Category: Environmental Law

San Mateo Gardens Teaches College District a Lesson on Picking Thorny Subsequent Review Procedure

The California Supreme Court recently addressed an important California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) issue: Who decides whether CEQA’s subsequent review provisions are applicable when there are changes to an adopted project? Subsequent review provisions include a subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration (ND), a supplemental EIR, or an addendum to an EIR or ND.  When a project that has been reviewed and finalized under CEQA is altered, what type of review process under CEQA is required, if any?  As we said before on Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District et al., (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937 (Friends of the College), the Court determined that the lead agency makes this determination.  The question that the lead agency should be analyzing is whether the original document “retains some informational value” – if it does, then CEQA’s subsequent review procedures apply.  Should the lead agency’s decision be challenged, then the Court must decide whether “substantial evidence” supports the lead agency’s conclusion.

The First District Court of Appeal thus took up applying this standard on remand. In Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District et al., (2017 WL *1829176) (San Mateo Gardens), the Court of Appeal upheld the San Mateo County Community College District’s determination that it could proceed under CEQA’s subsequent review provisions.  The District had previously analyzed its project, including the demolition or renovation of some buildings on a San Mateo college campus, through a mitigated negative declaration (MND).  After a failure to obtain funding for renovations to the “Building 20 complex,” the District altered the project to include demolition of Building 20 and its associated gardens (the centerpiece of the dispute) and to renovate two other buildings that were previously slated for demolition.  The District determined that these changes would “not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than disclosed” in the original MND, and thus proceeded to adopt the alteration through a subsequent review procedure document called an addendum.

The Court of Appeal held that the District’s decisions to proceed by CEQA’s subsequent review procedures was supported by substantial evidence. The relevant changes only altered the treatment of three buildings while leaving alone plans to demolish 14 others with attendant mitigation measures.

That the District could proceed by CEQA’s subsequent review procedures, however, only answers the first question. The subsidiary, and more “critical” issue, is “to determine whether the agency has properly determined how to comply with its obligations under those provisions.” Friends of the College, 1 Cal.5th at 953.  In other words, which subsequent review procedure is correct to use.  The Court of Appeal held that a more rigorous standard of review is applicable at this second step when a project is originally accompanied by a negative declaration than when an approved project is originally analyzed through an EIR.  This more rigorous standard looks to whether the negative declaration will require a “major revision.”  A major revision is required when “there is ‘substantial evidence that the changes to a project for which a negative declaration was previously approved might have a significant environmental impact not previously considered in connection with the project as originally approved.’ ” San Mateo Gardens, 2017 WL *1829176 (quoting Friends of the College, 1 Cal.5th at 959).  If the project was previously analyzed through an EIR, however, the agency may proceed without a subsequent EIR so long as substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that no major revisions to the original document are necessary.

It is at this critical second step that the District failed. The Court of Appeal determined that there was substantial evidence that the altered project might have a significant “aesthetic impact”, which is a cognizable environmental impact under CEQA.  The “Building 20 complex” demolition would include removal of gardens which were of particular value to the college community for aesthetic purposes.  The Court of Appeal therefore concluded that the District violated CEQA in analyzing the altered project through an addendum when a subsequent EIR or MND was necessary.

The takeaway from this case is that lead agencies will have to be especially keen on determining the impact of project changes when the original project is adopted by a negative declaration. While the original document may retain some residual “informational value,” and thus allow CEQA’s subsequent review procedures, it may be difficult to show that project changes do not require some type of further environmental review. It is the lead agencyiess responsibility to determine the need for and type of further review, but that decision must be based upon substantial evidence.

This article was written by David H. McCray and Jacob P. Duginski of Beveridge & Diamond P.C.

EPA Initiates Reviews of Three Clean Air Act Regulations, Following President Trump’s “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth” Executive Order

Trump EPA Clean Air ActA week after President Trump signed an Executive Order directing agency review of various energy-related regulations (see March 28, 2017, B&D alert here), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it is initiating review of three such regulations under Clean Air Act.  The announcements were published on the Federal Register on April 4, 2017.

The three regulations to be reviewed by EPA are the Clean Power Plan limiting carbon dioxide emissions from existing utilities; the Clean Air Act section 111(b) new source performance standard (NSPS) limiting carbon dioxide emissions from new electric generating units (the companion “New Source Rule” to the Clean Power Plan); and the 111(b) NSPS limiting methane and VOC emissions from new oil and gas operations.  President Trump in his Executive Order specifically directed EPA to review these three regulations and, if appropriate, “suspend, revise, or rescind” them.

In all three announcements, EPA stated that it has “well-grounded” legal authority to revisit past regulations in the context of administrative change and policy reevaluation. EPA also indicated that any potential suspension, revision, or rescission of the subject regulations would be implemented through a rulemaking process that is transparent, follows the appropriate procedures, employs sound science, and is consistent with the law and the Executive Order.

EPA’s announcements show that the Agency’s leadership intends to follow the President’s directive. That regulatory path forward is complicated by ongoing litigation on the existing rules, particularly on the Clean Power Plan, and subsequent judicial developments may constrain EPA’s options.  Stakeholders should closely monitor EPA’s progress in reviewing these rules and participate in any future rulemakings to build a robust administrative record.

ARTICLE BY James M. Auslander, David M. Friedland & Shengzhi Wang of Beveridge & Diamond PC

© 2017 Beveridge & Diamond PC

EPA Proposes to Delay Effective Date of RMP Rule Amendments to 2019

EPA RMP Risk Management ProgramOn April 3, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule that would delay the effective date of the recent Risk Management Program (RMP) rule amendments to February 19, 2019. 82 Fed. Reg. 16146 (Apr. 3, 2019).

EPA published amendments to the 40 C.F.R. Part 68 RMP rule in the final days of the Obama administration. 82 Fed. Reg. 4594 (Jan. 13, 2017). Those amendments changed a number of RMP program elements, including compliance audits, the process hazard analysis (PHA) process, emergency response drills and preparedness activities, and information sharing with the public and local emergency responders. While the compliance date for most of the substantive RMP changes is four years after the effective date of the amendments, implementation of the changes would require action well in advance of the compliance date, and other requirements – most notably an expansion in scope of compliance audits – will affect sources after the amendments become effective.

The RMP rule amendments have been the subject of significant scrutiny and several regulatory developments since the final rule was published in the Federal Register. Petitions for reconsideration have been filed by two industry groups and a coalition of states, and in response, EPA has extended the effective date of the amendments twice: pushing the original effective date (March 14, 2017) back to March 21, 2017, and further to June 19, 2017. See 82 Fed. Reg. 13,968 (Mar. 16, 2017). In addition, both houses of Congress have filed resolutions seeking to repeal the RMP amendments under the Congressional Review Act (CRA).

The proposed rule published on April 3 would delay the effective date of the RMP rule amendments again by nearly two years, to February 19, 2019. EPA explains in the proposal that the delay would allow the agency to evaluate the issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration. EPA plans to issue, in the near future, a notice of proposed rulemaking that will provide the public an opportunity to comment on the issues raised in the petitions and “any other matter” that EPA believes will benefit from additional public input.

EPA will take comment on the proposed delay in the effective date of the RMP rule amendments until May 19, 2017, giving it 30 days after the close of the comment period to take action prior to the amendments’ current effective date.

ARTICLE BY Whit Swift & Kevin D. Collins of Bracewell LLP

© 2017 Bracewell LLP

Trump Order Sets Up Rollback of Obama Energy and Climate Action

clean power planOn Tuesday March 28, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order that takes the first step in rolling back executive actions that had been undertaken by the Obama Administration to address climate change and energy resource development.  The far-reaching order directly revokes or rescinds certain presidential and regulatory actions and directs the review and potential subsequent rescission or revision of other key programs and regulations administered by a variety of agencies.  However, it does not go as far as the Trump Administration might have in uprooting the underpinning of the federal government’s climate authority—the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2009 endangerment finding—or in walking away from the international process to address climate change as codified in the 2015 Paris Agreement.  Moreover, implementation of the measures outlined in the Executive Order will likely take significant additional time and process to fully implement and will almost certainly be challenged in the courts.

The Executive Order directs EPA to reconsider its climate-related energy sector regulations.

1.  Clean Power Plan

Most prominently, the Executive Order directs EPA to immediately review the Clean Power Plan, a regulation promulgated pursuant to section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act that is intended to limit greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants.  The Executive Order directs EPA to “as appropriate” initiate rulemaking to suspend, revise or rescind the rule and related actions.  Following the issuance of the Executive Order, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a Federal Register notice announcing that EPA is reviewing and, “if appropriate, will initiate proceedings to suspend, revise or rescind the Clean Power Plan.”

Importantly, the Executive Order cannot and did not itself rescind the Clean Power Plan.  This must be done by EPA, through the same notice-and-comment rulemaking process used to promulgate the rule in the first place, which could take up to a year.  A final rule rescinding or revising the Clean Power Plan rule will almost certainly be challenged by states and environmental organizations.

The Clean Power Plan is currently subject to challenge in the D.C. Circuit and has been stayed by the Supreme Court.  The Executive Order directs the Department of Justice (DOJ) to inform the D.C. Circuit of EPA’s plans and ask the court to put those challenges on hold while EPA takes action to rescind or revise the rule. Late Tuesday night, DOJ filed a motion requesting that the D.C. Circuit hold its proceedings in abeyance.  This request likely will be challenged by environmental groups, states, and businesses that have supported the Clean Power Plan.

2.  Carbon Pollution Standards Rule

The Executive Order directs EPA to review and, as appropriate, suspend, rescind or revise its Carbon Pollution Standards Rule, which sets emission limits for new, modified and reconstructed power plants.  Most significantly, this rule establishes a limit on carbon dioxide emissions from new coal-fired power plants that is achievable only if such a plant installs carbon capture technology.  Following issuance of the Executive Order, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a Federal Register notice announcing EPA’s review and intent to suspend, revise, or rescind the Carbon Pollution Standards Rule as appropriate. As with the Clean Power Plan, any revision or repeal of the rule must be done through notice-and-comment rulemaking and will most likely be subject to legal challenge in the D.C. Circuit.

The Carbon Pollution Standards Rule is currently subject to challenge at the D.C. Circuit.  The Executive Order directs DOJ to notify the court of EPA’s plans and ask the court to put the challenges on hold while EPA takes action to reconsider the rule.  Late Tuesday night, DOJ filed a motion requesting that the D.C. Circuit hold its proceedings in abeyance. As with the request related to the Clean Power Plan, this request likely will draw opposition from those entities that have supported the Carbon Pollution Standards Rule.

3.  Oil and Gas Sector Methane Emission Limits

The Executive Order directs EPA to review and, as appropriate, suspend, rescind or revise a 2016 rule establishing new source performance standards limiting methane emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed sources in the oil and gas sector.  That rule covers equipment, processes, and activities in the onshore production, gathering, transmission, and storage segments of the sector, and also expands upon a 2012 regulation directed at limiting emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Among other things, the rule requires performance of a rigorous protocol for leak detection and repair (LDAR) on a periodic basis.  The rule is currently being challenged in the D.C. Circuit, and the Executive Order directs DOJ to request the case be suspended pending reconsideration of the regulation.  The Order also directs EPA, “if appropriate” and “as soon as practicable,” to suspend, rescind, or revise “any rules and guidance issued pursuant to” its oil and gas methane rule.  The impact this directive will have on EPA’s voluntary Methane Challenge Program and Control Technique Guidelines for VOC emissions from the oil and gas sector—policies that were included in the Obama Administration’s Methane Strategy (which the Executive Order also rescinds, as discussed below)—is uncertain.  For more details about the oil and gas methane new source performance standards, see our VNF alert here.

The Executive Order directs the Department of the Interior to reconsider specific energy-related regulations and policies.

1.  Coal Leasing Program Review and Coal Leasing Moratorium

The Executive Order directs the Department of the Interior (DOI) to amend or withdraw Secretarial Order 3338, which called for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) to analyze potential leasing and management reforms to the federal coal leasing program.  Among other topics, the PEIS was to address the process, timing, and location of leasing; whether existing bonus bid, rent, and royalty payment policies provide a fair return to the United States; and the climate change and other impacts of coal development and use. The BLM published a scoping report in January 2017 summarizing the issues raised in meetings and public comments during the scoping period that began in March 2016, and the issues, including preliminary reform options, to be considered in the PEIS.

The Executive Order further directs DOI to suspend a moratorium that the Obama Administration BLM had placed on the leasing of new coal development on federal land while the agency reconsidered the coal leasing program. Unlike some of the other actions specifically identified in the Executive Order, the coal leasing moratorium and environmental review of the coal leasing program can be suspended without going through notice-and-comment rulemaking.

Recognizing “the critical importance of the Federal coal leasing program to energy security, job creation, and proper conservation stewardship” and “finding that the public interest is not served by halting the Federal coal program for an extended time” and that a PEIS is not necessary to consider potential improvements to the program, on March 29, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke issued Secretarial Order 3348 revoking Secretarial Order 3338, halting further activity on the PEIS, and reopening the coal leasing program. Simultaneously, DOI established a Royalty Policy Committee to regularly advise the Secretary on the fair market value of, and collection of revenues from, energy and mineral resource development on federal and Indian lands.

2.  Fracking Rule

The Executive Order directs DOI to review and, if appropriate and as soon as practicable, suspend, revise, or rescind BLM’s March 26, 2015 final rule entitled “Oil and Gas; Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands.”   The final rule imposed certain requirements related to well integrity, surface waste water management, and disclosure of details regarding the composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids.  The final rule had been vacated by the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, but that decision is currently on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.  Wyoming v. Jewell, No. 15-8134 (10th Cir. filed June 24, 2016).  The Executive Order directs DOJ to inform the court of this order and seek “appropriate relief,” such as requesting that the case be suspended or otherwise stayed pending DOI’s reconsideration of the regulation.

3.  Waste Prevention Rule

The Executive Order directs DOI to review and, if appropriate, suspend, revise, or rescind BLM’s final rule on the prevention of waste of natural gas from venting and flaring.  On November 18, 2016, BLM issued a final rule, entitled “Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation,” intended to reduce natural gas waste and air pollution resulting from onshore flaring, venting, and leaks by oil and gas production on federal and tribal lands, and to provide a beneficial return on public resources for states, tribes, and federal taxpayers.  The final rule, among other things, prohibits the venting of natural gas except in limited circumstances; requires operators to capture most of their gas after accounting for specified volumes of allowed flaring; and imposes rigorous LDAR protocols for limiting equipment leaks.   The final rule took effect January 17, 2017, after an unsuccessful attempt by several states and industry groups to enjoin implementation of the rule in federal court in Wyoming.   Western Energy Alliance et al. v. Jewell, No. 2:16-cv-00280 (D.Wyo. filed Nov. 15, 2016).  However, litigation concerning the final rule is ongoing, and the Executive Order directs DOJ to seek appropriate relief from the court, such as requesting the case be suspended pending reconsideration of the regulation, which the agency had already done.

Additionally, the House of Representatives has passed, but the Senate has not yet taken up, a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act that would rescind this rule and limit BLM’s authority to issue a substantially similar regulation in the future.

4.  Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights Rules

The Executive Order calls for DOI to review and, as appropriate, suspend, rescind or revise two final rules related to non-federal oil and gas rights on National Park Service (NPS)-managed lands and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)-managed refuges.

The first rule, issued by NPS on November 4, 2016, and entitled “General Provisions and Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights,” updated the regulations (called the “9B regulations”) that govern private and state-owned oil and gas rights in the National Park System, which had not been updated since being promulgated more than 37 years ago.  The final rule, which took effect December 5, 2016, eliminated provisions that previously exempted more than 300 oil and gas operations and requires all operators, except those in Alaska, to comply with the 9B regulations.  The final rule also eliminated the cap on financial assurances, and strengthened enforcement authority by incorporating existing NPS penalty provisions.

The second rule, issued by FWS on November 14, 2016, and entitled “Management of Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights,” updated the regulations governing the exercise of non-Federal mineral rights located outside of Alaska within the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), which had not been updated since being promulgated more than 50 years ago.  The final rule, which took effect December 14, 2016, instituted a permitting process for new operations; requirements related to well-plugging and reclamation; operating standards; and provisions for fees, financial assurances, and penalties.

Resolutions of disapproval have been introduced in the House of Representatives that would rescind both of these rules under the Congressional Review Act.

The Executive Order directs federal agencies to review regulations that burden domestic energy development.

In addition to directing review of specifically-identified regulations and policies at EPA and DOI, the Executive Order directs all “executive departments and agencies” to review and report on “all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions” that “necessarily obstruct, delay, curtail, or otherwise impose significant costs on the siting, permitting, production, utilization, transmission, or delivery of” domestic energy resources.  The Executive Order directs agencies to pay “particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources”; it does not specifically mention renewable energy.  “Executive department and agency” is not defined, and the application of this requirement to independent agencies is not clear.

Specifically, each agency is directed to submit a plan outlining how it will conduct its review to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) within 45 days.  Draft reports detailing the actions reviewed and including recommendations to address the burdens those actions impose on domestic energy production are due to OMB within 120 days, and final reports are due within 180 days.  Identified regulations that are rescinded can be used by the agency to comply with the President’s Regulatory Review Executive Order (for details on this order see our alert, here).

The Secretary of the Interior already has issued Secretarial Order 3349 commencing DOI’s review, requiring DOI bureaus and offices to submit reports within 21 days identifying regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions that burden energy development.  DOI has further committed to developing a department -wide plan within 35 days.

The Executive Order directs the Council on Environmental Quality to rescind guidance incorporating climate change into environmental reviews.

The Executive Order directs the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to rescind its final guidance encouraging federal agencies to consider impacts from greenhouse gas emissions and climate change in environmental reviews pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  The final guidance, issued August 5, 2016, characterized climate change as a “fundamental environmental issue” and recommended that federal agencies consider the potential effects of a proposed action and related activities on climate change, using reasonably foreseeable, direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions as a “proxy” for assessing impacts.  Although not binding or otherwise legally enforceable, federal agencies typically strive for compliance with NEPA guidance documents, and courts may afford greater weight to interpretations and guidance issued by CEQ.

This guidance can be revoked without having to go through notice or comment or other administrative procedures.  However, the Executive Order does not preclude federal agencies from continuing to consider the impacts of federal action on climate change in order to mitigate litigation risk when conducting environmental reviews.

The Executive Order rescinds the Interagency Social Cost of Carbon Guidance.

The social cost of carbon is a metric for quantifying the costs of greenhouse gas emissions and the benefits of policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Obama Administration convened an Interagency Working Group, led by OMB, to implement a uniform range of values for agencies to use when quantifying impacts of carbon dioxide emissions and emission reductions—the “Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis” (SCC).  Similar guidance documents have been developed for two other greenhouse gases: methane, and nitrous oxide.  The SCC has largely been used to comply with executive orders requiring agencies to analyze impacts of regulations.  In some instances, agencies have used the SCC to set the stringency of regulatory actions in order to comply with statutory obligations.

The Executive Order disbands that Working Group and rescinds the uniform SCC guidance and related documents.  Based on court precedent, at least some agencies will likely still be required to consider the quantified benefits of greenhouse gas reduction in their rulemakings. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, 538 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2008); High Country Conservation Advocates v. U.S. Forest Serv., 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D.Colo. 2014).

The Executive Order directs agencies to instead rely on long-standing cost-benefit analysis guidance outlined in OMB Circular A-4 when quantifying the costs of greenhouse gas emissions or benefits of greenhouse gas emission reductions.  Whereas the cost ranges required under the interagency SCC guidance included the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on a global basis, OMB Circular A-4 directs agencies to primarily evaluate a rule’s costs and benefits only as they impact the United States.  This different direction, along with a number of other important technical changes, will likely result in agencies attributing much lower monetized benefits to actions that reduce greenhouse gases, if such quantification is performed at all.

The Executive Order revokes certain other energy- and climate change-related executive orders, presidential memoranda, and frameworks.

The Executive Order directly revokes the following four executive orders and presidential memoranda signed by President Obama related to energy and climate change.

First, the Presidential Memorandum on Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Related Private Investment directed agencies to more fully develop and implement requirements for the mitigation of adverse impacts from development and other activities on land, water, wildlife, and other ecological resources. Among other things, the memorandum established a mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimize, then compensate); set a “net benefit goal” or, at a minimum, a no net loss goal for natural resources; emphasized large-scale or landscape-level planning and mitigation; and directed a number of agencies to take certain, specified actions to strengthen mitigation policies.  As noted above, following the Executive Order, the Secretary of the Interior issued Secretarial Order 3349 which, in part, revokes Secretarial Order 3330, “Improving Mitigation Policies and Practices of the Department of the Interior,” dated October 13, 2013, and directs a review of all actions taken pursuant to that order and the revoked Presidential Memorandum for possible reconsideration, modification, or rescission. This review will include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s recent Mitigation Policy, dated November 21, 2016, and Endangered Species Act Compensatory Mitigation Policy, dated December 27, 2016.

Second, the Presidential Memorandum on Power Sector Carbon Pollution Standards directed EPA to conduct a rulemaking to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector.  Rescinding this is consistent with the Executive Order’s direction to suspend, rescind or revise the Clean Power Plan and Carbon Pollution Standards Rule.  It also leaves open the possibility that EPA will only repeal, but not replace, these two rules.

Third, the Presidential Memorandum on Climate Change and National Security established a framework and directed agencies to take actions to ensure that climate change-related impacts are fully considered in the development of national security doctrine, policies, and plans.

Fourth, Executive Order 13653 (Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change) directed federal agencies to take steps to prepare for climate change impacts and to support state and local resilience efforts, and established a State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience.

The Executive Order also rescinds the Obama Administration’s Climate Action Plan, which identified addressing climate change as a priority and established a framework for doing so across federal agencies, and the Obama Administration’s Methane Strategy, a framework for addressing emissions of methane across a number of federal agency programs.  Rescinding these documents will have no independent legal effect and can be done with no further process.

The Executive Order directs agencies to review and, as appropriate, suspend, rescind, or revise regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions made in furtherance of these executive orders, presidential memoranda, and frameworks.  Such actions may require notice-and-comment rulemaking.  As noted above, DOI already has initiated its review, requiring that departments identify all such actions issued pursuant to them or currently under development within 14 days, identify actions that should be reconsidered, rescinded, or revised within 30 days, and submit to the Deputy Secretary draft revised or substitute actions within 90 days.

The Roads Not Taken

Finally, the Executive Order is notable for two actions that it does not take.

It does not direct reconsideration of, or even discuss, EPA’s 2009 finding that greenhouse gas emissions cause air pollution which endangers public health and welfare (the “endangerment finding”).  This finding was made under the Clean Air Act in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (holding that greenhouse gases are an “air pollutant” under the Clean Air Act) and upheld by the D.C. Circuit, Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F. 3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012).  The endangerment finding serves as the necessary factual and legal predicate authorizing EPA to adopt greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act.  Doing so would have called into question not only EPA’s energy-related greenhouse gas regulations targeted for repeal or revision by the Executive Order, but also regulations under Clean Air Act section 202 limiting greenhouse gas emissions from passenger cars and trucks, and heavy duty vehicles and its requirement that large new and modified stationary sources install the best available control technology to limit greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to the Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration program.

Second, the Executive Order does not direct the State Department to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement or otherwise mention that agreement.  However, this silence cannot be interpreted to mean that the United States will remain and continue to participate in the Paris Agreement in the manner set forth by the Obama Administration.  For example, if the Trump Administration reverses or significantly revises the policies targeted by the Executive Order, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve the level of emission reductions that correspond to the U.S. pledge under the Paris Agreement.  This pledge—referred to as the U.S. “Nationally Determined Contribution” (NDC)—is a 26 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by 2025, and requires periodic updating of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions pledged under the NDC to assure the achievement of the Paris Agreement’s goals.  Accordingly, the Executive Order might presage a future action by the Trump Administration either to withdraw from the Paris Agreement or to submit a revised NDC with a significantly lower greenhouse gas reduction pledge.

The Executive Order calls for a large number of specific actions from a wide variety of agencies.  How agencies go about implementing those actions and the outcome of the inevitable legal challenges to those actions remains to be seen.

ARTICLE BY Kyle W. Danish, Stephen C. Fotis, Tyson C. Kade, Frances Bishop Morris, Jonathan D. Simon & Avi B. Zevin of Van Ness Feldman LLP

© 2017 Van Ness Feldman LLP

Interior Secretary Immediately Implements President’s Executive Order on Energy and Climate

President Trump Executive Order Environmental RegulationNew Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke wasted no time implementing the mandates of the Trump Administration’s most recent Executive Order (EO), “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” which was issued on March 28. On March 29, the Secretary issued two Secretarial Orders (SO) implementing the March 28 Order, and took additional administrative action consistent with its mandates. Separately, the Secretary has reinstated a public-private advisory committee to address royalty issues.

The first Order, SO 3348, overturns the Obama Administration’s 2016 moratorium on federal coal leasing, and terminates the programmatic environmental impact statement process under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that would have re-evaluated the environmental impacts of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) coal leasing program.  Hours after this SO was issued, a coalition of environmental groups sued the Department in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana challenging the decision to lift the moratorium and resume federal coal leasing without first completing the NEPA process.

The second Order, SO 3349, implements the agency review provisions of the March 28 EO directed to the Department of the Interior.  Specifically, SO 3349:

  1. revokes SO 3330, “Improving Mitigation Policies and Practices of the Department of the Interior,” which was a prior Department-wide directive to adopt more landscape-level mitigation strategies and more rigorous compensatory mitigation criteria;

  2. directs each bureau to review all regulations, orders, and policies that could hamper energy development and, where permissible, rescind, revoke or suspend such regulations, orders, and policies;

  3. directs review of Departmental actions impacting energy development, including re-evaluation of BLM’s “venting and flaring rule” for oil and gas leases, for consistency with the policies set forth in the March 28 EO;

  4. directs BLM to “expeditiously proceed” with a proposal to rescind its 2015 hydraulic fracturing rule, which was invalidated by a federal district court and is now on appeal to the Tenth Circuit; and

  5. directs each bureau and office to identify other existing actions that could potentially burden the development of domestic energy resources, particularly oil, gas, coal, and nuclear resources.

The SO affords the Interior agencies little time to accomplish this work. Deadlines fall within the next 90 days, including as soon as 14 days.

Finally, Secretary Zinke signed a charter re-establishing a Royalty Policy Committee (RPC).  As it had done in prior years, the RPC will operate as a Federal Advisory Committee Act body providing regular advice to the Secretary on fair market value and collection of revenue from federal and Indian mineral and energy leases, including renewable energy leases.  The group will consist of up to 28 federal, local, Tribal, state, and other stakeholders, and will also advise on royalty-related regulatory matters.

ARTICLE BY James M. Auslander, Peter J. Schaumberg & John G. Cossa of Beveridge & Diamond PC
© 2017 Beveridge & Diamond PC

Trump Order Sets Up Rollback of Obama Energy and Climate Action

President Trump clean power planOn Tuesday March 28, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order that takes the first step in rolling back executive actions that had been undertaken by the Obama Administration to address climate change and energy resource development.  The far-reaching order directly revokes or rescinds certain presidential and regulatory actions and directs the review and potential subsequent rescission or revision of other key programs and regulations administered by a variety of agencies.  However, it does not go as far as the Trump Administration might have in uprooting the underpinning of the federal government’s climate authority—the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2009 endangerment finding—or in walking away from the international process to address climate change as codified in the 2015 Paris Agreement.  Moreover, implementation of the measures outlined in the Executive Order will likely take significant additional time and process to fully implement and will almost certainly be challenged in the courts.

The Executive Order directs EPA to reconsider its climate-related energy sector regulations.

1.  Clean Power Plan

Most prominently, the Executive Order directs EPA to immediately review the Clean Power Plan, a regulation promulgated pursuant to section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act that is intended to limit greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants.  The Executive Order directs EPA to “as appropriate” initiate rulemaking to suspend, revise or rescind the rule and related actions.  Following the issuance of the Executive Order, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a Federal Register notice announcing that EPA is reviewing and, “if appropriate, will initiate proceedings to suspend, revise or rescind the Clean Power Plan.”

Importantly, the Executive Order cannot and did not itself rescind the Clean Power Plan.  This must be done by EPA, through the same notice-and-comment rulemaking process used to promulgate the rule in the first place, which could take up to a year.  A final rule rescinding or revising the Clean Power Plan rule will almost certainly be challenged by states and environmental organizations.

The Clean Power Plan is currently subject to challenge in the D.C. Circuit and has been stayed by the Supreme Court.  The Executive Order directs the Department of Justice (DOJ) to inform the D.C. Circuit of EPA’s plans and ask the court to put those challenges on hold while EPA takes action to rescind or revise the rule. Late Tuesday night, DOJ filed a motion requesting that the D.C. Circuit hold its proceedings in abeyance.  This request likely will be challenged by environmental groups, states, and businesses that have supported the Clean Power Plan.

2.  Carbon Pollution Standards Rule

The Executive Order directs EPA to review and, as appropriate, suspend, rescind or revise its Carbon Pollution Standards Rule, which sets emission limits for new, modified and reconstructed power plants.  Most significantly, this rule establishes a limit on carbon dioxide emissions from new coal-fired power plants that is achievable only if such a plant installs carbon capture technology.  Following issuance of the Executive Order, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a Federal Register notice announcing EPA’s review and intent to suspend, revise, or rescind the Carbon Pollution Standards Rule as appropriate. As with the Clean Power Plan, any revision or repeal of the rule must be done through notice-and-comment rulemaking and will most likely be subject to legal challenge in the D.C. Circuit.

The Carbon Pollution Standards Rule is currently subject to challenge at the D.C. Circuit.  The Executive Order directs DOJ to notify the court of EPA’s plans and ask the court to put the challenges on hold while EPA takes action to reconsider the rule.  Late Tuesday night, DOJ filed a motion requesting that the D.C. Circuit hold its proceedings in abeyance. As with the request related to the Clean Power Plan, this request likely will draw opposition from those entities that have supported the Carbon Pollution Standards Rule.

3.  Oil and Gas Sector Methane Emission Limits

The Executive Order directs EPA to review and, as appropriate, suspend, rescind or revise a 2016 rule establishing new source performance standards limiting methane emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed sources in the oil and gas sector.  That rule covers equipment, processes, and activities in the onshore production, gathering, transmission, and storage segments of the sector, and also expands upon a 2012 regulation directed at limiting emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Among other things, the rule requires performance of a rigorous protocol for leak detection and repair (LDAR) on a periodic basis.  The rule is currently being challenged in the D.C. Circuit, and the Executive Order directs DOJ to request the case be suspended pending reconsideration of the regulation.  The Order also directs EPA, “if appropriate” and “as soon as practicable,” to suspend, rescind, or revise “any rules and guidance issued pursuant to” its oil and gas methane rule.  The impact this directive will have on EPA’s voluntary Methane Challenge Program and Control Technique Guidelines for VOC emissions from the oil and gas sector—policies that were included in the Obama Administration’s Methane Strategy (which the Executive Order also rescinds, as discussed below)—is uncertain.  For more details about the oil and gas methane new source performance standards, see our VNF alert here.

The Executive Order directs the Department of the Interior to reconsider specific energy-related regulations and policies.

1.  Coal Leasing Program Review and Coal Leasing Moratorium

The Executive Order directs the Department of the Interior (DOI) to amend or withdraw Secretarial Order 3338, which called for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) to analyze potential leasing and management reforms to the federal coal leasing program.  Among other topics, the PEIS was to address the process, timing, and location of leasing; whether existing bonus bid, rent, and royalty payment policies provide a fair return to the United States; and the climate change and other impacts of coal development and use. The BLM published a scoping report in January 2017 summarizing the issues raised in meetings and public comments during the scoping period that began in March 2016, and the issues, including preliminary reform options, to be considered in the PEIS.

The Executive Order further directs DOI to suspend a moratorium that the Obama Administration BLM had placed on the leasing of new coal development on federal land while the agency reconsidered the coal leasing program. Unlike some of the other actions specifically identified in the Executive Order, the coal leasing moratorium and environmental review of the coal leasing program can be suspended without going through notice-and-comment rulemaking.

Recognizing “the critical importance of the Federal coal leasing program to energy security, job creation, and proper conservation stewardship” and “finding that the public interest is not served by halting the Federal coal program for an extended time” and that a PEIS is not necessary to consider potential improvements to the program, on March 29, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke issued Secretarial Order 3348 revoking Secretarial Order 3338, halting further activity on the PEIS, and reopening the coal leasing program. Simultaneously, DOI established a Royalty Policy Committee to regularly advise the Secretary on the fair market value of, and collection of revenues from, energy and mineral resource development on federal and Indian lands.

2.  Fracking Rule

The Executive Order directs DOI to review and, if appropriate and as soon as practicable, suspend, revise, or rescind BLM’s March 26, 2015 final rule entitled “Oil and Gas; Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands.”   The final rule imposed certain requirements related to well integrity, surface waste water management, and disclosure of details regarding the composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids.  The final rule had been vacated by the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, but that decision is currently on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.  Wyoming v. Jewell, No. 15-8134 (10th Cir. filed June 24, 2016).  The Executive Order directs DOJ to inform the court of this order and seek “appropriate relief,” such as requesting that the case be suspended or otherwise stayed pending DOI’s reconsideration of the regulation.

3.  Waste Prevention Rule

The Executive Order directs DOI to review and, if appropriate, suspend, revise, or rescind BLM’s final rule on the prevention of waste of natural gas from venting and flaring.  On November 18, 2016, BLM issued a final rule, entitled “Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation,” intended to reduce natural gas waste and air pollution resulting from onshore flaring, venting, and leaks by oil and gas production on federal and tribal lands, and to provide a beneficial return on public resources for states, tribes, and federal taxpayers.  The final rule, among other things, prohibits the venting of natural gas except in limited circumstances; requires operators to capture most of their gas after accounting for specified volumes of allowed flaring; and imposes rigorous LDAR protocols for limiting equipment leaks.   The final rule took effect January 17, 2017, after an unsuccessful attempt by several states and industry groups to enjoin implementation of the rule in federal court in Wyoming.   Western Energy Alliance et al. v. Jewell, No. 2:16-cv-00280 (D.Wyo. filed Nov. 15, 2016).  However, litigation concerning the final rule is ongoing, and the Executive Order directs DOJ to seek appropriate relief from the court, such as requesting the case be suspended pending reconsideration of the regulation, which the agency had already done.

Additionally, the House of Representatives has passed, but the Senate has not yet taken up, a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act that would rescind this rule and limit BLM’s authority to issue a substantially similar regulation in the future.

4.  Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights Rules

The Executive Order calls for DOI to review and, as appropriate, suspend, rescind or revise two final rules related to non-federal oil and gas rights on National Park Service (NPS)-managed lands and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)-managed refuges.

The first rule, issued by NPS on November 4, 2016, and entitled “General Provisions and Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights,” updated the regulations (called the “9B regulations”) that govern private and state-owned oil and gas rights in the National Park System, which had not been updated since being promulgated more than 37 years ago.  The final rule, which took effect December 5, 2016, eliminated provisions that previously exempted more than 300 oil and gas operations and requires all operators, except those in Alaska, to comply with the 9B regulations.  The final rule also eliminated the cap on financial assurances, and strengthened enforcement authority by incorporating existing NPS penalty provisions.

The second rule, issued by FWS on November 14, 2016, and entitled “Management of Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights,” updated the regulations governing the exercise of non-Federal mineral rights located outside of Alaska within the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), which had not been updated since being promulgated more than 50 years ago.  The final rule, which took effect December 14, 2016, instituted a permitting process for new operations; requirements related to well-plugging and reclamation; operating standards; and provisions for fees, financial assurances, and penalties.

Resolutions of disapproval have been introduced in the House of Representatives that would rescind both of these rules under the Congressional Review Act.

The Executive Order directs federal agencies to review regulations that burden domestic energy development.

In addition to directing review of specifically-identified regulations and policies at EPA and DOI, the Executive Order directs all “executive departments and agencies” to review and report on “all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions” that “necessarily obstruct, delay, curtail, or otherwise impose significant costs on the siting, permitting, production, utilization, transmission, or delivery of” domestic energy resources.  The Executive Order directs agencies to pay “particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources”; it does not specifically mention renewable energy.  “Executive department and agency” is not defined, and the application of this requirement to independent agencies is not clear.

Specifically, each agency is directed to submit a plan outlining how it will conduct its review to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) within 45 days.  Draft reports detailing the actions reviewed and including recommendations to address the burdens those actions impose on domestic energy production are due to OMB within 120 days, and final reports are due within 180 days.  Identified regulations that are rescinded can be used by the agency to comply with the President’s Regulatory Review Executive Order (for details on this order see our alert, here).

The Secretary of the Interior already has issued Secretarial Order 3349 commencing DOI’s review, requiring DOI bureaus and offices to submit reports within 21 days identifying regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions that burden energy development.  DOI has further committed to developing a department -wide plan within 35 days.

The Executive Order directs the Council on Environmental Quality to rescind guidance incorporating climate change into environmental reviews.

The Executive Order directs the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to rescind its final guidance encouraging federal agencies to consider impacts from greenhouse gas emissions and climate change in environmental reviews pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  The final guidance, issued August 5, 2016, characterized climate change as a “fundamental environmental issue” and recommended that federal agencies consider the potential effects of a proposed action and related activities on climate change, using reasonably foreseeable, direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions as a “proxy” for assessing impacts.  Although not binding or otherwise legally enforceable, federal agencies typically strive for compliance with NEPA guidance documents, and courts may afford greater weight to interpretations and guidance issued by CEQ.

This guidance can be revoked without having to go through notice or comment or other administrative procedures.  However, the Executive Order does not preclude federal agencies from continuing to consider the impacts of federal action on climate change in order to mitigate litigation risk when conducting environmental reviews.

The Executive Order rescinds the Interagency Social Cost of Carbon Guidance.

The social cost of carbon is a metric for quantifying the costs of greenhouse gas emissions and the benefits of policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Obama Administration convened an Interagency Working Group, led by OMB, to implement a uniform range of values for agencies to use when quantifying impacts of carbon dioxide emissions and emission reductions—the “Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis” (SCC).  Similar guidance documents have been developed for two other greenhouse gases: methane, and nitrous oxide.  The SCC has largely been used to comply with executive orders requiring agencies to analyze impacts of regulations.  In some instances, agencies have used the SCC to set the stringency of regulatory actions in order to comply with statutory obligations.

The Executive Order disbands that Working Group and rescinds the uniform SCC guidance and related documents.  Based on court precedent, at least some agencies will likely still be required to consider the quantified benefits of greenhouse gas reduction in their rulemakings. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, 538 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2008); High Country Conservation Advocates v. U.S. Forest Serv., 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D.Colo. 2014).

The Executive Order directs agencies to instead rely on long-standing cost-benefit analysis guidance outlined in OMB Circular A-4 when quantifying the costs of greenhouse gas emissions or benefits of greenhouse gas emission reductions.  Whereas the cost ranges required under the interagency SCC guidance included the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on a global basis, OMB Circular A-4 directs agencies to primarily evaluate a rule’s costs and benefits only as they impact the United States.  This different direction, along with a number of other important technical changes, will likely result in agencies attributing much lower monetized benefits to actions that reduce greenhouse gases, if such quantification is performed at all.

The Executive Order revokes certain other energy- and climate change-related executive orders, presidential memoranda, and frameworks.

The Executive Order directly revokes the following four executive orders and presidential memoranda signed by President Obama related to energy and climate change.

First, the Presidential Memorandum on Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Related Private Investment directed agencies to more fully develop and implement requirements for the mitigation of adverse impacts from development and other activities on land, water, wildlife, and other ecological resources. Among other things, the memorandum established a mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimize, then compensate); set a “net benefit goal” or, at a minimum, a no net loss goal for natural resources; emphasized large-scale or landscape-level planning and mitigation; and directed a number of agencies to take certain, specified actions to strengthen mitigation policies.  As noted above, following the Executive Order, the Secretary of the Interior issued Secretarial Order 3349 which, in part, revokes Secretarial Order 3330, “Improving Mitigation Policies and Practices of the Department of the Interior,” dated October 13, 2013, and directs a review of all actions taken pursuant to that order and the revoked Presidential Memorandum for possible reconsideration, modification, or rescission. This review will include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s recent Mitigation Policy, dated November 21, 2016, and Endangered Species Act Compensatory Mitigation Policy, dated December 27, 2016.

Second, the Presidential Memorandum on Power Sector Carbon Pollution Standards directed EPA to conduct a rulemaking to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector.  Rescinding this is consistent with the Executive Order’s direction to suspend, rescind or revise the Clean Power Plan and Carbon Pollution Standards Rule.  It also leaves open the possibility that EPA will only repeal, but not replace, these two rules.

Third, the Presidential Memorandum on Climate Change and National Security established a framework and directed agencies to take actions to ensure that climate change-related impacts are fully considered in the development of national security doctrine, policies, and plans.

Fourth, Executive Order 13653 (Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change) directed federal agencies to take steps to prepare for climate change impacts and to support state and local resilience efforts, and established a State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience.

The Executive Order also rescinds the Obama Administration’s Climate Action Plan, which identified addressing climate change as a priority and established a framework for doing so across federal agencies, and the Obama Administration’s Methane Strategy, a framework for addressing emissions of methane across a number of federal agency programs.  Rescinding these documents will have no independent legal effect and can be done with no further process.

The Executive Order directs agencies to review and, as appropriate, suspend, rescind, or revise regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions made in furtherance of these executive orders, presidential memoranda, and frameworks.  Such actions may require notice-and-comment rulemaking.  As noted above, DOI already has initiated its review, requiring that departments identify all such actions issued pursuant to them or currently under development within 14 days, identify actions that should be reconsidered, rescinded, or revised within 30 days, and submit to the Deputy Secretary draft revised or substitute actions within 90 days.

The Roads Not Taken

Finally, the Executive Order is notable for two actions that it does not take.

It does not direct reconsideration of, or even discuss, EPA’s 2009 finding that greenhouse gas emissions cause air pollution which endangers public health and welfare (the “endangerment finding”).  This finding was made under the Clean Air Act in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (holding that greenhouse gases are an “air pollutant” under the Clean Air Act) and upheld by the D.C. Circuit, Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F. 3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012).  The endangerment finding serves as the necessary factual and legal predicate authorizing EPA to adopt greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act.  Doing so would have called into question not only EPA’s energy-related greenhouse gas regulations targeted for repeal or revision by the Executive Order, but also regulations under Clean Air Act section 202 limiting greenhouse gas emissions from passenger cars and trucks, and heavy duty vehicles and its requirement that large new and modified stationary sources install the best available control technology to limit greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to the Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration program.

Second, the Executive Order does not direct the State Department to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement or otherwise mention that agreement.  However, this silence cannot be interpreted to mean that the United States will remain and continue to participate in the Paris Agreement in the manner set forth by the Obama Administration.  For example, if the Trump Administration reverses or significantly revises the policies targeted by the Executive Order, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve the level of emission reductions that correspond to the U.S. pledge under the Paris Agreement.  This pledge—referred to as the U.S. “Nationally Determined Contribution” (NDC)—is a 26 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by 2025, and requires periodic updating of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions pledged under the NDC to assure the achievement of the Paris Agreement’s goals.  Accordingly, the Executive Order might presage a future action by the Trump Administration either to withdraw from the Paris Agreement or to submit a revised NDC with a significantly lower greenhouse gas reduction pledge.

The Executive Order calls for a large number of specific actions from a wide variety of agencies.  How agencies go about implementing those actions and the outcome of the inevitable legal challenges to those actions remains to be seen.

ARTICLE BY Kyle W. Danish, Stephen C. Fotis, Tyson C. Kade, Frances Bishop Morris, Jonathan D. Simon & Avi B. Zevin of Van Ness Feldman LLP

© 2017 Van Ness Feldman LLP

Climate Change Policy Developments in Washington State

climate changeSeveral climate policy initiatives are underway in the Washington State legislature, agencies, and courts.  This alert summarizes these key developments—future alerts will provide greater detail and topical analysis.

1.  Legislative and Ballot Initiatives.

In November of 2016, voters rejected a state carbon tax.  Initiative 732, the Washington Carbon Emission Tax and Sales Tax Reduction, would have established a tax that started at $15/metric ton of carbon dioxide and increased over time.  Following the defeat of I-732, Governor Inslee introduced his 2017-2019 budget, which includes a $25/ton carbon tax that would take effect May 1, 2018.  In addition to the Governor’s budget proposal, the legislature is considering a carbon tax bill and a bill that would substantially tighten the state’s GHG reduction targets.  Depending on the outcomes of this legislative session, environmental groups and climate policy experts may consider a future ballot initiative.

2.  Science Assessments.  

Responses to climate change are informed by science that assists decision-makers on the progression of climate change and its impacts.  The Fourth National Climate Assessment is underway with public meetings in support of the Northwest Region chapter’s drafting.   In addition, based on recent studies on existing climate change and its impacts and costs, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) recommended a substantial tightening of the state’s GHG reduction targets. This recommendation is noteworthy because the current GHG reduction targets were relied upon to support Ecology’s proposed Clean Air Rule.     

3.  Rule-making and Implementation.

On January 1, 2017, Ecology’s Clean Air Rule (CAR) went into effect. The CAR initially imposes emission limits on “covered parties” that Ecology deems responsible for at least 100,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually—including not only owners of stationary sources such as power plants and factories—but also entities that sell, distribute, or import petroleum and natural gas.  Covered parties in these categories must reduce their emissions by 1.7%/year (until 2036) from an organization-specific baseline determined by Ecology.

The CAR provides special treatment to covered parties that are in sectors for which higher energy costs could result in competitive disadvantages.  These “energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries” are not subject to program until 2020, and have emission reduction pathways set by a different methodology.

A covered party can comply with its emission limit by directly reducing its emissions or by purchasing and using credits (termed “ERUs”) available from in-state mitigation projects, renewable energy credits, or allowances from certain out-of-state climate programs.  Ecology is currently developing policies for developers of emission mitigation projects that want to generate ERUs.

4.  Litigation.

a.  Rule challenges:  The new CAR was challenged through suits filed in state and federal court. The state court cases (Ass’n of Wash. Bus. v. Dep’t of Ecology and Avista Corp. v. Dep’t of Ecology) have been consolidated in Thurston County Superior Court, and the federal case (Avista Corp. v. Dep’t of Ecology) is stayed pending final adjudication of the state court matter. The state case includes allegations that the CAR exceeds Ecology’s authority under the Washington Clean Air Act because it regulates natural gas and petroleum distributors that are not “sources” of emissions in the meaning of the statute.

b.  Citizen Suits and Children’s Lawsuit:  A group of eight Washington children brought suit against Ecology for the agency’s failure to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and for failing to protect the children from climate change impacts.  In 2015, the trial court held that climate change affects public trust resources in the state, but that the state was fulfilling its public trust obligations by engaging in the rulemaking. This rulemaking ultimately resulted in adoption of the CAR and the case is now on appeal regarding whether Ecology’s finalization of the CAR resolves all claims. However, the parties continue to make arguments to the trial court regarding whether the children should be permitted to amend their complaint so that they “can show evidence and argue that their government has failed and continues to fail to protect them from global warming.” (Foster v. Dep’t of Ecology, No. 14-2-25295-1 SEA and COA 75374-6-I.)

5.  State Hearings Boards and Local Hearing Examiners.

State and local agencies are exploring their authority to control GHG emissions and impose mitigation for climate impacts.  For example, the Washington Growth Management Act and the Shoreline Management Act contain provisions requiring agencies to consider the public interest and protection of the environment when implementing these statutes.

In furtherance of this general mandate, agencies and local governments might conduct their own analyses of GHG emissions and climate impacts, or require permit applicants to do so to satisfy these generalized permit criteria, and might claim authority to impose mitigation outside the specific scope of the state agency rules described above.

Appeals challenging agency decisions under those statutes are heard by the Growth Management Hearings Board, Shoreline Hearings Board, and Pollution Control Hearings Board, all housed in the state’s Environmental Hearings Office.  These boards are becoming a forum for arguments regarding authority to impose GHG limitations or mitigation, and the adequacy of the underlying analysis under the State Environmental Policy Act.

In addition, local government codes sometimes contain provisions requiring consideration of GHG emissions and provide guidelines for calculations of emissions and impacts. Local land use decisions applying those provisions are subject to review before local hearing examiners, potentially subjecting matters in those venues to similar climate change and GHG arguments and challenges.  This body of local decisions and appellate review is just beginning to take shape and has the potential to establish precedent for climate impact review and mitigation throughout the state.

6.  SEPA Guidance.

The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) directs local and state agencies to identify and evaluate the environmental impacts of their actions. Unless an action is “categorically exempt,” SEPA review is triggered when a proposal requires a governmental agency to make a decision or fund an action that may significantly affect the quality of the environment.

In 2011, Ecology, as the lead agency, issued agency guidance on consideration of climate change under SEPA. Other SEPA lead agencies have followed Ecology’s guidance.  In late 2016, Ecology removed the guidance from its website and indicated it (1) had begun planning its first periodic update of the guidance, and (2) is gathering information about new methods that local, state, and federal agencies are using to evaluate GHG emissions and climate change impacts.

In the meantime, agencies have been requiring such information from project proponents.  SEPA determinations and related documents have been subject to challenge and appeal.  There is growing Washington case law on the treatment of GHG emissions and the impact of climate change.

7.  Adaptation and Increasing Resilience to Climate Change Impacts.

Recognizing Washington’s vulnerability to climate impacts, the state published the Washington State Integrated Climate Change Response Strategy  to help prepare for climate change impacts and protect Washington’s communities, natural resources, and economy from the impacts of climate change.   Throughout Washington, city and county officials, Tribal leaders, and other stakeholders are planning for more climate-resilient communities.  For example, the City of Olympia is “developing a Sea Level Response Plan that will balance risks, uncertainty, and both private and public costs.”

ARTICLE BY Terese (T.C.) Richmond, Kyle W. Danish, Duncan M. Greene & Jay P. Derr of Van Ness Feldman LLP
© 2017 Van Ness Feldman LLP

Trump Executive Order Seeks to Limit Scope of Clean Water Act

clean water act, EPA, environmental protection agencyThe executive order asks agencies to repeal or revise an Obama-era rule defining the scope of the Clean Water Act and recommends adoption of a narrower standard articulated by the late Justice Scalia.

On February 28, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order asking the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) to repeal or revise a 2015 rule interpreting the term “waters of the United States,” which determines the jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act. The order further recommends that the agencies consider crafting a new definition based on the “continuous surface connection” test adopted by a plurality of the US Supreme Court in Rapanos v. United States, which would result in a significant contraction in the Clean Water Act’s scope from the Obama EPA’s 2015 rule.[1] The 2015 rule was met with extensive criticism by some stakeholders and gave rise to a flurry of litigation. A new rule issued in response to President Trump’s executive order is likely to do the same—resulting in continued uncertainty as to the proper scope of the Clean Water Act and possibly requiring further review by the Supreme Court to resolve the question.

Background

The scope of jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act has long been controversial. It is also an important issue for stakeholders such as farmers, developers, and energy companies that own or use properties that may contain a “water of the United States.” The scope of the act affects the application of a number of regulatory programs, including the section 402 point source discharge permit program, the section 404 dredge and fill permit program, and the section 311 oil spill prevention program.

The Clean Water Act applies to “navigable waters,” which are defined in the statute as “waters of the United States, including territorial seas.” EPA and the Army Corps, the agencies charged with administrating the Clean Water Act, have sought multiple times to define “waters of the United States” through rulemakings and regulatory guidance, and those regulatory efforts have been subject to numerous legal challenges. The US Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue three times, most recently in Rapanos v. United States.[2] Rapanos resulted in a fractured decision in which no interpretation received support from a majority of the court—Justice Antonin Scalia and three other justices articulated a test based on a “continuous surface connection,” while Justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurrence relied on whether there was a “significant nexus” to another water of the United States.[3] Because Justice Kennedy’s analysis provided the narrowest grounds for reversal, the “significant nexus” test has been understood by many as the controlling test post-Rapanos for what constitutes a water of the United States.

In May 2015, EPA and the Army Corps issued a new rule seeking to better define the Clean Water Act’s scope.[4] The agencies maintained that the final rule only clarified and limited the reach of the act, but many stakeholder groups concluded that the 2015 rule significantly expanded the existing interpretation of waters of the United States. Of particular concern to stakeholders were categorical inclusions of “tributaries” and waters “adjacent” to other waters of the United States, as well as the rule’s broad definition of what constitutes a “significant nexus.” Numerous lawsuits challenging the rule were filed, which are currently consolidated in the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The Executive Order

On February 28, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order asking EPA and the Army Corps to review the 2015 rule and propose a new rule “rescinding or revising” it. The order also asks the agencies to consider defining waters of the United States “in a manner consistent with the opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia in Rapanos v. United States.” The order further directs the US attorney general to take appropriate measures regarding the ongoing litigation over the 2015 rule.

EPA and the Army Corps released a prepublication Federal Register notice the same day noting their intention to “review and rescind or revise” the 2015 rule pursuant to President Trump’s executive order. The agencies also acknowledged that they would consider adopting Justice Scalia’s test from Rapanos.

Implications

It likely will take years for the exact contours of the new regulation to be fleshed out by EPA and the Army Corps and for any ensuing litigation to be resolved. The process likely will start with the withdrawal of the Obama-era rule and the issuance of a new rule, including an explanation as to how the new rule fulfills the legislative intent of the Clean Water Act. The new rule will be subject to a public comment period.

If the agencies’ new rule is indeed based on Justice Scalia’s “continuous surface connection” test from Rapanos, it likely would entail a significant contraction in the scope of the Clean Water Act from existing practices and the Obama EPA’s 2015 rule. For example, a wetland next to a navigable river presumably would be covered by the act only if surface water from the wetland flowed into that river on a year-round basis, regardless of any subsurface flows. Under the 2015 rule, the same wetland could be covered under the act as a water “adjacent” to another water of the United States in the absence of a continuous surface connection. Many tributaries and ephemeral waters also likely no longer would be subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act if the “continuous surface connection” test is adopted. Such changes likely would be hailed by stakeholders that would have been prohibited from engaging in certain activities or obtaining permits under the 2015 rule, but criticized by environmental groups seeking to broadly protect aquatic resources.

Given the stakes and the contentious atmosphere regarding the scope of the Clean Water Act, any new rule is likely to be challenged in court. One issue that may be raised by challengers is whether a rule based on Justice Scalia’s “continuous surface connection” test is consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act as interpreted by Supreme Court decisions, including Rapanos. Opponents of the rule could contend that a “continuous surface connection” standard is inconsistent with the Rapanos court’s view of the limits of the Clean Water Act because five justices rejected Scalia’s test as too restrictive, and most lower courts have treated Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test as the operative standard. Proponents of a new rule could counter that such a construction is nonetheless a permissible interpretation of the Clean Water Act (as evidenced by the plurality’s opinion in Rapanos) that is entitled to judicial deference.[5]  

Environmental groups or others opposed to a new rule could also challenge the merits of the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act. Such a challenge could rely in part on the new rule’s departure from the 2015 rule, in which the Obama administration cited extensive scientific findings in support of its interpretation. While agencies can change their position, they must provide a “more detailed justification” if they rely on factual findings contradicting previous ones,[6] potentially heightening the agencies’ burden to provide support for a new rule.

In the interim, jurisdictional determinations under the Clean Water Act are likely to remain in a state of limbo. The 2015 rule has been stayed by the Sixth Circuit, technically leaving the rules and guidance pre-dating 2015 as the operative regulatory regime until the time that the stay is lifted or a new rule is promulgated. In light of the new administration’s expressed intent to limit the scope of the Clean Water Act, EPA and the Army Corps will be unlikely to assert jurisdiction over waters on the borderline of Clean Water Act jurisdiction until this legal limbo is resolved. The currently pending legal challenges also may be held in abeyance or remanded until the promulgation of a new rule, particularly given the executive order’s instruction to the US attorney general to take appropriate actions in pending litigation.

Ultimately, it likely will be years before the scope of the Clean Water Act is sorted out. And it may require a fourth trip to the Supreme Court for the justices to yet again wrestle with what are “waters of the United States.”

Additional Information

Additional information on the controversy that has surrounded efforts to define “waters of the United States” and the regulatory programs affected by the jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act can be found in the Clean Water Handbook, Fourth Edition, authored by Duke McCall and available from Bernan Press.

ARTICLE BY Duke K. McCall III, Ella Foley Gannon & Douglas A. Hastings of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Copyright © 2017 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

[1] 547 U.S. 715 (2006).

[2] Id.

[3] See id. at 717-18.  

[4] 80 Fed. Reg. 37,054. 

[5] See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

[6] See FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009).  

USDA Releases Report On Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Balance Of Ethanol

greenhouse gasOn January 12, 2017, USDA released a report on the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) balance of corn ethanol, titled “A Life-Cycle Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Corn-Based Ethanol.”  The study reviewed industry and farm sector performance over the past decade and found that in the United States corn-based ethanol generates 43 percent less GHG emissions than gasoline.  Compared to previous studies, the lifecycle GHG benefits were greater due to improvements in corn production efficiency, conservation practices, and ethanol production technologies.  The report also presented two projected GHG emissions profiles for corn ethanol in 2022, with one assuming a continuation of observable trends and the other analyzing additional improvements that could further reduce the GHG emissions.

ARTICLE BY Lauren M. Graham, Ph.D. of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

©2017 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

Obama Bans Drilling Offshore Atlantic, Arctic – But For How Long?

Drilling OffshoreWith a new President on the White House doorstep, President Obama has announced a ban – ostensibly permanent – on offshore oil and gas drilling in federal waters along the Eastern seaboard and offshore Alaska. President Obama appears to be relying upon a seldom-used provision of the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”) 43 U.S.C. §§ 1331 et seq.), which allows the President to withdraw any “unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf.” Whether the ban proves permanent is likely to be tested politically and legally, as the Trump Administration takes office alongside a Republican-controlled Congress.

OCSLA and the Authority to Ban

OCSLA mandates that the Secretary of the Interior expeditiously develop the resources on the submerged lands three or more nautical miles offshore the coast of the United States. The purpose of OCSLA is “to assert the exclusive jurisdiction and control of the Federal Government of the United States over the seabed and subsoil of the outer Continental Shelf, and to provide for the development of its vast mineral resources.” See S. Rep. No. 411 (June 15, 1953) (the “1953 Senate Report”). The Secretary implements the mandate through a leasing program that involves auctions in which developers compete to acquire OCS leases. The program is administered and enforced by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”), the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (“BSEE”), and the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (“ONRR”).

Section 12(a) of OCSLA provides that “the President of the United States may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf.” 43 U.S.C.A. § 1341(a). In his announcement on December 20, President Obama indicated his intention to remove federal submerged lands in the Atlantic and Arctic from future leasing. Shortly after the November 2016 election, the Obama Administration had already removed any Atlantic and almost all Arctic lease sales from the auction schedule through 2022, but this announcement appeared to go further by triggering the President’s authority under Section 12(a) to withdraw certain OCS lands from the leasing program indefinitely.

Prior Leasing Moratoria

Historically, Congress has been the one to bar certain regions on the OCS from leasing, but Presidential withdrawals under Section 12(a) have also occurred. Congress first enacted a moratorium in 1982 as part of an appropriations bill, removing three-quarters of a million acres offshore California from federal leasing. Because appropriations bills only cover one fiscal year, the moratorium lasted only a year, but Congress passed new moratoria in subsequent years, generally for areas offshore California, but also in the North Atlantic and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.

In 1990, President George H.W. Bush issued a Presidential statement – not expressly relying upon OCSLA Section 12(a) – to state his support for a moratorium on new leasing offshore most of California, Oregon, Washington, the North Atlantic, and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. But the President limited the duration of the ban, setting it to expire in 2000 (or 1996 in the case of certain subareas offshore California). In 1998, President Clinton announced similar withdrawals through 2012, expressly on the basis of Section 12(a).

In January 2007, President George W. Bush modified President Clinton’s withdrawal by narrowing it, and in July 2008 he modified his own 2007 withdrawal and two prior withdrawals by President George H.W. Bush and President Clinton. He also threatened to veto any appropriations bill that sought to renew the Congressional ban. Without the votes to override the veto, Congress stopped banning offshore leasing, until Congress passed the Gulf of Mexico Security Act in 2006, which locked up most of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico until 2022.

As this history indicates, both Democratic and Republican Presidents have used Section 12(a) to ban leasing for periods of time that encroached on future Administrations (even before knowing the political persuasion of those later Administrations). Likewise, later Presidents have modified (in particular, narrowed) the withdrawals made by prior Presidents and have done so under the authority of Section 12(a).

The New Ban

President Obama has not yet publicly released the language by which he apparently intends to invoke Section 12(a), but his announcement leaves little doubt that it will cover much of the OCS offshore the Atlantic seaboard and Alaska. Moreover, it is clear that he intends the ban to be indefinite – that is, without a sunset date. Some proponents of the ban argue that the decision is irrevocable because Section 12(a) only works ‘one way,’ authorizing withdrawals but remaining silent about the rescission of withdrawals. Others may argue that Section 12(a) itself contemplates change, as it refers to decisions made “from time to time,” and in any event prior withdrawals have been modified numerous times in the past. Moreover, they may argue, an irrevocable ban would flout OCSLA’s imperative to develop the offshore for the nation’s benefit subject to balancing considerations of the environment, competition, and national defense. Inherent in this balancing mandate is that the balance must be struck anew from time to time, as the weight of the statutory considerations changes in the balance.

As with many of President Obama’s environmental and energy initiatives, we anticipate this latest move will be challenged in federal court and through political efforts in Congress, which penned the withdrawal authority in Section 12(a). As the recent presidential election has shown, the balance of power and policy can shift, from time to time.

ARTICLE BY Kevin A. Ewing & Michael Weller of Bracewell LLP
© 2016 Bracewell LLP