-01-06/ (last visited Jan. 29, 2022).

[6] Regulation of Cryptocurrency Around the World: November 2021 Update, Global Legal Research Directorate, The Law Library of Congress, available at https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/llglrd/2021687419/2021687419.pdf (last visited Jan. 29, 2022).

[7] Id.

[8] Press Release, United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, At Hearing, Warren Delivers Remarks on Digital Currencies (June 9, 2021), https://www.banking.senate.gov/newsroom/majority/at-hearing-warren-delivers-remarks-on-digital-currency (last visited Jan. 29, 2022).

[9] Elizabeth Warren, Letter to Greenridge Generation on Crypto, Dec. 2, 2021, available at https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2021.12.2.%20Letter%20to%20Greenidge%20Generation%20on%20Crypto.pdf (last visited Jan. 29, 2022).

[10] Id. at p.2.

[11] Hearing Notice, United States House Committee on Energy & Commerce, Hearing on “Cleaning Up Cryptocurrency: The Energy Impacts of Blockchains” (Jan. 20, 2022), https://energycommerce.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/hearing-on-cleaning-up-cryptocurrency-the-energy-impacts-of-blockchains (last visited Jan. 29, 2022) [the “January 20 Hearing”].

[12] January 20 Hearing Testimony. See also Statement of Brian P. Brooks before House Committee (Jan. 20, 2022), available at https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/Witness%20Testimony_Brooks_OI_2022.01.20_0.pdf (last visited Jan. 29, 2022) [the “Brooks Statement”].

[13] See, e.g., Brooks Statement; Statement of Prof. Ari Juels before House Committee (Jan. 20, 2022), available at https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/Witness%20Testimony_Juels_OI_2022.01.20.pdf (last visited Jan. 29, 2022) [the “Juels Statement”].

[14] Statement of Gregory Zerzan before House Committee (Jan. 20, 2022), available at https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/Witness%20Testimony_Zerzan_OI_2022.01.20.pdf (last visited Jan. 29, 2022).

[15] See, e.g., Statement of John Belizaire before House Committee (Jan. 20, 2022), available at https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/Witness%20Testimony_Belizaire_OI_2022.01.20_0.pdf (last visited Jan. 29, 2022) [the “Belizaire Statement”].

[16] Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Confronting the Duck Curve: How to Address Over-Generation of Solar Energy (October 12, 2017)

https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/confronting-duck-curve-how-address-over-generation-solar-energy (last visited Jan. 29, 2022).

[17] See, e.g., Belizaire Statement, p.4.

[18] Id.

[19] See generally Brooks Statement, pp.8-10.

[20] See, e.g., Statement of Steve Wright before House Committee, p.5 (January 20, 2022) available at https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/Witness%20Testimony_Wright_OI_2022.01.20.pdf (last visited Jan. 29, 2022) [the “Wright Statement”].

[21] Id. p.9.

[22] Press Release, Office of Senator Elizabeth Warren, Warren, Colleagues Press Six Cryptomining Companies on Extraordinarily High Energy Use and Climate Impacts (Jan. 27, 2022), available at https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-colleagues-press-six-cryptomining-companies-on-extraordinarily-high-energy-use-and-climate-impacts (last visited Jan. 29, 2022).

[23] Id.

[24] Id.

[25] MacKenzie Sigalos, This Houston Tech Company wants to build renewable energy-run bitcoin mines across Texas CNBC (November 23, 2021), https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/23/lancium-raises-150-million-for-renewable-run-bitcoin-mines-in-texas.html (last visited Jan 31, 2022).

[26] Id.

[27] Namcios Bitcoin Magazine, Argo blockchain buys Hydro data centers to realize Green Bitcoin Mining Vision, (May 13, 2021), https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/argo-blockchain-buys-hydro-data-centers-to-realize-green-bitcoin-mining-vision-2021-05-13 (last visited Jan 31, 2022).

[28] Id.

[29] Id.

[30] GlobeNewswire News Room, Gryphon Digital Mining raises $14 million to launch bitcoin mining operation with zero carbon footprint, (April 13, 2021), https://www.globenewswire.com/newsrelease/2021/04/13/2209346/0/en/Gryphon-Digital-Mining-Raises-14-Million-to-Launch-Bitcoin-Mining-Operation-with-Zero-Carbon-Footprint.html (last visited Jan 31, 2022).

[31] Id.

Article By Jeffrey M. Kelly and Jeffrey E. Joseph with Nelson Mullins.

For more articles about cryptocurrency, visit the NLR Financial Securities & Banking section.

Electrification of the Fleet is on the Horizon, Preparing Now is Key

While we often hear how EVs will revolutionize the lives of the average consumer, commercial fleet owners are starting to take note of the impact these new powertrain systems will have on their own business and operations. As OEMs find creative ways to increase aerodynamics, extend battery range, and increase charging speeds, the zero emission and lower long-term cost of EVs compared to ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles makes a compelling argument for adoption, at least on paper. What really matters is how those factors play out as the rubber hits the road, which OEMs are starting to see play out in real time. Over the past few years, there has been an explosion of commercial fleet platforms from existing and new entrants in the commercial vehicle space. From light to heavy trucking to fleet platform automobiles, EV technology is looking to capture every corner of the commercial fleet sector. Coupled with a slow reduction in the number of ICE vehicles produced in future years, the market may start pushing fleet operations towards EVs, whether they like it or not.

According to the Department of Transportation, over eight million vehicles made up commercial fleets in the US in 2020, which includes a mix of trucks and automobiles used in commercial and government operations. Even more make up commercial vehicles on the road that are not considered part of a fleet. As consumer demand drives most traditional OEMs toward EV dominated fleets, commercial fleet owners and operators need to start to prepare now for the same shift in their vehicle suppliers, or risk playing catchup once the market does turn from ICE to EV. This isn’t to say that failure to be an early adopter will be the death-knell to commercial fleet businesses; it likely won’t be. What businesses with commercial fleets should consider is their own business needs and their timeline for their own fleet replacement as EV technology and infrastructure support continues to evolve. Establishing a process and plan for upgrading existing fleets, training personnel, upgrading infrastructure, and understanding available programs for conversion will be key.

The switch from an ICE to EV fleet isn’t as simple as flipping a switch or plugging in a car – EVs bring a new powertrain and new sources of information. EVs in their current state are expensive, new vehicle supply is constantly in question, current operators are unaware of the nuances involved with operating an EV, and the infrastructure necessary to support a commercial fleet of EVs isn’t universally robust. For the average fleet operator, there also is a need to focus on route optimization, installing and maintaining new hardware capable to supporting charging on-site, revamping their maintenance and care procedures, and working with their local energy providers to understand how power demands in their local market may impact their own energy costs and needs. Additionally, although data analytics has improved existing fleet operations over the past few years, expect to see more nuanced data availability to the benefit of fleet operators. As commercial and consumer EVs come out with ever more connectivity to the web and each other, coupled with the ability for “smart cities” to increase data available to drivers and vehicles, expect future fleet operators to get even more granular and predictive understanding of traffic patterns to optimize commercial routes. Managing these dynamics and capitalizing on new sources of information will better enable operators to adapt to the changing landscape. The ability to adapt to this new frontier will be a key trait for successful fleet operations in the Auto-2.0 operated environment.

Article By Christopher R. Boll of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more infrastructure and transportation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Fashion Sustainability and Social Accountability Act Proposed in New York

Happy New Year (are we still saying that?) from the Global Supply Chain Law Blog! In our ever-evolving society, the fashion industry has taken new heights. And with those heights, the industry is on pace to account for more than a quarter of the world’s carbon budget, according to the New Standard Institute. Indeed, the group indicates that apparel and footwear are responsible for roughly 4-8.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions. You may be wondering, “but how?” Well after that sweater you bought last year (or even last month!) goes out of style, you may donate it. According to CBS, some of those donations go overseas to Ghana, for example, to be sold. The unsold clothes, however, end up as landfills creating an environmental nightmare.

As a result and in an effort to create more regulation, New York is taking action with respect to the environmental nightmare. Earlier this year, the New York legislator proposed a bill—the Fashion sustainability and social accountability act, which would amend the general business law, requiring fashion retail sellers and manufacturers to disclose environmental and social due diligence and policies.

Specifically, every fashion retail seller and fashion manufacturer doing business in the State of New York and having annual global gross revenues that exceed $100 million dollars must disclose its:

environmental and social due diligence^[1] policies,
processes and outcomes, including significant real or potential negative environmental and social impacts, and
targets for impact reductions, implementation, improvement and compliance on an annual basis.

The required disclosures would include supply chain mapping of at least 50% of suppliers (which the retail seller or manufacturer could choose) by volume across all tiers of production, a sustainability report, independently verified greenhouse gas reporting, volume of production displaced with recycled materials, and median wages of workers of suppliers compared with local minimum wage, to name a few.

All disclosures must be posted on the retail or manufacturer’s website within a year of enactment. Enforcement of the bill would fall to the state’s attorney general, who would publish a report listing the fashion retail sellers and manufactures who are out of compliance with the act. Public shaming would not be the only punishment, however. Retailers and manufacturers who fail to comply may be fined up to 2% of annual revenues of $450 million or more. The money from the fines will be deposited into a community benefit fund, which will be used for environmental benefit projects that directly and verifiably benefit environmental justice communities.

In short, if the Fashion sustainability and social accountability act is enacted into law, fashion retailers and manufactures will be held accountable for environmental and social impacts stemming from their supply chain and production of apparel and shoes. According to Vogue, “proponents say the bill will make history” as it could “shift how the fashion industry operates globally.” Thus, stay tuned as we will be tracking the legislation closely and will provide real time updates!

^[1]“Due diligence” shall mean the process companies should carry out to identify, prevent, mitigate and account or how they address actual and potential adverse impacts in their own operations, their supply chain and other Business relationships, as recommended in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct and United Nations Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights.

Article By Alexis B. Chandler with Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP.

For more articles on sustainability, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources type of law page.

Greenwashing and the SEC: the 2022 ESG Target

A recent wave of greenwashing lawsuits against the cosmetics industry drew the attention of many in the corporate, financial and insurance sectors. Attacks on corporate marketing and language used to allegedly deceive consumers will take on a much bigger life in 2022, not only due to our prediction that such lawsuits will increase, but also from Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) investigations and penalties related to greenwashing. 2022 is sure to see an intense uptick in activity focused on greenwashing and the SEC is going to be the agency to lead that charge. Companies of all types that are advertising, marketing, drafting ESG statements, or disclosing information as required to the SEC must pay extremely close attention to the language used in all of these types of documents, or else run the risk of SEC scrutiny.

SEC and ESG

In March 2021, the SEC formed the Climate and Environmental, Social and Governance Task Force (ESG Task Force) within its Division of Enforcement. Hand in hand with the legal world’s attention on greenwashing in 2021, the SEC’s ESG Task Force was created for the sole purpose of investigating ESG-related violations. The SEC’s actions were well-timed, as 2021 saw an enormous increase in investor demand for ESG-related and ESG-driven portfolios. There is considerable market demand for ESG portfolios, and whether this demand is driven by institute influencers or simple environmental and social consciousness among consumers is of little importance to the SEC – it simply wants to ensure that ESG activity is being done properly, transparently and accurately.

Greenwashing and the SEC

The SEC has stated that in 2022, it will be taking direct aim at greenwashing issues on many different levels in the investment world. As corporations and investment funds alike increasingly put forth ESG-friendly statements pertaining to their actions or portfolio content, the law has thus far failed to keep pace with the increasing ESG statement activity. It is into this gap that the SEC sees itself fitting and attempting to ensure that the public is not subject to greenwashing. In order to tackle this objective, expect the SEC to focus on the wording used to describe investments or portfolios, what issuers say in filings, and the statements made by investment houses and advisors related to ESG.

From this stem several topics that the SEC’s ESG Task Force will scrutinize, such as: whether “ESG investments” are truly comprised of companies that have accurate and forthright ESG plans; the level of due diligence conducted by investment houses in determining whether an investment or portfolio is “ESG friendly”; how investment world internal statements differ from external public-facing statements related to the level of ESG considerations taken into account in an investment or portfolio; selling “ESG friendly” investments with no set method for ensuring that the investment continues to uphold those principles; and many others.

2022, the SEC, and ESG

Given the SEC’s specific targeting of ESG-related issues beginning in 2021, we predict that 2022 will see a great degree of SEC enforcement action seeking to curb over zealous marketing language or statements that it sees as greenwashing. Whether these efforts will intertwine with the potential for increased Department of Justice criminal investigation and prosecution of egregious violators over greenwashing remains to be seen, but it is nevertheless something that issuers and investment firms alike must closely consider.

While there are numerous avenues to examine to ensure that ESG principles are being upheld and accurately conveyed to the public, the underlying compliance program for minimizing greenwashing allegation risks is absolutely critical for all players putting forth ESG-related statements. These compliance checks should not merely be one-time pre-issuance programs; rather, they should be ongoing and constant to ensure that with ever-evolving corporate practices, a focused interest by the SEC on ESG, and increasing attention by the legal world on greenwashing claims, all statement put forth are truly “ESG friendly” and not misleading in any way.

Article By John Gardella of CMBG3 Law

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

EPA’s Stormwater General Permit is Safe. Does it Matter?

A Colorado-based NGO has dropped its 9th Circuit lawsuit challenging EPA’s Multi-Sector General Permit for stormwater discharges associated with industrial facilities.

On one hand, this is a victory for EPA which apparently offered nothing to settle the case before the NGO threw up its hands.

On the other hand, the General Permit is only applicable in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and New Mexico, the three states that have not been delegated the authority to issue such a permit (as well as tribal lands and other lands not subject to state jurisdiction).

Why did the NGO bring this suit to begin with? Did it hope that the Biden Administration EPA would, when push came to shove, do something dramatically different than the Trump Administration EPA?

Whatever the reason, the NGO has apparently concluded that the current law and permit give it plenty of grounds to bring suits over stormwater discharges in the 9th Circuit and elsewhere. There are already several such imaginative suits pending on the west coast.

Are the regulators in Massachusetts less able to issue and enforce stormwater permits than than their colleagues in 47 other states? The answer is of course not. They are completely able and more able than most. And they already have authority under state laws and regulations that are broader in their reach than the federal law.

But the Massachusetts legislature has stood in the way, apparently because it doesn’t want to bear the costs of regulating in this area borne by 47 other states. Uncertainty and the threat, if not the actuality, of litigation has been the unfortunate result of this dereliction for the regulated community, including the municipalities in which we live.

We deserve better.

“The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) is dropping its legal challenge to EPA’s industrial stormwater general permit that sought stricter regulation of plastics pollution after settlement discussions were unfruitful, according to an attorney familiar with the litigation.“

Article By Jeffrey R. Porter of Mintz

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

Game Changing Reform to NSW Environment Protection Laws

The NSW Government has introduced the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 (NSW) (Bill) which proposes wide ranging reforms to NSW environmental laws to enable the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) to “crack down” on environmental offenders.

The Bill makes good on Minister Matt Kean’s commitment to ensure that “the book [is] thrown at anyone who has done the wrong thing”. While the EPA has made it clear that the reforms are “aimed solely at those who deliberately choose to circumvent the law”, the amendments proposed by the Bill will materially increase environmental liabilities for all NSW operators.

This article outlines the key reforms proposed by the Bill which will amend a raft of environmental legislation, including the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) (POEO Act) and Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 (NSW) (CLM Act) and include:

the creation of new environmental offences;
increasing the penalties for a number of existing offences;
increasing the powers of the EPA and other environment regulators to hold to account those perceived to be responsible for pollution or contamination and to enforce environment protection licence conditions;
enabling the EPA to recover profits arising from the commission of environmental offences and the cost of remediating contaminated land from related bodies corporate and directors and managers of offending corporations; and
making it easier for the EPA to prove certain environmental offences.

The Bill is expected to be debated by Parliament in early 2022 and, if passed, will result in the largest overhaul of NSW environmental laws in over five years.

KEY REFORMS

	Description	Analysis
Greater Liability for Directors, Managers and Related Bodies Corporate	New power for the EPA and other environment regulators to issue clean-up notices and prevention notices to: current and former directors and persons concerned in management; and related bodies corporate, of companies responsible pollution or contamination, if the company does not comply with notices issued to it. Making it an offence for a: director or person concerned in management; related body corporate; or director or person concerned in management of a related body corporate, to receive or accrue a monetary benefit as a result of certain proven environmental offences by a company. New and expanded powers for the EPA and other prosecutors to obtain monetary benefit orders requiring: directors or persons concerned in management; related bodies corporate; and directors or persons concerned in management of related bodies corporate, to repay monetary benefits accrued as a result of certain proven environmental offences by a company.	If passed, the Bill will significantly increase potential liability of those concerned in the management of companies (including related bodies corporate) who commit environmental offences or fail to comply with environment protection notices in NSW. Managers, directors and related bodies corporate could be put on the hook: to clean up pollution or contamination caused by a company; to carry out works required by a prevention notice to ensure that activities of the corporation are carried on in future in an environmentally satisfactory manner; and to repay “monetary benefits” received as a result of any proven offence. The proposed measures are not entirely unique to NSW. Queensland passed “chain of responsibility” environment legislation in 2016 and put it to use in the long-running Linc Energy matter. However, the proposal for directors and related bodies corporate to be automatically liable for an offence if they profit from a proven offence of a corporation under environment protection legislation is likely to be the source of significant concern. This is especially the case as the Bill does not propose any defences. This means that a director or person concerned in management could potentially be liable even if they have taken all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence by the company, although the EPA is unlikely to commence a prosecution in such circumstances.
New EPA Powers to Regulate Contaminated Land	New powers for the EPA to issue clean-up notices and prevention notices as soon as the EPA is notified of contamination of land, even before the EPA has determined that the land is “significantly contaminated”. New power for the EPA to require financial assurances to ensure compliance with under ongoing maintenance orders, restrictions and public positive covenants.	The new reforms demonstrate the importance on engaging with the EPA at an early stage and on an ongoing basis in relation to contaminated land. If passed, the Bill would enable the EPA to take strong and proactive action without agreement even before it determines that the land is “significantly contaminated” and warrants contamination.
New Offence of Giving False or Misleading Information to the EPA	The Bill includes a new general offence of giving information to the EPA that is false or misleading in a material respect. A defence applies where the person took all reasonable steps to ensure the information was not false or misleading in a material respect. Greater penalties apply where the false or misleading information is provided knowingly. Directors and other persons involved in the management of the corporation will be liable for any offence committed by the company under the new provision if they ought reasonably to know that the offence would be committed and failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the provision of false and misleading information.	This new false and misleading information offence is significant because it applies regardless of whether the information was provided: voluntarily; or in circumstances where the information was known to be false or misleading. The new offence is an apparent response to the decision in Environment Protection Authority v Eastern Creek Operations Pty Limited [2020] NSWLEC 182, where the defendant successfully resisted an EPA prosecution which alleged that the provision of false or misleading information by establishing that the notice in response to which the information was provided was legally invalid. The new offence would create material new risks for entities regulated by the EPA, and highlights the need to take great care in taking “all reasonable steps” to ensure that information provided to the EPA is not false or misleading.
Higher Maximum Penalties for Some Environmental Offences	Substantial increases to some maximum penalties for offences under environment protection legislation, including the CLM Act, to more than double the current maximum penalties.	The Second Reading Speech states that maximum penalties have been increased so that “they reflect the true cost of the crime”
Increased Liability for Suspected “Contributors” to Pollution	New power for the EPA and other environmental regulators to issue a clean-up notice to persons who is “reasonably suspected of contributing”, to any extent, to a pollution incident. New powers for public authorities to recover costs and expenses of taking clean-up action from persons the authority “reasonably suspects contributed” to the pollution incident, in addition to occupiers and persons the authority reasonably suspects caused the pollution incident. New right for person issued a clean-up notice to recover costs from others who caused or contributed to pollution incidents as a debt.	These new provisions are likely to be of significant concern, as they enable the EPA to issue clean-up notices requiring alleged contributors to pollution incidents to clean-up all of the pollution, at its cost. This has the potential to lead to the unintended result that: suspected contributors could be made liable for clean-up costs far exceeding their actual contribution; and the EPA may seek to regulate the potential contributor with the “deepest pockets” – rather than the person most directly responsible. While the Bill includes a right for a contributor to recover costs from others who caused or contributed to the pollution incident as a debt, this offers very limited protection to suspected contributors issued a clean-up notice, particularly if the person responsible or other persons responsible have limited financial capacity.
Expanded Environmental Licensing Powers	The Bill includes a new power for the EPA to require restrictions on the use of land or pubic positive covenants to enforcing environment protection licence conditions (including conditions imposed on the suspension, revocation or surrender of the licence). In line with this, the Bill also includes new provisions to enable a person other than the holder, or former holder, of a licence, to apply to vary the conditions of the suspension, revocation or surrender of the licence. New ability for the EPA to deny environment protection licences to corporations where current or former directors of the corporation, related bodies corporate or for current or former directors of related bodies corporate have contravened relevant legislation.	The proposed power to impose restrictions on use and public positive covenants to enforce licence conditions is material as, currently, licence condition only bind the holder of the environment protection licence. The changes proposed will enable the EPA to legally enforce conditions against land owners or occupiers, even if the activity regulated by the environment protection licence was conducted by a former land owner or tenant. The EPA will now be able to take a deeper look at the overall environmental compliance history of an entity in licensing decisions, meaning that it will be even more important for corporations, directors and managers to maintain a strong environmental compliance history.
Consistent Court Powers including for Cost Recovery	Additional powers for public authorities including the EPA or other persons to recover costs, expenses and compensation from offenders in the Land and Environment Court. Additional powers for the Land and Environment Court to make specific kinds of orders where environment offences are proven.	The Bill proposes to have more consistent provisions across environment protection legislation in terms of the orders a court can make in relation to offenders, and the cost recovery that the EPA can seek from the Court.
New Offence to Delay Authorised Officers	The Bill contains a new offence of delaying, obstructing, assaulting, threatening or intimidating an authorised officer in the exercise of the officer’s powers, in addition to the existing offence of wilfully delaying or obstructing an authorised office.	This is an apparent response to the McClelland and Turnbull matters which involved the assault or delay of environment protection officers. The new offence is significant because the EPA would not be required to prove that the relevant delay or obstruction was willful, and so a person could be held liable for unintentional delays or obstructions.
Expanded Prohibition Notice Powers	Expanded power for the Minister to issue prohibition notices to occupiers of a class of premises or to a class of persons. Expanded power to issue prohibition notices to directors, former directors or related bodies corporate of a corporation who has not complied with a prohibition notice.	Currently, the Minister can only issue prohibition notices requiring occupiers or persons to cease carrying on an activity. The Bill proposes to enable the Minister to prohibit occupiers of a class of premises or a class of persons from carrying on an activity. This would enable the Minister to shut down all of the premises of so-called “rogue operators”, if recommended to do so by the EPA. While it is likely to be rarely (if ever) used, the expanded power could potentially be relied on by the Minister where a pattern of non-compliance is identified across a specific industry or across multiple premises of one organisation.
Administrative Reforms to EPA	The Bill also proposes a range of administrative The most notable reform is to considerably reduce the Minister’s control of the EPA so that the EPA is no longer subject to the control or direction of the Minister, and that the Minister only has a limited power to issue directions of a general nature to the EPA.	The EPA is generally regarded as an “independent” regulator, and the proposed reform formally reduces Ministerial control of the EPA thereby increasing its independence. The Bill also includes some additional measures regarding board appointments to achieve greater diversity of collective skills, including expertise in human health and Aboriginal cultural values.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON POEO ACT REGULATIONS

In addition to the reforms contemplated by the Bill, the EPA is currently consulting on the following regulations under the POEO Act:

Protection of the Environment Operations (Clean Air) Regulation 2021 (NSW); and
Protection of the Environment Operations (General) Regulation 2021 (NSW).

Each of these regulations:

were remade with only minor amendments earlier this year, to avoid automatic repeal under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989 (NSW); and
will be substantively amended in 2022. The EPA has committed to carrying out consultation on the proposed changes in 2022.

IMPLICATIONS

The reforms contained in the Bill demonstrate how important it is for all businesses which operate in NSW, and their related bodies corporate, directors and managers to:

take environmental compliance very seriously; and
work effectively with the EPA to address any pollution and contamination issues.

Article by Kirstie Richards and Luke Salem with K&L Gates.

For more articles on climate change initiatives, visit the NLR Environmental & Energy section.

New Report Highlights Need for Coordinated and Consistent U.S. Policy to Address Possible Impacts to Financial Stability Due to Climate Change

“Climate change is an emerging threat to the financial stability of the United States.” So begins a recently issued Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) Report, identifying climate change as a financial risk and threat to U.S. financial stability and highlighting a need for coordinated, stable, and clearly communicated policy objectives and actions in order to avoid a disorderly transition to a net-zero economy.

The FSOC’s members are the top regulators of the financial system in the United States, including the heads of the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Their charge is to identify risks facing the country’s financial system and respond to them. This new Report supports steps being taken by various financial regulators in the U.S.

The Report suggests four steps necessary to facilitate an orderly transition to a net-zero economy.

Regulators must develop and use better tools to help policymakers. “Council members recognize that the need for better data and tools cannot justify inaction, as climate-related financial risks will become more acute if not addressed promptly.” The FSOC Report highlights the tool of scenario analysis, “a forward-looking projection of risk outcomes that provides a structured approach for considering potential future risks associated with climate change.” The FSOC recommends the use of sector- and economy-wide scenario analysis as particularly important because of the interrelated and unpredictable development of climate impacts and technologies necessary to address them. Each of these technologies may have an unexpected impact on a part of the economy.
Climate-related financial risk data and methodologies for filling gaps must be addressed. The FSOC Report noted that its members lacked the ability to effectively access and use data that may be present in the financial system. The FSOC Report also noted potential risks to lenders, insurers, infrastructure, and fund managers caused by physical and transitional risks of climate change and the need to develop tools to better understand those risks.
As has been highlighted by the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) movement, disclosure by companies of their climate-related risks is a key piece of data not only for investors but also for regulators and policymakers. Disclosure regimes that promote comparable, consistent, or decision-useful data and impacts of climate change are necessary, according to the Report, and also regimes that cover both public and private entities. The Report highlights various ongoing discussions on this topic, including possible regulations by the SEC.
To assess and mitigate climate-related risks on the financial system, methods of analyzing the interrelated aspects of climate change are necessary. The Report details the developing thoughts around scenario analysis as a tool to help predict the many aspects of climate change on the financial system but notes that clearly defined objectives and planning are essential for decision-useful analysis.

Eliminating Use of PFAS at Airports May Be Harder Than Congress Thought

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are emerging contaminants that are subject to increasing environmental regulation and legislation, including legislation to outright ban their use in certain products. Congress directed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to stop requiring PFAS in the foams used to fight certain fires at commercial airports, and to do so by Oct. 4, 2021. In complying with this order, FAA shows the difficult tightrope it has to walk to meet the “intent” of Congress’ directive, while not really meeting the goal Congress had hoped for.

The FAA issued Certification Alert (CertAlert) 21-05, “Part 139 Extinguishing Agent Requirements,” addressing the continued use of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) in order to meet the Oct. 4 deadline. In Section 332 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, Congress directed that after this date, FAA “…shall not require the use of fluorinated chemicals to meet the performance standards referenced in chapter 6 of AC No: 150/5210–6D and acceptable under 139.319(l) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.”

The CertAlert directs airports to continue using AFFF with PFAS unless they can demonstrate another means of compliance with the performance standards stablished by the Department of Defense (DoD) for extinguishing fires at commercial airports. The FAA alert also reminds airports about the need to test their firefighting equipment. Airports can perform the required testing by using a device that has been available since 2019 which does not require the discharge of any foam. Finally, the FAA also reminded airports to comply with state and local requirements for management of foam after it has been discharged.

The FAA reported in its communication that it began constructing a research facility in 2014 that was completed in 2019 and that it has been collaborating with DoD in the search for fluorine-free alternatives for AFFF. The FAA reported that it has tested 15 fluorine-free foams and found that none of them meet the strict DoD performance specifications that also are imposed on commercial airports. More specifically, FAA said the tested alternative foams had the following failings:

Increased time to extinguish fires
Not as effective at preventing a fire from reigniting
Not compatible with the existing firefighting equipment at airports

AFFF was developed to fight fuel fires on aircraft carriers where the ability to suppress fires as rapidly as possible and keep them suppressed is vital to the health and safety of pilots, crews, firefighters and the ship. The military specification (commonly known as MilSpec) for effective firefighting foams for fuel fires is in place for both military and civilian airports. For many years, the consequences of the use of AFFF to fight aircraft fuel fires – most specifically, the adverse impact on groundwater and surface water – was not fully appreciated. Only recently has this threat been understood and only even more recently has the management of firefighting debris been directly addressed.

Congress may have thought it was eliminating a threat with the legislation directing the FAA to no longer require airports to use AFFF. But FAA’s latest messaging on AFFF highlights just how difficult it is to find suitable replacements, especially when they also have to meet the DoD’s stringent performance standards. The FAA did invite any airport, if they identify a replacement foam that meets the performance standards, to share that discovery with the FAA. However, it is unclear what that would accomplish when it is the DoD and not the FAA that certifies a particular foam’s performance.

In essence, FAA could not solve the challenge that Congress gave it (approve a fluorine-free foam) and instead used the CertAlert to approve airports to use such foams if they can find them on their own. The bottom line is that inadequate progress has been made to fulfill congressional intent to stop using AFFF at commercial airports, and airports are left with no choice but to use PFAS containing foams.

There is legislative activity in many states to ban products with PFAS and at the federal level there have been legislative actions targeting the same – like removing them from MREs. The FAA’s removal of its mandate to use AFFF without offering a PFAS-free alternative is a particularly visible example of the challenge in transitioning away from reliance on PFAS chemicals.

Article by Peter Wright with Barnes & Thornburg, LLP.

For more on travel and transportation, visit the NLR Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation section.

Category: Environmental Law